Talk:Do You Like Rock Music?

"Typically irreverent fashion"

Biased and unsourced

JD777 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Biased? Okay, I'll accept that, in retrospect, this statement seems to represent more personal opinion than solid fact. By definition, an encyclopedia should provide accurate and truthful information from a neutral viewpoint. In other words, I do not oppose the article being amended for that reason.

On the other hand: unsourced? Don't be so stupid. Pitchfork is nothing if not irreverent, and a quick perusal of Wikipedia's own page on their site provides plenty of evidence to support that: their review of The Heavy Metal Box, awarding it 6.66 out of 10; Eric Carr's review of Robert Pollard's Relaxation of the Asshole, awarding it both 10 and 0 out of 10; the "It's up to you" rating of In Rainbows; the chimpanzee-urinating-in-its-own-mouth review of Jet's Shine On... need I continue? What kind of closed-minded individual thinks near-universal consensus requires some kind of citation?

And more to the point, how exactly do you propose I should source it, if I haven't done so already?

Pitchfork advanced search

Is it not worth noting that on pitchfork.com, using the advanced search you can home in on the album's score. It seems that the score lies between 8.0 and 8.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.8.39 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And now it's 8.2 on Pitchfork.2.100.140.215 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)