text:
Kimek–Kipchak confederation

The Kimek–Kipchak confederation was a medieval Turkic state formed by seven peoples, including the Yemeks and Kipchaks, in the area between the Ob and Irtysh rivers.

Name
Minorsky, citing Marquart, Barthold, Semenov and other sources, proposes that the name Kīmāk (pronounced Kimäk) is derived from Iki-Imäk, "the two Imäk", probably referring to the first two clans (Īmī and Īmāk) of the federation.

On the other hand, Pritsak attempted to connect the Kimek with the Proto-Mongolic Kumo of the Kumo Xi confederation (庫莫奚; Middle Chinese: kʰuoH-mɑk̚-ɦei; *qu(o)mâġ-ġay, from *quo "yellowish" plus denominal suffix *-mAk); Golden judges Pritsak's reconstruction "highly problematic", as Pritsak did not explain how Quomâġ might have produced Kimek; still, Golden considers the connection with the Proto-Mongolic world seriously.

Mahmud al-Kashgari does not mention any Kimek, but Yamāk; Kashgari further remarked that Kara-Khanids like him considered Yemeks to be "a tribe of the Kipchaks", though contemporary Kipchaks considered themselves a different party. The ethnonym Yemäk might have been transcribed in the mid 7th century by Chinese authors as 鹽莫 Yánmò < Middle Chinese *jiäm-mâk, referring a Tiele group who initially inhabited northwestern Mongolia before migrating to north of Altay Mountains and Irtysh zone.

Initially, Golden (1992:202, 227, 263) accepted the identification of Kimeks with Imeks/Yimeks/Yemeks, because the /k/ > ∅, resulting in Kimek > İmek, was indeed attested in several Medieval Kipchak dialects; Golden also thought Yemeks unlikely to be 鹽莫 *jiäm-mâk > Yánmò in Chinese source. However, Golden later changed his mind, reasoning that, as the Medieval Kipchak dialectal sound-change /k/ > ∅ had not yet happened in the mid-7th century Old Turkic, the identification of Yemeks with Kimeks is disputed. As a result, Golden (2002:660-665) later abandons the Kimeks > Yemeks identification and becomes more amenable to the identification of 鹽莫 Yánmò with Yemeks, by scholars such as Hambis, Zuev, and Kumekov, cited in Golden (1992:202). According to Tishin (2018), Yemeks were simply the most important of the seven constituent tribes whose representatives met at the Irtysh valley, where the diverse Kimek tribal union emerged, as related by Gardizi.

Origin
The Kimek confederation originated as a tribal union of seven tribes or clans. These tribes originated in the steppes of eastern Central Asia. The bulk of these migrated to present-day Kazakhstan after the destruction of the Uyghur Khaganate (840). The Kimek state was formed at the end of the 9th– and beginning of the 10th century composed out of tribal domains, ruled by a khagan who was the supreme among subject leaders.

Historical background
The 10-century geographical treaty Hudud al-Alam gave a description of the cultures and ways of life of Kimeks and Kipchaks. The Kimaks led a semi-settled life, as the Hudūd mentioned many wandering tribal grazers as well as a town named *Yimäkiya (> Yamakkiyya > ms. Namakiyya); while the Kipchaks, in some customs, resembled the contemporary Oghuzes, who were nomadic herders. The southern neighbors of Kimaks were Karluks, who preserved their independence for another 200 years. The Kimak Khakan's residence was in the city Imakia (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan) on the Irtysh.

In the middle of the 7th century, one of the future Kimek confederation's constituent tribe, the Yemaks, lived near the Irtysh, north of the Altai, as part of the Western Turkic Khaganate, and were possibly known to Chinese as 鹽莫 Yánmò (< Middle Chinese *jiäm-mâk). After the disintegration of the Western Türkic Kaganate in 743, a part of the Kimaks remained in its successor, the Uyghur Kaganate (740–840), and another part retained their independence. Lev Gumilyov connects the Kimek to Western Turk tribe Chumukun (處木昆): as Kimaks were known only to Arabs and Persians with Chumukun only known to Chinese. During that period a nucleus of the Kimak confederation's tribes was consolidated. The head of the Kimak confederation had the title shad tutuk, i.e., "Prince Governing, or Ruling”. The Yemek tribe became the head of the union, and later of the Kimak Kaganate. According to Pritsak (1982:331-33), Kimeks were known to Chinese as 庫莫 Kumo < MC kʰuoH-mɑk̚ < *qu(o)mâġ associated with the Xi < *ɦei < *Ġay, a people whom Islamic writers knew as Qay and whose ethnonym is often linked to Mongolic *mogaï "snake" (Khalkha могой mogoj). Pletnyova proposed that "A snake has seven heads"/"A dragon with seven heads", recorded by Kashgari reflects the consolidation of the Kimek confederation. However, Golden (1992) found no textual evidence to link qay with Mongolic *mogaï,. Golden, following Klyashtorny, contended that the Qays' identification as the "People of the Snake", or rather "People of the Chieftain named Snake/Dragon", actually resulted from Qays' participattion in an anti-Karakhanid coaliation led by Yabaku chieftain Budrach, whose epithet Böke means "Great Dragon / Great Snake".

Before the middle of the 8th century, the Kimaks bordered the Karluks and Tokuz-Oguzes on the south, and the Yenisei Kyrgyz on the east. After dissolution of the Western Turkic Khaganate in 743, the main body of the Kimaks remained in the Irtysh area. In the late 8th or early 9th century, part of the Kimak tribes migrated in two directions, northwest to the Urals and southwest to the northern Zhetysu. The migration changed the ethnic composition of the Middle Volga and Lower Kama areas in the west. Spreading from the Irtysh area, Kimaks occupied territory between the rivers Yaik and Emba, and between the Aral and Caspian steppes, to the Zhetysu area.

Between the 9th– and 11th century the Kimek were concentrated in the middle Irtysh basin and northeastern Semirechye.

9th and 10th century
After the breakup of the Uyghur Khaganate in 840, the Central Asian tribes found themselves unattached. Portions of the Turkic Eymür, Bayandur, and Shiwei Tatar tribes joined the core of the Kimak tribes. The Tatar tribes already were members of the Kimak confederation—some had already participated in the initial formation of the Kimak Kaganate. The Kipchaks also had their Khanlyk, but politically they were dependent on the Kimaks. The dominating Kimak tribe mostly lived on the banks of Irtysh. The Kipchaks, described by Hudud al-Alam, occupied a separate territory located to the west, approximately in the southeastern part of the Southern Urals. Chinese chroniclers wrote about the mountains of the Kipchak land—in the chronicle Yuanshi these mountains are named Yùlǐbólǐ (玉里伯里), and the Kipchaks are called Qīnchá 欽察. North of Kipchaks and Kimaks lay endless forest.

Of all the numerous tribes, the Kimaks were ready to head a new political tribal union. They created a new Kimak Kaganate state, a federation of seven tribes, seven Khanlyks. Abu Said Gardezi (d. 1061) wrote that the Kimak state incorporated seven related tribes: Yemeks, Kipchaks, Eymür, Tatar, Bayandur, Lanikaz, and Ajlad. At its height, the Kimak Kaganate had 12 nuclear tribes, extending from the Irtysh river and Altai mountains in the east to the Black Sea steppe in the west, into the taiga fringes in the north, and southward into the desert-steppe. After their decline, the Jeti-Su Kimaks retreated back to the upper Irtysh region, and the western Kipchak-Kimaks settled in the North Pontic steppes. The Kimaks were originally Tengrians, with possibly some Nestorian Christian communities. In the 11th century Islam made some inroads.

Arab and Persian geographers, travelers, and historians provide an abundance of information about the Kimaks. In 821 the Arab Tamim ibn Bahr traveled to Tokuz-Oguzes through Kimak and Kipchak lands. His descriptions were later used by other authors. The Persian traveler Gardezi recorded the Kimaks, noting that their location was previously on record as the territory of the people called by the Chinese authors "Chumukun".

In the 9th century, the Kimaks allied with the Oguz. In the second half of the 9th century, the reinforced Kimaks began drifting westwards. They occupied the lands of the Pecheneg (Besenyo, Badjinak, Patsinak, Pecheneg, called by the Arabs “Badjnaks”, and by the Byzantines “Patsinaks”), nomadic cattle breeders whose nucleus were the tribes of the Kangar union. The Pecheneg position worsened, their union was defeated by an alliance of Oguzes, Kimaks, and Karluks. Kimaks, together with Oguzes, seized Kangar Pecheneg lands along the Seyhun (Syr-Darya) and in the Aral area, taking over the pastures in the Southern Urals.

