Talk:Professional Coin Grading Service

message: I'm a bit suspect of the prominent but poorly-integrated mention of an incident that occurred almost 17 years ago. This relatively old element of the company's history would be appropriate in a more complete article on PCGS, but its prominent placement in this stub (with lots of capital letters), seems more intended to cast PCGS in a negative light. I also doubt the factual accuracy of the use of the word "probation" here: is it meant to suggest that the entire organization was placed on "probation"? At any rate, my cursory search for information about the incident yielded absolutely no mention of probation; it seems to me like it is an invented detail. This page indicates that PCGS agreed to "submit its advertising to the FTC for review for the next five years," but as far as I can tell that was the extent of it.
I think this particular item should be removed until it can be integrated (with proper prose and citations...) into a more complete and less biased article.
Any objections / other comments? - Mr. Accident 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair.  Would like to keep it, maybe shortened and defiantly with a reference link.  Joe  I 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I removed the paragraph and added a brief mention of the affair, and an external link to a NYT article. Hopefully this is much less overt but still informative. Also, I think the Coin World investigation could use a citation here. I didn't find anything with a brief search (Coin World doesn't seem to keep very extensive archives), but I plan to look a little harder when I have more time. Mr. Accident 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I independently came to the same conclusions about this page regarding quality and NPOV, so I have added REFERENCE and POV tags, after having created a header to group the controversies.  IMHO, if the statements in the Controversies section are factual and properly referenced, I would have no problem with keeping them here.  However, as Mwakin21 stated, the writing needs an overhaul if it is to be kept.  I also think that this article needs to include additional relevant material about the actual company and its service.  From my perspective, all it says at the moment is they grade coins and have allegedly had issues.  I invite anyone familiar with PCGS to add new sections with appropriate information to make this article more useful.--CheMechanical (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: OMG! This is probably the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Is this 2012 or is it 2006. I'm putting in some seriously-needed fixes to soften the ridiculous POV on the page. Hanxu9 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues?

message: The controversies section needs to be pruned down and stripped of the content that is non-notable and the content that is original research (and there's plenty of both in there). Hanxu9 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I took the liberty of removing the stuff that's neither written from a neutral point of view nor backed up by an accepted source. Unfortunately that didn't leave much left in the controversies section. I have archived the stuff on this talk page, however, so that it can be fixed. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The controversy section in Wikipedia is supposed to be when the disagreement and disapproval of or about someone or something is prolonged and public, and nothing that was in the controversies section other than the FTC matter rose to that level. You've got an agenda that biases you against PCGS -- I get that. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the proper outlet for your agenda. You can create a blog for free these days (do a search on Google or Bing for providers of that), so that's what you're going to need to do rather than continuing to vandalize the PCGS article here on Wikipedia. Hanxu9 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Section 

message: Ref: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The non-sourced "facts" that I have just deleted from the controversies section do not belong in any encyclopedia. A possibly biased, non-scientific study of a few dozen coins graded by grading services 15 years ago is not a valid sample of the 70 million-plus graded by them to date. Info about such a study barely belongs in a newspaper, much less Wikipedia. Also the inclusion of a list of counterfeit holders is likewise a violation of Wiki's polices: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please do not revert any edits until they are first discussed on this page.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper!

message: A troll with a probable axe to grind continues to make libelous and improper edits to this article. Said troll uses a fake IP address, apparently hiding behind a VPN or proxy chain to conceal his identity. For instance, the troll falsely indicates that the subject of the article is "unprofessional and unethical" because they use professional conservation methods (an accepted industry practice), a libelous claim which is not supported by the noted but unlinked source. Such defamation violates WP:LBL and could subject the contributor to a lawsuit. Also, not even one of the edits is properly sourced, and many are not in any way backed by the mentioned but unlinked source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: WP:NOT. And adding lists of trivial facts and reports of minor newspaper stories, and giving uninformed (or any other) opinions, likewise violate: WP:NOT.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Axe to Grind

message: Wondering how much pcgs charges per coin and how long it takes? 2601:196:4902:16A0:E15A:3F19:B434:10A7 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much does Pcgs charge for authentication of coin