Talk:Second Battle of Panipat

Redundant lines removed

• Hemu's coronation. It is there in the background.
• Akbar being stationed away from the battle field. It is there in the sub-topic of the actual battle.
• Details of Humayun's death are unnecessary.
• The ruler was seeking to expel Mughals from India? More likely for the Delhi throne.
• Hemu's activities in Bengal.
• The title of Samrat is bestowed on a warrior who has not lost any war. This should come on the page for 'Samrat'
• That Hemu started coins in his name and appointed many Hindus at important positions. Should be on the page for Hemu.
• 'thus changing history' (after his eye was struck by an arrow)

Salilb (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood as a source?

Why the heck is this reading according to the Bollywood film Jodhaa Akbar? Akbar gladly hacked away at Hemu, but being a lad was unable to remove his head. Thus, Bairam Khan obliged and took off his head.

No sources are given so you should promptly cite a stupid Bollywood movie as your source if you're going to write such fallacy.

I'll provide more accurate details with sources soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.72.61 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is blind sided Hemu page. It says about Hemu only and how great he was... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.73.18 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems like one of the user is intent on giving this a hindu vs muslim colour. There have been alliances between Hindu kings and muslim kings. Muslim kings have fought each other, so giving a Hindu-muslim colour is unjustified.Air Warrior (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:First Battle of Panipat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hemu’s independence

In Hemu’s official Wikipedia page, he is mentioned as the “Maharaja of Delhi” and the lines “raised the royal canopy over him” highlights his royal status, along with the appropriate sources. In the page of the “Battle of Tughlaqabad”, it is mentioned that Hemu took royal status after the battle. And most importantly, you people have also mentioned him as “king” in the beginning of the page, then why are you still mentioning “Sur Empire” as the opposing belligerent ?? Helson3 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You can't cite wikipedia as a source for itself.

Moreover, the source cited also calls him a Sur general. "Together, Bairam Khan and his young protege slew the helpless Sur general." [1] (Page 13) Noorullah (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

But then how do you explain that the official pages that are stated by me are displaying that information, if you only said that I cannot state wikipedia as a source for itself ?? Helson3 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)