Under pressure of Kimaks, the Pecheneg moved from the Aral to the Lower Itil steppes, and from there on to the Don-Dnieper interfluvial, pushing the Magyars westward. At the end of the 9th century in the south of the Eastern European steppes formed a new nomadic union of Pecheneg. Their neighbors were stronger and better known people: Oghuzes, Kipchaks, Magyars, and the Khazar Kaganate. Under pressure from joint assaults by Cuman/Kipchaks and their linguistic Oghuz cousins of the Kimek Khaganate, and taking advantage of the weakness of the Khazar Kaganate, the Pecheneg moved through its territory to the west, bringing destruction to the settled populations of Bulgars and Alans in the N.Caucasus.

In the 10th century, the Kimek were allied with the Oghuzes. In his 10th-century work, Ibn Haukal drew a map showing that Kipchak-Kimak tribes together with Oghuzes pastured in the steppes north of the Aral Sea, and al-Masudi at approximately the same time wrote that all of them were coaching along Emba and Yaik. In Middle East, the Cuman–Kipchak country began to be called Desht-i-Kipchak and Cumania. Al-Biruni noted that Oghuzes quite often pastured in the country of Kimek. Some clans of Kimak tribes quite often coached along the coast of the Caspian Sea: "Shahname" even calls that sea as Kimak Sea". The main western neighbors of Kimek-Kipchaks in the 10th century were Bashkirs, with whom at that time the westernmost Kipchak clans established very close contacts.

They dominated the heartland of Asia, controlled a key central portion of the Silk Road, and influenced events from China to Persia and Europe, on a par with the Scythians and Mongols. The Kimak polity may seen as one of the great pastoral, nomadic empires of all time.

At the end of the 10th century, not only the Caliphate writers and scientists were knowledgeable about them, but in the Central Asian states journeys to the Kimak country were well known and discussed in the markets and chaihanas (tea houses).

The Kimeks were ruled by a "Kagan, also called "Khakan" in the eastern records, not of the Ashina dynasty. In the 10th and 11th centuries the ruling clan was the Tatar. Later they appear to have been ruled by the Ilbari clan.

During the 10th century the Kipchaks became independent within the Kaganate (if they were ever dependent in the first place) and began migrating westward. The zenith of Kimak power came under the Ilburi rulers near the end of the 12th century. In 1183, the Kimaks attacked Volga Bulgaria, and they twice sacked Khwarezm, in the 1152 and 1197.

Decline
The Kimak federation occupied a huge territory from the Tobol and Irtysh rivers to the Caspian Sea and Syr-Darya. The northern border of the Kimak federation was the Siberian taiga, the eastern border was the Altai Mountains, the southern border was the lifeless steppe Bet Pak. The borders naturally protecting them from their enemies, the Kimaks lived undisturbed. Their neighbors were Karluks, Oguzes and Kyrgyzes. Kimaks, Kipchaks, Oguzes, Petchenegs, Ugrians and other peoples and ethnic groups of the multi-ethnic Kimak Kaganate lived peacefully and prosperous.

In the beginning of the 11th century the Kimaks and Kipchaks pushed the Oguzes to the south, Petchenegs to the west, Karluks to the southeast, and the Ugrians to the north into the Siberian taiga, and became owners of the ancient Kangju. Individual Khanlyks of the Kimak Kaganate grew stronger, separatist forces increased, undermining central authority. The Khakan became only a militia leader, there was no central army, each subject Khan had his small army.

The Kimaks and then Khitay pressed the Kipchaks to move west, occupying lands that earlier belonged to Oguzes. After seizing Oguz lands, the Kipchaks grew considerably stronger, and the Kimaks became dependents of them. The Kipchak migration was a planned invasion, a capture of richer pastures. Part of the Kimaks remained in the ancient land along the Irtysh, and a part left with the Kipchaks to the west. A larger portion of the Kimak Kaganate tribes, the Kimaks, Kipchaks, Pechenegs, and the Oguzes migrated to the west, to beyond Ural, Volga, Don and Dniepr, changing the ethnic map of Eastern Europe. The southern Karluks joined the Karakhanid state.

A significant mass of Kipchaks and Kimaks remained in the Irtysh territories with the ancient Volga Finns of western Siberia. Subsequently, they formed the Siberian Tatars and other Turkic peoples. In the west, the Kipchaks followed the path taken previously by the Pechenegs under pressure of the Oguzes, and later the Oguzes under pressure of the Kimaks and Kipchaks. They crossed the Volga, Don, Dniestr, and Dniepr, and reached the Danube. On their way the Kipchaks were joined by the remains of the Petchenegs and Oguzes. The Rus chronicles under year 1054 records an appearance near Kiev of the Oguz people, who were pushed by Kipchaks, a branch of middle Irtysh and Ob Kimaks.

A court doctor of the Seljuk Sultans, al-Marwazi tells that "Kais" and "Kuns" expelled the "Shars" tribe (Middle Turkic sarïğ), and the Shars, in turn, caused the chain displacements and migrations of the Turkmens, then Oghuzes and finally Pechenegs. Matthew of Edessa tells that the "people of snakes" pressed the "red-haired", and the "red-haired" moved on the Oguzes, who together with the Petchenegs attacked Byzantium. Pletnyova identified the Kais as Kimaks and the Sharys as Kipchaks, whose endonym was calqued by East Slavs as Polovtsy (compare OES polovъje, meaning "light yellow"). Besides the Sharys, i.e. the yellow Kipchaks, participated other Kimak hordes (Kais, Kuns), and other members of the Kaganate in the advance to the West. However, Golden identified the Qays as the Kumo Xi who were of Proto-Mongolic origins, and Shary as "Yellow Uyghurs", led by Basmyl chiefs, rather than Kipchaks. and "the People of the Snake" should be interpreted as "People of the chieftain named Snake-Dragon" and identified with an anti-Karakhanid tribal coalition (including the Qays among others) led by Budrach, a Yabaku chieftain whose epithet was Böke "Great Dragon / Great Snake", following Klyashtorny.

The Kimak Kaganate's fall in the mid-11th century was caused by external factors. The migration of the Central Asian Mongolic-speaking nomads pushed by the Mongolic Khitay state Lyao formed in Northern China in 916 AD. The Khitay nomads occupied the Kimak and Kipchak lands west of the Irtysh. The Kaganate thereafter declined, and the Kimeks were probably at times subjected to Kyrgyz and Kara-Khitai overlordship. In the 11th–12th centuries the Mongolic-speaking Naiman tribe in its westward move displaced the Kimaks-Kipchaks from the Mongolian Altai and Upper Irtysh. From the middle of the 12th century the Mongolic tribes predominated almost in all the territory of modern Mongolia.

In the 12th century the territory of the khanate included the southern Urals, the eastern Volga area, the Mangyshlak Peninsula, and the region northwest of the Aral Sea. Their centers included Kimäk and Sangir. Most of the population was semi-nomadic, a minority were sedentary farmers, and many of the city dwellers were craftsmen. In the northern parts of Kimek territory were underground towns of tunnel networks and chambers to escape the cold.

In the 13th century the remnant of the Kimak Khanate was conquered by the Mongols and its lands were assigned to the Ulus of Jochi. See Golden Horde for the area's subsequent history. A significant part of the population in the Kipchak Khanate state, created by the Mongols, was from the Kimak Kaganate lands. The Kimak leader Bachman Khan resisted some years after the Mongols conquered the region.

Economy
With their settlements and pastures stretching for thousands of kilometers from the Irtysh to the Caspian Sea and from the taiga to the Kazakhstan semi-deserts, the economy of the Kimak confederation, varied between the eastern areas and the western areas, and between the northern forest-steppe and the southern foothills of the Tian-Shan mountains. The Persian Anonym emphasized that Kipchaks living in the extreme western areas of the Kaganate lead a more primitive way of life than those who lived near the Irtysh, where the city Imak was the center of the Kimak union and summer seat of the Kimak Kagan.

The Kimak economy was classic Central Asian pastoral nomadism, with the Turkic pattern of widely varying local economic specializations and adaptations. The key animal was horse and the main subsistence animal was sheep. As a subsistence animal, fatty-tailed sheep provided meat for food, oil for cooking, and tallow for light. The poorest Kimaks herded cattle. They wintered in the steppe between the Emba and Ural rivers, but summered near the Irtysh. The summer home of the Kimak Khakans was in the town of Imak, in the middle Irtysh, the winter capital was Tamim on the southern shore of lake Balkhash. Archeology confirms that te Kimaks in the Irtysh area were semi-settled, Al-Idrisi in the 12th century wrote about Kimak cultivated lands as a well-known fact, with wheat crops, millet, barley, legumes, and even rice. The Kimaks also raised grapes and were beekeepers. They left remains of irrigation systems and ruins of castles. Al-Idrisi describes in detail the Kimak cities, emphasizing that all of them were well fortified. In the Kagan's city, with its concentration of Kimak aristocracy, were markets and temples. Sedentary life led to construction of more stable dwellings, in the settlements and cities clay-walled semi-dugouts were widely used alongside felt yurts. Typically, both type of dwellings had a hearth in the center.

