text:
Talk:Battle of Alcácer Quibir

This is an article badly in need of attention. There are not factual details (which exist) beside the legend.

"The Portuguese army was small. According to the battle legend, young King Sebastião promised to his men that the cross would win against the crescent and that they didn't need to fight: He could kill every Moor on Earth by himself. The soldiers ran away from the Plaza of the city, and after a couple of hours, when they came back to Alcacer Quibir, neither their king nor the Moors were there. The battle was won by the Moors." --> this must be part of a legend!

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
I'm not quite certain if this article is quite neutral, or at least very Encylopaedic. I agree that it needs attention.

I agree about NPOV problems. This article shows a bias against the Portuguese- and the mention of "regime change" is completely unnecessary.

As the originator of the basic form this article has had since 11 November 2005 (just look in the history to see what a lamentable state it was in before then) I strongly deny any personal anti-Portuguese bias. Quite the reverse: my partner is half-Portuguese and Portugal is one of my favourite countries of all those I have ever visited. If there is bias in the article it is carried over from my principal English-language source (detailed at the foot of the article); but it does not seem possible to represent the campaign as anything other than unwise, and the battle as a disaster for Portugal. I was surprised that I could not find a viable source for this major battle later than the mid-19th century, and if anyone can contribute better, updated and more detailed information I wish they would do so. Some people have made some valuable additions but I agree that plenty more needs to be done on this entry – especially perhaps from the Moorish side – and I know I am not competent to do it.

Re ‘regime change’: the term, as applied to the 16th century, is of course anachronistic, but it seems a useful shorthand description for what Sebastian was trying to do: replace one ruler with another whom he hoped would be more sympathetic or pliable to his cause. If anyone has a better way of expressing this let them do so.Cenedi 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added two sources that are in the English language. I think they are very good, especially E. W. Bovill's work. He was a student of the Sahara. His book seems very balanced and is very detailed as to the Muslim combatants. Bartam (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a Portuguese and a historian I find this article very balanced and aligned to all that I have read about the subject. It does conflict with the heavily romanticized version taught in Portuguese elementary schools and avoids all the hearsay about all the proclamations that the king and various nobles are supposed to have made before and during the battle but that is a key strength. It could be longer as the situation in Morocco was complex and the Portuguese had initially counted on more support and a more divided country also it could expand a little on the interactions between Portugal and Castile before, during and after the battle but these are nice to haves. I like the article.

The battle was a complete disaster for Portugal then one of the wealthiest Empires and joint with the Spanish occupation heavily accelerated its decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:F542:2C80:44C6:42BB:2A2A:C002 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Name of Battle
shouldnt the name of this battle in this article and the name of this battle in the Campaignbox Reconquista be the same?

Please see:

Putting this article under "Reconquista" is puzzling, at least. Doesn't the expression mean specifically the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, which ended with the taking of Granada in 1492? And, if Alcácer Quibir was "Reconquista", why not the taking of Ceuta, Tangiers, and many other town during the 15th and 16th centuries? Nuno Gabriel Cabral 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Completely agree. How can a country reconquest something that was never part of its territory? Joao  pais  23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm still reluctant to take matters into my own hands, since I don't who put Alcácer Quibir under Reconquista and why. If in, say, three more days any kind of comment or explanation is not given, I'll correct it. Nuno Gabriel Cabral 09:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to be too pedantic I am surprised that the article on this battle is in Portuguese. Surely, since the battle was fought on Moroccan soil priority should be given to the Arabic name - Wadi al-Makhazin. The battle is commemorated in Morocco as well as in Portugal with a major square in Casablanca bearing the name (formerly Place Verdun)in recognition of its impotance in resisting Portuguese encroachment on the country.Wildbe 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Reconquista ended in 1492 for the Spaniards and ended way before for the Portuguese and Alcacer Quibir is in Morocco hence this battle cannot fit the Reconquista timeline João Farinhote (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reconquista?
The campaign box does not even show this battle as a reconquista battle and anyways, its got nothing to do with the Christian re-conquest of Iberia. I'm removing it because the reconquista is widely acknowledged to have ended at Granada.Tourskin 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconquista?
i couldnt find any information about Ottoman Empire. Actually, Battle of Three Kings also fighted by Ottoman Turks. Morocco was a vassale state of Ottoman Empire and were supported by Ottoman Troops in Algeria. The moroccan Emperor has also asked help to Turks. Rasmazan Pasha the beylerbeyi of Algeria make the war decisitive. The book A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period by Jamil M. Abun-Nasr page 214.

i made a few changes today, i couldnt find any information about ramazan pasha in english but wel something in french wiki, as we know algeria speaks now french so i put an link to that website.. by the way moroccan cavaly were trained by turks because the moroccan king al malik was an ottoman commander for a long time i read somewhere, also canons were at the same style used same as the battle of mohac .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.212.81 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ottomans
After a good faith and unsuccessful attempt at finding sources for the Ottoman involvement I've removed them as participants. The Ottomans were involved, in some unspecified way, in the re-enthronement of Abdelmalik (which was 2 years before this battle), but I found no source mentioning them as combatants in this battle (Notably Britannica does not mention them at all). --Tachfin (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I skipped through some Turkish sources. Even though they are eager to claim that the victory belonged to Ottomans, there provide no source whatsoever, not even untrustworthy ones. I guess you are right. Ottomans were indirectly involved, or events unraveled too fast for Ottomans to react. Caglarkoca (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

casualties.
Eu El-Rei

according to your source it's 18000 dead from both sides. not from the Moroccan side alone. therefore we will have to change it. or maybe try to bring another source. also it says "according to Mendonça", who was a portuguese soldier at that time, therefore not muslim chroniclers.

"Segundo Jerónimo de Mendonça morreram 18.000 muçulmanos, embora este valor respeite, por certo, ao total de baixas dos dois lados. Subtraindo-lhe o total de cristão mortos (8-11.000), ficamos com um mínimo de 7.000 muçulmanos mortos."

I propose to either leave it unknown in the Moroccan side, as there are no reliable sources that gives us the exact number, or put 7000 and "portuguese sources" underneath it.

