Talk:List of sultans of Sulu

Untitled

This a fork from Sultanate of Sulu, which is also in need of a cleanup. --Noypi380 10:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sultanate article is now clean, but this list still needs improvement. I noticed that the original writer of this text was trying to clarify the real sultans from the imposters. I hope more clarification be done soon, so that more revisions can continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noypi380 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 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)

philippine's islamic history of the sultanate

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)

Be bold in editing the articles yourselves. :) --Noypi380 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality, cleanup and sources

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)

Hmmm. What about nominating this for deletion instead? Can't find any source on the list of sultans, and if there really is none, then wikipedia can't invent it. What do you think? --Noypi380 03:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting with this nomination until the work on the article has stopped. I hoped that by explaining that sources etcetera are needed, someone would make the effort of adding them. If there are indeed no sources, or none are given soon, I'll nominate it. I can't and won't stop you of course if you want to delete it now already, I'm just trying to be patient for once (I'm usually nominating for deletion on sight :-) ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

REGARDING SULU SULTANATE

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)

Clean up

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)

Actual Sultan of Sulu

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)

THE BROKEN LINEAGE BY USURPERS:

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)

Modifying the article.

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)

De jure sovereignty until 1962

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)

Okay let`s make a conclusion.

The scholars and lawyers of the Philippines and Malaysia have different opinions regarding the claim for Sabah

However, the Philippines and some allies see enough evidence that the Sultanate of Sulu has NOT transferred his de jure sovereignty over North Borneo to another entity, neither by a peace treaty or whatever nor by the lease agreement at the end of the 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th century. So there is a valid and documented claim for sovereignty that can be placed before the ICJ. This claim of de jure sovereignty was therefore enjoyed by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu until the formation of the Republic of the Philippines. As stated by some lawyers, scholars and the US government.

In 1962, when President Macapagal accepted the Power of Attorney transferring all the claims to the Philippines, he officially declared (by accepting it), that the Philippine Republic recognizes that up to that date, the heirs of the Sultan were the OWNERS of the claims. Otherwise, he cannot accept such transfer of claims. Accepting this is in fact and de jure recognition, that the Sultan enjoyed claims of valid de jure sovereignty he was able to transfer. It is not important that this claim is disputed by Malaysia. It is recognition by an UNO member and a sovereign nation. May scholars dispute it or not.

This means that Sultan Ismael Kiram I. and his Crown Prince Punjungan Kiram, administrator of North Borneo as appointed by Judge MacKaskie in 1939, were the last leadership of the Sultanate to enjoy a recognized claim for de jure sovereignty. This makes them to be the last genuine Royals and de jure sovereign Kings of North-Borneo. Accordingly, this makes all Sultans having reigned prior to them to Royals and de jure Sovereign Kings of North-Borneo as they must have held the same de jure sovereignty, too. Otherwise, the Philippines cannot accept the claims from Sultan Ismael Kiram I. who obtained it from the former Sultans.

Furthermore, Sultan Ismael Kiram I. was granted recognition as the one and only legitimate Sultan by this act of the Republic of the Philippines. He was accepted as the owner of the claims of the de jure sovereignty by the government. Otherwise, it would be pretty strange to accept a claim for a territory and sovereignty from someone who does not legally own it...

Therefore, all Sultans having reigned later then 1962 were just traditional leaders without enjoying Royalty or kingship About the Sultan (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ICNR

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)

