Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic

Area and population

Information about area and population must come from third part sources. Aydin Balayev of Azerbaijan Press Agency are not third patry sources. --vacio 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? We rely on the United States Government for information on that country's area and population, why should this be any different, especially when discussing a country that's been extinct for 90 years?

Because: 1) ADR had no internationally recognized borders, 2) it had territorial disputes with two of its neighbors. 3) Unlike US, it is a historical state, so I think we should use information from historians without bias. --vacio 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

the United States is not a "historical state"? what?? 50.111.29.145 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

NovaSkola, before making a revert, please read WP:NEWSORG which states: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. A news agency can not be a reliable source for such a disputable claim like the area of a historical state with no de jure borders, Not to speak about that it has to be from a neutral, third party source. --vacio 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Vacio, Aydin Balayev is not Azeri Press Agency but is a renown Soviet historian, who is an expert on particular issue. His studies come from Soviet archives. The APA source just corroborates Balayev source. Moreover, you are not correct when stating ADR had no internationally recognized borders. Unlike Democratic Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was recognized de-facto in January 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Vacio, actually it was you who claims in my page sources are "partisan" just due historian is Azerbaijani. APA is world known news agency and information is not biased and fake like ones you get in panarmenian.com, which once claimed absolutely hilarious and funny stuff that some users are in topics are hackers, even know it was me and there was no evidence of hacking or w/ever hurdy-gurdy they are claiming.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Translation of Official Name

It is unclear what the official name of the country was. The Azerbaijani government translates the name as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic here https://meclis.gov.az/news-az.php?id=14&lang=en, the phrase 'Azərbaycan Xalq' is generaly translated as the 'Azerbaijani people' meaning it would be the Azerbaijani People's Republic but it seems that the name could be more accurately translated as the Republic of the People of Azerbaijan or the Republic of the Azerbaijani Nation. What are all of our thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappasi (talk • contribs)

As I understand, the official names in Azerbaijani and French/English languages were different. While Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti indeed literally translates as People's Republic, the name in other languages was Democratic Republic. I cannot say why it was decided to do like that, maybe because democracy means "rule of people", and it was translated into Azerbaijani like "people's republic". Grandmaster 14:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, xalq cumhuriyyeti means people's republic, same in Turkish. Also "Azərbaycan Xalq" isn't "Azerbaijani people", it is gramatically incorrect. Beshogur (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Intro rewriting

Hello

My proposal would be as follows:

The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic[a] (abbreviated as ADR; Azerbaijani: آذربایجان خلق جومهوریتی, romanized: Azərbaycan Demokratik Cümhuriyyəti), was a short-lived republic in the South Caucasus. It was founded by the Azerbaijani National Council in Tiflis on 28 May 1918 after the collapse of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic.[8] Its established borders were with Russia to the north, the Democratic Republic of Georgia to the north-west, the Republic of Armenia to the west, and Iran to the south. It had a population of around 3 million.[9] As Baku was under Bolshevik control, Ganja acted as the temporary capital of the ADR.

The name of "Azerbaijan" was adopted by the leading Musavat party to foment Turkic nationalism in Iran.[10][11] Prior to the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918, it was exclusively used to identify the adjacent region of contemporary northwestern Iran.[12][13][14]

Under the ADR, a government system was developed in which a Parliament elected on the basis of universal, free, and proportionate representation was the supreme organ of state authority; the Council of Ministers was held responsible before it. Fatali Khan Khoyski became its first prime minister.[15] Besides the Musavat majority, Ahrar, Ittihad, Muslim Social Democrats as well as representatives of Armenian (21 out of 120 seats[8]), Russian, Polish, and Jewish minorities[16] gained seats in the parliament. Many members supported Pan-Islamist and Pan-Turkist ideas.[17]

Among the important accomplishments of the Parliament was the extension of suffrage to women, making Azerbaijan one of the first countries in the world, and the first majority-Muslim nation, to grant women equal political rights with men.[8] The ADR was also the second successful secular, democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds after the Crimean People's Republic.[18] The contemporary Republic of Azerbaijan regards itself as the legal successor to the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan rather than to the Azerbaijani SSR.[19]

