Talk:2016 Indian banknote demonetisation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 97: Line 97:
:::::You did nothing noble by waiting for 18 days. See [[WP:DEADLINE]]. You were asked to remove thewire, and reword the statement of Krishnan than reverting to your POV version. Don't throw "vandalism" around like garbage. Though I have been familiar with your incompetence on several other articles, there is no reason I should be surprised by your disruption on here. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 08:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::You did nothing noble by waiting for 18 days. See [[WP:DEADLINE]]. You were asked to remove thewire, and reword the statement of Krishnan than reverting to your POV version. Don't throw "vandalism" around like garbage. Though I have been familiar with your incompetence on several other articles, there is no reason I should be surprised by your disruption on here. [[User:D4iNa4|D4iNa4]] ([[User talk:D4iNa4|talk]]) 08:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::There are no grounds for removing The Wire, and the burden of preparing a proper statement based on Krishnan's article does not lie with me, but with the editor inserting or restoring the content into the article. Anyone can challenge and remove unverifiable content. The arguments here have been nothing but baseless allegations of unreliability, POV, incompetence, etc. which are entirely unsubstantiated. Further, these kinds of arguments are being used to hold the article hostage. This is not how Wikipedia works. [[User:The Discoverer|The Discoverer]] ([[User talk:The Discoverer|talk]]) 10:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::There are no grounds for removing The Wire, and the burden of preparing a proper statement based on Krishnan's article does not lie with me, but with the editor inserting or restoring the content into the article. Anyone can challenge and remove unverifiable content. The arguments here have been nothing but baseless allegations of unreliability, POV, incompetence, etc. which are entirely unsubstantiated. Further, these kinds of arguments are being used to hold the article hostage. This is not how Wikipedia works. [[User:The Discoverer|The Discoverer]] ([[User talk:The Discoverer|talk]]) 10:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Everyone has agreed that The Wire is an unreliable source at least for this article. Claiming that it should be retained and its a reliable source is [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. Statement is sourced and attributed to a reliable source, you can't removed it but only rewrite if you want and also you would need to remove the attribution. Since you are claiming that I am vandalizing the article and calling sourced statement "unsourced", there's nothing exactly wrong with saying that you are sticking to "unreliability, POV, incompetence, etc." [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 10:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:28, 9 May 2018

New impact points

Point 1 - Positive impact on Economy in long run

Demonetisation has positive effect on economy in long term[1] [2] [3] as claimed by FM. [4]

Point 2 - accelerated digital India mission.

Digital India mission has found accelerated pace with the launch of BHIM app[5], Lucky Grahak Yojana and Digi-Dhan Vyapar Yojana. [6] [7] There has been faster technological improvement for of prepaid cards post-demonetisation.[8]

Point 3 - Real estate

There has been slow down in real estate sector due to demonetisation, [9] though primary market remain untouched with currency ban.[10] It is very likely to have major reduction in home loan interest rates. [11]

Point 4 - Incorporation of modern techniques like data mining techniques to catch income tax invaders

There is a perception of tax-compliant citizens is as "foolish" person whereas tax-invaders are clever ones.[12] One of the main aim of demonetisation was to catch tax invaders and to achieve it IT department is making use of data mining techniques.[13] By February 2, 2017, 18 lakh people have been sent email and SMS to reveal their source of income or have to pay fine at their unaccounted income.[14] [15] [16]

References

  1. ^ "Notes ban to have positive impact on economy: Report". The Financial Express. 17 February 2017. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 46 (help)
  2. ^ "Demonetisation to increase transparency, have positive impact on economy: Report". http://www.hindustantimes.com/. 17 February 2017. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  3. ^ "'Demonetisation a way towards ethical society' - Times of India". The Times of India.
  4. ^ "Demonetisation will lead to bigger, cleaner and real GDP, says Jaitley". pib.nic.in. Retrieved 2017-02-09.
  5. ^ "UID debuts on BHIM app, Aadhaar Pay launch soon - The Economic Times". The Economic Times.
  6. ^ "NITI Aayog announces launch of the schemes - Lucky Grahak Yojana and Digi-Dhan Vyapar Yojana - for incentivising digital payment". www.narendramodi.in.
  7. ^ "Demonetisation has put Digital India mission on fast track, writes Godrej Nature's Basket MD Avani Davda". Firstpost. 18 February 2017.
  8. ^ Nair, Priya (19 February 2017). "Pre-paid cards innovate fast after demonetisation". Business Standard India.
  9. ^ India, Press Trust of (20 February 2017). "Housing sales fall 31% in Dec quarter due to demonetisation". Business Standard India.
  10. ^ "Real Estate demonetisation: Measuring the impact". The Indian Express. 14 January 2017.
  11. ^ "Housing Credit: 'Home loan growth likely to be lower in 16-18 per cent range in FY17'". The Indian Express. 15 February 2017.
  12. ^ "Union Budget 2017: Critics are wrong, shocking tax evasion figures alone justify demonetisation". Firstpost. 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  13. ^ "Budget 2017: Tax evaders beware, govt to use data mining to catch them". Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  14. ^ "Demonetisation: Tax dept scans 1-cr accounts, identifies 18 lakh people with suspicious deposits". Firstpost. 2017-02-06. Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  15. ^ "18 Lakh People to Get I-T Dept SMS as Deposits Don't Match Their Income". News18. 2017-01-31. Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  16. ^ "13 lakh people sent emails, SMS for making large bank deposits after demonetisation". Retrieved 2017-02-10.

