Talk:New Great Game/Archive 1

message: The article's current title, The new great game, is apparently a neologism taken from the title of a book. None of the article's cited sources use this term. The article should be renamed to something more appropriate. —Psychonaut 09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose capitalization of each word-as it references the original Great Game, both for the article title (which is easily understood by anyone who has studied the area) and within the article itself. Chris 07:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: An article (or section here) on International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX) might be good. Chris 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IREX

message: belongs to me. I got signed out in the middle of the edit. I did not realize it until I saved the edit.cs 10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP number 

message: This article is a blog-style essay posing as an article. The non-opinion content should be placed in other articles and this article should be considered for deletion. Response? User:Curzon--Curzon 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here – Gurch 11:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Discussion

message: Who is Ahmed Rashid? Is he a Nobel laureate? Perhaps a peer? Just because he published his POV in book-form does not mean his fantasies are real. This article must be deleted a.s.a.p. like the Superpower article as it is based on opinions not facts.
For instance, I can understand if the USA and Russia are playing a new great game in central Asia. I can even accept Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran as minor players - with a little bit of imagination as these nations have proven surplus capital.
But to include China, India and Pakistan as players is sheer nonsense. These are obvious Third World nations that have not even solved the basic problems of food for their own populations as of yesterday, 29th March 2008. Despite their wild goose aspirations, they are in no position to play. Infact, they are more likely to become the new victims of play.Anwar (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete a.s.a.p.

message: Ahmed Rashid never said he coined the term. He just he was among the first to use it. That part that says he coined the term must be deleted. --Jo (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Big powers such as Russia, China, and the USA; the neighbours Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey; the Central Asian states themselves and the most powerful players of all, the oil companies, compete in what I called in a 1997 seminal magazine article, 'The New Great Game'. The name seemed to stick and was taken up by the governments, experts and the oil companies." - Rashid, Taliban, p. 145 -- He certainly seems to think he was the one who got it going. I've seen others attribute it to him as well (including you, I believe). Otebig (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were a well-known author on the region, you made that claim in a widely-read work, and people repeated your false claim, then yes. Otebig (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahmed Rashid

message: I'm not objecting to the idea of having an article about this topic in Wikipedia. But currently, it's just a collection of quotes, whose place is really in Wikiquote, not here. Shouldn't they be transwikied over there?
I, too, often collect quotes related to the topic I intend to write a Wikipedia article about. I put them on Wikiquote, link the WQ page from the WP article, and use it for my reference while writing the article itself. I would suggest doing the same here.—Kpalion(talk) 17:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one responded, so I just cut and pasted all the quotes to :wikiquote:The New Great Game.—Kpalion(talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki to Wikiquote? 

message: According to this article yes it is. Should it be in the article? Is it a reliable source? Maybe we need some others to "cement" this statement regarding the loss. --IJK_Principle (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "New Great Game" is a term for conceptualizing the current geopolitics in the region. This article is about the term, its use and applicability to the region and current situation. Questions about who is "winning" or "losing" the "game" is really a questions about the geopolitics itself, and not so much about this term, and would therefore belong on the Geostrategy in Central Asia page, or something similar. I'm just worried that expanding the article much beyond the use of the term itself would open up the same issues that led to the previous AFDs. Otebig (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Great Game lost by the West? 

message: Seems that the actual idea of what the "game" is based on needs further explanation.
The String of Pearls
There is a good article herehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/094gntoy.asp?page=5 explaining the formation of naval bases by China around India (Burma, Pakistan,...).
Although not included in the string of pearls, the land borders also seems of great importance, namely, the opening of rail routes into Tibet and to the disputed border.
Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.75.113.78 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  String of Pearls 

message: It seems to me that the focus of this article is out of date. When I edited the Great Game article recently, it seemed to me, using Google search to look for sources, that in the early part of the decade there was talk about the "New Great Game" in terms of geopolitics and resource oil etc. But the more recent articles (and I listed some of them as example sources in the article Great Game#cite note-19):
talk of the great game in regional and geopolitical terms just like they did in the days of the Russian Empire and British Empire revelries. As such this article either needs to focus on the the years when "New Great Game" applied to "Many authors and analysts view this new game as centering around regional petroleum politics" (which started after the fall of the Soviet Union ended some time around 2003 -- by ended I mean became just another secondary motive not the primary one), or it needs to be renamed and re-written to focus on the continuation of the "Great Game" (with a new disambiguation tile as it is not a "New Great Game" but a continuation of the old game with new players) either something like Great Game (21st century), or Great Game (late 20th and early 21st centuries), or Great Game (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to today. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus out of date 

message: As I explained above (#Focus out of date) the term "The New Great Game" became fashionable for a few years at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s to describe the economic rivalry between the various powers in the area, which occurred after the fall of communism. But since NATO's deployment in Afghanistan and a war was resumed the term "The Great Game" is much more common. The term "The New Great Game" is confusing as it covers the events after communism and before the American involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11, ie it is "the old New Great Game". So I propose to merge this article into the "The Great Game" article and make this article a redirect to that section. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is over a year since I posted the last comment. I have now copied nearly all this article content into The Great Game and redirected the page. The problems like "the new" or "post modern", decades pass and they are no longer new or post modern! -- PBS (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into [[The Great Game]]