Including a university is not significant enough for a country. Every country has its universities. Also, saying that is was the "first successful country etc." is overly positive I think. My proposal for just a republic would be much more fitting and NPOV . --217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a long Talk page discussion in 2008 (long since archived) in which the view that the ADR was the first secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds had the strongest argument and the most reliable sources backing it up. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic/Archive_1#First_or_second

Years later, some editors ignored that consensus and started claiming that the ADR was only the second or third such republic. In March 2021, a discussion took place on the Talk page in which the consensus was to describe the ADR as the first *successful* attempt at establishing a secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. The word "successful" was added as a compromise because of the claim by some editors that the Crimean People's Republic, whose government did not rule over the entire population of Crimea (only over the Muslim citizens) and which lasted only about a month, was a secular democratic republic. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic#First_or_third? I agree with the compromise that was achieved through consensus.

I am pinging the editors who participated in the March 2021 discussion so that they can participate in this new discussion and consider your proposed edits: @ChillManChill:, @Grandmaster:, @Parishan:, @Golden: AuH2ORepublican (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot AuH2O.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is not a good lead, so I oppose. The name of Azerbaijan was certainly used to refer to both sides of Araks (see for example this), and it was not second successful attempt, as was discussed before. Grandmaster 10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the current one is not good either. You do not begin a page with "country was the first successful bla bla bla". This is not an advertisement. And Azerbaijan was certainly not used *by Turks* for anything north of the Aras before the Russians came along.217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe that calling the ADR the "first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds" can be described as "an advertisement." The word "successful" was selected not to praise the ADR, but to differentiate it from earlier, much shorter-lived efforts to establish secular republics in the Turkic and Muslim worlds. (Besides, how could one "advertise" for a government that fell a century ago?) And I agree with Grandmaster's comments overall. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You do not seem to be familiar with Azerbaijani irredentism nowadays. The Azerbaijani state even views itself as the legal successor of the DR to justify its territorial claims against Armenia. Secondly, you just do not put the successful part in the first sentence, that is ridiculous. Should the USA article be "The United States is the first successful country with liberty and gun rights enshrined in its constitution"?? Also the ADR was short lived itself. We should not act as if it was in power from 100 years--217.149.166.11 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'd like for some one else to reply to me besides Grandmaster. They have accused me of cheating Wikipedia, and they try to undermine my suggestions on discussion pages. I do not appreciate it. @AuH2ORepublican: Can we please have some other opinions too? Thanks a bunch!217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I already pinged the editors who participated in the prior discussion. If you wish to invite every editor who has edited the article in the past, say, six months, you are free to do so, although please note that most of them edited sections of the article unrelated to the issues that you brought up. I also would like to point out that you do not get to exclude Grandmaster from the discussion, nor the other, unnamed editors whom you claim "accuse[d you] of cheating Wikipedia." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that Grandmaster accusing me of socks and working against me in every discussion I open is not fair. Especially you as an administrator or something should not allow things like that. That is strategic bullying.217.149.166.11 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Now, Beshogur, a renowned irredentist, claims we don't have consensus on the non-controversial edits. We clearly do. The things I now edited were never up for discussion anyways. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&oldid=1061570027.217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

where's the consensus? And please avoid rhetorics like bla bla bla and stop calling me a renowned irredentist. Beshogur (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, "bla bla bla" was enough for the noticeboard, or? You have double standards and never even replied to my messages and questions.217.149.166.11 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

Hello

Opening another thread to garner consensus. See thread above to which everyone stopped responding instead of being productive.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

At least 3 different users objected to your proposed edit. You have not addressed any of their concerns, and yet tried to introduce your version. That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Grandmaster 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't figure out what's exactly the disagreement over this recent edit? It isn't the initial one which was disagreed upon I believe, and for this one, your only disagreement seems to be "no consensus". That isn't a valid disagrement reason, and just seems gaming the rules to stop new edits being introduced. If you'd be kind enough to explain in a couple words what exactly you disagree with this recent edit, it would be nice. Others are also free to join. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

