Talk:Scrappage program

Text and/or other creative content from Scrappage program was copied or moved into Car Allowance Rebate System with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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 I don't have time to fix this until at least Wednesday, but it's obvious this section [1] is outdated.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]