Talk:Datu

message: "These titles are the equivalent of European dukes and marquesses." <---- Just curious: On what basis is this comparison made? Alternativity 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article is only talking about the "Datu" title in Philipines, but no mention of the "Datu" title in Sabah, Malaysia. There are notable Sabahans like politicians who have the "Datu" title. --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  I personally did not know that. If you have sources, I do suggest you [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|Be Bold] and make the necessary changes to the article? With the caveat of course that the data already here should be respected. (Meaning, not discarded) It would be nice to see this article expanded, but I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgable about the Datu rank as used in Sabah and I have no sources with me on the matter, so I'm afraid I'd be of little help to you.  Good luck with the editing, though. Cheers. Alternativity (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about in [[Sabah]]!? 

message: Please feel free to create new articles of Datus in Malaysia and Indonesia, specially if you are knowledgeable about it. I might attempt to do so also.--Jondel (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Datu in Malaysia and Indonesia

message: Thank you for your contribution about the local laws that protect the rights of indigenous peoples of the Philippines, including also the rights of local nobilities of Sulu.
However, please do not erase the section pertaininf other laws in the Country, especially the Constituional basis, that sheds light to the truth about noble titles in the Philippines. 
I have incorporated your contribution in the section about the Present day Datus, putting into the footnotes the citations you used in your previous edition. If you have questions and contentions please do it first in the discussion board of this article, so that the users of Wikiepdia will be enlightened by the truth about the issue concerned. --TLS MMM (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: For RDAndrew

message: Thank you for your message, I agree with you in some part but in some part I do not. You mentioned that Datus can only by blood descent, that is, one has to have Filipino blood in his veins, and has to be a descendant of ancient Filipino royal or noble families. That is not true as in 1878 Sultan of Sulu (who was Sovereign at that time granted Baron de Overbeck Datu title)! I can provide you with certified copy of this document translation, therefore I require you will remove this sentence from the article. Also please take a note by law of succession the Sultan of Sulu office still exist.
Secondly you removed Sulu from first sentence just before Mindanao (if you are familiar with Philippine geography you should know that they are different areas, therefore I require you will add Sulu there, as most of the Datu titles were granted by Sultan of Sulu!!!
Also I would not dear to call Sultanate as tribe and Sultan as tribe leader. Even presently Sultan is recognised as head of the Muslim Community, therefore please add before tribe leaders also a Sultan. Thank you for advance RDAndrew (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: For TLS MMM

message: Thank you, I shall create page Raja Muda (Raja Mudah) shortly, I am happy with your additions, but I will also add Datu in Royal Sultanate of Sulu as it is describe din 1974 book. It has solid reference. RDAndrew (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: For TLS MMM 2

message: I have already intedgrated your legitimate suggestions. Please take note that I have highlighted the title Raja Mudah. But it seems that there is no wikipedia article about this. Would you be kind to create it. I think you are more competent in doing it. Please also take note of the Philippine legal provisions in that article, and also in related articles about honorary titles. There are objections to some honory titles given to non-tribe members and to foreigners, also in view of the provisions of the Constitution, as well as regarding the sentiments of local nobles and tribe members. Filipinos are sensitive to some insinuations that foreigners are accorded higher status over them, in their own native land, especially that their own Constitution prohibits them to receive or confer new such nobiliary titles. I know you are aware of the colonial experience, and struggles of the Filipinos for independence and for equal status with foreign colonizers.--TLS MMM (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: For RDAndrew

message: Hi everyone. First of all, the article is looking great! Congrats on the fantastically effective collaboration on this page!
I was doing some reading today and had a thought. In his discussion of Tagalog Society and Religeon, Scott asserts that "...Datus were not called kings (Hari), not even paramount chiefs; that term was known only in reference to foreign monarchies (kaharian) and their viceroys (halili). It is significant that Spaniards called them principales (chiefs), not regulos (rulers)."  
My understanding is that this Spanish interpretation came about because Datus did not hold absolute dominion over their "subjects" the way european royals did.  This question might not be so significant on this page, as there's no question that Datu is still a royal title of sorts.  But it does beg the question of what to call the territories they ruled.  Would we be correct in calling such territories "kingdoms"?  And if not, what should they be called?  I am not sure how to integrate the Scott quote into this text.  I'll give it some thought first. But if anybody else wants a crack at it, I certainly wouldn't object. The reference is on Page 221 of . - Alternativity (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with Scott's assertion "Datus were not called kings" 

message: The Section on "Recorded list of Datus in the Philippines" was transferred to another article (Recorded list of Datus in the Philippines), to make the entry on "Datu" concise. Most data in the section that was transferred lacked sufficient citations. That rendered this article less scientific. Besides, the list could go on and on, making it difficult to confirm the claims of those who add names to the list without citing references. Those who are interested in the above-mentioned section are invited to edit the new article created and to improve it by adding suitable citations. --Sulbud (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Recorded list of Datus in the Philippines" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Datu. 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/20081028171843/http://scjphil.org/mindanao%20land%20of%20promise.htm to http://scjphil.org/mindanao%20land%20of%20promise.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5s8suti6f?url=http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pssr/article/viewFile/1274/1630 to http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pssr/article/viewFile/1274/1630
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001215334/http://www.seasite.niu.edu/tagalog/Tagalog_Homepage99/impacts_of_spanish_rule_in_the_p.htm to http://www.seasite.niu.edu/TAGALOG/Tagalog_Homepage99/impacts_of_spanish_rule_in_the_p.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001215334/http://www.seasite.niu.edu/tagalog/Tagalog_Homepage99/impacts_of_spanish_rule_in_the_p.htm to http://www.seasite.niu.edu/TAGALOG/Tagalog_Homepage99/impacts_of_spanish_rule_in_the_p.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Datubaylan is a contemporary term sometimes used to refer to all the territories of the Philippines and is also referred to a passable and possible new name for the country. The term Philippines came from the Spanish King at the time when the country was colonized. In contrast, the term Datubaylan is a convergence of the datu (chief, ruler, or king) and the babaylan (spiritual leader and holder of science, arts and literature). The datu is the common term for political leader among central and southern ethnicities while the babaylan is the commen term for spiritual leader in northern ethnicities. Datubaylan is also a resounding configuration of the Asian roots of the country and has an indigenous coinage in its pronunciation and general spelling. Another term being pushed to become the country's new name is Maharlika, however, the term itself is profoundly Tagalog-centric and thus non-inclusive for other ethnicities.
------------------------------------------
The above-mentioned sub-section of this article was removed since:
1.) It is not directly related to the subject of the article. 
2.) It appears to belong to another independent article. 
3.) It was not scientifically written, lacking credible reference materials. --Sulbud (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Datubaylan

message: Hi everyone. I've started to do a rewrite of the article by reorganizing the section asserting the nobility/aristocratic nature of Datus. It'll be followed by a section rewriting the section which explains their level of political authority. This is still pretty messy, but hopefully we can improve it as we go along.
Sulbud, I temporarily removed these specific paragraphs from the text since they're written in a way that creates POV issues (as per WP:NPOV), but since I think you make important points here, I'll move these here to provide context for our earlier discussion.
Clearly, the pre-colonial political systems existing in the Archipelago are not the same as those existing in europe when the Westerners made first contacts with the  peoples in these islands. A principality (like Monaco and Andorra in Europe) does not necessarily have the vastness of a territory, etc. of what might qualify a typical kingdom. But its ruler is nonetheless a royal sovereign prince. 
One important thing has to be considered: Junker's 1990 analysis is another western convention in expressing what is innate to the culture of East Asia- another analogy. The people in this Archipelago had their own way of conceiving and practicing a monarchic type of government, which had similarities and, also dissimilarities with their European counterparts or those in other parts of the globe. 
Landa Jocano's and William Scott's concepts of monarchy were also quoted earlier in this part of the article. Though these authors maybe anthropologists, one may question whether they are specialists on question of monarchy since their definition of a monarchy seems not exhaustive and seems limited only to absolute monarchy. 
It must be noted also, as it is affirmed above, that Junker used the observations of early Spanish settlers in the Archipelago, who have no clear comprehension of the social structure of the local civilization. Such early observations are useful but do not seem complete to Junker and Scott. The later works of Spanish and other European writers and scholars in the middle and late 20th century (after more than two hundred years later) affirm, however, the observations of the earlier attributions to the local royalties and nobilities. 
Scott's and Junker's definition of a kingdom will not accomodate the present day Kingdom of Tonga in the Pacific, which has only 103,036 citizens living on various small Pacific islands covering a combined total area of only 748 km2 (a territory which is smaller than the present day Butuan City or Tablas Island in the Philippines). Isolated and far from more developed civilizations like China and the rest of Asia, it was probably more primitive than the Philippine Archipelago in its social structure and culture when the first western explorers reached its shores in 1616. The fact is, Tonga was and still now a kingdom recognized by the family of nations, and its monarch is recognized by the monarchs of Europe and other parts of the world. 
The same definition of a kingdom will not accomodate as true monarchs the current constitutional monarchs of Spain and of the United Kingdom because as the academic definition of Junker says: "their ability to exercise power over the citizens" is "not absolute", but "dependent on the democratic consent" of other sources of power (in this case the citizens). However, the fact is, the King of Spain and the Queen of the United Kingdom are among the most highly regarded monarchs in the world today. 
It seems that, in order to be credible, Scott's and Junker's definition of a kingdom has to be studied more exhaustively and reevaluated. Sources from experts on questions of monarchy (e.g., Vicente de Cadenas y Vicent) and its juridical aspects, other than from those written by colonial explorers, must be carefully considered. For one thing, despite quoting the observation of Antonio Morga regarding hereditary "principalities and lordships", the two contemporary authors still deny the existence of a particular form of monarchy in pre-colonial Philippines. This puts into doubt these authors' comprehension of what a monarchy is.''
A few final notes: Regarding the issue of size of territory, I'm not sure the argument still needs to be made, since there's nothing in the article right now that says territorial size is a defining characteristic of a monarchy.  As for the things Junker Jocano and Scott say, I'll try to rewrite the section on Nobility to emphasize that all of these scholars acknowledged the hereditary nobility and aristocratic nature (although not sovereign authority) of the Datus.
I'll also try to create a section that provides more detail about the local concept of nobility and rule.
Please do flag me if I miss something we discussed in the section above. :D
Thanks, - Alternativity (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes so far, and removed POV section 

message: Hi Alternativity,
There is one more concept that needs to be given more clarification in this article: Sovereignty. Please also consider the geopolitical understanding of the concept, also in various stages of history. Thanks. --Sulbud (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Datu. 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/20120325064159/http://www.royalsocietydignitariesgroup.org/royal-house-of-sultan-council.php to http://www.royalsocietydignitariesgroup.org/royal-house-of-sultan-council.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pssr/article/viewFile/1274/1630
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I am having problems with the 'Pre-colonial Polities and Fons honorum' section. To me it seems like original research or an essay of some sorts. A lot of the sources seem to lead to philosophy books or other legal sources and not anything related to the Philippines. I question whether this section belongs on this page. Glennznl (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-colonial Polities and Fons honorum 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Disruptive editing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 27#Disruptive editing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Sulbud (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disruptive editing" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]