--AZSH (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it'll be better as unknown, or maybe "high" then. I believe it should be stated that the casualties vary a lot according to various sources. But thank you for correcting me anyways Eu El-Rei (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman inclusion (February 2021)
With regard to this revert:

I'm not sure where the claim that the cannon and musket were ottoman supplied, not the troops comes from since the reliable source that I added mentions the Ottoman troops.

Other sources such as this leave no doubt about the Ottoman's presence in this battle:

M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Following this timely edit by an editor who doesn't seem to be interested in the talk page and having no wish to engage in a fruitless edit war, I will ping the regular editors who edited this article in the last few months and see what they think. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * your thoughts on this content issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's any thing in that second source that categorically confirms the presenence ofOttoman troops in the battle at best it's inference.Pipsally (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Not only does the second source supports the first by mentioning the presence of the Ottoman troops in this battle, it even tells us about the other role they played in the army of of Abd al-Malik (the Ottoman client king): the officers were Turks and the commander of the army was Turkish. It also says that the Ottomans did not capitalize on the victory to which they contributed much.

 * Here's another reliable source that supports the other two:

 * We have three reliable sources mentioning the presence of Ottoman troops in this battle, which is more than enough to satisfy verifiability. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Your second source at no point says Turkish troops were present in the battlePipsally (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Even if for some bizarre reason we decide to completely ignore what the second source says about this battle and Abd al-Malik's army (Turkish troops, Turkish officers, the Turkish commander of the army and how much the Ottomans contributed to the battle), we have two other reliable sources that spell out the presence of the Ottomans troops in the clearest possible terms. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr.M.Bitton you are algerian bro almost all of your Contributions focued on Morocco and algeria, I'm Afraid to say it's not inocente at all either by Insisting to but some fake maps or adding unreliable information based on your viewpoint With the marginalization of other opinions.--41.248.118.204 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the uncivil IP comment above, I'm afraid I agree that the Ottoman military presence is not actually well-substantiated. First and most importantly, the book-length description of the battle by Pierre Berthier, which is cited by multiple other authors including Bernard Lugan ("Histoire du Maroc: des origines à nos jours", 1992) and Stephen Cory ("Reviving the Islamic caliphate in early modern Morocco", 2016), has a whole chapter analyzing the organization, numbers, and even ethnic compositions of the Portuguese and Saadian armies, based on available historical sources. It of course mentions the context of the "Ottomanization" of the Saadian army in this period, but there's no mention at all of Ottoman troops present at the battle that I can see; indeed it's fairly clear that the Moroccan combatants were mostly guich troops, who had adopted Ottoman methods and artillery. (The chapter is too long to quote here but if you read French I'm happy to help you access the source if you send me an email; the book is also a wealth of information on the rest of this subject.)
 * Secondly, to clarify the sources quoted by M.Bitton above: The sentence quoted in the first source (Grant) is syntactically/semantically ambiguous, but in context it makes plenty of sense that it's stating the Ottomans supplied muskets to the Saadian army, not that Ottoman infantry was present. The second source (Abun-Nasr) is describing recruitment of Ottoman and ex-Ottoman troops and officers into the Saadian army. Daniel Rivet's "Histoire du Maroc" also, for example, explicitly mentions the policy of recruiting Turkish/Ottoman, Andalusian, and even European soldiers of fortune to fill the top ranks of the army under Abd al-Malik and al-Mansur. But that doesn't signify direct Ottoman participation beyond this, and neither speak of actual Ottoman regiments being present at the battle. The third reference is the only one that is actually explicit, but it's only mentioned in passing in a general encyclopedia entry that isn't focused on this topic. The author is either mistaken (as I don't see what sources he could be citing that Berthier isn't) or he's simply alluding to the fact that the Moroccan army was trained in Ottoman methods and even used (as Abun-Nasr notes) Ottoman military terminology. At best, I would maybe include this as a footnote or as a mention in the main text, while explicitly mentioning the discrepancy in secondary sources.
 * So in short: the Ottomans were involved insofar as Abd al-Malik was an Ottoman vassal adopting Ottoman tactics/equipment, and several of the cited authors here mention that the Portuguese (and Spanish) saw the Moroccan sultan as a potential Ottoman proxy, but that should be background information. If the Ottoman Empire provided its own elite Janissary regiments for another sultan (vassal notwithstanding) in a very famous international battle, that would be more than a mere footnote, so its overall absence from most sources is significant. If there is more recent specialized research that has somehow demonstrated the presence of Ottoman troops, it needs to be cited. R Prazeres (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: I also just noticed this passage from Cory's book, though it too is brief (my clarification inserted in brackets):
 * R Prazeres (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Further examination: I dug a little further into that third cited source (entry by Fromherz in Dictionary of African Biography ). The relevant source in its bibliography appears to be Bovill's "Battle of Alcazar" (available here). I've looked through it and there's no mention I can find of Ottoman troops or Janissaries fighting alongside the Saadians (see especially p. 110-111 at the end of the "Road to El-Ksar"). There's the usual mention of "Turks" and ex-Ottoman soldiers (many of them left behind after the 1576 Ottoman advance) being recruited into the Saadian army, but they're evidently not Ottoman soldiers anymore. So I don't know why Fromherz wrote it that way, but it's likely that he either misunderstood his sources or that he was somehow so imprecise in his explanation that it's leading us astray; I can only judge based on the small provided bibliography but it seems too glaring a discrepancy to have been inserted deliberately in an encyclopedic entry. For what it's worth I also looked separately at Garcia-Arenal's book on al-Mansur, which has a chapter about the battle, and again clearly no mention of Ottoman troops.
 * So it seems pretty clear at this point that, unless there's a crucial contradictory source missing, there's no real scholarship supporting the presence of Ottoman army divisions of any kind at the battle. This claim should be removed from the page. That said, this information and these sources should be useful for anyone wanting to expand the page. R Prazeres (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because a source that was published in 1947 failed to mention the Ottoman presence does not mean we should disregard the reliable sources (published in 1987, 2012 and 2017) that do. That's not how Wikipedia works. We have 3 reliable sources supporting the Ottoman presence in this battle.
 * The first says Abd al-Malik awaited them with a large army partly supplied by the Ottoman Turks, who were backing his claim to the throne. It combined Moroccan cavalry with Ottoman musket-armed infantry and cannon.. This is as clear as it gets.
 * The second goes into more details and talks about about the other role they played in the army of of Abd al-Malik (the Ottoman client king): the officers were Turks and the commander of the army was Turkish. It also says that the Ottomans did not capitalize on the victory to which they contributed much.
 * The third source is crystal clear and Allen James Fromherz supplies more than one book in the bibliography.
 * The third source is crystal clear and Allen James Fromherz supplies more than one book in the bibliography.

