This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force. Transport: Maritime Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I removed the picture, since it mostly showed downtown Long Beach at night, and really didn't show the Port of Long Beach except on the very extreme left side. I also edit the bit about the resistance to going 24-hours because it is mostly the businesses and workers involved that have been resisting the change to 24 hours, and not the local citizens. The local citizens have mostly been protesting the polution from various sources including some of the bulk terminals and the various diesel engines in the port (trucks, boats, trains, and auxilary power). BlankVerse ∅ 09:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"[...] less than a year later [1981], the China Ocean Shipping Co. inaugurated international shipping and chose Long Beach Port its first U.S. port of call. [...] Along with Hanjin, COSCO, a Chinese international shipping carrier, secured business with the Port of Long Beach in 1997."

Somewhat obviously, the China Ocean Shipping Co is COSCO. I'm not sure if the 1997 date is important (the first sentence states COSCO was operating in the port in 1981) - perhaps someone with more knowledge could either neaten this paragraph, or remove the last sentence, which currently seems rather out of place, and repetitive/conflicting. -- Danny252 ( talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

This article reads like a total booster piece, touting the Port's accomplishments and supposed environmental achievements. I strongly suspect it was written by POLB's PR staff. User Msun523 appears to be a POLB staffer, judging by his/her edits. Nothing wrong with that, but the content provided is not neutral, and for the large part, is not very informative.

It seems to me it would be more appropriate for the article to include information on: Port operations, the different piers, who the tenants of each pier are, the different types of cargo shipped on the different piers, mention of the shipping lines that operate from the Port and links to their articles, land transportation systems, access, and linkages to and from the Port, some mention(!) of the Port's massive road/truck traffic impacts on the Long Beach/Wilmington area, substantiation of the blanket claim that the Port provides 316,000 jobs (directly? indirectly? what?) to the region and the other figures given for LA and LB, more information about Port Police and the different local and Federal agencies that provide Port security, and mention of the Port being included (controversially) in two different Long Beach Redevelopment Project Areas.

POLB staffers who edit this article would do well to remember that this is not your Port newsletter or a staff report to the Board of Harbor Commissioners. This is not an appropriate place for the Port's PR outreach. The Port already has myriad avenues for public outreach, and they don't extend to Wikipedia.

Darkest tree ( talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

No response yet? Anybody? I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but as soon as I figure out how to flag or nominate this page for status as having unverified claims and other problems that are counter to the guidelines, I'm going to. This seems like a fairly important page given that it's about one of the two ports in the nation's largest shipping complex. Darkest tree ( talk) 20:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Added NPOV:Language tag to article and Undue:Section tag to environment section. Darkest tree ( talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply

That was serious overkill, now the article has as much meta-information as actual information. Only one of those top tags was necessary. Foxyshadis^{( talk)} 13:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I consolidated the top tags into one "multiple issues" tag. I disagree that only one of those tags was needed, since I really do think that the article has multiple issues. Darkest tree ( talk) 18:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Changed importance rating to "high" for Wikipedia:WikiProject California. Darkest tree ( talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• I made Port of Los Angeles Long Wharf (Santa Monica), I will look into cleaning up LB. Thank you for your feedback.Telecine Guy

• • Fixed, feedback welcomed. Telecine Guy 23:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

somebody should look into it. See Craig Shipbuilding. Seems like people here would rather keep this topic a black hole for one more decade than to click on a few links to verify a story. i am not going to bother with that attitude. Nowakki ( talk) 12:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply