Talk:Port of Los Angeles

message: I think given the first paragraph and the lack of a lot of hyperlinks, it's pretty clear this article was probably not written in the spirit of information so much as advertisement. Cwilli201 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was then; this is now. Is the article better now? (In your humble opinion) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: An advertisement?

message: Using a minimal amount of effort I found the first paragraph at the About page for the LA Port website  word for word.  So while not an advertisement it is probably in violation since it is not credited.  I don't know exactly what the previous writer was talking about but I assume they meant citations and not hyper links since by my count there were more than 35 hyperlinks not including the 2007 Facts and Figures table.Sanran825 (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think the Port of LA's web site is, if not an advertisement? And if content from that site was moved here verbatim, that's a clear copyright violation the offending text must be removed. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the entire article appears to just re-word the content of the Port of LA web site, which means the entire article is a copyright violation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "An Advertisement?" Rebuttal

message: I have identified the sections that clearly are no more than re-wordings of the content on the official Port of LA web site. Some of it isn't even re-worded. It was copied verbatim. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  Thanks for finding that.  No need to tag individual sections; either remove the offending material yourself, revert to a "clean" revision if there is one, or blank the entire article and replace with the template if there isn't any non-copyrighted content in the whole thing. I'm going to try and figure out which content is cv and remove it right now. delldot talk 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a long look at the history, it looks like the cv content was added in these edits.  I reverted to before them, and now I'm trying to reinstate the good edits that were made afterwards.  Please check me to make sure I didn't miss anything, good edits or cv's.  delldot talk 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have looked for the older "good" edit, but I didn't have time. Sorry. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In a REALLY QUICK look at the article, it still appears to have some stuff that's just a re-wording of the content from the official Port of LA web site. I'm not really interested enough in this article to go over it with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and fix it, but I do hope someone will take a close look and do the necessary rewrite. As it stands now, I believe the article is still a copyright violation in several instances. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrrrmm, depends how close they are.  Can you give an example?  I don't have time to look right now, and I also don't really care about the subject either ;-) I'll try to do it tomorrow morning. delldot talk 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That means I'd have to look at both sites again. :( -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what an annoyance.  Don't worry about it, I'll look at it in the morning.  delldot talk 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh...it's there, IMHO. I just don't have the time to do the work. And then there's the reason I already listed above... :-)  -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violations

message: By what criteria? Certainly not by the criteria used in the List of ports in the United States article which doesnt rank it in the top 10, I believe it's 14 or 15 in fact. I don't doubt that by some sort of criteria it is, but please put in the opening paragraph what criteria you are using. I know there are three citations for it (though I am too lazy to check out the citations myself) but it really should be in the article itself what criteria is being used.24.182.142.254 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and checked out the citations and to say that "it is the busiest port in the United States" is at best misleading and is closer to being an outright lie. It does have more containerized cargo by tons than any other US port, but that is one small category. In any list of all cargo tonnage, number of ships, or any other category I've found the port of los angeles does not crack the top 10, and since cargo tonnage seems to be the most popular on classifying how "busy" a port is and is the criteria on the List of ports in the United States, I believe that is the most important one to use. I will be removing the first sentence of this article if no one objects after 2 weeks.Camelbinky (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Bulk cargo may account for a large tonnage but it is not, by itself, a perfect measure of how busy a port is. Rather than deleting the assertion outright, it'd be better to qualify it by saying that it has great volume of TEUs than any other port. It may also be suitable to move the assertion out of the lead sentence.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busiest port in the United States?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Port of Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090906052452/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/environment-natural-resources/ecology/6473156-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology/6473156-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article claims that the port represents 43% of the cargo entering the US. The citation given however claims something else: "In the first three months of 2016, Los Angeles and Long Beach took in 37% of all imports to the country arriving in containers, down from 43% during the same period in 2007."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.140.103 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim about 43% of cargo coming into the US