Talk:Jamalul Kiram III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusion[edit]

De facto or de jure sultan? And how can he be sultan "alongside" Ismael Kiram II? Joint sultans, perhaps?

And what about the status of Sultan Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram? isnt' he supposed to be the legal sultan?203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CATEGORIAL; The sovereignty of the Sulu Sultanate was already usurped by the 1861 Jamalul Agdam, the latter who presented himself as the Sulu Sultan to the two British Subjects and signing the 1878 lease treaty agreement, without the knowledge nor consent of the reigning Sulu Sultan Pulalun who was at the hinterlands. Other usurpers succeeded to the present having came to terms with foreign administering powers by the 1915 Carpenter agreement, 1963 and 1969 irrevocable power-of-attorney to foreign powers in favor of the latter; thus being recognized and or receiving lease rental/cession money annually. So,the Sultanate is still existing with the heirs of Sultan Pulalun thru his Adinda or Prince Heir=apparent (Maharaja Adinda Taup), with all due respect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.90.152 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to adjudicate disputes about whether Jamalul was a legitimate Royal or a pretender, but instead to describe those disputes neutrally. Reliable sources would assist greatly with a balanced summation.

In order to use a "pretender infobox", it would need to be clear that the overwhelming balance of reliable sources describe him as such. BushelCandle (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal duties"?![edit]

The section titled "Royal duties" is full of nonsense.

  • "Jamalul Kiram III was a member of the Ruma Betchara (Council of the Sultan) during the reign of his late uncle, Sultan Esmail Kiram (1962–1974). He acted as 'Interim Sultan' during the absence of his father Sultan Punjungan Kiram while in Sabah (1974–1981) and proclaimed in 1984 as 33rd Sultan of Sulu and was crowned on 15 June 1986 in Jolo, Sulu." First, I can find no evidence that a "Council of the Sultan" exists, nor that it has any authority or powers. Second, claiming that Jamalul Kiram III was "crowned" is nonsensical. Who crowned him? There is no reference to a source, so it should be removed. Third, according to the Philippines Gazette, the official Philippines State organ, Sultan Mohammad Esmail Kiram I ceded all territories in North Borneo to the Republic of the Philippines in 1962[1], which was further reinforced by the Manila Accord. Since the death of Sultan Mohammad Mahakuttah A. Kiram in 1986, the Philippine Government has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of any of the rival claimants to the Sultanate[2] so to claim that Kiram's father was the Sultan, that he inherited the Sultanate or that he was "crowned" is nonsensical and naturally, totally lacking in cited sources.
  • "Kiram forged the century-old relationships between Sulu and China during a royal visit to Dezhou, Shandong Province, People' Republic of China in September 1999 with an 87-man entourage. The visit concluded with the signing of the agreement between Hebei Province and the Sulu Sultanate on agricultural technology exchange. Source? Nope. Did China view it as a "royal visit"? Did the State recognize him in any way? Apparently not.
  • "He also forged bilateral relationship beyween the Don Sasagawa Foundation of Japan and the Sultan Jamalul Ahlam Foundation." I can find no record of a "Don Sasagawa Foundation" (does it mean the Sasakawa Peace Foundation founded by former yakuza Ryoichi Sasakawa? And terms like "forged" and "bilateral" are clearly intended to suggest political legitimacy.
  • "He was the one responsible for the release of the American and the German nationals from the captivity of the lost command of the MNLF in 1984." Again, no source cited, and a Google search turns up zero evidence that such a thing happened.
  • "He established livelihood programs in Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Palawan through the Sulu-Marine and Seven Seas Corporations." What are "livelihood programs"? Just plain employment of locals? Kiram described himself as "President and Chairman of the Board, Seven Seas Corporation" and "President and Chairman of the Board Sulu Marine Corporation(1989-1993)" here:[3]. However, I can find no evidence that either corporation existed.
  • "He was also the president of the Philippine Pencak Silat Association and once served as a board member in the Philippine Olympic Committee." Neither of those are even remotely "royal duties"; indeed, most who have held those positions have not been claimants to any nobility or royalty.

References

  1. ^ http://www.gov.ph/1962/04/24/cession-and-transfer-of-the-territory-of-north-borneo-by-his-highness-sultan-mohammad-esmail-kiram-sultan-of-sulu-acting-with-the-consent-and-aprroval-of-the-ruma-bechara-in-council-assembled-to/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_Sulu
  3. ^ http://www.inquirer.net/specialreports/inquirerpolitics/view.php?db=1&article=20070223-51200

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricology (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah[edit]

Update on Sabah standoff Oct. 20, 2013

By invictus1819

Sultan Kiram III Dies, Asks Siblings To Pursue Sabah's Repossession From Malaysia

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-932759

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1170481/sultan-sulu-jamalul-kiram-iii-continues-fight-sabah

https://raissarobles.com/2013/03/03/did-you-know-sultan-jamalul-kiram-iii-was-once-a-bayanihan-dancer-and-a-radio-announcer/

Rajmaan (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

malformed RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This page has so many issues... where to start? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsense, you continuously being bias and remove a sourced content from reliable source of Google Books, as well labelling user who revert your "bias contribution" as "content dispute and breaching three revert rule while it is not, now asking "where to start"?? Very funny, now I'm going to report you to administrator. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 10:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:RFC, a Request for comment should "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template." Shhhhwwww!!, I need to know specifically what the issues are with this biography in order to comment substantively. Vague statements are not good enough. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are statements that are controversial depending on political position (Malaysian or Philippine), like if he is a "self-proclaimed" Sultan or an actual one. There are other issues, like whether the Sulu Sultanate sill exist or not and who is the legitimate Sultan. But the most pressing issue is if the Malaysian narrative or Philippine one is the one to be followed or neither or both. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Malaysian reliable sources say one thing and reliable sources in the Philippines say another, then it is crystal clear to me that the neutral point of view requires that we summarize and report both points of view, without taking sides. The issue of whether or not the sultanate still exists seems pretty straightforward. Which governments recognize this sultanate? State that neutrally without taking sides in Wikipedia's voice, and let the reader decide. It is not our job to adjudicate nationalistic disputes, but instead to describe them neutrally. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Late comment[edit]

@User:Cullen328, the problem is that the Malaysian sources tend to violate WP:BLP and WP:Neutrality policies (you know defiunct, self-syled, "air quotes") there is no way for middlegorund. The best solution is to use outside sources such as Al Jazeera, The Guardian ,and the BBC. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and neutrality are policies that govern the content we write here on Wikipedia, Shhhhwwww!!. They do not apply to the sources we cite, thoough high quality sources are always preferred. It may be necessary to cite a POV pushing source to give balance and to show both sides of the story, and that does not violate policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhhwwww!!: To say "Malaysian source are non-neutral" are just showing how ignorant you are. Did you really do a lot of search outside Malaysian media, such as:

Want me to show more?? You just keep identifying "every sources" from Malaysia are false while the sources from the Philippines "are true" although foreigners have seen in fact how your country media always publishing nonsense news which full of lies and bias without doing any deep research before publishing it especially on the historical context. I give one example from the Philippine media of The Philippine Star on the "invitation of Malaysia to the MNLF for talks on Sabah, Sarawak". Your country media just said [Malaysia invites] but where the hell is the source did the news get from?? Did your country media ever cite any "official statement, document or audio/video records" from the Malaysian side on the talks, without just depending on one "ignorant fool MNLF representative"??? ..and how could "Sarawak" been involved while the state never been part of the historical Sultanate of Sulu. Seen how stupid that was?? Or.. you just keep saying that every news published by either The Philippine Star, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin or the Manila Times are true in every aspects?? I'm also want to note you that the book source which are "not associated with any Malaysian media" also mentioning the present Sultan of Sulu are "self-proclaimed". Did you want to say that "foreign sources" also bias??? ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 04:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cullen328, please comment. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want an answer from you. Why you just keep depending on Cullen328?? ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 05:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you should dial down the confrontational attitude and work together to accurately summarize both sides of the dispute. If you take the attitude that "my side is entirely right and must dominate the article and the other side is completely wrong and must be excluded from the article", then you are deliberately violating the neutral point of view and may need to be topic banned from this and all related articles. So start collaborating and compromising now, because the confrontational language above is not acceptable from either side. Pay attention and heed my advice, Shhhhwwww!! and Muffin Wizard. I am 100% serious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Cullen328, I just need an explanation from Shhhwwww!! without just giving "a lot of excuse" to my question and keep changing the fact without giving any "valid explanation". ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 05:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can answer your question. The policy based answer is that the article must accurately summarize both sides of the dispute and must be written from the neutral point of view. Accordingly, comments such as accusing another country's media of "always publishing nonsense news which full of lies and bias" are entirely unproductive and counter to neutrality. So, abandon that attitude, and start collaborating and compromising. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I admit and retract that word. Just need a response from Shhhwwww!! on his view on Kiram III based on neutral point of view. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to collaborate. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start[edit]