This website holds no official rights to make judgments on the subject of recognition of any Royal House or members of the Nobility, whatsoever, how can you so that this website is neutral if you read this website it is full of one sided comments and is not neutral at all, it has whole pages of judgments on persons and rights thereon, it is not for me to prove anything, but for you to proof that this website holds official proofs of recognition, please note recognition is sort by ways of the Courts in the Countries concerned, through due legal process and is not conferred by websites who declare their views to be paramount on the rights of recognition within in the subjects concerned, listing this website upon Wikipedia is just self promotion and an advertisement of a private unrecognized body who falsely declares rights to which they do not enjoy or in fact hold, like I said, courts make official judgments not private individuals, or websites like the aforementioned one, if you carry on listing this website i will report it as a non neutral and self promotion of the website concerned there is no room on Wikipedia for this sort of thing, if you think that any article is false or wrong then you must report this to Wikipedia not add so called fake websites to counter prove the false information added upon an article, this website was set up by a honest person, who was defrauded out of money by a fake title seller, there is a another mirror website set up by the same person, here is the web address http://www.phoneynobletitles.com and the one your adding http://www.nobility-royalty.com they are owned and run by the same person, when he created the first website this was fine he was highlighting a fraud commented upon himself, but when he created the second website he took it upon himself to police the web and then declare that he had right to judge everyone concerning Titles of nobility this is a form of fraud in its self, misleading readers in to thinking they are an official or semi official body as the name of the website suggests, this is fake in its given intent, although the person who runs the website may only be trying to help others he is instead misleading the public by assuming rights that this so called body does not possess by the standards of law or courts thereon, it is not a body of Royalty or nobility but just a private website with information on the subject concerned, as long as people are aware of this then thats fine but trying to build this site into something it could never be is wrong and misleading, and holding formal recognition from an African king in its self does not grant the website in question any rights whatsoever, none of the named families, bear or enjoy Royal European sanction or comment and the website mostly concerns European royalty, so one Asian and two African royal supporters would not hold full judgment on the websites rights thereon, you must remember that there have been many cases were members of royal families have given there support in different ventures namely an ex king of Yugoslavia and an archduke of Austria to various fake orders of nobility and knighthood so just because you can sight one or two none reigning ruling houses, does not grant any so called rights pertaining thereon. The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty is utterly fake and has been committing a form of fraud by the act of misleading statements, information and its given title, it is run by an American who holds little or no understanding of the rights of royalty or nobility thereon, based upon its history or in fact the laws which govern the principals of monarchy or nobility. It should be remembered that all sovereign titles are borne by the act of self creation by the first holder of the title concerned, they are not borne royal but made royal, only the lapse of time makes them different from you or me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybot (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, I wonder about your attacks. You say the statements to be one sided only. Where?

In Royalty there is always one sovereign head. The website even lists all claimants of Royal families when there is a dispute.

http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id59.htm

I see also no one-sided statements on their lists of suspicious claimants

http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id64.htm

Where has any of these guys legitimacy under the laws of the hosting country or under international laws?

You say they declare to have rights they do not have or to be experts. Where?

Read this http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id68.htm

4. We are a service organization. All who work with us are volunteers. No one gets paid. All financial contributions are applied directly to help benefit monarchy, nobility and chivalry through important projects and goals. (See our monthly "Newsletter" and "Supporting the Cause Through Contributions and Membership");

5. We are not experts, but we do not need to be. We hire scholars and professionals, as needed, to investigate certification claims, to determine if they are valid or not. This philosophy was expressed so well by Henry Ford who said, "Why should I clutter my mind with general information when I have men around me who can supply any knowledge I need?" Henry Ford was a smart man because he realized that he didn’t need to know it all if he could consult with others that did. (www.legalwiz.com/freearticles/topten.shtml) Nevertheless, one of our board members holds a JD degree and is an attorney, and another holds two earned, accredited doctorates, has several nationals awards, is a regional presenter for a national professional association and as an author has written a highly successful book that brought in $80,000.00. Three of our volunteers hold bachelor degrees, one is completing a bachelor's degree and one is a nurse;

You say they are not recognized. They are.

http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id66.htm

The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty is organized as an active corporation in the State of Nevada. The following is our State entity number: E0393452005-6.

They have the right to act as a private association composed of interested individuals to investigate in fields they wish and to publish information regarding this to educate the public. There is no court decision needed for this.

http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id64.htm

Although the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty has not been set up to expose false nobility or make believe titles, it will list any companies or individuals who have withheld vital information that made it impossible for an applicant to be certified in the hope that this may be cleared up.

As you can see, the website is neither a fraud nor a fake as you state. It does not claim to have any rights they do not have and they do not act against any laws nor do they state to be official in any way. Show to us a link to the part of the website where fraudulent or one sided statements are given, please.

