Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit

Doug Logan and Cyber Ninja

This might be useful.[1] Why no articles on Logan and on CN? Doug Weller talk 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Even the media describes them as little-known or unheard of before this audit began. I will redirect Cyber Ninja here. BD2412 T 22:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Information, Politically Biased Coverage

With all due respect, the published information has many inaccuracies and strong bias. I thought Wikipedia was a home for facts and truth, not random unsubstantiated opinions and political bias.

The opening line of the page "...contracted by the Arizona Senate Republican caucus and carried out by private firms." is inaccurate: the Arizona State Senate called for the audit, in its entirety. It was not called for by the Republican caucus alone. [2]

"Several concerns about the audit occurred...": All of the citations provided to substantiate this paragraph are editorial opinions. The Democratic caucus did try to block the audit, however Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason found their claims to be baseless and directed Maricopa County to comply [3].

Further controversy ensued when Maricopa County refused to hand over all of the routers, falsely claiming that the routers contain sensitive personal information [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

The audit has been hailed as a great success for it's security, clear chain of custody, 24x7 video surveillance of ballots and equipment, transparency, and thoroughness. They are the model for other election security audits in the future [9]

"Conduct and Concerns" - The conduct of the Maricopa County Elections board is of great concern: In testimony given before the President of the Senate and other members, it was revealed that there was little or no chain of custody documentation of the ballots or machines between the November Election and the time of delivery to the arena for the Senate audit. [RECORDED VIDEO OF THAT HEARING: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/05/18/arizona-senate-hearing-on-maricopa-county-audit-and-2020-election-issues-400pm-et-livestream-links/]

"Conspiracy Theory Issues" - The statement "The auditors later acknowledged they had been examining hard drives the wrong way..." appears to be a completely made up and false statement. A citation from a credible source is needed. Later in that section, regarding the claims of deleted databases, the author uses unrelated facts and a quote taken out of context to bias the reader. In fact, at least one deleted database was recovered by the auditors. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofvt (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC) — Samofvt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Quickly scanning your edit, it contains several unreliable or otherwise dubious sources. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that both Democratic and Republican elected officials have panned the audit as poorly conducted and an embarrassment would seem to lift this out of the category of being "politically biased". Are there any examples of politically neutral parties praising the conduct of the audit? The conduct of the Maricopa County Elections board, itself a majority Republican entity, also seems to have little relevance to political bias. The issue raised would merely call into question the accuracy of an audit of ballots for which a chain of custody could not be shown. If the Maricopa County Elections board itself has potentially failed to keep track of substantial numbers of ballots that were cast and counted in the election, then the auditors would be working from faulty information in the first instance. BD2412 T 19:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, the use of "caucus" doesn't seem to be truly correct and I checked 4-5 sources from the article around that statement and none of them mention caucus. "Republican led/controlled Senate" may be more accurate phrasing here. I don't know if the caucus by itself, not acting as the Senate (or an official committee of the senate), could issue subpoenas. The 7-8 sources I've read as I was writing this message refer to the senate as a whole, the Senate President and/or the Senate Judiciary Chair. Just not caucus. Ravensfire (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ravensfire. The statement "...contracted by the Arizona Senate Republican caucus and carried out by private firms" is partially inaccurate. It's a short stroking of the actual fact. Arizona Senate Republican leaders approved the audit; when brought to a vote every Democrat voted against, ergo only Republicans in the senate approved. For us to use the word caucus without clear citation would be a poor choice and not factual, biased on sources to date. BusterD (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to that detail being corrected or clarified. It would actually be nice to specify what the vote breakdown was, if we have that. BD2412 T 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Several concerns about the audit occurred" - By Whom? Weasel Words

Section: Several concerns about the audit occurred, such as concerns about how the audit was being conducted, its legality, the conduct of auditors and security issues at the site, among others. Conspiracy theory issues also surfaced as many commentators and Republicans characterized the effort as a sham or "fraudit" that was an element of a big lie that the presidential election had been stolen from Trump.

Need to be re-phrased to include the accusers. Who are these qualified people making such claims? 124.169.155.99 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the nine sources bundled in footnote #3. soibangla (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump?

Why all the content about Trump here? As far as I understand, he or his campaign were/are not either indirectly or directly involved, as the writers of the article are suggesting. I thought this audit was the result of hearings and evidence submitted to the AZ Senate after the election. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you specify any mentions of Trump in the article that you feel do not belong? It seems rather intuitive that Trump would be mentioned frequently in discussing an election where Trump was one of the candidates, and where various persons involved in the effort have been indicated by the sources (and by themselves) to be either affiliated with or declared supporters of Trump. BD2412 T 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's about Trump's candidacy, why no mention of Biden? 73.120.83.182 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The article does mention Biden. I would suggest reading it more carefully before asking questions such as this. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I went back through and checked the page. As of this datestamp there are 25 mentions of the word "Trump". Nine times in sources. Five times describing a source connection (ex: Trump attorney, Trump NSA). Six times as object in a prepositional phrase (ex: from Trump, of losing candidate Donald Trump). Twice Trump is used in the possessive. Twice as subject in a clause. Only one use (a source connection) in the largest and best cited section. No. The person Donald Trump is mentioned as a subject of a sentence exactly twice on the page. This doesn't seem like very extensive coverage of the former president at all, considering his words and actions provide the entire context of the page subject here. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, by the way. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Developments this week

Is anyone going to insert the developments of this week? The US Senate Judiciary Committee apparently launched an investigation on Wednesday (yesterday) and sent a 13-page letter to Cyber Ninjas, requesting info about the audit. Today, the AZ Senate released preliminary results of the audit in a live-streamed hearing. The AZ Senate is also conducting another recount this week to verify the number of ballots in the boxes. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has claimed for months that there is "no evidence" that the 2020 election was frauded. Well, we've found some! Thousands of ballots were duplicated, 11,000 were put on the December 2020 voter rolls but not on the November 2020 rolls, etc. Put this information on this article, Wikipedia!

Source? soibangla (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Right here! https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/wow-az-audit-finds-74000-ballots-returned-counted-2020-election-no-record-sent/

Unreliable source per WP:RSP:

The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.

soibangla (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Huffington Post [11], Washington Examiner [12], Washington Examiner [13] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What do those show that's relevant here? soibangla (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See above: "The US Senate Judiciary Committee apparently launched an investigation on Wednesday (yesterday) and sent a 13-page letter to Cyber Ninjas, requesting info about the audit. Today, the AZ Senate released preliminary results of the audit in a live-streamed hearing." Plus, the Examiner discusses the info released in the hearing. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What about this? https://beckernews.com/maricopa-county-audit-reveals-2020-election-disaster-absentee-ballot-records-missing-11000-votes-not-on-november-rolls-40299/?utm_source=BN&utm_medium=PTN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ8-ZSgcqBc soibangla (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla, I've noticed that your motto is "Truth shall prevail." I'd just like you to know that mine is too.

Wikipedia works on the premise of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Find two or three green-light sources from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources reporting on these assertions, and they'll be good to go. On a side note, the existence of errors in tabulation of elections is not the same as the existence of fraud, nor does it necessarily affect the outcome of the election if the errors are roughly evenly distributed across ballots of all candidates (as is typical in elections). Even in unreliable sources, all that has been asserted to this point is that there are possible errors. Since there is no report indicating that these favor one candidate or the other, it is more likely that they are randomly distributed between the candidates, and would not affect the overall outcome of the election at all. If there was actually evidence of fraud on the scale being proposed by advocates of that theory, a substantial proportion of the Arizona Republican Party apparatus would need to have been involved in it for it to have proceeded as described, given that the Maricopa County elections office is controlled by members of that party, as is the office of the governor and the state attorney general, both of whom signed off on the outcome. BD2412 T 19:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You may want to look at this: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/nobody-trust-wikipedia-co-founder-wikipedia-larry-sanger/

I'm aware of Sanger's views, and actually he is correct that people should not "trust Wikipedia". In fact, even Wikipedia does not trust Wikipedia; we have a policy, WP:CIRCULAR, which prohibits Wikipedia articles from citing other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a collection of reliably sourced information, not a source of information in itself. That said, if you want to find Mae West's birth date or Ty Cobb's career batting average or the gestational period of a water buffalo, you'll find that in Wikipedia and it will probably be easy to confirm that the information in Wikipedia is correct. BD2412 T 20:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Business Insider just reported that so far only 183 ballots have been identified as question able (not confirmed fraudulent) out of the 3m+ counted. https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-election-audit-only-found-182-cases-potential-fraud-report-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

Whoa, I did not know of that article from Business Insider. I will look that up. BD2412, thank you for confirming my suspicions about this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:cb00:103:9900:6804:82f1:6a84:4bf6 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It's based on this AP article https://apnews.com/article/business-government-and-politics-arizona-election-2020-e6158cd1b0c6442716064e6791b4c6fc?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what to think. The heads of the audit were at a live-streamed meeting yesterday morning and claimed to find "thousands" of ballots with "discrepancies." Associated Press claims to have found but 182 ballots with "potential fraud." I think Wikipedia should put both testimonies in this article and let readers decide who they trust more. What do you all think?

