Talk:Third Battle of Panipat/Archive 1

message: Why does this article not cite any references? Siddharth Prabhu 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No sources

message: Despite the cleaning up, it seems to me that this article still has a slant and is not completely accurate.  I suggest further investigations into whether or not it is NPOV, especially considering the previous edits made by the creator who seems to be following a certain angle of History. In addition, I believe that even now, the article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. DigiBullet 03:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Apart from Bakhars, detailed and compiled information about the battle between Marathas and Ahmad Shah Abdali can be found in a Marathi Novel called Panipat. This novel is an outcome of extensive research by Vishwas Patil. If someone has a copy of this book, he/she may try editing this page.
Cheers
A much better source of information and analysis of this battle is a book named "Panipat, 1761" written in Marathi by Prof. T.S. Shejwalkar of Deccan College, Pune. The book presents in great details the causes and events that led up to the battle and describes the events on the battlefront based on thorough research. The section describing the battle on January 14th, 1761 provides information on the tactical manouvers of both sides and offers extensive analysis on the course of the battle based on maps he himself created after visiting the region, the weather on the day as reported in the Farsi chronicles and by Nana Phadnavis. Other aspects that the book tries to explore are:
1. The social and political analysis of the rule of Peshwa in India.
2. The events that forced the hand of Sadashivrao bhau.
3. The actions of Nanasaheb Peshwa that could be proved fatal to the Maratha forces.
4. The importance of this battle vis-a-vis the political turmoil in India then and its effect on the rise of the British power in India.
Professor Shejwalkar was a reknowned historian of Maratha history. He originally wrote the book in English and Deccan College press had published it. Please check http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007J4GV8/sr=8-4/qid=1150716034/ref=sr_1_4/103-6452179-0263868?%5Fencoding=UTF8 for old copies.
=== JATS AND THE 3RD BATTLE OF PANIPAT===
__________________________________________
For a contemporary account of the times by an eyewitness, see
Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc
“Jats and the 3rd Battle of Panipat” 	
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/
There has been plenty of discussion on the in the jathistory group
See Msg# 53 and follow up discussions – 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/53
Jats, Maharattas, and the Battle of Panipat
The overall thrust of the main article is open to more than just a little questioning.
The Jats of the SarvKahp of Haryana had   allied with and fought with eth Maharattas against the Muslim Rohillas. They invited Abdali to save them and Islam.
With the death of Dattaji in the battle, the Maharatta power was ended in North India.
Historical accounts show that the Mahrattas under Sadashiv Bhau, with a powerful army went north to seek reestablish the Maharatta revenge against the Muslim rulers for they’re earlier defeat.
The initial phase was welcomed. Bhau sent letter to all chiefs in the north, and a copy of his original letter is posted in the files section of the yahoo jathistory group: sadashiv bhau.doc, 
The Jat emperor Surajmal was persuaded to support Sadashiv Bhau, despite his earlier bad experiences with the Mahrattas. 
Delhi was conquered. Here Sadashiv Bhau and his courtiers decided they did not need to honor their promises, and alienated Surajmal, who escaped a conspiracy by Sadashiv Bhau’s courtiers to capture and imprison him.
The Mahrattas in their arrogance refused to listen to good military advice of the Jats.
The talk of how the Jats got upset because the Mahrattas would not allow them to loot Delhi, is not quite correct, and contemporary records from Muslim Chroniclers and later Indian Historians, Including Prof KR Quanago, Jadunath Sarcar, reject the Maharatta version, as being self serving.
They refused to follow the guerilla tactics suggested by the Jats, and instead moved for an open confrontation. In this they were accompanied with the women, families and other camp baggage.
At Panipat, the Rohillas and Abdali out maneuvered them. The Jats of the Haryana Sarv Khap stayed and fought at Panipat.
For a detailed account of the Battle see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/
Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc 
COMMENT:  I Am putting this on the discssion page rather than editing the main article .
If no  contrary material  is posted, say in week,  then I will edit the main article.
Ravi Chaudhary 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed information about Battle of Panipat 

message: __________________________________________
For a contemporary account of the times by an eyewitness, see
Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc
“Jats and the 3rd Battle of Panipat” 	
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/
There has been plenty of discussion on the in the jathistory group
See Msg# 53 and follow up discussions – 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/53
Jats, Maharattas, and the Battle of Panipat
The overall thrust of the main article is open to more than just a little questioning.
The Jats of the SarvKahp of Haryana had   allied with and fought with eth Maharattas against the Muslim Rohillas. They invited Abdali to save them and Islam.
With the death of Dattaji in the battle, the Maharatta power was ended in North India.
Historical accounts show that the Mahrattas under Sadashiv Bhau, with a powerful army went north to seek reestablish the Maharatta revenge against the Muslim rulers for they’re earlier defeat.
The initial phase was welcomed. Bhau sent letter to all chiefs in the north, and a copy of his original letter is posted in the files section of the yahoo jathistory group: sadashiv bhau.doc, 
The Jat emperor Surajmal was persuaded to support Sadashiv Bhau, despite his earlier bad experiences with the Mahrattas. 
Delhi was conquered. Here Sadashiv Bhau and his courtiers decided they did not need to honor their promises, and alienated Surajmal, who escaped a conspiracy by Sadashiv Bhau’s courtiers to capture and imprison him.
The Mahrattas in their arrogance refused to listen to good military advice of the Jats.
The talk of how the Jats got upset because the Mahrattas would not allow them to loot Delhi, is not quite correct, and contemporary records from Muslim Chroniclers and later Indian Historians, Including Prof KR Quanago, Jadunath Sarcar, reject the Maharatta version, as being self serving.
They refused to follow the guerilla tactics suggested by the Jats, and instead moved for an open confrontation. In this they were accompanied with the women, families and other camp baggage.
At Panipat, the Rohillas and Abdali out maneuvered them. The Jats of the Haryana Sarv Khap stayed and fought at Panipat.
For a detailed account of the Battle see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/
Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc 
COMMENT:  I Am putting this on the discssion page rather than editing the main article .
If no  contrary material  is posted, say in week,  then I will edit the main article.
Ravi Chaudhary 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JATS AND THE 3RD BATTLE OF PANIPAT

message: I know nothing about this part of indian history, but no field guns of that age could fire 2 km. The entire battle descrition feels weird with 2000 guns on camels, long range fighting and bows. I'm sure that 99% of the article it's wrong.
Not to mention the part with atrocities that is very biased.
If no one knows the truth better just to mention what is known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.231.67.1 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  17C guns 

message: I will try to explain my reasoning behind my reverting the large scale additions of text to this article recently. As i have stated in my edit summaries wikipedia is not a place for original research. All additions need to be sourced and verifiable if they are to remain. They also need to be written from a neutral point of view. The additions, in my opinion, did not meet these policies. The text had a heavy bias towards one side and was unsourced. If you have the sources I would be happy to help you add them in and add the appropriate referenced text. Please try and discuss this before re-adding the text to the article. Thankyou. Woodym555 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, reliability and bias 

message: I think the image put up is of Peshwa Nanasaheb II, wrongly attributed to Balaji Bajirao II or Nanasaheb I. Can anyone check this?
Salilb (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanasaheb's pic

message: The map of the extent of the Durrani empire has a German legend. An English map is required. Anyone can change the current one or get a new one?
Salilb (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German map

message: I've used some pictures from British library and other sources. I will try and improve the article, it needs to be shrunk down and cleaned up reference wise. --Zak (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics 

message: Here and again here. Someone please tell us if its pov, imaginary... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV n irelevenat material

message: was mogul empire neutral in this war, though they have no generals of note but they have resources, mogul supported durrani,rohilla and nawab so they should also be made a party. 
Though defeated Maratha proved that even with their 2nd string generals they are better than Durrani empire in one on one who was too scared to go against Maratha Empire alone and formed multiple alliance with rohilla ,mogul, and nawab of oudh. Above this "ahmad shah durrani" is considered the best afghan general ever ofcourse he is no match for greatest Maratha generals "chatrapati shivaji(aurangzeb used to have nightmare of this man), santaji ghorpade, baji rao, dhanaji jadhav" this also break the myth that pathans or afghans are brave, "POPULATION OF MARATHA IS WAY WAY LESS THAN AFGHANS, IT WAS ONLY MARATHA no other hindu group against whole country"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.23.126 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a reliable ref. utcursch | talk 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WAS MOGUL EMPIRE NEUTRAL

message: The recent edits from 182.182.*.* seem to be from the banned user . The user continues to add inaccurate content supported by fake references. For example, The begums of Bhopal by Shaharyar Khan was added by this user to support the statement that Bhopal State participated in the Battle of Panipat. However, the book says exactly the opposite: "Bhopal’s forces could not have been present at Panipat". Given such deliberately misleading editing, I'm reverting the user's contributions. utcursch | talk 05:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mughal Lohar's socks 

message: There is a typo in second paragraph. It should be Afghan not AFghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatar Khan (talk • contribs)  utcursch | talk 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The intro still needs copyediting, though. utcursch | talk 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in second paragraph 

message: The After effects of panipat that have been mentioned need to be changed, why have the after effects of third battle only' discussed to such an extent that send a very negative message in the society specially among the marathi people, this needs to be changed the truth is not always very good and needs to be hided at times for the social harmony, please take off the discription part especially the once that describes how the 22000 children and women were treated after the battle, this directly affects the young minds and might lead to unlawfull events in the society after reading this. so as like various books that describe the mascarce after india pakistan partition were banned this sort of description under wikepedia should also be banned.
Thanks
Sachinchvn (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. utcursch | talk 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 January 2012 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: In this war Ibrahim Khan Gardi was a  Maratha Empire general. But his name is not mentioned in the list. For more information please visit this page Ibrahim_Khan_Gardi. He was only solo Muslim general who served Maratha Empire. So it's very important for history And the people who is reading this page.He was an expert in artillery, he initially served the Nizam of Hyderabad, before working for the Peshwa of the Maratha Empire. As a general of the Maratha Empire, he commanded a force of 10,000 men, infantry and artillery. He was captured and killed by the Afghans Third Battle of Panipat in 1761.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasibc4 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Battle of Panipat  Commanders and leaders list 

message: Add this book also in the section further reading , It is really a nice book which gives very good accounts in detail:
Third Battle of Panipat by Abhas Verma 
ISBN:  9788180903397
Publication: Bhartiya kala Prakashan 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.153.65.102 (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If I understand right, you have some interest in this book which causes a conflict of interest in adding it to the article. That being the case, you also cannot add it by proxy, using the  template. Some interested editor needs to read the book and make a call on whether to add it or not. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done: You have not added any new information, and I agree with Celestra. By the way, to sign your posts, please type ~~~~ right after your message. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Add this book also in the section further reading

message: Initial skirmishes
Changes in Battle of Kujpura:
The name of the Quiladar at Kunjpura was Najabat Khan who was killed , another general of Abdali who was killed in this skirmish was : Qutub shah who slayed Dattaji Sindhia. Qutub shah was cought alive by Damaji Gaikwad and was executed on the orders of Sadashivrao Bhau.Third Battle of Panipat by Abhas Verma ISBN13-9788180903397 Bharatiya Kala Prakashan
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.153.65.102 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit in Prelude Section 

message: 101.56.235.53 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014 

message: Shuja-ud-Daula, Najib-ud-Daula, Hafiz Rahmat Khan, Dundi Khan and Banghas Khan were all subjects of Shah Alam II. 
Shuja-ud-Daula for example held the position of Grand Vizier of the Mughal Empire, he was appointed by Shah Alam II and Najib-ud-Daula held the position of Chief Representative (Mukhtar Khas) of the Mughal Empire appointed by Shah Alam II before the Third Battle of Panipat. 468SM (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are presenting your POV, for example words like "Maratha puppet", who are you to judge who was a puppet or not? WP is not a place to add Fyour POVs. First point out whats wrong, that is wrong with the facts, not POVs. Barthateslisa (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjects of the Mughal Empire

message: It should be noted that Rohillas were not the only tribesmen to serve under the command of Ahmad Shah Durrani. For example the Bangash and the Qizilbash and various other Muslim tribes are not being represented as belligerents in the Third Battle of Panipat (article section). 468SM (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What "moral obligation"?, WP is not a place to make tributes to anybody, provide sources and proper verified citations, who mentions those tribes as a separate entity and not in service of Durranis. As far as Shah Alam is concerned, most sources mention Marathas to be his protector not the Durranis, hence don't push wrong facts. For example here Barthateslisa (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

text: How many times it has to be repeated WP is not meant for your vandalism and POVs, here is a source which says  that it was Marathas who installed Shah Alam after his rebellious Nobles, deposed him earlier. Do not edit until a consensus us reached upon. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribesmen

message: Perhaps the claims are relevant that the Baloch tribes were also supporting Ahmad Shah Durrani. 468SM (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Baloch

message: Maharaja Mahadaji Scindia - was he a deserter of this Battle? He is a respectable figure and was considered as the Greatest Man of 18th century Asia. He is one of the most senior Mahratta nobles and was instrumental in resurrecting Maratha supremacy in North India ten years after the Third Battle of Panipat. Strongly advise, need to re-consider this. Amit20081980 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mahadaji Scindia

message: , , &  , Do see the vandalism of . Ghatus (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Ahmed Durrani did in fact return to India after this battle. If I'm not mistaken he returned 3-4 times to Punjab.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.116.58 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims. 

message: In the aftermath section, there is a spelling mistake that needs to be corrected. "Charkara" is the wrong spelling and the correct spelling is "Harkara", which is a Marathi term for "Messenger". Parag Soma Gawde (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2016 

message: In the section "Reasons for the outcome", It is mentioned that Sadashivrao was sent to the North on the orders of Peshwa, but it is not completely true. Actually, it was Raghunathrao, who insulted Sadashivrao again and again, for being only good at cleric work and named him as "Boru Bahaddar"(Pen Wielder). Sadashivrao did had some campaigning experience in the Deccan (Karnataka conquest with Mahadaji Scindia, Devgiri Conquest, etc. for example). He had such an impressive personality, that he was even offered the job of General in the Karveer Princely State, a Maratha factional state with an Independent Chhatrapati. But he accepted to simply wield the pen in the service of Peshwas back at Pune. Angered by the Repeated insults of Raghunathrao and Gopikabai, Sadashivrao accepted to lead this Northern India mission.  Also to mention, Raghunathrao was not really ready to go on the North Indian Mission for the fourth time and demanded a huge amount for campaign against Afghans. But Peshwa rejected Raghunathrao's demands on the grounds of Heavy Loans which was to be waived off by the Peshwas, on the accounts given by Sadashivrao, which hurt the ego of Raghunathrao, thus engaging the both in a Word War. Hence, to shrug of his tag of Pen Wielder, Sadashivrao accepted this North Indian Mission to stop the Afghans, and promised Peshwa to complete this mission in low budget. Please make this corrections according to your standards. Parag Soma Gawde (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide reliable sources  to support the change. GABgab 16:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2016 

message: This article has been a mess for at least as long I have been contributing to Wikipedia and it looks like it was so even before that. I know it is contentious and I know it has attracted a lot of sockpuppets but, really, enough is enough. I am almost inclined to stub it. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the article 

message: Add links to articles on 'zamburak' and 'jezail' in introduction.Tomseattle (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Add link suggestion

message: 176.83.47.190 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Third Battle of Panipat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813210837/http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/ahmadshah.html to http://www.afghan-network.net/Culture/ahmadshah.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: People keep changing the army strengths and casualties in the infobox. We do have a couple of sources but they're old and, certainly in the case of Duff, unreliable. If nothing decent turns up in the way of modern academic sourcing, I'd be inclined to just remove the information. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happening once again.--Vyom25 (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strengths and casualties 

message: The box say it was Pyrrhic victory, but if you read the source mentioned, it says it was decisive victory.
:I have removed the pyrrhic portion and the unreliable Sykes source and replaced it with                  Kaushik Roy, an academic historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it Pyrrhic? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: According to India's Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil, by Kaushik Roy, page 80. The only number present is 25,000 men under Jahan Khan. Not 41,800 Afghan cavalry or 32,000 Rohilla infantry, which is what the IP added. Also, the 55,000 Maratha cavalry, 9,000 Gardi infantry, and 40 cannons are not present on page 80, which the IP changed indicating Roy references this information.
So, considering this is source misrepresentation, the IP should bring their concerns to the talk page and explain their edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to figures 

message: He was a leader of Cannon Unit on Maratha Side in 3rd Battle of Panipat, for whom Found No mention of a word in the list of Sardars Given for both Sir, which is injustice to his Great Contribution to nearly win of Panipat by Maratha. Hence, I request to add his Name along with Sardars in the indexing list of them. Raygadh (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibrahim Khan Gardi 

message: The result of such battle which is one of the great battle of eighteenth century cannot be put in imbagous slot in order to confuse the reader. The topic should be clear and Result of Battle atleast have a heading. Deleting the heading should have a clear unbiased reason in talk page.  
Hasan.2526272829 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But the result of the battle isn't in an "ambiguous slot"? It's stated once in the infobox and then again in the lead at the top of the article. The defeat and its repercussions are then extensively discussed in the "Battle", "Reasons for the outcome", "Massacres after the battle", "Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections. I don't see how an average reader could miss all that. Writing another section which just restates the same content without providing any further infomation simply doesn't add anything meaningful to the article.Alivardi (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of Battle 