Royal titles can be self-created only by achieving sovereignty and becoming a king or queen of a recognized independent country. As all pieces of earth of this world are under control of sovereigns, this is very difficult to happen. This is no argument to defend people of today who start claiming to be the emperor of a new pseudo-nation.

Wikipedia is an evidence based encyclopaedia. If you can make a proof that the information in links is false, it should be removed. Otherwise there is no reason to remove it for as long as no better source is available. Otherwise, all the links in Wikipedia to private associations or unofficial sources given as references must be removed. There are thousands.

For the moment, I do not restore the link to their website, but, I will check the policies of Wikipedia regarding this.

If my words are rude, please forgive me. They are so because I am not sure about the intentions of yours. This Sultan of Sulu Royalty-topic is very hot, difficult to handle and influenced by countless groups. So I react very hard. Sorry. About the Sultan (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your reply, firstly it is not the job of the website in question to make formal judgments on others without due legal process, although I salute the intentions of this website, I do not salute its methods, you do not see debretts or burkes or the Gotha listing fakes and frauds or making judgments on the aforementioned persons, they at least are semi recognized authorities on the matters of Royalty and Nobility, the website in question has listed many names under the banner of "Title of Nobility Scams and Suspicious Claimants declaring individuals, to be fake, impostors and scam artists, showing that instead of verifying legal proofs the website has just declared them guilty, tried them and then past sentence on them, without any contact through legal proofs or judgments by any court, no you cant just declare someone a fraud or fake because you feel like it, only a court can make such judgments, a man is only guilty once he has been tried and found to be so by a court not by individuals declaring so, so i would suggest that making a broad list of any one who you declare a fraud or fake is as legal as me declaring that the president of the united states is a fraud because he did not show his full birth papers at the time of becoming a candidate for the presidency which he should of under the requirements of the US law, unless you take someone to court you can not declare someone a fraud as you then are committing defamation of character and other forms of illegal behavior yourself, I would further suggest if the so called International Commission on Nobility and Royalty, want to be taken seriously and hold any sort of respect it should seek legal address concerning these persons, ie just take them to court if they are fake or running scams, if the commission does not do this then it is just a fake body holding little relevance concerning the subject of Royalty and nobility, with no legal proof of their claims themselves, whereas, most ex royal houses are not recognized in the country concerned and in some cases are even banned from entering that country, recognition is not 9 tenths of the law when concerning Royalty or Nobility it all depends on the history of the title concerned, it is very silly to start demanding legal proofs from the persons in question when you have not listed any legal court proofs or judgments of your own! there are only two or three cases listed on the website were legal proofs have been sort the rest hold no legal warranty! I would think the criteria for listing upon the aforesaid list should be listing along with the person in question a legal court judgment then people may take notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybot (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rival branches

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)

Notice

Please before someone will edit this page discuss it here! RDAndrew (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am about to remove statements in the most recent edit about "de facto" recognition. I do not see citations that support this and I am not even sure what it means. The previous edit before this was correct, and citing a source documenting that there is no clearly recognized sultan. This was already dealt with over at Sultanate of Sulu. --Brian Z (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually on second thought, I will propose this page for deletion or merging with Sultanate of Sulu. This entire page seems to be biased toward making a claim about the validity of one person's claim to the throne. --Brian Z (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Datu Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram / De jure claimant to the Sultanate of Sulu from 1986-present

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)

In the Wikipedia spirit of neutrality, I think what you propose makes sense. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that Datu Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram is "de jure" but I would say "Sultan" rather than "claimant". --Kimon^talk 18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be self-conflicting to the use the term De jure Sultan to refer to Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram as the Philippines does not recognize or grant any title of royalty or nobility (Sec. 31 Art. Vi 1987 PH Constitution). I think whatever de jure recognition for nobility that the Philippine government had for Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram has been repealed since 1987.

It also comes to my mind that when Memo Order 427 was supposedly enacted in 1974, the Philippines already had a title of nobility clause in effect (Sec. 10 Art. IV 1973 PH Constitution) that forbids granting titles of nobility, not to mention that further verification is needed for the existence of Memo Order 427.

