Talk:Saryupareen Brahmins

Page distorted
The page has been completely distorted. Lot of information about habitation, classification, profession, etc. has been deleted. The side info block is also removed. Unwanted and irrelevant references to Kanyakubja community are being repeatedly posted. There are vandalism attacks also on a low importance article! The List of Notable personalities has gone way too long. There is no verifiable source that they are indeed Saryupareen!
 * ( sad. Can anyone help and re-post only relevant information on the page from edit history?

122.175.151.50 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading
Information related to Sarupareen Brahmin is incomplete.

I copy-edited the whole article for English grammar and spelling. I know nothing of the subject so someone more knowledgeable than I will have to make certain that the article is factual. I deleted this list because I did not know what is was referring to:

"Parasar,s avarnya, kashyap, bharadwaj, kaushik, bhargav, vatsa, katyayan, sankrit, atri, galav, angira, and jamdagni."

I think it was supposed to be a list of other gotras, but I wasn't certain so I cut it. Hdstubbs 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was refering to the other 13. There are two classes, also refered to as the 'houses', consisting of the 3[higher] and 13[other] rishis or sages. The classification is based on the person belonging to one of these 3 or 13 sages of the respective house. There are also specific places of settlement and traits through which these distinctions are identified. Since these classifications have traditionally passed over generations, I do not know how they can be factually determined and also I am not sure about the timeline given as this probably predates about 500BC at least. I have an old journal[hard copy] from my great-grandfather which has details about this topic, and I will be glad to find from it and share its relevant contents here. --Girish.shukla 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Title
The title of the article is incorrect. It is सरयुपारिन or सरयूपारिन (of course with a halant ending) so the title should be "Sarayuparin". Can someone change it please. Maquahuitl 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, have tried to setup redirection of "Saryuparin_Brahmins" to this article. I dont know if the english transliteration is correct or it should be "Sarayuparin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girish.shukla (talk • contribs) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As per my knowledge and things what I had heard from my ancestor, Saryu (Sarju Nadi) river is in state UP of India, the Brahmin those who are at eastern side of River are Sarayuparin, they didn’t supported killing of Brahmin king (RAVANA) by king RAM (Lord RAM) and they didn’t went on RAM invitation for Brahma Bhoj, but Kankubja Brahmin did that. RAM did Bhram Hatya. (RAM king of Ayodhya). Kanyakubja, and Saryuparin Brahmin are same but they got separated due to this. Sarayuparin are conservative and considered to be supreme compare to Kanyakubja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.63 (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The following line is irrelevant, unverifiable, and merely an opinion, not a real set of facts. Needs to be removed.

"The claim that Saryuparin Brahmins are superior to other brahmin sub-castes is not unique to this community. Every brahmin sub-caste claims it's superiority over others for some reason or another. The most positive progress that the brahmin community in general has made over the years is that their younger generations no longer understand or hold valid all the claims of racial superiority and discrimination in India. Alarming as it may seem to the veterans of Brahmin superiority and it's propaganda, it is only a matter of time before we start living in a flat world with no divides." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.225.155 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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) 09:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)