Talk:Jonas Brothers

This article was nominated for deletion on February 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Honor Society in acting

Why is honor society in acting its about a record label and that section is about actingKing007ofrock (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)King007ofrock The jonas records should stay completely seperated from the jonas brothers article, because they don't own the company it's a part of the hollywood records corp. They had to suk dick to get in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.192.226 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion of article

This article feels like it was written by an excited 14 year old Jonas Brothers fan. It's a little biased, and a little poorly constructed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.99.88 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One Example is: There should be a reviews section. That gives examples of reviews of their albums... both good and bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.236.252 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammy Nomination

This I know for a fact...Jonas Brothers are NOT the first "Disney promoted" act to be nominated for a Grammy. There was also no citation to that sentence to prove that it is true. I obviously deleted it. User: Evergreengirl 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC) yes they are i guess u could include justin and britney if they were nominated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.250.147 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) there could never be a bad song by them I think that and I'm 16.

Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss your love or hate for the Jonas brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.52.43 (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

I think this article needs to list the Jonas Brothers' associated acts. These acts should include Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus (or both), Demi Lovato and Taylor Swift. These people have the Jonas Brothers featured as their associated acts. If somebody could add that that would be great. Thanks --Tiah12345 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the template to list the associated acts, it wasnt formatted correctly was all. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they are also associated with the upcoming band Honor Society. They have played with them at some concerts before and were in one of the Jonas Brothers live chats. If you could add this I think it would help the article. Honor Society was part of the 2009 World Tour.

No. According to the template's documentation, the associated acts really should be for artists who have collaborated multiple times, or spin-offs. Honor Society may have played with the JoBros in concert, but have not released any singles with them, nor were they spun-off. If it turns out that they collaborate more together, then of course they can be added, but we can't list every group that has played with JoBros in concert together. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they should add Miley, Demi, and Taylor but we don't really know about Honor Society yet, or at least we haven't heard anything about it(Or i might have miss something about that). In Miley wiki page she stated associated act with JB and Demi's page too. SO i think they should really add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.182.190 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

They should also add the Wonder Girls because they are on tour with the Jonas Brothers. The Jonas Brothers are the ones who brought them to America. Kaleigh.xo (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Various spots

Someone please correct the grammatical error of writing "had written" when what is meant is "wrote"; "had written a song" when "wrote a song" is meant; "had made their acting debut" when "made their acting debut" is meant. There are probably other spots where the pluperfect is being used for some odd reason when the simple past tense is called for, but those are the ones I saw. Thanks. Cath reen (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone add the Show J.O.N.A.S. cause they're in it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelenaDemiJBFan (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What's with the censorship on this page?

what is with the tag saying any discussion on this page will be deleted? AFAIK, the rules say the forums exist to improve the article, but do not disallow discussion on the talk page. Since free discussion, so long as it is cordial, is crucial to a complete understanding of any topic, i don't see how someone is justified in deleting material. Dmcheatw (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#FORUM, specifically talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

is this the standard interpretation of that link on wikipedia? most talk pages are not tagged like this. talk pages are frequented by individuals who have questions about the subject, and other users who can get a feel for the controversies surrounding a topic by checking the talk page. restricting discussion can only have the effect of lessening understanding and, ultimately, leading to a poorer article. IOW, i don't see how that sentence you bolded gives anyone the authority to delete anything deemed not to be article related discussion.Dmcheatw (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, the message you are talking about comes from the standard template Notaforum, which is linked to from tens of thousands of talk pages. It usually only gets specifically applied to problem areas, and most Disney stars fall into the "problem area" category. I probably delete 20 or 30 messages a day from talk pages all over Wikipedia for being forum comments.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error in "Early Work" section

The first sentence of the section "Early Work" in this article contains a slight misspelling.

The Jonas Brothers had made their acting debut in season 2 of the popular Disney Channel Original Series, Hannah Montana, where the guest starred on the episode "Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas".

The word "the" should be "they". I would change this myself, but my account is new and I haven't made edits with it yet. Thanks to whoever takes care of this!

--Ahamlinman (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done A new name 2008 (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

In the little box that shows what roles the brothers played, why the hell does the column for "Joe's Role" comes first? Kevin is the oldest, so the column for "Kevin's Role" should be first, not Joe's. Fix it. It should be Kevin, Joe, and then Nick. 173.66.212.164 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in Alphabetical order. Why should the oldest be first? that wouldn't make sense. 86.136.162.90 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I aggree. It doesn't have to be in alphabetical order. I think it's fine the way it is.AvrilLavingefan14 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Backup Band section

Under the description of the role of John Taylor who plays backup guitar, the wording seems particularly biased against the Jonas brothers "Creates, records, and performs all the bands guitar parts that the Jonas Brothers just can't handle while the Jonas Brothers play simplistic power cords."

although not factually incorrect in that he plays the more advanced parts on stage perhaps the wording may be changed so as not to suggest that they 'cannot handle' the parts altogether, as it suggests more that they are incapable of playing the parts at all rather than those parts being unsuitable for playing while also working/entertaining the crowd in the way they do. I think removing the words 'just can't handle' or adding 'onstage' afterwards may resolve the issue of the tone here.

