Talk:Building Back Better

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposed BBB Concept by Japanese Delegation.jpg

Disambiguation Needed
This article only talks about one specific use of this phrase when there's another clearly notable case. 2606:6000:60CC:C900:C983:E1AE:DB57:F3AE (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This article seems to be single-handedly written by a user that came only for the subject matter of disaster relief. The article reads more like a primary source than a Wikipedia article (and it seems that the editor got a conflict of interest notice for it). 2606:6000:60CC:C900:C983:E1AE:DB57:F3AE (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested move
Isn't the more common name "Building back better?" Also, the current title is now the slogan of a U.S. political party. Please comment and I will move the article if other editors agree or there is no response. TFD (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Or a disambiguation page, as mentioned above. 2600:1012:B059:3A6F:0:A:BDB1:5F01 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've moved it, as it has been literally referred to as "Building Back Better" multiple times in the article and in sources, more so than Build Back Better. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone keeps redirecting this to a page about Joe Biden!!
How to stop this happening? Build Back Better is a term that's been used internationally from well before Joe Biden's attempt at the US presidency. 51.219.141.160 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See Is there a primary topic?. The main article should be the Biden slogan because at the moment that is what most readers are looking for when they search Build Back Better. The internationally used term is actually Building Back Better, so that is what one would expect readers to type in if they were looking for it. In case anyone is looking for this article, the article about the Biden campaign says, ""Build Back Better" redirects here. For the UN program, see Building Back Better." TFD (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't know that "at the moment that is what most readers are looking for when they search Build Back Better". I certainly wasn't. The term Build (or Building) Back Better is used internationally, and has been for long before Biden was the US democratic party's nominee. Wikipedia is a global website, it's not just all about the US! For example, the Build/Building Back Better term is being used in the UK at the moment too, and elsewhere also. If someone searches for information on "Build Back Better", it's utterly ridiculous that they should land on a page about a politician. That's utterly unencyclopaedic, and is just as ridiculous as being redirected to a page about magnolias when someone's looking to be educated about paint (etc., etc). If I want to learn about Build Back Better, why do I want to read about Joe Biden??? 51.219.141.160 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the redirect makes it really difficult (almost impossible) for me to get back to the original page about Build Back Better, which has some useful (encyclopaedic!!) information. It's like taking a seldge hammer to that information, and to the people who've taken the trouble to write it! Just leave it as it was. And another thing, even if it IS true that, "The main article should be the Biden slogan because at the moment that is what most readers are looking for when they search Build Back Better," then they might learn something about the origin of the term/slogan if they could go to the actual original article/page. If they want to learn about Joe Biden, they would search for "Joe Biden", for goodness sake. Redirecting to the Joe Biden page HAS to be politically motivated, is a hijacking of Wikipedia, and should be undone. 51.219.141.160 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Crappy, confused article
The lede defines this as something presented by the Japanese to the UN in 2015, but then the body of the article traces the concept to a document by the UN to Bill Clinton in 2005. Pretty daft. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Academic article about BBB
This article should probably be referred to here: https://theconversation.com/building-back-better-may-seem-like-a-noble-idea-but-caution-is-needed-154587 194.62.169.86 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, create a criticism section, and add in such criticisms that are sourced. That is not to say I will agree with them, but would love to hear the arguments. Aussiewikilady (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A new sectarian expression
That is all

The Great Reset
Not only is building back better an idea used by the Great Reset, but various conspiracies have been spread linking politicians using the term to this reset, is any of this relevant to include in the article? --K. Peake 09:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Biased article
Put a POV tag on it. Just basically a press release from the world's elite justifying this. No balance, no other POVs or criticism, and opinion stated as fact.-86.170.21.50 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a criticism section should be created and should contain published concerns about Build Back Better. Aussiewikilady (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)