So, I would suggest to include Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram in the Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present section and to drop the de jure tag pending validation of Memo Order 427 and by taking into account the Constitutional provisions against nobility recognition. Also, as I am not wholly familiar with Malay titles, I will leave it upon other editors whether to include honorifics such as "Datu" or not. Perhaps Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Malaysia-related_articles#Honorifics would be of help. Xeltran (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the source cited above comes from the Republic of the Philippines, I don't understand your concern at all. Either that or you have your own bias.--Kimon^talk 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand where you are coming from. Let's focus on the content of the article, shall we? Anyway, moving on...I did a bit of in-depth search at Gov.ph and found an online copy of Memo Order 427 (at last!). However, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram still having de jure nobility recognition by the Republic of the Philippines now is likely untrue. I am very sure there is no Philippine government-recognized sultanate as of today so no one could claim he is a de jure (with force of law) sultan.

P.S. Please see Talk:Sultanate_of_Sulu#Muedzul_Lail_Tan_Kiram for another ongoing discussion regarding the subject. Xeltran (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that "there is no Philippine government-recognized sultanate as of today so no one could claim he is a de jure (with force of law) sultan." While we have a source from the Official Gazette, the caveat at the bottom makes it very clear that this not a statement of any legal status.Brian Z (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: The last sultan recognized by the Philippine government in 1974 was Ismael Kiram I. After his death, the government, along with other foreign states, declined to recognize the succeeding sultans even if they still commanded authority among the locals there, but in deference to their being royals, they were consulted on some issues hounding Sulu. Philippine Daily Inquirer (February 27, 2013) So I guess this puts to rest the issue about the de jure tag. There is no de jure sultan (or sultan claimaint, for that matter) in the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then it would follow that there isn't a "de facto" sultan either, correct? --Kimon^talk 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there are de facto sultans. Some de facto sultans have "followers" who address them as such. De facto means in practice but not necessarily ordained by law, after all. Xeltran (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then they are all "de facto" since they all have followers who address them as such. You are saying "in practice", is there a Sultanate? --Kimon^talk 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in practice, one or more "Sultanates of Sulu" exist today and we have these various "sultans" claiming the throne (it's just a symbolic one; the real Sultanate of Sulu had ceased to exist years ago). I used the term de facto because these sultans have a bunch of people calling them by that title, and their relatives are even addressed as Raja Mudah (crown prince) or Dayang Dayang (title given to the daughter of the sultan). However, they do not control or govern a territory (elections in the Philippines have been held for the longest time), or are able to issue decrees with the force of Philippine law or wield judicial power. The Philippines is a republic so the concept of a monarchy is not found in any of its laws. Some people just revere these "sultans" because they are purported descendants of the last legitimate Sultan of Sulu. That's what makes them de facto sultans, but of course, you don't need to place that in the article. Xeltran (talk) 18:34, 27 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)

Misc. edits

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)

I have a few issues regarding the current version of this article. It seems like there is a confusion as to the interpretation of that line of succession from the Official Gazette of the Philippines. Please take note that as per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Generally, we cannot just look at a primary source (that line of succession in this case) without validating it against a secondary source, in this case, our reliable, secondary source states that the the last sultan recognized by the Philippine government in 1974 was Ismael Kiram I. Also, do note that a legal disclaimer is placed below the Line of Succession, to wit,

“ "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

Thus, it would be original research to interpret that non-official chart on our own. Even if we point out that Mahakuttah Kiram has a gold star above his name, still it is not a statement of the official position of the Republic of the Philippines. As per WP:REDFLAG: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources and that challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest should prompt extra caution when adding these claims on any article. That line of succession chart falls under WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB.