 * I have noticed that "officers, were recruited from Andalusis" was added to the article. While I haven't checked all the cited sources, I know for a fact that one of them (Abun-Nasr) does not say that about Abd al-Malik's army. In fact, he specifically says: Besides Turkish troops, his army included Andalusian, Zuwawa, and tribal warriors from Morocco; but its officers were Turks.
 * On page 215 (the one cited) he says: Ahmad al-Mansur seems to have attributed the Moroccan victory at the battle of the three kings to the salutary influence which the Turkish troops and officers who served under Abdul-Malik had on the discipline and methods of warfare of the rest of the army. If anything, this further cements the Ottoman presence in this battle. M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry M.Bitton, but this is not the most reasonable and accountable reading of the sources and you're not addressing my entire comment. I have to make multiple points here, many of which I thought I already made:
 * There are two full-length books which are still being cited by the most recent authors: the one from 1952 (actually maybe older as more that one year is cited) and the one from 1987 that make clear what the participants were and that mention no Ottoman army, only ex-Ottoman officers serving in the Saadian army. There's at least one author (Cory) explicitly saying there was no direct Ottoman assistance. Every source you've cited other than Fromherz is ambiguous at most but clearly repeats that same point, especially when the literature is read as a whole and not in isolated passages, which is how reviewing sources should work. (PS: The first source, "1001 Battles", is in fact unclear in this context, but it's also not a specialist academic reference and therefore is not reliable enough to support controversial points; I have plenty of such coffee-table books at home on architecture, and while they get general facts right they're not anywhere near the level of in-depth academic works I read elsewhere.)
 * Turkish or Ottoman-background officers serving in the Saadian military, is not the same as naming the Ottoman Empire as a participant in the battle, any more than the many European mercenaries and crusaders on the Portuguese side is reason to start lumping other European nations in as well. It is also definitely not the same as Ottoman military divisions being present (which is how this claim was being presented on the page), which is supported by none of the passages you've quoted other than Fromherz. Rulers recruit foreigners into their service all the time; it is not reasonable, and certainly not automatically evident, to equate this with the direct participation of other states. It would be up to you to convince the rest of us to interpret it that way.
 * Not all reliable sources have equal weight: a brief comment in a generalist source (like Dictionary of African Biography) cannot override two detailed specialist sources that are cited by other authors as main references on the topic, including Fromherz himself. If you can consult Fromherz's two other references about Sebastian and the Portuguese Empire and see if they contain helpful information there, that'll maybe elucidate his writing, but that's on you at this point.
 * Following all the above, it is implausible that the Ottoman army was somehow present at the battle but that nearly all sources, and both of the major full-length scholarly accounts as mentioned above, somehow fail to mention this. Contradicting this would be an exceptional claim, and as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL it needs much stronger support. The WP:ONUS is therefore on you to provide clearer sources, not a tenuous interpretation of the same sources that fail to state the claim explicitly.
 * Likewise, this kind of claim should not be inserted into the infobox without an explanation in the main text, since the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the latter (as per MOS:INFOBOX), not a way to introduce major new or contentious information that isn't contextualized in the article itself.
 * Lastly, if sources do conflict, then as per WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVFAQ, it's the job of editors to present both views explicitly and clearly, while also acknowledging their proportional weight in scholarly literature. Since in this case it's a brief statement by Fromherz versus everyone else, I would suggest that this be presented as a footnote, or simply as a comment alongside the explanation in the main text that describes a conflicting claim in secondary sources. Presenting it as established fact is incorrect.
 * At the end of the day, if this was an article being written for peer-reviewed publication, this is the type of claim that reviewers would flag based on that literature review. I don't see how it's justifiable for Wikipedia, of all places, to include it, lacking a clear consensus on this talk page, which is so far absent. R Prazeres (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. We have 3 reliable sources mentioning the Ottoman presence in this battle. How many sources are there that say the Ottomans were not present in this battle? If Ottoman Empire is an issue, why not replace it with Ottoman Algeria (which would make more sense and explains the inclusion of the zwawa, etc)? Did you read what I wrote about the latest addition to the article that was mistakenly attributed to "Abun-Nasr"? M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What? Come on, are you reading any of the sources I've added, and actually re-considering your own sources in full context? I cannot be clearer: literally every source except Fromherz fails to state that Ottoman forces were there, as an army of the Ottoman Empire (or of Algiers, regardless). I've done the work out of genuine curiosity and read through the sources with a fair amount of care, and this point fails to pass the test of a literature review. It's not personal, I don't care if the Ottomans were present, but the reliable sources that need to be saying this are not saying this.
 * PS: about the Andalusian officers, yes I did see that, that might just be me confusing it with another source or not explaining it properly. It's not the main issue here so I'll look at it again later.R Prazeres (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On this last point, I looked again and it is fully explained on p.215 but it's more about Ahmad al-Mansur's army, so not strictly extendable to Abd al-Malik's; I'll change it accordingly in a second. R Prazeres (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: actually, even that revision may have been premature, as Berthier (1987, p. 102) does clearly state that the Saadians were entrusting Andalusis to the sultan's personal guard and to positions of responsibility within the army; Abun-Nasr is merely saying so more particularly about al-Mansur's reign, which I'm sure is an accurate emphasis too. In any case, it's not an important point; I suggested another wording that seems fine to me either way. R Prazeres (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For what is probably my last comment before I finish this: the more I read, the more likely it seems that Fromherz accidentally conflated Abd al-Malik's conquest in 1576 with the battle of 1578. The participation of Janissaries in 1576 is well-established and mentioned in multiple sources already cited, whereas there is conspicuously zero mention of Janissaries in any other source consulted here about 1578. (The Janissaries of 1576 were also sent back right after, so they weren't hanging around by default either. ) Possibly, but less likely, he's referring to the fact that the Saadian musket infantry was trained and organized along similar lines as Ottoman Janissaries, and used the same kind of names (as noted by Berthier, page 94). Since it's a condensed encyclopedia entry and he does not comment explicitly on his own research there, his intentions can't be evaluated anyways. In any case, I would support placing a footnote somewhere that includes the quote from Fromherz's entry and explains this sole discrepancy within the sources consulted so far, so that readers are aware and can judge for themselves. However, presenting it on this page as established fact clearly goes against WP:WEIGHT and misleads readers about the mainstream scholarly narratives of the battle. 16:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia's content is based on what the sources say and not on their silence. 2) There are three sources that support the presence of the Ottomans in this battle. 