Talk:Siege of Calcutta

Neutrality
I'm not sure who placed the neutrality template on this article but the second sentence which states "It began when British arrogance pushed the Nawabians (India) until the Nawabians attacked. " is a good example of what needs to be rewritten in this article. Is there a reference for such analysis? David D. (Talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the tone that's the problem so much as... well, it originally stated that as a result of the siege, the East India Company was defeated and left the country, which is just incomprehensibly off the mark. I'm now leery of whether or not it needs to be rewritten from scratch.
 * "Nawabians" is marvellous - it's sort of like saying the "Kings" lost the English Civil War... I've had a hack at the most egregiously wrong parts, but the whole middle section will need to be redone. Shimgray | talk | 01:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has flat-out declared at the start of the article that "Modern Historians" believe the Black Hole never took place, with no references of any kind to support such a claim. In babu English, forsooth. Removing that. It will probably re-appear. Some consideration to protection for this article needs to be given.

French creating British-invasion-of-Bengal rumor: Unreferenced, so Removed
In the section "First Wars," the first sentence was originally a sentence fragment, whose parentheses included that the French created and spread this rumor. This claim was unreferenced and a bit wordy, so I removed it. If anybody finds a truthful reference, they can add this claim back with a reference. -Blue Caper  (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Significant bias towards British POV
The article directly attributes fault to the Nawab of Bengal, characterizing him as rash/impetuous/scheming/unjust in his actions against a colonizing force, further framing the British as passive/reactors to aggression/victims. The article needs thorough decolonizing. 73.53.21.162 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality
The explanatory paragraph is written with very poor grammar, does not provide an adequate explanation and doesn't really make sense.

The numbers in the info box are also wrong. 2A00:23C4:E220:3001:4D8B:FF6D:F65D:6633 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)