Talk:Pantera

message: This was stated in the article: "Pantera showed a more extreme style on this outing, leaving behind its glam metal influences in favor of an amalgamation of power metal and groove metal dubbed "power groove" by the band."
As far as I know this term has no connection with power metal as we know it nowadays. Just like Pantera's album Power Metal it was literally about power, not about the genre. Are their any sources that can prove I'm wrong on this? Cheers Emmaneul (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power Groove

message: Pantera did not play with AC/DC and Metallica at the Moscow '92 show. AC/DC and Metallica played the previous year. Wangoed 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say they played at the '92 Moscow show. Nufy8 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moscow '92

message: shouldn't pantera be classified groove metal? almost all there albums are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezzrek (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are referred to as groove metal in the article, so I'm not sure what you mean. Nufy8 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean as one of there genres.Dezzrek  —Preceding unsigned comment added byDezzrek (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean in the infobox to the right, then the guidelines state that the "genre" field should be general (heavy metal) and not specific (groove metal). Nufy8 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule says Aim for generality, not be as general as you can. Scipo 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Heavy metal" is sufficiently general; overgeneralization would be listing them as playing rock music. Nufy8 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavy Metal is far too General. And I don't understand why pantera's genre has to be so general when most bands on wikipedia are more specific, such as some of the assosiated acts of pantera, who are listed as Groove Metal.Dezzrek  —Preceding comment was added at 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is heavy metal "far too general"? It refers to characteristics such as instruments, lyrical content, vocal stylings, and overall sound that are common to those considered heavy metal. Furthermore, how can you even get more specific than groove metal? There's just no significant generality to that at all. If you get any more specific, you'll start inventing genres that aren't even verifiable by reliable sources. Nufy8 02:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think heavy metal is to general and can be confused with the less general "traditional" heavy metal. We should find consensus on what genres we should display in the infobox/article (as Pantera has played different genres over the years) and find sources to back up the consensus. An alternative is to do what has been done in the Cradle of Filth and Meshuggah articles but I think Pantera's genres is not disputed and we will probably be able to find consensus. Kameejl (Talk) 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: if we label pantera as heavy metal, that would be suggesting that pantera sounded like heavy metal bands suck as black sabbath oriron maiden. pantera's vocals stylings and instruments are different from that of traditonal heavy metal bands. and if they're mensioned as groove metal in the article, why can't they be labeled as groove metal in the infobox. also, there are many other bands on wikipedia labeled as groove metal or post-thrash, so why does pantera's genre have to be so general? by the way, there are many gernes that are more speciffic than groove metal. Dezzrek  —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still does not address my point that subgenres such as groove metal or hair metal are as specific as possible. Just take the example from the template guidelines: "Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop." Heavy metal is akin to hip hop, and groove metal, like East Coast hip hop, is a style of that larger genre. Also, pointing to other articles using the template is irrelevant; articles should be written based on established guidelines and the manual of style, not by what similar articles look like. It seems like you guys are arguing that the template genre should be specific. If that's the case, the best thing to do is to start a discussion on the template's talk page so you can discuss changing the guideline. If your concern is that people will mistake the term "heavy metal" for "traditional metal," then I'm sure there's some way to clarify that without displaying specific subgenres. Nufy8 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly time to ignore all rules. Guideline are just guidelines, no policy or law. I feel a more specific genre in the infobox will improve the article, so ignoring this silly guideline (which is ignored by many people in many articles) is justified. If groove metal is what most people want, we can put it in the infobox. Kameejl (Talk) 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how it would improve the article. In fact, I figure it would be detrimental. If we include groove metal, then we'll have to include glam metal. Then I'm sure a case can be made for 80s hard rock. Hell, you can even throw thrash metal in there since groove metal is a derivative, and sources like AMG list them as such. So we'd end up with significantly different genres in the infobox, and to a reader, this would most likely be confusing. Even if you add time periods to each subgenre, you're still left with a cluttered template. What's the point in getting so detailed when all of that is in the article? Why should the Pantera article deviate from the guidelines? Because people want to see groove metal on there and because other articles deviate aren't really convincing points. Nufy8 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if groove metal is a sub-genre of heavy metal and you can justify it not being added based on those grounds, most "metal heads" or metal critics would not consider glam metal to be real metal, so "heavy metal", the general window for all things metal, is not specific enough to encompass glam metal. I'm sure there are plenty of Pantera fans, just as the band were, that are embarrassed of Pantera's glam roots, but it needs to be included. The infobox is supposed to be a general summary of the key information of the band and people should