I'm working on it:

Jack Sellers, the Republican chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement that the auditors are "portraying as suspicious what is actually normal and well known to people who work in elections...What we heard today represents an alternate reality that has veered out of control since the November General Election," Sellers wrote.[14]

Also, take a scroll through their feed: @maricopacounty soibangla (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. My main goal is to make sure this article sticks to facts, not political bias. I trust that everyone else here has the same goal.

It's quite possible the Maricopa County Election Commission can explain a lot of the discrepancies listed in the references above as delayed updates of the voter rolls, poor record-keeping and general carelessness. However, it's clear they need to run a tighter ship, at the least. I gather the Senate's recount is because there was a large discrepancy in the number of ballots reported and the number of ballots the auditors found in the boxes. We should know about that in a week or so. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Who put in the part about "Logan falsely asserted the county had tabulated 74,243 more mail-in ballots than had been sent to voters"? This is not a neutral statement. Wikipedia should not take sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/2604:cb00:103:9900:4d2f:dca2:50c8:63ab (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did. AP:

Cyber Ninjas, the cybersecurity consulting firm hired by Arizona Senate Republicans to oversee a partisan review of the 2020 election, on Thursday pushed a false narrative that Maricopa County received thousands of mail-in ballots that had no record of being sent out to voters...The false claim has reverberated online...CLAIM: Arizona’s largest county in the 2020 election received and counted 74,000 mail-in ballots that had no record of ever being sent out to voters. THE FACTS: False.[15]

soibangla (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This quoted statement from Logan in the article is in error. If you listen to the hearing video, he says the county has no clear record of sending out the ballots. AP has manufactured a statement from him and then debunked it, when actually he may be just pointing out poor record-keeping. This is fairly typical of the biased election/audit coverage. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, AP noted his qualification that it could be due to an error ("That could be something where documentation wasn’t done right. There’s a clerical issue.") but also noted CN had been looking at the data wrong (again) so his assertion stands as false; AP did not characterize it as a lie. Predictably, some loudly ran with the fraud narrative and ignored Logan's qualification. soibangla (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Then that needs to be reflected in the Wikipedia article. How does AP know CN was looking at the data wrong? Because the County said so? What steps did they take to verify this? Do they reveal this in the article so we can be assured they've done an in depth investigation? 73.120.83.182 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet Maricopa County officials and election experts confirm that the claim isn’t true and represents a misunderstanding of how early voting works in Arizona...The reports don’t represent all mail-in ballots sent out and received, so the numbers aren’t expected to match up, according to Maricopa County officials and outside experts.[16]

I am not aware of any credible source that has characterized CN as experts in election processes, they have never done such work before and have political links to the Trump machine, and reliable sources have reported they've made multiple errors that professionals who do this stuff for a living have demonstrated. soibangla (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we could change "falsely asserted" to "incorrectly asserted", as "falsely" might be more readily interpreted as imputing knowledge of the falsehood. I am reminded of the popular meme of the girl "putting oil in her engine" by opening the hood and pouring oil all over the engine block. To someone with no experience with autombiles, this might seem like an entirely sensible way to "oil" an engine. To someone with no experience with auditing an election, they might look at ballots cast by those who voted early in person and ask, "where are the envelopes these ballots were mailed in". BD2412 T 21:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your premise leaves the question of why early voting ballots are so easily confused with mail-in ballots. As far as I understand, early ballots should look like ballots submitted on election day. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Still not seeing anything in the article about the US House investigation. This is widely reported. Do you like Politico? [17] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How about just writing, "Logan asserted that 74,000 votes..."? Anything between "Logan" and "asserted" is partisan and is not a neutral statement.

I agree. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that, as the assertions that it is incorrect are coming from Republican election officials. BD2412 T 15:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

BD2412: Are you implying here that the auditors and Republican election officials are one and the same? 185.5.46.3 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That sounds very partisan, and it has no place in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be neutral. If this is the accepted viewpoint, then Wikipedia is just a collection of propaganda. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing the least bit partisan about it, and I, for one, will no longer engage any IP editor who cannot be held accountable for their words on this Talk page. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

73.120.83.182, I agree with you completely. Soibangla, if you can't understand what the word "partisan" means, I suggest you look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:103:9900:D944:AD6C:DAA0:46F0 (talk • contribs) — 2604:CB00:103:9900:D944:AD6C:DAA0:46F0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If incivility persists in this discussion, IP access to this talk page will have to be cut off. With respect to partisanship, I should clarify that the sources exhibit bipartisan agreement among election officials of all parties that the concern expressed is mistaken, i.e., incorrect. If there is a reliable source stating that it this in fact a correct concern, please provide it. BD2412 T 17:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't the heads of the audit count as a reliable source? They would know the most of everyone about the audit they created.

No they would not, they are a primary source. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

These sourcing policies are becoming the bane of Wikipedia. A significant portion of casual Wikipedians obviously do not agree with the forced cherry picking of sources. You can't use primary sources, you can't use sources which disagree with the narrative of large mainstream news outlets (which apparently makes them "unreliable sources" by axiom of presenting information which disproves mainstream news outlets). All you can use are articles from mainstream news outlets, including their clearly biased framing. This is exactly why the American side of Wikipedia is becoming a laughing stock of the internet. 185.5.46.3 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC) — 185.5.46.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia isn't stopping anyone from going elsewhere to get their information. The interesting thing is that we sometimes have "casual Wikipedians" who resolve to change things, so they become serious about editing Wikipedia in order to develop sufficient credibility within the site to seek to change things. By the time they develop that level of experience, however, they have inevitably come around to thinking that our policies make sense for a general reference work. BD2412 T 15:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't stopping anyone from going elsewhere to get their information.", or put in more straightforward terms, "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" is exactly the attitude that's pushing people away from Wikipedia. The more Wikipedians are pushed away the more of an exclusive group it becomes. As for the category of politics, regular people come to Wikipedia to get an overview of a particular issue or newsworthy event and then don't go any further, because they assume Wikipedia is complete enough to cover everything of significance. If they are expected to get information elsewhere in addition to Wikipedia because Wikipedia only covers a subset of the matter, then why visit Wikipedia at all? I used to be a very enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia; I checked technical articles, filled in and corrected some of them, and I donated money even tough I was on a tight student budget. But now when I read articles here, and try to put in the occasional edit, all I'm hit with is one-sided arguments based on supposed alignment with US Republicans. I'm not American, I'm not even a native English speaker, and yet I can see clear as day how Wikipedia has become very hostile against anything not supported by US mainstream news outlets. It's incredibly depressing to see how Wikipedia has been transformed from something which was so near and dear to my heart, into a discriminatory platform. The same applies to articles in my native language too, because most of them are plain translations of the English ones. What happened to being inclusive and unbiased? How did Wikipedia become a closed space where only a selected elite could edit political articles? These are important philosophical questions we all need to take a step back and consider, including me since I somehow let it happen. 185.5.46.1 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In the specific case of this article, as has been pointed out before, the election in Maricopa County was overseen by a Republican elections board, and some of the most stringent critical evaluations of the ballot audit are from Republican Party officials and Republican election officals. If you have objections to specific statements in the article, or specific sources being included or excluded, please identify them. We limit sources not based on politics, but based on the record for accuracy and fact-checking those sources present. Sources that repeatedly present as factual things discovered through deeper examination to be incorrect are discarded. This is not political, and there are routinely used sources all across the political spectrum. This is not the appropriate forum to raise general grievances against the project. BD2412 T 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well for starters, the article has sections for "Origins", "Conduct and concerns", "Conspiracy theory issues" and "Alleged mishandling of employee sexual harassment complaints", but nothing about what their actual findings are. As shown by both the edit history and the talk page, every time someone wants to insert any of those in the article the article gets locked and/or the sources are called unreliable. How come every source which cites their findings is deemed unreliable? Also, who fact checks the fact checkers? To me it seems like "fact checkers" are pretty much just an alias for "the ministry of truth". Either way, having the preliminary findings of an audit visible on the page should be absolutely essential to an article about said audit. Link to the full hearing itself if you have to, here's a mirror of an unedited live stream: https://archive.org/details/az-senate-hearing071521 (10 AM is at 2:58:21 in the archived video). I'm sure we can find plenty of people to extract the facts from there if we give them the chance (and no, this isn't original research, it's just a matter of transcribing their statements verbatim). 185.5.46.1 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