To reach consensus for what? If it's for your proposed new introduction, you won't count with my support. My vote is for the initial sentence in the article to state that the ADR "was the first successful secular democratic republic in the Turkic and Muslim worlds." I also vote against describing the ADR as "short-lived," as such term is not precise and, in the context of the 1918-1920 period in the region, quite misleading. The ADR did not collapse after two years because the government no longer was supported by its citizens, or even because of an internal coup by a willful minority faction within its population; the ADR was invaded by the Soviet Union, which swallowed it up just as it did to so many other countries in Europe and Asia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I "stopped responding" to the prior discussion because I gave my opinion on your proposal and saw no need to comment once you turned the discussion into a venue fir lobbing personal attacks against other editors just because they disagreed with you. Please try to keep things civil; getting suspended for personal attacks or edit-warring is not an effective strategy for obtaining a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, I just saw that your IP account was blocked for two months for continued edit-warring. My comment about how getting blocked for inappropriate behavior was not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus was a reference to the 48-hour block from a few days ago; certainly, getting yourself blocked for two *months* is an even less productive strategy. You probably won't be reading this, but in case that you do, let me advise you that reacting to your block with "I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)" is not a good strategy for obtaining a consensus, either, particularly if you return under a different name or IP account before the two months have expired and are discovered and banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. You should wait two months and, when you return from your suspension, maybe you should try (i) discussing matters in a polite and civilized manner and (ii) providing reliable sources that actually support your claims. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani or Turkish ?

There is something to be known here. When the People's Republic of Azerbaijan was established, the official language was declared Turkish (Azerbaijan language). In 1930, the Turkish spoken in Azerbaijan was changed to the Azerbaijani language. I propose adding Turkish to my language section in parentheses. 37.26.53.164 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A few sources which shed some light on things:

