Talk:2016 Indian banknote demonetisation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Congrats for making it a Wikinews

Thank you all for proposing and supporting to make it a Wikinews! It appears as a Wikinews now. Thank you all once again. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of well referenced content by Dharmadhyaksha with frivolous reasons

Dharmadhyaksha has deleted well referenced content such as [1] and [2]. He called a referenced list of persons whose death was connected with the demonetisation as a 'coincidence' and well referenced cases of information published as 'baseless comments'. This is unencyclopedic behaviour, be warned. The Discoverer (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh! the naive people are here. Bye bye.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha drawing conclusions that are not in the source

In two sentences, [3] and [4], Dharmadhyaksha adds that no evidences were produced to support the claim, while the sources do not speak about evidences at all. Here, he is drawing a conclusion that is not drawn by the source. To top it, his edit summary is 'write it completely then'. Misleading. The Discoverer (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is so much suffering of people in the country because of this decision but the article only paints a rosy picture. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.62.22.255 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Valuations

This article should reference the value of the rupee against major currencies of the world (at the time of the announcement), so that people from other regions may have an idea of the value of these bank notes (the old and the new). Such as the value of one note against the US Dollar, Euro, Yen, Pound-Sterling -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Mismatch

The body of the article does a somewhat decent job of covering this topic, but the lede is not close to being an adequate summary of the body. There is not one mention of criticism, or even of the somewhat complicated aftermath, in the lede: all that is there is the government's explanation of why the policy was enacted, and that presented in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:Yeah,I too think a line about the criticism should be added to the lead!(As a sidenote, Wikipedia's Voice?)Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: "Wikipedia's Voice" refers to instances where Wikipedia stating something as fact, rather than attributing a statement to whoever said it. For instance, the difference between "Person X is a jerk" and "Person X has been called a jerk by sources Y and Z" is a difference of whether the statement was presented in Wikipedia's voice or not. And as our policies about neutrality will tell you, using Wikipedia's voice is fine (indeed, necessary) for uncontroversial things, but problematic when something is a matter of dispute. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:Fine.Got the meaning of your phrase w.r.t the context of this article.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Opposition info

If an edit expert who could rewrite information from the link ([5]) to the article's "Opposition in parliament" section. Hydloc009 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

Transportation

Major highway toll junctions on the Gujarat and Delhi-Mumbai highways also saw long queues as toll plaza operators refused the old banknotes. Nitin Gadkari, the Minister of Transport, subsequently announced a suspension of toll collections on all national highways across India until midnight of 11 November, later extended until 14 November and once again extended until 18 November midnight. <ref name="toll">{{cite web|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/toll-collection-suspended-across-the-country-till-nov-11-highways-ministry/story-1bAQIFhgp3R26ja4z9OdDK.html |title=Toll tax suspended on national highways till Nov 11, banks open this weekend |date= |work=[[Hindustan Times]] |accessdate=10 November 2016}}</ref>

Zuber28 (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zuber28: DoneThe source was wrong(It did not support your changes) but I have re-added it with the correct source.Anyway your edit has been incorporated.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

List of death

I disagread strongly with a full list of various death related to the demonetisation. One or two synthetic sentences about those various and anecdotical death are for me the maximum if we want the article to be neutral. --Nouill (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your idea, and it has already been implemented. :) The Discoverer (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of farmer suicidal cases due to demonetisation. Sion school (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Death toll rise to 47 due to demonetisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuber28 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Name of Mr. Anil Bokil is removed from the article

It seems that name of Mr. Anil Bokil is successfully removed from the article! I do not know how to write it in a proper way in the article but I do understand that his name should appear in the article! I am sure it will come there after some time when people will understand it. He has been contributing to this issue substantially since many years. If I am not wrong, he is the one from whom Baba Ramdev have taken this concept. If name of Baba Ramdev is there in the article, the name of Mr. Anil Bokil also should appear in my frank opinion. I leave the judgement to the wisdom of experienced editors on WP. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: I have removed the bit about Anil Bokil conceptualizing the present demonetization. Evidently, demonetization has happened in history and a 2012 published article does not "conceptualize" it. Also, it is WP:OR to link Bokil's thoughts/activism until the link is established. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. It will be wrong to say that he conceptualized it. Hence I have removed those words. But his name should be there in article in my opinion as he has been working for it since many years! Unfortunately it seems that the website of Arthakranti is down. But people will lot of information about it there as well. Thank you once again for raising very important point. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There are various reasons to remove Bokil. Bokil's notability is questionable and he finds passing mention in the article too. The claim of Ramdev and Bokil you make here is unsourced. Meanwhile you can prove the notability of this bit over here and then it can be introduced. Till then, please avoid WP:EDITWAR especially when the article is possibly up for WP:ITN entry on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. As felt appropriate by experienced editors and admins. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like Times group is doing lot of marketing for lot of people through TOI and ET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karansingh47 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha Great! From whose side you are doing marketing Karansingh47? - Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not doing any marketing, this is something, unusual which stuck me, and i googled and found newspaper cutting etc on social media. u can also google and see many links on social media. anyway, i wanted to make a point that people do knew about this demonetization, but no one paid attention. My dear friend, this guy, who was a petty time journalist was the only one to publish this, but no one paid attention.................................................please do your complete research, before commenting on others - " Hahaha Great! From whose side you are doing marketing"..........................hope you will get mature and improve, then just harping on people

Discussion Regarding Changing the Title of this Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, i suggest that the Title of this article be changed to Indian Currency Demonetization (2016).This title suits the content inside the article and i would request you all as responsible Wikipedians to suggest that whether this change will be appropriate or not.Thanking you.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

According to me, currency is a wide topic, "currency demonetization" would mean that "India demonetised Indian rupee and adopted/introduced a new currency". Hence, if the article title has to change it would be nice to be more accurately "Indian banknotes demonetisation 2016". But again only ₹500 and ₹1000 banknotes of the previous series were announced demonetised, I feel the present title of the article "Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation" is the most accurate to the topic until now. Hydloc009 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hydloc009: Thank you for your sensible opinion.I agree to what you have said.What about changing the word note with currency.I think this change might prove productive for the Article or if i am wrong please correct me.Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 04:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Param Mudgal:, as I mentioned above, the word "currency" means a monetary unit (i.e. Indian rupee). While, as on 8NOV2016, only the ₹500 and ₹1000 notes (only 500 and 1000 denomination banknotes of the Indian rupee) were withdrawn/demonetised. Hence, I believe the word note is the most accurate to this topic/event/article. Hydloc009 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hydloc009:I understand what you are saying but 500 and 1000 Rupee is written in the beginning of the title so it won't mean that whole of the currency has been demonetized, moreover,Rupee is a Currency and Currency Demonetization as a word looks more apt than note demonetization.What do you think about this?.I understand that Currency is a wider term but with 500 and 1000 Rupee written just before it , the new title won't create any confusion.Waiting for your reply.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 06:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Param Mudgal:, Let's break it down,

1: in "Indian 500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetisation", when it reads "500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetisation", it surely confuses, what was demonetized? 500 and 1000 rupee or rupee currency - 500 and 1000??, what of the rupee 500 and 1000 coins or notes or?!?#@?!

2: in "Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation", the title is specific that Indian rupee's 500 and 1000 notes (bills) were demonetized.

Hydloc009 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hydloc009:No confusion now.Thanks for resolving this issue regarding the title of this article.Hope to collaborate again with you in the near future.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 06:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Param Mudgal:, I was happy to talk to you, Cheers ~ Regards! Hydloc009 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Please note, there was already a discussion on this same topic at #Title. 220 of ^Borg 08:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, should have replied there itself.Anyways , will take into consideration next time.Cheers.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 09:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ways in which people have tackled demonetization

There should also be a section which explains who people have tackled demonetization in various places, like where Card transactions have replaced cash, where people are working on credit, TheWire reported that in some areas near Bhutan border, people are using Bhutanese currency http://thewire.in/81174/demonetisation-northeast-bhutan-newspapers/ Hargup (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016, remove/move an irrelevant paragraph from the "Reactions" category

Please Remove the below paragraph from the "Reactions" category, as it does not describe a reaction, instead it gives a background regarding the same topic. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In the past, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had strongly opposed demonetisation. BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi had said in 2014 that "The aam aurats and the aadmis, those who are illiterate and have no access to banking facilities, will be the ones to be hit by such diversionary measures."[32][33][34][35] This was before Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched Jan Dhan Yojana to include the poor into the banking system. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Death pilani (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Death pilani: Done-Your edit was incorporated.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Narendra Modi template?!

{{Narendra Modi}}

This article is about the demonetization process which was implemented/announced/declared by the Government of India and Reserve Bank of India all together (addressed/announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on an unscheduled TV broadcast). Hence this is not Narendra Modi's personal policy or decision, So should the {{Narendra Modi}} template exist/displayed on this article? Hydloc009 (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Especially right at the top of the page where I removed it once myself. Maybe if there is a smaller version of it? 220 of ^Borg 09:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see it's back, re-added here without giving a reason,or any edit summary, by Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) who may have a COI as they have edited the template extensively. In fact more than any editor. 220 of ^Borg 10:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And gone again. The editor has been warned not to keep adding it willy-nilly to any vaguely Modi related page. 220 of ^Borg 04:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

no purpose with such a template. Suggest remove it. Prodigyhk (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The template was removed, and if it must be re- added, only after consensus. Hydloc009 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source in section 'Prior leakage of information'

The source given for the first sentence of the section is indiasamvad.co.in, which is known to be a biased news blog and is not a trusted, reliable source of news. I suggest looking for a more reliable news source to substantiate the claims made in this part. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Added a Times of India article that says the same things. The Discoverer (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I would also suggest removing that source entirely, since the new source already covers all the claims. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

Remove the "Kindly refrain from moving this article to a new Title until consensus is reached on the Talk Page of this Article" message box.