not have to read the whole article or even a part of it to know that Pantera were a glam metal band. If someone were to come on this page and read simply "heavy metal" as their genre, they would not be aware that Pantera also played glam metal. Glam metal needs to be added. James25402 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most 'metal heads' or metal critics would not consider glam metal to be real metal" – a weasel worded claim that has not been backed by reliable sources. Even if "most" fans and critics don't consider it "real metal" it still is a subgenre of heavy metal, and thus there's no need to add it to the template per everything that's already been said. Let's not beat a dead horse, please. Nufy8 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We really should put Groove metal in the infobox. It is pretty much a fact that Pantera are the pioneers of it. Groove metal IS a sub genre of metal. The only way to settle this properly is to use reliable sources. Thank you,Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're officially going in circles now. Nufy8 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline for the template field is "aim for generality". There is no need to clutter up the box with sub-G's and useless refs... referenced content goes in the article...not in the box. Sub-genres just cause headache and woe over everyone trying to put their personal POV into it. First and foremost.. Pantera are a heavy metal band.. plain and simple. And heavy metal is all that needs to go in the box. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, so let me get this straight....
You tried to invalidate my argument because I used weasel words ON A TALK PAGE? Let's get one thing straight, you have your opinion and I have mine, but a Talk page does not need to be factual, so if I am using weasel words on here, that has no actual bearing on what I am saying should be included in the article. What I wrote on this page was not going to go onto the article in the form it was written in. I'm sure you know that and are just being pedantic, but nonetheless, I thought I'd point that out.
And as far as glam metal going under the heavy metal genre...no. That's like saying metalcore is a heavy metal sub-genre, when it is a fusion of heavy metal and hardcore punk and actually comes under the punk genre. Because it has "metal" in the name does not mean it is actually metal. Bon Jovi were glam metal in the 1980s, are you saying Bon Jovi are a metal band? And The Darkness? No, they are hard rock bands, they always were hard rock bands.
There is no argument over groove metal being a derivative of thrash metal/heavy metal, so perhaps you can get away with not adding it to the infobox, but heavy metal does NOT cover glam metal. Even if you completely disagree with my argument of glam metal not being a sub-genre of heavy metal based on my argument that it is just a label applied to a hard rock band with a certain image, glam metal is still, at best, a fusion genre of hard rock, heavy metal and pop. Fusion genres are not derived from any one particular genre, so you cannot say glam metal belongs solely to heavy metal. If it does not belong to heavy metal, it is separate from it, thus needs to be added to the infobox. I know you don't want to change it, but if you think about it logically, if Pantera played glam metal, which it is well cited on reliable websites that they have (if you want to disagree with that, I can get you sources), then they not only played "heavy metal", but also "pop" and "hard rock", because they fused all three! So either the fusion genre needs to be added, or you are misleading people by not adding in the other genres they used when they played the fusion genre of glam metal.
But honestly, I think you're being ridiculously rigid in your compliance with wikipedia standards that say we should aim for generality. You say it would not help to add glam metal and groove metal to the genre list, but it surely can't hurt anything. It improves accuracy, if nothing else. We would only need to be as general as it is now if there were disagreements as to the band's genre. So far, I have seen very few objections to adding groove metal and glam metal. It may "go against wikipedia rules", but it also contributes in the area of accuracy, which would balance it out. Surely you can see you're the only one who wants it to stay as it is now. James25402 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completley agree. Basically every band on wikipedia has multiple genres listed. Featured Articles have them! (EX: Godsmack, Megadeth) Keep in mind this page is under no singular ownership. Even if the generality rules applie completley, a co-founder of wikipedia made up this little rule here, WP:IGNORE. Thank you,Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course your weasel worded claim has to do with the article. If your rationale for changing the article cannot be tied to the article itself, then what is the point of having the rationale? If someone were to read this article and ask why glam metal was listed in the infobox, and we told them "because most metalheads and critics don't consider it real metal" and had no evidence to back this up, then that would be as entirely unacceptable as adding a line to the glam metal article that states "Most metalheads and critics don't consider glam metal to be real metal." As for your whole fusion genre theory, you once again fail to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this, and simply adhering to them is not being pedantic, it's being reasonable. I'm not trying to be a stubborn asshole here, so if you have some convincing evidence to show me, then by all means, do so – I'll be more than happy to validate your argument. Nufy8 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James25402, you are kind of blazing guns here, it really isn't that big of a deal, all we need is sources. Thank you,Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My argument against WP:IGNORE for this case is above. As for the fusion genre, yes, you do need a source because it is in doubt. The glam metal article does not suggest that glam metal is a fusion of other genres, merely that it is influence by and/or shares similarities to them. Therefore, you should provide evidence to back up your claims, as their validity directly affects the article. Nufy8 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groove Metal? 

message: I am trying to get this started up for this great band. Anybody who's interested can help me and Thundermaster out by adding your name below:
* Dark Executioner (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above, no effort has been made to improve any Pantera related articles so there is no need for a project. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I too have contributed to Pantera related articles and plan to help improve existing ones. I also started an article, Big Vin Records. But I would suggest the Pantera group be temporary if possible. Once we get the articles up to par, we should hand over all responsibilities to WikiProject Metal. Better yet, if possible, starting a sub-group or gather people within WikiProject Metal to help these efforts? There are too many band wikiprojects that aren't active are there for no reason. Bragging rights maybe? Anyway, what do you think about that idea? ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cowboys From Hell and Reinventing the Steel both have one paragraph so i don't see "substantial improvements". I suggest you get an article to GA or FA before you create the project because there are so many projects created just because people are fans of the band rather than try to improve articles. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thats kind of the point of gathering people, to get Pantera to FA or GA status. Though I do agree there are too many band wikiprojects that do nothing. Like I said, we should gather people within WikiProject Metal to help with this article. Other related articles are secondary and can be brought up at a later time. The more I think about it, the more I don't like the idea of a wikiproject, lets put WikiProject Metal to use. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages were improved, but some numbskull removed a lot of my edits, leaving only the bare essentials of what I put. They completely took away my vivid descriptions of the album and of some songs. It wasn't POV stuff, just musical traits that any metalhead with half a brain could pick out and enjoy. I tried reverting my edits, but they kept being deleted over and over. But yes, I do agree with you about proposing that we put Pantera into Wikiproject:Metal. 
Dark Executioner (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed my name, because I understand what these guys are talking about. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My point exactly, thats a great example of what I'm talking about. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said as well. If too few people are interested, a taskforce wwould be a much better idea. ThundermasterTRUC 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject: Pantera 

message: A taskforce has been set up under WP:METAL. Anyone interested visit WP:KORN. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 08:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taskforce 

message: I hope all those bands are directly associated meaning that a member actually was a part of those bands and not just as a session musician, touring musician, or produced an album of theirs, a band they toured with (even a lot) or happened to be a guest on a song of theirs, etc. They must be part of the band for some time to be associated. For example, the band Redemption is associated because Rick Mythiasin was/is in the band. (also wondering why he isn't listed under band members since he was a member in 1986...) If this is the case for all these bands then I will be satisfied. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I don't know why all these bands were added, I know before there were a few but now there are one too many. I say we go search back for the old list if no one can contest all these bands. Tazz (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band association 

message: I have removed the link to allmusic guide on the grounds that it is an insufficient source. The Website is famed around wiki for being inaccurate, lazy, and just plain dumb. I don't know about everyone else, but I would rather trust a junkie with cocaine than every citing allmusic guide as a source for any music related article. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Allmusic

message: This article looks good. Have the authors considered aiming for featured article status? Might not be ready quite yet, but it does look very good. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair amount of paragraphs would need to be sourced. There are large gaps without footnotes. Utan Vax (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks good 

message: ...should be included. It is (was) one of their main genres, especially in the glam years, and it was still played until CfH, but after they moved toward groove metal and even sludge metal. Please discuss. —π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a source that confirms your assertions. Utan Vax (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heavy metal music|Heavy metal]]... 

