Talk:Pitchfork (website)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

This page is being unfairly attacked

I'm concerned that there's a large initiative to keep this page negative. I have tried to mitigate the amount of criticism posted on the page.

Just look at the links on the page. One goes to the pitchfork site, but the following 3 are all parody sites (including 2 that are almost identical pages). There's no reason to provide this much access to dissenting opinion, considering the article itself is so short.

The final paragraph had the line: "They are also criticized for giving harsh reviews of widely respected albums while favoring certain bands to a hyperbolic extent (most infamously Radiohead)." I find the inclusion of this observation to be absurd. The site is dedicated to album reviews and is thus inherently opinionated. Citing a wide range of opinion is an illigitimate criticism and detracts from the quality of this article.

To whomever is so committed to maintaining ample criticism within this article, please try to come up with something a little more elaborate and helpful than what has been produced thus far.

I am removing the criticism section (as I have done before) because it is little more than another example of the same recurring quality problems visible in past incarnations. I have no personal agenda to pursue; I am not associated with, beholden to, or even a fan of the pitcfork media site. I merely wish to see this wiki page not be a forum for highly opinionated criticism of the site. Gyllstromk 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to get a less POV rewrite of the section. I do think there should be a 'criticism' section, Pitchfork is criticed regularly for being too 'snobby', so to speak. But sections like there were before are indeed too critical.
Husky 23:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that the page is unfairly positive if anything; I'm coming from the article on The Arcade Fire, where there have been a suspicious number of references to Pitchfork and how they helped the band succeed, as well as a baffling anonymous edit that added one of Pitchfork's writers to the list of band members. I think that writers from Pitchfork Media are using Wikipedia for a PR campaign, and we need to counteract it. rspeer 08:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. If you'd take the time to browse the history of this article, you'll see exactly what the neutrality issues were. The article for the Arcade Fire should have no bearing on the appropriateness of this page. I think pitchforkmedia is popular enough that an injection of pro-pitchfork propoganda in wikipedia for mroe PR would be absurd. Gyllstromk 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

'Catchprases'

I removed these 'catchprases', added by User:86.31.50.100. 

* "lol trad-hop amirite?"
* "Why are you crying?"
* "You want special sauce with that boss?"
* "Outlay Josey Wells? Morelike Outlay Gaysey Wells, amirite?"
* "Stoves!"

Husky 00:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentences by

I removed these sentences by User:Meebles. 

Pitchfork is most popular with college students and the urban subculture known as hipsters.
The  site has often faced criticism for what some readers see as self-indulgent and 
impenetrable prose.

Although 'college students' and 'hipsters' would seem to be the target audience, we haven't got any source to veryify that from. Husky (talk page) 10:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

10 Category relevant?

I question the relevancy of the 10.0 category. There is no explanation in the text for why this appears, and it seems to break the otherwise nice flow and conciseness of the article. I suppose it might serve as a representation for the site's preferences, but, as I said, this is not explained in the article. Furthermore, they provide top 10/50 lists at the end of each year, which actually represent a collection of all the staff writer's opinions (and not just 1, in the case of the 10 ratings). Please share your thoughts on this subject. Gyllstromk 15:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite relevant. I've always been looking for a list that summons up all 10 ratings by Pitchfork. We might move it to a seperate article if it becomes too long though. Husky (talk page) 22:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about relevance, but to me, it's interesting and stuff. Maybe it doesn't belong here though. Maybe there could be a page listing the albums given "perfect" scores by a few popular sites, to include 5 star ratings by rolling stone and 5 star ratings by AMG along with 10.0 ratings by pitchfork? But I guess that might be a bit crufty. There definately should be links to the yearly top-whatever lists. --Qirex 13:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No way is this relevant. If people want to find the 10.0 ratings they can go to Pitchfork.com and search for 10.0 reviews. Links shouldn't be given for year end lists either. The current trends in Pitchfork taste should have no relevance upon the article, unless Pitchfork suddenly changes the musical genres it reviews. Really, people can find this information themselves. Get rid of this. --Locatelli 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, i've been searching for this list on Pitchfork. It isn't there, you can't search by ratings on Pitchfork, which makes such as list useful IMHO. Husky (talk page) 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Try entering "10.0" into the search criteria at Pitchfork under the "Reviews" search category. And even if that trick didn't let you see all the 10.0 reviews, this list still has no relevance to the article. What is Wikipedia trying to do with this information? It seems like an advertisement of what Pitchfork likes rather than anything useful. If the list is here only to give an indication as to Pitchfork's tastes, the list is redundant as such information is already in the main article. Furthermore, it can be gleaned from a visit to the website. This list is trivial and it is cruft.--Locatelli 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Restore the 10.0 list

The list of 10.0 ratings was by far the most informative and useful aspect of the Pitchfork Media entry. To me, removing it seems like censorship. Your argument that the artistic flow of the article was hindered by something appearing *at the end of the main body* is absurd. I want information, not an entry that pleases you.

You said you removed it because noone had a counterargument. Well, here is your counterargument: some of us would rather it be there.

