Talk:Pantera/Archive 1

message: This looks to be copyrighted - see http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/pantera/bio.jhtml
The same person who did this, also did KoЯn, which may also be copyrighted, as well as several others which look copyrighted that I've not checked yet (Primus_(band), Faith No More, Journey). I don't have time to clean them all up now - I'd appreciate it if somebody else could. --Camembert 02:59, 1 November 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: Camembert, I did that before I even saw your comment here.  :-)  -- Zoe 03:21, 1 November 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty sure somebody would sort them out without me saying anything, but I thought I'd stick a note here just in case they slipped through the net. Thanks for doing the dirty work, Zoe (oh, and mav too) :-) --Camembert 03:26, 1 November 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Should write something about the Ford Pantera, you guys really don't have many car articles on here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.61.19.167 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 August 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different Pantera MrHate 03:53, 20 January 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes this is the BAND Pantera dumbass. That's why we're talking about singles and radio play and crap like that. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Civility. Sum0 22:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford Pantera

message: There's been an anonymous user inserting "Douchbag" Darrell into the page at random places as well as adding random profanities.  The vandalism has been removed a few times but if it continues, I think we should consider locking the page temporarily.  Any thoughts? MrHate 03:53, 20 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. And sorry about insulting other users. Bad day. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Well, I've made all of the changes I can think of making right now. What do you guys think? I'm sure it still has the chance to be expanded upon further, but I don't have much else to go by. Nufy8 22:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has any comments? :P Nufy8 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how Pantera's greatest influence were the classic bay area thrash bands. While the song structures may be more or less similar, the vocals, the heavy and relatively slow guitar riffs as well are the drumwork are obviously hardcore influenced. Anselmo himself said that they were influenced mainly by hardcore bands... I don't see any reference to this in your article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.64.43.72 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that the Big Four of Thrash are their greatest influences? It merely says Pantera emerged from them, i.e., that as classic thrash was winding down, its influenced transferred substantially into Pantera's rise. I'm not denying that they have other influences (see the references to Rob Halford and Judas Priest), which may include hardcore; it says right on AMG's biography (and this article, for that matter) that the vocals resemble a hardcore sound. However, if Anselmo did say that their main influences were hardcore bands, we need a source for this; I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything to that effect - I'll go over some of the sources again. If you find a source for this, I'd be glad to incorporate it into the article. Nufy8 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: The article and infobox state that Pantera is from Dallas. Further down in the article it gives Pantego as the hometown. For that matter I always thought they were from Arlington; one or more members lived a couple of blocks from my old jr. high schoool.  At any rate, why Dallas? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Best of Pantera insert calls them "Dallas-based." As for Pantego, it sounds very familiar, but I don't think it's in any of the sources. I'll see if I can't find it somewhere. Nufy8 15:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, Cowboys from Hell was recorded in Pantego Studios in Pantego, Texas. Beyond that I'm not sure. Nufy8 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're simply said to be from Dallas because few from outside the state would really know where Arlington or Pantego is, just like how those from suburbs of major cities say they come from, for example, "Chicago" when while not living in the city proper. I have a Guitar World tribute edition to Darrell, and it says that the band originated from Pantego, although it is possible that they could have "relocated", for lack of a better word, to Arlington. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rp81 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pantego is "in" Arlington; Arlington is a major suburb between Ft. Worth and Dallas, and Pantego is a small community east of Lake Arlington.  Saying they are from Arlington is more accurate than Dallas.  Have a look at Google Maps.  As far as I know, the Abbotts lived actually in Arlington. 128.101.244.225 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My brother was a drummer in the high school band along with Vince Abbott. That was James Bowie High School in South Arlington, class of 1982. So the first three members of the band lived in Arlington. The Abbott's father owned Pantego Studios (or maybe it was called Pantego Sound), an 8-track recording studio in Pantego, which is where they recorded their early stuff. It's technically okay to say they were a Dallas-based band, since not many people outside DFW know where Arlington (let alone Pantego) is, but since Wiki is an online encyclopedia with active links, it's more accurate to say they came from Arlington. — Loadmaster 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dallas?

