Talk:Azores

Africans and Moors - distortion of the sources
The "demographics" section was biased and distorted the sources. It was writen that "North African and Sephardic Jews settled on the islands in large numbers. Moorish (Muslim) prisoners and African slaves from Guinea Cape Verde, and São Tomé contributed to the population as well. Thus the Azorean population received a significant contribution from people with geographic backgrounds other than Portuguese."

However, what the source really claims is that ''"The Portuguese explorers, who discovered the archipelago in 1427, only started the settlement in 1439 through a long and difficult process. Historical data report a contribution from people with genetic backgrounds other than Portuguese, including Flemish, Spanish, French, Italian, German, Scottish, Jewish, and also from Moorish prisoners and black slaves from Guinea, Cape Verde and São Tomé." ''

A clear distortion of the source, which does not mention "large numbers", and do not even mention "Sephardic Jews", but only "Jews". Moreover, the source claims many other groups settled in the Azores, however only "North Africans and Sephardic Jews" were cherry-picked and included in the "demographics" section. This is biased, you have to cite all the groups mentioned in the source, not only 2 and ignore the others.

Another part of the text claimed that "Moorish and African genetic heritage, likely facilitated by the African slavery, and supported by historical reports, is supported by mtDNA genetic data. Contributions from Sephardic Jews and Northern Europe also are supported by the analysis of genetic data".

This is not what the source says. The source does not claim that Moors came to the Azores as slaves. This is original research.

Moreover, the source itself claims that "These studies report a high genetic variability and heterogeneity of the Azorean population, explained by the settling history of the islands, where a major contribution of mainland Portugal individuals is evident."

As one can see, the sources used are clear that most settlers in the Azores came from mainland Portugal, however the text written in the "demographics" section barely mentions the Portuguese, and gives too much attention to minor groups of "Africans", "Sephardic Jews" or "Moors", and clearly distorts what the sources claim. It is like talking about the demographics of Japan and only write about the minor Brazilian community there. Xuxo (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * So, there is a very simple solution: you modify the text, if necessary, to better reflect what the reference states. What you do not do is remove a perfectly valid reference from a reliable source, and certainly not without first seeking consensus, which is what I invited you to do in my original edit summary and which I have now repeated. --Technopat (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I did modify the text to better reflect what the sources claim, in order to removed the original research pointed above, but you keep reverting me. What do you mean with "perfectly valid reference from a reliable source"? I am not discussing the realibity of the references, but the original research made using them as a disguise.

Could you please point the sentences I removed and why they should be in the article ? Because I already explained that the written text was not supported by the references.

Moreover, I did not remove any reference. The reference is still there. What I did was to include all the groups cited in the reference in a single paragraph, so that the text becomes less repetitive. Xuxo (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your repeated statement above, you have now removed the perfectly valid reference (Annals of Human Genetics) a third time, without making any attempt to seek consensus here. I have therefore restored it. You are welcome to modify the corresponding text accordingly, if indeed necessary. As you are clearly engaged in edit-warring, despite my invitation to seek consensus here, please note that if you remove said reference again without having reached consensus here I shall report your behaviour. I think that clears up any possible misunderstanding. --Technopat (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the sources? The link for "Annals of Human Genetics" is exactly the same for "BMC Research Notes". I just removed the duplication. Stop edit-warring. Xuxo (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I opened a Dispute of resolution here Xuxo (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

US Armed Forces on Terceira
It should be noted that the US Army had the ships in Praia. The US Navy flew aircraft and the US Air Force refueled aircraft, and with the Portuguese airport, served as a landing strip for all aircraft. Supplies, food, autos, etc were received in container ships that offloaded at US Army TTU, transportation terminal unit. 72.84.70.46 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Previous coat of arms WAS WRONG
Please see official site https://portal.azores.gov.pt/web/comunicacao/brasao Skunkcrew (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Not the farthest west point in the EU.
The copy indicates that the Azores represent the farthest West Point in the European Union. Not quite. That title goes to St Pierre and Miquelon, a group of islands off the south coast of Newfoundland (Canada) that are pert of France 2605:B100:135:5704:8C86:71EF:AAE5:4022 (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

EarthCheck Sustainable Destination
Would welcome some guidance on the edit. The Azores was factually the first archipeligo to be certified, it was endorsed by the Government. I edited this out to reflect just their Earthcheck certification. Its a government policy and something they publish publicly. Should I perhaps expand on it more and include their policy documents, action plans etc? Appreciate any guidance you can provide. 118.209.253.140 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Thanks for the message. For anyone else reading, this message is in regards to and . The first diff was definitely a problem, it had a promotional tone. The second is better, but I still suspect it is WP:UNDUE. This minor certification doesn't seem like it belongs in an article about an Autonomous Region of Portugal. Got any links to newspapers or books that talk about the Azores receiving this certification? Third parties talking about something is a good way to see if this is WP:UNDUE or not, assuming that the newspaper articles are not obviously based on press releases. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)