Talk:The Great Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / History / Military / Physical geography (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon The Great Game is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Afghanistan (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon The Great Game is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Great Game in popular culture[edit]

Internet searches for the video game "Pathan to Glory" reveal that the game probably does not exist. This piece of trivia should be deleted unless proof of the existence of the game surfaces.

The section about "The Devil's Wind" reads like an advertisement and links to a pay site. Baudot 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tournament of Shadows[edit]

Can anyone find a reference for this statement? "In Russia the same rivalry and strategic conflict was known as the Tournament of Shadows (Турниры теней)." --Hq3473 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My copy of Hopkirk's "The Great Game" happens to be packed away right now, but I seem to recall that he mentions the term. An amusing Russian work from 1951, E.L. Steinberg's "History of British Agression in the Near East", might mention it, so I'll take a look. AllenHansen (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Great Game" pg 5:

Others, no less capable, were amateurs, often travellers of independent means, who chose to play what one of the Tsar's ministers called 'this tournament of shadows'. AllenHansen (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But "Турниры" is clearly a plural form. So it should actually be "Tournaments". --BjKa (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Geographic range[edit]

Didn't "The great game" refer to control of the entire region? Not just afghanistan, but the whole of the middle east... -Martin

I've heard a bit about it, and read a bit - but not a lot. My impression was that it was a conflict between Russia & Britian, centered in Afgastan. I am planning to do some more reasearch on it, and post bits and pieces. So far what I have read seems to relate just to Afganistan both past and present. Ie: the great game has not ended. Karl

There were more regions where the Great Game was 'played' than just in Afghanistan. There was also Persia and Tibet, where British and Russians tried to get their influence. Andre Engels 14:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I too think that Afghanistan was only one part – albeit a central one – of the ‘Great Game’. In their (excellent) ‘Tournament of Shadows’ Meyer and Brysac include the whole political history of Anglo-Russian (both Imperial and Soviet) Asian expansion from the ‘Kim’ level right up to the Foreign Office level. In addition to this they mention Napoleons alexandrine fantasy of Asiatic conquest, the Kaiser’s bid for Near Eastern dominion, as well as a Nazi expedition to Tibet – in search of more Aryans. Finally they conclude with the arrival of the United States in the 40’s taking over from the British – ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’. However in his seminal work “the Great Game’ – which is even better than ‘tournament’ – Peter Hopkirk gives a more limited definition of the Great Game as the Anglo-Russian rivalry central Asia. (Incidentally this is a notoriously problematic geographical description – even the Royal Central Asian Society eventually gave up and changed their name to the Royal Society for Asian Affairs) A rivalry which concluded in 1907, with the Anglo-Russian Entente – any Central Asian rivalry that occurred after that was something else. Kipling on the other hand, in Kim, said; “When every one is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before.” Which for my money is the best description…Kris Radford 1 September 2004.

It was more than just Central Asia, though that was the focus. See for example David Fromkin's Spring 1980 Foreign Affairs piece. MikeHerb 17:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Title of article and Request for Comment[edit]

Why did you move The Great Game? it is The Great Game not a Great Great. Jooler 18:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: the article was originally at The Great Game. I moved the article to Great Game around October 11, 2004, where the article sat for the next month and half until someone—I'm assuming Jooler—moved it to The Great Game around November 25. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 17:49, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
For the same reason that the United States page is at United States rather than The United States, even though we say "the United States is a nation" not "United States is a nation." The article the isn't used for terms in Wikipedia page titles except in book titles, for example. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Or, if you want another example, for the same reason that the Cultural Revolution page is at Cultural Revolution rather than The Cultural Revolution. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Completly wrong analogies. Jooler

