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)

edit request
I don't think that the word "ultimately" is needed in this clause: "Oz ultimately lost to Fetterman in the Senate election,..." 76.14.122.5 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed and removed. —ADavidB 03:47, 25 November 2022 (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)

Lack of neutral sources on AKP ties
The "Foreign policy" section begins with unspecific assertions of ties to the AKP "that include foreign agents and proxies," before repeating unspecific accusations that he is a foreign agent spying on Americans. This amounts to innuendo and should either be completely removed or else describe concrete allegations, in which case it should cite neutral journalistic sources rather than the website of a think tank known for Islamophobic conspiracy theories and a magazine op-ed by the think tank. Wikipedia should not be weaponized for character assassination. 137.83.123.228 (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the same source cited twice as well Secretlondon (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)