Talk:BTS/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about BTS. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Protected edit request on 22 October 2018

This edit request to Jimin (BTS) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Jimin (singer, born 1995) has been AFC approved, so please change links for this singer to point to this new article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

This edit request to BTS (band) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, sorry for the inconvenience my request is not for you to change something of the article, but rather it is a concern, when you search in google bangtan boys and go to the members section before opening the link of the article appear only 6 members and V ( Kim Taehyung) appears as related searches, could you check that? thank you. Vante01 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vante01: We do not have any way to control what Google displays in search results. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018

This edit request to BTS (band) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"On October 2018" = "In October 2018" 2605:E000:9149:8300:BD8B:F88D:27CA:DF63 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Done Snowflake91 (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Consistency & keeping page current

I know this might seem like a minor thing to some, but please stick to the month/day/year format for ALL date parameters when editing the article! Consistency is an actual thing. Various editors worked hard to get the article raised to a B-class rating and consistency was specified as necessary during the process. Nearly all the most recent edits within the past few months have repeatedly used '3 September 2018' or '03-09-18' and this is incorrect. It also looks messy.

Also, please pay attention to the grammar and phrasing you use when making updates to the page. Those things are also important as well. I had to correct some of this yesterday, when whoever else is monitoring the page should be picking up on these discrepancies/mistakes and fixing them as they occur. I may have missed some for all ik but the page needs to stay current and properly worded and we're slacking in some places, eg. I've been the only one updating the social 50 charting period in the lead. I purposely leave it alone to see if anyone will update it but no one ever does and I usually end up doing it. If no one thinks it's important enough to be updated why do we even have it mentioned? Ik some editors think it's 'just a Wikipedia page' and therefore not that deep, but it's still held to a certain standard and needs to be upkept as such. - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Carlobunnie, you should be able to apply AutoEd or other tools to enforce MDY. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I've been busy with life outside of Wikipedia recently, but I've been doing my best. Mono was just released and needed a page, and Jungkook, Jimin, and Jin recently got pages that also need to touched up a little bit. I've noticed you stay consistent with updating Social 50 so I tend to work on other things. I've gone through and fixed the dating... I'll keep an eye on that in the future. As for Social 50, do you think it's worth having the exact number in the lead? That feels like a tedious thing to have to keep updating, and I feel like saying they hold the record for most consecutive weeks and second-most total weeks is sufficient. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@DanielleTH: I've been updating it because it was included in the lead and at no point did anyone state that it shouldn't be there. Imho since their social media power is intrinsically linked to their name (especially the social 50 run) I don't see why the number of weeks they maintain that standing shouldn't be specified. If I read something that mentions a record but doesn't actually specify it I'd naturally want to know what the record is so I think it's good that it's there. However if the consensus is that it isn't needed then we can remove it. I have no problem being the one to update it, just used it as a tiny example to highlight a bigger underlying problem with the maintenance of the page. And you aren't the only page watcher/editor (there's over 40 of us) so it shouldn't fall on the same people to be updating all the time y'know? I'm aware everyone has their own things to do so you need not justify how you spend your time to me. I know just how much work you put in here and on other pages. I was simply trying to appeal to other people to step up and be more active since we all supposedly have the same common vested interest in the page. - Carlobunnie (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Little mistakes

On the Toura and Concerts part Live Trilogy Episode I: The Red Bullet, but the actual name is Live Trilogy Episode I: BTS Begins. Also on the second paragraph of the part that talks about Artistry, there's an extra "that". Taegukqueen (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 November 2018

This edit request to BTS (band) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the BTS page, I would like to request changing the "Beyond The Scene" thing to "Bulletproof Boyscouts" Beyond The Scene happens to not be correct. Thank You 76.164.154.223 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

They have added the extra name to their meaning in English abrieviAtion so it can’t be omitted while their name means bulletproof boy scouts there is an extra meaning to make it easier for English people you can’t omit that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.247.233 (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

Moving Controversy: Request to move under history

Requesting to move this "controversy" section underneath BTS' history instead of just its own section. This issue, though might seem relatively big mainly due to Western articles reporting everything about BTS for clicks due to their global presence, is not nearly as big enough to warrant its own section. This section in fact paints BTS in a negative light and the section right now is very poorly written and in fact seems biased against the group and not towards the SWC and right wing Japanese politicians.

-To give some perspective, TOP's scandal, Twice's controversy with the flag, and Hyuna being kicked out of Cube were much bigger issues than this and both have substantially impacted these artist's careers, but none of these controversies have warranted their own sections on the respective artists' pages. We have yet to see the repercussions of this controversy but besides the postponement of Music Station there have not been any and BTS' career has remained steady. If anything more arises from this then it should, but as of now, I request this to just be included into their history section. If not, then I think the other respective artists should also get added controversy sections as it would also be considered "big enough" and were also covered by reputable sources. Hahahey568 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It has not impacted their career that much to have its own section. Justerrie (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It's too early for anyone to know how much this controversy will affect BTS' career. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I please request that part of bighit statement which I find important to add is added to the controversy section....It was not the agency or the band that chose this outfit it was the magazine and the stylist etc I think this is an important point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BA4E:8A00:5042:C823:B5C3:CA02 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree as this information and the issue as a whole hasn't affected how their fans feels towards them, and how outside of Japan and Korea the issue seems almost non-existent. They're literally doing concerts in Japan currently and nothing has affected that so far. Marnikab (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering that the japanese single they currently are promoting turned out to be the best selling one it seems like a reach that it had any kind of real impact on their career. The whole controversy was pushed by the japanese right-wing but the designer of the t-shirt has already made a statement clarifying the shirt. If in the future it turns out to have some kind of impact (what I doubt) it can still be added as an extra section but for now and without any proof of an impact it's useless to add it. Nexramas (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Since dozens of news agencies reported it, the controversy is already important enough to mention. It doesn't have to have a demonstrated impact on the band. The news reports are enough. Your arguments would be useful in limiting the coverage of the controversy, per WP:WEIGHT, but not in removing it. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, in general I'm pretty leery of "Controversies" sections in BLP articles. At the very least, I think the description of the controversy should go within the "History" section of the biography, rather than in a separate level 2 heading itself—per WP:WEIGHT this may be placing undue weight on the controversy. If this does have a major impact on the band, we could use a level 3/level 4 heading specifically identifying it—see how the Richard Nixon article does it for Watergate. Mz7 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Placing the paragraph in the history section is a good idea. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Support moving to History. There's articles, even from Japanse sources (where the backlash was the biggest) that this will have no affect on their Japanese popularity, and Western news media seems to have moved on. Japan and Korea still have articles coming out but not with new info. Also, Hahahey568, please sign your comments with four tildes (~).DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Done Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Exhibitions

BTS is not Beyond the Scene.

Controversy section

I'm not well acquainted with Korean Pop but know there is some controversy regarding contracting and working hours/conditions. Are there any sources that correlate this with BTS? Also recently BBC News reported on one of the band members wearing a controversial t-shirt depicting the Hiroshima atomic bomb leading to cancellation of the show in Japan. Maybe there is space to add this in the article whilst maintaining consistency and adding other related events to provide more information. Kunamesenpai (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The cancellation of a Japanese show is not notable enough to be regarded as a controversy. There are not much repercussions regarding this issue, hence it is difficult to expand and write about it. It is also a one-off event and there are not much effects in the long run. As for the long contracts and working hours, it is highly unlikely as the members renewed their contracts which supposedly meant they are satisfied with their company. If you can find sources to support your claims and are also notable enough, you can discuss/ add it. Do read WP:NOTE for a more in-depth explanation. Requiem II (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a big deal in Japan and covered in a lot of Japanese media. Not only was BTS' appearance on Music Station cancelled, but they were also taken off the list of consideration for the Kouhaku Uta Gassen, the exclusive end-of-the-year music program in Japan that only eligible artists are invited to (article from Sports Nippon). Also, a lot of international news sources have mentioned that BTS' shirt has caused controversy. It should at least be mentioned. lullabying (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Other things to add: BTS' controversy is also affecting other Korean artists in Japan, most notably Twice (as stated in this article by Sports Nippon). It's also affecting Twice's eligibility of being selected to perform for Kouhaku Uta Gassen (even though there are rumors saying they wouldn't be able to anyway because of "Yes or Yes" promotions). lullabying (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

So far there is no evidence of BTS' controversy actually affecting other Korean artists in Japan. Twice's participation in Kouhaku Uta Gassen was confirmed yesterday. Random86 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Like the user above stated I haven't seen any proof BTS affected anyone's careers in Japan. I would say Twice has been more affected by JPN politicians wanting Twice axed out of shows because Dahyun wore a shirt that supported comfort women than anything. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal Center controversy