How so? You don't explain how they are "completely wrong analogies". Was not the Great Game a historical event, like the Cultural Revolution? Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Or maybe you characterize the Great Game as a "rivalry and strategic conflict" (to use the words directly from the introductory sentence of the article)? Well, the Cold War is also a "rivalry and strategic conflict", and that article is located at the Cold War rather than The Cold War. The Cold War may be the Cold War rather than just any cold war, but the article is still located at Cold War. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"The Great Game" is never is never referred to without the definite article it is an historical period like like The Great War - The Blitz - The Age of Enlightenment - The Age of Reason -The Sixties. Jooler 20:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say "never referred to without a definite article"? Neither is the United States, nor the Cold War, and yet the articles are where they are. Regarding your examples: The Great War redirects to World War I, so that says nothing about Wikipedia policy. And I think both The Age of Enlightenment and The Age of Reason violate the Wikipedia standard and should be moved.
Which is the correct sentence?
This strategic conflict was the Great Game.
This strategic conflict was The Great Game.
The former is correct, as you will find if you read any historical work on the subject, including the references cited at the end of the article.
Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Neither sentence is correct. This strategic conflict, known as "The Great Game" ,was .... would be correct Jooler
  • Simply put, it was called "The Great Game", and so should the article be called too. Dan100 15:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. --Ryan! | Talk 13:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

In response to your request for comment, here's my two cents worth on a subject that I know nothing about. My first impression was that "The Great Game" was a reference to a historic period, so I had to make an assessment of those historic periods I was aware of. There are lots of them; too many to list, but they do use the definitive article, both capitalized or not, as in "The War Between the States" or "The Prime of Miss Jean Brody." One thing that came to my mind also was how people might search for information. In a Google search, the word "the" would automatically be omitted but the response to search terms "great game" resulted in hyperlinks for "the great game" almost entirely. Traditional usage is the rule in the newpaper business in which I worked most of my life as a research assistant. I tried to find a newspaper style sheet that addresses this issue but couldn't come up with one. However, I know the editors of a newspaper would opt for tradition. Since Kipling make the term popular, it seems to me you would use his example. Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm trying to get feedback on a Request for Comment myself (Deaf) and saw your request. This is my first experience at it.

Ray Foster 20:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question comes down to whether "the" is part of the proper name of the thing. To bring in another example, the articles on Canada's two national newspapers are titled The Globe and Mail with a "the" and National Post without a "the", even though it's grammatically almost impossible to refer to either paper without putting a "the" in the sentence -- the difference being that The Globe and Mail actually has a "the" right in the masthead title at the top of its front page, while the National Post does not. If the definite article is part of the proper name of the thing, it needs to be in the title regardless of any other naming conventions. Another example: The Pas, Manitoba, where "the" is part of the town's proper name. Pas, Manitoba would be unacceptable. So the question comes down to whether you would capitalize the "the" in a reference to this. Would you write "Arthur Connolly's concept of the Great Game" or "Arthur Connolly's concept of The Great Game"? If the latter would be more proper, then "the" goes in the title; if the former would be more correct, then it doesn't. Bearcat 01:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I came from RfC too. Without thinking about it, I'd write the latter of Bearcat's examples but a quick Google shows this isn't always the case. Given that, I think the article probably should follow the convention. This in particular leads me to believe that they are not inseparable. The book is not titled "The new The Great Game". And this settles it for me. I first heard about the Great Game in Flashman!Dr Zen 03:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To me "The Great Game" brings up all its Kiplingesque conotations. Great Game is nothing. It has to have the "the" (IMHO)Dejvid 23:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here from RfC. There doesn't seem to be any consistent usage in the different places I've looked. I'd just go with gut feel, and include the 'the'. Noisy | Talk 19:09, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Something like "The Blitz", if missing the "The" could be confused with a blitz, like in football for example. But there is no potential for confusion when the "The" is omitted, because the title of this article isn't "great game", it's "Great Game"—note the capitalization, which make it clear what this article is about without any potential for confusion. —Lowellian (talk) 01:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish Jooler

Please give more responsive comments than "rubbish". —Lowellian (talk) 10:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is rubbish because it is alway, always always always - referred to as "the Blitz" - see [7], [8] anbd many many more. Jooler 12:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please stop moving this page there are at least 4 or 5 people who disagree with you. Jooler 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I was saying that The Blitz may possibly be an acceptable title because of how it can be confused with, for instance, a football blitz if it was at Blitz, but that Great Game is fundamentally different from The Blitz because the article title Great Game has no potential for confusion.