The problem is more the tone of this section which does not seem to fit the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.165.27 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that "Power cord" is a wrong spelling. Its supposed to be "Power chord." Chords are musical thing, cords are ropes and stuff. If someone can change that, it would be great. Maybe even link it to the "Power chord" wiki article. Thanks. 69.228.208.12 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This section does sound biased, so it should definetely be changed. 71.182.229.224 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree...John Taylor plays backup guitar, not "all the parts that the Jonas Brothers can't handle". The Jonas Brothers play the lead guitar (and guitar), and John Taylor plays backup. Give credit where credit is due, regardless of your opinion of their music, abilities, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green004 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No "criticism" section

There's no criticism section on this page. I think that it should be added, because lots of people hate them and they should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.87.42 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) This is true. Every other band faces critism, why not the Jonas Brothers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljwman2 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Yes there are going to be some inappropriate, unproductive criticisms targeting the Jonas Brothers, but there is a significant amount of criticism directed at the band. An entire South Park episode was dedicated to satirizing the subject. It is openly discussed in the music world. The host of the most recent MTV Music Awards addressed it. To not allow a criticisms section on this group is just inappropriate. Wils4581 (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIT, a separate criticism section is discouraged. Crticism sections are allowed, BUT if the criticism can be placed in the other sections - and along with supportive information to counter the criticism, that is the preferred method. groink 00:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how there isn't a criticism section about their Disney-manufacutred status, their cynically-constructed appeal to majority America, their terrible brand of generic pop... so many articles have been written to that effect. It must be because the article is (as is the bias on most Wikipedia articles), primarily edited by the diehard fans.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's your oppinion. Wikipedia is about facts. If the average hater was given a chance, this article would say, "LMFAOLOL!!!!! The Bonedass Brothers are a bunch of gay fucking fags who have butt sex with eachother! They also worship Satan and sell sex to girls. We need to destroy Disney. EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!" You think this is biased? Give me a break. In your mind, it's only biased because the article never once referred to them as talentless queers.

I'm all for a criticism section, but don't make one based on the words of dumbass online haters. 71.182.229.224 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article most certainly needs a criticism section, if not only to elaborate on the many legitimate and verifiable complaints by people regarding the band. If have read many articles from acclaimed sources on paper and online that tout the obvious and easily recognizable problems with the band and it's marketing, influence etc... I also have a suspicion about attempts being made at establishing such a section being met with destruction by bad loving crusaders who cite the verifiable material as 'hater garbage' or the like. In any case this article deserves a criticism (or at least Controversy) section more then many I've seen that already have them. MasteroftheWord (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add a criticism section, but make sure that it isn't too biased. There are plenty of fans that want to stand up for them, but there are also plenty of haters who want them to ne portrayed in a negative light just because of their personal oppinions. Disney haters are running rampant trying to put anti Disney stuff everywhere, and it's rediculous and immature. The Jonas Brothers haven't gotten into any kind of scandal or did anything to piss anybody off. Despite this, a suprising number of people go out of there way to make them look bad. Every wikipedia article of a band, artist, actor, or other celebrity should be run primarily by people who like them with one or two sections reserved for people who hate them. And if you decide to make a critism section, then don't give any attention to people who simply don't like their music or call them fags. 71.182.229.193 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia pages should definitely not be run by people who like them. That's called bias and the Jonas Brothers are definitely no exception because there are one band of people who are obsessed with them and another band of people who severely hate them and not many people in between. As has already been pointed out - Wikipedia is about facts, and I think it is a fact that the Jonas Brothers do face a hell of a lot of public critism, am I right? 83.70.71.2 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Southpark significant?

Why is a satirical cartoon episode of Southpark significant in this biography? I do not see any noticeable impact it has had on their lives, nor do I see any reason why a cartoon episode of Southpark deserves special mention. I'm using the standards similarly to 'Southpark episodes' of every politician/celebrity -- they are not included in their biography pages (Al Gore, George Bush, Tom Cruise, etc.)

The source used, further, does not seem credible. The language they use in the article is highly charged/biased (examples given below). I'd politely suggest it be removed from this biography page, but I'm willing to listen to some replies if you feel it deserves special recognition for any reason.

http://www.canada.com/Entertainment/life+more+awesome+Jonas+Brothers/1394543/story.html

"Unfortunately, almost every one of his answers sounds about as scripted -- like much of his life."

"Sheesh. What's left? A lot, including the trio's upcoming TV series, album, clothing line and tour."Jonhan (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Jonhan (talk)

Hi Johan. The fact that the producers of Southpark consider that their audience will recognise the characters they chosse as "guest stars" and understand the behaviours and responses they portray testifies to the "guest stars'" notability. To that extent, an appearance on Southpark is as worthy of inclusion as a live appearance on a talk show. Your comments suggest that you're crusading against Southpark and perhaps you perceive that show as trivial. For me the test would be not whether the medium / format is trivial but whether what the medium says about the subject is reliable and adds to or illustrates our knowledge of the subject. In the case of Southpark, it's unlikely to add to our knowledge, but it certainly illustrates notability and notable characteristics; a few words would seem to give appropriate weight, although a whole paragraph would be excessive.

I would look at the canada.com article in the same way: the language may be tabloid, but that should not influence our perception of the value of the content.

Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may say, characters on Southpark cannot be equated as "guest stars" on a talk show. The celebrity/politician in question does not have any discretion over his actions on the cartoon. The director chooses -- often in crude, humorous but at the same time virulent, usually misleadingly fabricated, and satirical ways (Al Gore's manbear-pig retardation, Oprah's "minge," Tom Cruise's Scientology locked in the closet etc.) -- how the celebrity will react.

Yes the show is trivial, fictional, and has no weight as a reliable source. Unless, and this is the caveat, the episode itself has had a significant impact on their lives or the episode itself distinctly deserves special mention on the page. The fact that a piece of satire mentions something does not give it weight on its importance.

As for you blatantly accusing me of "crusading" against Southpark, false. I'm equally against the unquestioned inclusion of the millions of other satirical articles, shows, pieces, skits that tackle current events. The question is not "whether it adds to our knowledge of the subjects," millions of satirical pieces do that, the question is what has this specific piece-episode of satire accomplished to earn its weight as a notable source. I contend that it has none. In addition to the fact that the show is completely fictional in almost every aspect, with accusations of Mickey Mouse exploiting children. This would have to be a point of inclusion too, you cannot pick and choose which parts of a "source" are reliable and which should be discarded.

In regards to the tabloid, it's more of the fact that it has clear bias and unverifiable information. We are looking out for facts after all. Thanks for your time. —Preceding Jonhan (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Johan. First of all, I'm sorry if my use of "crusade" causes offence - that was not the intention. To me your "I'm using the standards similarly to 'Southpark episodes' of every politician/celebrity" sounded like a crusade, but I apologise for possibly misinterpretting it.

I agree that mention or appearance in satirical shows merits very little weight; however as I said above the fact that a person's notability and reknown is such that Southpark dedicate time to them may in itself be noteworthy. While in general such shows are not going to be reliable sources for commentary on the views or actions of the subject, they do on occasion influence either the behaviour of the subject or the public perception of the subject and either of these outcomes may also be noteworthy. For example, in the contested passage of this article "According to a news report by Canwest News Service, the Jonas Brothers' publicist specifically forbids reporters from asking the band members about the South Park episode"

I don't know on what grounds you say that canada.com, the souce of the above quotation, "has clear bias and unverifiable information", perhaps you can explain that one? Thanks likewise for your time Timberframe (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. To the rest, as I mentioned in my first post, the language used in the article is highly charged and biased such as "unfortunately, almost every one of his answers sounds about as scripted -- like much of his life." The line you quoted (as is the rest of the article) is thus unverified and we have reason to doubt its credibility.

The fact that the Jonas Brothers were included in part of a South Park episode does not merit due weight, it is my belief. Especially given the fictional, usually flagrantly false information and depictions posed in the show. Its role in influencing the public or the subject's behaviors are unverified assertions either, as far as I know. Most people will take it with 'a grain of salt' as the saying goes, anything depicted in the show (aliens, giant hamsters, George Bush and 9/11 planning, Kanye West and fishsticks etc.)

I think what is written here, as it is, is sufficient for this biographical page.Jonhan (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on the bottom line: that the biography is not significantly diminished by the omission of the passage you removed because, whatever the possible noteworthiness of the passage, its weight would be miniscule. You make some good and thought-provoking points which I'll mull over, but as far as this article goes I think we can draw the discussion to a close. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this to the much needed 'Criticism' portion that should be added to this article. I do not see the problem with the inclusion of this material as it should at least merit a inclusion in a 'Popular Culture' section if nothing else. MasteroftheWord (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel the South Park episode was quite notable. It raised significant and direct criticism of the Jonas Brothers that hasn't been raised in other significant areas. Additionally, I had no idea who they were until I saw the South Park Episode and in fact think that South Park added to their notability through this as would MANY people in the International audience of South Park given that Jonas Brothers are more of a domestic group..--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Jonas brothers apperance on south park deserves speacial recognition because they just started acting. Scarlet Wolff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.157.124 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to include the appearance of the Jonas Brothers on South Park, a reliable, secondary source would need to be provided which mentions the event. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.52.43 (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Censored?