BD2412: I think it's time you answer for the above. You are one of the few selected elites who are currently able to edit the article. Where are the preliminary findings from the audit? 185.5.46.1 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, the opinions of those conducting the audit are being covered in the article, but they are being covered in the context of reporting about their opinions in reliable sources. Outside of that, since they are not, for example, people with many years of expertise in conducting election audits, or recognized experts in conducting election audits, they are not qualified to comment as experts on the matter. BD2412 T 01:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion isn't getting anybody anywhere. All this discussion is doing is letting everyone know which political side Wikipedia is on. It's no use talking anymore. I'm leaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.46.1 (talk • contribs) — 185.5.46.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is pretty clear that these SPA IPs are not here to engage in any kind of consensus-building process, or even to propose concrete changes to the article. The fact that a number of them all show up here at the same time suggests either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is going on. BD2412 T 00:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you making a "conspiracy theory" about us? I thought this website didn't tolerate those.

(Previous commenter, please start signing your comments with four tildes so there's a clear beginning and end to them.) Or maybe, just maybe, this issue has managed to actually tick off multiple people without an account? The assumption that IP comments are from sockpuppets/bots/etc is just a convenient excuse to ignore them. This isn't Google or Facebook or whatever, using anonymous accounts does not invalidate the arguments. Those "single-purpose account" warnings are complete red herrings when VPNs are commonplace as well, I'd vote to remove them if this was the place for that. Separate the argument from the person and answer the question; why is the article so clearly using biased wording? 185.5.46.1 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

SPA notices are not "warnings", they are notices, and their use accords entirely with the tendency of people new to Wikipedia or its processes to comment on specific issues, without obtaining useful experience in other areas of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has well over a million regular editors with well-established accounts, with opinions across all spectrums of politics and society, who have no problem voicing concerns at length on contentious political matters. As noted before, the wording of this article reflects the bipartisan consensus of coverage in reliable sources. BD2412 T 17:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

IPs aren't SPAs, they aren't accounts at all. The article only reflects the narrative available from mainstream sources not deemed "inreliable". If you look at the list of "reliable" sources, pretty much all of the ones generally in line with Republican views are deemed "unreliable". Meanwhile sites like BuzzFeed News is noted as "Generally reliable" with a green check mark despite having lots of disguised opinion pieces and anti-Republican views. They are about as reliable as Breitbart News, but they align with the same anti-Republican/anti-Trump perspective as most other articles here these days. Given that I have watched a large portion of US politics recently I can tell you with certainty that this article does not reflect the bipartisan consensus on the audit, because there is'nt one. I also note that you also haven't answered my question further up either; where are the actual reported preliminary findings in the article? 185.5.46.1 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

General complaints about Wikipedia sourcing policies developed over two decades of experience are beyond the scope of this talk page. With respect to "preliminary findings", I have added a header to the article at 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit#July 2021, where the claims, and their errors, are discussed. BD2412 T 19:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There still isn't a heading for findings, "Conduct and concerns" isn't an appropriate heading for presenting the findings as it reads more like a "Criticism" heading. Also the claims and potential errors aren't discussed, they're flat out asserted to be incorrect. If the findings are disputed, say they are disputed instead of incorrect. Incorrect is a statement of fact, and disputed is a counterclaim, which is what some mainstream news outlets are claiming. Speaking of which, reference #47, which is cited as a source for the claim that the 74k vote mismatch was incorrect, points to a 404. Reference #48 mentions it but, is directly quoting a Tweet as a source for the counterclaim, and last time I checked Tweets weren't allowed as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The discrepancy between EV32 (sent ballots) records and EV33 (received ballots) records still holds, what it means is open to interpretation and as stated during the hearing they have been trying to reach Maricopa election officials for an explanation, but there is still a 74k difference. The Wikipedia article should make that clear, since there is an obvious conflict of interest between AP and the auditors since AP is the selected partner for verifying US election results, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#AP_election_polls . In fact, that conflict of interest should probably be made clear in the article itself. 185.5.46.1 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see the article references I mentioned have been updated slightly, but they still reference AP as a source. As stated above this is highly inappropriate given the obvious conflict of interest. Of course AP is going to defend their verification of the election results and throw accusations at the auditors, they are in an active conflict. Using AP as a source here is akin to using one of the two people in bar fight as a source for who threw the first punch; of course it's the other guy. 185.5.46.6 (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

BD2412 & Soibangla: This still needs to be corrected. AP is NOT a reliable source for this article and statements from election officials go under Wikipedia:THISORTHAT. 185.5.46.6 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This still needs to be fixed, AP and election officials clearly have a conflict of interest here. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that about all the recent edits of this article are from two people? And is it just a coincidence that those same two people are constantly coming on here to defend this partisan article? We are only asking that Logan's claims be called just that: claims. Not true claims, not false claims: just claims. What is so wrong with that idea? 2604:CB00:103:9900:4882:8A57:14B1:AEF (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps other editors find this topic boring. I can't speak to why others are not editing here, but the incorrect claims are described as incorrect because the Republican election officials have explained precisely why they are incorrect. BD2412 T 21:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Other editors are avoiding this article because it's so clearly partisan. Try to edit it and 1) your edit is immediately reverted and 2) you'll get put on a black list to have your "incorrect" thinking corrected. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head here, the status quo of US mainstream news outlets is so well established that any conflicting information is seen as wrong or trolling. However, the admins blacklisting users are not doing it out of malice, they just don't know any better. Unfortunately that's a downwards spiral; the more they keep the conflicting information out, the less they know about the truth. It's the same exact issue as with fact checkers, they don't know the truth so they just pick a side instead. 185.5.46.6 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What Republican election officials say doesn't matter, just like Democratic election officials they have a vested interest in the audit not finding any errors, a.k.a. a conflict of interest. Of course they're not going to discredit their own methods during an open investigation, that would guarantee an unfavorable ruling in a court of law. It's absolutely essential to keep in mind that the election officials are the opposing party in this matter. 185.5.46.1 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a highly divisive issue. Just say that "Logan claims..." and be done! Putting any adjectives between "Logan" and "claims" means that you have an opinion about his claims, which is fine except that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It tells facts and facts only. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand? 98.20.149.245 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saying. We are not looking to be "equally kind" to any two political parties. Objective facts can be unkind to a politician or political party. We are looking to report verifiable facts. Whether or not they are kind to the narrative desired by a political party or a politician does not matter at all. SecretName101 (talk)

@98.20.149.245: When verifiably false statements are described as false, there is no "opinion" involved. We'd be doing an injustice if we did not note that falsehoods are falsehoods. SecretName101 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is simply not true. What Logan said during the hearing wasn't that there was 74,243 more tabulated than sent ballots, what he said was "we have 74,243 mail-in ballots, where there is no clear record of them being sent.". He went on further to clarify he meant there were more EV33 (received) records than EV32 (sent) records. Furthermore, he himself suggested this may be a simple clerical error but it gives merit to the need for further investigation.[18] The statement about mismatching EV32 and EV33 has not been proven false, it has simply been dismissed by the people being investigated. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Article name

Hi all,

Should the article be moved to "Arizona audit" per WP:COMMONNAME.