The Kipchaks of both written sources and archeological evidence combined pastoral cattle breeding with some elements of sedentary life. The "Desht-i-Kipchak" or Kiptchak steppes were well organized for prosperous nomadic cattle breeding. The steppe was subdivided into locations with certain pasture routes, yaylak summer settlements and kishlak winter settlements. Near permanent yaylak and kishlak settlements were kurgan cemeteries. In the settlements and along the steppe shlyakhs ('roads') and coaching routes Kipchaks erected ancestor sanctuaries with stone statues representing the deceased. The favorite animal was the horse, used for riding and draught in agriculture, and horse meat was considered the best. Among the crafts were leather processing, felt manufacturing, clothing and footwear, horse harnesses of leather and felt. The Kimaks and other tribes of the Kaganate produced weapons, implements, and agricultural tools. In the forest-steppe areas woodworking was widespread. Utensils, yurt parts, etc. were made of wood. Iron, gold, and silver were mined and processed. Kimak cities were mostly located along the trading ways. Trade was mostly barter, farmers exchanged grain and flour for lambs and leather, but monetary trade was active as well.

Under the influence of trading relations with Muslim Arabs, the Kimak Kaganate was drawn into the slave-trading business. "Objectionable people" and even relatives were sold into slavery. Slavery became the fate of multitudes, sold by Khitay running endless manhunt attacks and roundups. This tragedy lasted for 200 years, c. 850 – 1050.

Culture
The Kimak were literate in the Old Turkic script. Abu Dulaf (c. 940), and Ibn al-Fakikh wrote about the Kimak Kaganate: "They have reeds with which they write". Archeologists found 10th- to 11th-century bronze mirrors with inscriptions near Urdjar in the Tarbagatai mountains, and in the Irtysh region. L. Kimball stipulates that literate Kimak had works of law, religion, history, and epic poetry, none of which have survived. Although the Kimak had copper coins, most trade was done by barter.

Hunting was a key part of Kimak life. Large group hunts served as training for war. Pride, prestige, and leadership were associated with the use of falcons, hawks, golden eagles, and hunting dogs, and with the pursuit of beasts of prey, including the now extinct Caspian tiger and the snow leopard.

Kimak Khans wore golden crowns and clothes sewn with gold. Al Idrisi relayed that Kimaks extract gold with mercury and float it in dung.

Kimak towns were a symbiosis of local predominantly Turkic Kimak populations, pre-existing autochthonous culture, and people from elsewhere in Central Asia. A characteristic feature was that all towns were well-fortified, and in each a prince-chieftain headed a garrison. Towns were situated on lake shores, river banks, in border areas, and in impregnable mountain areas. A fortified wall with an iron gate surrounded the largest capital town Tamim of the Khakan, where also lived aristocrats. In the hills stood castle-forts surrounded by moats.

Kimaks of the Seihun steppe traded in sheep. Kimak presence on the Volga enabled them to use local major trade routes, and put them in contact with the Byzantine and Viking worlds.

Kimaks made cheese and beverages from fermented mare's milk, some of which probably were distilled to high potency, and beverages from rice, millet, barley, and honey.

Religion
The Kimak religion was the same as the majority of Turks. In the steppes from the Baikal to the Danube the Turks believed in Tengri. The western neighbors of the Kyrgyzes (Kimaks, Kipchaks, Cumans, Oguzes, Pechenegs, Karluks, etc.), who were located closer to the Muslim lands, still professed Tengrianism in the 9th century. The Kimaks had a tradition of ancestor reverence. On the border with the Uyghurs, Kimaks adopted Manichaeism. The Kimaks also worshipped rocks with images (apparently ancient petroglyphs) and images of human feet. Al-Idrisi spoke about belief in various spirits, and about acceptance by some Kimaks of Manichaeism and Islam. Apparently, the last two religions started penetrating the Kimaks in the 10th century but became widely accepted much later, and then only in the central Irtysh and Balkhash areas.

Sanctuaries and Burial customs
The most typical and notable feature of Kimak-Kipchak and Cuman culture are the kurgan stelae or balbals, erected at sanctuaries with square fencing of rough stone and gravel. In the 6th through 9th centuries similar sanctuaries with statues of deceased ancestors were built by the Göktürks and Uyghurs. After destruction of the Göktürk and Uyghur Kaganates, Kipchaks and Cumans were one of the few Turkic peoples who preserved this tradition. Cumans and Kipchaks continued the tradition until the loss of their political independence.

From the end of the 9th century the construction of small fenced sanctuaries devoted to ancestors, with a statue (or statues) inside became a distinctive feature of the Cumans and Kipchaks. The obelisks were often simple rough stelae, frequently with figures without details. Faces were indicated by deeply carved lines, frequently heart-shaped. Female statues differed from men's by round breasts. The sanctuaries were built only for rich and noble nomads.

Nizami described Kimak reverence to their ancestors. Kimaks and Cumans/Kipchaks erected many statues, believed to have special power and honored accordingly: "All Cumans/Kipchak tribes, when they happen to pass there, bow down twice in front of this obelisk. Mounted or on foot, they bow to it as to a Creator. A horseman takes an arrow from his quiver in honor of it, shepherds with flocks leave a sheep behind".

Some Kimaks cremated their dead: near the Irtysh cremation burials have been found.

S.A.Pletneva developed a comparative description of Middle Age N. Pontic burials customs including Kimaks, Cumans and Kipchaks. The grave gifts are those necessary for a nomad during a trip to the next world: horse harnesses, weapons, less frequently personal decorations and vessels with ritual food. Next to the diseased was laid his true comrade (‘tovarich’), a horse. The belief in need to supply the diseased with the things necessary on the road and at least for initial life in the other world is described by the 10th-century traveller and writer Ibn Fadlan, describing not a Kimak-Kipchak but an Oguz funeral ceremony. However, from nomad kurgan excavations we know that the funeral ceremonies of the Turkic peoples was generally similar, meaning the general provisions for the construction of funeral complexes were identical.

"And if a person from their number would die, for him is dug a big hole in a shape of a house, he would be dressed in his jacket, his belt, his bow... and would put in his hand a wooden cup with nabiz, would put before him a wooden vessel with nabiz, would bring everything that he has, and would lay it with him in that house... Then would place him in it and cover the house above him with decking, and pile above it something like a dome of clay. Then they would take horses, and depending on their number would kill a hundred of them, or two hundred, or one, and would eat their meat, except for the head, legs, hide, and tail. And, truly, they stretch all this on wooden frames and say: "These are his horses on whom he would go to paradise". And if he ever killed men and was brave, they would carve images from wood numbering those whom he killed, would place them on his tomb and would say: "These are his youngsters who would serve him in paradise"."

- Ibn Fadlan

The nomads were always accompanied into the other world by slaughtered horses, and sometimes by others animals, and enemies killed by him represented by simple stelae or rough human images of stone or wood. The horses were necessary for speedy crossing, for coaching from one world to another, the more of them the better. Among Oguzes the images of the deceased were neither installed over the tombs nor in special sanctuaries. That custom was only among the population of the Kimak Kaganate, and mainly among the Kipchaks.

Khan-Priests
Turkic khans, including the Kimak Khan, had a special role as High Priest and bearer of prophecy. Shabib al-Karani left a probably distorted description of such a ritual: "The Khakan of the Turks has a specific day when they light a huge bonfire. Khakan speaks an oracular phrase into the fire. Then he looks intently staring into the fire, and turns away from the fire. If his face becomes yellow, it is a sign of fertility and good, if it becomes white, harvest will fail, if it becomes green means illness and epidemics, and if it becomes black, it indicates a death of the Khakan or a distant journey. When the latter happens, Khakan hastens to go on a journey or a raid. Kimak shamans had yada, "rain stones", which were used to bring rain when it was needed."

Gardizi list
According to Gardizi (d. 1061), the Kimek confederation included the seven tribes of:
 * 1) Imur / Imi;
 * 2) Imak;
 * 3) Tatar;
 * 4) Bayundur / Bayandur;
 * 5) Kïpčak;
 * 6) Nilkar / Lanikaz / Nilqaz;
 * 7) Ajlad.

Hudud list
10th-century Hudud al-'Alam mentions the "country of Kīmāk", ruled by a khagan (king) who has eleven lieutenants that hold hereditary fiefs. This suggests that there were 11 divisions.

