This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sultans of Sulu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Paramount Sultan Ibrahim Q Bahjin Shakirullah II was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 March 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of sultans of Sulu. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This a fork from Sultanate of Sulu, which is also in need of a cleanup. --Noypi380 10:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Uhm,Confused.Realy confused.PLEASE SOMEONE CHANGE THIS!(I would if I could keep track) but from this mess I can hardly tell who the curent (and if there is one) Sultan is. New Babylon. — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
maybe if we could account for philippine's islamic geneology of the peoples of sulu, the history of the sultanate may be cleared. is there anybody in the department of asian studies or philippine studies of the university of the phillippines, or ateneo or siliman - who can help cite the sultanate properly in wikipedia? after all this is still philippine in heritage - mrs.f — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.127.6 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has no sources / references for the moment, and certainly needs some (half of the article consists of maybe, allegedly, ...). If this can't be done, the article fails verifiability and original research policies and should be deleted.
The article is also absolutely not written according to the Manual of Style, and includes too much bold, complete sections in all caps, etcetera. This is not a reason for deletion, but the cleanup tag should only be removed once those two problems are solved.
Most importantly, the article is not written according to WP:NPOV. From point 29 on, the article is more concerned about who should and shouldn't have been sultan than with who actually was sultan. This is not a neutral point of view, certainly not when no sources are given. Syaing things like that court decisions are mistakes are serious, certainly when it is about who should rule a country (or part of a country), and can be very inflammatory. Wikipedia (its articles and editors) should not take posityion in such disputes, but give all positions in such a dispute in a neutral way, by using reliable third party (secondary) sources. This means that such statements about what should or should not have happened should always be in the form of "newspaper X says on that date that Y should have happened" and "Court Z decided that A was correct". Care should be given to the presentation of both sides, even if your sympathy lies with only one of them. Fram 08:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How come that the contributor of the list of sultan of sulu always tends to promote only their line, they are always put their name and gridges that they must be the original and the nxt line in siccession accroding to their law, Why do they jsut create their own SULTANTE and put them in BASILAN where the AbuSayaff and other Terosrist is Hiding, Maybe from there they can get afull army of Bandits and a full support of the Forest Anilmals, They sucks and this Raja Bunso thinks that he is the real and only SULTAN that must hold the power over SULU. Build yoiyur own castle and create your own sultanate, nobody is preventing you, just leave alone the History. If you are a good leader, people of Sulu themselves will do it and will proclaim you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.124.120 (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try to clean this up some today. So, if you're an admin about to delete this per the AfD request, give me a few hours, please? Deltopia 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to mention that there is an actual reigning Sultan of Sulu. I'm not an expert on Sulu history and don't claim to know anyone of Sulu royal descent. I just wanted to share the information that I found on http://www.royalsulu.com. It's a pretty detailed website that shows the genealogy, policies, curriculum vitae, and other information about the current Sultan. It also provides a section on fake sultans and the current sultan's legitimacy. While I know that the information provided on the website may be disputed, the Philippine government and media tacitly acknowledge HM Sultan Fuad Kiram I as the Sulu sovereign (as shown by his government backed negotiations with the Abu Sayef group for release of hostages, and his television profile interviews). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmlp (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
This "Sultanate" is being used in a 419 e-mail scam going around. This is most likely an attempt to generate false information on the web for people to find when 'researching' the Sultan after being contacted via spam email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.81.183 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There is confusion in the sultanate of sulu because there are so many impostors in the heir of the very first Sultan Kiram. According to recent news and archives I personally saw with my own eyes, it is Sultan Rodinood Julaspi Kiram II who is the true Sultan of Sulu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.248.153 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
When Sultan Pulalun (son of Sultan Jamalul Kiram-I of Muwalil Wasit) signed the presented Spanish protocol Treaty in allowing the Spanish to lived in the Sulus then transferred his seat to the hinterlands; two British Subjects, Baron Von de Overbeck and Alfred Dent came to the Sulus to ask to Lease North North Borneo from the Sulu Sultan,wherein Jamalul Agdam presented himself as Sulu Sultan Jamalul Alam (naming himself after Brunei Sultan Jamalul Alam-II). Convinced, the two British Subjects proceeded to have Jamalul Alam signed the Lease Treaty that late afternoon of around 6pm, and left at mid-night without heeding to their verbal agreement of off-loading the Arms and munitions in the morning of the next day.
