Talk:Cashless society

Worthiness of Topic? Want to Change Focus of Entry

I question the worthiness of this topic for entry based on what it says now:

"this article discusses and focuses on the term "cashless society" in the sense of a move towards, and implications of, a society where cash is replaced by its digital equivalent - in other words, legal tender (money) exists, is recorded, and is exchanged only in electronic digital form."

Are we speculating?

I would like to change the focus of this entry from the implications of a current system replacement to a differentiation between economic systems that use physical banknotes or coins, and those which do not, if there are no objections. The implications a current system replacement can be it's own section.

As to the first question, that's clear - the answer is "no". The concept clearly meets our notability standard (several times over!) and therefore we have an article on the concept. As part of that article we gather the significant views of reliable sources on the concept which the article is covering. That's what the article should do and does.

In that context, we aren't speculating ourselves (which would be original research as you have highlighted); we are reporting the views, including speculations and hypothetical analyses, which have arisen in those significant views and which are sourced to reliable sources who have - after consideration - come to those views. That's very different and completely appropriate.

I don't understand the implication of your second question, the terms are technical or not clear to me. Can you say it a different way? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Limit of Cashless society

1.natural disaster ex.flood,cyclone Power failure Cashless society not work 2.barter system(car and Heroin) can hide Statement for Money laundering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annopnod (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of article, esp. in Sweden section

The writing in parts of this article appears to be making a negative opinion towards cashless societies DaGreenKat (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It also says in the opening that this is a "dystopian" idea, which is generally untrue. Reasonable people can differ on whether a cashless society is unequivocally good, but to call it a dystopia definitely violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.241.37 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

New York City

Was the ban passed by the city council signed by the mayor? -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It was; article has since been updated and ban has since gone into effect. -- Beland (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)