Talk:Certified Guaranty Company

message: The reason edited this section was because of the way it was phrased using the second person. It sounded like advertising copy taken directly from the company's site (and indeed included a link to the website). "You can do this...", "You can do that...". This is not an encyclopedic tone. The way that it is phrased now (including the subsequent edit after mine) is much better. Also, I think linking to CGC's website in the lead section is unnecessary as there is already a link to it in the "External links" section. --GentlemanGhost 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet partners and link 

message: Regarding the "Wizard Age" label controversy, this section was phrased very badly. Nothing that is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia should need the preface "This is a true story." That it is "corroborated by Moondog" is hardly a ringing endorsement. Moreover, Internet bulletin boards are considered "self-publishing" and consequently are not considered to be reliable sources. I don't object to the content per se, but if it is to be included, it needs a better source and it needs to be rephrased. --GentlemanGhost 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wizard Age" 

message: This article is really starting to shape up. Thank you!
Doubtless, you will have noticed, however, that I tagged it as POV again. This is for many of the same reasons as before. The criticism section is still much larger than the basic information about the company. This gives undue weight to that point of view. Many of these criticisms still come from message boards, which are not considered reliable sources. It could all be true, but that's not the point. The point is verifiability. Assertions made by a poster on a message board are impossible to verify. Indeed, it's not even possible to verify that a poster is who he or she claims to be. For this reason, message boards are not considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Removing some these unverifiable assertions will help to whittle down the overlong criticism section. --GentlemanGhost 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I have removed the section on CGC "pandering too much to speculators". The only evidence provided for this criticism was a CGC ad and their website's FAQ. Although individually, one may infer things from these sources, it is original research to put one's conclusions into the Wikipedia article. This may be a valid criticism, but it needs to come from a reliable source, not inferred from the primary source. --GentlemanGhost 01:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you find ever find that magazine/newspaper again, I think it would be appropriate to add its information to this Wikipedia article. The problem with this article has been and continues to be that it includes far too much unverifiable material, the preponderance of which is slanted against the company. Published criticisms from verifiable sources such as you mention are far more useful to Wikipedia's users than message board rantings. --GentlemanGhost 11:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the one that he was talking about, because I remember reading it in the Wall Street Journal a few years back.  It can be found here: WSJ: Bang! Pow! Cash!, great read and pretty much dead on about the whole criticism section (which BTW, is way too long).  I have been moth balling my collection, so these articles have been great reads. --Ronb (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The owner of Mile High Comics has written extensively about CGC.  Not totally sure if it meets our requirements for a reliable source, but it might. - Peregrine Fisher 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Maybe we should talk about this on the talk page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit trying to delete the FACTS and there won't be a problem, Jason. Jasonewert 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, the facts are (strangely, but of necessity) less important than verifiability. For a long time, this article has contained a lot of information which has not been backed up by reliable sources. Unfortunately, such information is not really appropriate for Wikipedia. I have not yet looked at the specifics of the current edit war, but I would urge everyone to make sure that they are citing any additions to this page with reliable sources. --GentlemanGhost 22:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Ewert edit war 

message: Just as I thought, you guys aren't even comic book fans. Someone didn't even know CGC started in New Jersey. Sad little boys, pretending you're "in charge" of something. I'm doing what's morally right for the comic community, you guys can keep aiding and abetting the scammers and scum of the comic industry. And you can't stop me...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.35 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your moral crusade is better suited to a blog or a forum, not an encyclopedia article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought 

message: Looks like there's been a template on the article for quite some time about possible POV problems.  Are there still concerns with the article?  Shell   babelfish 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Shell, I overlooked your message the last time I edited this page. Sorry about that. I think that the POV concerns have pretty much been addressed. But I have been loathe to remove the POV tag as I'm trying to avoid even the appearance that I think that I "own" the article. To that end, I had solicited feedback from WikiProject Comics and from an RfC. Initially, the article didn't get much attention, but lately it seems like more people are noticing it, which is great. As far as further improvements, there's still the matter of including exact quotes within the references, several of which stretch the boundaries of what is normally considered a reliable source. But on the POV issue, I think the article is much closer to a neutral point of view than it was a year ago. Someone other than me has removed the POV tag and I think that makes sense. Naturally, the article will continue to evolve and removing the tag does not mean that further improvements cannot be made. Thanks for taking an interest! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check template 

message: Can someone point out where on wikipedia's policies or guidelines it says that you can't have a controversy section on an article?  The section even has an  tag that links to the Wikipedia:TONE#Tone style guideline where it says that the lead should "include mention of notable criticism or controversies" and "They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, (...) including its more important controversies, if there are any."
If the section is not correctly written then the solution is not deleting it all but rewriting it. If the sources are not good then you should try to change them for others and delete the really bad ones.
The "Grading" subsection is very negative and should be moved out of criticism and include both the Comics Guaranty's LLC definition of grading and positive statements about grading (I suppose there must be some somewhere!) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why the tag was added, but another user did a big rewrite to make the article NPOV a while back.  It's a long and sordid tale, but basically this is the version that was agreed upon as being NPOV.  There's a user who adds a bunch of NPOV stuff peridically example diff using various created accounts and as an anon (see history), but that stuff is always reverted out.  There's still work to be done, but this article has been getting a lot better in the past 3 or 4 months.  Basically, that one user added a bunch of bad info, this caused a bunch of cleanup but the job isn't finished.  Anyways, thanks for putting the info back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been so long, I don't even remember if I added the tag, but I certainly agreed with the assessment. The article used to have an extremely negative bent to it, but several of us have tried to bring it to a neutral point of view. I think that it's in workable shape now. It's not perfect, but I haven't had the time to follow up on the suggestions for improvement made here on the talk page. I hadn't removed the NPOV tag because I thought I should allow other unbiased people to take a look at the article. I put it on the RfC list and notified the Comics WikiProject, but it didn't attract much attention. I'm content to have the dispute tag removed as I think the article is considerably more NPOV than it was before, without sacrificing some legitimate criticisms of the company. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This version from February 2007 is indicative of the POV and tone problems which the article used to have. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism sections are allowed 

message: Since we seem to be back to a spate of IP addresses who have a bone to pick with the subject and continue to reinsert material against clear consensus, I've semi-protected for a bit. Shell   babelfish 02:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: As a Wikipedia user with no specific knowledge of comic collecting, I find the Process table confusing. It is stated that CGC grades material from 0.5 to 10, then Definitions defines what A, P, S, M and E denote, but below that is given an example grading "VF/NM 9.0". I'm going to induce that NM is near mint, but am I to guess what VF is or why it is there? 121.45.247.24 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The numbers correspond to more traditional descriptive grades such as "fine", "very fine", "near mint", and "mint". I've added a sentence explaining that and a link to the chart on their website. Also, I removed the "VF/NM" part from the example. Does that make it more comprehensible? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process definitions 

message: One of the most obvious criticisms is that the CGC practice is the ultimate objectification and de-artification of the comic/magazine being graded, because it is sealed permanently and will never be read/viewed again except for the cover. All of the story and interior art are essentially sealed forever for all intents and purposes, as if there were no writer or non-cover artists.  One might as well just encase it in Lucite like a bug in amber. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has made that remark in a reliable source, I'm all for its inclusion. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing an obvious and major criticism 

message: Aside from a strong notion of lacking NPOV, the criticism section lacks reliable references as tagged since 2008. Forums are deemed not acceptable by wikipedia. Most of the references were from collectors society forum board which has 2 glaring issues, one is the reference is coming from the primary source, another is citing a forum.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the use of forums: while I agree that they generally fail to meet the requirement of being reliable sources, I see an exception in cases where employees of CGC make official statements on the forum, using a verified account under their real names. The question then becomes whether or not the citation adds to our understanding of the subject or not. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I've added back one message board thread which was used as a citation in two places. Please see what you think. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Forum and Primary sourcing

message: The following text from the article appear to be the author's personal opinion and an attack on a named individual to boot. Should probably just be removed completely as it doesn't really add anything to the article.
"Critics say that this policy encourages sellers to press comics without disclosing it to buyers. Steve Borock himself refuses to proactively disclose work done on specific comics. Critics ask: if Pressing is no big deal, why don't sellers proactively disclose it? Because they are worried about leaving money on the table. The greediest pressing/restoration expert is Matt Nelson, who also works for Heritage Auctions (where Steve Borock now works). "
62.107.114.13 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 March 2012 

message: Is anybody going to add to or fix this page? Certainly you heard the big Classics Inc/CGC announcement. Plus, the page is really lame, you're missing a bunch of good info. I'd do it myself but, you know, the Nazis got me. You guys talk big but it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Do something!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.2 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, neat! Godwin's law gets proven again. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: A signed book has the potential to valued more than the same book in equal condition
should be  ( could someone fix the grammar? )
A signed book has the potential to be valued more than the same book in equal condition
24.74.72.198 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014 

message: Hi.  I work for CGC Comics and we would like to remove any reference to our company President as it is inaccurate. The reference appears in two places (see below).   
1) "The company was launched in early 2000 and has since gone on to become a notable part of the comic book collecting community. CGC's current President, Mark Haspel, is also the company's primary grader.[2]"
    You could change it to ""The company was launched in early 2000 and has since gone on to become a notable part of the comic book collecting community."
2) "Key people Mark Haspel (President)[1]"
    Please just remove the reference as CGC does not currently have a President position.
Also, please remove "18 years ago" after "Founded January 4, 2000; 18 years ago" located in the upper right corner of the page by our logo where the second time the name Mark Haspel appears (see below).
Type Private
Industry  Collectibles
Founded	January 4, 2000; 18 years ago
Parsippany, New Jersey, U.S.
Headquarters	Sarasota, Florida, U.S.
Area served
Worldwide
Key people Mark Haspel (President)[1]
If you need further information I can be reached at lauries@cgccomics.com
Thank you!
Laurie Lsan242 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Notwithstanding the requestor's declared COI, the requested edit makes sense and checks out with the references that were on the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018 

message: Hello, I'm a CGC representative requesting that "Comics Guaranty" be changed to "Certified Guaranty Company". This appears to be correct everywhere except for the very top title section for the company. Thanks! JSnyderCGCComics (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019 

message: CGC has been banned from E4 due to Astroturfing. Please see evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKSXBt-AXCo&ab_channel=SolemnYuGiOh , https://efour.proboards.com/thread/21152/cgc-employees-astroturfing-e4?page=4 , https://the-comic-book-forum.boards.net/thread/1615/cgc-employees-permanently-banned-astroturfing?page=1&scrollTo=84480  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1FC0:2480:4DCD:8668:54B8:EA2F (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020 

message: I emailed your company at one point or another asking cgc how exactly I go about grading my comic books that I own in my collection at one point or another I owned the world's finest comics issue 73 through 323. And Adventure Comics 155 to 490, and I wanted advice on how exactly to grade my comic books through cgc. And furthermore I can't believe I would be asked if I'm going to keep them or if I'm going to be selling them. What difference does it make if I intend to keep them or sell them? Furthermore since when should I subscribe to your website in order to grade a comic book in my collection since I'm having to pay for the comic book to be graded to begin with having to pay a subscription fee for you to do your job seems ridiculous to me. And when does it take 11 months to a year and a half for an individual trained and certified by cgc to grade comic books? Had it took me 11 months to a year and a half to do my job I'd be fired. Then again I probably wouldn't be here right now I'd probably be dead because I was a soldier in Afghanistan as an Army Ranger. And furthermore how many comic books do you grade per day I know I'm curious to know as well as other people, and how is it that comic book stores online are coming across comic books that are sold and very fine condition I often wonder to myself, if perhaps cgc or other comic book grading companies are opening unclaimed comic books that were sent in to be graded. And cgc is sending these comic books individual businesses opening up selling them to us once again only to be resubmitted to faten their pockets, with a fresh submittal fee to not only faten their pockets but the business as well. And I have one other question for cgc cbcs and PGX and my question is if Gary Moser is indicted by the FBI for trimming baseball cards that is considered a hobby is it not but he did it for a financial gain through PSA I get it hey sports card grading company. So when does it become so coincidental that you are able to do the same exact thing to somebody's intellectual property such as a comic book in their collection by trimming it adding color touch, or even trimming only one side of the comic book I've seen stuff happen with cdc's grading that I often wonder to myself if they come up with new scenarios of how to screw over the little man. This is why a dear friend of mine who has passed away recently his name is Neal Adams, once said to me he frowned upon cgc and everything they have done to the industry he worked for he didn't understand why everybody deserved a golden star book why couldn't it be graded for as it lied and why is it that pressing a comic book is not restoration of a comic book are you not manipulating the way the grade is going to be, to increase the value just like Gary Moser? So I wonder first who gave you permission when you are not on the cover as a artist not as the anchor or the writer of the comic book not even the comic book industry DC Marvel has authorized you to do such a thing I bet you artists don't even know that you're doing this thing to their books because I've asked a few of them and they don't know this is going down! And why is it that you charge such a ridiculous amount of money to grade a comic book but you don't have a authenticator to authenticate a signature on site guess what if I submit a sports card to tops or upper deck at signed by Joe Montana they have a signature authenticator on Deck but you don't, why is that? You would think because you're part of the collectibles grading group you would think that you'd have the same standards as PSA Beckett as anyone else who grades cards or comic books and furthermore why is there no price guide for your purple label your green label comic books furthermore I don't think there's a price guide that's free to the general public for even Blue label books people say use eBay, use Heritage auctions. Well if Heritage auctions banned you from using their account how do you price your items are they the ones who make the overstreet price guide so if they put a ban on your account from being able to value your items then how does one get the value of their comic book? And it's sad to say that I've owned in my collection several vintage video games being a collector of all things being told by individuals for certain companies you have nothing to value when obviously you do have stuff about you and you going to approach these individuals, and they know your vulnerable because your father had just passed away they know you're disabled and they scrutinize you verbally attack you make you feel less than human this nation I want served as an Army Ranger I couldn't believe my ears. Is this the America I swore to protect is this the America you people stand behind people who antagonize victimized and attack disabled Rangers with TBI and PTSD? Why would we give any of these people our money whenever they can't even give you an honest grade? And why is it that CDC has a term to use for the person grading the comic book such as amateur grader, intermediate grader, professional grader? Why is it necessary for you to charge me 10% of the comic book value if it is so scarce and so vintage such as Superman #1 Batman #1 only for you too place it in a 7.5 graded purple label intermediate graded stating that it needed only the right side page two and three trimmed do you know who's comic book you happen to have grade during this time that individual I believe he said he was 11 years old when you bought that book that was his inspiration to go into the comic book industry to draw Batman at a later time in his life his name is Neal Adams, Neal Adams owned a comic book store as well he also sold on eBay. And furthermore worked all the way to the day he died did he get paid like he should have? He got paid just as much maybe a little bit more by a few thousand dollars as much as a school lunch lady! And doing something he enjoyed doing he grew to leave the house for a Comic-Con with a fake smile cuz he had to be there, and basically grew his passion into certain kind of animosity towards the end because of everything it has become today! People don't collect comic books like they should anymore only old time collectors have collections people of the youth only buy to get it graded to flip it so that they can buy the next big thing and cover the bills having a collection is something of the past and that is sad it's not for the love of the comic book The Joy of the person buying the comic book that is why comic books died before the pandemic and we're always dead and if we want to see change we're going to have to start fixing the people who are infringing their rights desecrating the comic book so the individual can never sell it, that is wrong people! This is just my opinion on the matter and furthermore my opinion on the matter why is it that you can't give a military discount we fought for your country didn't we I'm on a fixed income can't grade cause it's too overpriced no enjoyment for me I guess that's just my opinion! Apocalypsegamer (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collecting or selling my comic books you once asked me!