• "On 27 May 1918, the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (DRA) was declared with Ottoman military support. The rulers of the DRA refused to identify themselves as Tatar, which they rightly considered to be a Russian colonial definition. Instead, they defined the Turkic-speaking Muslim people of the southeast Caucasus as Turkic. In their native tongue they were Azerbaijani Turk or simply Turk, but with a broader meaning of the word. We understand the usage of this broader meaning from Russian texts of the same period where Tiurk or Tiurkskii (Turkic) was used. DRA officials also frequently used "Muslim" to identify the same group because the majority of the population still identified themselves by religion. Neighboring Iran did not welcome the DRA's adoption of the name of "Azerbaijan" for the country because it could also refer to Iranian Azerbaijan and implied a territorial claim. That is why the authorities in Baku also used these definitions with the adjective of "Transcaucasian" (Russian: Zakavkazskii)." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s. Iranian Studies. p. 514
• "In April 1920, when the Red Army entered Baku, the Bolsheviks followed the designation of the previous nationalist government and accepted Turk in the native tongue and Tiurk in Russian as the name for the titular nation. Azerbaijan was kept as the name of the territory and the republic. What were the consecutive developments that induced the Bolsheviks to replace this Turkic definition by an Azerbaijani definition seventeen years later?" -- idem, p. 515
• "A possible solution would have been to remove the ethno-linguistic term Turk and Turkicness from the definition of "Azerbaijani" identity. However, removing the Turkic element could turn the population into easy prey for the Iranian national identity that was being promoted by Tehran at the time. As the transformation of "Turkishness" in the 1930s into a national identity of a nation-state in Turkey produced an identity issue for the Azerbaijani Turkic population, the nation-building of Reza Shah in Iran also did so. " -- idem, p. 519
• "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
• "A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR. The life of the ADR was short, ending 2 years after its declaration as a result of the Soviet takeover in 1920. However, the emergent nation, deprived of its newly found state, did not cease to exist. Indeed, nation building has continued and has evolved in interaction with the Soviet nationalities policies and the establishment of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan in 1991." -- Ramin Ahmadoghlu. (2021). Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Volume27, Issue 2
• "In other words, the initial design for Azerbaijan was a multiethnic country uniting Transcaucasian Muslims (including “Transcaucasian Tatars,” or Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Ajarians, Tats, Talysh, Ingilois, and others) with significant Christian minorities (including Georgians, Armenians, and Russians). Within the context of this project, the category “Azerbaijani” did not yet have a narrow ethnic or linguistic connotation and an Azerbaijani nation was made possible by including not only Azerbaijani Turks and, for example, Talysh but also Georgian Ingilois and—more problematic, but still feasible—even Azerbaijani Armenians (as a religious minority). The republic’s 1918 declaration of independence began with a reference to the “peoples of Azerbaijan as the holders of sovereign rights.” In this regard, the young Azerbaijani political entity had the potential to be, and to some extent was, better suited to the incorporation of ethnic minorities than were the Georgian and Armenian nations." -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. 71
• "They are ethnically close, and until 1937 the people of Azerbaijan were officially designated as Turkish. The term "Azeri" was imposed by Stalin's "ethnic engineers". -- Baryam Balci chapter: Turkey-Azerbaijan relations: from romanticism to realism". In: Alexander Agadjanian, Ansgar Jödicke, Evert van der Zweerde, eds. (2015). "Religion, Nation and Democracy in the South Caucasus". Routledge. p. 258
• "Until 1937, Soviet publications and official documents referred to the titular nation of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic as Tiurk (Turkic) in Russian and Turk (Turkish and Turkic, as there are no separate words for these two concepts in Turkic tongues) in the local Turkic language. But as if a magic wand had touched the country in 1937, everyone began to define the titular nation as Azerbaijani. -- Harun Yilmaz (2013) The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s. Iranian Studies. p. 511
• "In the 1770s, Turkic tribal groups from Kartli to Derbent were identified by, in particular, Gil’denshtedt (Puteshestvie po Kavkazu) using the overall category of Terekeme Tatars (as distinct from Kumyk Tatars). After the appearance of the term “Transcaucasia” in the 1830s the category “Transcaucasian Tatars” came gradually into use, generally for speakers of “Turkic-Azerbaijani languages” who populated the Russian provinces “beyond the Caucasus.” By the 1860s the qualification of the language of the Transcaucasian Tatars as a Turkic-Azerbaijani language, distinct from Kumyk, Nogai, or Crimean, was clearly being used as the basis for ethnic categorization. By the late nineteenth century “Transcaucasian Tatars” (sometimes called Azerbaijani Tatars as a designation for speakers of Tatar languages, i.e., Azerbaijanli-Turk) were still being distinguished from “Turks” (as a designation of speakers of Turkish or Osmanli-Turk). During the period of Azerbaijani independence (1918–1920), the first category evolved into simply “Turks,” which had been inherited by the early Soviet ethnic nomenclature (having in the process subsumed Osmanli Turks remaining within Soviet borders). Later, in 1921–1930, this category was slightly refined as “Azerbaijani Turks” (which also encompassed the Meskhetian Turkic-speaking population in Georgia) to match political realities. Finally, in 1939, it was transformed simply into “Azerbaijani,” a result that underscores not so much the linguistic distinction between the Anatolian (Osmanli) Turk and the Azeri Turk as the deterioration of Soviet-Turkish relations." -- Artur Tsutsiev (2014). Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. Yale University Press. p. (note 150).

Its indeed a bit more complex. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

So what exactly does this epic summer have to do with our topic? Kergid (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Seems you didn't read the question by the IP nor the listed quotes. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You emphasize too many places in your article, but my question was simple. There was no Azerbaijani language until 1930, it was referred to as Turkish. That's why the Azerbaijani language is written in the language section of the Azerbaijan Republic, which existed between 1918 and 1920? Kergid (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

Ah, ok, so you were the IP? Well, the sources I posted basically agree with your assertion, I just added them to shed some more light on it and expand on the background of the issue. Indeed, at the time, during the short-lived existence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the word "Azerbaijan" was used as a designation for the state, whereas the nation's titular ethnicity and their language were most commonly known as "Turks" and "Turkish" respectively. As for the infobox, I guess one could change it into:

• "Turkish (later known as Azerbaijani or Azeri Turkic)"

Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. Kergid (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Aydın memmedov2000

When listing the language spoken in the short-lived republic, we should use the modern name of such language, which is "Azerbaijani," given that the language spoken in Azerbaijan during those years was exactly the same language as the Azerbaijani of today. Similarly, in the article for the Ukrainian People's Republic, we say that the language spoken there was "Ukrainian" even though in that era the Russian Empire, for political reasons, had deemed Ukrainian to be a form of Russian and not its own language. Also, we need to be particularly careful not to use a term for Azerbaijani that today has a very different meaning, such as "Turkish." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kergid @LouisAragon Seems like there is an obvious misunderstanding by both of you here. Azerbaijani language developed seperately from the Turkish language, it is not a branch of Turkish. This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish.