The article has quite a few "citation needed" tags. Please try to find reliable sources (either from Malaysia or the Philippines or elsewhere) that discuss these unreferenced claims. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jamalul Kiram III. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. BushelCandle (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: The infobox is controversial[edit]

Not Done - As noted below the RFC is malformed, You need to say what the issue is and provide diffs and try to be as descriptive as possible, and you need to quit the arguing on the RFC aswell- As this at the moment is a car crash I've closed it as Not done - I have no objections to anyone starting another RFC providing it's a lot more informative/descriptive than this one, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 04:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The infobox was changed earlier this year without a discussion or consensus. This topic is very controversial and has been the subject of heated debates in the past. An outsider's view is needed.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was "Changed without a discussion or consensus", but the weirdest thing is you're just mention he is "recognised by the Philippine government" without giving any valid references from the PH government that stating he is really "recognised". If you said he is the real owner of the past-defunct Sultanate of Sulu throne, then what about the other so-called Sultan like Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram and Ismael Kiram II. Did you mean two Sultans of the same race root can administer at the same time?? Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you said that both of them are really recognised by the PH government, then where is the official document from gov.ph that stating as such? We need an official sources to be include here and not just a talk from peoples mouth. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism report is clearly not helpful since this is more of a content dispute than vandalism.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From Jejomar Binay, Vice President of the Philippines:

If elected president, Binay to pursue Sabah claim ‘all the way’ Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, so this is what you said an official document from the PH government that recognise the Kirams? From just a newspaper that can report anything without the "truth". Come on, we need an official document like this.Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The report to administrator also not only for "vandalism", but it can also be "include" for disruptive editing like what you're doing in the past without starting a discussion first. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not disruptive editing, obviously.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram

Not disruptive? Then let's see. We're going to find a final consensus on this. I'm waiting the AR request to be opened soon so we can discuss it there. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest thing to recognition ]https://books.google.com/books?id=83BIxG7Ig2cC&pg=PA58&dq=malacang+jamalul+kiram&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio4bzf9PLLAhXotoMKHUkhBkwQuwUIIDAA#v=onepage&q=malacang%20jamalul%20kiram&f=false Where in the World is the Philippines: Debating its National Territory]. No one was designated as Sultan but the government did recognize the Sultanate's continued existence. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Reporting someone as a vandal just to win an argument is so contrary to such. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Book is a record. We need an official reference that really recognise him as a Sultan at present. I know the Sultanate of Sulu was once existed. But seeing its condition in the present with many heirs saying "they are the rightful owners" is too complicated and all of them can be considers as pretenders. I'm already assuming good faith while you're not by keeping to push your own agenda by stating Kiram is the real Sultan of Sulu although have been told early to give a proof that Kiram is really a Sultan. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the infoboxes are not needed since none of them can claim a throne if it actually exists. Reporting someone to the Vandalism thingy even before responding to a discussion posted in the talk page says a lot. This is clearly not going anywhere. Goodbye! Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the infoboxes are not needed since none of them can claim a throne if it actually exists. Quite funny with this statement, when they are "Sultan" you keep pressing to put the {{Infobox royalty}}. But when they are actually only "pretenders" who can't really proved they are a real Sultan, you keep pressing to remove the {{Infobox pretender}} template. Clearly you just want to keep pressing your own agenda like you were the supporters of the Kirams. I have seen this behaviour since your first edit in 2013. I'm already explain to you above that your edits are much more like "disruptive editing" which is also part of "vandalism behaviour". Molecule Extraction (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Summoned by bot. This RfC is not properly formulated as it fails to state the controversy that you want comments on. You can't expect uninvolved editors to conduct an investigation to find out what your asking about. However, I do want to say that the infobox as currently situated improperly contains text at the bottom. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jamalul Kiram III. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamalul_Kiram_III&oldid=1207989676"