It would be interesting to see which title gets the most hits when searched.

Many thanks JLo-Watson (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not support such a pagemove, but am always interested in what wikipedians have to say on such subjects. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• My concern would be that it would give the incorrect impression that there was a statewide audit, when it was restricted to only one of the fifteen counties of the state. Granted, it is by far the largest county, and accounts for well over half the population of the state, but Pima County, Arizona is actually the county where Biden had the largest numerical victory (beating Trump by over 100,000 votes), and has not been audited or proposed for auditing. BD2412 T 19:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: It will be interesting to see whether there are more "Audits" for example a "Pennsylvania audit". If that happens then that would perhaps give more credence to renaming to simply the "Arizona audit"JLo-Watson (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is a statewide audit in Pennsylvania, that would be somewhat distinct from a single-county audit in Arizona. Based on concerns raised by experts with request to this audit, it seems doubtful that another court would authorize an audit without substantially more robust control over the chain of custody of ballots, and substantially more robust supervision by election authorities. This would make it exponentially more difficult for other states to justify the expense of conducting an audit, particularly where the one audit conducted so far appears to have yeilded no definitive evidence of the fraud on which the audit was premised. BD2412 T 01:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Allegations made but not yet addressed in reliable secondary sources

These Logan allegations have gone viral with the assistance of Trump chief spokeswoman Liz Harrington:[19]

ALLEGED: 3,981 people voted despite registering to vote AFTER the court-ordered Oct 15th deadline[20]

The Maricopa Recorder's office states on their new website:[21]

Our analysis of the voter rolls found no evidence of any ballot counted from a voter registered after the voter registration deadline. The courts extended the General Election voter registration deadline to October 15, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. Only voters whose forms were received by the deadline were eligible to vote in the election. Between the original Oct. 5 deadline and the court ordered extension, the county received approximately 18,529 voter registration forms. Voter registration staff completed processing the forms around October 23. If any of the voter registration forms were incomplete or deficient, elections laws and policies require that the county put the voter on suspense. The county notified these people of the issues and ways to rectify their registration form in order to be officially added to the voter rolls. In these cases, once we receive the correct information, they are officially added to the voter rolls.

So between the original October 5 deadline and the October 15 deadline, they got lots of registrations that took them until October 23 to process, apparently creating the impression they'd missed the deadline.

ALLEGED: 18,000 voted and then showed that they were removed from the voter rolls AFTER the election[22]

The Maricopa Recorder's office states:

In fact, our analysis of the actual voter registration database confirmed that there were 13,320 voters removed from the voters rolls between November 3, 2020 and January 2, 2021. The majority (7,916) of these removals were because a voter moved out of Maricopa County or passed away during this period. The remainder (5,404) were for situations such as felony convictions, adjudicated as incapacitated, or by the request of the voter to be removed from the rolls.

Since I do not yet see these items addressed by reliable secondary sources, I will refrain from adding them to the article for now, although maybe others might find that an authoritative primary source can be used here. soibangla (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there any data on party affiliation of these categories of registrants/voters? BD2412 T 00:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, neither the auditors nor the county have provided such breakdowns, but I'd be interested to see them. soibangla (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. To date, then, it does not appear that any indication has been given that proposed errors or issues were not evenly distributed between the candidates. BD2412 T 00:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I've found this transcript of the actual hearing[23] to be a much more accurate source than Twitter for quoting the audit officials. As far as I can tell it's a pure word-for-word transcript. Users on Twitter use paraphrasing and twist words with their own sensational interpretations. Unfortunately the URL timestamp feature is a bit buggy but you can use the blog style formatted page[24] to somewhat reliably generate timestamped links. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Ken Bennett reportedly locked out

According to this article, "The Republican overseeing the controversial GOP-backed election audit in Arizona has reportedly been banned from entering the building where the recount process is ongoing, after he shared some data with experts that showed the results match the officially certified numbers in Maricopa County". This is quite remarkable, if it is true that the audit has locked out their own handpicked Republican oversight person for sharing data supporting the election outcome. BD2412 T 22:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include that. It was an exclusive published yesterday by Arizona Republic, which paywalled it, but one of the authors summarized it on Twitter[25] and now another source has it. Newsweek isn't the best of sources post-2013, but it seems adequate here. soibangla (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely stunning if it's true. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Would AZ Central work as a source?[26] It seems they did more investigation into why he was blocked from entering the building. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This source is also paywalled. What does it say? BD2412 T 18:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's very strange, I don't get any hint of a paywall? I noticed the subdomain is "eu.azcentral.com" for me, could that be it? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The website is generally accessible, but this story is paywalled as "for subscribers". I can see the headline, "Senate liaison Ken Bennett blocked from entering Arizona election audit as tension with contractors boils over", but can not read the article. What does the article say about it? BD2412 T 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how much of it I can paste here for copyright reasons, but I think some key parts are these:

John Brakey, a Tucson election-transparency activist who serves as a consultant for the audit team, said Bennett told him Friday that Bennett was not let into the building that morning.

Bennett did not directly answer a question from The Republic about whether he was not let in. He said he was tending to unrelated business in Prescott.

This development comes a day after The Arizona Republic learned that Bennett had provided initial results from the new machine count to a trio of outside election analysts who have been critical of the Senate-run audit.

Cyber Ninjas spokesperson Rod Thomson said that any decision to not let Bennett into the building was made by Fann's office, not by the Cyber Ninjas.

Fann did not reply when asked about Thomson's statement.

I've had run-ins with US copyright before and I think that's about as much as I can quote. The rest of the article goes on about seemingly unrelated topics like repeating claims about vote counts, the financing of Cyber Ninjas, supposed tension between some auditors on a personal level, etc. More or less what I'd expect of rumor-oriented reporting rather than the research-oriented reporting in the first part of the article. My guess is they wanted to pad the article a bit for their subscribers but ran out of content.

I think the TL;DR is John Brakey is the source, AZ Central speculates it's related to earlier news of a possible leak, neither Bennett nor Fann has commented on it. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is seeming more like a minor squabble, then. BD2412 T 20:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Unless it gets confirmed with a statement next week, I'm writing it off as yet another insignificant rumor that got blown out of proportion. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Senate liaison Ken Bennett is banned from the audit building permanently, says Randy Pullen, the Senate rep who is overseeing activity in the building. Says the decision to block Bennett on Friday was made by the Senate & Pullen was the one not to let him in...Pullen repeats to me that Bennett is still the Senate liaison. I ask him how repeatedly you can liaison something without being let into the building. He will be around, Pullen says, will review the draft report...More about what this all means in a story soon..."[27] soibangla (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Presumably this being tweeted by a journalist signals that journalism is forthcoming. Obviously we can do nothing off of tweets, though I suppose it is good to have the head's up. BD2412 T 01:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Separate heading for official events