Additionally, the "i" at the word "Türki" is a relative suffix, equavelant to the "-ic" at the English language. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Azerbaijani language developed seperately from the Turkish language, it is not a branch of Turkish."

No one said anything about the fact that the two developed separately, nor did anyone claim Azerbaijani being a branch of Turkish.

• "This addition would confuse editors, they might think that Azerbaijani is a sub branch of Turkish."

I don't think so. The text within the brackets clearly explains the context, and the very first alinea of the body at the Azerbaijani language explains that it was changed from Turkish to Azerbaijani/Azeri under the Soviets.

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe there's a confusion here as the sources and quotes both you and Kergid have provided are related to the demonyms of Azeris and not the name of the language, which appears to be what Kergid wants to change. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source for the language as well:

• "After the Russian Bolsheviks re-conquered the region in 1920-21, the newly formed Caucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) were annexed to the Soviet Union and renamed, on 12 March 1922, The Transcaucasian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later they were granted separate political status among the Soviet Republics. Then, by the order of Joseph Stalin, the name of the formal language of Azerbaijan was changed from Turkish to Azeri. Both the adoption of Azerbaijan for the region and Azeri for the language of the new entity are historically and linguistically questionable " -- EI. (2011) [1987]. "AZERBAIJAN". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. III, Fasc. 2-3. pp. 205–257.

The numerous WP:RS on this talk page show that neither the demonym of the country's titular ethnic group, nor their native language, were known as "Azerbaijani" at the time. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijani is indeed Turkish, however this doesn't mean exclusively Turkish language. The term Turkic is relatively new in English. So that's simply an archaic version of "Turkic". So It should be redirected to Azerbaijani language, just because the article mentions that it was called Turkish before. I would suggest: Azerbaijani(a note explaining why it is called Turkish}}. Beshogur (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: Thank you for your comment. First of all, you should not post comments inbetween older responses, as it messes up the section's lay-out. Having said that, it seems that you did not pay attention to the given WP:RS at this talk page section. The language was originally, without political interplay, in terms of nomenclature, known as Turkish. Later, for political reasons, under the Soviets, its name was changed to "Azerbaijani". The same goes for the country's titular ethnicity. Remember, we're talking about nomenclature here, "not" the actual development/speech/grammar/vocabulary etc. of the language, as what are present-day "Turkish" and "Azerbaijani" are indeed separate languages with a separate history of development. However, the political games played at the time regarding the language's name should be explained in this article per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:VER amongst others. Whether in the infobox or in the body of the article. As for the Ukraine-Russia analogy, for the record, it is a flawed one for it is exactly the opposite in terms of chronology when compared to the Turkish-Azerbaijani naming issue. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Thank you for your comment as well. That could possibly do the trick. I think this article would benefit from expanatory text regarding the issue, perhaps in a "Demographics" section once this article gets expanded. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Turkish" is the term for those Turks residing in the country of Turkey (Asia Minor). TURKIC peoples are the various Turks from all the Turkic lands. When one speaks of language, "Turkish" is the derivative of the Ottoman/Seljuk tongue. Azerbaijani is a Turkic language from the Oghuz sub-branch spoken primarily by the Azerbaijani people, who live mainly in the Republic of Azerbaijan where the North Azerbaijani variety is spoken, and in the Azerbaijan region of Iran, where the South Azerbaijani variety is spoken. 50.111.29.145 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Turkish" is the term for those Turks residing in the country of Turkey (Asia Minor). TURKIC peoples are the various Turks from all the Turkic lands. this is not true. Turkish is a right term as well, but Turkic gradually replaced Turkish with the increased influence of Soviet Turkology. Beshogur (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)