That was quick. 171.65.18.1519, you obviously seem very passionate about this issue. I'm not interested in an edit war, however, to counterpoint your argument I'll say some of us don't want it there. Secondly, I never made the argument about "artistic flow," but it does seem tacked on at the end without much explanation. Furthermore, if you go to other articles about music criticism websites and magazines (I checked the articles for Stylus, Rolling Stone, and Spin), there is no analogous list of Greatest Hits or Four Star Albums or whatnot. Why should Pitchfork's be different? Honestly, your claims of censorship are disingenuous at best. I respect Pitchfork, but I don't think it is censorship to prevent a Wikipedia article from becoming an advertisement for the tastes of another website, particularly if said article is given this privilige above other articles. Now, these arguments don't mean the list should be eliminated completely. Another user above this suggested making a separate article with a link to this new article in the Pitchfork Article proper. I'd be willing to do that once I have some time, or you or someone else can do it sooner. I will do this soon, however, if it is not done by someone else, and I'll do it not only because it pleases me, but because it seems more in keeping with what I know of Wikipedia. --Locatelli 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's vote about it (see right beneath here). Husky (talk page) 23:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading your reply, Locatelli, and rereading my posting, I apologize for being snippy this morning. The comment about artistry versus censorship was motivated by this line:

"and it seems to break the otherwise nice flow and conciseness of the article" But I now see you did not write that. Yes, I see there are numerous opinions on both sides.

For me, the most important way to gague a review site is to see if you agree with them. The albums they give their highest ratings to constitute the perfect benchmark, I think. (For example, I've purchased several albums based on Rolling Stone giving them five stars, and been disappointed.)

Linking to the top ten list in another article is fine with me, although my vote is that it belongs here.

'salright, I was a bit snippy in earlier comments myself. I agree with you about benchmarks, but conditionally. Tastes change. Pitchfork changed their reviews to reflect current trends in music(In the Aeroplane Over the Sea received an 8.7 score[1](though I could have sworn it was even less when I first read it many years ago) and a lukewarm write-up, but the original review has been deleted from their servers), much like many music magazines have suddenly returned to praising Morrissey after ignoring him for almost ten years. Cataloguing scores is interesting from an academic point of view, but I'm not sure if that is within the scope of Wikipedia since it is quite fickle. Perhaps I'm too strict, but this information seems to cement Pitchfork's tastes, which might do a diservice to Pitchfork as well as Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next ten years of Pitchfork this list is vastly different. Anyone remember the Rapture? Then again, perhaps Wikipedia should be a repository for this information. We've put up articles about Rolling Stone's notorious "Top albums of all time" lists, and I'm unsure of those as well. I can't deny it's interesting, but I think some information is encyclopedic and other information is not. I'll yield to democracy on this one. Thanks for setting up the vote, Husky.
--Locatelli 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipinion/PFMS (added)

I just added some info to the History section about the site's former messageboard. In case the relevance is disputed, let me note:

  • The messageboard continues to exist (as "hipinion") and is one of the net's larger boards (see [2])
  • The board was originally created by Pitchforkmedia, hosted by Pitchforkmedia, and generally considered a part thereof, thus making it part of the site's history
  • The board, while not notable enough for its own entry (see AfD/Hipinion), has been referenced repeatedly on the parent site, including many times after it was removed from that site (due to bandwidth overuse), and has also generated some humor that received outside attention (particularly a spoof that was published in Harper's, which I can look up and cite here if anyone wants)
  • The board still counts many former and present PF writers as members/posters
  • The board still features more PF-related discussion than any other on the 'net

I am not a member of the current community, for what it's worth. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)



I removed the statement that the co-editor is "Scott Colton." Pitchfork's staff page makes no mention of this person, and the editor's other edits have been weighted toward vandalism. Joyous 23:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This article has bizarrely been the subject of sporadic vandalism for quite some time now. Be ruthless in removing anything that's even halfway suspect. Everyking 01:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the basic reason behind the vandalism is that Pitchforkmedia spawned a large attendant forum/community, which was rather roughly spun off at an early point in its history, thus engendering some degree of bitterness toward the parent site. Over time, the Pitchfork-exile community grew and lost much of its original focus on music (which had always been a tertiary subject of discussion), eventually devoting itself mainly to humor and pranksterism. The community currently resides at [3] - periodic vandalism from hipinionites will likely continue at this page, especially since the deletion of the wikipedia "hipinion" article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 06:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Buddy we do not care don't worry about it --Alex
Pitchfork has a very biased slant; they like going against the grain to make their opinions stand out. But of course, if a band is universally acclaimed (like The Arcade Fire) they'll make sure that they jump on the praise bandwagon, so that it won't hurt their reputation. Just compare PF reviews to other credited sources and you'll notice this trend. --Madchester 15:30, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
Rock journals are inherently biased. That's the point of a unique music publication; what reason would there be for a journal to publish opinions fully expressed elsewhere. As an indie magazine, they favor experimental, innovative material to watered-down mainstream options such as Coldplay; that is the more substantiated trend. I find they're often on the money with this. Your example regarding the Arcade Fire is backwards; PF was one of the first available reviews of the Arcade Fire, and they played a pivotal role in getting the album the exposure that made is such a success to begin with. --Karl


The last section about Pitchfork's slant against mainstream music is just plain wrong. They give higher grades to Britney Spears/etc. and various mainstream rappers than they do many or most independant bands. --B. Phillips 13:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In indie circles I believe this is generally considered part of Pitchfork's "shtick". This is not to say that one cannot base a coherent body of criticism on appreciating both obscure indie rock, experimental music, and intricately produced pop; but I would agree with the conjecture that they are certainly playing up this synergy specifically to make their collective opinion more notorious. And what the hell, I sure dig it. Decklin 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


