This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music/Music genres task force Groove metal is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre Rock music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Archives
May 2006 - February 2009

This page as well as nu metal have been reverted. Learn to edit. You dont DELETE everything. You pick thorough the parts and if they are ABSOLUTELY FALSE or completely unverifiable, then remove it.70.119.201.161 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look the words "groove metal" up on any search engine you wouldn't get much. I noticed people were using websites like last.fm and metal archives for history on the term during the discussion for the article's deletion, both non reliable sources. And the only reliable source even used in this article is Pantera's allmusic entry. The only other major sources I've really found on the genre are Blender refering to "Welcome to the Jungle" and I've read a book called The Rough Guide to Rock that dubs White Zombie "metal groove". Neither of which go indepth on any history. Terms in wider use like blues-metal, pop metal(well I tried to give this one a page, but it was unfortunatly deleted), and southern metal don't even have articles here. Can anyone find anything about this style's origin, history, anything? This article's notability is on thin ice. RG (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "post-thrash"? Portillo (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to support that these two terms are interchangeble. "Post-thrash" isn't really a notable style as well. RG (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blender and Allmusic are enough. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Neither of these sources give a history of the music or a description of how the music sounds. Does anyone have any other reliable sources that mention this style? RG (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic hardly even recognises thrash as a genre, sure they have an article on it, and use the term in reviews the odd time, but they never use it as the actual genre of the album they are reviewing. And why the hell does it say groove metal is a mix between hip-hop, dance, and hard rock and the citation of which leads to something about Korn? hardly a groove metal band. Also why was it necessary to cut this article down so much, it was hardly the biggest and best in the first place. Since when was groove metal not a genre, look at the bands, I mean some of them are extrememly influential, just look at exhorder, pantera and machine head in particular. Why does there have to be this elitism? look at all these emo core genres a new one seems to be made every day and there seems to be plenty of articles on them at least last time I checked. I may start editing this article.--Thrashattack84 (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Groove+Metal/ Syxxpackid420 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That reference isn't reliable. RG (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Metal was given as a term to replace "Post-thrash". Groove metal is a genre. Get over it. This article isn't going to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.209.21 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of recognition this genre has, I'm surprised there aren't more sources explaining its existence. I mean, it's in pretty wide use... then again, that was shown by unreliable sources such as Metal Archives and Last.fm. There's going to be a lot of change around the metal-related parts of Wikipedia once this article's gone. (I'm not taking a side in anything here, just commenting.) --LordNecronus (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it really is surprisingly hard to find reliable sources on groove metal, even though its influence (let alone existence) is so obvious. Ryangardenour (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give me a reason why Rate Your Music would be considered a reliable source? RG (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right its not so I've removed it Syxxpackid420 (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently appears to have several problems. At the beginning, it states that it was used to desribe one band, what does not seem to make a whole genre. The sources that the article cites contradict each other. Pantera does not seem to have any connection with hip-hop and dance music and does not appear to be the same genre as Korn, whose style is described in the source. This also might mislead the reader and cause a confusion with nu metal. The statement about Machine Head shows no evidence of any connecton to groove metal, so it should be clarified or removed.

The sources do not seem to provide basic information about the genre for the infobox. This needs to be corrected. The article in general does not seem to be an encyclopedic summary of its topic, but rather a collection of statements that look like a debate. I would like to ask the editors, who wanted to keep the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groove metal (3rd nomination), to provide new reliable sources about the topic and sort the problems out.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just so "we" know, do "we" have a deadline to address these purported issues? – B.hotep •talk• 12:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking whether you are giving "us" (notice I keep using these terms because you seem to think it's down to the people who participated in the AfD to rectify things) a deadline. What I'm trying to say is, this article seems to be your raison d'etre at the moment and you only seem to check back to see how the AfD is doing, seeing if you can hurry along its deletion; and now, with the AfD barely cold from its close, you are here to plaster as many tags on it as possible. Of course, you (as with any other editor) are quite entitled to point out shortcomings in an article (maybe that would have been better than a third AfD in the first place?), but please don't be under the illusion that if things aren't sorted to your satisfaction within the hour or next time you log in that you have a case for further action. – B.hotep •talk• 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't need to waste your time with describing my behaviour by personal degrading statements like "this article seems to be your raison d'etre". I'm not such an egoist to be offended by this. You just makes youself seem sorry im my eyes because you have the need to tell me such things. Moreover when you're an administator.