Additionally, I am troubled by some of the comments on this discussion page as it looks as if discussion of ways to improve the article is being censored ... possibly by marketting agents responsible for the Jonas Brothers. Given the type of group they are this would make sense as the people they would be marketted to would be the sort to do prudent research on them.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples, please? -- Timberframe (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you one. The way any mention of the South Park episode lampooning them has been removed. Exiledone (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not necessary, regardless of who is removing it. They've been parodied many, many times. Why is one lampooning any different from the rest of them? For example, Paris Hilton. The girl is parodied on a nearly daily basis. That's not necessary to include in her article. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonas Brothers as guest editors of magazine

I don't know how to edit the article, I'm new to Wikipedia. But the Jonas Brothers guest-edited the Music section of this magazine called Time Out New York and I think this should be included in the 2008-Present section. They talk about their favorite bands (Matisyahu, Wilco), books (The Alchemist) and all this other stuff that makes them sound more adult. The article is online at timeoutnewyork.com/jonasbrothers. How can I include it? CokeZeroLover (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi CokeZeroLover! Well you've made a start here already. You could insert most of your second and third sentences as they stand (I'd miss out the bit about sounding more adult because that's what we call original research - your own commentary on the documented facts). At the end of it you need to create a reference to the source, so after the final period type <ref>[http://www.timeoutnewyork.com/jonasbrothers timeoutnewyork.com]</ref>. Whatever you type between the ref tags will appear in the reference section as a numbered footnote; in this case the square brackets tell wiki to create a hyperlink to the web address inside the square brackets and label it using the text which follows the first space.

I've given you some pointers on your personal talk page. Any problems - leave a message here or on my talk page. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

acting

from now on nobody change my edit of honor society on their label on actingKing007ofrock (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)King007ofrock

You don't own the article. Your edits will be change; its inevitable. You could state why you don't want your edit changed, i.e. why you think it should be included. BOVINEBOY2008 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Says that at the bottom of every edit page. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of ability to sing, act or perform in general

I think this is worth note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.237.109 (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just gonna put this out there: apparently people disagree, or they wouldn't be this famous. Stuckpages94 (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not fact it is an opinion CrystalicIsMe (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

End of discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is vandalism in the article that is obvious, It mentions a time period for them as "suck my D.I.C.K." and "its all about aids and gay sex". I would correct this vandalism but I do not know anything about the jonas brothers. And I dont know much about how to help out on wikipedia. If anyone can help fix the vandalism and maybe tell me how I can help next time I would really appreciate it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.178.72 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Add it. Please.

Music Sample Credit

The song "Much Better" off of their Lines, Vines and Trying Times album samples the music of a song called "Tenderness." by General Public off of their All The Rage album from 1984. Please give them the credit they're due.

--Darktroy (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Most Subscribed on Youtube

There was a box on the bottom of this page recently which claimed that the Jonas Brothers were at one point the most subscribed channel on Youtube. This was never the case. Another editor removed the box as "uncyclopedic" which I don't agree with, but it didn't belong there because it wasn't true. Just an fyi in case someone considers reverting that other edit. --Milowent (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

An inappropriate comment has been edited into the opening paragraph which should be removed at the date of September 30 GMT+10 7:55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverStarHarmonica28 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see it and the timestamp you quote doesn't make sense to me - all wiki timesatmps are in UTC (=GMT, not GMT+10). Please can you quote the offending comment? -- Timberframe (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The album links are wrong except for the first album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.50.130 (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New Award

Although they won the best band a year or so ago, they recently won a pretty big award, and although it is kind of a downsider type award, it deserves to still be mentioned.

http://www.seventeen.com/fun-stuff/17-buzz/jobros-win-worst-band

They have won the "worst band" and "worst album"

Wolfreak 99 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Poster?

I have seen a poster of the Jonas Brothers that distinctly imitates the art style and maroon/gold motifs and found on the album art of Panic at the Disco's A Fever You Can't Sweat Out and Fall Out Boy's From Under the Cork Tree. Does anyone know if this was a deliberate attempt to seem more like the real bands, and sell posters to older teens, or was it just because that art style had been popular before? I'd add it to the page if I knew, but I don't have a link to the poster. 76.1.48.210 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just an oppinion. 96.235.21.29 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)