Talk:BTS (boy band)/2018 controversy

Controversy
In November 2018, a popular Japanese music show cancelled BTS' performance citing a T-shirt a member wore the year before. In the same month the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) stated BTS owed victims an apology for the shirt in 2017, the clothing with Nazi symbolism, and a flag. Big Hit Entertainment issued an apology, saying that the images on the clothing were not intended to be hurtful to the victims of Nazism or atomic bombings, and that the band and management would take steps to prevent future mistakes. They also stated the flags were meant to be a commentary on the Korean school system. The apology was accepted by SWC and the Korean Atomic Bomb Victim Association.

Discussion
Info about political aspects of this need to be added and time line should be fixed to correct order. I wanted to wait and reach more of a consensus before we start editing. 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 Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I also just noticed the original writer used soompi for a proof cite which needs to be changed since they're not a trusted site. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Notifying all editors who participated in the RfC as they're all welcome to help out:, , , , , , , , , , and.

Since the consensus on the RfC was to have a draft with a discussion about content, that's what this is. I've also linked the Draft on the head of the talk page should anyone else what to chyme in. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion consensus was to have controversy material represented in the article. That consensus was clear. There was no clear consensus to delay the addition of the controversy material. In fact, editors were saying that, since BigHit had replied, there was enough material to present a neutral viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm confused how this is what you gleaned from the discussion as roughly half of the editors expressed a draft for the sake of neutrality and to adhere with BLP policies, not just waiting for a reply from Big Hit. Writing the section without discussion goes against consensus. I'm not the only editor who's expressed this as well, so I've asked for admin closure of the RfC so we can get a final say about whether or not consensus was to prepare a draft. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 19:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * We already have a draft. You are welcome to work on it here or in article space. I don't see people here working on the draft, or working on the same material in the article. Instead, people are advocating delaying tactics and putting up roadblocks to hinder forward movement. It's a violation of WP:NPOV to prevent widely reported information from being summarized in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would just like to clarify that no one was or is employing delaying tactics or attempting to hinder forward movement of this whole thing and I'm most curious as to why you keep claiming that narrative when we've all been quite clear on our actual problems with the matter of the edits. I cannot speak for others but my current means of editing is only my smartphone which limits me due to its small size so I cannot contribute the way I normally would (more expediently to your liking since apparently some of us are moving too slow for you) had I been using a desktop/laptop, neither of which I have access to anymore. Hence my only being able to write comments or replies to other editors after a considerable amount of time has passed, or making very minor edits that only take a few seconds to do (this reply has already taken me way too long to type out thanks the tinya** screen I'm working with). We had/have zero issue with it being reported on but rather how it was summarized, let's please be clear on that. I will try my best to contribute where I can but things have already kicked off to a good start by the other editors. - Carlobunnie (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Content
Regarding content, I agree that the timeline needs to be fixed and that the Soompi source needs to be changed to comply with WP:KO/RS. And no sources from that list that aren't reliable should be used. In addition, I raise concerns that the only perspective shown here is an American one, as the situation was widely covered in both Japan and Korea, and neither of those perspectives are currently in the article. I'm not going to add the sources now since I'd like to get this discussion made but I do have a handful saved from both Korea and Japan that express how the controversy was treated there, and obviously if any other editors have these they're welcome to add it.

