Talk:Scrappage program

Cash for clunkers
They're doing it now. Commercials (I just saw one 15 minutes ago) are all over the place and radio commentators are talking about it. I don't have time to fix this until at least Wednesday, but it's obvious this section is outdated. Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Why do you keep reverting my edits? I would rather not get involved in a revert war with you. Mac520 (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits on two occasions as outlined in my edit summaries: WP:NPOV, WP:POV, and WP:RS. The content appears presented via a point of view statement referenced by a blog-type website. Also, the information was added to the lead, which changed the article in a major way without supporting paragraphs. See edit to lead below:


 * [It is economically inefficient to destroy wealth in an attempt to "stimulate the economy" (See: Parable of the broken window) http://www.examiner.com/x-19142-Tucson-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m8d4-The-bad-economics-of-Cash-for-Clunkers]


 * Since the information is controversial, a separate section with proper references would be more balanced. A summary could be provided in the lead as well. The above policies and guidelines are important aspects of Wikipedia. I do not wish to edit war. Any thoughts on this by other editors? All is One (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it from stating an opinion to stating a fact about an opinion in accordance with the rules. No reason to revert now. 65.247.225.161 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted again since Adam Maji is not an economist. According to his biography under [My Bio] at http://www.examiner.com/x-19142-Tucson-Libertarian-Examiner: "Adam Maji is a student at Pima Community College. He has been actively interested in politics from a young age and is currently pursuing his Associate of Arts degree to further his writing career." All is One (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, just because he's not an economist does not make his statement any less valid. If you actually read his article (or at least had some economics knowledge to understand the parable of the broken window), you can clearly see that he is making a reasonable objection to the Cash for Clunkers program.  Right now the article is completely biased, not offering any criticisms or alternative viewpoints to the program.  It seems to me like you are removing any edits that contradict your own personal ideology.  Upon reading your user page, I see that you are interested in environmentalism and recycling, so I'm not surprised you would be abused to criticisms about Cash for Clunkers. Mac520 (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Replacing an older technology has always been controversial to a degree. You might want to push the criticism to the Cash for clunkers programm as I assume that it triggered the statement. In other countries the style to object had been quite different. See for example the German de:Umweltprämie which has a very large section for "Bewertung" (assessment/valuation) while keeping the lead article Verschrottungsprämie clean of it. The objection you note is not part of the problem series over there. Guidod (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Images
There is probably no need for images on the main article, but it just so happened that I was out taking photos and later that day I saw this article. I thought I would share this photo of car scrappage in Ireland for those of you who cared enough to look at the Talk page. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if it is useful. DubhEire (talk) 11:37, 1 Feburary 2010 (UTC)

Current and future schemes?
"Governments across the world are planning to … take older, gas-guzzling vehicles off the road." according to this 2023 article https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/03/this-rush-to-electric-cars-is-a-colossal-mistake/amp/

If anyone has details for their country please could you add.

Also I think the lead should say what schemes are current.

Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)