Talk:Powerviolence

Misc early comments

Use Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if you want to propose removal of Power violence.

This is not a candidate for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please do not add the {{delete}} tag to the article again. This would be considered vandalism and you would be blocked.

Again, if you want the article removed you must propose it under Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. See the detailed instructions at the bottom of that page. -- Curps 22:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

A persistent vandal at 141.154.x.x keeps proposing this article for speedy deletion although he has been told repeatedly that it is not a candidate and he should try VfD instead. A brief search at Google seems to show that this term is in actual use and does not appear to be a hoax. Even if it was a hoax, it's certainly not an obvious one, and should not be deleted without going through VfD. -- Curps 07:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Stupid powertripping egotistical assholes. Fuck you! Power Violence is not, I repeat NOT, a recognized genre. If you feel otherwise, cite an AUTHORITY on the matter. 141.154.234.84 19:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, like I suggested back in January (see above). Read the instructions at the bottom of that page carefully, and make your case to the Wikipedia community. There's really not much more to say. -- Curps 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Just a note: the Bruce Banner link here points to the comic book character, and not to the power violence band named after him. Maybe the link could be changed to Bruce Banner? Also, I'd vote in favour of keeping this article since the drum beat article references it. It would also be nice to see a note about the importance of blast beats in this article. Be aware that I created the drum beat article, and the reference contained therein, so I may not be entirely unbiased.

--Macho 15:27 25 Apr 2005 (CST)

I have disambiguated various links and unprotected the page. -- Curps 21:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citation call

I am pretty apathetic about the article, but I must say that it requires citations, either to AMG or a print source, to indicate that this is not a neologism. I certainly won't be edit warring over it, but the vandal has a point: it's really the burden of the article to establish the legitimacy and significance of the topic, and not the burden of the reader to disprove them. Please do offer some citations to help make this discussion stronger and to establish its legitimacy. Geogre 22:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, we've actually discussed this on your talk page, and I think we've cleared up any mutual misunderstandings, but I'll also reply on this talk page for the benefit of anyone else who's following this discussion.

I am not the original author of this article and have not made any contributions to it other than minor wikification (link fixing). I merely searched Google sufficiently to verify that this is not a hoax, as the anon vandal falsely claimed. The fact that the article does not cite extensive references is not grounds for deletion: right now, only a small fraction of Wikipedia's 500,000 articles have extensive references and citations. Remember that Wikipedia is very much a recent work in progress. So the burden of proof is actually upon any would-be deleter to either show that an article meets either speedy-deletion criteria (this one clearly does not), or to propose the article for VfD and argue the case for deletion to the wider Wikipedia community. However, the vandal has repeatedly ignored invitations to do the latter, and instead has repeatedly nominated and re-nominated the article for speedy deletion, hoping that sooner or later some admin or another would take the bait. It is this behavior that I very much object to. -- Curps 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Procedural protection?

If the "vandal" has been blocked, why is protection in place? Were all procedures followed before protecting? (E.g. if the page is protected, the skeptics can't actually place it on VfD.) Again, I have no interest in this page's continued existence or deletion, but I must urge you, user:Curps, to play it by the book and remove the protection very soon. Geogre 22:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vandal uses the entire 141.154.*.* range, so blocking is problematic. Protection is necessary because two admins hastily speedied it without doing due diligence (and one of them was you). The vandal was invited to take it to VfD months ago, and has failed to do so, instead hoping that repeated speedy nominations and re-nominations would eventually result in some admin taking the bait... and sadly, it worked — once a month ago, and once just now (you).

I don't see why you place "vandal" in quotation marks. In the latest speedy nomination, he falsely claimed it was a recently created April Fools day's hoax [1], although he knows perfectly well that the article has been around for months, because he himself started vandalizing it months ago. This is hardly the mark of someone acting in good faith. I pointed out to him months ago, in this talk page and in the anon IP talk pages, that the criteria for speedy deletion were not met and that he could take it to VfD. He has never replied in any meaningful way, except with personal attacks and renewed speedy nominations. Yes, this is obvious clearcut vandalism.

At the very least, the protection will stay long enough until April Fool's is well past and no other admins can be tricked by the ruse that you fell for. Actually placing a VfD notice on the page is a mere technical issue, if and when he ever bothers to create a VfD voting page, then as part of the nomination he can ask any admin at Wikipedia:List of administrators to add the actual Vfd notice on the page itself. I could even do it myself. The fact that he himself can't do so because of the current page protection is a problem of his own creation. -- Curps 02:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other discussion

Other discussion has taken place at User_talk:Geogre#speedy_deleting_.22hoax.22_pages and User_talk:Curps#Hoaxes_.3F. See also Special:Contributions/141.154.244.54 and Special:Contributions/141.154.234.84. -- Curps 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Power violence is a very real genre of music, this article should definately not be deleted. Just because it is not a very common term doesn't not mean it doesn't exist or that the article is a hoax. All the bands given as examples in the article are real bands, I would know seeing as how I own recordings put out by them. Not only that, but most of these bands actually use the term "power violence" in lyrics, song and album titles, such as Fuck On The Beach's album "Power Violence Forever", The Ultimate Warriors' album "Power Violence Mayhem", Godstomper's "Saturday Morning Power Violence" and the Spazz songs "Mighty Morhpin Power Violence" and "Raisins Hate Fear and Power Violence". Firexstorm

I thought the song was "Raging hate fear & flower power violence" ;-p Nagelfar 04:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Um

What is wrong with Curps? He has not once cited an authority saying Power violence is a recognized genre. Yet he persists in his abusive reverts. 141.154.228.160 14:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears that powerviolence is recognized. "powerviolence grindcore" returns 500+ hits on google. Just powerviolence returns 6600+ hits. It appears you can buy music in the genre. There are bands who identify themselves as such. This looks pretty straight forward. Wikibofh 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you win. I still think you are all a bunch of assholes, though. That'll teach me to try to help Wikipedia. 141.154.228.160 17:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? Power violence is very real. Still alive today. I attest to this! The article looks okay.

That anon left a while ago (you'll notice it's dated April 29). So, the subject seems ok. Wikibofh 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, the review of Spazz's "Crush, Kill, Destroy" refers to them as a Power Violence band. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jxfixqtkldse 63.73.199.69 19:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not suggesting that power violence does not exist - I want it to exist, the name is fantastic - that article is a bit ambiguous. The writer mentions "power-violence" but he doesn't explicitly say that it's a genre; he says that a whole new genre of hardcore was spawned by the album, but again he doesn't explicitly say that the genre was power violence, or powerviolence, or power-violence. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of phrases return thouands of hits on Google. What you need is citiations from third-party publications (not just after-the-fact references). Got it?

Bands Listed

I adjusted the listing of bands to include a couple of bands that are generally considered very important "power violence" bands but do not have wiki articles. I added Man is the Bastard, Crossed Out, and Spazz. I also removed a couple that are not major artists. Those artists need to have wiki articles written about them, I would do it but I have limited time as I am moving soon. MITB is generally considered be the first true "power violence" band and supposedly coined the phrase (although I can't find a source on that right now). Spazz and Crossed Out were also very popular bands of the genre and need to be included. The inclusion of Crossed Out may be debatable, but it is very important to include Spazz. I removed The Locust and Quill. The Locust are generally not considered PV (despite having a split with MITB) and a lot of power violence fans would react negativly to the locust being defined as such. Quill are most likely considered power violence, but are not a particularly important or notable artist. Tombride 00:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm glad someone with personal knowledge of the subject might be able to weigh in.  :) Wikibofh 14:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah just curious

I dont have a problem with it being listed if bands are labelled as this and whatnot, but out of curiousity (I dont think the article explained this very well), what makes power violence different from other forms of hardcore, noticibly different enough for it to warrant its own classification? - Razorhead, 30 March 2007

How is it noticibly different? 1) It lacks the metal influence of Crossover thrash, crust punk, grindcore and metalcore 2) It lacks the funk influence of funkcore. 3) It is much faster, and is vocals are much harsher than Hardcore punk, youth crew or skate punk. 4) It utilizes blast beats instead of d-beats, and is so diffrent from D-Beat punk. 5)It lacks melody, unlike Melodic hardcore punk

Do you have any sources to back you up on the above list? Whose criteria are these? 66.155.209.26 (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I call bullshit. idiots. 69.17.49.17 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

HSMP

Is it quite possibly the greatest song ever written? "Crossed Out, No Comment, Manpig, Capitalist Casualties, Man Is The Bastard, West Coast Power Violence LETS FUCKING GO!..."

good song

Red links

Please, do ass bands if they do not have a page on wikipedia. If you wish to create a page and then add them, you may do so Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

how is this different from grindcore?

loud, abrasive, extreme punk. sounds like the same thing to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.21.140 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen to the complete discographies of a couple Grind bands and then those of a few Powerviolence bands. Compare genres by way of the actual music and not descriptive terms. You will hear their distinctiveness then. 64.42.220.123 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I too don't understand the difference between them. I don't understand the difference between Despise You and Agoraphobic Nosebleed. They both use the blast beat and they both do short songs less than one minute. 20:28 3rd October 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.67.142 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

power violence bands

not really a discussion but i think we should list powerviolence bands here so people can check them out.by here i mean in this section not on the page because people get pissy about that. ...i dont really feel like thinking about this that much, but people should add to the list, i will frequently.

final draft despise you world eater daisycutter No comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.200.237 (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Apathetic ronald macdonald, charles bronson, ACxDC, Duke Nukem forever, PLF(more grind but still awesome) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.200.237 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The genre has become more and more rigid over the last several years. When it began it included bands that brought in more diverse influences. Case in point, Man is the Bastard and Crossed Out have similar vocals but MITB adds electronics and has several long, slow songs. I would include the bands Gasp, Suffering Luna, No Le$$, and Sleestak as examples of the genre's early stylistic diversity. Seanleys (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Emo violence/screamo

Bands like Orchid are examples of emo violence (emo/screamo/power violence) and this small movement is cited on other pages, can it or is it worth incorperating into this article E.G. Legacy section? Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)