Sultan Pulalun did in-fact wrote a letter of revocation to the the said Leased. However, the British North Borneo Company of the two British Subjects moreover did not heed to the said revocation. Considering the times and the weak empowerment to state sovereignty prior to the establishment of the United Nations Organization, Sultan Pulalun could not do anything. Sultan Pulalun's Prince, Maharaja Adinda (Prince Heir apparent)Taup undermined when Jamalul Alam was succeeded by Badar'uddin-II, the aupposed son of Alam, as Sultan of Sulu.
Moreover, Alimu'ddin, Harun Ar-Rashid and Amirul Kiram Awal-II were contesting each other that each is the true succeessor to the Throne,the Spanish government in Manila instead proclaimed Harun Ar-Rashid was the Sultan of Sulu, wherein Alimu'ddin was forced to have retired in Tawi-Tawi and was referred to tauntingly by the Spanish as "El Viejo de Tawi-Tawi" Meaning the Old Man of Tawi-Tawi. However, with the fiercesome Amirul Kiram Awal-II, the latter with his followers forced Harun Ar-Rashid to have left and went to South Palawan where he died.
Amirul Kiram Awal-III was then proclaimed by his direct followers,as Sultan of Sulu in the reigning name as Sultan Jamalul Kiram-II presented as the son of Sultan Jamalul Kiram-I (Muwalil Wasit). So, why did Sultan Pulalun proclaimed his Prince Maharaja Adinda taup in 1859 before even the 1861 Jamalul Alam (Agdam)? and why can not the present kirams claim Sultan Pulalun as a Kiram? wherein claiming Sultan Jamalul Alam-Kiram, Sultan Badar'uddin-Kiram.
Amirul Kiram Awal-II of Sultan Jamalul Kiram-II had no Adinda or Prince and was childless, and when He died on June 7, 1936, there was a controversy of who would be recieving the Lease treaty payments of North Borneo. The British High Court at Jesselton(Kota Kanibalu)North borneo-Sabah wherein Chief Justice Macaskie ruled in 1939 favored, if any, Kiram heir. It took 21 years later in 1957 when uncannily a claimant-Ismael kiram went to claim the lease payments. Ismael Kiram and five other relatives were awarded the lease payments as "Private Heirs" to their supposed predecessor, the 1884-1915 Sultan Jamalul kiram-II who died in 1936, and Sovereignty as "Sultan" was not in issue. However, the present Kirams claims to be Sultans, all of its family heirs. When in-fact its successions should have been from Sultan Pulalun, his highness' Maharaja Adinda. www.royalsultanate.weebly.com , see resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.90.152 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do not merge the articles "Pretender", especially the section was separated to distinguish who were the sultans that had sovereignty over the area. According to the description of the sultan in the article, the last sovereign sultan to rule the sultanate ceded his powers to the United States in 1915 through Carpenter's Agreement, then finally on 1917 which essentially ended the sultanate when Sulu became a province, added by different defeats of the sultanate in Bud Bagsak, Bud Dajo, etc.
So: how come that the there are sultans after 1917? Jamal ul-Kiram II year span on the article ended by 1936 because he never abandoned the throne, only his political powers were surrendered to US. Well, if we analyze this, the sultan had only symbolic powers from 1917-1936, and the line of sultans ended de jure on the death of Jamal ul-Kiram II. Please refrain from adding facts from the websites of Esmail Kiram II and the like, news sources are better accepted here. I am not saying the content of Kiram II is a hoax, but remember, this is a very serious issue in the Philippines.--JL 09 q?c 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I was not able to find an internet source presenting a copy of the transfer of the claims of sovereignty over the North-Borneo territories from the Sultanate of Sulu to the Republic of the Philippines.