To answer your question; yea, i do expect the promoters from the AfD to sort it out. I think that "SNOWBALL-keeping" a misleading stub is neither responsible nor encyclopdic and does not contribute to the readers' knowledge. To point out shortcomings would not be better than an AfD. An AfD can start more activity of the editors.

In the AfD, you said "Two sources is fine for a stub article and there is no actual time limit to completing the article." That might be right, but what it actually means is, that according to you there is no way how to implement the neologism policy. According to that statemt, every neologism has its place on Wikipedia because 2 sources are fine for a stub. But that must be kind of false. Yes, there is no actual time limit to completing the article, but there is also no actual time limit to re-creating an article. That means that everyone can always write the whole article about groove metal when he has the sources, so no actual harm could be done to the article or to Wikipedia by removing it. And also because, in this case, what does a reader miss if he does not read this stub? He won't get confused, that's all.

I do not seem to be in the position of giving any deadlines. There are no deadlines. Everything is revertible on Wikipedia. And you know that. At this moment, the article gives zero information to a reader, rather misleads and confuses a reader. So it seems to be a perfect redirect to heavy metal music. If no editor does anything with it to make it at least seem like a genre, than what else can we do than redirect?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the personal attack in pointing out that, from your contributions from June 4 to present you have only created the AfD, commented on the AfD, tagged this article and added a wishlist on this talk page and little else. Since when is the truth a personal attack? – B.hotep •talk• 14:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haha :) I wonder what do You expect/want me to answer. Sorry, but i am not interested and don't even belive in truth, so i don't care what you interpret as truth. Again, please try to keep things factual. What relevant is this for groove metal? I am also not mocking You that the truth is that Wikipedia is your raison d'etre obviously far more than mine; so let's leave this ok?

We established in the 3rd AfD (by consensus) that it was not a neologism as you said? I don't remember we established that. I remember that you've said "We disagree". I remeber it was kept because i was the only one to delete it. But i don't remember that anyone added "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept" to the article, which is a criterion for non-neolgisms. So where is the 100% proof that it is not one?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You started an AfD based on this being a neologism. There were people at the AfD who categorically stated it wasn't a neologism. The article was kept, which would seem to suggest that your deletion rationale (it being a neologism) was a bit dodgy. Aside from anything else, the neologism template says "in such a manner as to promote it" – where is your 100% proof that anyone is trying to do this? I'm not going to remove it again, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over it. Quite frankly, I have better things to do than get into a protracted argument over it. – B.hotep •talk• 08:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am glad to hear that. but note that the template also says "This article may document a neologism (...)", so no 100% proof is necessary. it's enough that i argue it is one and no one has disproved me yet. and "in such a manner as to promote it" stands for the existence of the article in it's current form itself. it must not be a certain editor's intent.

concerning the "people at the AfD who categorically stated it wasn't a neologism": the point is that the people, who stated that, had only the bare categorical statement that it's not one, but had no justification for it according to the policy. i argued it's a neologism, because it violates a certain policy that i cited in my latest comment. but the opposers just said "no it's not", but didn't say why and didn't disprove my justification. they just twaddled around about other articles, made-up rules and other unrelated non-relevant things.

the only thing i am asking for are the sources. "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". unless the sources are provided, it always can be a neologism.

i don't get why this should ever get protracted. it's plain and simple. no sources about it = neologism; sources about it = no neologism. provide the sources and i'll shut up.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand this. A word isn't a neologism because there are no sources about it - these two concepts are totally unrelated. The guideline exists to govern Wikipedia handling of neologisms. If the word in question is not a neologism then the guideline doesn't apply. It is not the case that "if there are no sources then it must be a neologism" - that is a wildly inaccurate misconception on your part. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where does it come from? Which policy states what you say? Isn't that just your thoughts? Where is then the policy/criteria that determine neologisms? Post me the link to it so that we can determine. WP:NEO says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". It does not say "To support an article about a particular neologism" but any "term or concept". This seems not to only handle neologisms, but also determine them. The sentence explicitly handles any "particular term or concept".--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the responsibility of one editor to provide verification that something is not the case. It is the responsibility of the other to provide verification that it is the case. You have never provided anything anywhere to back up your theory that "groove metal" is a neologism. Until you do, shoehorning your argument to fit an unrelated guideline is redundant. WP:NEO does not determine neologisms - you are synthesising that guideline to suggest that it does. What determines a neologism is simply the definition of the word "neologism". You seem to think that the guideline implies that every word and term in existence is a neologism until it's proved otherwise, which is just cobblers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are. Now you finally expressed what you talk about. So, to clear things out, please read carefully. There are policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that determine what should and what should not be included in Wikipedia. There are several inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. If an editor wants a term or concept to be included on Wikipedia, he/she must prove (via reliable sources) that it meets the criteria of inclusion. The problem of "groove metal" goes from WP:5P up to WP:NEO, let me explain.

Wikipedia:Notability guideline states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." WP:NOT, a Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria, contains also the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which contains the The dictionary definition trap section, which contains WP:NEO policy. That criteria is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and (!!!) EVERY single topic, term or concept, if challenged, must prove the evidence that it meet ANY challenged criteria. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."(WP:BURDEN). So those, who restore the challenged topic, are supposed to verify it. That's you, not me. What you call "your theory" is my challenge.

The party that is challengening the content of Wikipedia does not need provide a source of the challenge. How can a source for any challenge ever be provided? Just for instance, if A says that one band does not meet any of the notability guidelines, then B must prove that the band meets some of them. Not vice versa. Of course that A must not provide a source that says that the band doesn't meet the criteria and is not notable. The are no such sources for any topic concerning any policy. Or, for instance, if A creates an article about "easter bunny metal", of course that B must not find a source that says "easter bunny metal is a neologism".

So ANY article on Wikipedia can be challenged on ANY criteria including the neologism criteria; and if it is challenged, then in must prove that it meets it. Otherwise it does not meet that inclusion criteria. But an article, that is not a neologism (for instance heavy metal music, thrash metal) has not a problem to prove that it meets the criteria, because it has a buch of sources about the term.

So to answer your concerns precisely: WP:NEO does determine neologisms, because it is Wikipedia's definition of the word "neologism" policy. Every single term on Wikipedia must meet it and it's up to the "keepers" of groove metal to prove that my challenge is wrong.

Does it make sence for you now?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, frankly, it doesn't. I don't agree with the way you interpret the guidelines, and I don't agree with your point of view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where is the problem?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I start? The dictionary definition point is irrelevant because "groove metal" is not of a construct likely to be covered by a dictionary anyway - it's not a word. Because it's not a word, it's not a neologism, so that whole part of your argument is redundant. You can raise questions about the sourcing, the reliability of that sourcing, or notability within music etc. But it does not fail WP:NOT on the grounds that you say it does. To use your "easter bunny metal" analogy, yes, the proposer must provide sources for notability to satisfy the inclusion criteria. But if a challenger wants to challenge it using WP:NEO, it has to actually be a neologism. You don't have to provide a source for the challenge, but the challenge must actually correspond to a property held by that article. Otherwise it's a non sequitur - it makes no sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Because it's not a word, it's not a neologism"? You seem to change your explanations why it's not a neologism in every reply. WP:NEO talks about "term or concept", not a word. So it must not be a single word.