This page is a little biased. There is no credit in half the text being dedicated to criticisms, most of which seem to be conjecture anyway. Twice on the page, there are links to parody sites that offer nothing in the way of the "contrary opinion" we should expect from a good "criticism" section; their presence seems only to reflect the personal opinion of the contributer. Perhaps more importantly, the writing of this section is distinctly inferior to the first section. I do not see this section as necessary, but if it were, I see little to be salvaged from it by the next incarnation. There is hence no clear reason to keep this section. --Karl

You might be right. Anyway, for anyone's who's interested here's the old text: (Husky 16:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
Pitchfork has been criticised for what some consider an elitist approach to music, and a narrow focus on bands and genres (Something Awful's parody notes Pitchfork's enthusiasm for Radiohead). Their publication of David Cross's somewhat critical article suggests an awareness and acceptance of this reputation. Pitchfork has also taken criticism for the exactness of its 100-point rating scale (a decimal is added to the more traditional 1-10 grading scale), as well as the site's general editorial extremity: When the site loves an artist, it tends to fawn; when it dislikes an artist, it holds them at a level of contempt that could be considered outright cruel. Additionally, Pitchfork's slant towards independent music is perceived by many to be unfair, as reviews of albums by mainstream artists are frequently lambasted by the site even when the consensus from other publications is that said albums are of high quality. On the other end of the spectrum Pitchfork is considered rockistic, and favouring the 'indie mainstream' compared to fanzines and other smaller publications.

"Bjork - Homigenic" Perfect 10?

I swear I remember that Homogenic was originally rated 10.0 on Pitchfork, but was at some point later (at least 2-3 years ago) reduced to a 9.9. Am I crazy, or does anyone else recall this? Pimlottc 08:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are getting crazy :). See: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/bjork/homogenic.shtml Husky (talk page) 12:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Arcade Fire Reference

There is no need to single out the arcade fire as a band made solely by pitchfork. a) they had a significant following prior to funeral's pitchfork review b) they got a nine point....six i think? either way, why wouldnt a band who got a 10.0 be listed as the pitchfork poster band? trail of dead maybe? c) there is no way to prove that a band's popularity derived solely from pitchfork. sure, it helped, but...theres just no need for the comment. Strawberryfire 11:19, 08 May 2006 (UTC)

The Arcade Fire's debut album, "Funeral," became the fastest-seller in the 15-year history of the North Carolina indie label Merge Records after Pitchfork gave it a 9.7 review last summer. Soon after, "Funeral" became the first Merge album to crack the Billboard Top 200 album chart.
"The degree to which it took off is unprecedented for any record on our label," Merge executive Martin Hall says. "After the Pitchfork review, it went out of print for about a week because we got so many orders for the record." [4] (Chicago Tribune profile of Schreiber & Pitchfork)

If Merge Records says the Pitchfork review helped sales, that's verifiable and sourced. It doesn't mean that the Pitchfork review was the only factor, but it meets Wikipedia guidelines to include it.--Dhartung | Talk 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Content twice removed without explanation

Relevance and notability of content described above, in "hipinion/PFMS" section. Bill Oaf 08:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition of New Sections

I feel the section relating to criticism could be a lot better expressed. On another note I have added an as-yet unfinished section relating to the Rating System. As at the moment it is not in a completed state is might not seem very useful or interesting, but I hope to finish it as soon as and link news stories, blogs and other sites relating to discussion of the rating system. In the near future I hope to footnote and reference sources properly in this entry. --195.137.34.168 on 21 August 2006 (London)

Link changes

Well, we have what appears to be a really annoying problem on our hands. With Pitchfork's recent change of page layout it seems that all links to articles whether they be reviews, news or whatnot are now defunct. As many album pages link to a certain Pitchfork review I guess this means we have to go through and fix them all. Wonderful.--Lairor 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. It seems to have only been a temporary issue. All links a-OK.--Lairor 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it seems that no links are working anymore. Pitchfork seem to be having problems with the new site design.--User:TRM-G 20:20, 31 Aug 2006 (GMT)

Criticism, redux

The writer (currently @ ip 172.130.151.251) of the lengthy, pov-laiden, overdone criticism section continues to try and re-insert in into the article. It's faaaaaaaar too long, specific, and grouchy. What is wrong with the current two paragraphs? They concisely state issues some people have with the site, and point to David Cross' satire.

Do remember that Pitchfork is just a web site, and you may be a little obsessed at the moment. It's made-fun of plenty, and in my opinion deserves the ridicule, but it certainly doesn't deserve a criticism section that adds up to more than the rest of the article. --207.121.36.112 22:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Album Leaks on Pitchfork's server

It appears that Pitchfork had a lot of unreleased albums uploaded to their server for reviewing purposes. Just recently the server was discovered and unsecured, which meant full public access. The server is inaccessible now, but it has resulted in the leak of many albums. One leaked album that has reached full circulation is Johanna Newsome's latest album. Could someone please articulately document this? 60.230.161.164 05:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jet's Shine On IS a 0.0

I assumed from the review it was a 0.0 and added to the appropriate column. Perhaps someone wants to mention it in the discussion of ratings. I think it should be removed from its own "Chimp Peeing its Mouth" category on the page, given the obvious rating implied.

Also- if you search for maximum score "0.0" and artist "Jet" on the reviews part, you come up with Shine On. There can be little doubt that this means a 0.0 rating.

