Talk:Tripura Buranji

Reverts

Where does N.K. Bhattacharjee note about Tripura Buranji stand[ing] out among different pre-colonial travel writings from India? Also, where does Bikach Chaudhuri note Tripura Buranji to be a critical source of Tripura history? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits without discussing your misrepresentations of sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bhattacharjee lists a number of pre-colonial tests that included Kalidasa's Meghadootam including Tripura Buranji: s."He then went on to show how elements of travelogue exist in the fictional accounts of the digvijays in the epics, in the lyrical reminiscences of home-sick lovers like the Yaksha in Kalidas's Meghadootam and later Sandeshakavyas, in the descriptions of holy places like in Namdev's Tirthayatra in Marathi, in Vidyapati's 14th century Sanskrit work Bhuparikrama, in the 18th century Asamiya work Tripura Buranji by Ratna Kandali and Arjundas Bairagi and the like. Among these works, he makes a special mention of Tripura Buranji: The last-named work is especially interesting where envoys of King Rudra Sinha (1696-1714) of Assam were sent to the court of Ratnamanikya. That is not all, he goes on to quote K Satchidananda: As K. Satchidanandan writes, "These envoys who went on foot along with escorts to Tripura through Cachar and the foothills of Mizoram have carefully recorded in the racy style of medieval chronicles, the landscape, habits, dress, manners and beliefs of the people, deities and temples and the intrigues for the throne within the court of Tripura."

Though I am pleased to point these out here, you could have yourself read it yourself because the citation is well referenced with a jstor link and the cited text itself was quoted.

Chaipau (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As you can see above, there has been no misrepresentation. Chaipau (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bhattacharjee notes that the work seems personally interesting to him, from Satchidanandan's description. There's nothing more, nothing less. You have not yet described your usage of the word critical.

Why are you duplicating stuff? It has been already mentioned that the 108th folio is absent. This insertion about other Buranjis is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make any sense either. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Paraphrasing "especially interesting" as "standing out" seems quite reasonable to me. Are we going to get that picky here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, Bhattacharjee notes that the work seems personally interesting to him, from Satchidanandan's description. How can this go into the body, unattributed? And, even if attributed, there are concerns of WP:WEIGHT. Since the author has disccused two/three other medieval texts in the same paragraph, we will write that Besides, it is a remarkable example of pre-colonial travel writing among such other examples as Kalidasa's Meghadootam etc.?

On another note, you find me any pre-modern text and I will find you a scholar who has found it appealing/interesting/... TrangaBellam (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bhattacharjee did not say it was personally interesting to him. He said especially interesting. And he quotes K Satchidananda who found it interesting too. Reading "personally" interesting is WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's his "personal" commentary. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

And that is your personal point of view. I agree with Kautilya3 that you are nitpicking here. Chaipau (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)