Talk:Fort Lawton riot

POV tag
The definite POV, extreme lack of sources, and overall bias of this article make it in serious need of fixing. The entirety of the text about the events may be lifted from a book or website, given it format. Apfox (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of a book on the incident basically wrote this article the way it is now. The author was notified that he was probably violating Wikipedia policy on COI and self-promotion, and has not returned.  We could revert the article to an earlier version, but not everything that he did to the article is bad, it just needs some clean-up.  This article is on my to-do list but I probably won't get to it for another year or more. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt this is a worthwhile subject. It simply needs a massive amount of hacking away of the NPOV language. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the author of ON AMERICAN SOIL, a nonfiction book about the Fort Lawton incident and the recipient of the Book of the Year Award by Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. I did not write the current Wikipedia entry, and am not the person referred to above ("The author of a book on the incident basically wrote this article the way it is now.") The current version (August 31, 2009) of the article appears to be authored by someone with an agenda, and has little academic merit or accuracy. Jackhamann (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is It Still Required?
It's been 2 years. Is the article still needing the NPOV tag? rewinn (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, of the article is based on Hamann's book. Parsing out his contributions and opinion needs work.  I did some NPOV revisions, but not having access to the sources hinders proper revision.  I had thought a single-source tag would be better, but there are other sources (which do not have proper attribution), so I think keeping the POV tag is appropriate.--S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, are the NPOV violations in this article? It doesn't look like a particularly difficult one to clean up since the events are full of public documents, e.g. court cases and Army reports. Frankly, while this may not be the best article in the world, it doesn't seem to be pushing a POV. rewinn (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one has cited one sentence actually suffering from NPOV in this article as it now stands, so I have removed the POV tag. It is not enough that the article is wordy and may be based upon few sources; there is nothing to show that the article has much of a point of view at all. The facts in the article are amply supported by newspaper articles about the riots and recently related events, e.g. legislation. rewinn (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is a piece of garbage. It does not deal with facts, but racial propoganda. 02:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)daver852 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.208.184 (talk)

Memory of italian soldier private Guglielmo Olivotto
The next November 4th 2017 the italian memorial day, at 10,00 in the moring, a nephew of Guglielmo Olivotto, whose second name is Guglielmina to remember his uncle Guglielmo, will be at the grave of Olivotto in the Discovery Park of Seattle toghether with two italian officier of reserve and a representative of "alpini" of New York. Scerlina Guglielmina Olivotto lived with the mother of Guglielmo, till her death in 1964 and her grandmother often spoke about Guglielmo and his death so she think her moral duty to honor once in her life the memory of his uncle where he is buried. I, lieutenent Renzo Carlo Avanzo of italian alpin troops, have discovered recentley in Italy the facts about Guglielmo Olivotto unknown to the most of people. renzocarloavanzo@gmail.com Avanzo (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)