Talk:Prithu

censecretated?
In the first paragraph, should the phrase "first censecretated king" actually be "first consecrated king"? Nortonew (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal from Symbolism section
I found, as section 's 2011-contributed, citation-free, 2nd & last 'graph (which i've moved to here instead), the following:
 * Of course, as is universally perceived, man struggles to mold phenomena, which is at odds with his or her belief systems, into a more conforming form. In the case of scholars, such molding is done by careful speculation executed after amassing considerable knowledge of various fields. Also, British agenda has been proven to define scholarly interpretation and translations more than inherent intellect of the scholar himself. As such, interpretations should be taken with a grain of salt or ignored altogether.

The first two sentences seem to be an assertion that everyone knows that presumptions of objective scholarship, such as the citation-bearing 'graph that preceded it in the accompanying article, are inherently fraudulent. The third is either incoherant, or a claim that a national and/or profession-wide conspiracy is responsible for something -- in the absence of clarity, presumably the 'graph preceding it.
 * IMO perhaps the whole moved 'graph, but in any case especially the final sentence, would be constructive as part of an essay-tagged page at WP:Why WP is part a futile struggle against the indefinability of the Cosmic Truth. I'm not interested in working on such an essay, but if the 'graph is moved there, i will support its retention there. --Jerzy•t 10:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Prithu appears from Vena's corpse.jpg