Currently the "Conduct and concerns" section is hard to follow, in that official statements are mixed together with criticism from news and opinion pieces. Moreover, I think preliminary findings from the July 15th hearing should be presented separately altogether in order to maintain proper WP:NPOV. In other words, separate the audit itself from the criticism for readability and perceived bias. I did this in my edit but it seems to have since been merged into the "Conduct and concerns" heading. I have also been looking for some articles summarizing the hearing to use as sources for bullet points under the "Preliminary findings" heading I had made, but those articles seem to be perplexingly hard to find using major search engines. I know they exist, I've seen them, I just can't find them anymore. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I might also add that the article is filled with so much criticism it's hard to tell what's actually happening. It might be appropriate to separate out the criticism under its own heading and/or tone it down a little, not every bit of activity from key people needs to be immediately countered in the same sentence. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Slate tells that CyberNinjas are "cooking the books" -- let's take care not to be complicit in deceiving fools with their comical fraud. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Broken link. It doesn't matter anyway since it's an official audit authorized by the Arizona Senate and as such their findings cannot be dismissed just because we don't like them. I have seen smear pieces regarding audits since November of last year, at some point you become numb to their nitpicking. If you have anything objective to add then I welcome that but Slate writers have a long record of not liking the audits. So far the most substantial criticism I've seen is officials denying their claims; which doesn't actually prove anything beyond disagreement. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the link Hyperbolick is looking for is this one. According to WP:RSP, "Slate is considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise. Contrarian news articles may need to be attributed". Even so, I would definitely want to see more sources beyond that reporting on such an allegation before including it here. The Slate headline referencing "cooking the books" does not appear to reflect an actual quote from Bennett, who has merely offered data indicating that the Maricopa County elections office got the count roughly correct, which is what observers would typically expect. Normally, an election audit features at least daily reports of counts being made, which we have not seen here. To date, there has not been a single report of a "smoking gun": no actual ballots made of bamboo, no substantial number of ballots identifiably cast for one candidate but counted for another. Absent such a finding, what we seem to have are areas where process improvements could make the election more transparently clear. BD2412 T 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly something which doesn't add up in that article.

The data Bennett provided to the outside analysts, Larry Moore and Benny White, showed the results of the ongoing machine count of the ballots tracks very closely with the county’s tally.

Typically, Bennett has not been allowed to see the audit’s final tally—which Fann confirmed earlier this month would differ from the official count—even though the audit was completed weeks ago.

Those statements are unlikely to be true at the same time; either he shared the numbers with two outside parties or he wasn't allowed to see the numbers. There are of course some special set of circumstances where that could happen anyway, like him going beyond his authorized access to copy the numbers and leak them, but then it would be highly unlikely he would publicly share statements which would implicate him for that crime. It therefore stands to reason one of those two paragraphs cannot be taken at face value, and as such I would advice against using it as a source on the basis that non-native English speakers might struggle to make sense of the article or misinterpret it. Aside from, among other things, the fact that the article is littered with personal opinions from its author Jeremy Stahl. Including personal speculation on the outcome of the audit, priming the reader to think that if his prediction is true then other speculative statements from him are likely to be right. That particular form of priming is not something I take lightly when it comes from someone who is a journalist by profession. He's a professional and should know better. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If he's supervising the count, by definition there can not be anything beyond his "authorized" access. There is a difference between someone seeing things they are not allowed to see, and a supervisor seeing things they are obviously allowed to see, but which are being concealed from them. It is just not conceivable that in a legitimate and transparent process, the numbers would be kept from the supervisor of that very process. BD2412 T 00:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge Ken Bennet is the Arizona Senate liaison, not a supervisor per se. His primary purpose is to serve as the official eyes and ears of the Arizona Senate. Don't get me wrong, it implies a great deal of access, but it's an important distinction in some contexts. With that out of the way; the point I'm making is that if he is leaking the information then he obviously has access to it, but then he cannot at the same time have been denied access, unless he also violated his access restriction. In other words, either one of the two conditions I just mentioned must be false or it implies the third. It's a matter of logic. No matter which of the three scenarios it is, the article isn't doing a good job of answering that. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Porpoise, may I share with you my impression of what's going on? Imagine you’re in a long-standing feud with your next-door neighbor. One day, watching out the window, you see your neighbor brutally stranging a young woman. They move out of view and you cannot see what happens next. You cannot call the police as everybody knows of your feud, and they won’t believe or respond to it. The next day you search your neighbor's yard to see if perhaps they’ve buried the body, but can find no obvious evidence of it. You don't want your neighbor to get away with the crime, so you find a woman similar to the one you saw being strangled and bring her home and strangle her yourself, then bury her in your neighbor's yard, so the police can find the body and your neighbor can be convicted of the murder you know he committed. You may certainly be justified in desiring to see your neighbor pay for the crime, but at the same time must be flawless in setting up the evidence thusly. I have heard too many half-rumors to this point of bad actors amongst the Arizona auditors secretly destroying disagreeable ballots or slyly modifying ballots to change them from their original vote, or adding fake ballots to the collection, to have faith in the outcome of the process, even if the intent of its organizers is to expose a wrong they're sure they saw happening. At the very least they ought to investigate these rumors and make sure no such thing has happened. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that got really dark really fast. I'd rather you hadn't put it in those terms. Anyway, I've heard a lot of slander/libel from both sides of the issue. Republicans accusing Democrats of injecting fraudulent ballots and destroying legitimate ballots. Democrats accusing Republicans of the same thing. Can we please stop it with the assignment of sides on every single issue here? This situation is bigger than Maricopa County, bigger than Arizona, even bigger than the US. There's an international audience watching these developments, and for good reason. Lately a lot of odd political developments have happened in the EU and local polls show both a more polarized political climate than ever, while simultaneously diverging a lot from historical trends. In short, a lot of people are starting to suspect the polls are rigged, and given the attention given to this audit (both positive and negative depending on where you look) a lot of the same people are pointing the finger at the US. I know because I'm living in the middle of it and I've seen first hand how local politicians get censored on social media because they didn't follow the US ideals. The issue of censoring topics controversial in the US is now being used in electoral campaigns in preparation for the 2022 election here. Therefore it is of outmost importance this gets thoroughly investigated. If the US won't do it, eventually other countries will. The rest of the world is watching and we're really not liking what we see. So please, can we just put our left vs right perspectives aside and keep this on an objective level without feeding the rumor mill? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in the article. There are two counts: the manual count of the votes by Cyber Ninias, Bennett doesn't know the results of, but Karen Fann said does not match the official election results. And the partial new machine count of the ballots (but not the votes) initiated by the Senate and Bennett, which match the official election results closely, Bennett knows the results of and which he told others which were then leaked. Everything in the article adds up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.148.224 (talk • contribs) — 79.213.148.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@79.213.148.224: Well that's just more confusing. This particular issue of leaked data is becoming a bit too convoluted for me to follow so I'll take your word on it for now. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds excessively complicated, and does not alleviate the problem that the state-designated supervisor of the process should know all actual results of the audit process, not have one set of results shown to him while another set is developed from some unsupervised process. That said, however, we would require a reliable source for the claim that there are these multiple counting processes going on. The same applies to the claims by Hyperbolick that changes in the number of votes are the result of auditors adding, removing, or modifying ballots. BD2412 T 21:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: BD: no intention of adding rumors at this time. Nor do I state support for the outcome. Quite the opposite, it is frustrating that the missteps of this audit are whittling away support for other audits to be carried out. Taking us farther from resolution of countless lingering questions. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that we can agree on, no matter who performs the audit there needs to be a reliable one to settle this once and for all. The problem I see is that, at least as far as I know, this is the third major audit of this election with international coverage. Whatever confidence we Europeans had in that this will ever be resolved with an audit is slipping away by the day. Next year is an election year for 13 European countries, including mine, and some use US made voting machines. If we cannot have confidence in the integrity of those machines then we are facing a very grave situation indeed. Also, even as recently as yesterday the censorship on US-hosted social media platforms became a mainstream talking point as officials from our third largest political party (I think about 20% in the latest opinion polls, largest party has 27%) had posts removed from Twitter.[28] I don't want to go too far off topic but there are plenty more examples where recent US policies have had very real effects on our daily lives. Sorry to go on a long rant about it but I think it's time to point out the importance on an international scale of figuring out what is going on with the audits (and by extension, the 2020 US election equipment and practices).