Adding GDP growth data of oct and dec into main article

Since we have included forecast of GDP in impact section, we must mention the value of GDP in same heading when we have data of third quarter. This heading can be renamed to just GDP. We can also show the growth of every sector. Here are new news articles about GDP. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

References

  1. ^ "India undeterred by Modi's demonetisation; still fastest growing economy with FY17 GDP forecast at 7.1%". The Financial Express. 28 February 2017. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 99 (help)
  2. ^ Dhasmana, Arup Roychoudhury & Indivjal (1 March 2017). "At 7%, Q3 GDP growth beats note ban blues". Business Standard India.
  3. ^ Correspondent, Special. "GDP growth pegged at 7.1%, belying demonetisation drag". The Hindu.
  4. ^ "No demonetisation impact on India's GDP growth? Too good to be true | Opinion". http://www.hindustantimes.com/. 28 February 2017. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  5. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/india-gdp-growth-rate-7-per-cent-cso-rbi-economic-survey-4548077/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ "Despite demonetization, India set to retain world's fastest growing tag | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis". dna. 28 February 2017.
  7. ^ "October-December GDP at 7%: How to decode baffling but assuring growth despite demonetisation". Firstpost. 28 February 2017.
  8. ^ "India's GDP grew 7% despite demonetisation, CSO data shows". The Financial Express. 1 March 2017. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 53 (help)

New Evasion attempt method

  1. Few bankers took FICN and gave back legitimate currency to customers.[1]
  2. Petrol Pumps were used for conversion of banned 500, 1000 rupee note. [2]

References

  1. ^ "Post demonetisation, forensic experts help banks take account of fake notes". The Economic Times.
  2. ^ "Income Tax department starts nationwide raids on petrol pump owners. Here's why". The Indian Express. 17 March 2017.

Launch of "Operation Clean Money" post demonetisation

Government has sent letters to 7.5 lakh high-value depositors to declare under PMGKY by March. Action will be taken against high-value depositors not paying penalty via PMGKY. ‘Operation Clean Money’ project under which Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), with data analysis and profiling of assessees, will send e-communications to people whose cash deposits post November 8 note ban do not match their income.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Post demonetisation, Modi government identifies 18 lakh people for high deposits in banks". The Financial Express. 14 March 2017. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 84 (help)

Tax impacts

Capankajsmilyo, with regards to the statement "An analysis by Aarati Krishnan shows that there has been an increase in the tax collections due to demonetisation" that you have added to the article, could you please show where the source reaches the conclusion that 'there has been an increase in the tax collections due to demonetisation'?