This removal is a violation of WP:NPOV as the story has been reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more. It's widely reported and should be represented in the article for that reason only. If you bring up other reasons for the complete removal of this material then you are not addressing WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Carlobunnie, Angeliniz and AdultBrat, all of whom have completely removed this controversy. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Right the article is misleading and doesn’t have the correct factual statements in if numerous newspapers said that grass was purple would we then have to edit this into a page as truth just coz a newspaper said so Statethefacts86 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How about the fact that far right Japanese politics group have been using any means necessary to take down Korean entertainers with bts being their sole target at present because they deny the wrongdoing against koreans. How about the fact that a court case just ruled that some companies will have to pay restitution to the victims of the war and these companies are In fact the sponsors of the music shows that bts and another Korean group were cancelled from or that the Korean Japanese summat was cancelled bts are being used as pawns and scapegoats for this political agenda nd it’s disgusting Statethefacts86 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you are scrambling to come up with reasons to deny this widely reported story. All we have to do is tell the reader a summary of the news articles – we don't have to interpret the news to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Statethefacts86: Your arguments are approaching a call for censorship here for something you don't happen to like (and your user page summary suggests you are an WP:SPA in that regard. I completely agree with Binksternet and Maproom (see below) that a 'controversies' section is quite appropriate if the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has been moved to issue this statement on the Band's actions] and if numerous global mainstream newspapers have reported the story. Obviously, if it were subsequently proven to be untrue, and retractions issued, then we would either report that, or deem the controversies section unwarranted. Until then, I believe it should be reinstated and neutrality ensured in its content. It is perhaps unfortunate that SoWhy added page protection at the point of the new section having been removed - but that was probably appropriate until such time as editor consensus shows whether or not we should include this section on this developing story. And I think we should. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The SWC article (and others like it published by mainstream media so far) were written based on an AP press release that came from a questionable Japanese media source. SWC has said they will be looking into the original info provided to them and issue an updated statement soon since several of the accusations made in their article have been disproved thus calling its reliability into question. Some of the same international media (non-japanese ones) have published subsequent articles talking about the other side of the issue, namely the T-shirt/BTS being used as a scapegoat/smokescreen to deflect from the recent deterioration in jpn/kor relations due to the latest court ruling re: the forced labour issue. Would it not perhaps be better to wait for clarified information that contains less bias than what is currently in circulation and influencing certain editors? Then a more rounded and thoroughly neutral presentation of the issue could be determined. What I believe Statethefacts86 was trying to say is that just because a story is widely reported on from one angle does not mean it is the whole truth or only truth. Wikipedia is not a fresh-off-the-press type forum, publishing a hot topic as soon as it starts making some waves, nor is it the grounds on which to push a specific political agenda by publishing a narrative that an insistent few deem relevant. However it is only reasonable to think that a matter as sensitive as this should be put on hold until more facts come to light and then resolved via consensus. - Carlobunnie (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: There's photographic documentation of him wearing the shirt. What more do you want? BTS hasn't denied it, the band's management haven't denied it. If the whole thing was faked, and they were about to miss out on a huge opportunity (one of Japan's most popular music programs), you'd think they would tell people it was fake. But don't pretend like that's the only controversy. What about the Nazi hats? The awful photo shoot at the Holocaust Memorial? This really should be documented here. For the record though, what was the "questionable Japanese media source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.5 (talk • contribs)

I would like to ping Requiem II as they add as they initially rejected adding it. Additionally, Statethefacts86's neutrality have been called into question but I'd also like to do the same for 36.11.225.5 as they seem intent on adding it, including having this already added to the Dispute resolution noticeboard even though this discussion is ongoing (nor would I consider this a "small content dispute" as the page suggests). They seem to also fall under WP:SPA. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 04:44, 13 November 28 (UTC)

Okay, now for my own thoughts. This seems to be covered by notable news agencies, however my biggest concern stems from the controversy being ongoing. There have been many editors (though not all, to be clear) attempting to add/remove/adjust it to fit whatever narrative they support instead of keeping it neutral. I'm also personally debating about whether or not this would be WP:RECENTISM or not. Thus, if consensus should be reached to add/keep it, I feel like it should be started on a draft page where numerous editors can keep it encyclopedic, citing the accusations by Japanese outlets and now this Jewish one, the reaction, backlash, and accusations of it being propagated by Japanese nationalists (which, to be clear, has been covered by notable sources), instead of just edit warring about what to put there. Additionally, this issue concerns Japan, Korea, and now various Western nations, and getting a worldwide view all of these POVs would have to be ensured as well, instead of the little bit that's been removed which concerns just one view. Regarding recentism, as this is an ongoing controversy I feel it may be a good idea to wait and see the impact of the controversy has on BTS and K-Pop before adding it to the page, to, again, keep it encyclopedic.

Where to put it is my other concern. I don't feel it should get its own section unless it contains information comparable to the controversy section on Chou Tzu-yu. I feel it may be better suited to be mentioned in the "History" section under "2017–present" as it directly relates to BTS' career, similar to the Chat-Shire controversy as it's mentioned on the IU (singer) page. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 05:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I essentially agree with DanielleTH, this whole controversy is so big, with several news sources at least indirectly contradicting each other - as seen by the articles linked above - that in my opinion it's necessary to reflect that in this article. This was not the case earlier, which is why I deleted the section. However, I am not opposed to addressing this controversy at all. I had the same concerns as other users did about WP:RECENTISM, and if what Carlobunnie said about the SWC preparing a follow up statement is true, that, along with sites like CNN - as stated by Bonnielou2013 - proved my concerns to be correct. As of now, the article cannot be edited until the 19th anyways, and I'm hopeful that all the uncertainties, which led to the article being protected, will be resolved by then in order for someone to add the controversy (whether as a seperate section or not) in its entirety. AdultBrat (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please realize that the controversies behind BTS have not been addressed by the company BigHit Entertainment, and until this info is confirmed or denied it should not be included in this article. There is unnecessary defamation and null until proven or denied as accurate. Please disregard any updated information as of 11/10/18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.112.107 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This Statethefacts86 (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The controversy is attested by multiple reliable independent sources, as listed above. The fact that a non-independent source has said nothing about it is certainly not a reason to omit mention of it. The section should be restored. Maproom (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How about there is reliable independent public figures in japan who have said that they’re being used for a political agenda how about the fact I myself have photo proof of each pro right Japanese activist with their own natzi symbols marching and complaining about said alleged Nazi symbols on others. How about I have photo proof of the fact that the the photo shoot was a magazines choice but apologies were issued and not used as they didn’t agree with it either....

How about the fact that There is multiple proofs of said Japanese companies that have been ordered to pay restitution to the Korean victims are he sponsors of the shows they’ve been cancelled from how about we don’t put in articles that are being printed off of rumour and false facts pushed by a party that hates Koreans huh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statethefacts86 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How about the fact that far right Japanese politics group have been using any means necessary to take down Korean entertainers with bts being their sole target at present because they deny the wrongdoing against koreans.

