Talk:Sanford B. Dole

message: "There is nothing wrong with mentioning the Morgan report, but it is obscure and harder to find on the Web for a reason: perhaps few people take it seriously as being anything other than a smokescreen or whitewash?"  
No, it is not online because it is "politically incorrect" and does not represent the "correct" version of history being portrayed the sovereignty movement.  But Wikipedia is not a soap box (although it is sometimes...)
"Certainly for many folks in Hawai‘i, contending there was no U.S. involvement in the end of the monarchy and Hawaiian independence has about as much plausibility as giving equal time in Wikipedia to Holocaust denial."
There is a similarity here.  False claims that there was a US invasion (no one died, there were no battles, locals planned and then took charge, etc.) is historical revisionism akin to holocaust deniers.  And like holocause deniers, it is impossible to reason with the Hawaiian Soveriegnty people sometimes. And there probably was American involvement.  It does not change the legality of the revolt.  The French aided the Americans in the American Revolution.  The Soviets aided the Cubans in the Cuban Revolution.  Foriegn involvement in revolutions is normal and does not alter the validity of the revolutions.
Readding and please don't revert without discussion.
"Dole was successful as a diplomat as every nation that recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii also recognized the Republic of Hawaii."
This is factually true.  Why try to delete it?
"The history of this event is disputed at this point. Many claim the group conspired with U.S. ambassador John L. Stevens to land the United States Marine Corps, forcibly remove Queen Liliʻuokalani from power, and declare a Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi consisting of members from the Committee of Safety. This version is supported by the Blount Report.Others claim that the insurgency was locally based and that American troops only served to protect American property and citizens and had no role in the end of the Hawaiian Monarchy. This version is supported by the Morgan Report. Regardless, the monarchy ended in January 1893."
This is factually true as well.  Why delete one reference source from the federal government yet keep another.  Do we only add references to the ones we agree with?  I favor adding links to both to allow the reader to investigate the issue. 
"The group conspired with U.S. ambassador John L. Stevens to land the United States Marine Corps, forcibly remove Queen Liliʻuokalani from power, and declare a Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi consisting of members from the Committee of Safety. The group succeeded in seizing power by these means in January 1893."
I am keeping this but adding alleged.  This is not proven as fact. And the marines fired no shots, killed no one, etc so to claim they "forcibly" removeed the Queen is factually incorrect. But in the spirit of compromise...
Best regards.  I have the feeling my response here is pointless and you only want to add your one-sided view.  But I am willing to try some dialogue.  172.144.176.39 03:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty here is that you seem to allow no room for difference of opinion, and hence no room for genuine dialogue. According to you, your version is the only one based on fact. Sovereignty activists are all "misstating" things. Somehow they have managed to "rig" the Web in their favour so that only "politically correct" versions get through. That seems highly unlikely, considering that the pro-U.S. side (which would certainly include the military, the secret services, etc.) possesses staggering advantages in numbers, money, and access to media professionals. My position is simply that in an encyclopedia, the phenomenon of Hawaiian nationalism is every bit as worthy of fair treatment as the nationalism of any other people. If English Wikipedia editors can come up with articles of exemplary fairness regarding the political status of Taiwan, Tibet, Kashmir, etc. then it would be extremely disappointing and disturbing to see Hawaiian nationalism not be able to get a fair presentation due to a "blind spot" afflicting the sensitivities of U.S.-based editors. --IslandGyrl 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IslandGyrl, as mentioned above, wouldn't we want an article on Dole to be more sympathetic to his POV?  Wouldn't points of hawaiian nationalism (kanaka only or otherwise) be better treated on their own pages, such as the queen's or wilcox's?  It seems a bit unfair to color Dole in the most unflattering light on his own bio page...don't you agree? --JereKrischel 05:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What don't you get? --JereKrischel 09:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (Argument in NPOV dispute)

message: JK: this seems a relatively easy one. A revolution really denotes a total change of government, while a revolt is simply a rebellion against those in power. Given that the 1887 events did not effect a change in governmental structure -- it may have emasculated the kingdom, but it certainly did not topple it, don't you think "revolt" captures the sense more accurately? I'm open to other suggestions, but "revolution" seems hyperbole. I'm not rvv-ing as I think discussion is a measure of respect, which I'm sure is the spirit both of us intend. Arjuna 10:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Revolt During the Twentieth Century, the term rebellion carried an expectation of futility: a revolution, by definition, succeeded in establishing a viable government; while a rebellion, by definition, failed to do so.  AFAIK, "revolt" is a verb to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government., and "revolution" is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.  Revolution seems more appropriate. --JereKrischel 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @JereKrischel Or we could cut the BS niceties, call a spade a spade, and refer to it as the coupe by greedy usurpers that it was WOW the truth what a concept huh Brettdamage (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Revolt or Revolution?

message: The above war seems to have died down, but my real question is why there is much at all on this article about the troops: is there any source that Dole was involved with them? I plan to cut out most of the unsourced stuff and concentrate on his recorded career as a Judge for example which seems to be downplayed here. Sources indicate it was Cooper who chaired the committee for example, Dole's name was not on it.  W Nowicki (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is too much detail on the events of the overthrow for this article - just have a link to "see main article on overthrow" should suffice. My recollection from when I was engaged in the above discussion (and was referencing all the main texts on the subject) was that Dole was privvy to the CoS discussions, but perhaps he was not a formal participant. I can help research this in the next few days. In any case, I agree that a relatively simple mention of whatever role he may have had should suffice, and then link to the overthrow article, which should be the definitive article, not Dole's. Arjuna (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much overthrow in the article

message: Need to mention his father Daniel Dole, who is probably notable enough to merit his own article. I think he was founder and first principal of Punahou School. W Nowicki (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Dole

message: (also did one on his grandpa Wigglesworth Dole - such a great name)
More problems I see: not really primarily "politician" since he was only elected as representative, important positions were appointed; confuses cabinet (had power) with Pricy Council (essectially honorary); says "wealthy" while my sources say his parents were teachers, hardly a high-paying profession; Thurston did not "write" the constitution of 1887, maybe was a major agitator for it; it did not "impose" property restrictions but did raise them; mentioned James twice, but his cousin the Attorney General not mentioned etc. Although of course we need sourcing, from what I can tell, Dole was chosen mostly because he was considered an "outsider" (grew up on Kauai not Oahu, was serving in the Kingdom court, considered "above the fray"). He certainly knew and had similar ethnic background to the Committee of Safety people, but we should not infer guilt by association. I will work a bit on it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sanford B. Dole. 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/20120306203149/http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/governme/index/assoc/HASHb5a9/8f7a506f.dir/Dole%2C%20Sanford%20Ballard.jpg to http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/governme/index/assoc/HASHb5a9/8f7a506f.dir/Dole,%20Sanford%20Ballard.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730153134/http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/governme/index/assoc/HASH477b.dir/doc.pdf to http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/governme/index/assoc/HASH477b.dir/doc.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110307080516/http://www.dolemiddle.k12.hi.us/GDole.html to http://www.dolemiddle.k12.hi.us/GDole.html
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) 07:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified