Talk:Ben Oquist

"Few mentions in the media"?

I've removed this line as I've seen the guy on TV twice in the last month or so. A simple Google video search shows that he appears on TV fairly frequently. Tpth (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC) (Edit: Whoops, forgot to log in) Okay, thanks, although to be strictly accurate he appears as a commentator rather than an influencer --Gumsaint (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits that allege bias in the article

On occasion I have responded to edits by someone who appears to identify as an associate of the subject of the entry through their red-flagged tag THBTAI. There is no grounds for these claims and the content is all on the public record and reflects the nature of the public record. If there is a more positive spin possible this should be added and referenced. Gumsaint (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

General cleanup

Logged into Wiki for the first time in ages as I have some time on my hands to edit, and this seems as good a place to start as any. To my eyes, this needs a pretty good cleanup, bc at the moment it doesn't flow particularly well, and — whatever the merits of the allegations of bias referred to above — does read like it's placing undue emphasis on Oquist's failings. But anyway, first things first. Generally, biographical articles go chronologically, so the Greens stuff should come before the Australia Institute stuff. The stuff in "Career" should be broken out into a "Biography" section, as per the biography template. The "Public Record" part is weird; why are these random facts just kind of... there? If anything, they should be merged into the "Biography" section. Also, it's unclear exactly when Oquist joined the AI: the sentence immediately under the "The Australia Institute" heading says he became Executive Director in 2015, but the "Al Gore, Clive Palmer and carbon tax repeal" part refers to him being a director in 2014. Which is it? Anyway, I'm leaving this here for other contributors to comment on; let me know your thoughts, and let's get this looking good. Tpth (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of that. If it reads as though it casts him in a negative light it simply reflects the public record; the only time he comes to prominence and leaves a mark on the public record has been when he has acted in a controversial way. And yes, the 'Public Record' section is a bit folksy and could do with a clean up. Gumsaint (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Claims about business tax cuts

Thanks for edit Skyring. I'll check those references when time permits. Despite a long history of accusations of bias it is very obvious that KateO15 is a close confidant or even employee of the subject and is inclined to be over-zealous in promoting his work. I'll let her edit stand until I have time to check all those references. Gumsaint (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of those sources aren't good enough for a BLP. But my main problem is the "widely credited" statement. Is there a single source that says this? It's not wikipolicy to make that claim and back it up with multiple sources, because that is synthesis Besides being very poor practice. We only need one reliable source to support a statement, not a dozen! --Pete (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)