Makes sense to put it under the 0.0 column, but its clear that the reviewer deliberately didn't give it a rating to imply it didn't deserve one, hence its different from albums which got a 0.0 and we should make note of that without making too much of a big deal about it. Brendanfox 08:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Added lists underneath the feature links. Top 5 for 1960, 1970 and 1980, while added 10 for the 1990, including a comparison between the redux and original. BurningZeppelin 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

Is there any info on PF's revenue? Do they pay writer's for their submissions? Just wondering? Thank you 212.2.170.81 23:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know they do not. You get albums sent to you to review but no pay. Their office staff (editors and whatnot) here in Chicago do get paid from what I can tell but I can ask some people and find out. I don't think there are any good sources for it though so probably can't be included. --Rtrev 01:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't think they were. In that case their 2 reviews a week from writers is a bit demanding, considering they all have other jobs and such. 194.125.35.146 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Scheiber said in one interview that they got paid for their reviews, like $20 or $40. An acquaintance of mine is a news contributor and he doesn't get paid for that. Check out the links for more info.

Annoying

Who removed the damn top5/top10 lists? And the 9.9 lists? Stop trying to be so elitist and actually think about what people would like to see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BurningZeppelin (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and also the quotes relating to scores out of 10. Why remove that? BurningZeppelin 09:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

These parts have now been replaced and updated. -User:TRM-G

Commercial?

Why does the Infobox identify Pitchfork as non-commercial? The site's copyright goes to Pitchfork, Inc., and I'm just going to go ahead and assume they are not incorporated as a non-profit. Is there any reason why the infobox shouldn't be edited to identify Pitchfork as a commercial web site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trunkalunk (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree, from what I know they are a regular old commercial entity. However, I have no cite for either commercial or non-commercial status. I am not even sure how to look that up. So until someone can clarify I am just going to remove the designation all together. --Rtrev 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Original 90s list.

The URL to the original list is now a link to the redux. I think it's impossible to find the original now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.168.243 (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

"Bootleg Series 4: Royal Albert Hall" 10/10?

From what I see, there isn't even a review of this album on the website, as the only Bob Dylan albums they have reviewed were Bootleg Series 6,7 and Modern Times. I deleted it from the article, but why has it been allowed up there so long? BurningZeppelin 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It used to be there: http://web.archive.org/web/20040604135459/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/dylan_bob/bootleg-series-volume-4.shtml

but must have gotten lost at some point, maybe when pitchfork changed to the new look website??

"Internet music journalism" Section

I trimmed this list down. I removed the entries that do not have wikipedia pages. My view is that this list should be a nice short list with a few of the key sites. This is not the place for an exhaustive list and it looks like it was being used for external link spam. Do people think it is good as is? I am temted to maybe trim out a couple more. I also commented around the list to hopefully keep it in check. --Rtrev 13:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In Rainbows?

Is this 10.0 or 0.0 or somewhere in between? (Their rating was "Choose your rating") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.74 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you click on "choose", the rating of 9.3 is revealed. --Padraic 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One day..

..They'll probably come out as a hoax and they'll be laughing their asses off. On the other hand, it probably isn't. How do they get by? Everybody hates them....

People hate them but that doesn't stop people from wanting to know what Pitchfork's opinion is on such-and-such album.--Lairor 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
When their rating is constantly a good four points away from the average rating (like for Muse's Black Holes and Revelations), people start to ignore it a bit. Why do Pitchfork scores even appear on Wikipedia anyway? Its not *really* a professional music publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.36.206 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2004?

This article begins a sentence with "Since the popular resurgence of "indie" music in 2004..." Where could anyone possibly find a reference to prove that indie music experienced a resurgence in 2004. Perhaps it has been experiencing a resurgence lately, or in the early 2000's (either of which would still need a reference) but there is absolutely nothing special about 2004 that could lead anyone to pin that year as the year. Yes, I know that Funeral was released then, but the Arcade Fire can hardly be deemed responsible for a so-called "resurgence" in indie music. I recommend that this line be deleted. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorial Policy

What exactly is meant by the sentence "Pitchforkmedia.com features no editorial policy"? Does it mean there are no editors who look over writing before it is put up? (I don't think so, I believe I have seen an editors notes in one of their reviews) Does it mean that reviews are checked for facts, spelling, and grammer, but the reviewer staff are given free reign with the style of their writing (plausible)? Does it mean that there is a policy, it is just internal? Are there any reliable sources that can shed light on this? AfD hero (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Best New Music archive and Recommended sections?

Pfork used to archive all of their Best New Music selections all the way back to 2004. Additionally, they used to have a section placed directly underneath the Best New Music selections titled "Recommended." Both now seem to have disappeared, but I can't find any mention of their disappearance on the site itself. Anyone have a clue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.192.10 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The lists

Someone re-added the giant list of links to various lists that the site has done. Personally, I feel it's inappropriate for the page. It doesn't have any encyclopedic value, and serves only to promote articles on the site, which goes against WP:NOT. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hanson and Cold War Kids Reference

The Hanson reference is obviously bullshit. What about Cold War Kids? I doubt pitchfork had a part in "breaking" these guys into the mainstream when they gave both LPs '5.0' and '5.1', anybody have any more info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.35.248.134 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Pitchformula Source