This is why I have been so insistent on having at least some of the preliminary findings visible in the article, although I do realize a lot of US Wikipedians are probably reluctant to let non-US Wikipedians make changes to the article. I'm trying to respect that as much as I can but having the article appear so one-sided is testing my patience. If that makes me come off as abrasive then I'm sorry, but some of the findings in this audit actually do appear to be backed up by concrete evidence and have been met with very weak "debunking" evidence. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I fear, my friend, I have a far more cynical experience of things then you. There is reason to believe there has not been a legitimate election in the USA for decades. The Establishment Elite comes together well in advance and decides who will "win" and by how many "votes," and the rest is storytelling following a script, and wringing "campaign donations" out of the less fortunate. Then the party operatives "count" the votes per the script. Certainly explains why the McConnell-Rubio-Romney-Murkowski set were so quick to certify the results. Hence my dark take on the whole. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That might very well be true, I haven't watched US politics particularly closely until about 2016 when even the local news cycle was dominated by Donald Trump. Now, I can't really say I support him, but he did seem to tick off a lot of people I'd associate with the "Establishment Elite" as you put it. I would however include a lot of news sources in that category, lots of perplexingly elaborate smears about things he didn't really say, like the thing about injecting bleach. I couldn't believe he would say something that stupid and sure enough, when I looked at the full video where he said it, it was obviously a joke. You could tell both from the lead-up to it and the tone of voice he used. Since then I've tried to verify the story by following the sources to the sources and often found it was either something taken out of context or deceptive framing. He did say some genuinely stupid stuff too and he was hardly a saint, but it absolutely crumbled my faith in US media. So with that background I always try finding the primary sources first to avoid falling for the context and framing game. So far I think this audit has some merit but we will have to wait for the final report before we know for sure. But even if we set all that aside; don't you find it odd how hard everyone is trying to discredit both the audit itself and every public face connected to it, even before they officially presented anything? I mean if the final report comes out and it's full of obvious lies then have at it, but I can't be the only one thinking it's way too early to go after them, right? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Various Twitter accounts suspended

This might warrant inclusion: [29] Readers can draw whatever conclusions they want from the move to suppress audit fans. Apparently this spate of suspensions also includes official audit accounts in different states. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not suppressing audit fans it's a social media organization stopping disinformation per their established company policies. Here's another source. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 02:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

They suspended an official AZ Senate account. It seems that would warrant mention. Or are we to just accept that the government issues misinformation? 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that the sources imply that the government issues disinformation, I'm keen to accept it. If you have sources refuting that though please produce them. Although it may still warrant mentioning that Twitter has called out the Arizona state legislature for essentially lying on their platform. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 03:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

If you want to report it in the article that way, have at it, but I think it needs mention. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously that's not quite a neutral wording, but, regardless, we should wait and see what others have to say about its inclusion. ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 04:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This may be a mountain being made out of a molehill. Is this a temporary suspension, or a long-term one? If it only lasts for a limited period of time, I wouldn't include it here. BD2412 T 23:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a ban.[30] soibangla (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a start, but I'd prefer to see information included on related suspensions, as well. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed News article has several grave quality issues. Even in just the headline it asserts both that the audit isn't a real audit (it's official and authorized by the Arizona Senate) and that it's pro-Trump (opinion and AFAIK implies criminal malpractice since an audit needs members from both parties to avoid bias, which it has). The rest of the article is immensely biased against the audit itself too, which absolutely does not belong in a source to a statement on Wikipedia regarding banning of Twitter accounts. It's a hard no for me on the BuzzFeed News article for those reasons alone. The article from Phoneix News Time is written in a much more professional manner. The last few paragraphs are a bit lacking in neutrality ("cesspool of misinformation" is enhancing Twitters official stance with a personal opinion), but at least most of it passes my criteria for a reasonably neutral article these days. It's not ideal but I can let it pass if there's no better alternative. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You are basically flat out lying here.

1. Your characterization of the BF article: It asserts that the audit isn't real

What the article actually says: The official audit account had spread misinformation about the 2020 election. Corroborating source (USA Today)

2. Your characterization of the BF article: It asserts the audit is pro-trump

What the article actually says: The audit accounts are just one way that pro-Trump figures have continued to push the lie that the election was stolen from him. Corroborating source (NPR)

3. Your characterization of the BF article: Immense bias against the audit itself

This one is just a blanket statement with no evidence. There's a plethora of WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS showing the audit is essentially fraud, and to say such is not bias, it is WP:BALANCE whereas you are seeking WP:FALSEBALANCE. Here's a source from AP News that verifies Buzzfeed's characterization of the fraud.

It is more than fine to use the Buzzfeed article as a source, in fact, it should be used given its significance. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that? Look at the article as it was before they silently updated it and it's there, clear as day.[31]

Twitter Suspended Nine Accounts That Had Been Promoting Pro-Trump "Audits" Of The 2020 Election

Please do tell how putting audits in quotes isn't trying to downplay their authenticity, how pro-Trump isn't explicitly stated in the article title, or how you could possibly think calling the Maricopa audit the "[...] ongoing, Republican-led audit in Arizona, which is being overseen by a contractor who has spread false conspiracy theories, including in a recent pro-Trump movie." isn't bias. Furthermore, BuzzFeed News is far left biased as a whole[32] and accordingly does not meet WP:NPOV in the context of this Wikipedia article, in addition to the majority of the article in question being a (mislabeled) opinion piece, see WP:RSOPINION. There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: You're completely missing the point: The audit is unambiguously unauthentic as reported by nearly every significant independent reliable source. (Snopes: Election Conspiracies Live on With Audit by Arizona GOP) (FactCheck.org: Debunking Trump’s Latest Arizona Election Claims)

Second of all, there is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operates separately from BuzzFeed and has strong editorial integrity policies. (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BuzzFeed News)

Lastly, it's not up to you alone what counts as consensus or what stays in the article (see Wikipedia:What is consensus#Not all or nothing). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: None of your listed sources support your claim of the audit being unauthentic, on the contrary both clearly state that it's an official audit.

Then, if you actually look up the discussions on the reliability of BuzzFeed News as a source you'll see the consensus is falling apart, and has been on a sharp downturn since 2019. If you read the summary on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BuzzFeed News you'll see this:

In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.

Finally, neither is it up to you to decide what qualifies as a reliable and neutral source, but I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick. As I understood it you were asking for comments on the sources, I provided mine, and that was the end of it until you went on to accuse me of lying. This is not how you're supposed to handle feedback you asked for. To be clear on what the essence of what that feedback was, I'll repeat it for you again; PNT article is ok, BFN article is not ok. See the original feedback for details. If you're not happy with that then either wait for other Wikipedians to come here naturally or go to WP:DRR/3 and hope they take your side, but I think I've been very fair in my assessment of the two candidate articles. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources literally spell out (practically verbatim) that the the audit is not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles original audit processes.

And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of lying when they are being deceitful. What you provided was not feedback, it was a complete mischaracterization of sources and WP:POVPUSH. There are however policies on not calling normal discussion "bullying". In fact, @SinglePorpoiseAccount, accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack (WP:WikiBullying#False accusations). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If the sources literally spell it out then there should be no problem block quoting them. You're obviously seeing something I'm not seeing in them. But, be careful not to move the goal posts; you said "unauthentic", which it is not since it's done with approval from the Arizona Senate.

As I have already stated, what I provided was detailed feedback on the two sources in question. You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective. My assessment of the articles aren't attacks on you, there is no reason for you to be offended and/or try to appear threatening. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not moving the goalposts, it seems you don't understand the meaning of unauthentic. It does not mean unofficial. Unauthentic is defined as "not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles an original." It does not have anything to do with the audit being done by the Arizona Senate. It has everything to do with the way the Arizona Senate has gone about this audit.

Via Snopes: Months after former President Donald Trump's election defeat, legislative Republicans in Arizona are challenging the outcome as they embark on an unprecedented effort to audit the results in the state's most populous county. Unprecedented means "never done or known before", so hopefully you see how that is just another way of saying "not done in a way that reflects tradition". AZ Central reported that professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria. Obviously they're not asserting it was unofficial. They're making a statement about the operations of the audit not faithfully resembling original audit processes. Which is even more clear when you read the sources in full. However I will not be going through and picking out all the other ways sources call the audit unauthentic, as that will take too long, and I'm certain experienced editors would come to my same conclusion about the sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So I just discovered you inserted the reference anyway, I have removed it now and if you reinsert it again I feel the need to notify an admin to take precautions to prevent you from starting WP:EW. This isn't a threat, but you need to respect the Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.