"The challenge must actually correspond to a property held by that article." - well, what do you mean? Prior to any challenge, we don't know whether the article helds the property. The challenge is made to find out whether the article holds the property. If A (random editor) thinks that a band called "Easter Bunny" is not notable than he challenges the article and be B (the author of the article) must prove that it is notable. - And that's how they find out (after the challenge) whether it's notable. What you said is that A can only challenge the article if it already is notable. But that's something they only found out afterwards. I am not supposed to challenge something that is a neologism, because we don't know whether it is one. I am challenging you to prove it's not one. And that's how we all find out whether it is or not.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my explanation - it is merely that there are several reasons why it is not a neologism. WP:NEO is not a definition of the word "neologism", nor does it pretend to be. To your other point, a challenge regarding notability is absolutely not the same thing as a challenge about a neologism, and it's disingenuous to suggest that I've implied that. I've said it before but I do not need to prove that groove metal is not a neologism. You need to prove that it is or might be, and that WP:NEO applies in this case. You've suggested it, and absolutely nobody agrees with you - that's basically the end of it. If it were agreed that this guideline applies or has some relevance, then the contents of the guideline could be explored and implemented. An entity does not exist until somebody proves it exists. It is not the case that entities are believed to exist until somebody proves that they don't. Again, we are repeating ourselves with no prospect of resolution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, i think we just made clear where the disagreement is, and that's a one good thing. The situation appears to be that I am challenging "groove metal" on the grounds of WP:NEO policy (because every single article can be challenged by every editor on the grounds of every policy any time) and you object to the challenge, stating that I can not challenge that article, because I need a prove my challenge. So later we may find a third party neutral comment to find a solution.

Just to give you a notice, there is an answer to you argument. As you said "An entity does not exist until somebody proves it exists." Yes. Exactly. On the grounds of WP:NEO, I claim that "groove metal" encyclopedically does not exist, until you proove it does by citing "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". Groove metal is the entity whose encyclopedic existence must be proved and a "neologism" would be it's attribute if it's existence in reliable sources will not be proved. A neologism is not any entity I am talking about. The entity is "groove metal". "Neologism" is a possible attribute that will be found out through the challenge.

And again, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."(WP:BURDEN) You seem to everlook this telling me to give you evidence of my challenge.

Concerning the definition: WP:NEO does not link to any other "definition of the word "neologism"", so there is no other definition of that word that is a Wikipedia policy. Every Wikipedia policy stands on its own and does not use any external defenitions. On the top of that the policy states explicitily "To support an article about a particular term or concept" not about a particular neologism. WP:NEO applies in every case in which an editor freely decides to challenge any random article, because every Wiki. policy might be challenged on every article any time. Any "external definitions" are not relevant for Wikipedia. You didn't disprove this on the grounds of any Wikipedia policy, you just said "i disagree" with no policy backup.