The information that we've got from Pitchformula is now more than five years old. It almost seems irrelevant considering that it is half of the site's lifetime ago and before Pitchfork really blew up. Do we have any better way to get this kind of information? 141.161.164.239 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. Aervanath (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • With the new design it appears Pitchforkmedia has officially become Pitchfork. Pitchforkmedia.com now redirects to Pitchfork.com and Pitchfork is named everywhere rather than Pitchforkmedia. I would be bold and move it myself but am not sure what the best bracket to put after it is. Jellypuzzle | Talk 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. I believe the company's official name is still Pitchfork Media. But when talking or writing about it, most people refer to it as just Pitchfork. Especially with the URL change, people might be more likely to recognize Pitchfork (website) than they would Pitchfork Media. –Megaboz (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I support a move to the disambiguated version of the commonly used form of the name (Pitchfork (website)).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I suggested the move to Pitchfork (website), the problem we face with moving it there is that Pitchfork Media (or Pitchfork, that remains to be seen) also has Pitchfork TV and a book. There are probably going to be more things like this which, while possibly not notable enough to have their own articles, would sit oddly on a Pitchfork (website) page. This current page, however, will not do either as "Pitchfork Media, usually known simply as Pitchfork, is a Chicago-based daily Internet publication devoted to music criticism and commentary, music news, and artist interviews." would probably have to be changed to a (less sloppy) take on "Pitchfork Media is a Chicago-based firm responsible for an internet music magazine, music television station and a book about music." Jellypuzzle | Talk 07:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • First, decide what the scope of the article is to be. Then, decide in terms of policy what the article name should be. Note particularly that official names don't count for much. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I think that mostly points to Pitchfork but the fact that we'd have to disambiguate it might make it too much hassle. If this does stay at Pitchfork Media I do think we should rewrite at least the intro to make it more about the whole company. I forgot about the festival previously which has its own entry. Jellypuzzle | Talk 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Site Redesign

The article doesn't make a whole lot of note of the recent site redesign, and it's largely irrelevant except that, with it, they have removed all of their pre-2000 reviews. Now a number of their more exciting/funny/daring 10.0s are missing, and you really can't find the most interesting part of the site's career. 208.253.155.193 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims of original research

Regarding my reference in Ratings section. First, my reference is in accordance with the claim made in the article -- nothing below 8.0 since 2003. Second, I honestly don't see how my claim, which is referenced, constitutes original research. It has been attributed "to a reliable, published source," and it does not "contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources," which clearly list ratings in chronological order. Grunge6910 (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You claim is entirely original research. You are taking a series of data points from a primary source that is making no claims about the data and analysising them to come up with your claim how the data points are related. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. What you're doing is original research, which is not accepted as means to support claims made on Wikipedia. There are no sources to fully support your claim, only sources that suggest there are exceptions to the claim you've made.Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Racial stereotypes?

well, I've read the deleted review that was supposed to contain 'racial stereotypes', and I think it was more a reference to Kubrik's A Clockwork Orange, seeing as it is, quite obviously, written from the perspective of Alex DeLarge: "It was me and my four droogs. Them bein’ Peter, Georgio and Dim; Dim being really Dim." 80.101.151.223 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Notice of requested move for Pitchfork-related page

I nominated the article Pitchfork 500 : Our Guide to the Greatest Songs from Punk to the Present to be moved to the simpler name The Pitchfork 500. Further explanation can be found at the talk page. Please add input if you are interested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism (again)

User:172.162.231.232 added a large section to this article, and i think his/her additions are generally good, but a 'criticism' section was also added which is, unfortunately, again quite POV. I removed it to the talk page and sended a message to the user, maybe we can try to write a better one. Husky 14:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed text:

Pitchfork is both highly read and highly criticized. Its opinions are often controversial among music fans, especially on Internet message boards and blogs. The site's decimal ratings system and exhaustive lists are sometimes seen as irrationally reasoned or silly. Its contributors' writing styles have been mocked by some for being, among other things, show-offy and solipsistic; poor ripoffs of Lester Bangs; overreliant on namedropping obscure bands and nebulous genre names; laughably over the top in their praise and their metaphors; and simply bad, pretentious writing. Pitchfork readers rarely call its writers uninformed, but they sometimes complain that the reviewer spends so much time trying to make the review creative that they fail to get the essence of the music across. These stereotypical criticisms of Pitchfork writing, although often directed at the entire site, generally only apply to certain writers on the staff. The word "hipster" is often used to describe Pitchfork writers' tastes and their sometimes offhandedly in-the-know writing style. Buzzwords, slang, and references to lesser known bands tend to make some reviews impenetrable to the uninitiated.

Pitchfork has also been attacked as a biased source due to its indie rock focus, although Pitchfork itself has never claimed to be objective. For example, while increasingly open to mainstream hip-hop and chart pop, which are now reviewed regularly, it has been accused of being unfairly dismissive of mainstream rock artists and unfairly harsh toward underground hip-hop. Some say Pitchfork at various times has focused on hyping and grade-inflating specific scenes such as NYC-based indie rock, "freak-folk," and dance-punk to the detriment of its wider ranging music coverage in all genres.

Critics of the site tend not to assert that Pitchfork is "rockist" in the traditional sense (although most of its writers come initially from a rock background), but rather that it intentionally tailors its opinions in order to retain a cutting edge image, choosing either to champion music or to criticize it in a highly inconsistent way as much dependent on whim, knee-jerk reaction, or social climate as on the quality of the music itself.

For example, there have also been criticisms lately that Pitchfork year-end and best-of-decade lists do not reflect the true sum of all contributions to them but are similarly tailored and pandering. It has been asserted that 2003 and 2004 polls declaring albums by The Rapture and the Arcade Fire, respectively, to be the best of those years, were rigged by editors in order to continue building the site's own popularity along with that of those bands. Some point as proof to the Rapture's very low position and the Arcade Fire's position dozens of places lower in the "Best Albums of 2000-2004," one month later than the 2004 poll and voted on by largely the same writers. Presumably, in the reasoning of these critics, the later 2000-2004 poll either was not rigged or was rigged to emphasize different, then-trendier bands.

