Talk:Battle of Assaye

message: I have rewritten this article completely from scratch. The previous version claimed to be almost entirely sourced from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition but I have now added inline citations from secondary sources throughout the article. Apologies to anyone who has contributed to the page in the past but hopefully this is an improvement. I also moved the battle honour section to a separate article at Assaye (battle honour). BarretBonden (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewed for bias, as requested. Please progress the article towards GAC. AshLin (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks AshLin. The article has already been nominated. BarretBonden (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: the 5000-6000 dead or wounded maratha figure is completely unverfied the so called contemporary writers as cited were books of 21st century neither sir wellington nor independent british officers gave such figure , it has borne out from no where , the box format has been disturbed and i cant figure out what has gone wrong plz restore the box format at the top . Shail kalp (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 6,000 dead or wounded figure is given by reputable historians and 3 inline citations were provided. It clearly states this is an estimation but I will reword this sentence to say "some modern historians". The sources you've found on google books to support your changes are of lower quality than the sources already used in this article. What makes the source you added for the claim that 50,000 Maratha troops is a myth used to to "glorify the victory of British" reliable? Is M. S. Naravane a notable historian and is APH Publishing a reputable high-quality publisher? Similarly you've used  to alter the Maratha casualty figures. What makes this more reliable than the sources already used? The role of the Maratha cavalry has been explained in the article - although they were not involved in the fighting they were deployed on the battlefield and would've been involved if the opportunity had arisen. However, I will alter the infobox to show the composition of the Maratha army as stated in the main body of the article instead of just simply 50,000. Barret (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I've explained why these figures aren't used in previous edit summaries. Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY which states "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and that "material based purely on primary sources should be avoided".  Therefore we should use the figures given by historians rather than Wellington's dispatch which is a primary source written immediately after the battle. Barret (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased article on british side

message: https://books.google.com/books?id=eeJo7mYz61EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Battle+of+assaye+madras+native&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XSSjVfPhDs-aoQTf37DgDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Assaye 1803: Wellington's First and 'Bloodiest' Victory
 By Simon Millar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of madras native infantry