3) Since this issue has been around for a while (judging by the article's history), I suggest we hand it over to the community with an RfC along the lines of "should the Ottoman troops' presence be mentioned in this article?" (feel free to suggest something else). RfCs are unpredictable at the best of time (assuming they don't attract the usual SPAs), but at least they tend to help stabilize articles. M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, but not only has your second point been challenged many times, but your first point is unjustified too; you yourself have correctly invoked WP:ONUS many times: it's up to editors to solicit consensus and show that a claim is anchored in mainstream scholarship as per WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV (and all its extensions), and any community of competent editors is able to evaluate sources as a whole and make a reasoned decision. I agree the claim should be included somewhere (as a footnote or comment in main text), but not as blunt and uncontextualized insertion in the infobox, which is supposed to summarize the basic facts of the article itself. The standard you're invoking implies that problematic edits are faits accomplis and that it's up to me to prove a negative, rather up to you (or whoever) to show that an exceptional claim is justified. I will remove the claim until it can be more clearly demonstrated and gain consensus on this page, and I'll summarize the reasons for that after this. If you still want to make an RfC after that, go for it. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourced content has been there for some time now and apart from you, nobody seems to have a problem with it. Do you have a problem with community input? M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not respond with dismissive rhetorical questions. above already expressed similar skepticism, the claim was already removed previously according to a discussion above in 2015 ("Ottomans" section), and you yourself have pointed out that editors keep challenging it. So obviously I'm not the only one. There's no overtly discussed consensus for this inclusion on the talk page, so don't equate lack of intervention with explicit consensus. Moreover, consensus can change, and I'm offering clear reasons why it should. Respectfully, all you've done is double-down on the same material. You've made your perspective clear. Nothing's stopping others from still weighing in at any other point in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did (two months ago) when we had a discussion about it, after which I restored the edit, and yes consensus can change, that's why I suggested a RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, the discussion is just you and one other person challenging it (minus the IP), and now I'm challenging it too. So evidently: not a consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached two months ago (when nobody objected to the material being restored). The other editor challenged one source while you're questioning the scholar's abilities. You're obviously free to seek a new one. M.Bitton (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there's no "closing period" on consensus, especially when the page doesn't have many watchers, so I'm not sure what the point of that observation is. But in any case the same thing can happen now: I will make the edit, refer to reasons on this talk page (I'll make a new section for clarity and refer to this discussion), and let future editors decide. I hope you won't automatically block any edit based on a dismissal of everything I've said and all the sources I've provided, without citing any new substantial arguments or sources in return, but either way my point will be made and editors can review. R Prazeres (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: on second thought, I'll keep it to the same section to preserve the reference list. R Prazeres (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is simple, a discussion took place about one source that seemed problematic to an editor, when more sources were provided, the editor in question seemed satisfied and moved on. You, on the other hand, are dismissing all of the sources and questioning the scholars' abilities (no need to remind you that you are in no position to do do). As for your so-called sources that don't mention the Ottomans, I can only repeat what I said earlier: Wikipedia's content is based on what the sources say and not on their silence. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 edit
Based on the review of sources I've discussed in this section above (see also the reference list at the end of this section), I am removing "Ottoman Empire" for now from the list of belligerents/combatants in the infobox since no source, with the confusing exception of Fromherz (see comments above), mentions a Janissary or Ottoman army being present at the battle. From the perspective of both a general and an academic reader, including "Ottoman Empire" or "Ottoman Algeria" would mislead readers into assuming the opposite, and therefore does not improve reader understanding as per the description of this parameter at Template:Infobox military conflict. Ottoman indirect support for Abd al-Malik can be more helpfully explained in the main text itself; I've already added the beginnings of that in a new section. As per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox is meant to summarize the basic facts of the article; it is inappropriate to add information there that misleads readers as to the content of the article itself. Further explanation:
 * What is supported is that Abd al-Malik reorganized his army along Ottoman lines and recruited foreign Turkish and Ottoman officers into his army, and even Ahmad al-Mansur continued this afterwards. Abun-Nasr makes that clear, as does Rivet and many others. Both sides (Portuguese and Moroccan) included foreigners as part of their army in 1578.
 * What is not supported clearly is the claim that the Ottoman army or a division of the Ottoman army was fighting alongside the Saadians. This is a major point and yet the claim is not made by the well-cited (i.e. cited as references by multiple other authors) and detailed academic accounts of the battle, which review in full detail the forces present and the historical sources used. It's also neither explicitly nor implicitly mentioned by any other relevant academic source   . (Addendum: One of those sources, Cory's 2016 book, also contradicts this more directly, stating that the battle was "won without direct Ottoman assistance." ) The exception is one encyclopedic entry by Fromherz, which by contrast is a generalist reference that doesn't lay out arguments to explain its inconsistencies or novelties vis-à-vis the rest of the literature (including its own bibliography, which cites Bovill too ). Even Abun-Nasr, who has been quoted above in support of this claim, does not in fact say this anywhere. If he meant to say this, he would have said so; it would be WP:OR (see WP:SYNTHESIS in particular) to infer extra conclusions that he doesn't explicitly support. As for Grant's "1001 Battles that Changed History", it is neither precise enough to contradict other sources nor is it a specialist reference of similar weight (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP about the priority of peer-reviewed research and mainstream scholarship).
 * As per WP:ONUS, it is up to editors to show that something merits inclusion or merits inclusion in a particular way. I'm arguing that as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:WEIGHT, a claim that is unusual in the context of the entirety of available academic sources so far requires more than one general reference for support; in this case, it would need explicit and precise academic sources that clearly show that this is a reasonably established (minority or majority) perspective among scholars (again, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), and in that case the full range of sources and their inconsistencies can be explicitly included for readers to judge for themselves, as per WP:NPOV. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: I should mention, because it will be lost in the long discussion above, that I think the Fromherz quote, previously cited on the page, should still be included in a footnote somewhere on the page, so that readers are aware of it. I leave others to decide either way. R Prazeres (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 * In other words, after misinterpreting Abun-Nasr's source and dismissing the other bothersome two, you decided to start an edit war by reverting my old edit (which I find rather disappointing). Luckily, I have no wish to engage in one or to continue the discussion for that matter. For anyone else reading this, I recommend a RfC, preferably publicised in the Ottoman Empire project (some might know it as "the battle of Vadi as-Sayl"). M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not edit-warring: I've made a single edit in this specific issue and referred editors to this complete explanation with multiple new sources, as one can do in WP:BRD. You've frankly been a little disparaging from the beginning of this discussion and I agree, I'm no longer interested in dragging on like this. I'm happy to engage in a new RfC with other editors, as needed. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Renewed fighting over content

