Talk:Second Battle of Panipat

Redundant lines removed
Salilb (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)