message: Shouldn't thrash metal be added to the info box, since Pantera is associated with thrash metal a lot. Most of Pantera's music is groove metal, but a lot of Cowboys from Hell is thrash. Also groove metal is associated with thrash metal too. 66.210.75.2 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your point of view that they are thrash metal. We're not allowed to make changes that are not verifiably factual. Please find sources that suggest that they are thrash metal. Utan Vax (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thrash Metal]] 

message: Why do people go around calling Kiss and Van Halen 80s bands. They are 70s. So I changed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were influenced by more than just them since they had the big poofy hair 80s fairy metal look and bubble gum style for several albums. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This disrespect of Van halen is wrong. Kiss and VH are not just some fairies on stage. They are true Hard rock/Heavy metal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.198.222 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kiss and Van Halen are NOT 80s bands]] 

message: There's nothing wrong with the image's use since Dimebag died meaning a free-use image would be no longer necessary (if there was) and copyrighted images can then be used, as well as the band disbanding, there cannot be any free-use images possibly available. Return the image to the discography. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right about it but I forgot about how many times you can use the image so nevermind. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, just once. Cannibaloki 05:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said nevermind!! −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, relax, no problem, sorry! Now, put down the knife, slowly... (← hehehe) Cannibaloki 05:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :Puts down knife slowly: Well I'll more than relax, I'll go to sleep so I'm off to bed anyway so g'night. (again, I did say nevermind) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantera promo image 

message: "Kiss and Van Halen covers as well as original material in the glam metal vein in Texas nightclubs."  
This is an encyclopedia not an email from a Nigerian offering to give the recipient millions of dollars.  Someone either tidy this or delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.68 (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: This band blatantly copied Exhorder. Should be noted in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.63.114 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhorder Ripoff 

message: I changed the bit where it says they toured with thrash act Exodus and Hardcore punk band Suicidal Tendencies
to thrash acts Exodus and Suicidal Tendencies as during 1991
Suicidal Tendencies were straight out thrash metal and had been for years before and still were to be for some more years ahead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RottingSouls (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicidal Tendencies weren't "hardcore Punk" in 1991 

message: Mustaine's drama boils down to nothing as the section shows. I propose removing the whole subsection. You can argue that there is no merit to Mustaine's claim, he was just being him, he flip flopped when Dimebag died, whatever. It is given too much weight as is. One line in one MTV piece from one guy does not deserve a subsection in any article. Mustaine's article might be a better place unless we are going to add criticism from every other guitarist out there. Cptnono (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Good call. Nymf talk/contr. 12:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I'm going to add "The Cowboys From Hell" as a nickname if thats cool  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.152.137 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowboys From Hell 

message: How come there is no mention of power metal as a genre? Post-glam Pantera actually classed themselves as power metal and then when they started adding a groove element they tried to genre themselves as "power groove". Power metal (mostly from the US) was groups such as Agent Steel and Pantera.
The fact is that back when they release the album "power metal", groups such as Helloween were never even considered power metal but were classed as speed metal / melodic metal. Even on the official Helloween website they still class themselves as melodic metal.  
Metalosaurus (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They had an album called "Power Metal", but they did not play power metal. Nymf hideliho! 10:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Metal 

message: In the section 1.9 Aftermath (2004-present) when it says "In interviews in 2009 & 2010, both Rita Haney [Dimebag Darrel's ex-girlfriend] & Phil Anselmo have stated that after a meeting at Download 2009 they have patched up their differences and are once again on speaking terms." it doesn't cite any References or Sources.
Please someone correct it. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.49.179 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No References or Sources for this citation: 

message: Pantera is actually from Dalworthington Gardens & Pantego area, not Arlington.  They got the Pantera name inspiration from Pantego.  They practiced in some warehouses with other DFW bands in the Dalworthington Gardens & Pantego area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.110.163 (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  they are from.. 