May be, it helps to hear some statements from serious sources:
Academic paper from the University of the Philippines with much background information regarding the whole Sabah claim: http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/journals/apssr/pdf/200712/4Fernandez.pdf
Executive Order 46, 1993: http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorders/1993/executiveorderno46-1993.html … to regularly monitor development on the Sabah issue and to provide assistance to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu.
The Philippine Embassy in Malaysia with a timeline of the Relations between the two countries: http://www.philembassykl.org.my/overview.htm 1963 Earlier, in his State of the Nation Address before the joint session of the Philippine Congress on Jan. 28, Pres. Macapagal outlined the highlights of Philippine foreign relations, which included the country’s claim on North Borneo. He said: "The most important action taken in the field of foreign relations in the past year was the official filing on 22 June 1962, with the United Kingdom, of the Philippine claim of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and proprietary ownership over North Borneo a successor-in-interest of the Sultan of Sulu. … He also announced that the Philippine Government had been made sole agents of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu to negotiate over their claims to British Borneo. …
Senator Enrile, 2002: http://www.jpenrile.com/advocacies/article.asp?advocacy=reforms&folder=speech&article=007 … Sixteen years later, on June 22,1962, the Philippines filed her claim over Sabah with the United Kingdom. The Philippines asserted sovereignty , jurisdiction, and proprietary ownership over Sabah as successor-in-interest to the Sultan of Sulu.
Let`s hear the questions by the Minority Leader in the Philippine Senate, 2004: http://www.nenepimentel.org/news/20041009_Sabah.asp … Pimentel raised this question in the light of two developments related to the Sabah claim: … 2. The declaration of the Sulu sultanate that it is withdrawing the 1962 Special Power of Attorney issued to the Philippine government for its failure to comply with the national contract for the genuine prosecution of the Sabah claim. …
We do not want to miss the World Factbook of the American CIA: http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/print/my.html …Sultanate of Sulu granted the Philippine Government power of attorney to pursue his sovereignty claim over Malaysia's state of Sabah…
Last, but not least, the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty (the only recognized non-governmental association in this field): http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id64.htm …all sovereignty and therefore all royal rights and prerogatives under international law were ceded to the Republic of the Philippines on September 11, 1962...
The International Commission is not recognized by any official bodies utter rubbish please verify the names of these so called bodies?, it is a private website run by a man from America who was defrauded out of money by a famous fake title seller and so it was designed to go on the attack of fake title sellers, which is of course a right and just course, but this site does not hold, bear or enjoy any form of official recognition of status whatsoever, just another fake so called semi official website run by private persons, the adding of any links to this site without due process is of course quite bogus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybot (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a response to the comment by Henrybot in the paragraph “De jure sovereignty until 1962”. Henrybot, this comment of yours is currently the only contribution you made on Wikipedia, so, please forgive me, if I am suspicious about your motives to post this statement. You post this during a time, when this article and related ones are spammed by a group that wishes to rewrite Brunei and Philippine/Malaysian history. The ICNR does not claim to be anything else than a non-official association composed of interested individuals. It is the only association not related to title sellers that tries to bring light into this shadowy field of Royalty and Nobility. The information given on their website is verifiable and as far as I could check it, it is correct in any way. They are answering any questions regarding their statements and explain why they came to that opinion regarding international law. There is no government agency investigating in this field on an international level. You can contact, for example, the Crown Council of Ethiopia, the Imperial House of Nguyen or the King Kigeli of Rwanda to ask for their opinion regarding the ICNR. These Houses are Royal Houses under international law with full authorities. King Kigeli for example, is still a de jure head of state under international law. If you can present any government sources about the Sultanate of Sulu referring to the current de jure status, this is most welcome. Up to that time, this is the only source with a neutral point of view. So I will re-establish it. Many claimants like Fuad Kiram or Carpenter Arpa claim the Sultanate to be currently a sovereign entity with them as sovereign kings. This is false regarding recorded history and regarding to the government sources I presented on the paragraph above. It is important to inform the public about the problems with these claims. If you can show a link to a source that proves the ICNR to be not correct or to be not neutral and trustworthy, then we would like to see this. On the other hand, there is no reason to reject links of non-governmental associations like the Red Cross or something for as long as the statements given there can be verified as being correct and neutral. Up to now, the ICNR appears as a correct and neutral source. About the Sultan (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I re-added those Sultans listed in the list of Sultans of the Provincial government of Sulu, that has been online for 7 years. I deleted the “Datu” title used in the list of Sultans since 1980. There is no fundament to deny them the title Sultan just because other branches or families deny their rights to be Sultans. They are listed as Sultans on government lists and websites since many years. The headship of many Royal houses is disputed by rival claimants. Wikipedia lists them as pretenders, not as self styled heads of royal houses as such wording reflects rather a personal opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not taking any side or judging the claims of one side or another. It simply collects and presents all information of public interest, trying to show an understandable reflection of the situation, including all parts of the story. This includes information showing both sides of the medal and often information disliked by the entity in question. While there is clear evidence regarding the line of succession in the Kiram family, now, this does not alter the situation that occurred due to the involvement of the government and the need to include it in the description. Information should not be withhold nor manipulated to support the one or other side. They should be stated as they appear and then be explained if necessary to make the public understand the context.