message: I thought this was settled; but Duff's History of Maratha mentions the date of the battle as the 7th January 1761 (page 148 ) Tkul (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: James Grant Duff does not appear to have been an academic historian. According to India's Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil, by         Kaushik Roy, page 80, the Third battle of Panipat was 14 January 1761. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we use an unreliable source compared to using what an academic historian states? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of the battle  

message: There are some information I have updated which were not consistent with the reference. I noticed there are numerous other information that though are pointed to a reference but are not consistent. Like take Kaushik Roy's book. I made some correction today but there are several other incorrect information not consistent with the book but still pointed to it as reference. --WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Kunjpura was a separate battle and it has no reference in Kaushik Roy's book. The reference is incorrect. Also since its only about Battle of Panipat, shouldn't other battle information not be part of this article? - WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information not consistent with the References 

message: Kunjpura Battle took place in 17 October 1760 between Marathas and Najabat Khan. Third Battle of Panipat was separate which took place 17 Jan 1761. So Kunjpura battle and casualities are not relatable to the counts that took place at the third battle of panipat. Also the references given, do not mention casualities.--WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kunjpura was separate battle 

message: 106.222.0.240 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently sources cited. Is this information not verifiable in these sources? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020 

message: change (zamburak and jezail) to (Zamzama Canon, zamburak and jezail) Mrummanhasan (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources.--regentspark (comment) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020 

message: Birje patil (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021 

message: Birje patil (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://savarkar.org/en/pdfs/HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition.pdf HinduPad-Padshahi-1925_Edition.pdf HINDU-PAD-PADASHAHI A CRITICAL REVIEW OF TH E HIND U EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA  Hindu~Pad~Padashahi OR A Review of the HINDU EMPIRE OF MAHARASHTRA BY V. D. SAVARKAR 1925 PUBLISHED BY B. G PAUL & CO. MADRAS  

message: This, Letter of abdali.jpg is not reliable source that Mblam9416 keeps inserting which he added himself on Wikipedia. Nor is it in English.
Also Mblam9416 is falsely attributing the source of Kaushik Roy to his comments which has absolutely no mention of what he stated. HaughtonBrit (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources 

message: 96.231.134.18 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 

message: MbIam9416 and Noorullah21. You need to provide reliable references and sources with specific page number to verify if the states you mentioned did partake in the Third battle of Panipat. You cannot just randomly pick any source which has no reference or backing to support the statements you inserted in the article. Before making any change, please show the sources with page number to investigate. Once proven, you have the right to add the change. Canon8 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Khanate of Kalat was an obvious participant (treaty of 1758); see any history text on Balochistan. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But were they participant in Third Battle of Panipat? Are there reliable sources from accredited historians and scholars to  back it? That is all we are looking for. Canon8 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Canon8 Hey so, kalat has been confirmed but for Tanoli i cant link the sources properly, but you can see he fought in the battle on page Suba Khan Tanoli, what should I do? Noorullah21 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Noorullah21 Why can't you link the sources? What is the issue? Citations are required to back/support the information so that readers can read and verify just like you did great work with Kalat citations. Try your best but keep in mind, the sources have to be reliable.Canon8 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mblam9416 and Noorullah21 

message: The 1765 map of "Mughal domains" loyal to "Shah Alam II", is probably the greatest phyric aftermath of this "Third Battle of Pamipat". 13:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Mughal 

message: 59.88.72.6 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change the numbers 

message: The casualty numbers do not match the source. Change the Durrani side to 15,000 Rohillas and 5,000 Afghans killed and wounded, and 50,000 civilians killed or enslaved. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:FCF5:989B:22EF:795E (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source estimates that 22000 civilians were enslaved. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the edit, but the source for 50,000 killed explicitly states: "50,000 hapless Maratha camp followers... were slaughtered in cold blood or sold to slavery." The 50,000 includes both killed and enslaved and does not negate the 22,000 figure. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:7175:3C6:3E65:4D91 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022 

message: Good 42.107.193.64 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third battle of panipat 

message: Panipat 203.161.179.40 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panipat 

message: Third  battle of  panipat 223.225.170.181 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Voice 39.48.126.64 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bragges  of  Pakistan 

message: Voice 39.48.126.64 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bragges  of  Pakistan