And other people disagree with you, for example, Dr Zen, above. —Lowellian (talk) 17:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Moving The Blitz or The Sixties or The Age of Enlightenment would all be wrong. You took this to Rfc to get some oppinions and the majority of opinions are disagreeing with you, but you ignore that and move the page anyway. Please cut it out. The point that you don't seem to be getting is that the word "the" is important, it wasn't just the Great Game, it was THE Great Game. Jooler 17:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Check out Encarta - The Blitz and Encarta - The Great Game Jooler

First, in response to your Encarta links:

Both links end up getting you to a "Great Game" page rather than a "The Great Game" page.

Secondly, I (Lowellian) just took a trip to the library, since printed sources are more reliable than Internet sources. Here's what I found:

  • From Davis, H. W. C. The Great Game in Asia (1800-1844). London: British Academy, 1927:
    • page 3: "Among them none were more daring, or more unfortunate, than those who took a hand in what I have called the Great Game."
  • From Hopkirk, Peter. The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. New York: Kodansha, 1992:
    • page xv: "Since this book was written, momentous events have taken place in Great Game country."
    • page 1: "Stoddart and Conolly were paying the price of engaging in a highly dangerous game — the Great Game, as it became known to those who risked their necks playing it."
    • page 2: "Stoddart and Conolly were merely two of the many officers and explorers, both British and Russian, who over the best part of a century took part in the Great Game..."
    • pages 4-5: "As the gap between the two front lines gradually narrowed, the Great Game intensified."
  • From Meyer, Karl E., and Shareen Blair Brysac. Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999:
    • page xviii: "In a word, an ongoing conflict known as the Great Game, or in Count Nesselrode's graphic phrase, the Tournament of Shadows..."
    • page xx: "So runs the accepted account of the Great Game, whose main incidents have been described in a number of admirable books, most recently by the British author Peter Hopkirk."
    • page xxii: "The players in the Great Game were men of action, not reflection."

I think that's enough, though if you want them I could provide many more quotes, since these entire books are about the Great Game. I have quoted here scholarly historical works, more reliable than Internet sources, ranging from as early as 1927 to as recent as 1999. "The" is never capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence, and indeed, "the" is sometimes omitted entirely. This page cannot be titled The Great Game; it must be titled Great Game just as Cold War is not at The Cold War and United States is not at The United States.

Lowellian (talk) 18:26, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about the title of the article. If we were talking about the Sixties or the Blitz or the Englightenment few people would capitalise them mid sentence, much like few people would capitalise 'the' when referring to 'the Times' 'the Beatles', 'the Football Association', 'the Kennel Club' or to 'The Automobile Association' (I've just noticed that this isn't at the correct title BTW!) but they should all be proceeded with 'The' as a subject heading. You are still ignoring the views of the majority of users who have submitted opinions on this subject and you have broken the three revert rule. Jooler 18:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On this occasion, I support Jooler. I don't think that you would necessarily capitalise the 'the', but the occasions that you would omit the 'the' in spoken or written usage are vanishingly small. We therefore devolve to common usage, and the article should be named 'The Great Game'. Also, those commenting on the change are in favour of including the 'the' by a large margin. Noisy | Talk 19:41, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
"The occasions that you would omit the 'the' in spoken or written usage are vanishingly small." But doesn't that same argument apply to both the United States and the Cold War? No one ever omits the "the" when referring to those two things. This question I would like Noisy to answer, if possible. —Lowellian (talk) 05:14, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think you make a fair argument for moving 'Cold War' to 'The Cold War', but I think 'United States' should stay where it is. (Only joking! ;-) )
There are many occasions when you would use United States or Cold War without the 'the', for instance when referring to a Cold War spy or a United States athlete. The question then becomes: would it be natural to refer to 'a Great Game player', or would you tend to opt for the construction: 'a player in the Great Game'? I would go for the second option, myself, but – let's face it – this is likely to be the only time I ever have to make the choice, so I don't exactly think I'm a world authority.
I refer to my earlier statement: my choice of 'The Great Game' as the name for the article is based primarily on gut feel. Noisy | Talk 10:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have not reverted this time. I am going to ask one question that I would like answered: How does this situation differ from the Cold War? —Lowellian (talk) 02:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Unlike "the Great Game", I think you would find it hard to find "the Cold War" written anywhere. The term 'cold war' was coined by George Orwell in 1945. In this the article in the Socialist magazine Tribune he said "... a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors.". Arthur Connoly talked about 'the great game'. See [9] [10] etc.. Perhaps this fact should have been established earlier. Jooler 03:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are two meanings of cold war, depending on capitalization. In scholarly literature, when used in uppercase, "Cold War" refers to the struggle between the Western and Communist blocs. When used in lowercase, it refers to a non-"hot" war; that is, a competition which has not escalated into outright violence. Orwell first coined the term "cold war", yes. Notice that he used it in lowercase. And notice that he is not specifically referring to the struggle between the Western and Communist blocs. Later, his term came to be applied by many others to the struggle between the Western and Communist blocs, and that struggle became known as the "Cold War", in uppercase. It's the difference between the uppercase usage of:

