Talk:Ahmet Ertegun/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Diacrit (umlaut) in last name

Anyone want to clarify the policy on use of diacritics on Wikipedia? I get the sense that this article should be Ahmet Ertegun, not Ahmet Ertegün, but I can't find the page with the official policy.

His Turkish ID clearly states it's Ahmet ERTEGÜN.

In any case, here's my argument: Ertegun is famous for his success while known as Ertegun, not Ertegün, so that's how the article should be named. Alcuin (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - see this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Though born in Turkey, these two were Americans notable only for their actions in the USA. The are almost always known as Ertegun without the "ü" in English. See "Notes" section for links to reliable sources. (It should also be noted that the Erteguns were not born with that surname. Family names were only introduced with the Turkish Surname Law of 1934 and the brothers moved to the USA in 1935.) — AjaxSmack 03:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment at this point - the statement that Ahmet (and Nesuhi) "were Americans notable only for their actions in the USA" is possibly misleading, although it reflects the fact that many WP articles do concentrate on his role in the US and, specifically, in the US music industry. However, he was also an entrepreneur with many business, property and other interests in Turkey, and spoke Turkish - see, for example, this and this. The existing article is pretty US-centric, but we must remember that this is a global encyclopedia, albeit one written in English. Having said that, the Turkish sources for info on him in English don't appear to be consistent as to whether to use the diacritic or not. Interested to hear other views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nominator. — AjaxSmack 03:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per usage in sources. Both the Turkish diacritic and the date of adoption of the name (if verified, some Turks adopted surnames before 1934) should be mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:AHMET ERTEGUN (1923-2006).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AHMET ERTEGUN (1923-2006).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

POV and other points

The article at this time is skirting right on the edge of sounding like a promotional piece, rather than a biography. Other points include the use of a section for a one sentence mention of his marriage, and sections titled "In Popular Culture" are frowned upon. They are considered as trivia, so the information there needs to be merged into the text. I may have missed it, but I was surprised to find no mention of Ertegun's role in founding the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and his relationships with some artists which include Mick Jagger, and Frank Zappa (the latter even named his son, Ahmet Zappa after him- respect hard to find toward record executives! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"In 1987, Ahmet was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, of which he himself was a founder." As the person who created this article, in effect, back here in 2007 when I was pretty much a newbie - and have hardly touched it since - I'm surprised and disappointed that others haven't stepped in to improve it, at least to give it decent referencing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article lists the pronunciation of Ertegün as a Turkish name with an umlaut.
That's awesome for the next time I'm in Turkey, but he's an American, and the article should include the way we say his name in English.
His name is pronounced ER-tə-gən, with ER as in "her".
Varlaam (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made a pass at the IPA for the real pronunciation.
Someone should please adjust it if I've made an IPA mistake.
Varlaam (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was this paged moved against consensus from Ahmet Ertegun to Ahmet Ertegün?

I see on the talk page that the correct spelling for the article was previously discussed and there was consensus for the version without the umlaut. Was there a more recent discussion elsewhere to overturn this consensus? Is there any reason not to immediately correct what appears to be unsupported POV pushing? And is correct for the change to have been marked "minor"? @Why should I have a User Name?: Please participate in this discussion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I never saw that you discussed the surname of a Turk, "Türk" in Turkish, which is written in the Latin script. The press in the USA may not be accustomed to use the letter ü, which is very natural, or ı, thus the books and news about rakı may prefer to write raki instead of "rakı". But if they also manipulate a person's name in another language and write Ertegun instead of "Ertegün" that is their problem and not that of Wikipedia. We might find 1,000 times more Ertegun than Ertegün in English sources but as an encyclopedia still cannot "change" a proper name. That is my argument. And of course it was a minor change, a simple correction. If you live near Washington, D.C. tell people there to stop manipulating even the names of other people. This will be all from my part. Good-bye. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant guidance is at WP:EN - specifically "when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works).... If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." In my view, that supports the use of Ertegun rather than Ertegün on this site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Why should I have a User Name?: I have not previously discussed this subject's name, but others did, as you can see on this very talk page, where they decided in favor of "Ertegun". Your response merely confirms your POV pushing: you are trying to use WP to change what you seem to concede is the common usage in English to what you think should be. Your answer is contradicted by WP:EN which, as Ghmyrtle has noted, is the relevant guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Why should I have a User Name should certainly not have moved the page. This article had already had a page title move, and a discussion about that page title move, so Wikipedia's rules require any further move to be be considered controversial. This means that any new move should have been proposed, not just done, and no decision reached about that proposal until a proper discussion about the proposed move had concluded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that the move was against the rules, that three people disagree with the move, and that the editor who made the move has stated that he does not want to be involved in any future discussion ("This will be all from my part. Good-bye"), would it be OK to just return it to the old name? Or should we ask an administrator to do it? Or do we need to make a propsal to return it to the old name? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I would have been well within my rights to immediately undo the move with a cursory edit summary, but I'd rather have a discussion than a move war. Why should I... is an active editor who I preferred to engage and who has now said his/her piece. And we three have said our piece. Move can be undone now or at any time by any editor, no further discussion or admin required. I will likely do so myself within a few days, if discussion becomes dormant. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A further argument for using "Ertegun" is that he was born in 1923. So, aside from the surname issue mentioned in the earlier name change discussion, an "Ertegün" spelling would not have appeared on his birth documents - or indeed on any official documents before 1929, the date of the introduction of the modern Turkish alphabet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Birth date

The Ottoman Empire switched from the Julian calendar (O.S.) to the Gregorian calendar (N.S.), harmonizing on 1 March 1917, and reset the start of the year to 1 January starting in 1918. The only non-standard element of the calendar from 1918 to 1925 was the year numbering. As a result, there should be no question of O.S. dates for Ahmet Ertegün's birth. If you want to give the date that was in use at his time and place of birth, it would be 31 July 1339. See Rumi calendar. Note that the year 1339 is specific to the Turkish civil calendar and does not correspond to the Islamic year at that time. — Justinbb (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmet_Ertegun/Archive_1&oldid=1090469649"