If you can't disprove that, we won't run in circles (as you suggested) and we will wait until B.hotep delivers what he told; because he is the one who understood the problem of this article; knows how to help the article and hopefully does it.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting very weary of this, particularly when you keep implying that I don't understand the problem and that I don't know how to help the article. I am not obliged to fix this article, ok? Your comment: "On the grounds of WP:NEO, I claim that "groove metal" encyclopedically does not exist, until you proove it does by citing "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". Groove metal is the entity whose encyclopedic existence must be proved and a "neologism" would be it's attribute if it's existence in reliable sources will not be proved." is an incorrectly aimed challenge. What you are talking about is a simple challenge on the grounds of notability. That is perfectly fine, and acceptable, and I have no problem with that challenge. My issue is that you keep confusing it with WP:NEO which has nothing to do with any of this. I am not overlooking any burden of proof, other than my attempt to get you to say why you think it's a neologism. You give me an answer each time which does nothing but show that you don't know what a neologism is. When I say "I disagree", I am not disagreeing with wikipedia policy or your challenge for further sources, I am disagreeing with your manipulation and interpretation of WP:NEO. It is impossible for me to "disprove" your interpretation of WP:NEO with any policy backup because the guideline is just not appropriate in this case. In any case, it's a dead-end argument. I am not obstructing any movement on this article with regard to challenges of notability - this is admittedly borderline, though I believe the subject is notable. Your request for further sources is fine, but the neologism aspect is such a pointless, irrelevant argument, and the continued pushing of it is becoming quite tedious. Rather than you and me just exchanging our differences, let's wait to see if Bubba hotep can find anything and take it from there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Absolutely no sense at all. Bordering on TL;DR, I did attempt to read it, but it was so convoluted, I couldn't put it into any logical order. Your attempts at wiki-lawyering are, well, quite amusing to be honest. The hard facts of this are that today alone, four people have disagreed that this is a neologism (either here on this talk page or by removing the neologism template) – that is called a consensus. Consensus being against you at present, I really would recommend not pushing it any further today. – B.hotep •talk• 17:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we might go to DL, but we should make it a bit clearer here before we do so.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DL? Not sure what you mean. Anyway, I could come up with a few sources to backup the fact that it is a notable sub-genre argument, but it won't do anything to change your mind, and I'm not inclined towards jumping through hoops because it will take time, and that is one thing you seem to be short on, trying to rush things through all the time. – B.hotep •talk• 17:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DL was a typo. Nevermind. Glad to hear you're coming with sources. That's the stuff we need. I knew that the AfD would help the article. We've got enough time. Everything is reversible on Wikipedia. And don't worry (since i seem to annoy you), i won't be able to be around that often in the near future. But I'm curious about the stuff you'll bring.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop ruining these articles and turning them into stubs. Portillo (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I' sorry to say that, but the review of Burn My Eyes does not use the term "groove metal", so i'll reword it as it was before it was removed allright?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of available sources on groove metal. Feel free to pick the flesh from the bones and implement them as you see fit. If you want to see them on a seperate page, see here. Please do not remove any, if you have any comments, please put them at the end. – B.hotep •talk• 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "For the uninitiated, the Spiritual Beggars are a three-piece psychedelic groove-metal trio from Sweden." ^[1]
• "... the groundbreaking Texas quartet's career did not begin with the blueprint-defining extreme groove-metal of 1990's Cowboys from Hell..." ^[2]
• "... there was no greater metal band during the early to mid-'90s than Pantera, who inspired a legion of rabid fans and whose oft-termed "groove metal" style bucked all prevailing trends of the day..." ^[3]
• "... only barely staves off gimmicky groove metal breakdowns..." ^[4]
• "The Boston-based groove-metal band Roadsaw released their debut album Nationwide in 1997." ^[5]
• "Byzantine synthesize the last 20 years of metal into an incredibly colorful, vibrant whole: '80s thrash rolls into '90s groove metal..." ^[6]
• "... elements of doom metal, Southern rock, grindcore, Melvins-like sludge, Pantera-type groove-metal..." ^[7]
• "...they shifted from the thick-necked, straight-edge hardcore of their early catalog to a version of the "groove metal" practiced by Pantera, Trivium, and other modern metal bands." ^[8]
• "They also owe something to death metal and the "groove metal" sound of acts like Pantera and Lamb of God, but they've got a crispness and an impressive..." ^[9]
• "... for 1995's aforementioned Positive Pressure it was thrash and Pantera-style groove metal (commercial peak circa 1993)..." ^[10]
• "... semi-industrial groove metal riffing..." ^[11]
• "Though fans kneel at the alter of this groove metal, the band sure doesn't hide influences that came before it..." ^[12]
• "Sweden's Face Down attempted to ride Pantera and Machine Head's groove-metal gravy train..." ^[13]
• "Formed in a small town in Ontario, Canada during the early '90s, the groove-metal band Ritual debuted in 1994..."^[14]

• "Equal parts groove-metal, metalcore, thrash and even glam..." ^[15]

• "... limply pushing itself onwards through 11 tracks of turgid groove-metal..." ^[16]

• "Drummer Chris Adler has said their fifth album will "surprise a lot of people," scaring fans who thought the groove-metal band's last record already succumbed to (gasp!) accessibility." ^[17]

• "High On Fire have become one of the decade's foremost doom-laden groove metal acts." ^[18]
• "OO% is a side project intended to occupy time while guitarist Jimmy Bower fulfils commitments with groove metal outfits Down and Corrosion Of Conformity." ^[19]

• On Faust Again's The Trial, "... it swiftly becomes apparent that Gojira are not alone in their disregard for convention and mastery of the surging, reptilian groove." ^[20]
• On Killwhitneydead's A Trilogy of Terror, "... the infectiouslate 90s noisecore mayhem-meets-Pantera groove... is left alone." ^[21]

• "Unleashing there devastatingly brutal, hardcore-influenced groove metal, Mastodon sank their teeth in to the crowd..." ^[22]

• "Why should they follow former members of At the Gates when they now seem concerned with replacing the velocity and philosophy of their former band with idiotic groove metal..." ^[23]

