Talk:North Carolina International Port

Edit Underway to Address Wikipedia Issues
Following issues have been addressed:

Improved neutrality and tone. Quality improved. Sections created. Inline citations added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyler69 (talk • contribs)

Broadened Scope and Improved Point of View
Edited to improve the scope of the article as well as the "point of view". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiphering (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag
There has been a recent series of changes to the article; many of the cited changes to the article appear to link to sources with a clear anti-port bias. Please note that this is not an article for a pro/con discussion; please try to keep it neutral and factual. I just reverted some bulk deletion that appeared intended to balance the article, but that is not to say that the point of view in the article does not need work. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

POV-Check September 2011
This article deals with a controversial topic, and I question the overall neutrality of it. At first glance, this article appears to be advocacy page or soapbox for the port's opposition.

The first noticeable thing a reader sees is an image made by the opposition group, NoPort Southport, and it only highlights areas of concern to the opposition. No attempt was made at labeling where the town is, the river, the ocean, or other other features of interest, a reader with no prior knowledge would be about to identify. To me, the image is POV, as its purpose is to instil a negative view of the port from the start.

The lead section is very small, and it does not discuss what the port is or much about it at all, other than what the site is located near and its initial cost. The lead also claims that the site is "between Progress Energy Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant and the Sunny Point Military Ammunition Port", which if one looks at a map, is not true. It is geographical close to both, but is it not between the two.

Throughout the article's body, very little is mentioned about the port's perceived benefits or why its backers are proposing it, and what few mentions are made are promptly rebutted many sentences of anti-port claims. I find it dubious such a large project would be seriously proposed, if there were not some rational for it.

Parts of the article are also rewritten like an editorial and attempt to predict the future for readers.

The majority of the references are from anti-port websites.

Finally, the article has been subject to a slow editwar, with several editors going back and forth with addition and removal of the same material, with out discussion or comments.

–Sparkgap (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of Cited Issues
This is a difficult topic to accurately ascribe multi-lateral (pro and con) facts to since the only "pro-port" references deal mostly with aspirations for new jobs with little or no factual or substantive rationale for how these new jobs can materialize in competition with other competing east coast ports. On the other hand, many of the "anti-port" references deal realistically with the competitive and environmental issues that would impede, or even nullify, any rationale for progress toward the development of this port. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedit2228 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)