Ask for move protection or put up an edit notice. Don’t deface the page with random Template:Notice messages. 49.207.54.57 (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It's not "defacing". I wasn't apart of this discussion, so I can't say much about it, but my guess is that there was a page-move war currently in need of consensus. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of deaths to demonetization

I would like to know what criteria were used to attribute the deaths to demonetization. Let me share that it is very difficult thing. I have some experience in 'cause of death' analysis for millennium developmental goals. Verbal autopsy methods are used to find out the cause of deaths there. I am surprised the swiftness with which statements are made regarding cause of death here. I know Wikipedia is not written by experts in the field but does it mean that we will put inaccurate information? The Discoverer removed the source which questions the attribution. He has also removed the statement which says that. Is this how Wikipedia works? Why shall we give references at all when properly referenced sentences and those references are removed without even discussing it? Is it not pushing of point of view? I would like to request administrators and experienced editors to kindly look into it. Thank you. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not decide the cause of the deaths, we just report what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources all agree that the deaths were due to demonetisation, then we write that in the article.

The statements you added are not completely incorrect, but I feel that they do not accurately represent what the sources say. For example, this source says that Kejriwal lashed out against a reporter who asked him how he could attribute the deaths to demonetisation, while your statement says "some believe that these deaths cannot be linked to demonetization"

Similarly, this source says that the CMD of PNB said that the panic had faded, while your statement is "The panic after demonetization started fading on 19 November 2016.", as if stating a fact. The Discoverer (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting that the content added by me is not incorrect either. I would suggest you to see the titles. You mean to say that the titles of these news are misleading? Then you need to comment below the comment section of that news. Again, whatever your logic might be, it is not a wise thing to do to remove some sources which were written with lot of hard work. I would suggest you to discuss here henceforth before removing the references altogether only because you did not find those sources appropriate. Thank you. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Change title. Change demonetisation to delegalization

Plan to change the title. Request other editors thoughts before making changes. The currency has not lost value, only lost its use as legal tender. The RBI announcement is that 500/1000 currency notes issues till Nov 8 have been stopped for use as legal tenders. RBI will continue to exchange the old with new notes, at RBI branches, even after deadline of 30/Dec at nationalized bank/post office. This means, RBI maintains its obligation to pay the bearer. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

DEMONITIZATION - meaning

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demonetization.asp

• Definition : Demonetization is the act of stripping a currency unit of its status as legal tender. Demonetization is necessary whenever there is a change of national currency.
• Example : Demonetization occurred when the nations of the European Monetary Union adopted the euro. In order to switch to the euro, authorities first fixed exchange rates for the varied national currencies into euros. When the euro was introduced, the old national currencies were demonetized.

Suggested Changes and discussion

In the present case, the Indian Rupee is not being replaced by a new currency. Only 2 denomination of currency notes of certain time period are being replaced by new notes. Prodigyhk (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Suggested new Title for the article

• The November 2016 delegalization of 500 and 1000 Indian rupee notes Prodigyhk (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Going ahead with the changes. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Prodigyhk there are no less than two previous sections on this page discussing a title change. You didn't take part in any of them. The move was made about 13.5 hours after you started this 'discussion' So, with no comments from other editors this is hardly a discussion. This is effectively (another) arbitrary change of title. You could have 'pinged' interested editors who discussed this issue earlier.
For one thing the title is far too long IMHO.

Pinging @Nizil Shah, Abhijeet Safai, Param Mudgal, and Hydloc009: who were involved in earlier move discussions. 220 of ^Borg 04:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Whether it is technically correct or not 'demonetise' is apparently the term being used, see thehindubusinessline.com article.
2. We don't use 'th' in dates. ie. "8 November 2016 ..."
3. Unnecessary disambiguation: day and month, is not needed anyway, year perhaps
4. More unnecessary disambiguation: "issued till that date" is not needed.
   220 of ^Borg

• With all due respect, what the hell is this title? Anybody heard of brevity around here? "2016 Indian note demonitisation" (or delegalization) is really all that's needed. Vanamonde (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree I suggested 2016 Indian rupee note demonetisation 6 days ago. 220 of ^Borg 09:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation is very apt and sufficient. It is necessary to mention that 500 and 1000 rupee banknotes have been demonetised. About delegalisation vs demonetisation, I don't think that delegalisation is even a word. AdityaChanana (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Why, precisely, is the denomination necessary? The title should serve to identify the subject. There have been multiple instances of demonetisation in India in the past; therefore, the year is necessary. There has been only one instance in this year: therefore, the month, day, and denomination are not necessary. See WP:CRITERIA; the title should precisely identify the subject, but it should not be longer than necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delegalization word does not exist. So no need to discuss it. The current title is OK, though I had suggested High denomination banknotes demonitisation in India. which suggest the 1000 and 500 rupees notes as High denomination banknotes. And Demonitisation is most proper and widely used word for it. We can use ₹500 and ₹1000 banknotes demonitisation also if it can handle symbols. Keep current title or change with consensus.--Nizil (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree No page moves without consensus (of more than the proposer anyway). I suggested a title with 2016 when I became aware that this had happened before. If pages on the earlier event/s were written, some disambiguation would be needed. 220 of ^Borg 03:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree Keep current title/wait for consensus.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

DELEGALIZE - meaning

Nizil meaning of delegalize : to remove the status of statutory authorization from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delegalize Prodigyhk (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional dictionary references.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delegalize delegalize verb (used with object), delegalized, delegalizing. 1. to revoke the statutory authorization of.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/delegalize Verb: delegalize ‎(third-person singular simple present delegalizes, present participle delegalizing, simple past and past participle delegalized) 1.(transitive) To remove the obligatory authorization. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To use delegalize and not demonitize

@Nizil Shah, Vanamonde93, 220 of Borg, and ARUNEEK: Before we discuss the form/length of title, need consensus on right word to be used. Suggest we use delegalize and not demonitize. Advice if you agree/disagree Prodigyhk (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Demonetize . Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Demonetize essentially per WP:COMMONNAME: this is the term that the overwhelming majority of sources seem to be using. Vanamonde (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Vanamonde Your reason not valid. This is not an issue with a name or word that has similar meanings, that we can select a popular word Prodigyhk (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Prodigyhk: You take issue with the term the sources use, saying it is an incorrect use: and as an alternative, you make up a word on the spot? How is that valid reasoning? Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde read DELEGALIZE meaning - delegalize is a word that exists.Prodigyhk (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Prodigyhk: Okay, so it's a word. Still doesn't establish why using "demonetize" is incorrect: and honestly I'm not going to respond further until further evidence (not just assertion) is produced. Also, altering the signature of another editor, and using a somewhat derogatory term therein, is liable to land you in trouble very very quickly: especially since 220 literally just warned you about doing that. Do I need to give you a templated warning, or are you going to get the message without it? Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

honest error on the signature. Have reverted the changes. Peace :) Prodigyhk (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vanamondeas requested evidences here. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with 2 above editors. I have pointed this terms common use out earlier, see [6]. BUT isn't it "demonitise" in Indian English? 220 of ^Borg 10:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah, Vanamonde93, 220 of Borg, and ARUNEEK: Using wrong word is same as creating a fake news. The Indian currency was not demonitized, only 2 specific value notes prior to a date have been delegalised. Let me know your preferences on how we escalate this. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

further evidences to stop use "demonetize" and replace with "delegalize" or similar

1) details as provided by Reserve Bank of India. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/FAQView.aspx?Id=119 - Withdrawal of Legal Tender Character of the existing Bank Notes in the denominations of ₹ 500/- and ₹ 1000/- : The legal tender character of the existing bank notes in denominations of ₹ 500 and ₹ 1000 issued by the Reserve bank of India till November 8, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Specified Bank Notes) stands withdrawn

2) former RBI governor D Subbarao - “The government has not used the word demonetisation. All that the government has said is that it is withdrawing these notes as being legal tender." http://www.firstpost.com/india/demonetisation-on-what-legal-grounds-can-rbi-write-off-notes-it-had-promised-to-honour-3112516.html

3) news articles that only used words similar to RBI wordings

• NYTIMES - "on Nov. 8 that India’s highest-value bills, the 1,000 and 500 rupee notes, worth about $15 and $7.50, would cease being legal tender the next morning" http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/world/asia/india-offers-some-relief-to-chaos-it-created-with-currency-ban.html
• TIMES - the old 500 and 1,000 Rupee notes (worth roughly $7.5 and $15 respectively) that had suddenly been declared illegal at midnight on Nov. 8. http://time.com/4569379/india-currency-ban-cash-modi-effects/
• Bloomberg - India’s cash economy has been thrown into turmoil since Modi announced last week that 500 and 1,000 rupee notes would cease to be legal tender http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/helicopter-money-to-free-starbucks-coffee-ease-india-s-cash-woes

Prodigyhk (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

On why demonetize shall be used

Definitions

1)The definition of demonetize per Wiktionary is here.It states:

To withdraw the status of legal tender from a coin (etc.) and remove it from circulation.

2)The definition per Merriam and Webster is here.It states:

To deprive of value for official payment.

3)The definition per Oxford is here.It states:

Deprive (a coin or precious metal) of its status as money.

Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Usage

The term demonetize has been used with reference to the context in several mainstream WP:RS articles.Examples include (1),(2), (3) & (4).Basically all the news-articles on the issue are flooded with the word!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:ARUNEEK agree that the demonetize is being more commonly used. Request read former RBI governor D Subbarao comments on the difference between demonetisation and delegalisation. hereProdigyhk (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prodigyhk:We can't change the wording based on fringe views ,even if they are experts in the field.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prodigyhk:I would request you to leave the case here and move on since the mountain of evidence in favor of demonetization seems to be too high and all the other editors in the discussion have proposed to keep the word demonetize.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK:former RBI governor D Subbarao WP:FRINGENOT On the whole, mainstream journalism has a very terrible reputation for poor fact checking and bias in favor of sensationalism Prodigyhk (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prodigyhk:I would really mind changing my views on one of the most least-viewed and least-linked essays.Please read the opening summary-It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors.You seem to decline mainstream media reports on the ground that they are sensationalistic etc.,but please take a look at WP:SOURCE.It's not an essay but a policy!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prodigyhk:It looks like this is an discussion continually opposed by a lone voice.Until and unless some other people comments against the proposal I am relenting nyself from any further comments.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: Understand and appreciate your position. Since I am not convinced about using demonetize, shall escalate it for further discussion. Have a nice day :) Prodigyhk (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Leave it as it is

The only thing I have to say is "delegalization" is not a valid word in English. And "demonetisation" is the word that describes this topic, also in economic term "demonetisation" is a valid word to be used here. Hydloc009 (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hydloc009) 1) the meaning for word delegalize 2) disagree that "demonetize" is the right word to use here. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hydloc009 and Prodigyhk: I support the Demonetization Word as it looks more appropriate, Delegalize according to me can be used for numerous reasons like Delegalizing something or some act but Demonetisation is specifically related to the Demonetization of Currency ie. Stripping a currency unit as a legal tender.Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 05:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prodigyhk:, as I said before, this event is economic, and in economic terms it's coiled as "demonetisation". Hydloc009 (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In the long run we are all dead

Statement from the former Reserve Bank Governor, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is now available here, here and here 106.51.232.5 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Balance in Reactions section must be questioned

Hi people,

I have been reading this page and it seems that some people are forcibly trying to showcase this move in positive light. It seems mostly Modi bhakts are doing it. Please add reactions critical to this move and its implementations to give readers fair idea. I will be able to provide them if someone helps with Wikipedia addition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.88.200 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please elaborate what information you would like to contribute for this Article.Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 16:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, I request you to kindly take some action on The Discoverer

Dear Administrators, I shall put this to administrators noticeboard, but sharing here also. The Discoverer is deleting the contents of this page without discussing them. I would like to request to take appropriate action against him. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I had raised the issue Here but the discussion is closed there and they are saying to discuss it on talk page only. I am not aware if this kind of style of editing is fine at Wikipedia. If it is, I am happy that I have learned something new. I will surely use it in my editing. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Title

What should be title of the article? Current Indian 500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetization looks improper. I propose Indian high domination currency demonetization or High domination currency demonetization in India. You may propose different title. Please give opinion, Abhijeet Safai, User:Dharmadhyaksha and everybody. Regards, --Nizil (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the word 'ban' should be there. Maybe then that title will not be appropriate. So we will redirect that title to this. But that will take care of many news sources. I am suggesting to use the word ban because many news sources are mentioning it. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ban is actually inappropriate word and used in broader sense. Demonetization is the most appropriate term technically and logically. Its also used widely in media too. -Nizil (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that, after a move, in the page name it is actually now demonetisation (a Z is US spelling?)
Current title is a bit long, perhaps 2016 Indian rupee note demonetisation is more accurate, as it has occurred before. And apparently the lower denomination notes are also to be 'withdrawn'. 220 of ^Borg 13:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, "2016 Indian rupee note demonetisation" sounds better. The current title "Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation" looks very long. Aniruddh 15:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: , @Nizil Shah: , @220 of Borg: Anyways is there any other Appropriate Title which anyone would like to suggest here? Before that please NOTE that : Indian Currency Demonetisation and 500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetisation does not seem appropriate as discussed in the section below.I also suggest that title be changed to 500 and 1000 Indian Rupee Note Demonetization, Looks more constructive.Waiting for your valuable suggestions.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 10:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Page move

@Nizil Shah and Abhijeet Safai:

The page has now been moved from Indian 500 and 1000 rupee currency demonetisation to Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation, apparently without any discussion by Hydloc009 (talk · contribs), who took no part in this discussion. Comments? 220 of ^Borg 10:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg:Highly non-conforming to the standard practices, esp. when an discussion is already called for and is being active at the talkpage.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Should be noted, they are a very new editor. 220 of ^Borg 12:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg:Yeah!That's a point.All the editors are new but Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) is quite experienced as it seems.Anyway, what's your view on the topic?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! Am excusing myself from this article and will return to this after few months or a year when all the enthusiastic newbies who are adding any and every crap that's being said about it to this article have waded off. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tsk Tsk! Let us all remember WP:Assume Good Faith. 220 of ^Borg 08:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the article be protected?

As there are attempts to vandalize the articles which are visible here and here, may I request to protect the article? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This article should more importantly be move protected. Hydloc009 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another incidence of reference and content removal. Administrators, are you looking at it? Please help. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

NOW THAT THE ARTICLE PROTECTION HAS GONE?! THE PAGE IS CONSTANTLY VANDALISED BY UNREGISTERED EDITORS, THIS PAGE MUST BE PROTECTED Hydloc009 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Have asked for Pending Changes Protection.Cheers.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 14:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Discoverer, refrain form removing contents without discussing them

Dear The Discoverer, I am requesting you to refrain from removing contents before discussing on talk page. You have done it twice. In one incident your have removed the properly referenced sources because you did not like it. Or you did not find it appropriate. Please understand that it is wrong to do so. I would suggest you to read some guidelines before doing so. I would even like to request administrators and experienced editors to take a note of this and to take action on you if found necessary. Please understand that your account can be blocked if you continue to do this. Hope you will understand. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: I respect your views but Talk Page is for improvements regarding the Article, I would kindly request you to Talk to The Discoverer on his Talk Page and sort out this matter.If then also the matter is not resolved between you two then experienced editors will be happy to Help.Regarding the removal of properly referenced information i will look into it for sure. Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 16:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I requested about it here on talk page to discuss the matter before removing the contents and well referenced sources. But it was of no use and he removed the sources again. I am not sure how to proceed. I do not know why some people are so interested in showing that deaths have occurred and how they are confident that they are linked to this. I hope The Discoverer or someone else will not remove well referenced sources provided they are reading the discussion on this talk page and their talk pages. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Here The Discoverer has removed a well referenced source giving the reason that he finds that it is unrelated / irrelevant. Is it ok to remove a reference like that only becasue one think that they are not important? I am learning new editing styles here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of how The Discoverer removes properly sourced material without discussing it. I have no issues if this kind of editing style is fine with administrators. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: Did you talk to him on his Talk Page?--Param Mudgal ^talk? 19:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai, if you wish to 'attract' the attention of another editor to this page you may need to use {{Reply to}}, {{user}} or similar, like this

{{Reply to|The Discoverer}}, then they will receive WP:Notifications that they have been mentioned.
I haven't looked the edit/s, but just because information is "properly sourced" doesn't automatically mean it qualifies for inclusion on a page.220 of ^Borg 16:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, please help

There are many incidents of removing the material and references contentiously from this article. I would like to bring attention of Administrators urgently here. 1) Here, 2) Here and 3) Here are the proofs that the article is being vandalized. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think these are instances of vandalism. --AdityaChanana (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine. If others editors do not find anything wrong with it, then I have nothing to say more about it. I am happy that I tried to do my bit to ensure that wrong information is not put in the article. Thank you. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai: Please dont create so many discussions on the same topic on a single talk page.There are already 2-3 discussion pending of yours.Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 16:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem with INRconvert macro?

The use of phrases like "1,777,000 crore" seems inconsistent. Shouldnt it be either "17,77,000 crore" (Indian system) or just "17.77 trillion" (western system)? At the very least, shouldnt the first occurrence of "crore" be a link to the article for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the term? Unfortunately this all seems to be generated by a macro that it is beyond my skill or bravery to fix. 92.16.64.166 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The INRConvert macro has options to link to terms like "lakh" and "crore". I have applied these options in an edit. I know more about macros than I do about the Indian number/currency systems so I hope I did it right. Heavy Joke (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Image

The first image about demonetization notice should be removed. It has very poor english in notice with many spelling and grammatical mistakes. I believe we should not present our readers with such poor image. Replace with better image if you have one. Regards-Nizil (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai, Param Mudgal, Hydloc009, Prodigyhk, and 220 of Borg:, what to do?--Nizil (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Support, Should be removed , i agree with your reason.We can also wait until we find an alternative Appropriate Image.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 19:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Support remove........If picture required, show one that has people standing in a long queue at the bank waiting to exchange currency :-) Prodigyhk (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hydloc009, its been 10 days since I had requested for opinions. I think who wanted to express it had expressed it. And the expressed opinions are in favour of removal so I removed the image. You reinstated it. Please at least express your opinion about it. Its very poorly written notice so requested removal. So what you say?--Nizil (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

More 8 days passed without any more opinions. So now I am removing the image.--Nizil (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup of article contents

The article title needs to be more specific, so that the readers can understand, what the article, is about, contributors need, to be clear, what the article is about, is it just demonetisation and everything related to it, is it about specific note ban, or is it about reactions of demonetisation. The article seems to have lost it clear focus, as anything related to demonetisation, is being added . So kindly consider, changing the title or contents related to the article only.Junosoon (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragsood12 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article has lost its focus on subject as subject itself is unclear.--Nizil (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge.Clear conesensus. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Aakrosh Diwas into this article, since the incident is in response to this policy of the government of India. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, no reason why all that content cannot be covered here. WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It need not be a separate article as akrosh diwas as such is not so notable without understanding note ban. Thank you. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Few sentences in current article is enough to cover the topic. No need of separate article. It was held in reaction to the noteban, so relevant here.--Nizil (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to contributors

It is a humble request, to contributors who wish to improve the article, which is inclined towards focussing to advertise or promote the policy, of a non profit organization, which has Personal Opinion of eradication of black money by implementation of this policy, with a speculative claims on move initiation , WP:NOTCRYSTAL, kindly consider before adding contents to any section of article ,as news or promotional content of Organisation policy with a personal motivation. Effects and aftermath[7] as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION of organizations, Government of India, Reserve Bank of India[8], Income Tax of India[9] or Ministry of Finance [10]websites , content added unknowingly could be Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Thank you.Junosoon (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Junosoon:Why would anybody on earth try to promote Reserve Bank of India, Government of India etc. Not sure how you got the revision you mentioned, as a promotion of these organizations.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

RBI trying to promote itself in Wikipedia.....Seriously??....I didn't know Wikipedia was a tool so powerful !!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK: Should we assume that you agree with WP:NOTNEWS concern or you overlooked it?!Junosoon (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Junosoon:-Definitely agree with that.The entire paragraph could have been (if there was any necessity) put in a single line.But shall I also assume that what you are precisely trying to say is that by these type of edits, RBI, Income Tax of India, Government of India etc. are using Wikipedia as a promotional tool.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A particular line in WP:POLICY states--Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.Any thoughts?.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Make it more easier findable (Search)

The article needs to have some keyword association or something, which makes it easier/findable. As of now, it took me 5 minutes to figure out where the article is. Shirishag75 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Shirishag75, what did you search for first? Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually Demonetization which took to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#Demonetisation and from there I came to know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_500_and_1000_rupee_note_demonetisation. This is actually a pretty hot topic right now in India and what I meant was when you search using the Wikipedia search applet and it has autocomplete, it doesn't give demonetisation as an auto-complete answer with or without 'India or Indian Rupee in front' . There is scope to make that search more easy and hence have exposure of this page much more. Hope, I have been able to clarify what I meant. There needs to be sort of dynamic weighing of keywords.Shirishag75 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC for title and content focus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the title of current article be modified or changed, so that it correlates the content of article, making it easier for readers to understand the scope of article?Junosoon (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot.) The title has been discussed at length on multiple occasions on this talk page. If you have a suggestion for a better title, I'd suggest proposing it and discussing it here. If no consensus can be reached, then call for an RfC, by all means. Also, without an alternative title, it is really hard for a commenter to vote one way or another . . . Chris vLS (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment . Suggestion, of title 8 November 2016 note ban announcement of Government of India Junosoon (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment per WP:TITLE, the article title should precisely identify the subject, and should not be longer than necessary. There have been multiple demonetisations by the Indian government: therefore, the year is necessary. However, there has been only one this year, and so the denomination itself, and the month, and the date, are not required. Therefore, I propose 2016 Indian note demonetisation 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation'. Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (Amended per below. Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Comment : The title 2016 Indian note demonetisation seems very vague, something like an essay on demonetisation. The article contents and scope features mainly about the announcement . Else the article can be covered under, article demonetisation. It needs to be more defined and focussed. The title and contents of article, need to be something which will have an enduring history.Junosoon (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not. This is an encyclopedia we are writing, not a tabloid: we want concise titles, not highly defined and focused ones. Vanamonde (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Then the article contents, of the reactions, cash problems, opinions of people , etc. they don't define the title, we can not write article contents, which cannot be verified with title. They don't come under the preview of 2016 Indian note demonetisation. The Government of India, made an announcement on note ban on 8 November 2016, if this article is on that topic, when did the announcement said, was there actually demonetisation in announcement.? Assuming that it was demonetisation, this article, doesn't need to have a separate article, as demonetisation, has been done multiple times before, and we are not having articles on those demonetisations!. Junosoon (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Junosoon, I think there are many articles where the title is the name of the main event, and then the article covers many impacts of the event. Sometimes the impacts spawn additional articles, but the main article is named a short, common name for the event. (See, for example, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). So, I think that all of the topics you mention are fine to place under the title Vanamonde proposes. Adding the year makes it clear it is not a vague essay, but an article about the event. As for the name, it looks like "2016 Indian banknote demonetisation", "2016 Indian rupee note demonetisation", and now "2016 Indian note demonetisation" have been suggested. The previous discussion about brevity and "note" vs. "banknote" vs. "500 and 1000" got cut off when the discussion was sidetracked by "demontisation" vs. "delegalisation." Of these, I would lean toward "2016 Indian banknote demonetisation." I think "note" by itself is not as clear as rupee note or bank note. Maybe let's see if any other ideas emerge, then ask for votes? Chris vLS (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris vLS , it is very important in this article, to know, the necessessity of usage of word demonetisation, it makes the article centric on demonetisation making it an advertising article on demonetisation, which in fact was not a Government proposed initiative on 8 November 2016 but the usage of word by many media sources. Demonetisation, word has become the topic, this creates a lot of messy additions to article, making much difficulty to understand, as every possible, reference related to demonetisation is found in article. If at all the article is kept under title of 2016 Indian banknotes demonetisation, the best justification and understanding can come if it is kept under main article on demonetisation after reducing excessive contents of this article Junosoon (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Chrisvls That's a good point: I have amended my suggestion to "banknote" as well, since I think it is less colloquial. Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment , another important point of concern under this article heading is, that it is still unclear whether the article, is reliable, as it is not known whether it was Government of India, policy, as it doesn't come under any Acts or Government Legislative initiative of 2016, it was more of wikinews content, where it was covered, I doubt that this article stands to be an encyclopedia article for Wikipedia, as it leans towards news, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Moreover, it wasn't an accident, a natural disaster, nor an event etc.I would request someone to share the views , what is the aricle about, keeping the worldwide readers perspective of Wikipedia articles ?

• Note :The lede of discussed article, says it was a policy. Can someone give a legal name of this policy, from a source of Government of India.? It will be helpful. Junosoon (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Junosoon, the article is about the Indian government's decision to demonetize two bank notes. Your quoting of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be appropriate if you were arguing to delete the page, which I don't think you are. I think you are arguing to add "announcement of Government of India" to the title. I really don't think this is necessary. There are thousands of pages that have the name of a policy decision without "announcement of the government of X" in the title. (Many pages about laws don't even include the country in the title, which is ok because that information is contained in the first sentence.) As for your other suggestion, to use "ban" instead of "demonetisation," there has been extensive discussion above as to why demoetisation is the correct term. If there is another name in such widespread usage that we should use it instead, per WP:COMMONNAME, please suggest it with sources that show its widespread use. Chris vLS (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I cannot suggest, more on words, let see if some else comes with a suggestion.Junosoon (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment:2016 Indian banknote demonetisation is OK but it should be noted that only two banknotes ceased as legal tender, Rs 500 and 1000. Other banknotes continued as legal tender. Is there anyways to specify it in title. Earlier I had proposed ₹500 and ₹1000 banknote demonetisation. It included ₹ symbol = Indian Rupees so Indian may not needed in title, but I don't know about issues with symbols in title. Is it better? If you feel so please consider it as well. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Y I support 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation for the article title, because I feel that it is the most concise and yet unambiguous title. The Discoverer (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, User:Junosoon, could you propose a specific title instead of a general question? Suggestion: 2016 Indian Rs 500 and 1000 banknote demonetization.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support either 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation or 2016 Indian Rupee note demonetisation. "Indian Banknote" or "Indian Rupee note" are better than only "Indian note". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment : The new banknotes 500 and 2000 are in circulation, except 1000 and old 500, term Mahatma Gandhi series, new or old need to be part of title, is it not! Junosoon (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Title Suggestion :2016 Economic reforms of Government of India, as there is both ban and circulation of 500 rupee notes, For a better scope of article.Junosoon (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Junosoon:-Please try to understand that demonetisation is at the heart of the policy.You are suggesting which was once definitely over focused and now underfocused.Second, the inclusion of Government in title seems exaggerated.(Would such a policy be ever undertook by anybody other than the government?) Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@ARUNEEK:demonetisation is at the heart of the policy, we cannot promote biased WP:PROMOTION and need to look at broader prospective.Junosoon (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Junosoon:--Well if you think all the media-house(s), numerous reputed economist(s) etc. is/are biased simply because they prefer to call the move-demonetisation-a long standing economic word used in these cases, rather than going by the official lingo, I suspect, it's high time you re-read the WP:BIAS policy.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• YSupport-I support the title-2016 Indian banknote demonetisation.Highly focused, non-ambiguous and seems to be the better one of all the proposed titles.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 07:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree : The policy says, both note ban and issue of new notes as written in the article with this citation [11].Junosoon (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• YSupport-I support the title-2016 Indian banknote demonetisation as this is how it's commonly known and being reported in media (newspaper as well as Television media) as well. That itself should add its own weight. Shirishag75 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment : It would be not a good idea, to create an article title , by judging what media is reporting, but necessary to have an article and title which will have an enduring history and verification to be on encyclopedia. The notification, was that two notes ceasing to be legal tender, as per Reserve Bank of India, Act 1934.Junosoon (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot.) I like 2016 Indian cash crisis and just created a redirect for that term. Few people will search for the term demonitisation, and should there be another similar rupee demonetisation in a later year, this will disambiguate it.Timtempleton (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot) I support "2016 Indian banknote demonetisation" or "Indian banknote demonetisation of 2016". It is correct, concise and unambiguous. Prefer the second term as it follows the Wikipedia style, see Financial crisis of 2008. Darx9url (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spin off/ relocation of article details

The article, has several sections which can be relocated to other pages,to reduce excessive details, covered in article. The article is very difficult to understand with so much of intricate information.

• Income Tax raids and money seizures, can be covered under Income Tax Department,

• Issues/ contents of currency and bank notes, can be covered under Reserve Bank of India: Working and Functions

• Issues of corruption/evasion attempts can be covered under Corruption in India,

Please help improve this article.Junosoon (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

All of these proposals miss the mark. This is a huge policy milestone in India. It is notable and should have a page in the encyclopedia. That page should describe the main impacts. We should not move the main impacts of this event in 2016 to the page for the central bank or the tax department. Moving core sections out of an article doesn't make it clearer. Making the article clearer does. If there is excessive detail, it is likely more constructive to propose improved prose, not section moves. Chris vLS (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrisvls is correct. The article needs to be complete, which means including background, impacts, aftermath, and analysis. I would agree that the prose is not great, but the solution to that is to work on it, not to move it to a different place and leave a context-free article here. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 14:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016

as per discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Specified_Bank_Notes_(Cessation_of_Liabilities)_Ordinance,_2016 ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Akila report

I have re-added the bit about the article which appeared in the local newspaper Akila. This was widely covered in the media because of the striking accuracy of the details in the article to what would actually happen in the future. Thus, I feel that it is relevant to the Wikipedia article. The sources report in a non-judgemental way that the editor of the newspaper claimed that it was a prank, and do not draw any conclusions, and I think that this is how the Wikipedia article should present it: By stating the facts and not implying either way, whether it was or wasn't really a prank. The Discoverer (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The Discoverer. The Akila story is immediately under a section called "prior leakage of information" and it talks about how "exact" the Akila story is. So, right now, the encyclopedic voice labels the Akila story as a potential/alleged leak, with the editor's "claim" that it was a joke. This would be appropriate if the sources alleged that the Akila article was a leak. Except for the Samvad article, which I will get to in a moment, they don't, and neither do any other reliable sources I found. The sources, like the Times source[12], simply treat it as a joke, not an alleged leak.

To be clear, the sources are not "non-judgemental," the first sentence of the best source is "It was a prank that turned out to be prescient."[13] Other sources have similar treatments. [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Here's one that says there are "hard questions" to answer, but even they shy away from making an actual allegation.[20]

The one source [21] that does contain the allegation, India Samvad, is from a non-notable newspaper (at least not notable enough to merit a wikipedia article) that does not even mention the April 1 publication date, does not include that the paper has a long standing April Fool's tradition, doesn't quote the editors widely-covered statements that it was a joke, and doesn't even include a source or evidence of its allegation that it was a leak. It is not a sufficient source to be included in the article, let alone have the wikipedia voice rely on it to assert that this was a leak not a joke.

If the incident was notable enough to merit a paragraph, it should be moved elsewhere in the article or rewritten so it matches the sources, which make it clear that it was a joke and do not allege a leak. Chris vLS (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris vLS, I mostly agree with you, but I would like to make the following points:

• I do agree, as you have pointed out, that the text in the WP article as of now is imperfect, and is in need of copy-editing.
• While the Times of India article clearly assumes that is a prank, two other leading publications (in addition to indialivetoday.com, which you highlighted) indicate that they are not convinced that it is a prank:
  • Indian Express puts the word ‘predict’ in quotes, and says "this seems just too fantastic"
  • India Today actually has a section in their article titled "NOT A PRANK"
• Therefore, there are reliable sources that do not automatically assume that it was a prank. I feel that the encyclopedia's voice should also be the same: state that the report contained the details, and state that the editor said that it was a prank. Just as we do not assume that it was a prank, we should not assume that it was not a prank. In this way we do not take sides. Wikipedia's voice should not assert that it is not a joke, and at the same time, Wikipedia's voice should not assert that it is not a leak.
• I do think that readers would be interested in knowing about this report in the WP article, and that it merits a place in this article.

Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources say it was a joke -- all nine of them -- so I don't understand why the wikipedia article could say anything else. The "NOT A PRANK" section refers to a different article. Putting 'predict' in quotes is consistent with it being a joke, not a leak. There is no reliable source that we can quote that says "this was not a joke" only a couple that say this was "uncanny," mysterious," "raises eyebrows," etc. The only exception is the Samvar page, which is not sufficient. Chris vLS (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the India Express article ends with this conclusion:

Well, between The Simpsons, Paul the Octopus, Baba Vanga the clairvoyant, Chanakya the fish and now Akila the newspaper, it seems the mystical force is getting stronger with each passing year. Also, we definitely need to keep a better watch on stories being published on April 1 from now on!

That is not a source that we can use to say that someone alleged this was a real leak and not a uncanny joke. Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Chris vLS. No source listed specifies with confidence or for that matter even alleges that Akila predicted the 'leak' beforehand. Every source just points out the coincidence. It should be presented as a coincidence in the article. AdityaChanana (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that you'll have a point and I am ok with moving it out of the 'leak' section. But I think that it doesn't quite fit well in the 'reactions' section, considering that it was something that happened months before the demonetisation. Please consider moving it to a more suitable section. The section that seems the closest fit at present to me is 'background'. The Discoverer (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is tricky. I think reactions is the closet fit for now. What is notable is the coverage afterward, not the event seven months before... I think putting it in Background would be appropriate if it were an event that led to the announcement, or was part of the context/history leading to the decision, which it is not. And thanks for catching my copy/paste error! Chris vLS (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Tighten up the lead section

The lead section goes into great detail, doesn't summarize things that can be summarized, and is five paragraphs when four is the recommended max. Can we tighten it up? What about something like this:

On 8 November 2016, the Government of India announced the demonetisation of all ₹500 (US$6.00) and ₹1,000 (US$12) banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series as legal tender. The government claimed that the action would curtail the shadow economy and crack down on the use of illicit and counterfeit cash to fund illegal activity and terrorism. The sudden nature of the announcement—and the prolonged cash shortages in the weeks that followed—created significant disruption throughout the economy, threatening economic output. The move was heavily criticized as poorly planned and unfair and was met with protests, litigation, and strikes.

Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi announced the demonetisation in an unscheduled live televised address at 20:00 Indian Standard Time (IST) on 8 November. In the announcement, Modi declared that use of all ₹500 and ₹1,000 banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series would be invalid past midnight, and announced the issuance of new ₹500 and ₹2,000 banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi New Series in exchange for the old banknotes. The banknotes of ₹100, ₹50, ₹20, ₹10 and ₹5 of the Mahatma Gandhi Series and ₹2 and ₹1 remained legal tender and were unaffected by the policy.

In the days following the demonetisation, the country faced severe cash shortages with severe detrimental effects on a number of small businesses, agriculture, and transportation. People seeking to exchange their notes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the inconveniences caused due to the rush to exchange cash. Also, following the announcement, the BSE SENSEX and NIFTY 50 stock indices fell over 6 percent in the day following the announcement.

Initially, the move received support from several bankers as well as from some international commentators. It was heavily criticised by members of the opposition parties, leading to debates in both houses of parliament and triggering organised protests against the government in several places across India. As the cash shortages grew in the weeks following the move, the demonetization was heavily criticised by prominent economists, such as Kaushik Basu, Paul Krugman, Amartya Sen and Steve Forbes.

I think the second two paragraphs could use a lot more work -- listing specific economists seems odd, for example -- but it's a start . . . thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. Suggest implementing this version. AdityaChanana (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more or less okay with this, too. Honestly, though, the lede is in much better shape than the body of the article, which has so much information that is just all over the place. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks Vanamonde and AdityaChanana... Tried to work on some of that, I wouldn't mind a second pair of eyes on the Akila story, see below. Chris vLS (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead change done. Chris vLS (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

101.59.78.14 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many reactions

There have been too many people quoted in the reaction section line after line leading to a total chaos. Shouldn't only reactions from prominent people be listed as otherwise there isn't much information obtained. Suggest making it a bit concise. –Aditya^(talk) 18:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a great advance. Perhaps we could start with a summary paragraph, then start winnowing the disconnected lists. Be bold! Chris vLS (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have long held the view that the opinions expressed by leaders of any political party should be given passing mention at most. This is because they a) do not constitute reliable sources, and b) will express views on every government policy, and their reaction can be reliably predicted by whether they are a part of the government. As such, they add very little to the article. Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for currency in circulation graph

This is with regard to the graph in the section 'Facts and figures', added by AdityaChanana. At present, it shows the currency replaced only as on an arbitrary date, 10 Jan 2017. If we can find sources that similarly tell us how much currency was in circulation at dates after regular intervals (say every week or fortnight) and include this information in the graph, it would make for an interesting graphic for the readers to see the progression of the currency replacement. The Discoverer (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions

@Ashisiniter: There are a number of problems with your additions. First, you have removed content that was supported by sources: the sources do not have to be in the lede, per WP:LEDE. Second, you are adding content to the lede that is not in the body, and is not an accurate summary of the body. Third, you are massively overstating the support for the article: please read WP:DUE. Fourth, when an addition of yours is reverted, best practices suggest that you should discuss the additions here (per WP:BRD) instead of edit-warring them back in. Finally, leaving an admin a templated message about unsourced content is, well, silly. Vanamonde (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde Kindly refrain yourself by doing personal attack on me as several points does not have any reference and seems like written on assumption. line by line I am going to explain you. You have written that the whole opposition parties criticized the government when this is not at all factual. There are parties which supported the govt There is no citation either for your claim. The articles on "criticism" shows "Red" in colour as there is no citation or citation is wrong. if you have sources, please cite. That will help. Whatever, i have written, I have given reference from well known sources and as reported by some big media networks. The referred points should not be reverted. Rather it should be edited and improve the page.Finally, writing should not be biased and the citation must be there for every line. Ashisiniter (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the links I posted. Citations are not required for facts in the lede, when they are sourced in the body. Moreover, you removed the deaths in the infobox, which had a source. The content you added, on the other hand, belongs in the body (if at all) and is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Vanamonde (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Capankajsmilyo: The number of deaths was only unreferenced because Ashisniter removed the reference; so this edit is mistaken at best and possibly specious. Vanamonde (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ashisiniter (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)@Capankajsmilyo : The reference was invoked and was in red.

Ashisiniter (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)@Vanamonde : This article is not done after due research. So can not be called as factual. Also, the causalities can not be a fact considering there is no government figure available. You can very well add the citation. But the citation was not accessible to public.

Casualties

Hi! Do we have some credible sources that links "casualties" in the infobox to the demonetisation policy? Otherwise shouldn't we be treating it as a mere coincidence? –Aditya^(talk) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It needs an investigation for each death by NIA or CBI. If found false, all media house & associated people will be jailed for 6 months spreading hoax against society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovan indian (talk • contribs) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ashisiniter (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC) @AdityaChanana Agree with you. As there is no credible source for the causalities.

Temporary protection

I've protected the page but this is not a comment on the "right" version. Please sort out the content dispute on the talk page rather than edit warring. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm more than willing to discuss issues here, but Ashisiniter, removing sources to Al Jazeera and other newspapers, while demanding "authentic" sources, is rather disruptive. What are your issues with the sources you removed? Vanamonde (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ashisiniter (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Vanamonde93 Please note that the Al Jazeera source was not accessible at all. Thats the first thing I noticed, thats why I started editing. I removed because those were not accessible. you can edit and add. Else I can also add the source where the causalities were reported.e.g: Huffington post.

Okay, a few responses. First, the accessibility of a source is not a reason to remove it: see WP:DEADREF. Furthermore, many of those sources are in fact working; it's just that the syntax is broken because of many people editing the article in a short period of time. The answer is to fix those, not delete them wholesale. The citation about deaths, for instance, is perfectly functional in footnote one: [22]. Second, the lede of the article is a summary of the body. According to WP:LEDE, if a fact is sourced in the body, it does not have to be sourced in the lede. Removing it from the lede is therefore no correct. Finally, please sign at the end of your posts, not the beginning: it makes it difficult to follow. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Given that- On 28 October 2016 the total banknotes in circulation in India was ₹17.77 trillion (US$260 billion). In terms of value, the annual report of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) of 31 March 2016 stated that total bank notes in circulation valued to ₹16.42 trillion (US$240 billion) of which nearly 86% (around ₹14.18 trillion (US$210 billion)) were ₹500 and ₹1,000 banknotes. In terms of volume, the report stated that 24% (around 22.03 billion) of the total 90266 million banknotes were in circulation. As per the source- But an indicator of what it could be can be seen from the RBI’s latest Annual Report. This data shows that out of the total Rs 16.42 lakh crore value of bank notes in circulation as on March 31, 2016, as much as Rs 14.18 lakh crore, i.e. over 86 per cent, consisted of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. In terms of volumes, out of the total 9026.6 crore banknote pieces, 2,203 crore or 24 per cent-plus were of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 denomination.

Thus, the total value of banknotes in circulation is 164.2 trillion rupees rather than 16.42 trillion rupees and so on. The value of bank notes cannot be less than the total number of notes in circulation. Srishti. .Jain (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Srishti. .Jain: all changes must be suggested and discussed on this talk page first, so I have deactivated the template for now. Please reactivate if you get consensus for your changes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere is it stated or implied that 'the total value of banknotes in circulation is 164.2 trillion rupees rather than 16.42 trillion rupees'. The Discoverer (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixing broken refs in lead

4 references in the lead are broken because the reference names used are slightly wrong. In the following paragraph, the only the reference names are corrected:

The [[BSE SENSEX]] and [[NIFTY 50]] stock indices crashed the day after the announcement. In the days following the demonetisation, the country faced severe cash shortages with severe detrimental effects across the economy.<ref name="dryatm" /><ref name="IEchaos" /> People seeking to exchange their bank notes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the inconveniences caused due to the rush to exchange cash.<ref name="Aljazeera-1" /><ref name="death-ref1" />

Hence, please replace this paragraph in the lead. The Discoverer (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 February 2017

Should the head-titles of "Positive Effects" and "Negative Effects" be un-capped per MOS:HEADCAPS, i.e. the "effects" in each? Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No, they should not. Done. El_C 01:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Markets crashed by 6 percent

This is regarding [this edit] by Vanamonde. This source] quoted in the body of the article clearly states that SENSEX fell by 6.12% and NIFTY fell by 6.33%.

Therefore, I suggest that the corresponding paragraph in the lead be changed to:

The [[BSE SENSEX]] and [[NIFTY 50]] stock indices fell over 6 percent on the very next day after the announcement.<ref name="stockcrash9nov" /> In the days following the demonetisation, the country faced severe cash shortages with severe detrimental effects across the economy.<ref name="dryatm" /><ref name="IEchaos" /> People seeking to exchange their bank notes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the inconveniences caused due to the rush to exchange cash.<ref name="Aljazeera-1" /><ref name="death-ref1" />

Here, only the first sentence is changed, and the reference has been added. The Discoverer (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I am requesting for an edit.The Discoverer (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

postcard.news is not a reliable source

The website postcard.news is neither a Reliable Source, nor a news site, nor is it neutral. Hence, I suggest that a citation which makes use of this site in this section be deleted. The Discoverer (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support postcard.news is a known propaganda website with only articles that tilt towards the present govt.ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please delete the reference to http://postcard.news/violence-jammu-kashmir-suddenly-stopped/ in the section 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation#Hawala. The Discoverer (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Negative effects : Loss of jobs

Loss of jobs in the informal sector has been widely reported and covered. It may be added in negative effects as an independent section. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unemployment rate charts tell other stories. Such hills and dips are common. It should not be taken seriously because unemployment rate is bouncing back to original value very quickly. http://www.bseindia.com/bsecmieindices/unemployment.aspx Swami16 (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

These charts don't take into account the informal or unorganised sector, which were the worst-hit, such as labourers, domestic helpers, etc. The Discoverer (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Positive effects : Radical groups

This section may need to be rewritten Except for the last line, there is a clear WP:NPOV issue. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

statement of world bank CEO

World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva has shown support for demonetisation saying it will have positive impact on economy and this step is going to be studied by other countries.

This should be added in support section of main article. Swami16 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Extremely negative article

This article is fundamentally partial, as it offers no balance in the way of addressing the criticism that Modi's government has received for this endeavour. For example, The article says that demonetisation has 'been highly criticised' yet offers nothing in the way of retort to the criticism.

I think this article would be good with some due balance.

Stevo D (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. I have removed that sentence as it was not referenced. Please list all non cited negative contents here. I shall try to remove it. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It was explained to me that there are references present for the same in the article. So my changes were reverted. But as it is difficult to find where are those sources, I have put the tag of 'citation needed' over there. But I agree that this article is not neutral and is skewed towards negativity. I do not know how a balance can be established, but I shall keep trying for the same as I get time. Thank you for pointing out the concern. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

@Abhijeet Safai: What you are you playing at? ALL of the content in the lede, is cited, in the body of the article. WP:LEDE says this is okay. Please remove those tags, I don't want to get into an edit-war here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I shall have no issue if the tags are removed. I wont indulge in any edit war. But may I request you to kindly share the link for the sentence "The move was heavily criticised as poorly planned and unfair, and was met with protests, litigation, and strikes."? Thank you. It might be present as you have mentioned, but it will be easy if this sentence is referenced properly. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

[23], [24] Two of a very large number of citations in the "opposition", "criticism", and "strikes" sections. Please remove the tags yourself, I do not wish to revert you a third time. Vanamonde (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

While I shall remove the tags as you seem a senior editor (maybe you are an admin too!), I am not convinced. It is clearly written from one side. Even the sources you mentioned show balanced view, but only cherry picking of negative points is done here in my opinion. I would like to suggest to editors to have a look at the article and if possible to address the concern that the article is not neutral and criticism has been given more weitage here. Thank you. I know I should do it myself, but I shall do it as I get time. I would like to discuss here the ways to make the article more balanced. I would like to request Vanamonde to suggest the best / ideal way to make this article a balanced article. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Considering the intricate details given from one side, can neutrality tag be added to this article which says that the neutrality of this article is disputed? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you adding a tag, but given that you have not produced any substantive evidence of a lack of neutrality, such a tag would be frivolous. You'd do far better to present your evidence first. And "article clearly favours demonetization" or "article clearly is biased against demonetization" is not evidence: you need to show that a substantive point of view in reliable sources is being ignored. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Second V93.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the article in an effort to restore neutrality in my opinion. I would request to put the tag if found necessary.-- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And I have partially reverted you. While it is true that "stock market crash" is not encyclopedic, the section title should accurately describe its contents. "increase" and "decrease" are not value judgements: they are verifiable statements of fact. Vanamonde (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the titles in the article are not neural and are biased?

I feel that the the titles in the article are not neural and are biased. I have requested to put a neutrality tag in past. May I know why my changes to bring neutrality in the titles were reverted? I am opening this discussion here because I have no intention to edit the titles in future. If Wikipedia community feels that it is appropriate to keep titles as they are, I should have no issues with it. But it should not happen that I even did not discussed my opinion here. Hence I am opening this discussion. I am thankful for the opportunity so that I could keep my point of view. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You were reverted, because you raised exactly the same issue two sections above, in response to which I explained why the titles were not a problem. You responded with "thank you", suggesting you had understood and accepted the explanation. Why are you now raising the same issue in a manner that suggests the previous discussion did not happen? Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Black money

There is an incorrect interpretation of the news articles cited in that section. The news say that 99+% of the old 1000 bank notes were reabsorbed by India's Central Bank, not that they went back into circulation. Thus, the government didn't fail to take them out of circulation. They may have failed to leave corrupt officials stuck with worthless bank notes, but they did not fail to make the old bank notes worthless.186.57.240.64 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Good. May I request you to kindly make the appropriate changes in the article? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so do not be afraid to edit it. Just see that you are giving proper references. For any queries, feel free to contact me or write on this talk page. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

186.57.240.64 is right, the statement was inaccurate. I have made the change. Thank you, The Discoverer (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Digital transactions and Cashless economy

A major objective of the edits by Sacky81s seems to be to push the view that demonetisation led to the creation of a cashless economy. The fact, however, is that digital transactions peaked in December 2016 and declined to around the pre-demonetisation levels. Most of the sources cited in support of the view that demonetisation led to the creation of a cashless economy seem to be from 2016, only a couple of them seem to be from mid-2017. Therefore, it is necessary to balance these two points of view, giving due weightage to each. I propose doing this in two stages: First, moving all the material on this topic to a single section, and second, rewriting this section. The Discoverer (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Merger Discussion

Request received to merge articles: Live ATM Alert into 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation; dated: November 2017. Proposer's Rationale: A one-off event popularized by the withdrawal of a certain currency. Though there are plenty of sources on the web, not significant enough to merit a stand-alone article. Discuss here. MT Train^Discuss 15:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support-Completely non-controversial merger. I don't think any discussion is even warranted.Be bold and execute it!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not Supporting-Though it happened during the period of Demonetization, the campaign is not directly related to it. It was started to mitigate a sudden scarcity of working ATMs, but it did nothing to protest or support demonetization. So I think it shouldn't be merged. Sorry. Jyothisthaliath (talk)

• Support The article is a clear sub-set of the overall Demonetization theme. I think it's prudent to merge the articles.FlyingBlueDream (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support redirecting Live ATM Alert to this article and merging some important sentences. Capitals00 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I have completed the merge and redirected the merged page to this section. You can find the revision history here. I've added the image in the subsequent edit. Thanks. MT Train^Discuss 14:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Effect of demonetisation on tax-base and taxes paid

The paragraph beginning with "The number of I-T returns filed for 2016-17 grew by 25 per cent..." repeats the government's suggestion that demonetisation resulted in a large increase in the tax-base and taxes paid. However, there is an abundance of sources that point out that many times, the increase in previous years was more than that of FY 2016-17, and that the effect of demonetisation on income tax paid was minimal.

Take for example the increase in IT returns filed:

• FY 2012-13 : 31%
• FY 2013-14 : 38%
• FY 2014-15 : 15%
• FY 2015-16 : 27%
• FY 2016-17 : 22%
• FY 2017-18 : 25%

From the above, it is clear that the increase in IT returns filed has not varied much compared to past years and was lesser than 3 out of the previous 8 years.

Therefore, the tax returns are not considered by sources to be significantly affected or related to demonetisation, and I will delete the said paragraph. The Discoverer (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Discoverer: I believe that keeping the current paragraph, but contrasting the government statements with the secondary sources you have mentioned above, is an approach better in keeping with WP:DUE. Vanamonde (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, the current paragraph is just a list of increases, without even a claim that they are something out of the ordinary. While we could retain the current para and add explanations to show that they are just regular increases without significant impact of demonetisation, these explanations are complex (as you can see from the references) and will not add much value to the article. The explanation involves laying out a lot of stats for previous years (as I have done in my comment above) and examining the effects of past economic events and will be a lot of bulk. What do you think? The Discoverer (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I have added a concise paragraph about the tax base increase. The Discoverer (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Claims of WP:UNDUE

A lot of the content was removed because it really seemed WP:UNDUE and it includes your recent restoration of the edits that seem undue. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please could you be specific? What part exactly do you find to be WP:UNDUE? The Discoverer (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[25], 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[26][27] for its issues with reliability throughout Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

If no one has anything more to add, could you please close the discussion, ‎Vanamonde93? The Discoverer (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 remove 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 you are 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)

All three of you are digging holes for yourselves here. Discoverer, accusations of "vandalism" without foundation are personal attacks, and sanctionable. I suggest you strike your comment above. Capitals00 and D4iNa4, it is insufficient for a statement to be sourced; it must be supported by the source, and removal in cases where it isn't is justifiable. By reinstating such content without fixing it you're engaging in original research, which is also sanctionable. I suggest you fix it post-haste, else you're likely to find yourselves in hot water. Specifically, Krishnan does not make a causal statement that tax collections increased because of demonetisation. She makes a statement about correlation. If you can't see/fix the difference, you shouldn't be editing that sentence anyway. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Striking out my comment above per advice from Vanamonde93. The Discoverer (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitals00, not everyone has agreed that The Wire is an unreliable source for this article as you claim. Vanamonde93, Sitush and I seem to disagree. The Discoverer (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Deliberately misrepresenting others statements won't do any favor for you. Vanamonde had no issue with the potential removal of The Wire per comments on 06:02, 6 May. Where did Sitush said The Wire is a reliable source? He has clarified it elsewhere that The Wire is unreliable. Capitals00 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why we WP:BRD, for solving out confusions with the added content. The statement of this article, attributed to Krishnan does seem to be supported by other sources[28][29][30], these figure comes from Economic survey of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), with Indian Income Tax Twitter saying "Substantial increase in the number of Income Tax Returns(ITRs) filed as a result of demonetization and Operation Clean Money."[31] While these details have been already added on the article in the same paragraph, it makes no mention of demonetisation. How do you think that "sentence", about Krishnan' statement needs to be be paraphrased? I would like to hear your suggestion. Capitals00 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion that statement should be removed completely. The reason being that the correlation statement by Krishnan that Vanamonde93 is talking about, speaks about tax buoyancy and tax filings which are not the same as tax collections. In the Wikipedia article we are speaking about tax collections. The Discoverer (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I had already modified the statement, you can read if you haven't already. Though I would still like to hear suggestion if we can make it better or write it without attribution. I am also fine with attributing the next sentence: "An analysis of the economic data shows that there has been no substantial increase..." if we can't find a solution to write Krishnan's statement without attribution. Capitals00 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose specific wording yet, because we've more general issues to get through. Capitals00 is generally right in saying that if we attribute one of the analyses, we should attribute the others. That will get wordy, so I suggest just saying Analysis...in [source]...in [month/year]." Beyond that; Government sources are primary sources, and also are expected to support their own policies. If a lot of secondary sources report them, we could mention them, but attributed inline to the government body responsible. We've also got to be careful about too much detail here. Also, saying that analysis "showed" something is improper unless it's uncontested. "stated" is better. Finally, we have any number of people saying demonetization was good or bad. When we have a substantive source, we should be using the substance from it; ie saying "Krishnan said it was good" doesn't add value to the article, but "Krishnan said in 2018 that it was followed by an increase in tax collection relative to GDP growth" is more helpful. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Vanamonde93's last comments.

In Krishnan's analysis, she does not seem to have taken into account that the large increase in filings by the end of FY18 could also have been the result of a rule change that reduces the limit for filing belated returns from 2 years to 1 year from the end of the FY. [32] [33] This means that some of the additional filings done by 31 Mar '18 could have been by people who would otherwise have filed by 31 Mar '19 according to the old rule. Of course, this is original research for now, but it indicates that even though The Hindu is undoubtedly a reliable source, we should be careful about reading too much from this one article. To the credit of the author and the publication, they have also refrained from drawing strong conclusions and making strong statements in the article in this regard. The Discoverer (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Deposits in Gujarat cooperative banks

This is regarding the deletion of the section on deposits in Gujarat cooperative banks. This is something that was widely reported in the media and is closely related to the topic of the article. The deleted section described the actual incident and the opposition criticism and was close to the sources. Thus it is not WP:SOAP or trivia. Possibly, something could be added to make it more balanced, rather than deleting this section from the article.

<pinging involved editor: My Lord>

~ The Discoverer (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"...commented that while 100 people died in queues to exchange money, huge amounts of currency were deposited in these banks" is WP:SOAP. Being widely reported for a temporary period is clearly not enough for this inclusion because these types of speculation change overtime. They don't add anything to the main subject. My Lord (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Some new coverage/edit discussions

• India Today
• Mint
• Guardian

The article can be updated with new info.-Nizil (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Given that this seems to be substantive coverage based on an RBI report, I'd say it's worth adding; you could probably go ahead and do that, and discuss it here if you are reverted, per BRD. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I will try to update it. Please keep an eye and correct wherever needed.The RBI report is also available here. So I will cite it also.-Nizil (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I have updated new info partially, more soon. I have trimmed and reorganised at several places. Please go through it and do required changes. The article needs lot of work to make it readable. I am also searching info in scholarly studies in journals. Thank you for encouragement.-Nizil (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Your pruning mostly looks okay, though I made one revert. I'm not seeing the new information anywhere, though...Vanamonde (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added/updated new information in Black money, Cost to Reserve Bank of India, Cash in market subsections. I am going slow. -Nizil (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have added/updated info in more sections. I suggest "reactions" section should be moved below because it does not add much to overall topic. It should be divided in reactions by "Economists", "industry leaders" and "political" instead of current "support", "criticism" and "opposition". This section should not be overly detailed, IMO. Every comment/quote is not helpful when it does not add much other than just oppose/support. What do you say Vanamonde93 and other watchers?-Nizil (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• @The Discoverer:, thank you for your recent edits and involvement in article. I think the article is bloated with each and everything (sometimes distantly) related to the central topic of demonetisation. The article should only discuss about the event of demonetisation and its direct implications/impacts/effects. Going too far from topic is not useful. For example, you reverted my removal of following sentence: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had previously expressed opposition to demonetisation. BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhihad said in 2014 that members of the public who were often illiterate and had no access to banking facilities would be adversely affected by such a policy. This sentence is a past stand of a political party. It is too far thing from the demonetisation event and not much relevant to event. Political parties change their stand. There is nothing important in it. What do you say? @Vanamonde93:, please express your opinion as well.-04:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, the publicly-declared views on demonetisation of the very party that executed it are relevant to the article on the topic. But let's see what others have to say. The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should focus only on the event of demonetisation. Past stand of a political party is not directly relevant to current event even if the same party executed it. Political parties keep changing their views/stands. Adding all thing distantly related to the article make article bloated and unfocused.-Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Another example you restored: Several government ministers had declared before the demonetisation that they were holding large amounts of cash, including Arun Jaitley, who had more than 65 lakh rupees in cash. This led to questions being raised about whether and when the ministers had deposited the cash they held. This is irrelevant to the central event of demonetisation. OK for news but not for encyclopedia article. It should be removed IMO.-Nizil (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The question of how politicians got away without standing in lines when common people were standing for hours daily is definitely relevant to the article. The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, how few politician deposited their cash is irrelevant. Whatever they did, how it is important to demonetisation? People stand in queue and politician did not. Again, it is not important to the event. -Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In the demonetisation debate on the first day of the winter session of Parliament at the Rajya Sabha, Pramod Tiwari from the Indian National Congress compared Narendra Modi to Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Muammar Gaddafi. This comparison is irrelevant to the event. So had removed it. -Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources: Tiwari made the comparison in a parliament debate in demonetisation to make the point that he considered the demonetisation dictatorial. How is it irrelevant? Is this an attempt at censorship? The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because his opinion is about a politician, not about demonetisaion.-Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

