Talk:Pal (surname)
Pal Surname Among Bengali Kayasthas[edit]
The surname "Pal" is used by number of castes across India. It is not exclusively for "Kayastha". The theme of the article here is Pal as surname, hence contents to represent kayastha shall not be stressed much here in this article. Instead all such contents shall form the part of the article "Kayastha". -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 13:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mahensingha, I agree with you that all content specific to Kayastha should be a part of the article on Kayastha only. The last version was an old one, which should have been revised. Anyway, as per all available sources, Pal or Pala is a surname which belongs to the Kayastha caste in Bengal. Though, like other Bengali Kayastha surnames, some Bengali middle castes may use the surname, it may not deserve mention in the lead section since there are hardly any source to support that. And that's the reason, it is primarily considered as a Kayastha surname by historians. Like Tej Ram Sharma categorically states in the quote provided that the surname Pal/Pala along with Dutta, Palita, Naga, Nandin are "now confined to Kayasthas of Bengal but not to brahmanas". Otherwise, in other parts of India, it is observed as part of compounded family names, and not just Pal; Pal Singh is an example. If we come across any valid/reliable source mentioning Pal as a surname used by others, we can surely add that information.
- Andre Wink's statements that you have incorporated, are already covered in the article on Bengali Kayastha. Therefore, it is redundant here, and only stuff related to the surname like the mention of Pala Kings may be considered as appropriate. Please feel free to discuss here if you have any other suggestion or opinion. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Ekdalian I am very sad to point out tone of the article. It is no way related to subject of the article. Here, in present context, what we need is to give information about the various possible groups using the Surname "Pal", What more we can add is etymological meaning of the term and if we want to say something more about a particular community using this surname then for this purpose, related caste article ("Kayasth" in your case) is the best or right place for it. Not to misinterpret, actually job of glorification of castes is best done on the caste based websites and it suits there only. Here on wikipedia the contents must be informative and maintain neutrality of the subject. Regarding the "history section", it should actually reflect history of the surname and definitely not history of the various castes using the surname. because if we go this way then we need to write history of every caste using this surname. Now just imagine if we go in this direction then what will be the shape of this article. I hope you understand what I mean. -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 11:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Mahensingha, there's no way I can disagree with you. Very well explained indeed, and thanks for your input. I can only say that the History Section focuses on the history of Bengali Kayasthas because the surname can be related to this particular caste, as per available sources. In case there are multiple communities (using the surname) available, it would not be possible to discuss in details about all of them; in fact, in such a situation we can briefly describe each community like we have done in the article on Dutta. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- DearEkdalian, as per my knowledge there are many sources suggestive of including many castes associated with the surname "Pal" and that's why I told you. You can change the lead section indicating exclusive applicability of the surname to Bengali Kayastha, but if you say its applicable to India and Bangladesh, then you must be aware of the fact that the surname specifically belong to at least 10 castes and prominently to the Rajputs. Almost everyone know that Kayastha are a high class community and the credit goes to the hard work put in by them to reach up to this status, but theories of their origin are very clear that originally they are not purely a caste group and there are many caste elements involved in evolution of Kayastha category yet there are numerous anthropological theory evidences that occupationally they fall under Sudra categoty. But you removed this fact which was properly sourced also. I give you the example of Rajput caste, almost all the sources behind their origin are against their modern honourable position, but does not matter, they are still Rajputs and the best, so why do we hide the facts which are already endorsed in numerous sources. I still suggest that the article shall go with the concept of surname only and not for a particular caste. However, I don't compel this, but please don't remove the facts, at least, the sourced ones. I gave sources of applicability of the surname with other caste groups but unfortunately at the same time you edited the page and all my efforts went in vain. I will do it later or if you suggest, then I will first put them on this Talk page itself so that you can be satisfied.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 16:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, In the article, I have given 10 or more castes having surname Pal and more can still be added. Its not exclusive for Bengali Kayastha. Like you, I too work hard in finding the sources and editing the Articles which you delete. All references have also been given and cited inline in with the contents. Now, may I request you to please grant me my natural right of editing wikipedia. -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 21:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mahensingha, I think you have done a great job and collected all possible information on the surname. I shall go through the sources later, but assume for now that the sources are reliable. I may rearrange the contents, if required. As far as Bengali Kayasthas are concerned, you have added the part that "they are ranked as Shudra" citing Wink. Please note that this status is disputed, and as per our policies we have to show all views as available in reliable sources. You may check the following
- source1 where Sharma categorically mentions that the "brahmana lawgivers faced a dilemma and connected the kayasthas with both the sudras as well as the dvijas".