message: I don't agree with the part of the article that says: "After Dimebag's death, a Pantera reunion has of course become impossible,..."
A band is larger than a single person, and certainly many bands have had a reunion after the death of a member.  I do not see why a reunion has become "impossible;" if so, it should be explained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmathu (talk • contribs) 07:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was meant more to suggest that a reunion of the band consisting of its core members would be impossible. I'll try and reword the sentence to reflect that. Nufy8 06:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reunion

message: Where would be a good place to mention the sampling of Pantera music in that one Spongebob episode? Also does anyone have any more information on it such as how they came together etc.. Johhny-turbo 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always create a "trivia" section, or similar? IainP (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure it really needs any other mention, other than what's already there. Also, it seems unlikely that there's a story behind it, other than Pantera coming together to record a song for a soundtrack. If there is, I would suggest adding it to the bottom of the "Studio activity" section, seeing as how it appears to be the last song they recorded. Nufy8 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to include it, it was titled "Pre-Hibernation Week", but I see this is an old comment so...--I'm Kinda Awesome... 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spongebob

message: QUOTE: "Pantera was a popular heavy metal band from Arlington, Texas that formed in 1981. Specifically, some fans consider them power metal, groove metal (post-thrash), or an amalgamation of both (so called "power groove", a term the band devised themselves)."
Power metal? Power metal is stuff like Helloween, or any other recent band that sounds like a sped-up Iron Maiden with keys....Pantera had little Halford-style wailing or high-pitched vocal melodicism, NWOBHM style dual-guitar harmonies, lyrics about fantasy, keys, etc... I'm removing that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rp81 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't overbearing, but Pantera did show power metal in Cowboys from Hell. They combined that power metal with groove metal to create, as they call it, "power groove." After CfH, they moved more into groove metal (which is why the template lists them as groove metal). Either way, they personally describe themselves as having that power metal edge, so it should be kept in. Nufy8 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, you're right there, but I think that's the only post-hair album that has any songs to compare to with power metal. I guess you might as well put it back, but only in light of their first album...to the average person who knows nothing of Pantera, having that term at the top of the page would prove very misleading. perhaps it should be mentioned in the context of their timeline when CFH was released. --Rp81 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I took power metal out of the intro and put it in the CfH paragraph. Nufy8 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be regarded as simply Heavy Metal beacause through out their years they have regarded themselfs as "Heavy Metal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.139.199.153 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are. But they've regarded themselves with a specific subgenre, and are often grouped under one. Nufy8 02:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then maby they should be regarded as thrash or Dethmetal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.139.199.153 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because they're not really either. Nufy8 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we should regard them as heavy metal beacause thats what they would want and its not really fun to complicate things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.139.199.153 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were to classify them as what they want (which isn't always correct), then they themselves classify their sound as "power-groove." Either way, I don't see how it's complicating anything. In general, they're a heavy metal band. Specifically, they used to be glam metal, then they evolved into groove metal. What's so bad about that? Nufy8 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothings bad about it its just easier to put them under the general title of heavy metal, I mean whats the point of trying to divided it? Good tunes is good tunes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.193.160.251 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are under the general title of heavy metal in the opening sentence and in the infobox template. However, it's standard for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to address the specifics of a band's sound. Nufy8 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well lets go with groove metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.217.216.236 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power metal?

message: With the bit about Anselmo inciting a crowd to beat up a heckler, the article doesn't state whether the guy actually got beat up, or if the band were just sued for incitation.  It doesn't read quite right.  Superbo 11:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source doesn't say, but it can probably be assumed that he did get beat up - can someone even be sued for incitation? Nufy8 17:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: Has anyone seen the VH1 behind the music bio yet?  According to it (or at least my interpretation of it), they were influenced in the beginning by bands like Kiss and Van Halen, hence their spandex era.  I mean unless it comes from the horse's mouth, should we be making assumptions about their early influences based on the music.  Seems kind of subjective to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.173.114.137 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does say that they were influenced by KISS and Van Halen in the beginning (as per the sources), so I'm not sure I understand your question. Nufy8 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: I added audio samples of one track from each post-hair metal album that the band produced. I felt these songs exemplified the band's sound the best through each successive album and and/or were the most popular. However, since Web sites like Amazon.com don't have 30 second audio clips from the band's 1980s albums, and because I'm no good at audio editing, someone else would need to add them if they felt inclined to do so. Nufy8 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think AllMusic.com has short clips. Jordan 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just clips from their post-hair metal albums, unfortunately. Nufy8 16:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio samples

message: Other bands have a specific genre in their template box. Why not Pantera? Pasajero 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think it'll confuse readers to list such significantly different subgenres as glam metal and groove metal (assuming they haven't read the article). Nufy8 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen has nine different sub-genres in its infobox, leading to no obvious confusion. ĤĶ51→Łalk 20:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but the template's guidelines are quite clear about being general in the "genre" field. Nufy8 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I have created another page dedicated to Pantera discography and have moved the discography section there. This will help reduce this article size to within the prescribed norms.
Will231982 11:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I figured that would be necessary at some point. I added a much more basic listing of the band's studio albums (and their certifications) under the main discography link. Nufy8 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: Is this the same speech that the Montreal DJ (mentioned in main Pantera article) alleges was racist? Perhaps, if it is, it can be added to that section as a citation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iQZEBBg7hE 68.33.185.185 06:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be, but I'm not really sure that can be verified. Also, Phil says "Brooklyn, you listen to me..." so that might not be the speech the Montreal DJ was talking about. Nufy8 16:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: either this page wont load properly in my browser, or the layout is severly(sp?) messed up... can anyone clarify the position of the infobox being on the left, and seperate from the main text?
194.83.71.232 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, wrote the above before signing in.... Jonomacdrones 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is on the right and parallel to the main text, and everything else looks fine to me in both Firefox and IE.  Nufy8 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: layout

message: There is a traditional that Jesus of Nazareth was the product of an illicit liaison between Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera. CBS News alluded to this (quite cautiously, as one might imagine) last year. See page three on the linked transcript. 
http://www.religionandpluralism.org/MediaSummary/PDFs/Dec1Dec312005/TheMysteryOfChristmas_CBSNews_122005.pdf  
Any connection between the band's name and that story? --Christofurio 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never come across any connection between the band and the Roman soldier. I've never come across anything substantial about the origin of the band's name, for that matter. The sentence in the "Miscellanea" section might need to be removed; although it sounds logical, nothing concrete has been presented about Pantego coinciding with Pantera. Nufy8 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pantera and Jesus