Unprecedented doesn't imply it's done without respect to tradition. You can have firefighters fighting an unprecedented fire, but that doesn't mean they won't use water to put it out. In the AZ Central article they also say this:

At least one auditor by trade believes strongly this is an audit — he also happens to be helping run it. Randy Pullen, a former state GOP chairman who is helping the Senate on audit-related communications, is a certified public accountant and a former partner at Deloitte, the national audit and accounting firm. He said that the Senate's contractors are following strict procedures, as auditors do, and collecting detailed evidence that could be used in court. He disagrees that the contractors, as a whole, are biased, and said it simply was a mistake to release information early. Whatever you call it, Senate President Karen Fann has said she expects similar efforts to occur elsewhere, too. She told the Senate's lead contractor at a recent hearing that the procedures being used here could serve as the "groundwork" for postelection reviews across the country.

So basically, it ends up being yet another case of WP:THISORTHAT. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: That auditor is not an independent source and therefore not a reliable source. He is actively involved in helping to run the audit. If that's not a WP:COISOURCE, I don't know what is. You can't even call it a WP:FRINGE theory, because it's completely biased. You should restore the reference. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are all good points, but the problem is that much of the same arguments apply to BFN as well. As I previously pointed out, BFN has a heavy left bias according to bias investigating source AllSides.[33] This seems to be consistent with the bias I saw in the article, and these are a big part of what I'm basing issues with WP:IMPARTIAL on. Since they assert the audit has a right bias then the left bias of BFN itself becomes problematic. That matches fairly closely with your WP:RS argument above, although formally I guess it goes mostly under WP:UNDUE. WP:FRINGE may not apply to BFN in a strict sense, but I don't see many more outlets taking it to such extremes in trying to prove the audit is "pro-Trump". It makes claims that the accountants are "pro-Trump figurines" and other conspiracy theories.

Therefore I stand by my removal of the reference. The way I see it, it clearly does not comply with several of Wikipedias rules and guidelines. Even if it didn't have those issues it would still need to be an archived link since I can easily prove the article has been edited since you requested comments on it. For convenience, here it is again.[34]

The other article from Phoenix New Times[35] still has the ok from me and seems to support the claim in the Wikipedia article just fine. Correct me if I'm wrong but earlier in the thread you seemed to agree that it did. If you do not want to use the PNT article anymore, please explain why? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How is the Buzzfeed article any different at all from all the other sources used in this article that say the exact same thing about the audit? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is a specific dispute about the propriety of a given source, I would suggest raising the issue at WP:RSN, for a definitive determination. BD2412 T 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: Good idea. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BuzzFeed News source on 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: where are you getting that the audit has “ members from both parties”. I have never seen a source say that it does. SecretName101 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well for starters it's required by the election procedures manual of the state of Arizona, as mentioned at 03:32:04 in the archived video from the July 15th hearing.[36][37] A bipartisan workforce is also implied right there in their presentation video they showed in the July 15th hearing. Presentation video begins at about 03:08:30 in the archived video and the statements from Kim Carpenter is at 03:09:40 and 03:15:43, sadly that part is not in the transcription linked in the Wikipedia article as the transcript begins a bit later (source video for the transcript lacks the opening statements). I have not seen any concrete evidence to the contrary, just speculative blanket statements that the audit as a whole is "Republican". SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: looked at that clip of July 15. Ken Bennett, even in those comments, did not explicitly say they were following what he was citing. And also, he included the caveat that it needed to be witnessed by reps of both part “if possible”. SecretName101 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Please indent your replies with ":" characters, it makes the thread easier to follow. You're right, he did not state it as explicitly as I remembered. However I think a good faith interpretation of what Ken Bennett said, given the context, is that they're following the election procedures manual of the state of Arizona. The same goes for the statements by Kim Carpenter. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: Bennett has evaded questions as to whether bipartisan observation is being properly allowed “During the confrontational hour-long press briefing, Logan and Bennett couldn’t say whether the three-person teams that will hand count the nearly 2.1 million ballots will each have at least one Democrat and one Republican.” https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/experts-raise-concerns-about-processes-transparency-as-arizona-election-audit-begins/

“Bennett said volunteer observers had also been recruited to monitor the process. He said he had hoped they would be bipartisan, but he acknowledged that as of last week, about 70 percent of those who offered to assist were Republicans.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/arizona-recount-trump-fraud-claims/2021/04/23/2f320b72-a3a4-11eb-a774-7b47ceb36ee8_story.html SecretName101 (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Those articles seem to be from an earlier stage of the audit in April. It wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't commit to an answer on whether or not they would have bipartisan attendance in every instance of the count, because they simply didn't know at that point. They also knew that if they did commit to an answer then it would be under intense scrutiny throughout the process (and rightly so). Still, 70% isn't that bad considering the image being portrayed in the media. I also can't find any mirror of that press briefing accessible from the EU, if you find one could you please link it here? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@SinglePorpoiseAccount: To state the obvious, what state law requires is irrelevant to us as editors. The fact that state law requires it doesn't mean it's what has, is or will happen. We need sources which actually say it is, has or will happen for this particular audit rather than say it happened because we assume it must because state law requires it. After all, isn't a big part of the reasoning behind this audit because one group alleges state (or federal or county or whatever) law was not properly followed? What the auditors say they are doing is a bit better, still for something like this we really should be using using reliable secondary sources coverage rather than press releases or press conferences. Also even if we were to use primary sources, we could only rely on what they actually said, not out own interpretations of what they said guided by state law (or whatever). If stuff has changed from April, that perfectly understandable but we need sources to demonstrate it has, we can't just assume it has because we hope it has or feel it should have. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite following, what do you mean by "what state law requires is irrelevant to us as editors"? Anyway, I think we need a healthy mix of both primary and secondary sources for this Wikipedia article. Secondary sources on this topic tend to use what I consider "optimistically abridged" quotes from officials, sometimes even paraphrasing carefully worded statements. I can see if I can find if there's been any information released on the bipartisan split among the auditors since April, if that's what you're asking? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's irrelevant to any changes we make to the article. We cannot assume because state law requires it, it has, will or is happening. Therefore your suggestion that the fact state law requires it supports the claim 'the audit has “ members from both parties”' is incorrect. If we want to say in the article the audit has members from both parties, we need secondary sources which say it has. Not editors deciding it must have because state law requires it, which putting aside that's not how WP:Verifiability works, is a poor assumption anyway for the reasons I outlined. Also, we cannot use our own interpretations of primary sources to dispute secondary sources. That's a big no-no. Frankly I'm very confused what this discussion is even about. It looks like it started off as a discussion about a comment made on this talk page rather than a dispute what to include in the article. If that's the case why are we still talking about it? Let's just drop it, editors are free to think whatever they want about the audit having members of both parties, enough energy has been spent on something which doesn't relate to improving the article. (Yes I appreciate the sub-thread was dead for 2 days before I revived it but I didn't look at the earlier comments at the time and just assumed this related to a dispute over something in the article and it seems we're still talking about.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair I haven't really seen much numerical evidence to support either conclusion, just quoted statements from auditors and their critics. Closest is probably the article SecretName101 linked, where Ken Bennet suggested about 70 percent of the volunteering staff as a whole were Republican.[38] I would agree we should just drop it and not say anything about whether the audit is bipartisan or Republican, but others keep bringing it up. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I'm very confused what this discussion is even about. I increasingly sense the deployment of chaff and shiny objects to confuse and disrupt. soibangla (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Funding for the audit

News today is about the funding. Some of this came from the state, but it's been extended through private donations. This should also be covered in the article. [39] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are the amounts, as reported by AP. "On Wednesday night, Logan ended months of silence about who was paying him when he said a whopping $5.7 million had been contributed by political groups run by prominent Trump supporters including Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, Patrick Byrne and correspondents from One America News Network. The figure dwarfs the $150,000 to be paid by the Senate." [40] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

News from today (8/2) - Are we keeping up with events?