“Husband of Dayang Dayang Piandao and recognised Sultan of Sulu by Japanese Government.”, makes Amirul Umara a Sultan from 1937-1950, not a pretender.
“Paduka Mahasari Maulana al Sultan Esmail D. Kiram is proclaimed new sultan of Sulu and North Borneo at the Sulu State College upon the recommendation of the Ruma Bichara and the Council of Datus. Paduka Mahasari Maulana al Sultan Esmail D. Kiram is proclaimed new sultan of Sulu and North Borneo at the Sulu State College upon the recommendation of the Ruma Bichara and the Council of Datus. He is the 37th in an unbroken line of succession beginning with Sharif-al-Hashim in 1450.” This entry from the National Historical Institute of the Philippine government and his listing in the list of Sultans of the Provincial Government make him eligible to be listed as Sultan, not as Datu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by About the Sultan (talk • contribs) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Please before someone will edit this page discuss it here! RDAndrew (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this new source from the Phillipines Official Gazette is clearly the most authoritative source available to verify a number of claims about various pretenders, even though it warns that it is "not... official". Unfortunately though, it makes no mention of Memo Order 427 (which does not seem to be documented anywhere else on the Official Gazette), nor when/where he was crowned, so I just moved the citations around accordingly.
I haven't tried this as an edit just yet, but I'm also thinking that with this relatively independent and verifiable source giving equal recognition to him and other claimants, it would make sense to get rid of the separate "De jure claimant" section. We should just list all the post 1980 claimants/crown princes recognized here together in one section.
And regarding another detail from this source, it seems that we should add the Datu title here as well for the people who have it.Brian Z (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm really impressed that Xeltran managed to find the official link for Memo 427. But now that I can actually read it clearly, I realize it makes no mention of Muedzel! I'm going to remove the mention of it from his section and fix the reference in his father's. Brian Z (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
My most recent edits to the opening blurb were meant to match the claims more precisely to the sources. I also didn't see any reason to elaborate on who any particular claimant's father is in this opening summary. And I changed the name of the citation that used to be called "officialgazette" since we now have two different sources from the Gazette here. Brian Z (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | "Information presented here is based on public accounts and documents. This does not constitute an official genealogical chart. It does not include all possible descendants to the Sultanate of Sulu. This is not a statement of the official position of the Republic of the Philippines. (emphasis added) | ” |
— Legal Disclaimer |
After an "Edit War" between RDAndrew and Xeltran, I have independently come in to review the information contained in both. After review, I have decided to make RDAndrew's version the version presented, due to their source's verifiability (it is an official Philippines government site), and because I have independently verified his information via the website listed here, which is the official website of the article's subject. While not able to be used as a source on the article, it confirms what the government website says.
I also have cautioned Xeltran against using Wiki policy to bully, per WP:Bully, as they invoked 3RR incorrectly and as a way to intimidate the other editor into accepting their position, which is, by definition, WikiBullying.
