Talk:Sanadhya Brahmin

Bhumihar Brahmins
The comment concerning Bhumihar Brahmins in the lead section is at present sourced to and should not be removed wthout an explanation. I'm unsure about the reliability of that source and raised the matter at here at WT:INB recently. The issue affects several articles and it seems that one person is periodically remvoing the same statement from them but always without providing a reason. Please explain. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanadhya Brahmins are mentioned as Kanyakubja.
Almost all authentic sources on Brahmins call sanadhya as part of Kanyakubja tribe which is evident from clan organisation of both the subcastes. Ministerofunderworld (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for Change
Hi ! @Ekdalian

You asked for the consensus discussion for my changes in the article. I have just reverted an old edit by checking the sources. The only change in my version and current version is addition of some words like endogamous which is given in this source and adding authentic sources as a sub caste of Gaurs rather than local publications my sources are 1  and 2.

And the last line was also added with the source i.e. 3.

For the notable ones all three names are given with sources. You can check that : S1, S2 , S3.

For verification you can the sources. Hope I represented this well.

ArnavTiwariup (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for change
Hi ! Ekdalian, In this current version of the article the sources which are used to mentions them as a sub caste of Kanyakubja Brahmins are not valid because , the only source used in this is not reliable because the book is a reprint or taking of Raj Era sources People of India | source. as its base. And this only source also mentions in the same books that Bhumihar are Brahmins but they are not. I explained about this in this talk page. Let me explain you with an example see the below line : Below line is from the Hindu Castes and Sects by J N Bhattacharya from p-52

The Gaurs say that the other four main divisions of North IndianB rahmans were originally Gaurs, and have acquired their present designations of Sarswat, Kanya-kubja, Maithila and Utkal by immigrating to the provinces where they are now domiciled.

'''Now see the below line from p-48, this line is from the source added in the article by claiming different than Raj Era but in reality just a Raj Era print with diff. publisher. '''

The Gaurs say that the other four main divisions of North IndianB rahmans were originally Gaurs, and have acquired their present designations of Sarswat, Kanya-kubja, Maithila and Utkal by immigrating to the provinces where they are now domiciled.

Now here is another thing Baba Saheb Ambedkar clearly mentions Sanadhys as Gaud Brahmin in his speeches see for full pdf you can use this link.

Similarly same thing was written by wilson though its a Raj era source I am just mentioning for better understanding. Link to the Wilson's Indian caste, link to the archive in this book on page no 164 it's clearly mentioned by him that they reckon themselves Gaurs.

Similarly, almost all their community institutions uses this their name as Sandhya Gaur. Below are some links :


 * 1) First
 * 2) Second

There are quite many other sources like census of Indian 1931 in which both Paliwal and Sanadhays were counted as Gaurs.If you want to see census of 1901 here is the link. In this both were mentioned as Gaur subcaste. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation! Ekdalian (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome, but the version is reverted by another user. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus for change
Hey @Ekdalian I saw your last revert on this article so found it needy to explain what's wrong with the current version. The current version consists of many unreliable sources like [|title=The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India (Volumes I and II) Source under WP:RAJ] Secondly you can see many sources like [source 1 Man by KL Bhowmik page-162] [source 2] and even from raj era sources of [Source 3] [Brahmans by AH Bingley page-13] that Sanadhya are clearly mentioned as Kanyakubja. You can clearly see these sources that Sanadhya Brahmins are not directly mentioned as gaurs but "Panch-Gaurs" which maybe caused confusion. Also Gaur Brahmin is not same as Panch-Gaurs. Gaur brahmins themselves originated from process of Sanskritisation of different castes by Radhaswami sect and are different from Panch-Gaurs. Check sources here [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banabhatta I (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi! Banabhatta I, you have same sources in both 1 and 2 i.e. Man by K.L Bhowmik and in the same source it clearly mentions that the author have taken the reference from the The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India by Russel & Hiralal (1916). So clearly none of your source is reliable according to WP:RAJ because using the same information but with different publisher and published year & author does not change the original context i.e. unreliable Raj Era sources. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Manoj Singh Gaur No there aren't same sources in 1 & 2 and Baidyanath's source i.e. 2nd source isn't taken from Russell & Hiralal. Also you in your consensus used source from B.R. Ambedkar who wasn't a historian or ethnologist and nowhere in your news articles it mentions them as sub caste of Gaur brahmins. Gaur Sanadhya doesn't means they are subtribe of Gaur but larger Panch-Gaur division. Thanks Banabhatta I (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Check your sources what you have added. KP Bahadur and Ambedkar were known authors of their time and the both them clearly mentions that Sanadhyas are branch of Gaurs and even they clearly admit this in the records of Wilson's Indian Caste. I already cleared from where the confusion starts almost the books you are referring and English version of a mythological vanshavali which is not valid as any community can write any kind of vanshavali like this. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Manoj Singh Gaur Not really, Nowhere in any of my sources any Vanshavali is mentioned. KP Bahadur never mentioned anything you implying and Ambedkar isn't authentic for caste sources. Banabhatta I (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus against misinformation on this talk page
This talk page is having alot of misinformation based on unreliable sources and baseless allegations. Firstly to make it clear that Gaur brahmin is not same as Panch-Gaur and Ad-Gaur here are some sources [first] [Second] An editor here is trying to merge all 3 of these identities when they are different. Also saying that claim of Sanadhya being sub caste of Kanyakubja by most of the authors is false as it is based on Vanshavalis is baseless as none of those authors referred to any Vanshavali. Although i cannot add Raj sources in this article as per WP:RAJ but to give editors an Idea here are some sources by some prominent Ethnologists. [Hindu Tribes and castes by Matthew atmore sherring page -22, 23] [Brahmans by AH Bingley page - 13] Some Non Raj Era authentic Sources are here. [Brahmanic ritual traditions in the crucible time] [Man by KL Bhowmik] I have many more sources too which says Sanadhya are subdivision of Kanyakubja or Kanaujia Brahmins. Hope @Ekdalian being a sensible editor considers all of these sources. I have made correction in this article as of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banabhatta I (talk • contribs) 11:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Gaur Brahmin is one of the 5 Gaurs and they are also known as Ad/Adi Gaurs, this source clearly mentioned that Gaur/Sanadhya/Shri Gaur/Ad/Gaur they all are synonmous. You are acting dumb now. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition you added a single book two times by naming two different sources although your given source clearly mentions that Gaur/Sanadhya/Shri Gaur/Ad/Gaur they all are synonmous. Kindly check your sources before creating unnecessary havoc. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Another addition the 3 sources you mentioned that is : Sherring, Bingley , Baidyanath Saraswati and K.L Bhowmik. They are all Raj sources Saraswati and K.L BHowmik with reprint just like an old material in new packing. I cleared this here you can check that. Manoj Singh Gaur (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)