Regardless of passing trends, Pitchfork's continuing devotion to certain sacred cows of indie rock is well documented. After a while, readers of the site tend to enjoy it because of, rather than in spite of, its systemic bias. Many Pitchfork critics have simply moved on from the site as they grew out of its cherished assumptions. The layout change that makes pages take days to load didn't help either. :(

Thank God Pitchfork helped contribute to the reputation of such underground unknown acts as Brian Wilson and Miles Davis! Those two probably would have wallowed in insignifica t'were not for the indie funsters.

I added that section. True, the criticism section being so large could be seen as POV, but I added it because the first half of the article (History) appeared incredibly biased, not so much in what it says but in the wording. It comes off like Pitchfork editors or staffers came here and wrote it in their own words so as to advertise the site, one of those problems you sometimes find in Wikipedia. It sounds like a press release. There is tons of irrelevant but very positive sounding stuff in it.

I think the criticism of the site is essential to any article about it (much more essential than a history of when Ryan Schreiber did what-- who cares), even if the section needs to be reduced and made more specific. If we're going to explain how Pitchfork is becoming increasingly influential, as it is, we can't leave out the criticisms of it that always echo up. Particularly because Pitchfork itself is only based online, even if negative opinions are largely confined to blogs, message boards and such, they are still very relevant. Furthermore, besides that last couple paragraphs which were overzealous and a bit of a joke, I don't think my criticism paragraphs create an unfairly negative picture in reader's minds about the site; I don't even think the site's own writers or editors would contest them, as they seem to revel in being widely talked about, whether in positive or negative terms. Without the criticism section, or at least a couple sentences summing it up, people might not get an idea what could be the least bit controversial about a site that does so much in popularizing indie music. But the fact remains, many do take the site with many grains of salt for reasons I've stated, or even look with disdain on it. Just as an article on evolution is going to mention the controversy it causes, however above debate it is from a scientific perspective, so should an article on this site mention criticisms of it, however influential it is. In fact, BECAUSE of how influential it is. If we need more sourcing, that I understand, but the ideas need to stay. -A.

I do not disagree that there should be a criticism section, i just think the one you provided was too POV. A sentence like
Its contributors' writing styles have been mocked by some for being, among other things, show-offy  
and solipsistic; poor ripoffs of Lester Bangs; overreliant on namedropping obscure bands and 
nebulous genre names; laughably over the top in their praise and their metaphors; and simply bad, 
pretentious writing
Is not in the style articles on Wikipedia should be written. If you want to rewrite your contribution, you could try reading the policy at WP:NPOV. Husky 18:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


I think the article would be better with the text - I'm not saying it's NPOV, but it's better than what we have now. People should improve on it, which is hard to do when it's hidden in here. I'm going to add it back to the article, and I think someone should fix what they can and remove the stuff that cannot be fixed. 72.130.177.246 07:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


I definitely still think the top introduction in the criticism section is pretty damn subjective... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.251.22 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating Opinion as Fact section

I've removed the section Stating Opinion as Fact. The claim that "Many of these criticisms stem from Pitchfork's limited adherence to journalism ethics and standards, which are often judged based on Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel's book The Elements of Journalism" is a clear-cut example of WP:NOR, because the use of Kovach and Rosentiel is clearly an "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." No criticism advanced in this article uses Kovach and Rosentiel; if they did, this would not be OR. But as it is, the use of that book is an original "synthesis." Grunge6910 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pitchfork Festival 2010

This event should probably be included. I'm sorry I can't, but just don't have the availability right now. Phenylphree (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Misinformation

I think this section needs serious review. M.I.A. has come under reevaluation after a recent NY Times piece. [[5]] Additionally, the references in this article don't really support the statements made at all, in my opinion. [Off topic, I am slightly surprised Pitchfork hasn't stepped in here.] Phenylphree (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New 10.0

I just wanted to point out that as of 11/25/10, the newest Kanye West album had not been listed under this page's 10.0 list, despite the album earning a 10.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.251.146 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please update the list of 10.0 albums?

John Coltrane - Last Olatunji Concert (10.0):

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/1550-the-olatunji-concert-the-last-live-recording/

Kanye West - My beautiful (big pile of shit album) dark fantasy (10.0):

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14880-my-beautiful-dark-twisted-fantasy/

I'm not great at edits (noob) 59.101.205.233 (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Vote on the 10.0 section

What should happen with the current '10.0 Ratings' section on the Pitchfork Media article?

Keep it where it is

  • . Husky (talk page) 23:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC). We might move it to a seperate article if it becomes too long though.
  • I'd just like to say that I found the list of 10.0 ratings very informative, and, as far as I know, unavailable anywhere else. Ozphactor 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • when i visited the page a month ago i was disappointed not to see a list. i think it's a good feature for the article. rcsey
  • Keep. It illustrates the typical content and editorial tone of PF, and is a useful reference in itself. I would move it to a new article only if this article as a whole becomes too long. --Paul079 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's informative and gives users a good idea of what they consider the best of the best. What is a music review site without its opinions? What is a concise article on said music review site without a list of what it considers the best of the best?
  • I'm all for keeping it. This is one of the early articles I read on wikipedia when I was still figuring out what the site was all about and I found the 10.0 list very useful. While I later figured out that I could search PF for 10 and 9 scores, I never thought of doing so until I'd read this article. --Cljim22 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think we should edit the re-releases to reflect their original ratings, too. Perhaps place it in brackets, so it's not just a list that one can find on their website by hitting "search - at least - 10.0"
  • Keep. I think it's the perfect section to properly showcase the hypocrisy and bullshit pretentious reviews that Pitchfork is becoming best known for. Esteemed critics say that "Rolling Stone mag is the death of music" then Pitchfork is the over-analysis of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.205.233 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete it