List of known rulers

 * Abarkhan
 * Alip Derek
 * Alip Qara Uran
 * Inalchiq

Literature

 * Ahinjanov S.M. "Kipchaks in history of medieval Kazakhstan", Alma-Ata, 1989, ISBN 5-628-00146-5
 * Faizrakhmanov G., "Ancient Turks in Sibiria and Central Asia" Kazan, 'Master Lain', 2000, ISBN 5-93139-069-3
 * Gumilev L.N., "Ancient Turks", Moscow, 'Science', 1967
 * Kumenkov B. E., "Kimak State if the 9–11th centuries according to Arabic sources", Alma-Ata, 'Science', 1972
 * Pletneva S.A., "Kipchaks", Moscow, 1990, ISBN 5-02-009542-7
 * Kumenkov B. E., "Kimak State if the 9–11th centuries according to Arabic sources", Alma-Ata, 'Science', 1972
 * Pletneva S.A., "Kipchaks", Moscow, 1990, ISBN 5-02-009542-7

Kimäk Qağanlığı

title: Kimek–Kipchak confederation


text:
Talk:Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

DANFS POV
It's not "POV" to state a bare fact - a number of DANFS entries do make anti-communist remarks, I've had to prune out dozens of those as part of importing into WP. I suppose I should quote an example. Stan 14:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok I changed it back until there is a better source/qualification for the info. I don't really doubt you here but I though it was important to back up claims of a source being slanted either communist/anti-communist. Nautical 20:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Stan's right. I've seen a lot of entries that say things like "as of 1969, USS Whatever is defending freedom from Communist agression in Southeast Asia". A quick look through the Haze Gray copy of DANFS turned up
 * From there Higbee continued to cruise in the Pacific and along the China coast to strengthen American force in Asia and show her determination to protect democracy against the inroads of Communism.
 * she operated with the mighty 6th Fleet, America's deterrent to Communist aggression in the Middle East.
 * Two days later she sailed to Hong Kong and ended the year in Japan preparing for further action in the cause of peace and freedom.
 * Into mid-1967 she continued to maintain the peak readiness of her crew and equipment for whatever task the defense of the Nation and the free world might demand.
 * Operating with this mighty peacekeeping force, King helped to check Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.

 * It seems to be a product of that era. Plus, when writing articles about ships whose full story couldn't be told at the time, people felt the need to end with something less blah than "is still on active service."
 * —wwoods 22:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not necessarily the role of DANFS to be a neutral source - after all, it's a product of an organization with a decidedly non-neutral mission - not unlike how present-day ships' webpages have to say "fighting the War on Terror" with a straight face even though many of the sailors and officers onboard think it's all partisan BS. Some day I'd like to dig more into the details of how DANFS was written; for instance, some writeups are sketchy, while others are quite detailed - was that differing amounts of source material, or differing amounts of initiative on the part of the writers? How much latitude were they given, and what kind of review process was there? Stan 22:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't think stan was wrong, I thought it was important to back statements of a source being pro or anti communist. However, in those examples they are stating the ships function- such as to defend against communist aggression- but thats not really pov just information about a ships role. The same could be said of soviet ships, that they were there to "defend democratic aggression"- its just the ships role.Nautical 22:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Stan is right, and the comment needs to remain in the article. ➥the Epopt 23:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Its not a matter of stan being right or wrong, that sort of a statement needs to be backed up. It doesn't matter if its a consensus because even if it may be a fact, its also a pov which needs qualification. Nautical 23:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I added section about frequency of mention as well to further bolster the info, I think its pretty well qualified comment now. Which is good, because people will take it more seriously with the actual quotes there. Being the wikipedia people might be more doubtfull of un-referenced statements, but this way they can see for themselves. Nautical 00:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not so keen on your attempt at a numerical justification, because that sort of thing is highly variable, depending on when one tries the experiment, the exact wording searched for, etc. If you add all that data, you end up with original research on DANFS, which is another one of the WP no-nos. On POV, I think you may be confused on what Neutral point of view says; it just says that we have to attribute POVs to their sources, and not misrepresent WP as having its own POV. In this article, we're describing a publication that is not itself neutral, and deliberately so. Just as a WP article on the US Democratic Party should say "the Dems believe that the Republican platform is bad for the country", not just "the Dems have an opinion about the Republicans". It's very important for readers to understand that DANFS is authoritative but not neutral; a single quote from DANFS that takes a pro-US stance would be sufficient as "proof". I don't think it's that useful to try to quantify how much there is; my purpose with the original comment was to clue readers into the sort of thing to watch out for, without trying to make a claim about the exact quantity, and in the absence of a standard way to measure bias in a text, numbers don't tell us if there is "a lot" or "not so much". Sometimes we have to choose our words carefully, so as to state only known facts without adding or implying anything we don't actually know. Stan 05:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * When I first read Gdr's heads-up on this point, in his advice on doing DANFS conversions, I was surprised, but there are a number of articles which display an overt pro-American, anti-Communist attitude. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 * I don't think this article has to dwell on the subject. Just mention it, and maybe give a couple of examples. Of the ones I listed, the last is probably the best, since it's got both the "mighty peacekeeping force" and the "Communist aggression". The search statistics seem too much inside baseball--useful for arguing the point here on the Talk page, but not really needed in the article itself.
 * —wwoods 09:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok these are some great point once again. One thing I will say is when that we really talking about two points of view- the first of course being the pov of source which is of of course ok to explain, the seconds was the interpretation of what that pov was. I agree though that it probably only needs a breif mention, ill trim out all but the last example and yes haha rather baseball like statistics. Nautical 21:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * A note on the non-neutral tone DANFS histories. These are compiled at the Washington Navy Yard at what was the Naval History Center and what is now the Naval History and Heritage Command from the ships' official histories. Often they were directly transcribed. I will make the gross assumption that Navy official histories are written in the same way as unit-level official histories in the Army, a process I directly participated in for eight years.

 * In Army battalions, the battalion commander looks at the battalion command sergeant major and says "Our unit formal (or change of command, or Family Day) is coming up. We need a page of unit history to put in the programs." The CSM looks at whatever is in the filing cabinet (paper or electronic), says "This needs to be updated", and walks across the hall to the Operations section to find someone literate. He hands them what he has and says "Fix this, and I need it before you go to lunch/go to dinner/ go home." He then rejects it twice for "Not being interesting enough" and eventually wants an inspirational modifying adjective for every verb in the paper. Then it's deemed "Properly motivating" and "The sort of thing that will excite the families." Army unit histories dredge up a lot of proud events of long ago in the unit lineage. I was in the 101st. It's ALWAYS all about Normandy.

 * Replace "battalion commander" with "Captain" and "command sergeant major" with "command master chief", and I'm pretty close. But since most Navy vessels post-WWII don't have a lot of direct combat (by which I do not include carrier air wings flying missions against land targets), creativity is involved. Steaming in circles off Asia became "deterring Communist aggression." After a phone call with my cousin (who will remain nameless but is a rear admiral who formerly commanded the USS Abraham Lincoln's air wing), I'm pretty close.74.193.234.233 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DANFS updates
Does anyone know how to get updates to DANFS? Some of the ship histories are quite complete, but others not so, especially when compared to those of Wiki. I served on the USS Mullany DD528 during her last combat cruise in 1968, yet DANFS only takes her history to 1965. I filled in the Wiki history of that cruise, as well as details of her transfer to the Taiwan Navy as the Chiang Yang, and her subsequent sinking as a feeding ground for fish. I do not expect DANFS to go beyond her striking from the U.S. inventory, but I would like some history up to that date. J.D. Schultz, MM2, 1965-71--W8IMP 06:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe this article explains about the revision history of DANFS. There is a link to the NHC's DANFS editorial policy in that atricle, too, which should lead you to an e-mail address for submitting corrections and additions.  Note that they are looking for documentation for non obvious corrections, similar to wikipedia's verifiability criteria.  BTW, try this link/template: USS Mullany (DD-528). --J Clear 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

copyright
Is DANFS considered a work of the government, and covered by PD-USGov? John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; the Naval Historical Center is a branch of the US Navy. Maralia (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag
Today User:Plrk tagged this sentence:

 * Editors of Wikipedia often use the DANFS entry as a starting point for ship articles

By way of response: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DANFS shows that upwards of 7,500 Wikipedia articles indicate that they include text from DANFS. It's common practice to start with the DANFS text and tweak it to add wikilinks, improve phrasing, remove POV and jargon, etc. I really can't see how this fact is the least bit controversial; Plrk, if you still feel so, can you explain why, and how you would like to see it cited? Thank you. Maralia (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I am not questioning that it's true, I'm questioning whether it is notable enough to be included in the article. If it has been mentioned in a third-party reliable source, then it can be added to wikipedia - after all, one of our core policies is Verifiability. You can't cite raw data in the form of referring to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DANFS either, as it's just raw data that hasn't really been published (and thus does not comply with WP:V). Also, one should in general be careful with self-references - the matter at hand concerns this doubly, as a statement about wikipedia (self-reference #1) is using wikipedia as a source (self-reference #2). Plrk (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I doubt it's been published, but it's verifiable by checking the early edit histories of articles. Indeed, how many articles on USN ships launched before ~1970 didn't start by copying and adapting DANFS?
 * As for notability, mm, maybe not. But having such a reference source available has helped give Wikipedia such coverage of USN ships, compared to ships of other navies. I just did a quick survey through Category:Royal Navy ship names, and the coverage seems much thinner, probably because there's nothing equivalent to DANFS to build on. Ships of the Royal Navy isn't public domain, and isn't on-line as far as I know.
 * Also, the question sometimes arises whether a ship article is a copyright violation, because it seems to have been copied from some other web site, so it may be worth noting the ultimate source of the text.
 * —WWoods (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed the entire sentence. It is superfluous. Plrk (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DANFS website
Can someone please update the website shown in the Infobox as I cannot see on the edit page where to do this: http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs should be http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs.html Davidships (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Article dismissive of the value of the DANF and thus of plagiarism from that work
In the section on "Reference use" states that:

 * The Dictionary limits itself largely to basic descriptions and brief operational notes, and includes almost no analysis or historical context.