I also feel the controversy section should be organized like the one on Chou Tzu-yu, that separates what happened, the various reactions from relevant places, and the aftermath. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of it being organized like that. It would make things more cohesive and show perspectives in an organized way. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I have a few problems with how some parts are worded right now especially the "condemned BTS over images of Jimin wearing a shirt in 2017 mocking the victims of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki" part. It sounds as if he wore it on purpose just to mock the victims when the tshirt wasn't designed for that in first place. The designer talked in an interview about it and said “The atomic bombing occurred on Aug. 9 in 1945. After six days, Korea was liberated on Aug. 15. The photos simply show the sequence of historical facts. There were no intentions, other than explaining about the history.” but the only source I found is korea.net (http://korea.net/NewsFocus/Culture/view?articleId=165342) which is not listed unter WP:KO/RS. Justerrie 22:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Justerrie, Korea.net is a government portal and it is not listed on that page as either Reliable or Unreliable. (and I adhere to this list as a WikiProject Korea participant, although the list is not complete) But, I have used Korea.net many times to detail current events. Contributing writers are sometimes academians. The writer for this piece, Kim Eun-young, appears to be a staffwriter for Korea.net (lists email at end of article) and I found her byline on other articles on the site. In this BTS article, she summarizes responses from Big Hit and designer Lee Gwang-jae but does not give sources. She references a "Nov. 13" interview of Lee's, which is not found on the Korea.net site. So, as you stated, I would not use this piece as a citation, as it is an opinion piece.(maybe the first, like it, I have seen there) But, for the most part, if you are using Korea.net for a citation you are probably safe when they detail event happenings or conduct actual interviews, which they often do. Just remember that it is a government site, ie. pro-South Korea.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Location
I saw some concerns, raised by and, about if this content should get its own section or if it should be incorporated into the history section. Personally I feel that we should wait and see what the final version of the draft looks like first. If it's long and detailed like on Chou Tzu-yu then it should be in its own section, and if it's brief like it is now there's no reason to separate it out. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 14:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think regardless of its length, it should fall under the "History" heading, since this incident is a relevant part of the band's history. The way it is currently presented probably also violates WP:UNDUE, as it is placing undue weight on the controversy over other aspects of this band's career. If the length of the controversy's description is long enough we could use level 3  or level 4  headers for the controversy underneath "History", but I don't think it should be level 2. Compare how the Richard Nixon article does it with the Watergate controversy. In general, I'm pretty leery of "Controversies" sections in articles, and I'm inclined to think Chou Tzu-yu's article may violate WP:UNDUE. With that being said, I'm not familiar with her work at all, so it may truly be the case that her career to this date has essentially been defined by her controversies. Mz7 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Move
why did you not put this in a draft and shoved everything on a talk page? It's doesn't even make sense to do that. You keep doing things without discussing it. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't use "discussion" as a delaying tactic, to shut down any movement. I changed the location of your collaboration page because you put it in the wrong space. Draft space is for incubating possible new articles, not for collaborating on existing articles. The collaboration draft material and related discussion can co-exist at Talk:BTS_(band)/2018_controversy perfectly well. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you have a bias because everything about this since protection period ended you've refused to comply with. Many editors decided to collaborate and that was the decision that was reached. What you created was incomplete, incorrect, and only showed one perspective. You are also being disruptive with editing and trying to shut down the people who are attempting to create it. If you cannot adhere to policy then do not contribute. There are many other editors who which to create the controversy section in an unbiased and impartial way and saying that I'm using "discussion" as a way to drag this on just makes you sound as if you're rushing it and attempting to get your way. This isn't about what you want or what I want. It's about sticking tothe consensus and creating a section that is complete and sound that sticks to guidelines. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What policy do you think I am violating?
 * Once again, there was a clear consensus to put the controversy material into the article.
 * You have not yet collaborated by suggesting new text, or tweaking the existing text. You are welcome to do so. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * He said it was due to it not being a new article, so I'm confused as well. WP:DRAFTS says that articles may be developed there as well. No matter, since this does serve as a means of preparing a draft for the section anyways. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 19:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Draft space is for the development of new articles, not existing articles. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that now, apologies, . Thanks for moving the draft to this location. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeline
This all looks pretty confusing since it's all been shoved on one page but let's try and start everything out by creating a timeline.

Basic timeline

 * 1. TV Asahi cancels BTS performance on Music Station citing T-Shirt member wore the year before.
 * 2. Simon Wiesenthal Center state BTS owes apology for a-bomb shirt in 2017, hat with Nazi SS-Totenkopfverbände emblem worn in 2015, and flag similar to Nazi Swastika.
 * 3. Big Hit Entertainment issues apology to SWC and victims of a-bomb in Korea and Japan, and explains meaning behind flag.
 * shirt was "in no way intentional" and that it wasn't designed to "injure or make light of those affected by the use of atomic weapons."
 * hat was provided by media company for photoshoot
 * flags in question were aimed at symbolizing South Korea's restrictively uniform and authoritarian educational systems
 * 4. SWC and Korean Bomb Victim Association accept apology. Japan's bombing association did not make a comment.

Socio-political reasoning for controversy

 * growing tension between Japan and Korea
 * Korean President Moon Jae-in’s declaration that he was rethinking Seoul’s commitment to the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation(I just found an article that he did decide to cancel it but BTS was not mentioned so I don't think we should add that)
 * Japan withdrew from an international naval fleet review after Korea asked them not to fly controversial Rising Sun Flag
 * Korean court ruled in favor of four Korean workers who were forced to work for a Japanese company during World War II
 * Korea's overall view on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, viewing it as when they were liberated and not taking into account the bystanding Japanese and Korean people that were killed

I would also like to note that articles I've read only come from US and Korean perspective as I can't read anything in Japanese, and all things I've found translated from Japan is about right-wing stuff so I'm uncertain how the general public in Japan views it. Once again, this is just a general show of events and a way to start moving forward with the section. People can feel free to add to this for anything I've missed or if they know something I don't. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The timeline is good – thanks for that. Sources intended to support the proposed socio-political background must mention the band, to prevent a violation of WP:SYNTH. For example, the source must say that the BTS shirt, hat or flag controversy was related to one or more socio-political events. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Simple
A simpler type of format was suggest by Isaidnoway in my sandbox before we moved the discussion here. I copied her suggested format, added cites, and tweaked it a bit. Just so we are clear, I am not a her. I am a him, his or he. If you are unsure of an editor's gender, please use they, them or their. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  02:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

