Talk:Battle of Plassey

message: This was removed by 67.65.5.63:
:After the battle, all the soldiers who had betrayed their Nawab were killed by the British on the maxim : "If you could betray your Lord and Master, you will betray us tomorrow." 
If this is true, I think it should stay  . Can anyone verify it? Seabhcán 00:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page One

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: LordGulliverofGalben: 
I agree with Ragib that the name should be changed to Palashee/ Palashi as that is the name used by the West Bengal government and not Plassey. Plassey, like Calcutta, Bombay, Madras was a name given by the British to suit their colonial interests and not that of the people who lived locally. With the onset of the post colonial recovery most of the names have been changed (like Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai) . There could be a disambiguation page for the aftermath in India and in Ireland. 
Anyway I am not sure if voting is a correct procedure for determining the views of the people residing there as most (if not none) of the residents of  Palashi do not use computers anyway. (It is an agricultural township with no trace of battlefields. It has some factories making electrical and agricultural equipment)  This voting merely reflects the views of some people who have 24*7 access to the internet. 
:No, it reflects the common view of the English-speaking world. Change that, and Wikipedia must follow. Septentrionalis 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with that last paragraph being in the article, as long as it is clearly the account of a tradition, not a claim of contemporary evidence. Septentrionalis 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post script

message: Great film - but what on earth has it got to do with Plassey? It worst movie events in Lucknow a hundred years later. Sikandarji 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shatranj ke Khilari

message: Replaced the current one with Infobox Military Conflict. Added Clive and Mir Jafar's picture. Does anyone have any other picture of the actual combat? --Victor 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: This page seems to attract a lot of nonsense-posters. Perhaps it should be locked? Bastie 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The article has seen repeated changes (several times daily) in the figues of numbers engaged and casualties of the battle. This does not bode well for the article's accuracy. Can anybody provide a Sourced definitive answer to these totals?--Jackyd101 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures

message: Changed 'sikh' to 'marwari' in description of Jagat Sheth near the end of the article. All sources - books as well as websites - quote Amichand and Jagat Sheth to be marwari businessmen. Additonally, though I have not changed this, Jagat Sheth is often understood to represent many such businessmen and might not be the name of only one person, in this context. For the benefit of those not knowing Bangla, 'sheth' is a surname but also a term used to describe a properous trader. wildT 14:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagat Sheth

message: I quote: "Mir Jafar Ali Khan - commanding 16,000 cavalry" - so these were the Indian forces held back under his command. I have never read that 90% of the Bengali army never engaged the enemy, and I have serious doubts about the source. A compendium about 100 famous battles printed in the USA in 1999 seems a VERY poor source for such an important issue, especially as it contradicts many quite famous historians. Also, further down the page it (again) states that there were 1000's of Europeans battling Siraj, as opposed to the real 950. So, it now reads that there were only 5,000 Indians battling a combined East India Company (not "East Indian Company" by the way) force of 5,000. Ohh, how very convenient for Indian national pride - to hell with authentic source material.
So this article has....
A. contradicted every scholarly historical account of the battle
B. contradicted itself
C. couldn't even wtite EAST INDIA COMPANY properly
Congratulations on another brilliant British India articles in Wikipedia !
I would correct the entire thing and quote REAL 18th century sources, but all my work would get erased anyway, so what's the point?  Wikipedia's British India articles are very much tainted  with Indian nationalistic revisionism, whereby trendy and obscure authors are cited, and cotemporary sources and famous historians, who lived during (or not long after) the times they wrote of, are ignored. The result is not only biased, but really mess, as they can't even keep their "story" together.  
TB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.81.169 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: In the Infobox the footnote states "Out of the initial 35,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry, 45,000 of them were withheld by Mir Jafar, leaving 5,000 men to participate in the battle". This disagrees with the much more convincing sounding main text which states that Mir Jafar only commanded 16,000 cavalry. Rwestera (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: only the text in the infobox is referenced though I can not verify it myself. Would it be possible for Mir Jafar to have only 16,ooo men under his control but still manage to withhold others from participating in the war? I guess we need reference for the text in the body of the article and someone needs to verify the infobox claim. may be you can do it if you have access to the book. --Like I Care 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The text in the info box note is taken from 100 Decisive Battles. While the note accurately reports what is said in 100 Battles, other sources used in the article which cover the battle in greater detail contradict the notion that Mir Jafar was able to withhold  45,000 troops. Malleson (p.70) is quite clear that all of Mir Madan's contingent of 12,000 (5,000 horse, 7,000 foot) was loyal and fought and while that of Jafar's 16,000 held off and while the leaders of the other contingent were defectors, the rank and file of the other contingents remained loyal and attacked making "charge after charge" piecemeal and uncoordinated without the benefit of overall leadership. And, of course, all the artillery were engaged. Fortesque, in History of the British Army V.II is in agreement with Malleson, as is Harrington in Plassey 1757: Clive of India's finest hour. It appears that 100 Battles is a minor source and should not be given undue weight here. I suggest that the note be removed as it is misleading and contradictory to the other sources.Tttom1 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox footnote disagrees with text

message: Who is this person named just once, in the Court intrigue section? Does he have any significance? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw? 

message: I thought the Indian causalities were 1500.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espatad (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causalities of the Indians in this battle. 

message: Omichund is referred to as such except for the last instance when it is Omichand where it states he went insane.  This reference uses the name Omichand and expands on the situation:  http://www.cyclopediabritannica.net/index.php/Omichand  PB Sheeran (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omichund / Omichand. 

message: There are several pages cited in this entry that do not have a corresponding text. Particularly 'Mahon' and 'Bengal v.1' What are these texts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.63.141 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are messed up. Mahon refers to the Stanhope book (Lord Mahon was Phillip Stanhope) and Bengal refers to the Hill book. This will take some work but I'll attempt a fix. Thank you for pointing this out.--regentspark (comment) 16:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: Why the date is given as 23rd June? The following is a passage from William Dalrymple's Anarchy 
"On 13 June 1757, a year to the day since Siraj had begun his attack on Calcutta, Clive sent an ultimatum to Siraj ud-Daula accusing him of breaking the terms of the Treaty of Alinagar. That same day, with a small army of 800 Europeans, 2,200 south Indian sepoys and only eight cannon, he began the historic march towards Plassey."
I think if Clive began his march on 13th, then the date should be 13th. Knight Hall (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the date is 23rd June?  

message: Explain 2409:40F3:1001:DF68:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of plassey