This statement is incorrect. The DANFS provides extremely detailed notes about the operation of at least some of the ships, provides analysis, historical context and editorializes. For example, here's just one paragraph from the USS Yorktown (CV-5), which is pretty much a wholesale borrowing from the DANF article on that ship:

 * The critique of the operation revealed that carrier operations — a part of the scenarios for the annual exercises since the entry of USS Langley (CV-1) into the war games in 1925 — had achieved a new peak of efficiency. Despite the inexperience of Yorktown and Enterprise — comparative newcomers to the Fleet — both carriers made significant contributions to the success of the problem. The planners had studied the employment of carriers and their embarked air groups in connection with convoy escort, antisubmarine defense, and various attack measures against surface ships and shore installations. In short, they worked to develop the tactics that would be used when war actually came.

Other examples in that same article include such non-encyclopledic and fanciful language as:

 * "The early news from the Pacific was bleak" and "disaster struck" and "five days later when American fighting men in Hawaii were rudely awakened to find their country at war."

If the following is not historical context, nothing else is:

 * With the retention of the Fleet in Hawaiian waters after the conclusion of Fleet Problem XXI, Yorktown operated in the Pacific off the west coast of the United States and in Hawaiian waters until the following spring, when the success of German U-boats preying upon British shipping in the Atlantic required a shift of American naval strength. Thus, to reinforce the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, the Navy transferred a substantial force from the Pacific including Yorktown, Battleship Division Three (the New Mexico-class battleships), three light cruisers, and 12 accompanying destroyers.

This statement dismisses the worth of the DANF and its creative value and therefore minimizes that the DANF is "often quoted verbatim in other works (including in some cases Wikipedia articles)." The fact that a work is in the public domain means that wholesale incorporation does not constitute copyright infringement; it is not however a license to plagiarize. Ileanadu (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 * That's what the attribution template is for. DANFS is used in over 9,000 articles to attribute PD-USN text per WP:FREECOPYING. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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


text:
Colin Barnett

Colin James Barnett (born 15 July 1950) is an Australian former politician who was the 29th Premier of Western Australia. He concurrently served as the state's Treasurer at several points during his tenure and had previously held various other portfolios in Western Australia's Court–Cowan Ministry.

Barnett was born in Nedlands, Perth. He graduated from the University of Western Australia with an economics degree. Having lectured in economics at the Western Australian Institute of Technology and served as an executive director of the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, he was elected to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly for the seat of Cottesloe at a by-election in 1990. Barnett served as a minister in the Court–Cowan Ministry from 1993 until its defeat at the 2001 election, after which he was made leader of the Liberal Party, replacing the outgoing premier, Richard Court. He resigned as leader after the unsuccessful 2005 election, but regained the position prior to the 2008 election, where he was elected premier. Barnett was sworn into office on 23 September 2008 by Ken Michael, the Governor of Western Australia at the time. At the 2013 election Barnett and his government were re-elected to a second term.

The Liberals were defeated at the 2017 election, and WA Labor's Mark McGowan succeeded Barnett as Premier. On 15 December 2017, Barnett announced his intention to resign from politics, which he did on 5 February 2018.

Early life
Barnett was born in Nedlands, an inner western suburb of Perth, on 15 July 1950. He was educated at Nedlands Primary School and Hollywood Senior High School. He began studying geology at the University of Western Australia, but switched to an economics course from which he graduated with an honours degree and later a master's degree. In 1973, he became a cadet research officer for the Australian Bureau of Statistics in Canberra, being promoted to senior research officer before returning to Perth in 1975 to become a lecturer in Economics at the Western Australian Institute of Technology (later renamed Curtin University).

In 1981, he was seconded to the Confederation of Western Australian Industry, becoming the founding editor of their publication, Western Australian Economic Review. He was later appointed their chief economist, and served with them until 1985, when he became the executive director of the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Early political career
After former state Liberal leader Bill Hassell retired from politics in 1990, Barnett won the ensuing by-election in his old seat of Cottesloe. He had not previously been a member of the Liberal Party, only joining during the preselection process.

Despite this, Barnett was appointed to the shadow cabinet of Barry MacKinnon shortly after entering parliament, with responsibility for housing and works. He also added the fuel and energy portfolio in August 1991. In May 1992, MacKinnon was replaced as leader by Richard Court. Barnett ran for the deputy leadership against Cheryl Edwardes, and after an initial 16–16 tie was elected by lot. He retained responsibility for fuel and energy in the subsequent reshuffle of the shadow ministry, and was also given the state development portfolio.

Court Government (1993–2001)
After Court led the Liberals to power at the 1993 state election, Barnett became Minister for Resources Development and Energy and later, Minister for Education and Minister for Tourism in the Court–Cowan Ministry. He was also the Leader of the House in the Legislative Assembly and remained deputy leader of the Liberal Party. He was generally regarded as a competent and successful minister, and was associated with a number of important resource development projects.

Opposition (2001–2008)
The Court government was defeated at the 2001 election. Court had a somewhat frosty relationship with Barnett and wanted to keep him from becoming leader of the opposition. While Court was from the conservative wing of the state Liberal Party, Barnett is from the moderate wing. Court engineered a plan to have federal MP Julie Bishop succeed him instead. Under Court's plan, both he and Barnett would have resigned from the state legislature. Bishop would have resigned from federal parliament and handed her seat of Curtin, the safest Liberal seat in the Perth area, to Barnett. Bishop would have then run in either Barnett's seat of Cottesloe or Court's seat of Nedlands, both reckoned as comfortably safe Liberal seats. Court would then hand leadership of the WA Liberals to Bishop once she was safely in state parliament. When Barnett found out about the plan, he claimed to have "choked on his Weet-Bix" at what he described as "an act of treachery or deceit." However, when Bishop rejected the plan, Court, finding himself in an untenable situation, resigned. Barnett then took the leadership after defeating his only opponent Rod Sweetman.

At the 2005 state election, Barnett proposed the construction of a canal from the rivers of the Kimberley Ranges in northern Western Australia to Perth to meet Perth's growing water supply problem. The proposal was costed by Barnett at A$2 billion, however it soon emerged that no feasibility study or detailed costings had been done. Some experts put the cost as high as A$5 billion. The Prime Minister, John Howard, refused to commit federal funds to the project. He released the policy costings only a few days before the election, when a A$200 million error in the costings document was discovered. When the Gallop government was returned with its majority intact, Barnett accepted responsibility for the defeat and resigned the Liberal leadership. On 9 March 2005 Liberal MPs elected Matt Birney, the member for Kalgoorlie, as Barnett's successor.

Barnett spent the next two years on the backbench—the first time in his career he had not been either a minister or opposition frontbencher. In November 2007, he announced that he would retire from politics at the next state election, at that stage due by May 2009.

WA Government
On 4 August 2008, Troy Buswell resigned as Opposition Leader and two days later Barnett was re-elected unopposed to the Liberal leadership despite the fact that he had previously announced his retirement and Deidre Willmott (who would subsequently be appointed as his Chief of Staff) had been endorsed in his electorate. On 7 August 2008, Premier Alan Carpenter called an early election for 6 September 2008. Barnett led the Liberal Party to the election, which saw a significant swing away from the incumbent Labor Party, leading to a hung parliament. The balance of power rested with the WA Nationals. While the federal Liberals and Nationals are in Coalition at the federal level, the WA Nationals do not necessarily follow their federal counterparts' lead politically, and leader Brendon Grylls had torn up the Coalition agreement a year earlier. Knowing that Grylls was in a position to effectively choose the next premier, both Barnett and Carpenter courted the Nationals' support.

