This is an old revision of this page, as edited by אלכסנדר סעודה (talk | contribs) at 14:32, 29 January 2024 (→Conservation and old growth forests: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:32, 29 January 2024 by אלכסנדר סעודה (talk | contribs) (→Conservation and old growth forests: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Biden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Joe Biden
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Joe Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Joe Biden at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
01. In the lead section, mention that Biden is the oldest president. (RfC February 2021)
02. There is no consensus on including a subsection about gaffes. (RfC March 2021)
03. The infobox is shortened. (RfC February 2021)
04. The lead image is the official 2021 White House portrait. (January 2021, April 2021)
05. The lead image's caption is Official portrait, 2021
. (April 2021)
06. In the lead sentence, use who is
as opposed to serving as
when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)
07. In the lead sentence, use 46th and current
as opposed to just 46th
when referring to Biden as the president. (RfC July 2021)
08. In the lead section, do not mention Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians. (RfC June 2024)
Requesting the “moderate” label be removed from lede, but for different reasons
While I agree that Joe Biden is in fact a moderate within the Democratic Party, I haven’t yet found another Misplaced Pages page for another politician with enough prominence whose ideological position is mentioned in the lede. It’s really odd to me, especially as this is a relatively new addition to the lede. I haven’t found any former President’s to have a label either in the lede. Wikentromere (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
For example, most other politicians pages say “A member of the ______ party,” rather than, “An ideologically ______ member of the _____ party.” Ultimately, I feel there is an ulterior motive behind the decision to add this label. I agree with it, but it’s been put in the lede for a reason. Wikentromere (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Biden isn't a progressive. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not accuse other editors of editing an article with "ulterior motives" unless you have some evidence to support such an accusation. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I haven’t yet found another Misplaced Pages page for another politician with enough prominence whose ideological position is mentioned in the lede.
Larry Hogan. But this is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel section
I agree the CCR suit is undue here, that doesnt have the coverage to merit inclusion, but the criticism of his policies on Israel do have that coverage. @SPECIFICO, would you agree generally that criticism of the support Biden has provided for Israel merits including a sentence on it there? Or, as you reverts indicate, are you simply opposed to any coverage at all? Because you also removed Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes.
citing Finucane, Brian (2023-11-17). "Is Washington Responsible for What Israel Does With American Weapons?". Foreign Affairs. ISSN 0015-7120. Retrieved 2023-12-14.. A number of other sources can be added if you think there isnt weight in sourcing here. nableezy - 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- My thoughts are, this is about his presidency, we can't clutter up this article with stuff about that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- But why then include any part of it? It isnt NPOV to not include prominent controversies for the subjects we cover. If his position on the war is covered then so to should criticism of that position. If it doesnt belong at all, then neither does most of that section. nableezy - 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, so why cover it at all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, if it was gotten rid of entirely I wouldnt be here. But covering it and not including criticism is why I am here. But currently we cover it in the lead and in a subsection, with nary a hint of any of the substantial criticism it has generated. nableezy - 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's criticism of Israel's responses to Oct. 7 but nothing substantial and widespread that's particularly personal to Biden. A few fringey criticisms -- that he's responsible for everything alleged to be done by Netanyahu (whom he views with profound disdain) -- don't make it significant enough for his bio. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, there is criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions, that criticism is about the policies of Biden, not Israel. And they certainly are not fringe. nableezy - 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- In addition to being FRINGE, we also cannot unduly associate "criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions" with this biography. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is criticism of Joe Biden's actions as president, which we cover at great length in his biography. nableezy - 17:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- In addition to being FRINGE, we also cannot unduly associate "criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions" with this biography. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, there is criticism of the United States in relation to Israel's actions, that criticism is about the policies of Biden, not Israel. And they certainly are not fringe. nableezy - 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's criticism of Israel's responses to Oct. 7 but nothing substantial and widespread that's particularly personal to Biden. A few fringey criticisms -- that he's responsible for everything alleged to be done by Netanyahu (whom he views with profound disdain) -- don't make it significant enough for his bio. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, if it was gotten rid of entirely I wouldnt be here. But covering it and not including criticism is why I am here. But currently we cover it in the lead and in a subsection, with nary a hint of any of the substantial criticism it has generated. nableezy - 18:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, so why cover it at all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- But why then include any part of it? It isnt NPOV to not include prominent controversies for the subjects we cover. If his position on the war is covered then so to should criticism of that position. If it doesnt belong at all, then neither does most of that section. nableezy - 17:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that the CCR lawsuit is very much WP:UNDUE here. Regarding criticism of Biden's stances on the war, if additional sources could be provided it might be worth a sentence or two in the biography and possibly some more space in Presidency of Joe Biden. However, the way that sentence was worded seems weaselly. I don't have access to the full article to read the entire context, but assuming the sentence
Several scholars have accused Biden of being complicit in or permitting war crimes
is based on the lede's statementFurther, U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes
that seems like a misrepresentation of what the source actually says and how strongly it says it. Regardless, if criticism of Biden's positions on Israel were to be included it would need more sourcing to demonstrate due weight. The Wordsmith 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC) - Yes, it is absolutely bonkers that there isn't even a sentence such as "Biden's staunch support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza has sparked significant domestic pushback and protest. Many scholars warn that the United States risks being complicit in war crimes". This is pretty much just a down-the-line account of the situation. Let's do something here. Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- It s not "bonkers" when what you claim is patently untrue. All presidents have supported Israel's right to self-defends. Many college-aged students and some liberal members of Congress support Palestine. This is all routine. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is not routine. And what part of my claim is "patently untrue"? Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1) It is routine, and 2) pretty much all of it. Your position has gained no consensus, so it is time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- You aren't actually responding to anything I said, it's just "You're wrong". Give me specifics. The SCALE is so much bigger than what has happened before, which makes it worthy and notable. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- 1) It is routine, and 2) pretty much all of it. Your position has gained no consensus, so it is time to move on. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is not routine. And what part of my claim is "patently untrue"? Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- It s not "bonkers" when what you claim is patently untrue. All presidents have supported Israel's right to self-defends. Many college-aged students and some liberal members of Congress support Palestine. This is all routine. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I was actually going to make a new section on this, but I think it's related to this section so I'll add it here:
The nickname "Genocide Joe" has gotten significant coverage, including a response from the White House. It's mentioned in John_Kirby_(admiral)'s article. So the question is, shouldn't it be mentioned here on Joe Biden's article, given that it's directed at him?
Just going off of news reports on Google, we have Yahoo News, CBS News, Washington Examiner, The Guardian, The Hill, CNN, Fox News, The Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera, and others providing coverage of this nickname. I think it makes sense to mention this "Genocide Joe" nickname here on Joe Biden's article, and the "Israel" subsection seems like a good place to put it.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- One's angry, frustrated little critics create pejoratives all the time, they are rarely noteworthy in that person's biography. It is certainly not noteworthy to the bio of John Kirby either, and should be removed. It was only added on Nov 27th to a little-trafficked Wiki page. Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The sentiment is widely held throughout the Middle East. It has more importance internationally, I'd say, then a mere domestic policy dispute. KlayCax (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- US is despised. Dog bites man. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- The sentiment is widely held throughout the Middle East. It has more importance internationally, I'd say, then a mere domestic policy dispute. KlayCax (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I support greater mention of the backlash to Biden's policies re Israel-Hamas, potentially in the lede, depending on other's thoughts. I think this policy is likely to define his presidency in the foreign policy arena, and has already generated significant domestic discontent as well. "Genocide Joe" seems more approopriate for the article specifically about the protests. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- To this non-American, non-expert, Biden's position on Israel seems broadly the same as that of every president for the past 70 years. If it was different, it would definitely be worthy of comment, but without further explanation, I see very little of long term significance in it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's significant because it is getting significant pushback in the streets, at universities, even among politicians in his own party. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- As opposed to strong support, as it would have in the past. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is not even remotely a truthful statement. Support of Israel and opposition to Hamas/Palestinians, and vice versa, does not hew to party lines. At the moment we see the likes of Candace Owens and Ilhan Omar condemning Israel, and the likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden united in their Israel support. Even Donald Trump says he will support Israel by deporting pro-Palestinian student protesters. Zaathras (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with the above re support/opposition cutting in unexpected ways, which is why the situation is notable and is (very,very probably) historic. Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is not even remotely a truthful statement. Support of Israel and opposition to Hamas/Palestinians, and vice versa, does not hew to party lines. At the moment we see the likes of Candace Owens and Ilhan Omar condemning Israel, and the likes of Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden united in their Israel support. Even Donald Trump says he will support Israel by deporting pro-Palestinian student protesters. Zaathras (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- As opposed to strong support, as it would have in the past. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's significant because it is getting significant pushback in the streets, at universities, even among politicians in his own party. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- This has become a significant issue for Biden and is the main cause for his decline in support among Muslim voters and possibly also why younger voters now favor Trump. Past presidents did not by the way routinely agree with everything Likud did, as Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/05/24/ronald-reagan-wasnt-afraid-to-use-leverage-to-hold-israel-to-task/] I certainly agree that not everything that comes up belongs in the article, but this has now achieved due weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC):
JRB & LBJ
Perhaps @Bill Williams: & @SPECIFICO: you may both want to work things out 'here', about President Biden's negotiation skills with the US Congress, concerning whether they need to be included or excluded, in his BLP. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- His negotiating skills are irrelevant, the debt ceiling has been raised under every president for decades, with negotiations occurring every single time. Obama and House Republicans "almost" came to a default twice, yet that has no mention in his lead because it is not notable. My edit also removed any mention of Build Back Better, because you aren't going to find failed ideas that never came to fruition in the lead of any other president's article. It isn't notable for the lead and went absolutely nowhere, with barely anything in the IRA being related. Bill Williams 19:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You're stating an incomplete and misleading personal narrative. That has nothing to do with the content, which is significant and widely noted in RS. Failed ideas in a BLP? Mexico's goning to pay for it, Muslim Ban, Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War, "54°40' or fight!", Secession of the Confederacy, and other great ideas that succeeded? SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- What would actually be helpful here is to see some text and sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought the text that BW removed was good enough to stay in place. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is what the disagreement is about? This is so minor that I don't know that I'll form an opinion either way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree it's minor, so I have given no thought to whether it can be improved. But I do feel that the version I restored is a better reflection of what RS consider significant. The LBJ thing is not on the table for article text, so I hope it is not raised as a reason to gut the existing brief mention of Biden's collaborations with Congress. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's just pushing a narrative of how amazing Biden is because he saved the U.S. from a default. Meanwhile, every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling when that came up in Congress, so you could claim they stopped numerous defaults except for the fact that it isn't notable because these negotiations happen all of the time. The U.S. was "closer" to a default not once but twice under Obama, yet it doesn't belong in his lead hence it isn't there. Zero reason as to why that belongs in Biden's lead, especially in the POV nonsense way it currently is written. Bill Williams 22:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling
. This is simply false. "Negotiation" is a new thing. Previously, Congress just passed clean debt ceiling increases. One party in Congress now regularly threatens to destroy the world economy in order to get something they want that they otherwise cannot get Congress to pass. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)- Correct. History of the United States debt ceiling shows that this gamesmanship around the debt ceiling began in 1995. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll go further. Even the Republicans in the current Congress cannot negotiate with each other. The fact that a Democratic president has managed to get major bills passed with this congress is WP:DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Which brings me back to the point I made on December 17 about wanting to see sources to that effect to get a sense of the WEIGHT RS give his negotiation abilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's a hilarious joke, he negotiated nothing by himself, it was congressional Democrats more than him. Also, O3000 can make some partisan statements against Republicans if he wants (see his irrelevant ranting above), but that doesn't make this DUE for the lead. Obama had two separate "close calls" even worse than what Biden dealt with and Obama negotiated both increases just as much as Biden did. Yet, notice how it isn't in his lead, because a debt ceiling increase is not notable. Bill Williams 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- In your haste to attack another editor personally, complain about the topic rather than the article, and go on a "but other stuff" tangent, it seems that you forgot to make an actual point. Zaathras (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's a hilarious joke, he negotiated nothing by himself, it was congressional Democrats more than him. Also, O3000 can make some partisan statements against Republicans if he wants (see his irrelevant ranting above), but that doesn't make this DUE for the lead. Obama had two separate "close calls" even worse than what Biden dealt with and Obama negotiated both increases just as much as Biden did. Yet, notice how it isn't in his lead, because a debt ceiling increase is not notable. Bill Williams 02:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Which brings me back to the point I made on December 17 about wanting to see sources to that effect to get a sense of the WEIGHT RS give his negotiation abilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll go further. Even the Republicans in the current Congress cannot negotiate with each other. The fact that a Democratic president has managed to get major bills passed with this congress is WP:DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Correct. History of the United States debt ceiling shows that this gamesmanship around the debt ceiling began in 1995. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's just pushing a narrative of how amazing Biden is because he saved the U.S. from a default. Meanwhile, every single President has negotiated raising the debt ceiling when that came up in Congress, so you could claim they stopped numerous defaults except for the fact that it isn't notable because these negotiations happen all of the time. The U.S. was "closer" to a default not once but twice under Obama, yet it doesn't belong in his lead hence it isn't there. Zero reason as to why that belongs in Biden's lead, especially in the POV nonsense way it currently is written. Bill Williams 22:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree it's minor, so I have given no thought to whether it can be improved. But I do feel that the version I restored is a better reflection of what RS consider significant. The LBJ thing is not on the table for article text, so I hope it is not raised as a reason to gut the existing brief mention of Biden's collaborations with Congress. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is what the disagreement is about? This is so minor that I don't know that I'll form an opinion either way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought the text that BW removed was good enough to stay in place. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- What would actually be helpful here is to see some text and sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You're stating an incomplete and misleading personal narrative. That has nothing to do with the content, which is significant and widely noted in RS. Failed ideas in a BLP? Mexico's goning to pay for it, Muslim Ban, Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War, "54°40' or fight!", Secession of the Confederacy, and other great ideas that succeeded? SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Include or exclude? Seems to me this content dispute has reached a stalemate. No doubt more editors will need to be invited to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
why was his position on the New Castle County council removed?!
Joe Biden | |
---|---|
Other offices
| |
It seems like it should be worth noting on his bio as a previous office held. lots of other political leaders have a local offices listed before their entry into federal politics. just seems like it's a random thing to remove and I know it was there in the past 2600:1003:B111:9CE3:0:55:4B2:7101 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the opening section, it doesn't need to be in the infobox. Zaathras (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed in the past & the consensus was to 'exclude' from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support keeping it at bottom of the page, not in infobox, as it is both important to the start of his carrer, yet minor when viewing his career as a whole. Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Any thoughts on adding this position to the footnotes section of the infobox where the Senate chairmanships are? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we need it, what does it really add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Helps provide an overall summary of Biden's political career? Keep in mind this is just in the footnotes section at the bottom of the infobox since its a minor point of the overall article. Example provided - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine there. Certainly a good compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- No footnote. What's so important about his time on the New Castle Country council, that 'now & then', somebody wants to add it to the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Post Economies
Paid positions are self retained and housed by the Federal Government. This particular man comes from background including cooking etectera. Most `presidents` were more interesting because they didn't have internet. I know right. After what came before the great depresssion, it seemed that air conditioning was a problem. Not a problem. I know, right. Well, we've seen them all, from Mary Poppins to Charles Earl. Well, after he gets up, the pastimes of being on tv with his constituents add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:C8F0:A3C0:8ABB:AD48:1692:5F54 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- What are you suggesting we do to this article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024
It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Joe Biden. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Sleepy Joe Biden
Change to "Joe Biden, also known as Sleepy Joe Biden, is an American politcian Blah blah blah." DanRayy (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Conservation and old growth forests
Last time when I added content about the issue to the paragraph "presidency 2021 - present" sub section "infrastructure and climate" it was removed as not enough important. Maybe I really made it too long for a summary page. But I think it worth at least 22 words. There are around 500 in this sub section currently I think. This is what I want to write this time:
"During his presidency Biden promoted nature conservation so much, that several records was broken. He took steps to protect Old-growth forests."
Those are the sources. They explicitly mention climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/biden-forest-logging-ban-old-trees
Do you agree that it worth to be written? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Delaware articles
- Mid-importance Delaware articles
- WikiProject Delaware articles
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class United States Presidents articles
- Top-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class college football articles
- Bottom-importance college football articles
- WikiProject College football articles
- B-Class Science Policy articles
- High-importance Science Policy articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests