Talk:Karen Fann

Advertisement for Her Business
The article states that the business is "very successful," but cites only a campaign website in support of that statement. If the matter is to be discussed in an encyclopedia, it should be done in the context whether the President of Arizona Senate having an interest in a business that provides road signage is a permissible conflict of interest.174.17.137.81 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP editor
(Snooganssnoogans talk), (Therequiembellishere talk), (SuperHamster talk), (PohranicniStraze talk) IP Editor 172.58.222.238, probably located in the Worcester-Boston, Massachusetts area, vandalized this article, completely and repeatedly reversing five substantial identical restoration edits by four long-time editors within six hours. The only prior WP edits from that IP address were to the article on former Devin Nunes and Trump administration staffer Kash Patel on January 9th, and I think probably not done by the same person. Can this page be protected? Activist (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out and deleting deliberate bias partisan wording is not vandalism no matter how many temper tantrums you throw.172.58.223.64 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The wording/diction is truly sub-par. "false claim" seriously? To any sophisticated reader, using the term "false claim" in the lede instantly signals that this not a legitimate article. And that Wikipedia is not a serious knowledge project. Need to do better. Worse, they use CNN as if it's a valid primary source. LAWL

I'm of the opinion that, while Snooganssnoogans' edits were made with some bias, the vast majority of them are made with good intentions towards maintaining neutrality. If you want to edit the article to further support neutrality(Or to bias it conservative), don't make statements like "These statements have no basis in fact," rather, go "X Source claims these allegations to be false" and cite it.RosaBrabaria (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Question of veracity
This statement is in the second paragraph: 'The audit is widely seen as an illegitimate "effort to undermine valid election results."' I question how this can be proven. How things are "seen" is highly subjective. I suggest we delete this sentence and stick with facts, not subjective, unverifiable claims. Yates (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)