Secondly, you have stated that The Wire and NDTV 'are always gonna speak against Modi and his policies'. This is your personal opinion and has no place in Wikipedia. The Discoverer (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the source properly. Not sure about NDTV but thewire.in is an unreliable source and I support removal of the source. Capitals00 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for suggesting that The Wire is unreliable? It has all the characteristics of reliable online news portals of the Huffington Post variety; an editorial staff, etc. Opinion pieces are clearly marked as such. I am unaware of them having run afoul of independent fact checking. What is the problem? Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets WP:NEWSORG, also it cannot be considered reliable source when we are writing about BJP given its history and foundation. We can use better sources since they are available. Capitals00 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not near good enough. We do not discount sources based on political affiliation. And you haven't explained why it doesn't meet the guideline. Vanamonde (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG tells that well-established news outlets are better for reporting statements of fact. It also says that the identity of the author should be considered, and the author of those two The Wire articles, James Wilson[1], is a civil engineer and a blogger. How that would be considered as reliable source for this subject? I haven't removed The Wire here or anywhere yet, but I have seen removal of The Wire[2][3] for its issues with reliability throughout Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Demonetisation was a mismanaged affair and a failure. That has been noted by numerous reliable sources. For example, somewhere in the recent past here, I'm fairly sure I mentioned two BBC sources that referred to it. Even if it did result in higher tax revenues, which I think would at best be a blip, it reflects badly on Modi. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and cite that. Nobody asked for your POV on Modi policies. The topic of discussion is the source "the wire" and not what you think of Modi's policies. Nice attempt to derail the discussion and bend its direction. Anyways, nothing more can be expected from someone who is supporter of censorship with comments like should be topic banned. User:Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 15:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I sensed an attempt to make Modi look good by selective use of sources. That is your m.o., that is why you need to back off Indian politics stuff and that is why my comment pointed out that such a strategy would result in an incorrect conclusion precisely because it is based on a non-neutral starting point. I did address the specific issue: even if tax revenues did increase, it would have been a blip and we would need to reflect that through other sources such as those I mentioned. I really couldn't care less if Modi is the greatest thing ever or the worst or something in between - he has no direct effect on me or anyone I know in the real world. All I want to see is neutral editing and you cannot do it. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wire is a well-established news outlet and is considered as a reliable news source. The two instances of removal of The Wire that Capitals00 cited are by a single editor. In the first case, the exact removed statement exists in the page today albeit with a different source. This goes to show that The Wire was factually correct. In both removals, the editor has not provided evidence that the source is unreliable.
  • Regarding the statement "An analysis by Aarati Krishnan shows that there has been an increase in the tax collections due to demonetisation", nowhere does the source reach the conclusion that 'there has been an increase in the tax collections due to demonetisation', or anything to the same effect.

The Discoverer (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has anything more to add, could you please close the discussion, ‎Vanamonde93? The Discoverer (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Discoverer: No, I'm not going to close this. I've commented here, and so I'm not uninvolved; but more importantly, the two issues being discussed here haven't been resolved. Aarati Krishnan doesn't in fact say that tax collection increased due to demonetization; she makes a more nuanced claim, which warrants mention. Krishnan's name does not warrant mention, because the authors of the other reports are not mentioned. The tag is also unwarranted; even if the Wilson sources were removed, two substantive sources remain, and in any case the "clarify" tag is inappropriate; what is being discussed is source reliability. Finally, the "showed that" language is inappropriate; "stated" or "said" would be far better. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am going ahead and removing the blatantly incorrect sentence and anyone is welcome to work the 'nuanced claim' into the article. Similarly, I am going to remove the clarify tag. The existence of both these in the article have not really been justified in the discussion above. The Discoverer (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00 has reverted the removal of the unsourced statement and the inappropriate tag. It has been 18 days since I've asked where the source makes the statement, but there has been no justification whatsoever. We cannot continue with unsourced content in the article for so long. Repeated addition of unsourced content constitutes an act of vandalism. Hence, please do not re-add the content without first justifying and gaining consensus here. The Discoverer (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the sentence in the article would be incompatible with WP:Verifiability, which states that 'The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material' and 'Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.' The Discoverer (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did nothing noble by waiting for 18 days. See WP:DEADLINE. You were asked to remove thewire, and reword the statement of Krishnan than reverting to your POV version. Don't throw "vandalism" around like garbage. Though I have been familiar with your incompetence on several other articles, there is no reason I should be surprised by your disruption on here. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no grounds for removing The Wire, and the burden of preparing a proper statement based on Krishnan's article does not lie with me, but with the editor inserting or restoring the content into the article. Anyone can challenge and remove unverifiable content. The arguments here have been nothing but baseless allegations of unreliability, POV, incompetence, etc. which are entirely unsubstantiated. Further, these kinds of arguments are being used to hold the article hostage. This is not how Wikipedia works. The Discoverer (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has agreed that The Wire is an unreliable source at least for this article. Claiming that it should be retained and its a reliable source is disruptive editing. Statement is sourced and attributed to a reliable source, you can't removed it but only rewrite if you want and also you would need to remove the attribution. Since you are claiming that I am vandalizing the article and calling sourced statement "unsourced", there's nothing exactly wrong with saying that you are sticking to "unreliability, POV, incompetence, etc." Capitals00 (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation&oldid=840354166"