  • Delete, I think. If I understand the discussion correctly, Pitchfork changes the ratings it gives to things over time. If so, it's too transitory to be encyclopedic. Nareek 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Pitchfork does not change their ratings for any individual album but some albums are re-released or released in a slightly different form and get reviewed by another writer who may or may not have a different opinion. --Rtrev 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to a seperate article linked from the main article

  • Just as the Rolling Stones lists have their respective articles, this should be somewhere else too --Locatelli 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a bit crufty, and doesn't seem to belong here, but it's harmless and kind of interesting. How does that test go? "an article merits inclusion if it is at least as important as a pokemon creature" or something. --Qirex 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Professional reviews

Is Pitchfork really considered a Professional review site? It’s all bit of a joke isn’t it? --202.47.51.45 23:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually metacritic don't include their reviews in their "average proffesional score" system, so you see how serious it is considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.52.74 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And why on earth are its facile, irrelevant ranks being included in summary boxes on Wikipedia pages of albums?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.53.97 (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Their Pick For Best Song of 1962

Actually seems to be "She Thinks I Still Care" by George Jones. It's the earliest true 1962 track I could find on the 60's list, coming in at #127. Roy Orbison's "Crying" was clearly released in 1961, but is misprinted on Pitchfork's site as 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crying_(Roy_Orbison_song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.68.52 (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list every album awarded a 9.0 or higher?

This takes up a huge portion of the article and seems a bit obsessive. The Rolling Stone article doesn't have anything about albums that have received high ratings, nor does Spin... Methinks someone is a bit too obsessed with what Pitchfork thinks. ;o NIRVANA2764 (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion the article should show at most the 10.0 and 0.0 scores; the rest is hugely excessive. I tried removing it myself a long time back, but it was quickly reverted, and I didn't feel like arguing. thebogusman (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


i completely agree, i just removed them and someone instantly added them back and tagged my edits as "vandalism." keeping these lists in the article is a joke. notice they keep reverting it and sending me threats, but they are too cowardly to defend their actions here.158.81.13.145 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not necessary and they take up some space, but they don't hurt the credibility of the article, the space issue really isn't that important, and it's really convenient for people like myself who want to see said information. I say restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.202.141 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Make it a separate article.74.226.86.243 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't even think it needs a separate article. It's non-vital information, and like many people have pointed out, Rolling Stone doesn't have that kind of a list, so why should this article?

So what if it's non-vital information? Wikipedia is full of non-vital information. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ice_Type_Pokemon74.250.17.82 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That other articles suck is not a reason to have this article suck too. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because Rolling Stone doesn't have a list of albums with 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean that we should hold this article to that standard. The XXL hip hop magazine article has a list of the albums given the rating "XXL". If it's breaking some Wikipedia guide lines, just site it and this thing will be over. If not, it is information so just let it stay on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.202.141 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is information and citable does not mean it belongs in an encyclpedia article. And, dependance on the primary source of the topic of the article for article content is a bad thing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize this has already been removed, but I want to agree... especially considering the "loose" rating system on Pitchfork and the large number of anonymous/pseudonymous reviewers than generated content for the site prior to 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.101.144 (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section is imprecise

I see that for some time people have been having issues with the criticism section of this article. I have encountered a lot of anecdotes about Pitchfork being lame in my life, but how can this be included in the article better? I need to take this paragraph out: "One common complaint is that the site's journalism suffers from a narrow view of independent music, favoring lo-fi and often obscure indie rock and giving only cursory treatment to other genres.[8] Some critics have accused the site of rating albums from particular music scenes or artists more favorably in order to bolster its influence when the music becomes popular.[9]" It is too weasel wordsy to be saved, and there is not reason for it. Can it be cited better instead of "one common complaint," how about "this specific person has commented on" So I suppose it has to be made into a better paragraph and I am going to do it. But the question is, are these sentiments a fringe view? or are they worth making encylopedic and saving Puppyotto (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

10.0: Where'd it go?

I see the 10.0 listing has vanished. How odd. We were in the middle of voting: it was 3 in favor of keeping it, 2 in favor of posting it elsewhere, and linking to it from here, and 0 (zero) in favor of deleting it.

Then it was deleted. Viva democracy.

I'd like to see it return, but I am not going to do it, just to see it vanish again. If you deleted it, would you please at least post it separately, and link to it from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.18.151 (talk • contribs)

It was deleted by an anonymous user. I reverted it back. We'll keep it there until the vote is over. Husky (talk page) 14:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been deleted again. You're being just as biased as you say Pitchfork is by deleting this list/stem. If you're going to remove it, why can't you just link it to a separate page so it's a win-win situation? I really don't understand the battle and hostility here. I think it is a good documentation of Pitchfork's tastes and albums that were big in the indie circuit during a particular year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.94.231 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Pitchfork Media → ? – I find it a bit odd that this article is titled Pitchfork Media when the website is far more commonly known as simply Pitchfork. With WP:COMMONNAME in mind, I suggest it is renamed to Pitchfork (publication) or similar. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pitchfork is more than a publication. I believe that the current name clearly identifies the topic and a name change is unwarranted.Dan arndt (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original research

