Talk:Remittances to India
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
This article is very useful about Remittance to India. It has very useful information mode of remittance available especially about online service. Please note i just added only one country i.e. United Kingdom but in future we can add more countries see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-resident_Indian_and_Person_of_Indian_Origin#Statistics
Please avoid links to commercial money transfer sites from this page. It is not a directory of remittance services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchypodgy (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Remittance from India
Please don't add fake information. Bangladesh doesn't receive any remittance from India. This is a complete list of sources of remittance to Bangladesh. Akib.H (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, it's a good idea to not be condescending. Second, the data here is sourced to Pew Research. If you genuinely believed the information is "fake" you would have deleted the whole table. Instead you repeatedly keep making changes related to one country. I understand that you have an obsession with Bangladesh, but that is no reason to remove sourced content. Elia Soaten (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have got information on Bangladesh which is why I edited the article to remove misinformation related to this country. You need to check your sources properly, the Pew Research link clearly mention that the figures are merely estimates, not actual data, so there is enough room for error. Here, I have given the link from Bangladesh Bank which contains the actual figures and hence, more credible. In my opinion, the entire table should be removed but since I only have data about Bangladesh, I'm removing it from the table. Akib.H (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- To support your claim that "Bangladesh doesn't receive any remittance from India" you need to provide a reliable source that actually states that. The table you provided has a section called "Others". I would imagine India (and every other country in the world) comes under "Others". Besides, Pew Research follows the calendar year while the Bangladesh Bank obviously follows the Bangladeshi fiscal year. Further, the whole point of the table is so readers can see a comparison of remittances from around the world. Using a source that provides that information serves the purpose much better than individual sources for each country. Even more strange, even though your source doesn't list India as a separate entry in the list, you kept adding it under the "Remittances to India". That is why I stated you seem to have an obsession with one country rather than actually improving the article as a whole. Provide a reliable source that allows comparison of remittances from/to India and I'll be more than happy to update the entire table myself. Elia Soaten (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- The whole point is the Pew source is not credible since the figures are mere estimates, in fact, the source itself says there is enough room for errors. If you really want to show the remittance figures, you need to come up with actual figures, not estimates, perhaps a source from the central bank of India. The sources from the central bank are the most reliable for these sort of information and so is the link from Bangladesh Bank. The "others" option in the Bangladesh Bank table only adds 395 million. Even if it includes India it shouldn't be more than that amount. It is quite a common sense to imply that if any remittance is sent by India, it's not a big amount to list a separate entry for it. In my opinion, you are obsessed with portraying India as a remittance sending country, which is why you are so desperate to include these figures despite being refuted by actual figures.Akib.H (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, I have also checked the website of State Bank of Pakistan, here as well, the figure seems to be erroneous. This is a list of remittance sources for Pakistan. The entire table should be removed.Akib.H (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is pointless to consider what figures central banks give when you do not account for the difference in fiscal year. Regarding accuracy, every figure here is an estimate because no one is going to list cents in the article. As for your opinion, it is obvious nonsense, if I was trying to portray what you claim, then I wouldn't have bothered including a "Remittances to India" table at all. Nor would I mentioned in the lead itself that India receives more remittances than any other country. Your entire edit history involves making small edits, often without any explanation or a condescending tone, and all relate to Bangladesh. Your edit history on this article contradicts itself as I explained earlier. Elia Soaten (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't understand my comment, did you? The source you have added estimated the figures based on migration and other related data but not any recorded transactions. The central bank figures are based on the recorded transaction figures. Take any agency or individual you want, everyone would rely on the central bank data. And I said it before, the source itself admits there is enogh room for error. Akib.H (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is pointless to consider what figures central banks give when you do not account for the difference in fiscal year. Regarding accuracy, every figure here is an estimate because no one is going to list cents in the article. As for your opinion, it is obvious nonsense, if I was trying to portray what you claim, then I wouldn't have bothered including a "Remittances to India" table at all. Nor would I mentioned in the lead itself that India receives more remittances than any other country. Your entire edit history involves making small edits, often without any explanation or a condescending tone, and all relate to Bangladesh. Your edit history on this article contradicts itself as I explained earlier. Elia Soaten (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- To support your claim that "Bangladesh doesn't receive any remittance from India" you need to provide a reliable source that actually states that. The table you provided has a section called "Others". I would imagine India (and every other country in the world) comes under "Others". Besides, Pew Research follows the calendar year while the Bangladesh Bank obviously follows the Bangladeshi fiscal year. Further, the whole point of the table is so readers can see a comparison of remittances from around the world. Using a source that provides that information serves the purpose much better than individual sources for each country. Even more strange, even though your source doesn't list India as a separate entry in the list, you kept adding it under the "Remittances to India". That is why I stated you seem to have an obsession with one country rather than actually improving the article as a whole. Provide a reliable source that allows comparison of remittances from/to India and I'll be more than happy to update the entire table myself. Elia Soaten (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have got information on Bangladesh which is why I edited the article to remove misinformation related to this country. You need to check your sources properly, the Pew Research link clearly mention that the figures are merely estimates, not actual data, so there is enough room for error. Here, I have given the link from Bangladesh Bank which contains the actual figures and hence, more credible. In my opinion, the entire table should be removed but since I only have data about Bangladesh, I'm removing it from the table. Akib.H (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)