Talk:The 5 Browns

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Latter-day Saint musical group?

While The 5 Browns are all LDS, is it fair to call them a "Latter-day Saint musical groups" (included in the category)? Are their recordings at all LDS themed (I doubt it). Are they endorsed by the LDS church? I think the category itself is ambiguous--what does it mean? That members of the groups are LDS or that they are officially recognized by the LDS church? This has to be clarified.

Also, the article states their ages. These will continue to change. Instead, add a qualifier, such as "upon the release of their first album, they were..." or "from oldest to youngest they are...". Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a clarifying statement to the category. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the removal of material?

All information regarding the abuse by their father has been purged, and fluffy "brochure-style" pablum has replaced it. this needs to be fixed.71.202.17.234 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: [1]. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problem?

I came across this article today and was surprised by the table of contents. "Background, Sexual abuse, Discography, References...". They aren't notable for "Sexual Abuse" so why does that get its own top-level header? Also, the weight given to the material seems undue for the rest of the article. I figure the section is as big as it is because of a combination of WP:Recentism and the tendency we editors have to write more about "controversial" tabloid-style things. Anyway, it seems way out of proportion for what a respectable encyclopedia article would have, and I'd like to crop it down and merge it in with other material. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some extraneous detail from the section, and think all the sentencing stuff could be removed without compromise of encyclopedic detail. However, this is an item that received a great deal of coverage in my view not because of recentism but because it was notable for a variety of reasons.

The way to add balance to the article is to reintroduce a (balanced, unlike the deleted version) section on critical reception. ^Bongo_matic 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good start. However the idea of eventualism (that an article can eventually be brought into balance via addition of new material) specifically does not apply to BLPs. (See WP:BLP#Balance) The same section also says to give extra care to the article structure and section headings, which is part of my concern. Let me see what I can do, and let me know what you think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent changes to this page. I also agree with bongomatic; information about the father's sentencing is better suited to an article about the father. I'll trim it a bit. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.215.225 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The 5 Browns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110426064708/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/8301-504083_162-20033000-504083.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20033000-504083.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]