How about the fact that a court case just ruled that some companies will have to pay restitution to the victims of the war and these companies are In fact the sponsors of the music shows that bts and another Korean group were cancelled from or that the Korean Japanese summat was cancelled bts are being used as pawns and scapegoats for this political agenda nd it’s disgusting Statethefacts86 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Statethefacts86: Just because you like this band, and you don't like Japanese people, that doesn't mean they haven't done what they've done. BTS has faced controversy because of a lot of things recently. Wearing a shirt celebrating the atomic bombings of Japan (not rumour, fact supported by photographic proof). Wearing hats with Nazi SS insignia (not rumour, fact supported by photographic proof). Posing for promotional photos at the Holocaust Memorial in Germany (again, not rumour, fact supported by photographic proof). Just because Japanese nationalists wear Nazi insignia, that doesn't mean BTS can be forgiven. These things happened, and people were upset by them. It's important to document. We can't just change history because you have a crush on these guys. Your bio makes it clear that the only reason you're here is to stop this story being told: "I’m here for the sole purpose of making sure that the far right party and the political powers that be try not to destroy seven lives to fuel their own hate". It also makes it clear that you're trying to start a lie that none of these things happened, and are all just a far right conspiracy. Do you work for Big Hit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.5 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why we've now got two threads on the same topic. But I shall therefore repeat my remarks made above by stating that I support the inclusion of the controversies section on the basis of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's announcement, and its subsequent coverage by mainstream media in the UK and Japan. It goes without saying that neutrality in any coverage within Wikipedia must not only be fair and neutral, but it must also be complete. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If your going to add it that’s fine but with the whole facts the shirt in context was about the liberation of Korea and other Koreans have worn it and Rupert grint was recently in japan with. A massive a bomb on his top the fact they’re using them for this political issue is clear......this photo shoot happened with a magazine and was with the stylist nd apologies were issued at the time...there was no swastika on the hat nd they had permission to do the shoot but it was ok taken down when people spoke up bout it. The fact is there is a far right party in japan who hate Korea who have been spamming the hell out of everywhere to try and dredge up everything to get koreans fans in japan have been accosted by people demanding they throw away there stuff which is frightening I am neutral when you want to add it with all the facts and context surrounding it not just this one side which hasn’t even stated the full facts anyone that ha reported from this ngle hasn’t researched properly also the rabbi and his organisation that ha been mentioned myself and others have been on contact and they are reviewing facts we have presented — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statethefacts86 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@sinebot I’ve never once stated I don’t like Japanese people so get your facts right...there shirt wasn’t made to celebrate the bombing FACT it like the rest of the text on the shirt was and is about Korean liberation FACT the original photo doesn’t have a swastika on it FACT the photo was edited by an anti fan FACT Other Koreans have warn this FACT Rupert grint was just there wearing a massive bomb T-shirt and nothing was said FACT the stylist and magazine who organised said photoshoot aswell as the boys apologised FACT the companies that have been ordered to pay Korean victims are also sponsoring the music show to which not just bts but other artists have been cancelled for FACT the far right party that keeps pushing this uses natzi flags themselves FACT this is issue was addressed cleared up and resolved years ago FACT for one i don’t have crushes on them I’m not 12 so please stop trying to insinuate as such I don’t hate Japanese people at all I’ve only menetioned the far right group of its to be added fine but it should be added with all the context too it with all the other proofs and with the full truth not the biased opinion they’ve done something and there’s also mitigating factors around this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statethefacts86 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As sad as this is to say, I think the above is clear proof of Statethefacts86 not having the required level of competence to edit articles. The fact that they are having a conversation with SineBot (and messaging SineBot's talk page) about this is rather revealing. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree to wait (3rd editor to do so to my count) to add anything about the controversy now; as Carlobunnie and DanielleTH have said. The events are recent, reliable news sources are available (CNN just picked it up, as well as those previously listed , and the story is adding bits and pieces of POV not first covered. A wise administrator gave us until November 19 to iron out any dispute on content. I vote we use all of that time to wait and see what develops. I have scratched the second heading for the same topic to add continuity to the discussion.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Just putting it out there that BTS' agency addressed the controversies recently, and I know the rabbi/church has said they're looking further into the instance too. The problem everyone seemed to have about adding it was that there was only one side addressing it, and since Big Hit had addressed it I think we can now come to more of a conclusion. If anyone wants to see the original source for what Big Hit said they posted it on their twitter from what I understand. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/14/national/talent-agency-k-pop-group-bts-apologizes-bomb-t-shirt/#.W-r-xhuWytU https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/bts/8484710/bts-jimin-addresses-fans-tokyo-dome-allegations-mocking-past Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If the band or the band's management never address the controversy, we will still write about it. So we are not waiting to see what the band says, nor are we waiting to see what the band management says. There's enough analysis printed in the news stories for us to summarize them for our readers. Of course, when the band weighs in on the controversy, we will summarize that as well. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments about Simon Wiesenthal news

YES

The community has agreed unanimously "Yes", but with different conditions. First, we should mention relevant Wikipedia policies. Specifically, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:RECENT, and WP:TMI. Information about the current event should be presented in a neutral, matter-of-fact manner, outlined in WP:NEUTRAL. We need to maintain that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, but one for sharing information. The edit that is in question was shown by the discussion as poorly written and encyclopedic content as it did not take a neutral point of view on the issue. I would recommend creating a draft, and inserting it into the article when it looks good. CarelessWombat^{Let's Talk!} 21:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article mention the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center made an announcement about BTS? The news was reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that arguments based on Wikipedia policy have greater leverage.

Discussion

Yes, this widely reported news item should be summarized briefly and neutrally for the reader. We should strive to keep the proper WP:WEIGHT in the article. If we hold to the proper balance and weight then we satisfy the requirements explained at the WP:RECENT page. Many of our readers will be checking in here to get more information about the controversy, and if we don't mention it, we are shirking our duty. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes I had drafted the following after Bonnielou2013's post, but it still seems relevant to paste in here: I'm OK to wait for a short while - though I see no real justification for that. Right now I assess that the WP:RS will justify inclusion of a controversies section, and at least three editors have expressed support for that, thus far. I would ask those who attempt to put forward arguments one way or another based on 'FACTS' known personally to them, actually cite sources so everyone can judge for themselves. Otherwise, just don't share them please, because we aren't interested. Remember that Wikipedia isn't about promoting a band, or promoting one side of any notable topic or political argument - but about reporting in an encyclopaedic tone what other reliable sources have said that are relevant to that topic. We don't care what fans or politically motivated individuals happen to feel or think. If the band happens to have been innocently dragged into a controversy not of its own making, but one that is asserted and subsequently reported by significant numbers of authoritative sources - even if subsequently debunked - then that is most likely still very relevant to the article, and should be reported upon in a neutral manner. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes It is widely reported in the media and covered by many sources. This article should also be neutral as per WP:NEUTRAL and is supposed to be unbiased. Wikipedia is supposed to give a summary, not to promote a band (see WP:PROMOTION) and actively removing this information goes against Wikipedia's policy. lullabying (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes For the same reason's everyone mentioned above. Numerous articles have covered it and although it is still in progress information can be added as it comes. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if we wait a little bit. This situation has been covered extensively via notable news outlets worldwide and warrants a mention on the page, as Wikipedia is not censored. But, to restate what I wrote before, in order to keep it neutral, encyclopedic, and to avoid adding every unneeded detail due to recentism, I'd like to request that a draft is written ahead of time. Once this draft approved by editors it should be added to the page, which should help to prevent edit warring from every side. I prefer this over updating as it goes along since Wikipedia is not a news source so it's best to have it accurately written instead of treating it like a news article would. Also, I'm just going to notify Carlobunnie, Bonnielou2013, and AdultBrat if they would like the chyme in on the RfC as they spoke in previous discussions. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 23:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to wait longer. People here were capable of writing neutral and encyclopedic summaries about the controversy taken from the above-listed sources. Recentism can be a positive aspect for Wikipedia, not just negative. A developing news story can be summarized with the information at hand. But as Bonnielou2013 says below, your concern about having more balance has been addressed by news reports about a statement from the band. So I'm sure we can get a succinct summary together which will satisfy most of the people here. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  - @Binksternet: My concern stemmed from the original post being fairly insufficient in terms of covering the controversy in full, and the initial personal bias that some editors held over its inclusion (thus warranting this RfC in the first place. Though I do feel in the end a lot of good has come from it.). When this discussion was first posted, as well as two days ago when I wrote this, coverage of the issue was still ongoing. As of right now it's been close to two days of quiet regarding the controversy and thus I feel writing it now would prove to be properly encyclopedic. I'm still very much in favor of having a draft prepared so multiple editors can discuss actual content further (as I find it hard to believe that there won't be disagreement over it, and talking it out in a draft space is much better that fighting over published content in the main article space). I'd be more than willing to contribute to writing it now if you feel it's time for it. Though I'm not sure if we should wait until the RfC is closed, as I'm somewhat unfamiliar with them. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 04:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just like everyone else so far. As stated before, I especially agree with DanielleTH in that I'd wait in order to avoid anything that falls under WP:RECENTISM. I also think that preparing a draft is a good idea. That way the article won't get edited and edited again and we have a version that outlines this controversy in the best possible way. However, reading everyone's thoughts on it I feel confident that a draft won't be necessary by the time the article can be edited again without request. It is worth thinking about it though. AdultBrat (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes (but). As mentioned in my comments above, I have no problem with a controversy section being published as the situation has grown too large to not be considered notable (not that any of us said so in the first place but still saying it for the benefit of all), BUT only once more information has surfaced (DanielleTH's recentism concerns are valid imho) so that the entire picture can be accurately and above all else neutrally presented. I'm in support of a draft piece being weighed in on by everyone involved in the conversation to ensure we all agree/approve and then being published to reduce editing conflicts after the fact. - Carlobunnie (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes With the response apology from the band's agency as provided by Ukiss2ne14lyfe above from Billboard, The Japan Times; and another music magazine The Fader here , I agree that we are ready to update. Not that the response was necessary, it will just stave off a lot of the edit warring that made the page block necessary. And, a note to AdultBrat, the block is either until November 19 "or until editing disputes have been resolved" which we seem to be doing here. I am happy for the passionate interest in this issue, a hot-button for the band's fans and anti-fans, which may help to promote one of Wikipedia's goals of "drawing in new readers-and among them, potential new Wikipedians", recentism as recruitment. I am also pleased that seasoned editors have participated in this discussion for guidance, not just those of us interested in K-pop. A couple of years ago, a surge of global interest in K-pop added new editors to WikiProject Korea and that smart, mostly younger generation contributed to articles on Korean culture, history and entertainment. This is also Wikipedia Asian Month and ripe for new volunteers! Shameless recruitment aside, I think that this discussion shows the Wikipedia community efforts for consensus and fairness.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes I was not expecting an overwhelming response from this issue. After perusing information editors wrote and newly published sources, I feel that this controversy is significant to be covered in Wikipedia. Aforementioned, a draft version needs to be worked on and feedback should be provided whenever necessary. Requiem II (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know why it was being removed in the first place. But it needs to be better worded to be more neutral (and the band are not referred to as "the BTS", it's just BTS). I also don't think we need two separate quotes from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Yes, they criticised the band for Jimin's T-shirt and the hat RM wore a few years ago. Why can't we just state that? Reading what was inserted, it sounds quite biased against BTS if anything. I think what goes into the article needs to be agreed upon further. Ss112 10:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes - only with the caveat that the apology must be included along with the welcome of the apology, Simon Wiesenthal Center Reveals And “Welcomes” Apology From Big Hit Entertainment per WP:NPOV. If the apology and the response from the center is not included, then no, leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection has ended, and I have added a controversy section detailing the offending clothing items, and noting the apology by the band. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I thought we all agreed that the controversy section would be drafted up and vetted by all of us first before being published? Unless I missed something, it seems that you took it upon yourself to go ahead and write the section without input from any of the other editors initially involved, and to boot your timeline of events is incorrect. TV Asahi published the cancellation of the group's appearance first, and it was a day or two later that the SWC published their so-called denunciation of the group. You also failed to include any mention of subsequent articles published that provided more socio-political context and refuted some of the false claims made by the SWC. I thought we were aiming for a neutral yes but THOROUGH and ACCURATE presentation of the matter? I disagree with what you have written as it still paints the story from only one side. I'll not presume to edit it but I expected better after all the going on about it you did above.- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's some articles that talk about some of the political reasoning behind the controversy and why something from a year ago became relevant now. https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/k-pop-group-bts-caught-in-latest-tensions-between-south-korea-and-japan/ and http://english.donga.com/Home/3/all/26/1538703/1 I was waiting until more skilled editors worked on the paragraph as it's been a touchy subject. But it does seem only one person wrote it when it was agreed that many would work together and make it cohesive and neutral. To me, this has been more of a political tool between two countries. All the sources that American outlets used were from Japanese media, and furthermore another group, Twice, got pulled into it recently because a member wore a comfort women shirt as seen in this article. http://en.koreaportal.com/articles/46349/20181116/twice-member-dahyun-slammed-by-japanese-politician-righ-wing-netizens-for-wearing-comfort-women-shirt.htm It was nothing about bombing or anything, but she was still attacked for it which shows rising tensions between the two countries. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Carlobunnie, the collaboration method you describe is too painfully slow for an ever-changing pop-culture topic like this one. I made the best summary I could from the sources I found. If you see a problem with the chronology, please fix it. The "going on about it" you saw in my posts was simply an expression of my wish to get a brief summary of the controversy in the article as soon as possible. Nothing I wrote here was an agreement to proceed slowly. Moving forward, I think editors acting in good faith will be able to achieve a suitable working summary of the best sources even as the section stays in the article. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, that's great preaching about needing to be factual, while writing incorrect information with mindset "eh, whatever that what i wrote is incorrect, someone else should fix it". You sound like a yellow press journalist. Why be factual, when you can just "wing it" with whatever. If you can't get even get chronology correct, then you should not write about the event at all. Kleool (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet Regardless of you thinking it's painfully slow, that is what the CONSENSUS was. Or has the meaning of that word according to wikipedia standards also changed? Was it not common sentiment above that vetting the section would help avoid something exactly like what you have caused now by taking matters into your own hands? Were we not trying to avoid further editing conflicts? You were the one who said readers will check here for more information on the matter thus we should write about it to "hold to a proper balance" except you apparently only had access to limited resources on the matter that prevented you from presenting a BALANCED summary of the matter (no matter how brief) to said readers. Please explain to me how publishing a section that does not meet the standards of the consensus and excludes crucial elements to the story in the name of brevity an accurate "summary" worth being allowed onto the page? No disrespect to your numerous edits over the years that give you seniority over me and some of the other editors here but that was in extremely poor taste. - Carlobunnie (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Collab for controversy