The Western and Communist blocs struggled with each other during the Cold War.

and the lowercase usage of:

"Though persecution of priests and nuns is becoming commonplace in Latin American countries, the arrest and expulsion of such high-ranking Churchmen, including four U.S. bishops, presaged a dangerous escalation in the ongoing cold war between the continent's religious and military leaders." [11]
"A cold war of words: Gauging the rhetoric exchanged between India, Pakistan" [12]

Now, when used in uppercase to refer to the West/Communist conflict rather than just any non-shooting war, "Cold War" is overwhelmingly almost always preceded by "the". And yet we keep the article at Cold War (which is as I think it should be). I still don't think you've shown how it differs from this Great Game situation. —Lowellian (talk) 05:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. Show me somewhere where you can find "The Cold War" used in quotes!? - For every instance of this (if you can find any) I can find hundreds of examples of "The Great Game" Jooler 12:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Surely this should be at Great Game? Neutralitytalk 05:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
No read the debate. Jooler
I have just realised why Lowellian has been continuing to move this page and revert it. He is virtually the 'sole author' of the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and he appears to be trying to get his way enforced without concerns about whether there is any validity in the neccesity of the definite article outside of his "rules". Exceptions are not allowed. Here we are talking about someone who has stated on that talk page that he thinks that The Beatles should be moved to Beatles. Presumably he would want to move The Who to Who (band) etc.. Jooler 12:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I (Lowellian) will reprint my comment from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) for that page here (note that I wrote this comment before Jooler wrote his comment above):

I would like to make a comment. The issue has been raised that this page was almost entirely written by me (Lowellian). While it is true that I wrote this page, I did not originate the policy. In writing this policy, what I was doing was explicitly writing down what was already the de facto policy on Wikipedia articles. I didn't place the article for the United States of America at United States; other Wikipedians else did. The vast majority of Wikipedia university articles are located at articles without a "the" at the front (and this is true even when the official name contains a "the"; the common name, omitting the "the," is used instead on the majority of articles); I did not place those university articles there; other Wikipedians did. Even when I personally disagreed with something, as in the case of the discussion of bands above, I went with the de facto standard on Wikipedia over my own personal opinion and added the information about bands to the page. So even though I put this policy down as explicit text, I was not the creator of this policy—the Wikipedia community was. —Lowellian (talk) 02:33, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

You say I wrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), and then you accuse me of wanting to move bands away from The Who to Who (band). Uh, did you notice that the policy page which I wrote also says that The Who is okay, even though it is against my personal opinion? In writing that page, I followed majority Wikipedian opinion, not my own.

Lowellian (talk) 01:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Right. So you are confirming that hosting the band called The Who at The Who goes against your personal opinion? Is that correct? If this is correct then we have established that you have prejudicial views about the use of the definite article, even when it is entirely appropriate to do so. This entirely explains your insistence on continuing to disrupt this page despite majority opinion being against your view. I really think you should just drop it. Jooler 11:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template[edit]

(Section added for convenience - Noisy | Talk 17:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC))

You're totaly correct. I'm interested in making sure that articles on Wikipedia are consistently named. This consistency is more important to me than my personal opinion; thus, I am supporting leaving The Who where it is because it is consistent with other band names even when it goes against my personal opinion. The title of this article on the Great Game, however, is inconsistent with the title of other similar articles on Wikipedia. The insistence of using "the" in this article name is POV because it artificially elevates the importance of this historical event over other similar historical events which do not use "the" in their title on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (talk) 19:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

