Talk:Publisher's Clearing House

This article seemed pretty negative toward PCH. I marked it for tone because that was the best I could think of; if you think it fits better in another category, please change it. --Leapfrog314 00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Article has since been redone, if anyone ever searches this pass on what you think please :P --Voxeleater 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article rea asif is the best e an advertisement. Examples of this include the heading "ABOUT OUR BUSINESS" and blatantly POV statements about the company. Does anyone else agree and think it should be reverted? --madmardigan53 00:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Using perjoratives like tchotchkes and focusing on a past lawsuit indicates a editorial point of view against the company. The article needs to rewritten to show a neutral point of view 24.27.207.98 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i have received many letters from PCH and i can tell you this is a scam.

Has anyone ever won a prize? [[[User:Lorryballantyne|Lorryballantyne]] 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)]

Sanitized of controversy

User 71.247.102.135 removed some of the controversy surrounding PCH's marketing tactics several revisions ago. Remembering back to what a high-profile news item this issue was at the time, I disagree with the decision to remove this information. Would anyone like to articulate a reason for me not to replace that section? Alki 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never saw the older version, but reading the article just now I was stunned that there was no mention of alleged deceptive advertising practices etc. Whether you agree or not, not covering the controversy at all seems to be an omission bordering on POV. --124.184.252.56 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)