I created a draft page so that everyone involved can comment. Talk:BTS (band)/2018 controversy

Tagging people that were active in this discussion. Carlobunnie Kleool Isaidnoway Binksternet Ss112 Bonnielou2013 AdultBrat DanielleTH Nick Moyes Justerrie Hahahey568

I think I tagged everyone. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ukiss2ne14lyfe: I was planning on moving it to a draft space, as that's what it's for. It's fine for it to be deleted once the information is published, as drafts usually are. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

DanielleTH Okay, I created one and linked it above. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There is clear consensus voiced above to have the controversy represented in the article. Ukiss2ne14lyfe removed the controversy out of process, so I restored it. Certainly we can all collaborate on a draft version, but the existing controversy information should stay per consensus to have it. When a draft version meets the approval of most editors, it can replace the text currently in the article. Or editors here can tweak the article text to better match sources. Outright removal is disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I changed the collaboration page to Talk:BTS (band)/2018 controversy because draft space is for the preparation of potential new articles, not for collaborative work on a portion of an existing article. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. This discussion seems to be more about how binding or important WP:BANDDAB is, and it's also clear a very large number of editors here are opposed to it. Before trying something like this again it's probably a good idea to get WP:BANDDAB discussed. Out of fear of this moving farther away from the nomination and devolving into a WP:TRAINWRECK, I'm withdrawing this nomination. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 13:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

BTS (band) → BTS (group)BTS (group)
Exo (band) → Exo (group)Exo (group)
2AM (band) → 2AM (group)2AM (group)
24K (band) → 24K (group)
100% (band) → 100% (group)
A-Jax (band) → A-Jax (group)
A.C.E (South Korean band) → A.C.E (group)A.C.E (group)
Astro (South Korean band) → Astro (group)Astro (group)
B.A.P (South Korean band) → B.A.P (group)
B.I.G (band) → B.I.G (group)
Battle (South Korean band) → Battle (group)
Big Bang (South Korean band) → Big Bang (group)Big Bang (group)
Big Star (South Korean band) → Big Star (group)
The Boss (band) → The Boss (group)
Boyfriend (band) → Boyfriend (group)
Brown Eyed Soul (band) → Brown Eyed Soul (group)
The Boys (American band) → The Boys (group)
The Boyz (South Korean band) → The Boyz (group)The Boyz (group)
BTL (band) → BTL (group)
Boys Republic (band) → Boys Republic (group)
Brown Eyes (band) → Brown Eyes (duo)
Can (South Korean band) → Can (duo)
Deux (band) → Deux (duo)
Double-A (band) → Double-A (group)
Golden Child (band) → Golden Child (group)
H.O.T. (band) → H.O.T. (group)
Highlight (band) → Highlight (group)Highlight (group)
History (band) → History (group)
Homme (band) → Homme (duo)
Honey G (band) → Honey G (group)
Hotshot (band) → Hotshot (group)
Infinite (band) → Infinite (group)Infinite (group)
JBJ (band) → JBJ (group)
KNK (band) → KNK (group)
K'Pop (band) → K'Pop (group)
M4M (band) → M4M (group)
MAP6 (band) → MAP6 (group)
Masc (band) → Masc (group)
Monday Kiz (band) → Monday Kiz (group)
Mr. Mr (band) → Mr. Mr (group)
MVP (South Korean band) → MVP (South Korean group)
MVP (group) → MVP (American group)
NCT (band) → NCT (group)
Noel (band) → Noel (group)
Noir (band) → Noir (group)
NRG (South Korean band) → NRG (group)NRG (group)
NTB (band) → NTB (group)
One Day (band) → One Day (group)
One Way (South Korean band) → One Way (group)
ONF (band) → ONF (group)
Paran (band) → Paran (group)
Pentagon (South Korean band) → Pentagon (group)
Rainz (band) → Rainz (group)
Romeo (band) → Romeo (group)
S (South Korean band) → S (group)S (group)
Seven O'Clock (band) → Seven O'Clock (group)
Seventeen (band) → Seventeen (group)Seventeen (group)
SF9 (band) → SF9 (group)
Speed (South Korean band) → Speed (South Korean group)Speed (South Korean group)
Speed (Japanese band) → Speed (Japanese group)Speed (Japanese group)
Supernova (South Korean band) → Supernova (South Korean group)
Supernova (Chilean band) → Supernova (Chilean group)
Target (band) → Target (group)
Tasty (band) → Tasty (duo)
Toheart (band) → Toheart (duo)
Tritops (band) → Tritops (group)
Troy (band) → Troy (group)
TST (band) → TST (group)
UN (band) → UN (duo)
Uniq (band) → Uniq (group)
V.O.S (band) → V.O.S (group)
VAV (band) → VAV (group)VAV (group)
Vibe (band) → Vibe (group)Vibe (group)
Wanted (South Korean band) → Wanted (group)
Winner (band) → Winner (group)
Coed School (band) → Coed School (group)
Cool (band) → Cool (group)
Kard (band) → Kard (group)
Nasty Nasty (band) → Nasty Nasty (group)
Triple H (band) → Triple H (group)
Sharp (South Korean band) → Sharp (group)Sharp (group)
Typhoon (South Korean band) → Typhoon (group)Typhoon (group)