 * This edit was unwarranted and felt needlessly insulting. I'm trying to present the perspectives offered across all sources, not cherry-pick the ones that support one point or the other, and you've clearly unbalanced it significantly. I will look to request fresh eyes on this page since this is going nowhere with all the gatekeeping on both our parts. I will try the third opinion option first.

To any new editors: feel free to see discussion above and the edit history around the question of Ottoman participation in the battle. If help is needed to access any of the sources, I can probably assist with that if necessary. R Prazeres (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's unwarranted? It's clearly 100% WP:OR (since none of it is attributed to a source). I'm quite perplexed by the fact that you don't see it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The two sources were clearly indicated inline next to their respective authors. You're also seemingly going out of your way to be condescending, as you were in the discussion previously. In any case, I've posted a request for a third opinion. If that doesn't work, we can go to a wider request for comments. R Prazeres (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the two sources support the WP:OR that you added. That's a fact!
 * I will ignore the unwarranted personal attacks (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's the content that you added: Two major monographs about the battle, by E.W. Bovill and Pierre Berthier, which recount the battle in detail and review the forces involved, do not indicate any presence of an army or contingent sent by the Ottomans.

Since you're familiar with the WP:OR policy, there's no need to remind you about what it says with regard to "facts, allegations, and ideas" for which no reliable, published sources exist. Therefore, my only question to you is this: which source is meant to support the above statement? M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As for this. I'm not sure what you want from this question unless you expect me to copy-paste the entire text of both books for you to read. If your contention is that the inclusion of a negative statement ("do not indicate any [...]") crosses a line into WP:OR, then I disagree, but this could have been trivially solved by adjusting it to make a positive statement only, which would be fine in the context of that paragraph. Either way, the statement is verifiable through both sources cited. As I've said before, both books have detailed discussions of the composition of forces on either side. I could add two other more recent studies which present similar descriptions on this point (aside from varying estimates in numbers and other minor details).
 * On a second note: in your last edit you accused me of editorializing without elaborating, while at the same time you once again cited Abun-Nasr to imply support for a conclusion that Abun-Nasr never states, which falls into WP:OR as I've said before. I was not the first one to caution against your interpretation of that source (Pipsally's comments here and here).
 * That said, I have no plans to spend more time here beyond initiating an RfC to move this issue forward. See below, where your feedback might be helpful. R Prazeres (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback to prepare RfC
This issue is open for all editors to weigh in. I posted a request for third opinion first, but no volunteer was forthcoming, so I think it's sensible to move on to a Request for Comment (RfC), as was already suggested earlier by M.Bitton. The aim is to solicit from the community a wider consensus on how to proceed with regards to the issues above. I'll additionally publish a notice of it on the Ottoman Empire, Morocco, and Portugal WikiProject pages (other suggestions also welcome). I'd like the RfC to be based one or two questions like this: "1. Was the Ottoman Empire a participant in this battle? 2. How should information on this question be presented in the article?", or something to that effect. I think it should remain as open-ended question as much as possible (not a this-or-that choice), but I'm concerned about making it not clear or concise enough for a productive discussion. So feedback on how the question(s) should be formulated is welcome here. R Prazeres (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Hello 2A02:A445:FAD3:1:618C:48D2:62EC:6E28 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"infantry armed with rifles" it states
Rifles in the 16th century? I doubt this. Rifles only appeared after the Napoleon wars - early 19th century - to my knowledge. The weapons were probably muskettes or similar smoothbore and muzzleloading firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.188.253 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding supporters:
Please man who ever in charge of this page please accept those changes that i added...those changes are in the Arabic and the French version also they are mentioned in the "Strength"... CappuccinoSs (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding supporters
Those supporters that I added are mentioned in the "Strength" also in the Arabic version and the French version of the battle of Alcacer Quibir's page.. CappuccinoSs (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the Arabic and French wiki versions are not reliable sources. Please familiarize yourself with our content policies.

Mercenaries in infobox
@M.Bitton Why do you think that the Mercenaries deserve to be in the belligerent list? The guidelines state that: "this is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict" DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 * The guideline also says that belligerent stands for combatants (which include the mercenaries). M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it states that if you want to include other parties than countries it should improve the readers understanding. In this period every army consisted of large amounts of mercenaries, and it is not common practice on wikipedia to include all the nationalities present in an army. Why do that here? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It does improve the readers understanding. As for the other articles, feel free to add mercenaries to them (if you can source the info). M.Bitton (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's no hard restriction here, I don't see any reason to remove this brief additional context. Most armies included mercenaries, but in this case it's a little more notable because the Portuguese king tried to turn the invasion into an international crusading endeavor, and some countries allowed volunteers to participate accordingly. So I believe it's of interest to give a quick summary of these participants. R Prazeres (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Alcácer Quibir


text:
Talk:United States Revenue Cutter Service

First USCG commandant?
The USCG's own FAQ says this "1905-1911 Captain Worth G. Ross, USRCS, Captain-Commandant (the office of Captain-Commandant was first created in 1908 and Ross therefore is the 'first' officer to hold that office and the title of 'Captain-Commandant.')" I think the article should be changed, thoughts? --Awiseman 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but the office goes back even further. It looks like the USCG traces the lineage of Commandant back to Capt Shepard of the Revenue Cutter Service in 1898.  This is confirmed at the site of current Commandant Allen  citing him as the 23rd commandant.  This numerical listing makes sense if one starts counting at Capt Shepard in 1898.  I have updated the Commandant of the Coast Guard article to reflect this.  I am going to remove the entire sentence referring to Commodore Bertholf from the Coast Guard section as it seems to be a bit superfluous anyway.--G1076 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for War of 1812 statement
I really haven't got time to go through the whole process but I did run across the needed citation and thought that I would append it here for someone with the Wiki-know-how to add the citation.

