This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 United States presidential election in Arizona article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Consensus on infobox inclusion criteria for state subpages: A consensus has been reached to include candidates in the infoboxes of state subpages who are polling at an average of at least 5% in a state or are the nominees of parties whose candidates received 5% in a state in the last election: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Individual state pages. This consensus is an extension of the RfC that developed the same criteria for inclusion in the national infobox: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. |
Decision Desk HQ has just called the race for Biden. I'm going to update this to reflect that. If there's an issue, we can discuss it here, as I'm somewhat new to election articles. Cpotisch ( talk) 04:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The elections box and results table have Biden at 49.36% and Trump at 49.06%, however the County result table has Biden at 49.22% and Trump at 48.91%.
Please correct for the right one, which I don’t know which one is right because the Arizona SOS website is down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 ( talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking at several Arizona election articles and I'm not seeing it. There's mountains of RS this is verifiable and notable. Is this because Wikipedia isn't covering this yet or because the article is in plain sight and I'm not finding it? BusterD ( talk) 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I recall seeing rumors online that one of the ballot counters was a participant in the January 6 storming of the Capitol, but I don't know if that has been reported in reliable sources.
I think Audit by Arizona Senate Republicans warrants its own article, perhaps Republican audit of 2020 Arizona presidential election results. What say you? soibangla ( talk) 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that now that the audit is causing the integrity of the machines to be questionable for future use, it seems that the audit has implications beyond the 2020 elections, and should indeed have its own article. Banana Republic ( talk) 17:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Put me on record as favoring the split, and this article should have nothing but a mention that there was a controversial audit, with all the details in the newly created main article. Banana Republic ( talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
At this point, I'd be in favor of the split, with maybe a note in the main article that says something like: The audit has continued for <X> days (maybe a day calculation here). To date, the findings have lacked the justification to change the election results. Rjmail ( talk) 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Maricopa County Recorder's office.
Trump/Pence: 995,665 Biden/Harris: 1,040,774 Jorgensen/Cohen: 31,705 Other: 7,942 Total: 2,076,086
As far as I can tell, we don't have a source for our numbers. This is better than that. Renard Migrant ( talk) 00:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the introduction of the article might include some unprofessional word usage and potentially biased views, as shown by the usage of phrases such as "former President and his radical supporters..." and "something of a humiliation for its instigators". But entirely removing the paragraph is also not viable because the legislature audit is a major event in the Arizona election. So is it best to leave the paragraph as is, rephrase it, or entirely removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jiang DB ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, Trump beating Hillary by only 3.5% in 2016 as opposed to the average 10% Republican wins from the three prior elections is noted, however the guy went on to gain over 409,000 votes in 2020, where Republican gains over 12 prior years was only collectively a little over 148,000. Although objective, Joe Biden outperforming 2016 Trump numbers and Obama Trump numbers by over 500,000 votes is a joke, in a historically Republican state, it's a joke. You should change the part where you allude to this was coming to Trump because of what is 2016 numbers were. 24.153.113.226 ( talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Biden won Arizona in 2020 by a small margin. However, the numbers in the table state that Trump won the Popular vote by more than 50.000. That cannot be true. What went wrong with the numbers there? Or am I not seeing something? The french site states it correcty, by the way. 2A02:810B:103F:FAB4:9CEA:A71A:E009:9823 ( talk) 08:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 United States presidential election in Arizona article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Consensus on infobox inclusion criteria for state subpages: A consensus has been reached to include candidates in the infoboxes of state subpages who are polling at an average of at least 5% in a state or are the nominees of parties whose candidates received 5% in a state in the last election: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Individual state pages. This consensus is an extension of the RfC that developed the same criteria for inclusion in the national infobox: Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. |
Decision Desk HQ has just called the race for Biden. I'm going to update this to reflect that. If there's an issue, we can discuss it here, as I'm somewhat new to election articles. Cpotisch ( talk) 04:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The elections box and results table have Biden at 49.36% and Trump at 49.06%, however the County result table has Biden at 49.22% and Trump at 48.91%.
Please correct for the right one, which I don’t know which one is right because the Arizona SOS website is down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 ( talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking at several Arizona election articles and I'm not seeing it. There's mountains of RS this is verifiable and notable. Is this because Wikipedia isn't covering this yet or because the article is in plain sight and I'm not finding it? BusterD ( talk) 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I recall seeing rumors online that one of the ballot counters was a participant in the January 6 storming of the Capitol, but I don't know if that has been reported in reliable sources.
I think Audit by Arizona Senate Republicans warrants its own article, perhaps Republican audit of 2020 Arizona presidential election results. What say you? soibangla ( talk) 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that now that the audit is causing the integrity of the machines to be questionable for future use, it seems that the audit has implications beyond the 2020 elections, and should indeed have its own article. Banana Republic ( talk) 17:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Put me on record as favoring the split, and this article should have nothing but a mention that there was a controversial audit, with all the details in the newly created main article. Banana Republic ( talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
At this point, I'd be in favor of the split, with maybe a note in the main article that says something like: The audit has continued for <X> days (maybe a day calculation here). To date, the findings have lacked the justification to change the election results. Rjmail ( talk) 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Maricopa County Recorder's office.
Trump/Pence: 995,665 Biden/Harris: 1,040,774 Jorgensen/Cohen: 31,705 Other: 7,942 Total: 2,076,086
As far as I can tell, we don't have a source for our numbers. This is better than that. Renard Migrant ( talk) 00:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the introduction of the article might include some unprofessional word usage and potentially biased views, as shown by the usage of phrases such as "former President and his radical supporters..." and "something of a humiliation for its instigators". But entirely removing the paragraph is also not viable because the legislature audit is a major event in the Arizona election. So is it best to leave the paragraph as is, rephrase it, or entirely removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jiang DB ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, Trump beating Hillary by only 3.5% in 2016 as opposed to the average 10% Republican wins from the three prior elections is noted, however the guy went on to gain over 409,000 votes in 2020, where Republican gains over 12 prior years was only collectively a little over 148,000. Although objective, Joe Biden outperforming 2016 Trump numbers and Obama Trump numbers by over 500,000 votes is a joke, in a historically Republican state, it's a joke. You should change the part where you allude to this was coming to Trump because of what is 2016 numbers were. 24.153.113.226 ( talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Biden won Arizona in 2020 by a small margin. However, the numbers in the table state that Trump won the Popular vote by more than 50.000. That cannot be true. What went wrong with the numbers there? Or am I not seeing something? The french site states it correcty, by the way. 2A02:810B:103F:FAB4:9CEA:A71A:E009:9823 ( talk) 08:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)