The Board of Supervisors and Dominion refused in writing again to comply with the AZ Senate subpoenas. Following an emergency Board meeting on Monday, Chairman Jack Sellers asked for a release of info already obtained in the audit and warning the Senate of legal action in response.[41] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't "keep up" with events here, per WP:NOTNEWS. Our concern is with writing an article that will be of use in the long term, not immediately. We have a sister project, WikiNews, which serves as a current events news source. On Wikipedia, there is no WP:DEADLINE, and it may take years for everything to get into the article that is going to end up being there. We are also, of course, concerned with WP:RECENTISM, and avoid rushing to include things in the short term that may prove to be inconsequential in the long term. As an encyclopedic topic, a ballot audit occurring in 2021 is of no more immediate significance than one that occurred in 1821. BD2412 T 03:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Threats of legal action from the Maricopa Board of Supervisors against the AZ Senate seems a fairly significant development. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the Maricopa Board of Supervisors threatening to take legal action? Or is it merely suggesting that some form of legal action is likely to ensue? BD2412 T 04:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the letter. It's broadly disseminated. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If we have to read a letter with has been broadly disseminated, then this seems to be WP:UNDUE. For something like this, if it's not widely covered in reliable secondary sources, we can be sure it's not significant. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

According to AZ Central[42], this is what happened:

• On July 26th, Republican Senate leaders issued subpoenas to both Maricopa County supervisors and Dominion Voting Systems. The subpoenas demanded the following information:[43]

• Information about data breaches to the county's election systems.
• Ballot envelopes with voter signatures, or images of the envelopes.
• Information about changes to the county's voter records.
• Routers and network data, some of which the senators had requested in original subpoenas to the county this past winter.
• Usernames, passwords, tokens and pins to the vote-counting machines the county rents from Dominion, including all that would provide administrative access. This was also a repeat from the original subpoenas.

• The requested information was to be presented by 1 p.m. Monday at the state Capitol
• Attorneys representing county officials and Dominion instead sent (joint? article unclear on this) letters to President Karen Fann and the Senate, outlining they will not comply due to security concerns, and that they had provided what they were legally obliged to provide.
• President Karen Fann released a statement saying this will further delay the results.
• AZ supervisory board Chairman Jack Sellers released a statement saying if they "haven't figured out that the election in Maricopa County was free, fair and accurate yet, I'm not sure you ever will." and "The board has real work to do and little time to entertain this adventure in never-never land,"
• There might be a vote to hold the parties outlined in the subpoenas for contempt, but a previous vote in February of 2021 on preceding subpoenas have found the subpoenas were valid but ruled not to hold the parties in contempt.
• Supervisor Bill Gates (no apparent relation to former Microsoft founder sharing the same name) said the subpoenas are not a "serious" request, and called it "political theater." . He also pointed out the tabulating machines the subpoenas requested usernames and passwords for were returned on July 29th. (ed. note: According to statements during the July 15th hearing the auditors have forensic images of the hard drives from the tabulators.)
• Civil division chief for the County Attorney's Office, Thomas Liddy, wrote "Specifically, providing these routers puts sensitive, confidential data belonging to Maricopa County citizens — including Social Security numbers and protected health information — at risk. Further, the Maricopa County Sheriff has explained that the production of the routers would render MCSO internal law enforcement communication infrastructure extremely vulnerable to hackers,”
• Together with the subpoenas the Senate also sent out record requests for the same materials requested in the subpoenas. The county has responded they will comply with those as required by law. (ed. note: Unclear to me what the difference is and why they are fighting the subpoenas but not the record requests? I'm putting this in the bullet points anyway, maybe someone else can figure this out.)
• Record requests were sent on a security breach in November of 2020, the supervisors replied they will provide the information but not in time for the Monday deadline.
• County officials say they will provide images of or physical originals of ballot envelopes in response to the record requests.
• Quoted from the article: Recorder Stephen Richer said he will work with senators to provide what they want from the database.
• The article ends with a general summary of the previous subpoenas, before the subpoenas in question were sent out.

I've got to admit there's a lot to keep track of here. The gist of the story does indeed seem to be both Maricopa County supervisors and Dominion Voting Systems refusing to comply with legal subpoenas, and that they might face consequences as a result. Several other news outlets are starting to pick up the story too, so I think it's sufficiently significant for inclusion in the article if someone can boil down the bullet points above to an easily understandable paragraph. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As editors have pointed out above, Wikipedia is concerned with Not News, that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and concerned with not engaging in WP:RECENTISM. The Wall of Text above contradicts Not a forum and needs to be hatted. This is engaging in disruptive behavior and may actually be an end around to post this information, somehow, on Wikipedia. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I only tried to extract the facts and statements from the article so that someone more experienced could make a better summary than my last few sentences. Sorry if that came off as disruptive. Feel free to remove the bullet points, but please keep the paragraph below them and the source reference at the top. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with User:Steve Quinn. The excessive detail above has zero business in this pagespace and the discussion here and on RSN makes it plain that User:SinglePorpoiseAccount has much to learn about Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

The final sentence of the lead states that "many commentators and Republicans characterized the effort as a sham." This sentence is very weird; why are Republicans mentioned specifically but Democrats aren't, especially since Democrats have been far more critical of the audit than Republicans? Why not just say "many commentators characterized the effort as a sham," or even "many commentators and politicians characterized the effort as a sham"? I would just make this change myself, but the sentence is so incredibly odd that it must have been intentional, so I want to make sure that this hasn't already been discussed. Mlb96 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I added that because it is notable that many members of the same party oppose the audit, some vociferously, including the Republican-majority board of supervisors and county Recorder Richer. It wouldn't be notable if Democrats opposed it. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Republicans calling it a sham is more notable (as can be seen from the fact that many sources for that statement highlight that fact specifically), presumably since it was initiated by by Arizona Senate Republicans. Without that statement many people would likely assume that Republican politicians broadly or even uniformly support the audit, which is not the case. It is a dog-bites-man vs. man-bites-dog sort of thing; it is less notable that Democrats oppose a Republican-led initiative. --Aquillion (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the analogy is more like man-eating lettuce versus man eating lettuce, but to each his own. BD2412 T 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But by mentioning that many Republicans criticized the audit without mentioning Democrats, it implies that Democrats are not criticizing the audit. And by specifying the two groups of criticizers as "commentators and Republicans," it implies that "commentators" and "Republicans" are mutually exclusive categories, which they obviously are not. It's not about what's more notable, it's about the sentence just sounding bizarre. Mlb96 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • What do you think would be good language to make it clear that the audit has been criticized and characterized as a sham by people from across the political spectrum, and to convey that although it was initiated by Republican office-holders, it has been equally criticized by Republicans in various offices? BD2412 T 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see how that sentence in any way implies that democrats do not criticize the audit. If you really think it's an issue, what about changing it to "many commentators, both Republican and Democrat, characterized the effort as a sham." ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I think that's an improvement, but it implies that all commentators are either Republicans or Democrats. I would say something like ""many commentators, including Republicans and Democrats, characterized the effort as a sham". BD2412 T 04:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Something like "Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum characterized the effort as a sham..." would sound good and convey what needs to be conveyed imo. Mlb96 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
          • If we really want to emphasize the fact that Republicans were criticizing the audit, then it could also be "Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum, including Republicans, characterized the effort as a sham..." Mlb96 (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I think that's the one. Everyone agree? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I would go with the previous one ("Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum characterized the effort as a sham...") or add more explicit context as to why Republicans are mentioned specifically, even though it should be obvious from the first sentence of the article. Maybe "Conspiracy theory issues also arose as many commentators across the political spectrum, including from the initiating Republican party, characterized the effort as a sham..."? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As the discussion appears to have stalled, I've decided to boldly make the change myself. If anyone objects, feel free to revert; I'm going to be away for the weekend. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

News from last couple of days

BOS failure to comply with the Senate subpoenas referred to AZ Attorney General Brnovich, who gives the BOS until August 20 to respond. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)