Talk:Amazon HQ2

List of bids

 * Quartz article with a long list of regions and cities

 Sounder Bruce  23:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Submitted and announced
Why is there a submitted and announced section? I will delete the announced section. If anyone disagrees please revert. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several cities who announced their intention to bid, but did not submit by the deadline. The section needs to be cleaned up, but not deleted wholesale. ''' Sounder [[User talk:SounderBruce|Bruce ]]''' 04:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is having an intention to submit a proposal but not following through notable? Seems like it just adds clutter to the article. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also most of the cities are just duplicates from the submitted list. If no one wants to improve the list or debate why it should remain, I think we should remove it. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving sources from the Announced section to the Bid entries is not appropriate. Neither is trying to go around the BRD process and revert without further discussion.  Sounder Bruce  03:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then contribute to the discussion and article instead of staying quiet and just annoyingly reverting progress of the article. Also, please read WP:OWNERSHIP. It would be beneficial to you. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleting content and mis-using references is not progress.  Sounder Bruce  00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "content" is repeated in the section above and therefor utterly useless. The moving references to a more appropriate section is not "mis-using" them. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot use references announcing a bid being considered and use them to verify that a bid has been submitted. They are two different, distinct events that require different references.  Sounder Bruce  01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all references are announcing a bid. They speak of the actual bid. 174.95.7.223 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep list of bidders?
While there needs to be a mention that 238 cities that made a bid, should most of these cities be listed on this page? It seems like cruft to include all of those cities in a long list.

The 20 finalists need to remain since that it is notable to be on the shortlist. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, seems like unnecessary listcruft to me. There's no long standing interest in the 238 places that bid for it, in 5 years people will care about where the HQ is, not who tried to bid for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Looking at the list of criteria for listcruft, I don't see how keeping the list of cities meets any of them. It's a finite list, verifiable using reliable surces, requires no active maintenance, and is clearly relevant to the topic. I'm not sure why we're trying to guess at what people might find interesting in five years. By way of comparison: if you go on election-related pages like Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2011, you'll see all the candidates. (Holding off restoring the content pending resolution of this discussion). Tom pw (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I deleted it, there were perhaps 150 cities listed. I think all 238 bidders should be listed or list non of them (with the existing references for a reader to find the entire list elsewhere). --Frmorrison (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll work to get the full list together. The section below is from the edit history. I'll add things hear until its complete (or nearly complete). Tom pw (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Useful list: Tom pw  (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Submitted
, 238 proposals had been submitted and received by Amazon, representing cities and regions from 54 states, provinces, districts, and territories. The only U.S. states that did not have a locality that submitted a formal proposal were Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. The Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan also declined to bid, along with the Yukon Territory.


 * Anchorage, Alaska
 * Albany-Rensselaer, New York
 * Atlanta, Georgia (regional bid)
 * Atlantic City, New Jersey
 * Austin, Texas
 * Bakersfield, California
 * Baltimore, Maryland (Port Covington)
 * Baltimore, Maryland (Old Goucher / Midtown)
 * Bensalem, Pennsylvania
 * Birmingham, Alabama
 * Boise, Idaho
 * Boston, Massachusetts
 * Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut (joint bid)
 * Bristol Township, Pennsylvania
 * Brunswick, Maine
 * Buffalo–Rochester, New York (joint bid)
 * Calgary, Alberta
 * Camden, New Jersey
 * Charlotte, North Carolina
 * Chicago, Illinois
 * Chula Vista, California
 * Cincinnati, Ohio (joint regional bid)
 * Cleveland, Ohio
 * College Park, Maryland/University of Maryland (joint bid)
 * Columbus, Ohio
 * Cornwall, Ontario
 * Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas (joint regional bid)
 * Danbury, Connecticut
 * Delaware County, Pennsylvania
 * Denver, Colorado
 * Detroit, Michigan (joint international bid with Windsor, Ontario)
 * Edmonton, Alberta
 * El Paso, Texas (regional bid)
 * Enfield, Connecticut
 * Fall River, Massachusetts
 * Foxborough, Massachusetts
 * Fresno, California
 * Gary, Indiana
 * Grand Rapids, Michigan
 * Greenville, South Carolina
 * Halifax, Nova Scotia
 * Hamilton, Ontario
 * Hartford and Stamford, Connecticut (joint bid)
 * Hickory, North Carolina
 * Houston, Texas
 * Huntington Beach, California (joint bid with Long Beach)
 * Indianapolis, Indiana (regional bid)
 * Irvine, California
 * Jacksonville, Florida
 * Jersey City, New Jersey (Kearny Point complex)
 * Kansas City, Missouri
 * Kearny, New Jersey
 * Knoxville, Tennessee
 * Langford, British Columbia
 * Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania (regional bid)
 * Leominster, Massachusetts
 * Long Beach, California (joint bid with Huntington Beach)
 * Los Angeles, California
 * Louisville, Kentucky (regional bid)
 * Lowell, Massachusetts
 * Lynn, Massachusetts
 * Marlborough, Massachusetts
 * Memphis, Tennessee
 * Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts
 * Miami, Florida (regional bid)
 * Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 * Missouri (state bid)
 * Montreal, Quebec
 * Nashville, Tennessee
 * Newark, New Jersey
 * New Bedford, Massachusetts
 * New Brunswick, New Jersey
 * New Hampshire (state bid)
 * New York City, New York
 * Northern Virginia (joint bid between Fairfax and Loudoun counties)
 * Omaha, Nebraska
 * Ottawa, Ontario (regional bid)
 * Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 * Pomona, California (joint bid)
 * Portland, Oregon (regional bid)
 * Queretaro, Queretaro
 * Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina (joint regional bid)
 * Rhode Island
 * Richmond, Virginia
 * Rockdale, Texas
 * Sacramento, California
 * Salt Lake City, Utah
 * San Diego, California
 * San Francisco Bay Area, California (joint bid)
 * San Jose, California
 * Santa Ana, California
 * Santa Teresa, New Mexico and San Jerónimo, Chihuahua (joint international bid)
 * Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (joint international bid)
 * Scarborough, Maine
 * Scottsboro, Alabama
 * Seattle, Washington suburbs (King and Snohomish counties)
 * Somerville, Massachusetts
 * Springfield, Massachusetts
 * St. Louis, Missouri
 * Stamford, Connecticut
 * Stonecrest, Georgia (will create a new town named Amazon, Georgia if selected)
 * Syracuse (central Mohawk area), New York
 * Tacoma, Washington
 * Tampa Bay, Florida (joint bid with Saint Petersburg)
 * Taunton, Massachusetts
 * Toledo, Ohio (joint bid with Maumee, Ohio)
 * Toronto, Ontario (regional bid)
 * Trenton, New Jersey
 * Tulalip Indian Reservation, Washington
 * Tucson, Arizona
 * Oklahoma City/Tulsa, Oklahoma
 * Vancouver, British Columbia (regional bid)
 * Washington, D.C.
 * Winnipeg, Manitoba
 * Weymouth, Massachusetts
 * Worcester, Massachusetts