message: I fail to see how claiming that a band is popular is a statement of opinion that violates WP:NPOV. This isn't on the same wavelength as saying "Pantera was a good heavy metal band..." which is obviously a debatable point of view. I'm looking at several featured articles that don't necessarily say "popular," but use synonyms like "international fame," "commercially successful," and "high profile." In addition, with several references confirming the band's popularity, it seems more verifiable fact than point of view. Nufy8 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, all such labels should be removed. The impression that the band are popular might be received from reading the article, but I still don't think everybody can agree to it. See characterizing opinions of people's work. Michaelas10 (Talk) 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone may agree, but this doesn't automatically qualify the claim as an opinion. For example, anyone can read the assertion that Pantera was glam in the '80s and choose to disagree with it; this doesn't make it any less of a verifiable fact. The point I'm trying to make is that the word "popular" is neutral (though perhaps not the most neutral word possible) and can be reasonably measured. A statement like "Pantera is a great heavy metal band..." isn't reasonably measurable, and thus is not an objective statement free of bias. It's not a big deal, though; I'm all for having the facts of record sales, high profile gigs, critical acclaim, and controversy speak for themselves. Nufy8 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I have removed "awesome" from the introduction (and it should be obvious why), but I am typing to point out that the genre section needs to be fixed. Other band pages present the band's genres at all stages of their career. Pantera should include Groove Metal and Glam/Hair Metal in the Genre section. In fact I don't think the current genre of Heavy Metal (Traditional Metal) is accurate at all. This has been changed recently - never before has wikipedia labelled Pantera as Heavy Metal. U R A GR8 M8 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the template's guidelines about the "genre" field; specific subgenres like glam metal and groove metal should be avoided in the template. Please also realize that the term "heavy metal" here is referring to the whole genre of music (typically shortened to just "metal"), and not traditional heavy metal. See the heavy metal music article for more info. Nufy8 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But take a look at other metal band pages. Soulfly as Thrash Metal, Heavy Metal, Nu Metal; Megadeth as Thrash metal, Speed metal, Heavy metal; Metallica as Hard rock, Thrash metal, Heavy metal; and a real good example is White Zombie as Alternative metal, Groove metal, Heavy metal, Hard rock. All of the pages with metal bands other than very early Heavy Metal have several genres listed. It should be the same for this Pantera page. U R A GR8 M8 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles aren't following template guidelines as they should, either. We should strive for consistency only if it doesn't conflict with established policies and guidelines. For example, if the Soulfly article contained incorrect citation formatting as per the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources, the citations in this article shouldn't be changed to conform with Soulfly. Nufy8 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix Genre

message: This is misleading, it suggest that they were part of the thrash metal movement and not a glam metal band (which they were at the time). how about changing it to "Influenced by thrash metal acts..." instead?
-matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.57.206.54 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nufy8 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emerging alongside influential classic thrash metal acts..." 

message: Shouldn't sludge metal be added. DavidJJJ 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never encountered any reference to them as sludge metal. Do you have a reliable source to back this up? Nufy8 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source from the amg here. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:us9ss30ba3rg DavidJJJ 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's specific to Vulgar, it should probably be referred to as having a sludge element to its sound, if it needs to be mentioned at all. Nufy8 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: The article states that Phil Anselmo was the singer for Samhain previous to joining Pantera.  I am 99.99% sure he was never the singer for the Samhain that later became the band Danzig. Is the article referring to a different Samhain?  It should be fixed or made clearer.  --Murple —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.169.72.128 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference doesn't specify, but it's probably a different Samhain. Nufy8 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samhain?

message: It looks good, but I think Glaze's vocals should be extended to 1986, and I believe he stopped playing guitar when he took over vocals in 82. Also, Peacock and L'Amour should probably both be in 86-87, the small time period after Glaze was released and Anselmo was picked up. Nufy8 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and make the changes. Nufy8 01:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I don't like about your changes is it make it look like there were two singers in 1986.  If you have any ideas of the timing, you can replace the years with month/date/year, or even years with a decimal.  For example, you could change it to Peacock singing from 1986 to 1986.5, and L'Amour from 1986.5 to 1987.  Or any other decimal that represents the times each guy sang.  I have no idea.  Hoof Hearted 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the source doesn't get specific about exactly when each vocalist joined in that small period of time; it mentions Peacock after L'Amour, so I added the decimal points to conform to that. Also, do you know if it's possible to have Terry Glaze on one line, where from 81-82 it's green, but from 82-86 it's blue, instead of printing his name twice? Nufy8 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh, good idea.  I'll check it out.   Hoof Hearted 18:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.  There's probably an easier way to do it, but it works.  Hoof Hearted 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks. Nufy8 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: In my opinion the infobox shoud say Pantera became unactive in 2001 ratheer than 2003 due to the face that after their tour in 2001 got short they didnt do anything up to the official announcement in 2003. So shouldnt it be 2001 instead of 2003???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.188.205 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may not have done anything, but they still were considered "together." Also, as the article states, they definitely planned on releasing more material between 2001 and 2003; this is some evidence of activity, even if it never came to fruition. Nufy8 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years Active