A week after the election, the Nationals agreed to support the Liberal Party as a minority government. As part of the deal, Grylls and two other Nationals, Terry Redman and Terry Waldron, accepted posts in Barnett's cabinet. However, the National ministers had only limited cabinet collective responsibility, unlike past Liberal-National coalitions in Western Australia (and at most levels in the rest of the country), and the Nationals reserved the right to vote against the government on issues that affected their electorates' interests. Additionally, Grylls declined to become Deputy Premier, a post which went to Liberal deputy leader Dr Kim Hames. Carpenter resigned rather than face certain defeat on the floor of the Assembly, and Barnett was sworn into office on 23 September 2008.

Barnett was the sole state premier opposed to Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's key Health reform policy deal at the April 2010 COAG meeting. Barnett at the time led the only Liberal State Government in Australia, while all others states were led by Labor governments. The reasoning for Barnett's strong opposition towards the reform was because it would require the State Governments to forfeit a proportion of their GST revenue. The Rudd government's proposal was that 30 per cent of the GST revenue pool was to be dedicated towards the Commonwealth's contribution for hospital services, which had a disproportionate impact on those States receiving a less than per capita share of the GST pool (for Western Australia, this would have resulted in an estimated 64 per cent of GST revenue being forfeit). Barnett had already been angered that Western Australia was given a decreased 7.1 percent amount of the GST revenue (lower than last year's revenue amount of 8.1 percent) while Western Australia is a state that will be heavily relied upon for the nation's economic growth due to its booming resource sector. Western Australia therefore would be heavily dependent on GST revenue to fund major resource sector projects although they would not be supported by GST revenue, thus becoming extensive expenditure for the state.

Barnett believed that if Western Australia had agreed to a proposition for the States to handover 30% of the GST revenue pool, the arrangement could eventually lead to the federal government being able to acquire 100% of the state's GST revenue. The reaction of Barnett towards the health reform has been considered by political writer Peter van Onselen as a preservation of the states' rights.

From 27 April 2010, Barnett held the Treasury Portfolio after the resignation of former Treasurer Troy Buswell. In a cabinet reshuffle he handed the portfolio to Christian Porter later that same year. Barnett returned to the treasury portfolio when Christian Porter suddenly decided to pursue a career in federal politics and resigned immediately from all his state ministerial portfolios on 12 June 2012. Porter's resignation saw Barnett serve as an interim Treasurer until he was officially replaced by Troy Buswell the following month on 7 July.

Barnett led the Liberals to victory in the 2013 state election, taking 31 seats on a swing of 8.8 points. This was theoretically enough for the Liberals to govern alone, and marked only the second time that the main non-Labor party in Western Australia had won a majority in its own right since adopting the Liberal banner in 1944. However, Barnett said after the election that the coalition with the WA Nationals would be retained. According to ABC election analyst Antony Green, Barnett would have been forced to keep the Nationals in his cabinet in any event. Even after the 2008 electoral reforms, rural areas are still significantly overrepresented in the Legislative Council. Green argued that the rural weighting in the Legislative Council makes it politically impossible for a Liberal premier to govern without National support, even when the Liberals win enough Legislative Assembly seats to theoretically govern alone.

Controversial policies
In October 2004, Barnett led a campaign to raise the age of consent for homosexual acts from 16 to 18. This policy of recriminalisation was opposed by several major organisations, including Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, and the Australian Medical Association, as well as all other parliamentary parties, including the Nationals.

In October 2009, Barnett announced a series of new policies relating to drug legislation including a repeal of the Cannabis Control Act 2003. The previous laws were formulated by Geoff Gallop's drug summit, taking input from experts such as academics, police, social workers, lawyers, medical professionals and members of the public. Barnett has stated it is his intention to overturn these laws because of his beliefs and stated that the drug summit members made a mistake introducing them and that cannabis was a "gateway drug". To help with the enforcement of this new policy, Barnett also supported legislation to give police the power to search and seize property without any suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed. A Liberal parliamentarian, Peter Abetz, voiced support for these laws in parliament by drawing reference to the work Adolf Hitler did to bring security to Nazi Germany. Barnett said that Abetz was making a valid point.

In June 2013, Barnett said that Western Australia would not sign up to the Gillard government Gonski School Funding Reforms. Barnett said that he will not let the federal government govern schools.

In December 2013, Barnett announced a controversial plan for great white sharks to be shot and disposed of at sea if they come within one kilometre of the coast of Western Australia, while acknowledging broad dissent in the community.

In 2015, former Liberal leader Bill Hassell—who had preceded Barnett as the member for Cottesloe and "has a habit of excoriating Barnett in the media" according to The Australian—labelled Barnett a social liberal and a useful over-spender. Barnett claimed mining royalties were spent on "disability, mental health and other areas of social need". In December 2007 when former Liberal leader Barnett was once again a backbencher and contemplating political retirement, he claimed: "I'm disappointed that the Liberal Party has been taken over by hardline right-wingers" and "The party has become inflexible and has held a hard line on social issues, and that has not worked with 30-year-old voters" and "We should be more moderate on social issues. Saying sorry to Aboriginal people is part of that. We should have said sorry long ago".

2016 leadership spill
On 17 September 2016, Local Government Minister Tony Simpson and Transport Minister Dean Nalder resigned from Cabinet. Subsequently, a motion to spill the leadership of the WA Liberal Party was brought by backbencher Murray Cowper. On 20 September, it was defeated 31 votes to 15. Nalder, who would have nominated against Barnett if the spill motion had passed, promised not to launch future leadership challenges.

2017 election defeat and resignation from politics
Most polls since Barnett's landslide victory in 2013 showed the Barnett government well behind Labor. A Newspoll conducted from October to December 2015 and released in January 2016, revealing the government significantly trailing 47–53 two-party against the Labor opposition, representing a double-digit two-party swing of more than 10 points since the 2013 election. Had this been repeated at an election, it would have been more than enough to deny Barnett a third term. Just prior to the 2013 election, Barnett was nominated Better Premier with a 21-point lead on 52 percent, with an approval rating of 51 percent and a disapproval rating of 36 percent. Since then, Labor leader Mark McGowan has consistently led Barnett as Better Premier by several percent, with Barnett's approval rating consistently low, currently at 33 percent, with his disapproval rating consistently high, currently at 54 percent.

On 11 March 2017, Barnett was swept from power in the largest defeat of a sitting government in Western Australia's history. The Coalition suffered a swing of 12.6 percent and lost 20 seats. Seven members of Barnett's cabinet, including Grylls, were defeated. The Coalition took a particularly severe beating in Perth. It went into the election holding 26 of the capital's 43 seats, but many Liberals in the outer suburbs sat on inflated margins. The Liberals suffered a 13.6 percent swing in Perth, and were cut down to just nine seats there, including Barnett's.   Accepting responsibility for one of the worst defeats of a sitting state or territory government since Federation, Barnett resigned as Liberal leader and returned to the backbench. He was succeeded as WA Liberal leader by his former Treasurer, Mike Nahan.

On 15 December 2017, Barnett announced his intention to retire from politics after Australia Day 2018. He resigned on 5 February 2018, triggering a by-election in his seat of Cottesloe.

In December 2019, Barnett criticised Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton for stating that the values of the Chinese Communist Party are "inconsistent" with Australian values.

Honours
Barnett was appointed as a Companion of the Order of Australia in the 2023 King's Birthday Honours for "eminent service to the people and Parliament of Western Australia, particularly as premier, to economic and infrastructure development, to social welfare reform, and to the Indigenous community".

title: Colin Barnett


text:
Mike Lesk

Michael E. Lesk (born 1945) is an American computer scientist.

Biography
In the 1960s, Michael Lesk worked for the SMART Information Retrieval System project, wrote much of its retrieval code and did many of the retrieval experiments, as well as obtaining a BA degree in Physics and Chemistry from Harvard College in 1964 and a PhD from Harvard University in Chemical Physics in 1969.

From 1970 to 1984, Lesk worked at Bell Labs in the group that built Unix. Lesk wrote Unix tools for word processing (tbl, refer, and the standard ms macro package, all for troff), for compiling (Lex), and for networking (uucp). He also wrote the Portable I/O Library (the predecessor to stdio.h in C) and contributed significantly to the development of the C language preprocessor.

In 1984, he left to work for Bellcore, where he managed the computer science research group. There, Lesk worked on specific information systems applications, mostly with geography (a system for driving directions) and dictionaries (a system for disambiguating words in context). In the 1990s, Lesk worked on a large chemical information system, the CORE project, with Cornell, Online Computer Library Center, American Chemical Society, and Chemical Abstracts Service. From 1998 to 2002, Lesk headed the National Science Foundation's Division of Information and Intelligent Systems, where he oversaw Phase 2 of the NSF's Digital Library Initiative. He was a professor on the faculty of the Library and Information Science Department, School of Communication & Information, Rutgers University, from 2003 to 2023.

Lesk received the Flame award for lifetime achievement from Usenix in 1994, is a Fellow of the ACM in 1996, and in 2005 was elected to the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored a number of books.

title: Mike Lesk


text:
Talk:Oleander (band)

from Vfd
On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Oleander (band) for a record of the discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:Oleander.jpg
Image:Oleander.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Oleander-joyride.jpg
The image Image:Oleander-joyride.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * File:Oleander-unwind.jpeg
 * File:Oleander-february.jpeg
 * File:Oleander-blob.jpeg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana
It lists the band Nirvana in the "See Also" section and the template at the bottom. What's the connection? I don't see anything mentioned in the article beyond just listing the band twice. That really ought to be explained in the article. Sergecross73  msg me   03:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oleander (band)


text:
User talk:Nanshu/Archive003

aymag->Aymag?
Hi Nanshu, do you see a problem if aymags would be made uppercase? would like to hear your opinion at the page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities (start a new section for mongolia if there is none) best regards Tobias Conradi 12:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * even better - call it XY Province, would be more in line with other subnational entities Tobias Conradi 05:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source
Thank you for uploading Image:MN Govisumber aymag.png. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.--Aqua 09:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands
I see that you have some questions to ask me, but I''ll promise you that I will come back after May 10 to answer your pending questions and disagreements. Can?

Tan 00:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not seperate Tsushima Islands from Tsushima province. Please let all the content stay united. Also, I have answered your questions. Hope you are happy. The Korean name is not to be removed as it was already there in the history of [[Tsushima province long before i came.

Mr Tan, 11:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete the facts; other users have agreed on the old facts and the are true. What you did is considered as vandalism. However, you may contribute to the article further.

Mr Tan, 17:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * As you may have realised, this article is a sensitive one for some reason. It is best not to make major edits without first discussing them on the Talk page. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) The new map would be fine if it were larger and of higher quality. Could you provide a decent version (in PNG format)?
 * 2) Wholesale edits of the kind you keep making need to be discussed and explained on the article's Talk page. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Before you make large edits, please discuss them first on the article's talk page and wait until a consensus is reached. What you do could eventually be considered as vandalism (let's hope not). Imposing your ideas on other people is something that nobody likes, as Mr Tan has proven. We must first discuss the matter. Thanks a lot. JMBell° 10:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, please go to the Talk page befor making major edits. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You have (again) changed the article to read "Tsushima Island", when the title is till "Islands", and there is a current debate on renaming. This is now vandalistic rather than good-faith editing, and if you continue in this behaviour, you will be treated accordingly.  Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I have now opened Requests for comment/Mr Tan; you might be interested in contributing. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Nanshu, you say that you want references to what I type into the factual accounts? Sorry for the delay, but I will attend to you later as I am very busy now.

Tan 22:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

A translation task for you, can you please translate the articles of

 * 1)  into the english So Haruyasu
 * 2)  into the english So Yoshishige
 * 3)  into the english So Yoshitoshi

Thanks!Tan 15:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I also encounter similar difficulties with Mel. He always reverted changes at the expense of the better ones. I will negotiate with him slowly, and I will see if the discussions is not futile. You can see his attitude in Zanskar--I was trying to improve the article and

Ah yes, the answers that you were pending for are all found in the Tsushima Islands talk page (including the archive)

Furthermore, don't restrict your evidence to Nihonshoki, Shoku Nihongi and Samguk Sagi. I understand that these things are the best things to ground my claim, but new historical evidence are found everyday! So, we cannot restrict our information to old sources; we must expand our views.

Are you a Japanese? I saw that what you checked on Tsushima is Japanese; you must also check out on Korean sources as well. That is what I did; I did not see you ever hinting any Korean sources on Tsushima. This may be the problem to your objections.

Tan 15:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Get to the point here: What we want here is to add information! There is no need to constrict our research to the old history books at all. We, however, should expand our mind and accept theories by modern historians. The problem, I suspect, that you do not accept Hangul; therefore you do not accept new information. I can also read little Japanese, however.

Can you tell me which translator you use to view the Korean pages?

Tan 15:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. However, new historical resources can be came out of thorough research from lost history books, or archeological evidence. The facts that you have removed are from there!

Tan 15:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Stubborness help
I need help concerning Talk:Tsushima Islands concerning my new addition of data. Thanks.

Mr Tan 06:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

 * I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
 * Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
 * More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
 * In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing  The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
 * If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
 * I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
 * I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
 * Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE.  [[User:fabartus | FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinion IS NOT MADE
Regarding this message Mr Tan just left for me a short while ago, I felt this explaination was something you should also be absolutely clear on, so I copy this message to him to you too. Tan asks:
 * I am afraid that I cannot make out very clearly what you stated on the voting poll--do you mean that you voted yes on the move, but with certain conditions?

NO, I Have NOT voted on the MOVE at all, I voted that if the MOVE VOTE DEADLOCKED, I would support the proposed compromise... the single word title 'Tsushima'. You should vote there as well. I mean to put an end to this nonsense one way or the other. Do you realize there are well over 300 small edits to this article since May 13th? That's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
 * I've spent most of the day trying to make heads or tails out of this. I'm currently contacting people with postings on Japanese articles with a lot of experience and leaving them a version of the message I just left you above. The other boiler plate on the cut N paste is an introduction of the issue, and an appeal for them to look at your foreign language websites since most of us are not multilingual. (I am Jealous of your skill there!) In any event, I am doing all that I can to settle this once and for all, however it comes out on the evidence. I should have 30+ people by Tuesday to give an opinion both on the translation issues, and on the best way to word it in English.
 * Next, My comments, and the history I looked at and put in as background showed that my work that you quoted was derived based on the data in your posting of the Japanese Navy blasting through the Isthmus. If we took that as evidence of anything, it would be evidence that I was guilable of believing a fact and then adding it's historical context — again, I cover that at great length in the TALK. Read it very carefully.
 * It NOW appears to me that I misunderstood what you meant to say. Make sure you Find the question that I asked you to answer in bold. YOU NEED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION, plus (i.e a Logical AND), IT MUST also BACK UP THE WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY when you wrote about the Navy blasting through the isthmus, or what I wrote and you quoted means nothing. If you prove that, you prove the Island has been permanently divided. Nothing else will save my paragraph as I wrote it; it was based on what you wrote just minutes before, and no one saw you source that information. I didn't realize it myself until this afternoon.
 * I am afraid that, at this point, I now believe this event was a misreading on my part, as I was up a very long time that night. My historical facts prove only what the numbered explainations say in the heading Circular Arguement. But the chain of reasoning depends on YOUR SOURCE and the PROPER MEANING of whether the channel is 2km wide, or the istmus is 2km wide. There's a world of difference between the two!  If so, I probably (Almost certainly, I polarized the arguement so they decided to move it and bring the issue on the table for a final settlement of the issue.) caused this last edit war.  If my reading of your information, and the information are both correct, then and only then will my paragraph be correct. I don't think that's going to happen. Cutting a canal makes a whole lot more sense than distroying 2km of land of an isthmus. The logical thing is that I made a mistake, and nobody questioned me about it because I had added my historical references at the same time. Since I wasn't watching the article, I didn't catch my own error until about ten hours ago when I built the arguements I pulled out and put under circular arguement. As best I can see. That's what happened. My mistake. Everyone else trusting my writing. The answer to the proper term lies elsewhere.

That should answer the below question of yours very well. The key is YOU 'first USED THE TERM blasted'... see the reference and dates I cited, and copied into the talk from the difference program. I just happened to sit down to edit next (almost immediately, as it turns out) without having any idea of how unstable the article was, and in fact, should have been in bed hours sooner. What you need to do for them and yourself is this: You need to prepare and present a very neat simple well worded case of why you believe the matter should be plural, and what evidence you have definitely supports that POV... You should copy down some of the important web links that have convinced you so strongly (In whatever language, but use the 'pipe trick' to tag the ones that are not english), but calmly tell only JUST THE FACTS AS YOU'VE RESEARCHED THEM. Then state your opinions, and any supporting evidence like the web sites, even if they need translated. In sum, it will all depend on the case you present for your side. Mel will probably help some, but he's buried in finals week with little free time. I told you some days ago that I have no dog in this fight. Well, I do — Honor — The RIGHT THING to do. That is what I am doing now, so I must go back to contacting Japanese savvy contributors and alerting them to the fact that this issue needs settled. You and Nanshu have made a mess of this and should both be embarrased. So since he put it to the vote, lets settle it one way or the other — as you know, there are lots of other things to be working on! Good luck — Both of you! (I'm going to copy this to Nanshu right now, he deserves the clarification of my POV). [[User:fabartus | FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you agree to the move, Mr Bartus, I would be happy if you can explain why did you add the paragraph on Tsushima Islands on how the Island is blasted into two in the first place? Again, your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 03:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, look at my two changes in history. Immediately before, there are reverts and edit wars. For a while after, they slow way down... (I guess that's a compliment of sorts) then pick up frequency again. SO I want some sources before I decide either way. This is as close to looking like a fool as I care to get!  SCTRATCH THAT TOO. I do look like a fool here. No Question. But I'm an honest fool and learned long ago to admit my mistakes. This is a whopper.
 * In any event, I'm yelling for extra troops, and will produce some disinterested outside parties with no emotional attachments in this matter to add their neutral views as well.
 * The other 67 pages of the talk are way too much to expect anyone but God to be able to sort out. Your case will rise and fall with the tight sentences you place under discussion. Compose that well, and state your points professionally, without emotion, and certainly, without refering to any of the other people that have been in the revert war!