In November 2018, a popular Japanese music show cancelled BTS' performance citing a T-Shirt a member wore the year before. In the same month the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) stated BTS owed victims an apology for the shirt in 2017, the clothing with Natzi symbolism, and a flag. Big Hit Entertainment issued an apology, saying that the images on the clothing were not intended to be hurtful to the victims of Nazism or atomic bombings, and that the band and management would take steps to prevent future mistakes. They also stated the flags were meant to be a commentary on the Korean school system. The apology was accepted by SWC and the Korean Atomic Bomb Victim Association.

More detailed
If we want to have more details and include underlying factors for controversy arising at this time.


 * In November 2018, TV Asahi cancelled BTS' performance on Music Station citing a T-Shirt a member wore the year before depicting the atomic bomb. Soon afterwards the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) stated BTS owed victims an apology for the atomic bomb shirt in 2017, the hat with the Nazi SS-Totenkopfverbände emblem worn in 2015, and the flags similar to Nazi Swastika they used in the past. Big Hit Entertainment issued apology to SWC and victims of atomic bomb in Korea and Japan. In an official statement they said the shirt was "in no way intentional" and that it wasn't designed to "injure or make light of those affected by the use of atomic weapons.". The hat was provided by a media company for a photoshoot and in the future the agency would monitor their clothes better, and the flags in question were aimed at symbolizing South Korea's restrictively uniform and authoritarian educational systems. Both the SWC and the Korean Bomb Victim Association accepted the apology. Japan's bombing association did not make a comment.


 * There have been many articles that pointed at the socio-political climate of Korea and Japan at the moment as reason why all of this came about. Recently, Korean President Moon Jae-in’s declared that he was rethinking Seoul’s commitment to the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation agreement for how comfort women were handled, Japan's withdrawl from an international naval fleet review after Korea asked them not to fly the controversial Rising Sun Flag, a Korean court ruling in favor of four Korean workers who were forced to work for a Japanese company during World War II, and Korea's overall view of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a time of liberation and not when Japanese and Korean people were killed.

I placed the first one in the BTS controversy section for now just to have better perspective in there and cites that are reliable. If we go with the second one I think it still needs more work done to it.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Good work DanielleTH, Ukiss2ne14lyfe, Binksternet and all....I'm afraid this popped up on a week-end for some that might have contributed; or busy with Asian Month late articles. Sorry I didn't comment earlier. I was going with the more detailed version after I had time to look everything over, but the short version looks fine on the actual BTS page.....if readers want to get more in depth, they can click the citation links. I was a little concerned that the mention of "flag" makes them sound like they wave a controversial flag at all of their concerts, since there is no detail. But, seeing the posted short version...I'm kind of liking less-is-more. Most interested readers know what the single instance of the flag was about...and it won't hurt those who don't. Let's see if this one flies without much more edit warring.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bonnielou2013 I wanted to go with more detailed too at first but another user suggested doing less and I liked it better. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly how I was going to format it was kinda like the More popular than Jesus page... I really want to put emphasis on how different the response was in Korea, Japan, and internationally, and I feel like having a section for background, for the situation itself, and the various responses is good. I'll try to write something up.  DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes if you have another format you can make a bracket like I did with the two types I did and then when a few more people contribute we can choose which one we like best or is the most appropriate. I'm thinking though my second suggested one would be replaced by yours though because mine still needs a lot of work and I think there's some word choices that need better rephrasing too since all of those are touchy subjects.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Instead of making these separate ones maybe we could write one collaboratively up top, ? DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 18:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That works, although I still think I would vote for the simpler one. What I wrote for the more complex one is all the info I have. All the Japanese articles I read I couldn't really use since the Japanese Bomb association never made a comment at all for anything and then there was a politician who responded that refused the apology but that's not the whole jpn gov. It's mostly back and forth on both countries commenting neither understand the other from what I was able to grasp. The US pretty much dropped it after the apology, but JPN and KOR still have articles coming out about it. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My only problem is I feel like it doesn't address the Korean perspective, which is largely in support of Jimin's choice to wear the shirt and also the widely covered accusations of this being spread by Uyoku dantai. I'll have my draft of it for comment ASAP.


 * Also... thought I would tag and ... I spoke to the lovely admin  and I thought he came up with a good solution for the debate about displaying the controversy section on the page right now or after the draft is done. Right now it's on the page with the "Disputed section" on there until a proper, agreed version is uploaded. I think that's both very neutral, since it puts it on the page but acknowledges that it's flawed, and also encourages new editors to help out with the draft.  DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 03:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)