Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Who hacked into this page and slandered the OAG under his personal info? Is this normal that someone can just do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.143 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Hey, so this is a BLP for a politician currently campaigning. It almost exclusively cites things put out by his office or campaign and appears to have been mainly written by one dude with minimal other contributions. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's clear it needs a major rewrite to not be full of peacock terms and to not read like a campaign biography. – Joe N 04:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it not seeming neutral. JobsOhio should be mentioned. Why? I found a news story mentioning it when I wasn't even looking for it, and if you Google search ohio auditor of state jobsohio, one finds plenty of newspaper results covering Yost and his relationship with JobsOhio. The story I linked to notes that some Republicans didn't appreciate Yost's audit, and that the state legislature passed a law prohibiting such audits in the future. I argue that JobsOhio is more notable that some of the topics currently on the Wikipedia article. Anonymous-232 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article history, and in 2014 it was clearly a puff piece written in pro-POV. Now, it's much shorter as the offending passages have been removed. The POV tag on the article is almost four years old and out of date. I have removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: where was he born, and what is his ethnic heritage? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave vs. David Anthony

The lede says "David Anthony Yost" and does not mention he goes by "Dave Yost". This seems a bit strange, given that the title of the page is Dave Yost. Should the start of the article say, Dave Yost (David Anthony Yost), or perhaps David "Dave" Anthony Yost? I don't know the standard for this in BLP.TricksterWolf (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is common and well-established practice on Wikipedia biographies to use a title that reflects everyday usage, and to use the person's full name in the first sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

I understand that's a big issue right now, especially considering his comments about the 10 year old, but this article appears to have been written written way to recent, with 4 paragraphs written about the topic (which has taken place over the last 4 weeks), and only a couple of sentences regarding early life (and literally only one sentence regarding the rest of his time has ohio AG). FrederalBacon (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His career, including positions he held prior to becoming Ohio attorney general (he was Ohio Auditor of State for 8 years from 2011 to 2018, which is not even mentioned in the body), definitely could be expanded. However, the quantity of coverage in this section is not WP:UNDUE given the national (and international) coverage this incident and Yost's role in it has received. In fact, I think it's pretty restrained. General Ization Talk 01:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with General Ization. There is certainly good reason to expand the sections of the article about his career before his deep recent involvement in the controversy about a ten year old rape victim leaving Ohio to get an abortion. Please feel free to get to work on that, FrederalBacon. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to imply you're neutral in this argument? Because if you're trying to imply neutrality, that sentence isn't it. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't argue undue, I stated recentism, which is evident by the single sentence for two years, and the four paragraphs for one month. There's nothing wrong with the last half, but if you don't want an editor to come in here and argue UNDUE, and try to remove those 4 paragraphs (as they're already trying to do, by making a relevancy claim, which, mind you, I was the one who reverted the removal to keep the content up the second time, it got removed twice), then the article needs to be balanced against those 4 paragraphs. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you recognize that an article is imbalanced due to a paucity of content describing the subject's career before the current controversy, the appropriate response is generally not to question whether the content about the controversy is "too recent". Typically, the argument against recentism is that we do not yet know whether the material will prove to be highly relevant to the subject's notability. Given the volume of coverage of this incident and the fact that relatively few people outside of Ohio had ever heard of Yost prior to this month, I think we can set that concern aside. You are as capable as any other editor of remedying the matter by expanding the other sections that need expansion. General Ization Talk 15:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Yost