A bit of advice[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Your posting of an attack on Mel Etitis on the Tshshima Talk page is probably the wrong venue, and a bad idea, especially now. I suspect Request for Comment (W:RfC) is the more correct procedure. It is evident to me that Mel has probably been less than effective at quelling this edit war, and probably has contributed to it with his abrubt reversions etc. Your feelings, like any feelings are 'never' wrong — only what actions you take on or because of such feelings — personal attacks on a talk page (or anywhere) only invite counter attacks, and rarely help anything. The proper venue is the W:RfC. Please bear in mind that while Mels actions reflect on his professionalism, your actions reflect on your professionalism. A professional does not let emotion cloud judgement, nor dictate arbitrary decisions, actions, or behavior. Again I ask. Please help me settle this article down. Personal differences are things that must be set aside. If it is unpleasant working with him, or any other, you are a volunteer — move on to something that doesn't create friction and remember no matter how 'perfect' you might some day make any article, some idiot can come in tomarrow and edit it no matter what you like. That's currently official Wikipedia policy, and frankly, one which kept me from making bigger and more frequent contributions for over six months. I also foresee a day when many articles will be established as 'done', and locked. It is not close, but once the reputation becomes great enough, to keep funding for the foundation supporting it, they will have to take such steps.
 * In the meantime, if working on it, or working with some editor keeps generating strong feelings, why not leave that project for more peaceful making co-editors and another topic. Wiki is a large place. Make some notes on notepad.exe, and take a Tsushima break from Mel and Tan. Visit the article again in 3 or 4 weeks, and see if your data is there. Add it if it's not, be surprised if it is. But no matter what, keep your dignity and professionalism. Remember — YOU can always be "the some idiot" coming back and making changes to the article. Keep smiling!
 * [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Nanshu, if you want to criticize Mel Etitis, please do it in an RfC, not in Talk:Tsushima Islands. I'm sure many other people will be willing to help you out in making it. But please, not in the talk page. JMBell° 12:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All this eagerness to bring an RfC against me is exciting, though the reasons seem obscure. Still, I came here to say this. There is a discussion and poll concerning the change of the article title from plural to singular; while this has been going on, Nanshu has insisted on changing the article text to the singular, which shows a poor grasp of Wikipedia collaboration, and which creates a conflict between content and text that looks bad to readers. My belief is that this now counts as vandalism rather than good-faith editing, as he's been warned by me and others, and continues to make his changes. I shall check with other admins, and if there's agreement, then the next time he makes this change he will be blocked from editing for a period.

If the consensus is to change the article's name, then I will defend the new version in just the same way. Until that consensus has been determined, I shall defend the current version. If editors have the courtesy to provide edit summaries, and to defend their actions on the Talk page, then I'll do the same. If not, then I'll take advantage of the admnistrators' rollback function (which is what it's there for). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the reasons are quite obscure - even I cannot understand them. In any case, these are the users who might eventually bring a case against Mel: Jack, William, Hans, and you. JMBell° 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * When you get a minute or three, see Talk:Tsushima_Province. You'll also want to check Talk:Tsushima Islands and register a (probable) vehement vote to a straw poll on mergers that I'm posting among other info. Give me at least half an hour to clear out, as I have to go up and see/address Barus comments. (I suspect it's near your bedtime anyway — hopefully you're having a sexy good time! ). ttfn, Best Regards,
 * (For your convienience: Press --> Beam Me Up Scotty)
 * [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 15:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I Need a Little Help

 * btw, on the above, I've concluded for a variety of reasons, ususally multiple, that none of them should be merged! (Don't know if you've seen that yet.)
 * I took most of the weekend off, though I do know Mel thought there was insufficient consensus to move the TI article. I'm trying to get him and James Bell to change their votes, and if that happens, perhaps a couple more of the five can be persuaded as well.

 * Do I correctly infer that you are another acedemic, Like Mel, or do you just have an uncommonly good 'Logical Mind'? Some of your discussion was tip-top notch! Kudos.

 * I need a trifling little bit of help on the Tsushima Strait article... I'd pick on Baru, but I already did so Friday, and he's so new, I don't want to again just yet. This concerns Japan Vs. Korea history, a strength of yours, I believe (infer). (Or don't argue so well from now on! ) You see I wrote around some stuff therein that has Mr Tans fingerprints all over it. Can you look the whole thing over quickly, but first see my specific concern at this link: Talk:Tsushima_Strait. If there is a problem, just tag it with a 'disputed' template, and refer it to me, with some ammunition. I'll battle MT. Thanks. This is where I BUMPED into MT initially, so it makes sense I don't know what was there is reliable before my adds. Sigh!  THANKS!  FrankB
 * User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 03:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going to email this, but yours is not connected:
 * On the move article debate: Have you given a thought to mailing other Japanese on the Japanese Interests BB? You know, just go down the list with a message in the cut buffer and post to each one in turn.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 03:42, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Friday I finally waded through the whole Talk:TI page, as I'm trying to figure out what to do with and about MT in the RfC and ArbCom Mel is preparing. However! I was much impressed by your acedemics versus 'CU' arguements... I have exactly the same read. If there is a debate, want you on my team. You might want to add and extend your post to his RfC, which ArbCom will certainly be looking at soon... as if some haven't already. Mel is well respected, despite the issues of misunderstanding between you, which in the main seem to involve posting procedures. I actually think he likes you, except that he got burned because you back posted 'interleaved style', without leaving a note on the bottom as well with an uplink, and he's policing so many things, you ended up blind siding him (=Attack without warning, Attack=Change) a few times. We've been exchanging emails on MT, so I've asked some questions about the whole edit war. Handy thing email. Especially for discrete privacy!

Hope you didn't mind the email -- I was undergoing major Wikiwithdrawal -- and thought I'd share! Would appreciate Feedback on POV on Treaty of Shimonoseki — my attempt to be balanced may need expanded into greater length. Please post to the talk there! Thanx. FrankB
 * User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Akihito
hi there Nanshu, i am trying to get a discussion going on renaming Akihito, maybe you care to comment? thanks, looking forward... Bhinneka 29 June 2005 12:57 (UTC)

Best wishes! Thanks! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
 * The rough but maturing article Military needs a list of military forces particular to your country and any others you may be able to expand upon. At the moment, these lists at the bottom are extremely 'Anglo-centric' (USA + UK). Please pass this on to others you know in other countries after checking theirs hasn't been updated since I looked. (This is a Wiki-Chain letter!)
 * Also I am looking for a Japanese Wikiphile to back me up on the large upgrade I am doing on the Russo-Japanese War Articles, would you be interested, or can you suggest an individual with military history as an interest?

Heads Up on Tsushimas

 * Just a friendly heads up— through some magic I don't understand the Talk:Tsushima Islands is up for a Final Vote. Get there soon, and pop into Talk:Tsushima Strait as well. The Koreans seem to be counterattacking. Fra  nkB  7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Image:Unidentified photo03.jpg

 * Thanks for the message. re:Long time no see. Sorry for not meeting your requests regarding Tsushima. I had difficulty in real life, but now I'm back to Wikipedia. I will restart fixing Tsushima-related articles next week, as currently I cannot have access to the books I referred to because libraries are closed for Bon Festival. --Nanshu 01:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome Back — I've been overly busy off Wiki myself, and today I'm taking a real bonifide break for a Trip to see the family. Hopefully, will have regular time I can give Wiki once school starts up (Sepetember!)  Do try to keep any controvery down in Tsushima — Mel Thinks Tan is still lurking around with a couple of socket puppet names, and edit wars are best when they never happen! Cheers!   Fra  nkB  12:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Emperor's divinity
I was reading the article on the Emperor's divinity (actually his declaration that he was not a deity). You mentioned in the talk page that that is not the japanese view. Could you explain to me or point me to a website, where the Japanese view is explained? If the japanese didn't believe that the emperor was a god, what did they think of him, what is his relationship with the shinto religion? Thanks for your help. Just trying to understand. Cjrs 79 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

あなたにもっとウィキの中立的観点とは何かということを勉強して頂きたいという小さな希望がありますよ. ヤマトのウヨさん. 捏造、妄想は２ちゃんで行ってください. そこならお構いありませんので. くれぐれもみんなが集まる この貴重な空間を詭弁で荒らさないでね.

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

title: User talk:Nanshu/Archive003