- There are other sources mentioning the same, but the point here is, if we mention Wink's part then we have to mention about the dispute and the dvija status as well. I believe this is not the right place to discuss the disputed status, which will make the article lengthy and digress from the subject i.e. surname or family name. Rather, I will take it up and mention the same in the article on Bengali Kayastha where only Wink's statement is mentioned. That the Bengali Kayasthas are considered as the highest Hindu castes along with Brahmins and Baidyas, is supported by all sources and not disputed at all; hence such a one-liner may remain as it is. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- See, in order to maintain neutrality of the subject issue, we have to consider both of the states i.e. "twice born" and "shudra" and there is nothing wrong in it. Everybody knows and regards the Kayastha as a reputedly established caste but as far as history of their origin is concerned almost all the sources agree that they were noway a caste but an occupational category which is composed of mixed castes. I agree that the above mention statement suits the issue and may be added.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier, I believe it would be better if we deal with it (dual status) in the article on Bengali Kayastha, and not here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just give me the reason, why at all are we required to mention about Bengali Kayastha here which in fact is a separate article, the best way is, mention the statement that Bengali Kayatha uses this surname and a wikilink may lead to the main article which is exclusively for the subject Bengali Kayastha. Otherwise, tell me the way to resolve the conflict.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Since it would make the statement unnecessarily lengthy if we mention about the disputed status, and as per WP:NPOV, it would be better to remove the entire statement, and simply add a link to the article on Bengali Kayastha. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just give me the reason, why at all are we required to mention about Bengali Kayastha here which in fact is a separate article, the best way is, mention the statement that Bengali Kayatha uses this surname and a wikilink may lead to the main article which is exclusively for the subject Bengali Kayastha. Otherwise, tell me the way to resolve the conflict.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier, I believe it would be better if we deal with it (dual status) in the article on Bengali Kayastha, and not here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- See, in order to maintain neutrality of the subject issue, we have to consider both of the states i.e. "twice born" and "shudra" and there is nothing wrong in it. Everybody knows and regards the Kayastha as a reputedly established caste but as far as history of their origin is concerned almost all the sources agree that they were noway a caste but an occupational category which is composed of mixed castes. I agree that the above mention statement suits the issue and may be added.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Mahensingha, there's no way I can disagree with you. Very well explained indeed, and thanks for your input. I can only say that the History Section focuses on the history of Bengali Kayasthas because the surname can be related to this particular caste, as per available sources. In case there are multiple communities (using the surname) available, it would not be possible to discuss in details about all of them; in fact, in such a situation we can briefly describe each community like we have done in the article on Dutta. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Ekdalian I am very sad to point out tone of the article. It is no way related to subject of the article. Here, in present context, what we need is to give information about the various possible groups using the Surname "Pal", What more we can add is etymological meaning of the term and if we want to say something more about a particular community using this surname then for this purpose, related caste article ("Kayasth" in your case) is the best or right place for it. Not to misinterpret, actually job of glorification of castes is best done on the caste based websites and it suits there only. Here on wikipedia the contents must be informative and maintain neutrality of the subject. Regarding the "history section", it should actually reflect history of the surname and definitely not history of the various castes using the surname. because if we go this way then we need to write history of every caste using this surname. Now just imagine if we go in this direction then what will be the shape of this article. I hope you understand what I mean. -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 11:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Source: Calcutta Review[edit]
Hi Mahensingha.. the source related to Bengali castes like Teli, Subarnabanik and Sadgop does not show anything related to them. Please check by clicking on the url. Since the source is not verifiable, that's the reason I added the citation needed tag. Regards. BongN (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will surely review.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 10:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Pal caste in India[edit]
Information mentioned is not complete as Gaderias have been using this title since ages in whole of India except the southern region. Rohitpal007 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)