Also, it seems like we're giving too much credit to that chart (see WP:UNDUE). So I would suggest to remove the sentence According to a recent genealogy published by the Office of the President of Philippines, and just place it as reference on its own. Xeltran (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Update The Sulu Provincial Government website (another official government website, by the way) lists Ismael Kiram II as the current sultan. Xeltran (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're both misunderstanding and overemphasizing the phrase "This is not a statement of the official position of the Republic of the Philippines." It is not an official position, but it is an official chart, published in the Official Gazette of the Office of the President of the Philippines. What the "official position" warning means is that they no longer recognize the Sixth Sultan. Also, after further review, the website I listed below, which is the official website of the Royal House, COULD be used as a source, much the way the House of Windsor article uses information from the official website of THAT royal family for verification of facts. Xeltran, I don't believe your intentions are bad here. I think, overall, the biggest problem is that the source you are using is incorrect. I don't know if their misprint was intentional or accidental, but it's still incorrect. I think what you are trying to do is get what you fully believe to be the correct information in this page. However, in a case like this, where there is a government source confirming something, I think it would be very simple to just use that information, and back it up with the official Royal House information. --Fbifriday (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, however, Royalsultanateofsulu.org is a website of just one of the claimants to throne, so I assume there is a conflict of interest on that matter. Royalsulu.com (another sultanate website) for instance, lists another sultan with another claim on who was the last Philippine government-officially recognized one, with a bunch of documents to prove their claim. Since both websites fall under WP:SELFPUB, I looked at the the chart at the Official Gazette. I recognize that Mahakuttah Kiram has a gold star, but whether he was de jure recognized has not been specified. In this case, I used a secondary source to reconcile the conflicting references. To lift a passage from the news article, it says [T]he last sultan recognized by the Philippine government in 1974 was Ismael Kiram I. After his death, the government, along with other foreign states, declined to recognize the succeeding sultans even if they still commanded authority among the locals there, but in deference to their being royals, they were consulted on some issues hounding Sulu (source). I might be wrong somewhere here, but this is the only current non-self published source we have that explicitly tells which one was the last officially recognized sultan. Xeltran (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I re-reviewed the chart again, and took notice that Mahakuttah Kiram was named Sultan, and acknowledge the fact that secondary sources cannot take precedence over primary ones in exceptional claims. In this case, I am amenable to the current version of the lead. Perhaps, I shall request a clarification from the news agency regarding the article that I used as a source. Thank you for your views. Xeltran (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

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)

I agree that the first sentence in question should stay as it is now: "The last sultan recognized by the Philippine government is Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram, who reigned from 1974-1986." But I am removing the phrase "eldest son and Crown Prince of his father Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram" because it is an unnecessary detail to include here and makes the sentence more difficult to read. The lineage of each pretender is described in the body of the article and these particular (relatively minor) details are already mentioned at least two other times.

And just for the record, I think it is important to clarify that www.royalsultanateofsulu.org is not the "official website of the article's subject". It is actually the official website of one of the claimants, and therefore not an "independent" source. Brian Z (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

THE BROKEN LINEAGE BY USURPERS:

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)

Removed history section

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)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sulu.gov.ph/Profile.asp?mode=sultanate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130513130126/http://www.royalsulu.com/ to http://www.royalsulu.com/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017015534/http://www.gov.ph/1915/03/22/memorandum-carpenter-agreement-march-22-1915/ to http://www.gov.ph/1915/03/22/memorandum-carpenter-agreement-march-22-1915/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308101100/http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/home?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_Yt06&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=5&_101_INSTANCE_Yt06_struts_action=%2Fasset_publisher%2Fview_content&_101_INSTANCE_Yt06_urlTitle=press-statement%3A-meeting-with-the-secretary-of-foreign-affairs-of-the-philippines-h-e-albert-f-del-rosario-on-4-march-2013-kenyataan-akhbar%3A-pertemuan-dengan-setiausaha-luar-filipina-t-y-t-albert-fl-del-rosario-pada-4-mac-2013&_101_INSTANCE_Yt06_type=content&redirect=%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome to http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/home?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_Yt06&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=5&_101_INSTANCE_Yt06_struts_action=%2Fasset_publisher%2Fview_content&_101_INSTANCE_Yt06_urlTitle=press-statement%3A-meeting-with-the-secretary-of-foreign-affairs-of-the-philippines-h-e-albert-f-del-rosario-on-4-march-2013-kenyataan-akhbar%3A-pertemuan-dengan-setiausaha-luar-filipina-t-y-t-albert-fl-del-rosario-pada-4-mac-2013&_101_INSTANCE_Yt06_type=content&redirect=%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Fhome

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sultan seals from sulu

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)