Unless you can find secondary sources that discuss how Pitchfork changed/deleted ratings, this entire section is based on stringing together primary sources, which is a kind of original research WP does not allow. (diff) czar 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Section re-re-removed ... WP:NOR issues are fairly blatant here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pitchfork Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2016

Pitchfork Media → ? – This article is currently titled Pitchfork Media when the website itself has completely abandoned that title. The site was originally located at PitchforkMedia.com but is now at Pitchfork.com. None of their products include "Media" after Pitchfork anymore. They always identify themselves simply as Pitchfork every time they mention their name, or anyone else does. Considering WP:COMMONNAME, I suggest it is renamed to Pitchfork (website), Pitchfork (publication), or something more relevant. One issue that has come up, is that many users have gone to great lengths as to keep the name as Pitchfork Media in ratings boxes on album pages citing piping WP:PIPE as an issue. That is legitimate, however the real issue is that the article title is Pitchfork Media in the first place. These users will not stop their actions until this page is moved. Just as a page like Spin (magazine) is shortened to Spin in album ratings widgets, Pitchfork Media should not only be shortened to Pitchfork, as they do, but the page should be moved to to decrease remove the piping issue and to respect WP:COMMONNAME. Doesn't it seem logical to follow in and respect the own website's path and also remove confusion on Wikipedia at the same time by moving this article? Oneclicklogin (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing no one is responding to my request with a reasonable conflicting opinion, what reason do I not have to go on and move the page from its outdated name to its current platform? Oneclicklogin (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, two days without a response is not that long. Secondly, this issue has been discussed before. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the company has been bought up by Conde Nast. I see no reason to change it as per previous. Karst (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the last discussion never mentioned the fact that the company themselves completely abandoned the title of Pitchfork Media or the mass editing and piping excuse. Also, two days is longer considering the quick responses of other posts on this talk page. Anyways, this is a different aspect of conflict. Oneclicklogin (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the WP:PIPE issue needs to be discussed at the village pump as it seems to go beyond just renaming this page. The issue is that the search term Pitchfork goes to the tool, while there is also the band with the same name. The use of the name Pitchfork Media differentiates it from that. And as the previous discussion highlighted - the name Media encapsulates what the company does. Which goes beyond just being a magazine or an online review site. Karst (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
In relation to the piping (WP:PIPE), it does not go beyond renaming the page. If the page is simply renamed to Pitchfork (website), then that issue will be fixed because you will not include the (website) portion in album ratings widgets or linking in prose or in references etc. It will be the same as Beats per Minute (website), which is easily, without conflict, linked as Beats per Minute and eliminates any confusion that you mentioned with Pitchfork the tool or the band name. Now, while I respect your point of view for the word "Media" encapsulating the site's content, that still is quite an overall weak argument in terms of semantics on Wikipedia but most importantly it still ignores the main problem: The site does not associate themselves with that title anymore. The site was literally located at pitchforkmedia.com in the past, but they changed it. If you go to everything titled Pitchfork Media, such as their old Twitter: https://twitter.com/pitchforkmedia, they abandoned these old accounts to respect and correspond with their new and truncated name. When Starbucks was originally opened in Seattle, it was opened under the name Starbucks Coffee, Tea and Spice, but then they truncated the name simply to Starbucks. When your presence in a business niche is popular enough to run under a single name, such as truncating your original name, you do it. So to not move this page to Pitchfork (website) you are literally refusing to change as the company has intentionally done so. However, the same with Starbucks' wiki page, the moved page's bolded sub-title can stay as Pitchfork Media, like "Starbucks Corporation" at the top. That way further subtle distinction can still be retained. Oneclicklogin (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I support renaming this article to Pitchfork (publication) or other. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So do I. Oneclicklogin made a wonderful case for why it is a terrible idea to keep the name. How do we go forward with this? L'Homme à tête de chou (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Pitchfork (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Pitchfork too brutal reviewers

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pitchfork (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism is Outdated

The criticism section as it is now only really applies to as Pitchfork was in the 2000s, really. I am not a prominent Wikipedia editor or writer and wouldn't know where to begin finding relevant sources for this, but there is loads of room for this page to detail common internet criticism of Pitchfork on topics such as their prioritizing of hip-hop and R&B music in recent years on top of their already existing (and very much still extant) favoritism of "generic" indie rock music already mentioned in the article (the latter of which is centered on indie acts that already have a following and existing reputation, whereas indie acts that do not have this are generally given scores ranging from mediocre to decent and are presented in a way which makes them generally forgettable to anybody not in that niche).

Furthermore, in recent years especially, there has been a very heavy political agenda that dominates the website and influences both their content and their music reviewing practice and critiques. On that note, there is also a favoring of music which is politically motivated, and this only serves to promote the notion of appreciating art for the societal and ideological concepts rather than the art itself (art can of course be based on political or ideological concepts without a doubt, but Pitchfork's extremely heavy focus on this eliminates so many other relevant facets which need to be appreciated when interpreting art).

I am of coursed biased as can plainly be seen, but I really do hope that I'm not the only one that has noticed these trends, and if anyone else can connect with this and find any of these kinds of sentiments anywhere else to source then I think that would go a long way in making this article more fleshed out and accurate, as well as up to date.Jpmcruiser (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have since edited the criticism sections of the article, removing a large amount of original research and assertions that were supported only by blogs and Reddit threads. Any commentary on other topics is welcome as long as it can be backed with reliable sources. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pitchfork_(website)/Archive_1&oldid=1097099979"