– There was a recent discussion regarding changing the disambiguator of "(band)" to "(group)" for female K-Pop groups per WP:BANDDAB, so I've created this move discussion to serve the same purpose for male and co-ed groups. WP:BANDDAB states that if a musical act does not play instruments while performing, they should be labeled as "(group)", not "(band)". All of the listed acts do not play instruments while performing and thus should have "(group)" follow their name in the page title instead of "(band)". I've also changed some to "(duo)", another element of WP:BANDDAB, which states that a two-member musical act should be labeled as a duo. In addition, changing to "(group)" means that not all of these acts need nationality to serve as an additional disambiguator. (There are still some that need the nationality specified for disambiguation purposes, which is why there are some non-K-pop groups mentioned here.) DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

H.O.T. (Korean band) is a redirect, and nom links must be articles, so it has been changed to H.O.T. (band). Please make corrections as necessary. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - per previous discussion, following WP:BANDDAB guidelines Evaders99 03:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong Support, as per the guidelines (WP:BANDDAB). -- Accireioj (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong Support — per reasons stated above, no reason why the same rules shouldn’t apply to male groups. Any future groups that have been missed from this list (or the female list over on the other articles talk page) should just link to either of these discussions during the reason section. Alexanderlee (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
~~Support in general~~ but specific targets (even redlinked ones) need to be checked to ensure the proposed titles aren't ambiguous. One I noticed: The Boyz (South Korean band) to The Boyz (South Korean group) due to the existence of The Boyz (German musical group) and The Boyz (American musical group). I will check the other entries for similar disambiguation issues. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Changing to neutral because subsequent comments reveal that the disambiguation issues are much bigger than the first one I noticed offhand. This seems likely to end as a WP:TRAINWRECK. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose all with all respect for the South Korean entertainment article editors, a mass move like this is a really bad idea. The WP:BANDDAB guideline is badly edited (recently?) and wrong. Overall on en.wp we try not to use "group" because "group" can often mean a NGO or business, if we mean a (musical group) then put in (musical group). Strongly oppose Sharp (South Korean band) → Sharp (group)Sharp (group), Wanted (South Korean band) → Wanted (group), Typhoon (South Korean band) → Typhoon (group)Typhoon (group) In each of these cases (group) should go like Sharp (band), Wanted (band) and Typhoon (band) to the dab page because they are clearly ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, oppose, oppose, oppose, opppose - sorry but even just on a brief scan through this list of articles: If this multimove passes indiscriminately the whole lot will have to go to Move Review due to all the problems that not looking at each article will cause. Looking for further problems in this giant messy bulk move: BTS BTS Group, a global consulting firm headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, + BTS Group Holdings, a public company in Thailand; Exo an American company that manufactures protein bars using cricket flour; A.C.E. redirects to American Cinema Editors; Astro ASTRO (American Society for Radiation Oncology) ; B.A.P. Balochistan Awami Party, a political party in Pakistan Basketball Association of the Philippines, the country's national federation from 1938 to 2007; B.I.G. ; Big Bang Big Bang (British band), British electronic synthpop duo ; Big Star Big Star was an American rock band formed in Memphis ; BTL Belize Telecommunications Limited; Can (German band) is also a group ; H.O.T. Hawaii Opera Theatre, an opera company located in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hot (American vocal group), best known for 1977 hit "Angel in Your Arms" 1976–1980... I would suggest for a start remove (a) all 3 letter acronym bands, (b) remove all bands with South Korean country dab, and start again with no more than 10 articles in each multimove. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Support but retain county disambiguations such as Sharp (South Korean band) → Sharp (South Korean group) because the distinction between group/band/duo/etc is a WP:SMALLDETAILS which is likely lost on most readers and editors. Per WP:INCDAB, generally (group)/(band)/(duo)/etc should redirect to the disambiguation page. I am also not at all opposed to instead moving all to (musical group) rather than the still ambiguous (group). It may be better to get some clarity on this at WP:BANDDAB before mass-moving. -- Netoholic @ 12:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Group is not efficient for disambiguation. The Volkswagen Group doesn't appear to be a boys band. Moreover, the only reason given here is a baseball one, where nothing is based on the SOURCES. Pldx1 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment -- Pldx1, Netoholic, In ictu oculi, what are your thoughts on "(musical group)"? Personally I'm not opposed to leaving it at "(band)", especially with how lengthly "(musical group)" is, but WP:BANDDAB appears to be a policy specifying that musical acts who don't play instruments should not be labeled as a band. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Musical groups is the category term, normally dabs are the same as categories if possible. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Support If you don't play your own instruments, you are a group and not a band. I came into this discussion because I was looking up the kiddie R&B group The Boys, who sure as heck were not a band. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment. WP:BANDDAB appears to be a policy. Simply: no. This is only a guideline. And it starts by though it is best treated with common sense. When one goes to Oneway group, one doesn't obtain something like a Korean boys band. Creating more ambiguity would be the only result of this kind of 'one size fits all' move. Pldx1 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment Which is why, Pldx1, I was wondering about your thoughts on making it musical group, since it doesn't address the concerns that these aren't bands, given that they don't play instruments. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

From the 'I like it' side, one can say that musical group is 13 letters, while band is 4 letters. From the policy side, one can ask : where are the sources pretending that 'band' is not the usual name ? At least, the NYT is not convinced that WP:BANDDAB could be bounding. Pldx1 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per In ictu oculi's reasoning and proposal; this should be done individually as some of the groups, especially the TLAs like CAN (disambiguation) or The Boys (disambiguation) have many group / organizations that would need to be further dabbed into (South Korean group) or (musical group) or (South Korean musical group). Also if it's a boy band, it may still have to keep (band) or (boy band) as redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Support, with broad discretion for the closing administrator to further disambiguate as necessary to avoid confusion with other topics that may be called a "group". By the way, are there any articles in Wikipedia that use "(group)" as a disambiguator other than for a music group? bd2412 T 13:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. Same arguments from the discussion here Talk:4L_(group). However, I still prefer 'musical group' but prefer 'group' over 'band'. The original suggestion was switching to 'boy group' and 'girl group' since that's what those listed are called and no one calls them 'boy bands' and 'girl bands' anyway but since they preferred not to separate them by gender, they went with group. LONE DIREWOLF 14:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Support, per WP:BANDDAB guideline and for the same reasons as support was obtained on Talk:4L_(group). However, I see that there could be some ambiguity or confusion, so I agree that further clarification might be needed on a case-by-case basis. The move for girl groups has already succeeded, so might a discussion need to be reopened there regarding these same concerns? ChromeGames923 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would think any potentially confusing outcome from that move could legitimately be speedy-moved to a further disambiguated title. bd2412 T 17:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Another Reliable Source that goes across WP:BANDDAB is Koreatimes. Even the en:wp article Boy Band seems to say band, because sources are saying band. Pldx1 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
OPPOSE for now per In ictu oculi's reasoning and proposal. As said by AngusWOOF above: "this should be done individually as some of the groups, especially the [three-letter acronyms] like CAN (disambiguation) or The Boys (disambiguation) have many group / organizations that would need to be further [disambiguated] into (South Korean group) or (musical group) or (South Korean musical group). Also if it's a boy band, it may still have to keep (band) or (boy band) as redirect." As mentioned by BD2412, you have to "'further disambiguate as necessary to avoid confusion with other topics that may be called a "group"." Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. I don't like the "band" disambiguator for pop acts, and think "musical group" or "duo" more accurately conveys what they're all about. When compared with an actual band with instruments, there's no reason for the articles to have the same descriptor. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The musical group and duo is fine, however, all of these should not be converted to group in one fell swoop. That's what I am opposing. Consideration must be given to non-K-pop groups like BTS Group which may have primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

While not quite WP:TRAINWRECK, seems clear that the current RM is uncloseable by an admin. The amount of work involved in individually evaltuating each case would be a nightmare. There is a basic proposal here about (band) vs (musical group) which the number of letters should not be an issue. We don't remove "TV" from (TV series) simply because there are no other series. And (musical group) is following CATEGORY:Musical groups. However the 3-letter acronyms and South Korea.. country dab title clearly need dealing with separately. No prejudice against an immediate re-proposal by the nominator in smaller multimoves. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment The concerns from those who support this is because of WP:BANDDAB while those who oppose it needs further disambiguation from other articles that use 'group'. So, I still suggest we go with 'musical group' instead since it answers the concerns of both. Like the comment above mine, I don't see how character count should be a reason for preferring 'band'. Or, possibly keep the 'group' but to avoid confusion for those articles mentioned above that also use group, simply use 'musical group' for those particular articles?LONE DIREWOLF 12:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. These are all music artists. The word "Group" alone has no implication of any kind to music. It is much more likely to refer to a company of other grouping of people. NicklausAU 11:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Anyone is allowed to say: I don't like band here and would prefer

We few, we happy few, we medieval music group of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

But, sorry, sources are saying otherwise. When dealing with Kpop boys band, sources are rather saying band. Moreover, in such a context, "groups" is never used to describe a set that would be disjoint from the set of "bands". On the contrary, "groups" is used to describe a set that contains the set of "bands", as in the Japan Times' article Boy band BTS make K-pop history by topping U.S. album charts. Pldx1 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment While it can be argued that most international sources use "boy band" for male groups, there are also numerous articles referring to them as a "k-pop group" and even more for female groups with articles calling them "girl groups" such as Japantimes Forbes MTV UK Paper Magazine Business Insider Malaysia The Star The Jakarta Post And even in articles referring to them as a 'boy band' they are also called a 'k-pop group'/'South Korean group' such as The Independent Newsweek Pacific Daily News. South Korea also uses 'group' (specifically 'idol group' or '아이돌 그룹' for korean articles) for both even for their English-language articles such as The Korea Herald Yonhap News. But if there are more international sources referring to male groups as 'boy band' and more referring to female groups as 'girl group' then would you suggest making it a separate case? Since even the article for 'girl groups' state how it differs from 'all-female bands' and how the article for 'boy band' state that its counterpart is 'girl groups'.LONE DIREWOLF 14:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:BANDDAB the nationality would be attempted first, so (South Korean group), then if that doesn't help, dab by genre (K-pop group). But (music group) would be okay too prior to K-pop group. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm notifying WP:BANDDAB, WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and WP:REDIRECT projects AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Group seems more disambiguous than band and likely to cause problems. Someone can make a group of people and that does not make then a band, but a band can be a group. It's better to stick with band. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: I spoke to In ictu oculi on my talk page about this but I figured I would post it here as well. This conversation seems to be more focused on the WP:BANDDAB policy as opposed to the move, and while I don't think it's gotten to this point I'm somewhat worried about it turning into a WP:TRAINWRECK situation. Thus, I thought I would ask: do the editors in this conversation think I should close this for now? The conversation seems active so it may be beneficial to leave it open, as well as good discussion on WP:BANDDAB, though that may be suited to something that isn't a move request. (And am I even allowed to close it? I was under the impression I was not per WP:RMCI since this is not unanimously opposed, but I was told I was by an editor much more experienced than myself with these kinds of things.) DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor DanielleTH: as nominator, you may withdraw this request at any time. At that time, this discussion will be closed, and editors may go on from there to work on improvements that have been discussed here. Feel free to wait for responses from other editors before you decide. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose using group by itself is ambiguous; as others have noted, 'group' could mean all sorts of things and would not necessarily indicate a musical group. Also oppose musical group (although that is better than group) as I feel that 'band' embodies the spirit of WP:CONCISE. I don't think we need to make a distinction between playing instruments and not. The term 'boy band' in most incarnations refers to a group of singers/dancers who usually don't play their own instruments. CThomas³ (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment. A review of the sources given shows that, concerning K-pop, the said sources are using band as the characteristic container for what is described in Boys band, while they are using group as a super-container (i.e. asserting that band is an instance of group). This is the left part of the picture. . This comes in frontal contradiction with the assertion that band and group should be used as two disjoint containers (i.e. two containers having no common elements). By the way, it seems that non Kpop articles also belong to this trainwreck. I don't know what sources are saying about them. Therefore I have no opinion about these outliers. Pldx1 (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Award

Webtoons and books

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

Length

Looking at the 2018 section, am I the only one who feels like parts of it could be moved to the impact section? Looking at FAs like Lady Gaga, it looks like only the most vital information about a record is put in the career timeline while notable extraneous information is put into an impact-esque section. Also, the lead is massive and really should be cut down.

I feel like this article could use somewhat of a collaborative overhaul, would any other editors be interested in starting up a draft for it? DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 04:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think a lot of people have contributed to it but not a lot of people have removed or taken info out of it. It's why I started working on the initial paragraph and pulling out cites and such. I still think it needs work but I don't want to pull too much out of it without other people's input. If we do decide to overhaul it I think a lot more people would need to be involved.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the lead was sorely in need of trimming, and I like what's been done so far. I think that a lot could still be taken out, leaving the blow-by-blow recounting of the band's 2016–2018 career and chart statistics to the body of the article. It might also be good to include a bit more on genre/artistry/critical reception. One specific concern I have (completely ignorant of the group as I am) is the listing of albums at the beginning: why is "The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Part 2 (2015)" listed, but not part 1? Why is Wings (2016) called the second album? Cheers, gnu 57 16:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Genericusername57 Yes I think that paragraph could be reduced too. I think Part 1 was not added because there were no notable records broken. Wings is their second Korean album which I noted after you pointed it out. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Part one isn't mentioned in the lead since the most notable thing about it was its singles being more recognized than previous releases from BTS, but I'm not sure if part two should be mentioned in the lead at all. I think what's caused the 2017-2018 section to be so long was due to 2018 being their biggest international year in terms of records and sales. While I do feel these are notable, I think only the biggest records should be noted in the career summary section and other notable records should be moved into their impact section. For example, their tour's high numbers should probably belong in the impact section. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 23:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Popular Japanese music show"

Members' order

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Hello. A new exhibition is held in China.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

Other projects and collaborations

Logo Development

Article Flow

Rapline Positions

Tone of article

This article is ridiculously hagiographic and reads like it was written by the band's own PR firm. We need to change the text to have a more balanced perspective on the band and focus less on unverifiable compliments and trivial superlatives. Ashmoo (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ashmoo please state exactly what words or phrases or sections in the article appear to you to be "unverifiable compliments and trivial superlatives" or that are so biased to warrant dismissing via that fan tag the work all the editors who maintain the page have done to present it as neutrally and as accurately as possible. If you have particular issues with the use of "first group to" (because that is the only thing I could see possibly being what you mean) then let us know what should be written instead since the majority of their achievements throughout their career have only been achieved by them and as such is how they are referred to when written about across nearly all forms of media. I browsed the contents of a few other popular musicians pages (Good/featured articles) and noticed they were written about similarly (use of first, youngest, only etc.), so unless we have all been maintaining this page wrong this entire time I'm at a loss as to what else can be done to make the page more to your liking. I've already seen some editors replace a few phrases and words here and there but detailed points from you would be much appreciated in place of superfluous language that comes across as condescending rather than an attempt to be helpful.--Carlobunnie (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Carlobunnie, please don't take my comments personally. I trust we are all here to improve the article, so please Assume Good Faith. (I'm not saying that you are not, but just re-iterating the policy). My comments here and the article tag are not intended as a judgement on the editors who have obviously worked hard on this article. But rather, merely a introductory appraisal from someone who stumbled upon the page and is seeking to make it useful for people who are not necessarily fans of the band. I will give specific examples soon, when I have some time. Regards, Ashmoo (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going through the article removing what I feel is superfluous but Ashmoo tagging without explaining what you feel is the problem doesn't do much. Feel free to explain what worried you. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 17:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Exhibitions

Live performanceses

BTS X JAPAN

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

Possible unsourced statement in the opening paragraph

The sentence "Having sold over fifteen million albums, BTS are the best-selling artist in South Korea of all time" may need sourcing. It looks like the total sales count comes from adding up the single albums sales (original research?) instead of being stated by a tertiary source. It could be replaced with "Having sold over ten million albums as of December 2018" with this as source. On the other hand, I couldn't find any article stating that BTS is the best-selling artist in South Korea of all time (Koreaboo aside), just that they have the best-selling album in South Korea of all time, which is quite different. Any thoughts? --Chiya^ko92 14:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: This article released today shows BTS is the best-selling artist on the Gaon Chart with 15,395,655 albums sold but I can't read Korean so I'm not sure if it supports the claim of best-selling artist in Korea of all time since the Gaon Chart launched in 2010.Starlight dreams (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starlight dreams: It looks like Gaon read my mind. The article is exactly what we needed for the total sales amount, however it takes into consideration only artists who debuted after 2010, therefore I'll add a CN to the "best-selling artist of all time" claim. --Chiya^ko92 09:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

...it takes into consideration only artists who debuted after 2010... This statement is a little off. Gaon's numbers only reflect album sales since 2010. Artists that debuted or albums released before 2010 are not exempt. The article doesn't specifically mention the best-selling artist of all time, but it shows that BTS is the best-selling artist since the establishment of Gaon. Ə XPLICIT 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Explicit: I'm sorry if I misinterpreted, i just pasted "2010년 부터 집계하였기에, 2010년 이전 데뷔 가수는 관찰에서 제외" to Google translator. --Chiya^ko92 08:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe rewriting the claim as "BTS is the best-selling artist in South Korea since Gaon Music Chart began tracking sales in 2010"? Ə XPLICIT 06:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It would certainly be better that way, but Before changing it, I'll ask WikiProject Korea for a feedback on the Korean sentence. I just find peculiar that top-selling artists like Girls' Generation or Super Junior haven't sold 1 million physical albums in the last 9 years. --Chiya^ko92 07:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. In my first response, I thought your comment was about Gaon in general, and not this particular report. In that case, perhaps this phrasing might work: "According to Gaon Music Chart, BTS has sold fifteen million albums and is the best-selling artist to debut in the 2010s." Ə XPLICIT 14:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if I couldn't explain myself well! XD Now it's perfect! --Chiya^ko92 14:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

Musical inspirations

The part listing the artists BTS use for inspiration seems a bit odd to me. Why list Charlie Puth and Post Malone, who are artists contemporary to BTS, when they aren't really as relevant as, say, Eminem or Seo Taiji's influence on them? It also seems like there's a disproportionate amount of Western artists vs Korean artists, which doesn't help convey the impact their own cultural roots have on their music. The inspirations listed also seem very rapline centric. I have a few sources about singers that the vocal line have noted as inspirations, especially Jungkook, who's been incredibly vocal about singers like IU or G-Dragon being some of the main reasons he even chose to pursue singing as a career. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustdream (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Inspirations for individual members are listed in their respective articles. The only group I can remember the whole group cited as an influnce, would be Big Bang.--Lirim | Talk 23:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to me as well, I'll do some research. Also, in the Impact and influence section, I noticed that some artists cites only one member of BTS as their role model, therefore I think they should be removed. The ones in question are: The Boyz' Younghoon and Hwall (V), SF9's Zuho (Suga), Golden Child's Jaehyun (V), Park Ji-hoon (V), and Hyeongseop X Euiwoong (Jungkook). --Chiya^ko92 14:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I found Big Bang and Shinhwa. --Chiya^ko92 15:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That source for Shinhwa to me seems to be more Jungkook's personal influence than an influence for BTS as a whole. As for BigBang, BTS have mentioned them in one or two interviews back when they were really young yes, I mean that article you referenced is from 2013. And while you might find a few other mentions after that, they've never really regularly mentioned them as being like a defining influence on them, but mostly spoke of them as most hoobae groups would of sunbae artists like BB at the time. The members have more often mentioned western hip-hop artists as their influences so to me what's listed right now is more accurate. I mean, honestly, when is the last time anyone (aside from Jungkook back in 2016 when he went on that singing show and did GD's song) in BTS mentioned BB as an artist that influences them? I think it would be outdated to use these particular older groups as defining influences on them when it's very clear to see from the majority of their interviews that their answers would be very different to that. They mention epik high, seo tai ji, eminem, drake, charlie puth etc far more regularly. Though if you want to split hairs, in the interviews when asked about influences, individual members usually throw out names of artists they personally like and the others agree or offer up their own likes. So make of that what you will. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020

This edit request to BTS (band) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi they weren't formed in 2013 - Kim Namjoon (Rm) Yoongi (Suga) joined at the same time closely followed by the others. They spend time as trainees before debuting in 2013. Please can this be edited to the correct information BangSpring20 (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Also, reliable sources should be provided for any claims made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi in the introduction at the top of the page it shows that "bts were formed in 2013" this is incorrect, they were formed in 2010 - so am requesting this is changed to formed in 2010. They actually debuted in 2013, they have stated this in multiple interviews and vlives which i can provide when i get home if needed. Here is also two articles which give such information.

https://www.vulture.com/2018/10/bts-renews-contract-with-bighit-for-7-more-years.html

https://stylecaster.com/how-bts-members-discovered/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BangSpring20 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi in the introduction at the top of the page it shows that "bts were formed in 2013" this is incorrect, they were formed in 2010 - so am requesting this is changed to formed in 2010. They actually debuted in 2013, they have stated this in multiple interviews and vlives which i can provide when i get home if needed. Here is also two articles which give such information.

https://www.vulture.com/2018/10/bts-renews-contract-with-bighit-for-7-more-years.html

https://stylecaster.com/how-bts-members-discovered/

BangSpring20 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Hi. The formation year mentioned in the Entertainment Tonight article here is 2010 and 2011, ultimately finalized in 2012. Pinging frequent other Kpop editors Chiyako92, Alexanderlee, Snowflake91, Carlobunnie, Lirim.Z, Hahahey568, Kleool to particpate and reach a consensus. Thanks.Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not just change the lead statement to say “began its formation in 2010” which is more correct? 2013 would only make sense if it says that’s when they debuted, not when they were formed. The group as we know it was only formed as early as 2012, as that’s when Jimin passed his audition. Alex (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

bts has beat the beatles in many awards.

BTS

Requested move 7 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

BTS (band) → BTS (group)BTS (group) – Per WP:BANDDAB: Use "(group)" when the musical ensemble members do not perform by playing musical instruments, the members are mainly vocalists, and other people perform by playing musical instruments. BTS is a boy band which consists of 4 singers and 3 rappers; none of the members perform any musical instruments. They are more comparable to a girl group than a band (rock and pop). feminist (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Support - There was a reasonable consensus back in 2008 to do this for Kpop girl groups. Talk:4L_(group)#Requested_move_29_November_2018. But when applied to Kpop boy bands, there was no concensus. Talk:BTS_(band)/Archive_2#Requested_move_8_December_2018. So again, I support applying WP:BANDDAB consistently here. Evaders99 (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose BTS (group): I support (1) "BTS" because this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (after moving BTS → BTS (disambiguation)) My second best option is (2) "BTS (music group)" ("BTS (musical group)") because BTS (group) has ambiguity regarding whether BTS (music group) or BTS Group. Sawol (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Withdraw Sorry, I didn't realize that this has already been discussed just over a year ago. I should probably start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) first. I can't withdraw unilaterally though because an editor has already supported this move request. feminist (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per BANDDAB. The previous RM probably failed because of its overambition. We have naming conventions for a reason. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as there already exists a page for BTS Group and the move may cause confusion. However, I do believe that BTS (band) → BTS is worth further discussion per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Though no consensus was reached on Talk:BTS_(band)/Archive_1#Requested_move_12_April_2018, BTS' presence in the English-speaking world has only grown stronger since then. Starlight dreams (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bts genre

Proposed edit to 2020 section

@Carlobunnie: @Ashleyyoursmile: @Snowflake91: Pinging you all as some of the more frequent editors of the page. The current 2020 section has a lot of extraneous information that does not necessarily need to be on this page and can be relegated to the album-specific pages (e.g., details about the comeback trailers, extensive details on the album preorders, certifications for older singles/albums). I have made an attempt to rewrite that section to what I feel is most relevant and would like your thoughts before making the change.