"The Jefferson (Captain William Ham) enjoyed a number of successes. She made the first seizure of a British merchantman by capturing the brig Patriot in June 1812."

Irving H. King., "The Coast Guard Under Sail: The U.S. Revenue Cutter Service 1789-1865," (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis. 1989.) p 54

Thanks, John 11 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.43.155 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag
Should include image and explanation of the "Revenue Ensign"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional Categories?
The primary points of interest in this page relate to early USCG history, but would it be appropriate to add this page to the categories "taxation in the United States" and "revenue services"? Daruete (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox change
Refer to recent change infobox from military unit infobox to LEA infobox. the rationale are as follows: Ckfasdf (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, military unit infobox is only to be used for unit that dedicated to be used in military or warfare.
 * US Revenue Cutter Service was started as customs enforcement agency (law enforcement agency), although eventually gain military nature (as mentioned on the lead section). So it's primary role is to ensure revenue from tariffs on imports.
 * It was placed under Dept of Treasury, not Dept of Navy and only transferred to Navy in the event of war
 * It's involvement in war initially are related to their role as customs enforcement agency (per history section, early mission and quasi-war), although on later conflict they are more involved in warfare.
 * Therefore, it's role on military/defense was only on case-by-case basis. And not dedicated force for military.
 * LEA infobox have more parameter that can be applies to the subject such as superseding and constitution1. those paramater are absent in military unit infobox
 * Oppose the RCS was still a military force, and for a time the only naval military force of the U.S. which department it was is irrespective of military status. Furthermore, aside from your edit, there is no wide scale consensus on changing military unit boxes to LE boxes, so that consensus will have to be established here for this page. We will also loose vital parameters such as battles. Garuda28 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose My stance on the issue of the U.S. Coast Guard AND its predecessor, the U.S. Revenue Marine Service is summed up by Title 14, Section 1, United States Code:

 * The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.

 * The Coast Guard is utilized as one of the armed services in the defense of the United States on a 24/7/365 basis. It has a military organizational structure and a military rank structure. Its personnel are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It works with the other Armed Forces of the United States in the defense of the United States. While the Revenue Marine Service was not covered by Title 14, its duties were mostly the same as the Coast Guard. The Revenue Marine Service had a military organizational structure, military ranks, military assignments, and served alongside the United States Army and United States Navy in the defense of the United States in most of the wars that occurred while it existed. There is no denying that it also had law enforcement duties, just like the Coast Guard has today. Much of the missions that both entities performed are law enforcement related, however, both entities trained daily in defense related activities and stood ready at a moments notice to defend United States interests around the world. The Coast Guard is both a law enforcement agency and a military service unique in the list of coast guards of the nations of the world. Most coast guards are law enforcement agencies of the country they represent. The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the few coast guards that do have full military responsibilities. The Revenue Marine Service was not just another customs service. For these reasons the infobox edit that Ckfasdf made should be reverted in my opinion. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , US Coast Guard or Revenue Cutter are armed force branch (no disagreement on that point). And as both of you mentioned, US coast guard is in unique situation compare to other coast guards as it's both "armed force" and "law enforcement" agency. So, US coast guard is qualify to use military unit infobox. However such situation is not entirely unique compare to other military unit/branch, gendarmerie and military police are also both "armed force" and "law enforcement" as they separate military branch tasked in law enforcement of civilian and military population. It's just happen that LEA infobox can accommodate military unit that have law enforcement role, and even have specific parameter them. Regarding battles parameter in military unit infobox, LEA infobox have activity1name parameter which is similar/work on the same way as battles. So, there will be no issue on this point.
 * once asked me on WP:MILHIST discussion, what's the criteria to use military unit infobox or LEA infobox. IMO, the criteria to decide which infobox to be used is based on it's unit role. If that unit predominantly role/mission is on combat then we should use military unit infobox (for example mission statement of US Navy is The Dept of Navy will recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready naval forces to win conflicts and wars while maintaining security and deterence through sustained naval presense, so it make sense to use military unit infobox). If that unit predominantly on law enforcement, then we should use LEA infobox (in case of USCG, first 3 duties of 7 primary duties as mentioned on US Code 14 USC 102 are related to law enforcement and 1 duty related to defense. So, without disregard USCG's duty on defense, it's duties is predominantly on law enforcement. I hope my arguments is clear enough. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose The Revenue Cutter Service and the current Coast Guard were created specifically to be a military force first, and their forces are trained as such. This military designation grants them access and the use of military grade artillery including anti-armored vehicle and anti-aircraft weapons. The Coast Guard also employees missile defense systems on their ships. The Legend-class cutters were partially designed off of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and are designed to handle deep sea military operations and is armed with the same Bofors 57 mm artillery gun as the Freedom-class and Independence-class littoral combat ship. No standard law enforcement agency has direct access to these types of weapons. Neovu79 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Revenue cutter was initially created as customs enforcement agency and eventually gain military nature (this was mentioned on lead section of the article). And the issue is about which infobox to be used, Not about I'm arguing whether USCG is armed force branch or not. As I said above "US Coast Guard or Revenue Cutter are armed force branch (no disagreement on that point)". And, and  acknowledge that USCG and it's predecessor are also law enforcement agency. So, kindly please read my arguments above and comment on that.
 * Regarding possession of heavy armaments, I don't think that can be criteria to decide whether using military unit infobox or LEA infobox. Since China Coast Guard (a civilian maritime law enforcement agency) also employ heavy armaments such as 76mm PJ-26 naval gun and 30mm CIWS on their cutters (as seen here). Ckfasdf (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read your comments and I tend to disagree and as to the China Coast Guard is in the middle of transitioning into a military operations as seen here and here, and is under the control of the Central Military Commission. Neovu79 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On heavy armaments topics, my points is " the possession of such heavy armaments in coast guard (as law enforcement agency) is not entirely uncommon in other countries coast guard". China Coast Guard is just one example, another example of coast guard that have naval guns on their boats are Japan Coast Guard, Korea Coast Guard, Indian Coast Guard, Taiwan Coast Guard and Russian Coast Guard.
 * I understand that the three of you argument essence's is military first, meanwhile my argument essence is role should come first. However, let's compare how our arguments applies to other page such as Coast Guard Investigative Service. If using your argument then that page should be using military unit infobox as it is division of military unit. But, if following my argument, then LEA infobox is the proper infobox to be used for that page since even though it is division of military unit, it role is mainly on law enforcement. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not totally comparable, as the CGIS is a pure investigative agency, akin to Air Force OSI, the FBI, or Secret Service, rather than the Coast Guard. CGIS is actually a clear cut case of when the LE agency template was intended to be used. Some of these pages that mix both are a judgment, and a consensus, call.Garuda28 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See... on that case even you agree to refer to its role than the fact it was military unit.
 * I can understand your argument, but all U.S. military forces have a role as law enforcement as part of their operational mission is some form, hence, multi-mission and continual mission evolution. Neovu79 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also something to be said for standardizing all of the info boxes among the armed services as well, keeping a consistent format. Garuda28 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually that was my intention. That's why I come up with criteria on which infobox to be used in case the agency/unit is both "armed forces" and "law enforcement agency".
 * - Firstly, we need to look up task/mission/role/duties of the agency/unit on any official documents/website.
 * - If it was predominantly role/mission is on combat/defense then we should use military unit infobox
 * - If it was predominantly on law enforcement, then we should use LEA infobox