• On band Bastards, "By spinning brutish 90s metalcore, and good old fashioned grindcore 'round the same discordant axis and tempering their machine gun blasts of jarring aggression with sickening grooves..." ^[24]
• On band Cough, "Their [album] firmly wears influences on sleeve as a perfect amalgamation of EyeHateGod/Iron Monkey's misanthropic groove..." ^[25]
• On Eyehategod's Take as Needed for Pain, "... pummelled by rolling sludge groove after motherfuckin' sludge groove..." ^[26]
• On Eyehategod's Dopesick, "Schizophrenic ragers like 'Dogs Holy Life' and the Sabbath-core groove of 'Dixie Whiskey'..." ^[27]
• On Acid Bath's When the Kite String Pops, "Dax Riggs unique vocals, and morbid lyrics combine with the usual riff 'n' feedback ingredients... as well as... death metal, black metal... and straight up doom." ^[26]
• On Iron Monkey's Our Problem, "The self-titled might have spat a little more bile, but the Southern rawk groove..." ^[26]
• On Down's Nola, "It's a great place to start for any budding groove aficionado". ^[28]
• On Despised Icon's Day of Mourning, "... breakdowns which morph the unexpected into the comfortable grooves and slams..." ^[29]
• On Magrudergrind's self-titled, "... but Magrudergrind toss in a whole bunch of neighbouring influences (hardcore, powerviolence, punk, thrash), bookend it with pop-culture samples and wicked groove parts". ^[30]
• On No Consequence's In the Shadow of Gods, "... smartly executed bursts of everything from brutal grind to razor-sharp thrash, their sound is a bravely limitless amalgam of every credible sub-genre... song[s] like 'The Arrival of Predators', with its lurching, spastic grooves..." ^[31]
• On Heaving Earth's live performance, "It's a little messy and mostly unremarkable, but a pinch of Napalm-inspired grind, groove, and earnest conviction sees them through". ^[32]

• "... that Pantera at their best were one of the finest metal acts ever... or perhaps obscurer Louisiana groove-metal merchants Exhorder." ^[33]

• Place comments on above sources here.
• You've outdone yourself Bubs. A dedicated article builder could take those and turn this stub into a Featured Article (Where's Pat when you need 'em?) Wiki libs (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done. Portillo (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not even a single one of those sources talks about "groove metal." You could find at least a dozen acts being called "boogie metal", but hardly anything about it. Also, might I add that having the simple word groove is an album review does not mean that that source is calling a band "groove metal." We could find multiple sources calling bands like Sabbath and Zeppelin having groove. This term really is a neologism. RG (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about you put back the template that says "please expand this article (see the talk page)" instead of blindly reverting. Some of the info added might have been good. Please stop being so unhelpful and please stop edit warring. And the consensus was: it is not a neologism. – B.hotep •talk• 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop being so unhelpful" That was flat out rude. You are readding unsourced information to the article and filling it full of original research. If you want to expand the article than find something that gives it a legit history, mentions bands that pioneered it, etc. You can find this simple information for about any other metal sub (thrash metal, hair metal, doom metal, etc.) RG (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being rude? Am I wrong though? Have you removed a template that could very well help the article? Have you re-added a template that has been pointed out many times to be wrong? In what terms could anyone call that helpful? – B.hotep •talk• 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is such right now that with the reliable sources provided above it can be expanded... not wholesale reverted back to nothingness. Leave the personal pov at the door. Wiki libs (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba, you and Libs are removing references that would pass WP:RS and turning this article into fancruft. Original research is not allowed. Libs, there is a reason this was reverted, it's false info. The only source that actually talks about it calls it a mix of hard rock, dance music, and hip hop. If you want to expand the article then keep the sourced info and add more the sources. Right now you people are commiting vandalism with this OR. RG (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing these attempts to expand the article as "vandalism" is a blatant breach of WP:AGF. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people are breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV, Breton. If you or anyone else were to expand the article using legit sources then that is perfectly fine, but that isn't the case here. People are just reverting anything they don't want to see. RG (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever they're doing, it really isn't vandalism. Adding info without sources may be questionable under the guidelines you mention, but it isn't vandalism, and calling it that is inflammatory. "Reverting anything they don't want to see" - looks like what you're doing too. Not all unsourced info needs to be removed instantly, particularly if it's not contentious in any way, as we all know that info wasn't. There needs to be a bit of give and take here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]