I am posting this for further discussion between the two editors, and other editors, which should be done on this page, as opposed to a user's talk page.
Please, remember WP:CIVIL and happy editing! --Fbifriday (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
When Sultan Pulalun (son of Sultan Jamalul Kiram-I of Muwalil Wasit) signed the presented Spanish protocol Treaty in allowing the Spanish to lived in the Sulus then transferred his seat to the hinterlands; two British Subjects, Baron Von de Overbeck and Alfred Dent came to the Sulus to ask to Lease North North Borneo from the Sulu Sultan,wherein Jamalul Agdam presented himself as Sulu Sultan Jamalul Alam (naming himself after Brunei Sultan Jamalul Alam-II). Convinced, the two British Subjects proceeded to have Jamalul Alam signed the Lease Treaty that late afternoon of around 6pm, and left at mid-night without heeding to their verbal agreement of off-loading the Arms and munitions in the morning of the next day.
Sultan Pulalun did in-fact wrote a letter of revocation to the the said Leased. However, the British North Borneo Company of the two British Subjects moreover did not heed to the said revocation. Considering the times and the weak empowerment to state sovereignty prior to the establishment of the United Nations Organization, Sultan Pulalun could not do anything. Sultan Pulalun's Prince, Maharaja Adinda (Prince Heir apparent)Taup undermined when Jamalul Alam was succeeded by Badar'uddin-II, the aupposed son of Alam, as Sultan of Sulu.
Moreover, Alimu'ddin, Harun Ar-Rashid and Amirul Kiram Awal-II were contesting each other that each is the true succeessor to the Throne,the Spanish government in Manila instead proclaimed Harun Ar-Rashid was the Sultan of Sulu, wherein Alimu'ddin was forced to have retired in Tawi-Tawi and was referred to tauntingly by the Spanish as "El Viejo de Tawi-Tawi" Meaning the Old Man of Tawi-Tawi. However, with the fiercesome Amirul Kiram Awal-II, the latter with his followers forced Harun Ar-Rashid to have left and went to South Palawan where he died.
Amirul Kiram Awal-III was then proclaimed by his direct followers,as Sultan of Sulu in the reigning name as Sultan Jamalul Kiram-II presented as the son of Sultan Jamalul Kiram-I (Muwalil Wasit). So, why did Sultan Pulalun proclaimed his Prince Maharaja Adinda taup in 1859 before even the 1861 Jamalul Alam (Agdam)? and why can not the present kirams claim Sultan Pulalun as a Kiram? wherein claiming Sultan Jamalul Alam-Kiram, Sultan Badar'uddin-Kiram.
Amirul Kiram Awal-II of Sultan Jamalul Kiram-II had no Adinda or Prince and was childless, and when He died on June 7, 1936, there was a controversy of who would be recieving the Lease treaty payments of North Borneo. The British High Court at Jesselton(Kota Kanibalu)North borneo-Sabah wherein Chief Justice Macaskie ruled in 1939 favored, if any, Kiram heir. It took 21 years later in 1957 when uncannily a claimant-Ismael kiram went to claim the lease payments. Ismael Kiram and five other relatives were awarded the lease payments as "Private Heirs" to their supposed predecessor, the 1884-1915 Sultan Jamalul kiram-II who died in 1936, and Sovereignty as "Sultan" was not in issue. However, the present Kirams claims to be Sultans, all of its family heirs. When in-fact its successions should have been from Sultan Pulalun, his highness' Maharaja Adinda. www.royalsultanate.weebly.com , see resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.90.152 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Being WP:Bold I removed the entire history section. This is a "List of…" article. Discussion of history are better suited to the main article, in this case the Sultante of Sulu. Given the delicate nature of this topic having two discussions of history seem to unnecessarily complicate matters. Better have one discussion of the article and is the best it can be -- the Sultanate article -- and then have this be just a list. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of sultans of Sulu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of sultans of Sulu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Recently, I have discovered some seals used (personally) by the sultans of Sulu, most of which were documented at Annabel Teh Gallop's book, maybe some of the contributors here want to use it as the replacement for each sultans image. Mhatopzz (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)