What utter utter bullshit! There is no other word for it. Jooler
The very fact that your personal opinion is the "The Who" should not be located at The Who simply shows that you have no understanding of this issue whatsoever. Jooler 22:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard of this particular feature of diplomatic history referred to in any other way than "The Great Game". One hears and seas "Seven Years War", "Thirty Years War" and so on without the "The". Stirling Newberry 12:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nice debating style, Jooler.  :-(
Lowellian, while I appreciate the effort that you have put in to recording MoS and policy elements – and I have used them to point out where people are not complying with recorded policy – I think this is an area where a prescriptive policy is more than likely to be over the top. In this instance, there are so many exceptions that the number of rules probably exceed the number of items under discussion. The overwhelming majority of those who have responded to the RfC are against you, in this instance, and flexibility as provided by redirects make the matter just a debating point, rather than a real problem for Wikipedia. I have a particular hang-up about companies being recorded under a famous brand name, rather than their registered or stock exchange name, but the weight of opinion is against me, so I've given up on that issue. It would be helpful if you could just chalk this down to experience, and move on. Noisy | Talk 17:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Taking recent edit summaries to this talk page:

  • 15:44, Feb 10, 2005 Lowellian (you can't just remove a disputed tag when there is a dispute)
  • 17:37, Feb 10, 2005 Jooler (the use of the ({{titlenpov}}) on this article contray to the facts and correct use of the tag and is just being used as an excuse to carry on a one man crusade)
  • 06:20, Feb 15, 2005 Lowellian m (Reverted edits by Jooler to last version by Lowellian)
  • 08:55, Feb 15, 2005 Stirling Newberry (Removing title pov - see talk)
  • 03:52, Feb 21, 2005 Lowellian (the talk page clearly shows that there is a dispute)
  • 07:01, Feb 24, 2005 Jooler (the use of the ({{titlenpov}}) on this article contray to the facts and correct use of the tag and is just being used as an excuse to carry on a one man crusade)
  • 21:38, Feb 26, 2005 Lowellian (a dispute exists over the title of the page)
  • 05:41, Feb 27, 2005 Jooler (the use of the ({{titlenpov}}) on this article contray to the correct usage of the tag)
  • 22:34, Mar 1, 2005 Lowellian ({{titlenpov}} is for when there is a dispute over the title of the article, which applies to this case)

Lowellian (talk) 03:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your claim is "The insistence of using "the" in this article name is a POV because it artificially elevates the importance of this historical event over other similar historical events which do not use "the" in their title on Wikipedia" - this is simply nonsense. The correct name for article, as half a dozen people have told you, is not "Great Game" but "The Great Game". This has no more to do with POV than does the inclusion of 'Great'. To call this article "The Game" or "Game" is just as wrong as calling it "Great Game". You do not, I note, put an NPOV tag on The Age of Enlightenment or on any other article. Yet you insist on putting it on this article. Your insistence that including "The" infers a POV is just the latest incarnation of your campaign against its inclusion on this article for your own reasons. Now, for the love of Mike please dropt it. This behaviour is not befitting from someone with Administrator priviledges. Jooler 08:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I have to side with "The Great Game" on this one, despite Wikipedia policy. First of all, I like the point User:Bearcat made about The National Post. As with many linguistic issues, one must go with feeling on what sounds proper rather than rules, and it feels totally wrong without "The". So far as comparisons with "Cold War" go, the omission of "The" makes sense there because although "The Cold War" occurred between the US and Russia during the last century, a Cold War is possible between any set of countries or bodies. Cold War is a more general concept which means something without "The", and the example of Russia and the US is simply the most prominant case in modern history. In contrast, "Great Game" isn't a general concept and means nothing withour "The" attached to the front, in which case it means the specific struggle. Laura Scudder 23:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The politics for India and Pakistan[edit]

"I am going to say that it has been a long debate between the big and powerful nations"

i believe that india and pakistan should not be a part of the great game because the relations between the two countries, atleast on the indian side is not controlled by any external factor. Moreover i believe that slowly, india and pakistan are becoming contenders in the great game, as pakistan has helped the isaf to a huge extent and india is the second largest provider of foreign aid to afghanistan and is investing billions of dollars in the central asian "-stans" --Rishab1996 (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Big-time POV[edit]

