User:Chaipau/Bhuyan and Buranji

These are the notes archived from this note to which had no objection. This was the resolution after a lot of discussion in the sections Talk:Lachit_Barphukan and Talk:Lachit_Barphukan. The context section (below, to be populated) will give a synopsis of the discussion that led to the summary.

Summary
Summary on Bhuyan and his works and how Wikipedia could approach them:
 * Bhuyan is a professional historian under the requirements given in Identifying reliable sources (history). Whether Bhuyan can be considered as objective is debated.
 * Bhuyan had collected manuscripts that he published under the term Buranji. These published historical documents are WP:PRIMARY and they are subject to regular Wikipedia rules.  Though WP:PRIMARY are sometimes allowed in Wikipedia, we should not use Buranjis directly in Wikipedia because there is a large body of Buranjis, either in manuscript or in published forms that contain internal contradictions.  Wikipedia cannot sieve through these conflicting without WP:OR and thus we should not use them in Wikipedia.
 * Bhuyan has written nationalistic accounts of historical persons. These should be avoided since these accounts are mixed literature-history writing.  They do not in general satisfy WP:HISTRS. But for some specific claims WP:HISTRW and WP:HISTIC apply.
 * Bhuyan has extensively documented archival details of these Buranjis, in the Preface and Introduction sections of these published Buranjis. These archival details are not historiography and so can be cited in pages such as Buranji.  We have not discovered any claim in the literature that critiques his archival notes.

Context
(to be populated)