Talk:Mehmet Oz

Ö

The line "It is often spelled without the diacritic over the Ö in English.", is wrong. Ö isn't O with diacritics. It's a completely separate letter, with a completely separate associated sound. Much as G isn't C with a hook, but a separate letter. (which was formed, by adding a hook to the letter C. Before this, both /k/ and /g/ where written as C. The name Gaius, e.g., would be written CAIUS, but pronounced /gaius/, rather than /kaius/) This is true in many languages, such as Swedish, Icelandic, Hungarian, and many others. Unlike, e.g., Welsh, where ö is an o with diacritics, rather than being a separate letter. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not wrong. Indeed Ö is a separate letter in Turkish but the two dots are still a diacritic, and the line is actually " It is often spelled without the diacritic over the Ö in English." -- linking, appropriately I think, to Wikipedia articles which explain. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This phenomenon is not uncommon, it's called anglicization. There are some surnames that are substantially different, more than just a change of a diaeresis. Considering that virtually everything with Oz's name on it does not include the diaeresis, it doesn't make sense to do the same in the article. This is often similar with accent marks as well. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"but the two dots are still a diacritic"? The same could be said, about the hook in G, Peter Culutzan. The two dots are not diacritics. They are a part of the letter Ö, which is not the letter O, any more than the letter T is an I, that merely has a bar on top. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and also: There is no diaeresis, in Öz. The 'ö' in 'zoölogy' (as you might see it written, in e.g. The New Yorker), is an 'o' with a diaeresis. The 'ö' in Öz, however, is not an 'o' with a diaeresis. It is not an 'o', nor does it involve a diaeresis. The 'ö' in 'zoölogy', is a completely different character, compared to the 'ö' in Öz, and has a completely different origin. They just happen to, purely coincidentally, look exactly the same. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

After the October 2022 part of this thread we left it so the note pointed to diacritic. But on 17 November 2022 Toast for Teddy changed to point to umlaut then umlaut (diacritic). On 16 February 2023 SyntaxW02TheThird changed pointing to Two dots (diacritic) but with the text still saying "umlaut". I believe it should point to and say "diacritic" as before. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't either of those, Peter Culutzan. 185.113.98.77 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

On 13 May 2025 user 185.113.97.151 got rid of "without the umlaut over the O", the replacement is "with an O, instead of Ö". I intend to restore "diacritic" and the link to Two dots (diacritic). I see that Moonraker12, after careful discussion, moved the section that mentioned Turkish etc. out of there to Umlaut (diacritic), but I wouldn't like to link to that article because the intro etc. are about German umlaut. A possible alternative is to link only to the section Borrowing of German umlaut notation but I like it less, since I don't see the cite that the Turks definitely borrowed from the Germans. As for the claim that it's not a diacritic, I think there's no need to reply to that forever. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Just to clarify, I simply split the Umlaut (diacritic) content from the Two dots (diacritic) page and posted it more or less verbatim to the Umlaut (diacritic) page all those years ago, so the stuff in the 'Borrowing from German umlaut notation' was there from before.

So far as I know, the Turkish Ö is an umlaut (ie. A sound shift where former back vowels are now pronounced as front vowels), because that is the technical name for such things; contrariwise it isn’t anything to do with German language tradition, being common to a number of Turkic languages. And yes, it is an 'O' with a diacritic, because that is the technical name for them. However, insisting on the point may generate more heat than light, so I have taken the liberty of tweaking the footnote to what may be a more useful link. What do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you linked to "Ö in other languages". I think that's better than my proposal. Thanks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Paragraph in lede about his Senate run

The paragraph seem UNDUE, probably at least some of the "Political positions" content as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you say that? It's quite a notable aspect of his life based on the weight of coverage in reliable sources. His claim to being the first Muslim nominee is significant. Andre🚐 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RECENTISM, SOAP. It's very notable and important for the Republican Party, but I'm unclear why it will be important for him in 40 years. There are some sources mentioning the money he can potentially make in politics, and his desire to make more money, but we're not covering those. --Hipal (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In 40 years, if someone is writing books about Mehmet Oz, I do think that a good portion those books will probably discuss his Senate run. If this is his last foray into politics, then it will be his Senate run and not his "first run for office" or whatever. If he just floats around or slinks away or whatever this will still be a pretty significant event in his life. Right now we've condensed it down to 2 sentences. Here is the part that was deleted. Oz was the first Muslim candidate to be nominated by either major party for U.S. Senate. He adopted mostly conservative positions after launching his campaign. He opposed abortion in most instances, the Affordable Care Act, and the legalization of recreational cannabis, while supporting school choice, hydraulic fracturing, closer relations with Israel, the right to bear arms, and national protections for same-sex marriages. What about putting back the first sentence and maybe one more sentence that condenses the rest? Andre🚐 03:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good.

As far as the content goes, there is a far too heavy use of quotations, and we might want to incorporate https://apnews.com/article/dr-mehmet-oz-political-career-2022-midterm-f6ecd9ac9f0e95cda41193adc13c8437 while including more from (Nuzzi 2021). --Hipal (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lede. If the CMS confirmation goes through, I expect it will become a major event in his life, completely overshadowing the Senate run. --Hipal (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Occupation in infobox

My understanding is that the infobox should highlight the subject's areas of notability, while providing some basic information as well. I can see an argument for including "physician", but not "educator". Likewise, I don't see an argument for using "television presenter" rather than "television personality" or "television celebrity". --Hipal (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Official portrait?

Does anyone know when the official portrait will be available? Toombaw (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)