message: An image used in this article, File:PanteraEarlyYears.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PanteraEarlyYears.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Too many parts of this article look like it's written like a WWE advertisement. For example, "war of words" is a NPOV issue, just like the majority of the text. Someone copyedit the article. ★★★★ 14:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pantera" article reads like an advertisement 

message: A couple parts of the article mention how well each Pantera album did on the Billboard 200 Chart but none of them contained any citations which could've easily been added in. I added them in myself just to improve on the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.213.7 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added citations for album chart positions 

message: There is a discussion about the Dimebag 2015 grave vandalism at Talk:Dimebag_Darrell#2015_grave_vandalism regarding whether the desecration of Dimebag's grave should be included on Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is not.  See your Talk page. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about Dimebag 2015 grave vandalism 

message: GIven the long descriptive paragraphs and sections, many of which have few or no sources whatsoever, it is hard to draw any other conclusion that this article is largely a tome written by fans, based on their personal perceptions and opinions, rather than published sources (i.e., that it is rampant WP:OR). It so vastly violates WP:VERIFY that it is hardly worth the time to place the many tags it deserves.  That said, I am a fan of Pantera (e.g. Cemetary Gates); I just don't know that I really know anything reliable about them, based on this article.  50.129.227.141 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan site posing as encyclopedia (tags on [[WP:VERIFY|sources]] and [[WP:OR]])

message: Why is that word "glam" always used to describe Pantera's pre-Atco days? You know, not everything that isn't thrash is automatically glam. There are degrees in heavy metal, not just polar extremes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattlesnake269 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry bud, that's sourced, and it's not going away. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-1990 Does Not Equal "Glam" 

message: I meant to say yes it is fact that Pantera is thrash metal. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  18:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are wrong! 130.65.109.45 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You may as well leave Wikipedia if you won't comply. This is unacceptable. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  18:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My most recent revert 

message: Some IPs think that it's right to vandalize the page and remove thrash metal from the infobox just because it hurts their feelings and their perception of what the page should look like. Also, "my feelings are facts, therefore you're wrong".
I think that someone should add a layer of protection to the page, as to prevent further edits of that kind.-Thräshstalker 08:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Thrashstalker: I agree that this page should be protected. Just because people believe Pantera isn't thrash metal doesn't mean they have the right to remove the genre. Not to mention they had at least one "thrash metal" album, meaning Pantera was/is thrash metal. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:MetalDiablo666: Is there any way to actually bring this issue up to a member that has a clearance level of protecting articles? I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time so I don't remember how this actually works.-Thräshstalker 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Thrashstalker: I'm almost not good at names of administrators that protect music articles, except for a few like Sergecross73 or KrakatoaKatie (who protected the Deicide page last year). MetalDiablo666 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I'm both an admin, and someone who edits music related articles a lot. Let me look into it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, yeah, looking through, I see what you mean - there's a long history of IPs removing the genre, but it does directly and reliably seem to be sourced. I've protected the page for 2 weeks. I know this seems to be a long term issue that may go on longer than that, but policy is to start off with short lengths and move to longer ones if its necessary. So let me know if the issue arises in the future, and I'll re-protect it. If any IP decides to engage in discussion now that its protected, please discuss it with them. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sergecross73: Thank you very much for this.-Thräshstalker 15:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing most recent reverts from two guys (Binksternet and Statik N), I think this page needs to be protected again. Maybe give it a protection of, like, three months or so. Thoughts? Unfortunately I don't pay attention to who else protects music-related articles besides Sergecross73, who protected this page a month ago. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-stop vandalizing of the page and removal of the thrash metal genre 

message: I think Pantera go back way before 1981. I went to Bowie High School in Arlington (Class of 1978). I remember a garage band called Pantera but only heard them play once. I may have heard them as early as 1977 or 1978.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C435:5FD0:F125:404C:B5F1:5DE9 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantera formed in 1981? 

message: According to Rex Brown's book Official Truth 101 Proof, the band was founded by the Abbott brothers only. Their father, Jerry Abbott, was also heavily involved up until the point when the band got signed to Atco Records. It was sort of a family business prior to 1990. Therefore, the only band members who can be called "founders" are Dime and Vinnie. As far as Terry Glaze is concerned, I insist on just calling him "a member of the band's first line-up". He was never a "co-founder" or a "founding member". Basically, he was just a guy who used to sing for Pantera up until the day when the brothers kicked him out. He left the band in the same manner as an employee that gets fired. Believe me, if the guy decides to "reunite" Pantera with Rex and some session members... nobody would take that seriously except copyright owners and their almighty lawyers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.165.20.64 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: I removed the audio samples because they lacked contextual significance, which is a requirement described at WP:SAMPLE. Each sample must be accompanied by a description of whatever is heard on the sample – a prose description that lets the reader (and listener) know what is going on in the song, something that tells them what to listen for.
For the right way to do audio samples, see the punk rock article which is fantastic. 
Removing the samples must be done until a sufficient description of the musical sample is brought to the article. Not only is the WP:BRD cycle friendlier to removals of challenged material than it is to restoration of same, the bigger problem with the samples is that they are a copyright violation if they don't have contextual significance. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio samples removed 

message: Why does somebody keep updating this saying they’re officially reforming? No official announcement has been made and the sources are just gossip sites stirring up rumours. There is no word an official reunion is taking place, only a potential tribute tour. No need to vandalise this page over it. 2A00:23C7:498C:501:1038:C63B:972E:C749 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is official though. Billboard (certainly not a gossip site) was the one to report it, and they're one of the most trusted sources in the industry. Despite Pantera's media accounts not mentioning it, their manager(s) are the ones that passed on the info, rightfully so because of the delicate situation. It was also mentioned that Dime/Vinnie's estate gave their blessing (which, if it was just a tribute under a different name, their blessing wouldn't even be needed). If Rex or Phil or the estate changes their mind and/or if one of 'em says "no none of this is true", then we'll update the Wiki with that to reflect the events that have unfolded. Xanarki (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion not official 

message: Nearly every day different IP users have been editing the page with their own inaccurate opinions. 17 reverts in 4 days, but it started as soon as the announcement was made. Opinions? Xanarki (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to pending or semi-protected? 

message: As in 2023 Pantera was not allowed to join Germany's hugest Rock festivals "Rock im Ring", "Rock im Park", because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Anselmo#Racial_controversies that issue is already of interest on the Pantera page itself and should be added. Jaleks (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a recurring issue, because their concert in Vienna has also been canceled: https://blabbermouth.net/news/panteras-concert-in-vienna-canceled --Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer Phil Anselmo's 'White Power' issue missing 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Benante and Wylde have both hinted recently that Pantera might release a new live album, as well as record new music. TODAY, bassist Rex Brown, a non-touring member of the band, just said that the band could be released both a live album AND NEW MUSIC with this current lineup (source: https://blabbermouth.net/news/rex-brown-is-absolutely-open-to-writing-new-pantera-music). This would INCLUDE BENANTE AND WYLDE! Hence, they should be considered members of the band if all three, including Brown (a PERMANENT MEMBER), consider themselves members of the band and likely to release music as the group's lineup in the near future (INCLUDING A POTENTIAL STUDIO RELEASE, meaning they aren't just touring members).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.94.72 (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: they arent even listed as members on their website: https://pantera.com/ --FMSky (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be best to wait n see if a release does happen. At that point it will be clear via the liner notes and surrounding press. Xanarki (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we say that Charlie Benante and Zakk Wylde are members of the band now, and not just touring?