Wow. This article needs a POV tag right at the top. It doesnt even mention Iran or Persia. Considering that the very identity of Iran today is largely a product of British-Russian dominance in Persia, this article is ludicrous. If it werent for those two powers, Iran would today be twice the size it currently is.--Zereshk 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you had a crystal ball in your possession ;) If Iran and the rest were part of the “Great Game” then of course they should be mentioned.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


Silly British and American always think Tibet was a buffer state among Russian Empire, British India and Qing Dynasty (China),actually, Tibet has been a part of China since that period. 03:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Tibet was independant up until the 18th century, even capturing the Chinese capitol Chang'An at one point but was conquered by Qing China, rebelled, was re-conquered and the Dalai Lhama was granted political and economic leadership of the country so long as it remained part of China. Civil disturbance broke out, British troops restored order and forced China to pay compensation for the costs incurred in doing so as well as granting it control so long as it was never formally annexed. 150 years in a nutshell. (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

links, show the links --Rishab1996 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Provide a citation for the "russophobia" thing from a couple of reliable sources. Also, the statement "No evidence that..." had best be similarly cited before being restored. It certainly continues to be a mainstream view among scholars of South Asian and Afghan/Iranian history. Hornplease 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dauodwa's comment[edit]

The number of Afghan soldiers is not referenced, and probably inaccurate. Additionally, the way in which the segment about the First Anglo Afghan was written reflected a bias towards the British forces, as seen in the use of the word "ruthless". Furthermore, Dr.Brydon did not escape perse, but was told to tell the British of the defeat of the colonial army in Afghanistan. Dauodwa (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"the United States displaced Britain as the global power, asserting its influence in the Middle East in pursuit of oil"[edit]

The article contains "the United States displaced Britain as the global power, asserting its influence in the Middle East in pursuit of oil". This is typical biased Wikipedia claptrap; the extremist delusion that America is only in the Middle East for the oil. Whoever wrote that line really 'stuck it to da man'. No wonder no-one takes this jumble-bag of trivia and misinformation that calls itself an encyclopaedia seriously.

America shouldn't even of been mentioned in this article, it wasn't involved, and it was a meager power during the Era were on about. (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

False and silly. The "Cold War" played by America and the Soviet Union was, in many ways, the sucessor game to the "Great Game". Numerous writers have pointed this out, though I apologise for not being able to give sources (I have none to hand). It had nothing at all to do with oil, it was military bases, front lines, and peoples' minds. Why do you think Pakistan became so flooded by American military aid and advisors? Why do you think America was so concerned about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, and so paranoid about every little Communist electoral victory in India in the 1950s? Meowy 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
the great game goes on well into the 21st century. In fact it still continues. And, sir the thought that the USA is in the middle east for anything other than oil is being delusional, with all due respect.--Rishab1996 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Barely readable[edit]

This could use the attention of a native English speaker. (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry before Crimean War?[edit]

Russian sources are totally mute on any rivalry with the Brits over Persian/Afghan/Indian/CentralAsian affairs until the events that preceded the Crimean War (the rivalry of 1857-1907 is, on the opposite, elevated to a sort of Cold War). They note some British influence over the Caucasian rebels, but nothing on a decisive scale; although Nicholas I had his streak of victories in Persia and Turkey in the 1820s, and then clashed with the Brits diplomatically over the Balkan affairs, all these gains were dwarfed by subsequent troubles in Poland. The "southern question" disappeared, at least until the 1848 Revolutions in Hungary (again, it's Balkans not Persia or Afghanistan).

Could it be that the Russians completely missed "the Game" they were supposed to play or be played, or did they eliberately downplayed the real rivalry, or perhaps the Brits exaggerated their story? NVO (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that Russia just went on doing its thing (expanding its territory) and was mostly ignorant about how the outside world would look on this, and especialy what the pre-existing Powers were thinking and worrying about in relation to the growing Russian Empire. The Crimean war was a shock for Russia, but for those who fought against her it was seen as an action that would have been inevitable at some time. Meowy 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Game in C21st[edit]

I have changed the name of the section heading from "The New Great Game" to "Twenty-first century" because although many articles 10 years ago talked about the "New Great Game" and linked to to some sort of gold rush over resources (if only it were that simple and rational), there have been many articles published in the last couple of years that simply call it "The Great Game" and the motivations seem to be about strategic geo-politics, international and regional security, IE the old Great Game. I have put in some example citations to cover this the oldest being an Economist Article from 2007 and most recent is October 2010. The selection is meant to be representative, but I have selected two that I have quoted from in the citation:

  • Rubin, Barnett R.; Rashid, Ahmed (November/December 2008). "From Great Game to Grand Bargain: Ending Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations). "The Great Game is no fun anymore".
  • Ivens, Martin (24 January 2010). "More guile needed in the Afghan game". Sunday Times.  "The new strategy proposed by the US commander in Afghanistan... A settlement of outsiders as well as insiders is also vital. Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and China have to have a stake in a deal or they will have an incentive to break it. ...A new world order is being tested in Afghanistan. George W Bush left this region in a terrible mess, but now it’s President Obama’s mess and ours. Can western intervention still work? It requires low cunning as well as skill to play the great game the British empire once made its own."

The first because although it is pertinent and relevant source, I quoted it Mr Rubin is obviously not a fan of Liverpool United if he were he would know that professional games are usually played for reasons other than fun ("Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.") and the second quote is to show that there a many players in the Great Game. I have also included as a citation and article "Jaswant Singh (25 September 2010). China and India: the great game's new players. The Guardian." because although Afghanistan is the cockpit of the game other regions in the Himalayas are also on the board as rivalry between China and India two neighbours and rapidly growing regional powers is also part of this never ending diplomatic and strategic "game". -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that if this section is to be kept, and not considered to be off-topic, something needs to be said about the Cold War replacing the Great Game, and America replacing the British Empire as its chief player. If such content is not added to fill the gap between the Great Game ending in the 1950s and the present-day, then this "21st century" section has as much validity as the article also having a section on the "Great Game" between the Roman and Sassanid empires. The article is not about all superpower "great games", or all power struggles in central Asia, or all uses of the phrase Great Game, it is just about the one between the British and Russian empires. Meowy 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

this section should be expanded, but not as of now, this part will have to wait at least until the US forces leave Afghanistan, let's see what happens then, because the impact of the Americans leaving will have an affect right up to Jammu and Kashmir in India, due to the islamist terrorists becoming more active there as lesser people would be needed in Afghanistan. Also, the spread of the taliban in pakistan, according to me, should be considered a part of the great game, but as the situation is still developing, nothing can be said as of now. --Rishab1996 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


Surely the most delightfully cutting criticism was said by Lord Salisbury in the House of Commons in 1877.
A great deal of misapprehension arises from the popular use of maps on a small scale. As with such maps you are able to put a thumb on India and a finger on Russia, some persons at once think that the political situation is alarming and that India must be looked to. If the noble Lord would use a larger map — say one on the scale of the Ordnance Map of England — he would find that the distance between Russia and British India is not to be measured by the finger and thumb, but by a rule.
Meowy 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Qing China[edit]

Eric Enno Tamm is not a historian on China or the Qing dynasty. factually incorrect information sourced from his book was removed. The Qing dynasty did modernize its military and fortified garrisons with modern engineering and krupp artillery, with soldiers carrying modern rifles. They also built modern arsenals at plaves like Lanzhou. This modernization was done as early as the 1870s and 1880s, and the British viewed it as so successful that they were considering an alliance with China against Russia during this time. chinese armies equipped with modern german weapons defeated Yaqub Beg's rebels at Kashgar and the Russian empire viewed the chinese military stationed in xinjiang and manchuria as a serious military threat. During this time, britain also took great pains not to militarily antagonize China over affairs like the panthay rebellion and burma.

Demetrius Charles de Kavanagh Boulger[edit]

This guy has enough notability to merit his own article.

Life of Gordon: major-general, R.E., C.B.; Turkish field-marshal, grand cordon Medjidieh, and pasha; Chinese titu (field marshal), Yellow jacket order

The life of Sir Stamford Raffles

The life of Sir Halliday Macartney, K. C. M. G.: commander of Li Hung Chang's trained force in the Taeping rebellion, founder of the first Chinese arsenals, for thirty years councillor and secretary to the Chinese legation in London

Lord William Bentinck




Central asian khanates




Asian review


Yaqub Beg

Great Game

Rajmaan (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)