Washington Post is reporting that they know the location choice and when it will be announced
Do you see how unethical this is? This is why I’m so adamant about not using Washington Post as a source for Amazon articles. Bezos owns the Washington Post so is it a coincidence that they get this “Breaking News” scoop about it? 
 * There is a distinction between newspaper ownership, editorial biases, and the newsroom reporting, something that a reputable newspaper like the Post would respect. The Post's editor himself says that Bezos does not interfere with newsroom reporting, so any accusation of a conflict of interest is itself violating this site's WP:NPOV policy.  Sounder Bruce  23:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m aware Bezos says he doesn’t involve himself with the editorial decisions, but there are manh angles of this that must be taken into consideration. As many reports there are about this Amazon HQ2 process, every single outlet mentions that the DC metropolitan area has an “advantage” because Bezos owns WaPo and DC’s largest residence. (Even if people do use the WaPo source they’re still using an article that relies on speculation, not confirmation.) Amazon as a business sends complimentary daily emails advertising WaPo’s most read articles, exclusively; they don’t do that for any other paper. It’s not like they’re sleeping in separate rooms per se. Anyhow, what a coincidence it is that so-called “people close to the process” would give WaPo the first scoop. Of course in the article no one with all this so-called inside information wanted to comment on record so what’s the point. The outspoken Amazon economic director called these leakers out on the nda and tweeted that WaPo’s speculations are ridiculous. Who knows what’s actually in it because it’s an nda, but if they are in fact violating it then yes it is very biased behavior. If other editors want to come to the talk page I’m sure we can all discuss this thoroughly.Trillfendi (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cite your regulations and copy them here, don't willy nilly wave the the "neutral point of view" title of the Wikipedia policy without explaining specifically which part.

Your statement that to be skeptical of washington post stories is not neutral is fundamentally ridiculous. Basic media literacy requires skepticism. There is no where on this site where an assumed trust of sources is so absolute. Least of all something as silly as "the editor says his boss doesn't interfere so that proves it". Really embarrassing comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:7D2:3D14:BCC1:73C1:8E25 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Impending rumors should not be reported for an encyclopedic article in any case until more definitive evidence is available. I believe there is a Wikipedia policy on that somewhere but I don't know it so I can't cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:7D2:3D14:BCC1:73C1:8E25 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * talk, Speculation and unverified rumors will be reverted at all times, IP user. You simply reiterated what I already said. Marty Baron already addressed critical reporting of Amazon and how Bezos feels about it. But now we have actual Amazon executives calling out their irresponsible reporting on the matter and we’re supposed to cite that article without checks and balances from other sources? Comical.Trillfendi (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Why was the first choice New York, and the second Washington,D.C. Both of those places are steeped in political and economic power, national and international; not the best choices for a company that benefits from fast internet service and product delivery. Maybe they aren't that interested in their current customers; maybe they are interested in negotiating more global?

Amazon Japan customer service team
Amazon Japan customer service concern and complain 220.255.49.131 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)