 * In case of USCG, first 3 duties of 7 primary duties as mentioned on US Code 14 USC 102 are related to law enforcement and 1 duty related to defense. So, without disregard USCG's duty on defense, it's duties is predominantly on law enforcement. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why mess with something that isn't broke. The military infobox serves its purpose just fine. The Revenue Cutter Service and its successor service, the Coast Guard have ships that are armed with guns that no other domestic law enforcement agency has. Why do you suppose that is? The Coast Guard backstops the Navy in time of war, the Revenue Service did the same in its time. Just because the Coast Guard has law enforcement duties doesn't mean it isn't equipped to go to war. There are currently Coast Guard Reserve units today that are doing port security duties in conjunction with the Navy in the Mideast. These units don't enforce the law, they are ready to defend naval operations in the Gulf. That is their sole mission. These Reserve units take turns at a year at a time serving with the Navy and have had a presence in the Middle East since Desert Storm. The Reserve units take turns doing a one year tour and have for over 30 years. The Coast Guard also has several cutters operating with the Navy in the Middle East. They don't do law enforcement. They have defense responsibilities keeping merchant shipping safe from attack from Iranian forces. The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. Title 14, Section 1, USC.
 * We don't "need" to fix anything. Nothing is broke and a new format for an infobox is unnecessary and only serves to confuse. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox itself is not broken, it's just this infobox is overly used on WP, esp. on LEA agency (some of them is not even a military unit and the rest is actually military unit that perform law enforcement duty) and WP happens to have dedicated infobox for LEA that can be used for military unit/civilian agency that perform law enforcement (it even have dedicated parameter for that). So I come up with the criteria as I mentioned above. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times. Our point is, what you're trying to do is, justify placing a military service into a broader category (law enforcement). Every single branch of the military has a duty and responsibility to enforce the law, whether U.S. or International Law. So what I'm saying is that the Army is a law enforcement entity. The Navy is a law enforcement entity. The Marine Corps is a law enforcement entity, etc. Military and law enforcement are not mutually exclusive. The defining difference is that a military force has the capability to project power. Neovu79 (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Copied from the article: Title 14 USC, section 2 authorizes the Coast Guard to enforce U.S. federal laws. This authority is further defined in, which gives law enforcement powers to all Coast Guard commissioned officers, warrant officers, and petty officers. Unlike the other branches of the United States Armed Forces, which are prevented from acting in a law enforcement capacity by , the Posse Comitatus Act, and Department of Defense policy, the Coast Guard is exempt from and not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. So, the other branch of the United States Armed Forces are not law enforcement agency, only some unit that specialized in policing/investigating on armed forces.
 * Refer to definition on WP. Military is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare, meanwhile Law enforcement is any system by which some members of government act in an organized manner to enforce the law. USCG is both military branch and law enforcement agency. And, WP have dedicated page for USCG missions -> Missions of the United States Coast Guard, from that page we can see which mission that's more dominant. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Side comment There is a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act as the National Gaurd is a joint reserve military component to the Army (Army National Guard) and the Air Force (Air National Guard) that may be called up by their respective state governor or by the President. Their primary duties are to state law enforcement when activated by a state governor under Title 32 and to military operations when activated by the President under Title 10. Over 50% of U.S. Northern Command's operating forces is comprised of the National Guard. Recently, there has been issues with riots in several states that required the National Guard to be called up to control. Neovu79 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your arguments have not swayed my position in the slightest. My position still stands, and I'm pretty sure I've made my arguments very clear, as to forming a clear consensus with my peers, so I won't keep trying to convince you until I'm blue in the face, but you're more than welcome to keep trying. Neovu79 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though USCG military mission budget is only around 6% of total USCG budget, compare USCG to law enforcement mission budget which takes almost 40% of total USCG budget? (source). Ckfasdf (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean this with the utmost respect to you as a major Wikipedia contributor, but FOX 52 is correct. You're beating at a WP:DEADHORSE here, so I am not going to respond to this new question as we would still be going around in circles. I'm asking you to drop this as the general consensus is not in your favor. Neovu79 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur 100%, it's over. - FOX 52 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose, despite a certain real degree of overlap. Qwirkle (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comment, perhaps you may like to join the discussion above. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose - There's not enough compelling data to warrant a change. I'd also like to point out that the prevailing consensus is to keep things intact, no point in beating a dead horse. Cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What data do you need anyway? The issue is consistency, you don't have problem to use role to decide which infobox to use on CGIS (Coast Guard Division and military unit, law enforcement agency as stated on US Code), but refuse to use same criteria on USCG page. If the consensus is to keep such inconsistencies, it can't be helped then. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Rank insignia
Links to resources to create USRCS rank insignia, and pinging in case they are interested in creating any of them: . -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 *
 *
 *
 *

convoluted
why open with acts and undecipherable anachronistic and niche terminology? Couldn't it open the article with "armed customs enforcement, initially under the treasury and later coast guard". Gcbwiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Leonard Woodcock

Leonard Freel Woodcock (February 15, 1911 – January 16, 2001) was President of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the first US ambassador to the People's Republic of China after being the last Chief of the US Liaison Office in Beijing.

Early life
Woodcock was born in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1911. He was the son of Ernest Woodcock and Margaret Freel. At the outbreak of World War I, the family was living in Germany, and Ernest was interned. While Leonard had been born in the United States, his parents were British. Both mother and son returned to the United Kingdom for the duration of the war, where he attended school.

The family members were eventually reunited and sought a new life in North America. Originally settled in Canada, they relocating a few years later, to Detroit, Michigan.

Early career
The pressures of the Great Depression led Woodcock to drop out of College of the City of Detroit in 1933. He found work as a machine assembler in Detroit, and both he and his father became involved in the union movement. Woodcock became International Vice President in 1955.

UAW president
In 1970, he became UAW president, succeeding Walter Reuther, who died in a plane crash.

Woodcock was an active participant in the Civil Rights Movement, marching with Martin Luther King Jr. and adding his voice and political clout to the cause. He was a champion of both minority and women's rights, pushing for comprehensive nondiscrimination rules and introducing the first union-wide contracted maternity leave in the United States.

Woodcock appeared on Nixon's enemies list at #9 while he was UAW president with the annotation "No comments necessary."

China
In 1977, Woodcock retired from the union and was named by President Jimmy Carter as head of the United States Liaison Office in Beijing, which, in the absence of full diplomatic relations, served as the de facto U.S. embassy in the People's Republic of China. During the same period, Woodcock was charged with leading a special delegation to Laos and Vietnam in search of US soldiers who were prisoners-of-war or missing in action.

After leading negotiations to establish full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China in 1979, Woodcock was appointed the first US ambassador there. He was the first ambassador to Mainland China since 1949, when Leighton Stuart served as ambassador to the Republic of China. Though some questioned appointing a labor leader to head the delicate diplomatic mission, Carter insisted that he needed a negotiator.

In a 2000 speech at the White House to celebrate 20 years of Most Favored Nation status, Carter said:

One of the choices I had to make was whom to send to China to begin the secret negotiations with Deng Xiaoping; he was the unquestioned ruler of the nation. And I chose a man who was the senior statesman of the American labor movement, Leonard Woodcock—respected by, I guess, every working man and woman who was a member of a union or not in this country, and he was also respected by all those who had dealt with him from the management side. And he was my personal representative in Beijing.

Leonard Woodcock, working directly with me from the White House, negotiated successfully the terms for normalization of diplomatic relations. And on the first day of January, 1979, we formed those relationships. That year, Leonard Woodcock, still highly conversant with, and whose heart was attuned to, the labor movement of America, negotiated the first trade agreement, Most Favored Nations agreement, with China, in 1979. And now for 20 years, each year the Congress has confirmed his decision, and mine.

Personal life
Woodcock married Loula Martin, with whom he had three children, in 1941. He was remarried in 1978, to Sharon Tuohy, a nurse working with the American delegation in China. He later taught political science at the University of Michigan, living in Ann Arbor with Sharon until his death on January 16, 2001.

Woodcock had three children, Leslie Woodcock Tentler (professor of history), Janet Woodcock (photographer) and John Woodcock (ret. Lt Col, USAF); two daughters-in-law (Carol, framer, partner of Janet and Susan, married to John) and a son-in-law (Thomas Tentler, professor of history); and three grandchildren, Sarah Tentler (speechwriter and political advisor), Daniel Tentler (lawyer) and Gregory Tentler (professor of art history).

Archival records
The archival records of Woodcock can be found mostly at the Walter P. Reuther Library of Labor and Urban Affairs. Notable are the UAW President's Office: Leonard Woodcock Records and UAW Vice-President’s Office: Leonard Woodcock Records, two extensive collections that document his time as an executive with the UAW. The materials include Woodcock’s personal correspondence, photographs, official memorandum, and other various record types. Additional repositories with historical materials chronicling Woodcock are the Bentley Historical Library and the Jimmy Carter Library and Museum.

title: Leonard Woodcock


text:
Rubab Raza

Rubab Raza (born January 15, 1991 ) is an Olympic and national-record-holding swimmer from Pakistan. She became Pakistan's first female Olympic swimmer when she swam at the 2004 Olympics.

At the 2004 Summer Olympics, she swam the 50m Freestyle, though unable to progress through the first round she undoubtedly opened up the opportunity for future female Pakistani swimmers. She became the second Pakistani female to compete at the Olympics—following Shabana Akhtar at the 1996 Olympics—shortly before the country's third female competitor, Sumaira Zahoor, who ran the 1500m at the 2004 Games a few days after Raza swam. At the age of 13 at the time of her Olympic race, Raza was the youngest Pakistani female ever to compete at an Olympics.

The Pakistani Swimming Federation funded her with only $30 a month, but she was fortunate to have support from her father who is a retired army major and her mother who is a doctor.

She has won a number of national titles, and has seen success at Asian swimming tournaments. She also won a gold medal in 50m freestyle at Islamic Women's Solidarity Games in Tehran, Iran.

She has also swum for Pakistan at the:
 * 2006 South Asian Games
 * 2006 Commonwealth Games

title: Rubab Raza


text: Category:Pakistani swimmers

title: Category:Pakistani swimmers


text: Category:Dutch swimmers

title: Category:Dutch swimmers