. Modi had stated that due to demonetisation, corrupt officials, businessmen and criminals — popularly believed to hoard large amounts of illicit cash — would be stuck with "worthless pieces of paper". This does not anything new to the intentions of demonetisation.-Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does.. it says that Modi expected that a large amount of demonetised notes would not return. The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This thing is already covered in the intentions of the government. Adding again with quote of a politician is unnecessary bloating.-Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Economic analyst Vivek Kaul stated in a BBC article that "demonetisation had been a failure of epic proportions." This is personal opinion. What is epic proportion? We can simply say that the moved failed to get its intended results. As already said in Therefore, the government failed in its aim of purging black money from the economy. So no need of this personal opinion sentence which add nothing new to the overall topic.-Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a statement in a very reputed source. For sure, readers of the article would like to know the opinions of analysts about demonetisation. Again, censorship? The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of the demonetisation by Vivek Kaul is important and should be added. But calling it just "a failure of epic proportions" add nothing new even if from a reputed source. That opinion is already covered in Therefore, the government failed in its aim of purging black money from the economy. So why repeat it again.-Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is already in lead: The sudden nature of the announcement and the prolonged cash shortages in the weeks that followed created significant disruption throughout the economy. which summarises In the days following the demonetisation, the country faced severe cash shortages with severe detrimental effects across the economy. People seeking to exchange their bank notes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the rush to exchange cash. So I had removed it from the lede.-Nizil (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, there was some repetition, so I have merged the two portions. It makes sense, however to add an extra sentence to mention about people having to stand in lines. The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• The BSE SENSEX and NIFTY 50 stock indices fell over 6 percent on the day after the announcement. is a short term impact of a single day. Single one day impact should be better covered in the details. Lede should have broad summary of overall impact. So I had removed it.-Nizil (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. The crash did not last for just a single day (it was not a momentary blip), and secondly, stock index movements show the reaction to an event as a result of peoples' evaluation of the same event. The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is specifically telling about a single day. You may change it to analysis of a long period with reliable source. Like, BSE and NSE stock indices fell 6% over the period of 6 months. We should cover larger economic impact rather than single day impact in lede. Single day impact can be covered in main text. -Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I was moving this sentence: More than 30 politicians belonging to the BJP were arrested and investigated for having unaccounted money in the new 2000 rupee denomination. to Cash Shortage section. But I noticed broad coverage in Reports in the media noted that although the general public faced a severe cash shortage, some individuals were able to amass crores in new banknotes; they thus described the demonetisation exercise as being futile. So did not moved. This sentence covered all instances of amassing of new banknotes. So no need to include all individual event.-Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• It was estimated that this [decrease in RBI dividend to the Govt.] decrease in income for the government could cause the fiscal deficit for the financial year 2016-17 to increase from the targeted 3.2% to 3.4%. To avoid increasing the fiscal deficit, the government would have to reduce spending on social schemes, or increase revenue through taxes or other means. Well, this is going too far. Fiscal deficit is impacted by large number of factors and can be managed by variety of steps. Making RBI dividend as a chief factor impacting fiscal deficit is big statement.-Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"This is going too far" - This argument cannot be used to dismiss something backed by a RS. The Discoverer (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if it has source, such argument sounds good in news. Consider this: Fiscal deficit is impacted by large number of factors and can be managed by variety of steps. Making RBI dividend as a chief factor impacting fiscal deficit is big statement. Apart from that, consider this source: Instead of such predictions we can now add proper information on fiscal deficit of that year in the article.-Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• I think all political reaction should be reorganised in a summary.-Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I have given rationale for all the changes restored by @The Discoverer:. Please express your opinion on each. I invite all other watchers and editors to express their opinion as well. Regards and thank you,-Nizil (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your opinion. I have given my rationale again.-Nizil (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• This version by Nizil Shah was much better and it was abiding WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. I am not sure why we need to report some of the undue and not-news content anymore when enough time has been already elapsed and some of the content was clearly repeated. Nizil shah seemed to have made fine efforts to remove such problematic content. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done a lot of trimming and updating of new information recently so article does not read like collection of news stories. I am changing format of presentation is this way: What is demonetisation/demonetisation process/objectives/Impacts-effects:immediate impacts: long term impacts:economic and other impacts/Analysis and criticism/legal issues/reactions. If anybody have better suggestions, feel free to tell me here.-Nizil (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nizil Shah: Most of your removals so far seem okay: I've made two minor reverts, nothing major so far. But please be more descriptive with your edit summaries. "Clarified" doesn't at all cover this edit, for instance. If you're removing something, explain why. Vanamonde (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, thank you for copyediting and grammar corrections. I am OK with those two reverts. I will be more descriptive in edit summaries. I will be reorganising more information soon. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Discoverer, its been a week since I replied to your comments. If you agree/disagree with it, please reply. So I can go ahead with further work. I have not worked on the content under discussion above. Vanamonde93, please go through my updates/changes and do needful (including grammar corrections. Apologies for my grammar.) More comments and directions are welcome. D4iNa4, thank you for appreciation. I welcome your inputs/comments on recent changes. I also invite all other watchers for their comments. Regards and thank you all for their support and encouragement.-Nizil (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your patience, Nizil Shah. It's clear that we disagree on several points, and we are just saying the opposite of each other in our replies. The portions on which we disagree are really a small part of the article, so could we leave it for a while and wait to get some more inputs from other editors? The Discoverer (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• • • • @The Discoverer:, OK. I will wait for a month. Feel free to put your points as well. We can think about it and find middle grounf somewhere. :) -Nizil (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your patience, Nizil Shah. I think that a month is a long time, and we must try to build consensus through discussions. Vanamonde93, since we are deadlocked, would you consider giving your inputs on the points raised above with quotations in green by Nizil Shah? The Discoverer (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: I'm looking over your recent batch of changes, and I have no problems with anything content-wise so far. Please do try to use fully formatted citations rather than bare urls, though; see WP:LINKROT. Vanamonde (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, thank you for inputs. I will cleanup bare urls and fill them once I have completed article editing work. The article is WP:OVERCITE as well so I have planned to deal with references at once and fix all the problems with them including filling, formatting, deleting and verifying information/claims at once. Then I will archive all links on Internet Archives to avoid linkrot.-Nizil (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

New impact points

Point 1 - Positive impact on Economy in long run

Demonetisation has positive effect on economy in long term as claimed by FM.

Point 2 - accelerated digital India mission.

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

Point 3 - Real estate

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

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. 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. 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.

References

Graph sources

A request to you, Nizil Shah: I understand that the sources for the graphs are already in the article, but I think that it would be nice to have the source(s) for each graph explicitly mentioned beside/below the graph itself. The Discoverer (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Discoverer, I wanted to add references for graph data but I can not do it because I do not understand where to place references in graph. Please add it yourself at one place, so I can understand and do at other places. Regards and thank you,-Nizil (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have done it for one graph by using Template:Image frame. This allows you to put a caption and also to control the position of the image in the text.The Discoverer (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do it at other graphs with references.-Nizil (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done with all graphs so far.-Nizil (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ease of doing business

Hi, @Abhijeet Safai:. In reference, this is a only line mentioning demonetisation: The ranking comes as a shot in the arm for the Narendra Modi government amid dissenting voices in certain quarters about implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) as well as demonetisation. Now tell that where it is mentioned that Ease of doing business increased exponentially in India after demonetization. (your edit in the article) due to direct outcome of Demonetisation. You have noted in edit summary to me that "Then you need to read the reference again." I have read it again and not found anything. Please discuss it here with references before adding it again. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: Likewise there are no direct proofs that deaths are associated to demonetization. Still it is mentioned in the article. You are an experienced editor hence I have no issues if you make any changes as you find appropriate. But just think of the point I have mentioned. That's it. Thank you. Have a nice day. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Abhijeet Safai:, thank you for your prompt reply. Deaths are different issue from the Ease of doing business. So people need to discuss it separately. Feel free to open new thread here. People will voice their points. EoDB issue is now resolved.-Nizil (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

References

New Evasion attempt method

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

References

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.

References

Updates and copyedits

I am doing followup edits to the Talk:2016 Indian banknote demonetisation/Archive 1#Some new coverage/edit discussions. I had given rationale for the edits there. There was no response to my comments or discussion were deadlocked. So I am going ahead with changes. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes/ To be added or updated in the article

• Real estate impact
• Fiscal deficit figures
• GDP figures
• Objectives#Formalisation of economy

Sources

• Ghosh, Jayati. Demonetisation decoded : A Critique of India's Currency Experiment. ISBN 9781351664028. OCLC 976433969.
• Rajan, Raghuram G. (2017-09-25). I Do What I Do. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9789352770151.
• Pankaj, Prabhat (2018). The Demonetization Phenomenon. Bloomsbury Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 9789386643100. OCLC 1076808194.
• Ramakumar, R. (2018). Note-Bandi. Demonetisation and India's elusive chase for black money. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199486793. OCLC 1031436330.
• Kumar, Arun (2017-12-20). Demonetization and Black Economy. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. ISBN 9789387326415.
• Jaffrelot, Christophe; Kohli, Atul; Murali, Kanta, eds. (2019-01-02). "Business and Politics in India". doi:10.1093/oso/9780190912468.001.0001. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Bandyopadhyay, Tamal. From Lehman to demonetization. ISBN 9780670090396. OCLC 1063598534.
• Kapila, Uma (2017). Demonetisation: The Economists Speak. Academic Foundation. ISBN 9789332703971.

Thank you @Winged Blades of Godric: for pointing to sources. -Nizil (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• [34] and [35] -Nizil (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• New 4 years lookback-Nizil (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Outcome

User:The Discoverer The unsourced POV you are frequently adding back actually did not exist some time ago.[36] This is a long term event and experts views varied; they are more positive now. "Outcome" for this event cannot be decided on a single day and never with a single perspective. 122.170.26.87 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on your rationale, there would be no 'outcome' field in the entire Wikipedia. There is a clear consensus in sources that demonetisation failed to curb black money, caused economic disruption and resulted in some deaths. Note that 'References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere' (WP:INFOBOXREF). These outcomes are mentioned in detail in the article and referenced. I am adding the 'outcome' field back. The Discoverer (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Have just removed "Goal" as well, which added on the same edit. The move was not limited to curbing black money. It was also aimed at curbing counterfeit notes, terrorism and to boost the use of cashless transactions (see 2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation#Digital_payments). 122.170.26.87 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Other goals (like digital payments, terrorism, counterfeit, etc.) which were added to the initial stated goal of curbing black money by shifting the goalposts can be added to the field. This is no reason to blank the 'goal' field. The Discoverer (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet your source quoted "corruption, black money and terrorism" to be initial goals.[37] That said, you are misunderstanding this subject. A stated 'Outcome' is good only for the event that has a particular duration such as Kargil war. When did demonetisation end? Should demonetisation end, and the old notes be allowed back then only there should be a field called 'outcome'. Now when there is no need for an 'outcome', there is automatically no need for a 'goal' either. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

When you say that 'it is too early to have outcomes for demonetisation', and 'demonetisation will only end when the old notes are allowed back', this is some sort of original research and synthesis, because these claims are not supported by any literature. The reliable sources that state outcomes like 'demonetisation failed to curb black money', 'demonetisation caused economic disruption', 'deaths linked to demonetisation', etc. do not qualify these with 'but it is too early to judge in 2021'. It is quite ridiculous to say that as of 2021-end, it is still too early to judge the outcomes of demonetisation; do you mean to say that:

• after more than 99% of the cash was exchanged 5 years ago, black money is about to be curbed?
• the economic disruption that in the aftermath of the demonetisation: the reduction in GDP and job losses will somehow disappear from history?
• the people who died due to demonetisation will come back to life?
• in the future the 'demonetisation will end and the old notes will be allowed back'?

The Discoverer (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I accept your point about terrorism having being mentioned in the initial speech and I have retained that bit edited by you.The Discoverer (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• To my mind, the recent addition of the result/outcome parameter in the article looks to be infructuous and frankly absurd, I do not think there is any need for it to begin with, and second of all, what is encompassed therein does not appear to represent a consensus of reliable sources or factor in the long term effects of the move. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Not representing a consensus of RSs can be an acceptable reason to blank these fields, but being to early to judge is not a valid reason.

I think that it would be helpful to readers of the article if we could compose text for the outcome field that is concise as well as reflects the consensus of reliable sources. The Discoverer (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)