Talk:Spanggur Gap

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir.
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup.

Tibet

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Removal of sourced content

Capitals00, please can you explain why you are repeatedly deleting sourced content: [1] [2] ? The Discoverer (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not WP:RS. We can't use WP:PRIMARY sources, which includes the claims provided by the person who was closely involved in the incident. Capitals00 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove that something is not a reliable source before removing it. WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources can be used if they are reputedly published. The reports in the journal from usiofindia.org, and the book 'Indian Army After Independence' would come under this category. They are not self-published. To conclude, you still need to prove that the publishers of these so-called primary sources are not reliable. The Discoverer (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they have been reputedly published by high-quality sources. Not those who published it as a formality. Capitals00 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the onus is on you to show that the publishers of these sources are not reliable sources.. for example, if they are known to publish incorrect information. These are not exceptional claims.. just that India had posts there, and that the posts were withdrawn. Are there any sources that contradict this simple statement? The Discoverer (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many historians have written about this war and this place, why don't you use them? In place of using a WP:PRIMARY source. There are lots of reliable sources that say that outcome of the war was status quo, no territorial change. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed there are more reputed sources that have something to say about this, then I am open to using them. But you cannot discredit the sources already in the article unless you have some solid evidence. The Discoverer (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00, you are repeatedly deleting text without proving that the corresponding sources are unreliable or primary. Secondly, the removed text itself is not disputed or contradicted anywhere. I request you to desist from deletion of text, as unjustified deletion of content constitutes vandalism.

I would like to invite the involvement / inputs of Kautilya3, an editor who had been active in articles related to the Sino-Indian war, in this article. The Discoverer (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New sources are fine and I have rewritten as per the source' statement. I have also added the quote. Capitals00 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]