2020: Map of the Soul: 7 and second stadium world tour

In January 2020, BTS released "Black Swan" along with a choreography art film performed by Slovenian-based MN Dance Company as the first single from their fourth Korean-language studio album, Map of the Soul: 7.^[1]^[2] The song debuted at number 57 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 46 on the UK Official Singles Chart.^[3]^[4] Following the single's release, BTS performed alongside Lil Nas X, Billy Ray Cyrus, Diplo, and more in a special segment at the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards, making BTS the first Korean act to perform at the Grammy's.^[5]^[6]^[7]

Map of the Soul: 7 was released in conjunction with its lead single "On" on February 21 to universal acclaim.^[8] According to album distributor Dreamus, the stock pre-orders of the album reached a record-breaking 4.02 million, surpassing their previous record of 2.68 million with Map of the Soul: Persona.^[9] In support of Map of the Soul series, BTS will embark on their fourth worldwide concert tour and second stadium tour, Map of the Soul Tour starting April 11 in Seoul, South Korea.^[10]

References

[1]
Strauss, Matthew (January 17, 2020). "Listen to BTS' New Song "Black Swan"". Pitchfork. Retrieved January 18, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
[2]
Zemler, Emily (January 17, 2020). "Watch BTS' Dance-Inspired Art Film For New Single 'Black Swan'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved January 18, 2020.
[3]
Kim, Ye-na (January 29, 2020). 방탄소년단 ‘Black Swan’, 전 세계 주요 차트 진입 ‘글로벌 인기 증명’ [BTS 'Black Swan' enters the world's major charts]. Exsport News (in Korean). Retrieved January 29, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
[4]
Park, Seo Hyun (January 29, 2020). 방탄소년단 'Black Swan', 美빌보드 핫100 57위‥전 세계 주요 차트 돌풍(공식) [Bulletproof Boy Scouts' 'Black Swan' ranked # 57 on the Billboard Hot 100]. Herald POP (in Korean). Retrieved January 29, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
[5]
"2020 GRAMMYs: Lil Nas X, BTS & More To Perform". GRAMMY.com. January 23, 2020. Retrieved January 23, 2020.
[6]
Kim, Hyo-jeong (January 24, 2020). "방탄소년단, 그래미 어워즈서 공연…한국 가수 최초" [BTS, Grammy Awards Performance First Korean singer]. Yonhap News Agency (in Korean). Retrieved January 24, 2020.
[7]
Bruner, Raisa (January 27, 2020). "BTS Joined Lil Nas X for Their First Grammys Performance". TIME. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
[8]
"Map of the Soul: 7 by BTS". Metacritic. Retrieved February 23, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
[9]
"'컴백 D-3' 방탄소년단 새 역사 썼다…선주문 402만 돌파 '역대최다'[공식]". n.news.naver.com (in Korean). Retrieved 2020-02-18.
[10]
Herman, Tamar (January 21, 2020). "BTS Announce 'Map of the Soul' Tour Dates". Billboard. Retrieved January 22, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Agree, and support your changes. Teasers/trailers etc. Serve far better purpose being on the album article rather than piling it all into this article as well. Noting that the album contains twenty songs, for example, certainly isn’t necessary in this article. Alex (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I support it as well. Also, if we need an additional source about the universal acclaim, Osen wrote an article about the positive reviews by Western medias. --Chiya^ko92 10:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee and Chiyako92: Thanks for the feedback! I have added the source from Osen and made the change to the article per our discussion Starlight dreams (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Heyy i also made a talk on this ! Btspop 👌 Sophiebbbbbbbbbb (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

About the style of music of BTS

Suggestion

Requested move 3 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. There's some good opposing argument, but even more so in support; overall there's clear consensus for move at this time. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

BTS (band) → BTS
BTS → BTS (disambiguation)

– This is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Sawol (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support, overwhelming primary topic. It receives roughly 30 times the views of all the other topics put together, and has done so consistently for over three years. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Support per nomination. --Chiya^ko92 15:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose BTS seems a fairly common abbreviation and the current pages seem appropriate. Coderzombie (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, the band looks to be the primary topic Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, it may be a common abbreviation but this article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Alex (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support as proposed. The band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JohnThorne (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, mostly because I don't think (band) is an appropriate disambiguation. The WP:RECENTISM claims in the 2018 RM were far from unfounded, but I think by now there's enough evidence suggesting they aren't going anywhere any time soon. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The band clearly surpasses all the other topics in usage combined and none of the other topics can be argued to have substantially greater historical notability or educational value. Starlight dreams (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Support the move. Csgir (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The BTS Skytrain has been longer established and will continue to be used by millions of people in the foreseeable future. Airlines will continue flying to Bratislava Airport, and other topics are known as "BTS" as well. The boys will not be as popular in a few years' time. I agree that (band) is not appropriate disambiguation, but this is endemic to all boy bands. Girl groups don't seem to have this problem. feminist (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Makes sense to me. // sikander { talk } 🦖 03:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. The community needs to come to terms with the fact that, when people search "BTS", they are searching for this boy group more than any of the other topics combined. Their lasting cultural impact will always outweigh that of a transit system or an airport—which have a grand total of 11,000 page views combined compared to the group's 600,000 in the same 30-day period. Times have changed, search patterns have changed. Wikipedia needs to catch up. Ə XPLICIT 06:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Please consider being bolder in future.--Laun chba ller 15:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Launchballer, this move was previously proposed three years ago and failed to achieve consensus, so a new discussion was the only appropriate way to overturn the status quo. And besides, being bold in making a significant change to the topic structure is not always a good idea. – Uanfala (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Support (my sentiments have already been echoed by everyone else above who also support). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Support in the merge. It can be reverted back to 'BTS (band)' once page views drop in later decades if this continues to become a topic of debate down the road. Until then, the many 'BTS' searches are dominantly for the band, rather than other articles containing the BTS keyword. MunRis • †alk 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Heolkpop (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Look how the band absolutely dwarfs the other uses of BTS via google trends. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 23:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Support is the only thing that makes sense at this moment. Feminists argument doesn't gel with me; this group has outsold The Beatles. While their popularity may decline, their influence is undeniably massive, and will diminish far more slowly, the same way we still talk about the Backstreet Boys. And it's not like this change would be necessarily permanent. Metao (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM is The Main rapper

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020

Category:BTS (band) has been nominated for discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

"Fandom" Section

Manor5, if you're very insistent on having a "fandom" section, let's discuss. My concern with this section is less that it's not wholly positive but rather that it's irrelevant to the band itself. This article is more than willing to mention the negative if it has to do with the band... there is an entire paragraph about a scandal in the History section. There is no reason to have lines discussing the death of Sulli on a page about BTS, an artist whom they have never worked with or even mentioned. This is a biographical page about the artist. The "impact" section is about the direct impact the band has had on culture and society, not people who like them. There is also zero prescient for having a section about fandoms in artist pages even if said fandom is large... see One Direction, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, The Beatles. If you feel their fandom is notable enough for coverage on Wikipedia why not make a page in the vein of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom or put it in sections about K-Pop fandom like K-pop#Appeal and fan base. (Tagging Alexanderlee, Baepsayed, Hahahey568 per their involvement as well.) DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 21:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As a fan of BTS, I believe it is only fair to list all relevant information. Please view all my past edits and understand that none of my edits are based on bias. However, it is clear from users Hahahey568 (talk), Baepsayed(talk) and Alex (talk) that BTS and South Korean artists and/or people are important to you, but lets be frank. The articles in my edit on BTS fandom are all from good sources, TRUE and relevant. READ THE ARTICLES AND UNDERSTAND!. Furthermore, if you feel that it should not be under a specific section, maybe we should move it to a more relevant section. Open to suggestions. — Manor5 (talk) , 10 April 2020 23:39, 10 April 2020 (SAST)

@Manor5: I also opened a discussion about this and merged the two, I hope that's alright. I explained my concerns with the section above, feel free to comment. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 22:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Manor5 I think it's safe to presume we're all fans to some extent otherwise we wouldn't be editing the article. That has nothing to do with my edit, though.

As for the information, I don't see how it is relevant to the article. The article is about the group, not its fans and what they do. Especially considering that BTS don't control what they do. Just because something is true and you can find reliable sources doesn't automatically mean it should be in articles. Alex (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked the sources used in the paragraph, but some of the articles don't mention BTS or their fans. A breakdown:

While the influence of the bands fandom, known as "The BTS ARMY", on the' bands success has been overwhelming positive, the fan-base has also generated intense criticism for cyber-bullying and malicious online behavior". Sources:
- BBC, an article about toxic fandoms, no mention to BTS or their fans
- Vox, an article about fandom history, quote: "Massive fandoms for groups like One Direction and K-pop band BTS helped evolve the cultural perception of the shrill teenage fangirl toward a more positive image of fans as active, engaged participants in the narratives they consume."
- Popdust, this is okay
- LA Times, an article about SuperM first US concert
Paragraph about Zachary Kussin is okay.
"The fandom also received widespread scrutiny in October 2019 after the fandom called the death of South Korean singer and actress Sulli as a publicity stunt, with BTS fans revealing that her name only trended on twitter after her death, while BTS trend everyday." Source: BBC, an article about Sulli and cyberbullying in Korea, no mention to BTS or their fans. It's followed by more news about Sulli, which are off-topic.
"A poll on Vulture in 2019, also revealed that BTS fans are the second 'worst' fans on the internet, with the post referring to it as "toxic"." Source: the poll. "Toxic" is used 5 times, none of which is related to BTS fans. Also, ARMYs weren't chosen as the second 'worst' fans on the internet: they won the first and second matchups, but lost the third out of five.

I would also like to mention that there are more articles online (and books) about their charities and positive impact than on their 'toxicity', therefore this paragraph as it is seems pretty unbalanced to me. --Chiya^ko92 08:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal Center controversy

Request for comments about Simon Wiesenthal news

Discussion

Collab for controversy

2020: Map of the Soul: 7 and second stadium world tour

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks