curprev12:5312:53, 20 June 2023 אלכסנדר סעודהtalkcontribs 96,627 bytes+1,237 In my opinion it is interesting how the bill is implemented and what are the results. The picture with the project prove it in my opinion. I think it worth a separate section. I copied some text from the page "Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration".undo
curprev00:5700:57, 22 November 2022 SupernovaXStalkcontribs m57,211 bytes−2 It's been a year since the law passed, and it's been overwhelmingly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (instead of bill, given that it's now law.) The overview was changed to reflect this.undoTags: RevertedVisual edit
curprev13:4113:41, 29 September 2022 אלכסנדר סעודהtalkcontribs 52,869 bytes+3,379 adding about impact on environment. Copying some text from pages "Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration" and " Climate change in the United States of America".undo
curprev14:0714:07, 20 June 2022 The Gridtalkcontribs 48,399 bytes−1,287 I'm seeing WH using "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" and/or "Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill" (or even Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Bill) - I think regardless of the naming, just list both in the infobox and the lede and then just move on...(lede also usually doesn't have cites as it's summarized info; these cites are just retelling the WH news brief)undo
curprev13:0413:04, 16 June 2022 Tturley3talkcontribs m48,283 bytes−1,412 Since passage, the law is no longer referred to as Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. Numerous references at White House-dot-gov plus 2 dozen funding announcements by the Energy, Interior, and Transportation departments consistently use the official name.undo
curprev00:1500:15, 6 December 2021 Bill Williamstalkcontribs 47,378 bytes−41 →See also: moving forward act is irrelevant to this, so I removed the see also section completely, since related bills are already hyperlinked throughout the article (e.g Build Back Better Act and Plan)undo
curprev00:4500:45, 18 November 2021 Estnottalkcontribs 47,690 bytes−671 →Reactions: →Reactions: removed the views of the global times which is given undue weight (wp:rsp shows it is a deprecated source) and transmitted through the Daily Beast which is a source that should be used only for its own opinions (wp:rsp says Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source)undo
curprev04:4104:41, 16 November 2021 SeminarianJohntalkcontribs 47,815 bytes+820 →Legislative history: added information that has been included, by consensus, on related articles for the six Democrats who voted no. They voted 'no' and stated their opposition was due to the bill being decoupled from the social safety-net provisions of the Build Back Better bill. Adding this to add the clarification that is on their articles per consensus from some editors.undoTag: Visual edit
curprev13:5813:58, 10 September 2021 The Gridtalkcontribs m8,740 bytes−431 Removing short titles for my own sanity; if we included the short titles from all portions - it's going to be longer than the current articleundo