Talk:BTS

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2026

Change "Originally a hip hop group, they expanded their musical style to incorporate a wide range of genres, while their lyrics have focused on subjects including mental health, the troubles of school-age youth and coming of age, loss, the journey towards self-love, individualism and the consequences of fame and recognition"

to

"Originally a hip hop group, they expanded their musical style to incorporate a wide range of genres, while their lyrics have focused on subjects including identity, growth, self-reflection, mental health, the troubles of school-age youth and coming of age, loss, the journey towards self-love, individualism and the consequences of fame and recognition."

REASON: The opening paragraph of the BTS Wikipedia change should be edited, because the description of the themes of their music is missing some subjects.

SOURCES: https://time.com/article/2026/03/20/bts-arirang-tracks-lyrics/ https://face.meei.harvard.edu/map-of-the-soul-persona-to-map-of-the-soul-7/a-journey-of-self-discovery-exploring-the-significance-of-bts-andamp-quot-map-of-the-soul-persona https://www.ebbonyandlune.com/blog/bts-arirang-decoded https://usishield.com/32988/reviews/btss-map-of-the-soul-7-explores-themes-of-individuality-personal-growth/ Priyas122 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.

Some of these suggestions seem redundant. Individualism is already listed and perhaps encompasses identity, growth, and self-reflection. The current sentence is enough of a mouthful itself. Pr0m37h3u$ 11:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright Lawsuit

I believe the following should be kept on the page:

== Copyright lawsuit ==
In July 2026, several songwriters filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Hybe, Hybe America, Big Hit Music, Hybe Music Services, Artist Publishing Group, and several credited songwriters of "Swim". According to the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the song copied protected elements from an unpublished demo they had written in 2025 after the demo had been circulated within the music industry. The complaint sought damages and other relief, including an injunction against further exploitation of the song or, alternatively, songwriting credit and a share of the song's profits. RM, although credited as a songwriter on Swim, was not named as a defendant.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-07-10 |title=BTS faces 'SWIM' plagiarism lawsuit in US as BigHit Music denies allegations - The Korea Times |url=https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entertainment/k-pop/20260710/bts-faces-swim-plagiarism-lawsuit-in-us-as-bighit-music-denies-allegations |access-date=2026-07-11 |website=www.koreatimes.co.kr |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Stassen |first=Murray |date=2026-07-09 |title=BTS hit 'SWIM' subject of copyright lawsuit filed by three songwriters against HYBE, claiming the track copied their demo |url=https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/hybe-sued-over-bts-hit-swim-songeriters-alleging-it-copied-their-demo/ |access-date=2026-07-11 |website=Music Business Worldwide |language=en-US}}</ref>

Big Hit Music denied the allegations, stating that "Swim" is an original work and that the complaint contained only the plaintiffs' unilateral claims. The company said it would respond through the legal process. As of July 2026, the lawsuit remained pending and no court had ruled on the allegations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Daily |first=The Chosun |date=2026-07-10 |title=BTS's 'SWIM' Plagiarism Lawsuit; Big Hit Responds |url=https://www.chosun.com/english/travel-food-en/2026/07/10/ATNIUUGQWZD3TI7NI5A7LFSPMU/ |access-date=2026-07-11 |website=The Chosun Daily |language=en}}</ref>

I do not believe the reasoning by the one who originally reverted it is inherently correct, and may be swayed by an act of bias towards to group itself, as just because the article is FA, it does not discount it from having legal issues being included (same goes for the NewJeans article). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted, see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Undoubtedly a group as prominent as BTS has faced many lawsuits. We might mention an adverse judgment but given WP:BLP we need to be conservative about such things. We are not the news. Also, given the length and breadth of coverage of the article, even if we were to mention it, we would not do so at such length. Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I understand your point, but this is the first time such an allegation has been formally pursued through legal proceedings against the group, as there is no record of a comparable case occurring previously. That makes it more than a routine lawsuit and potentially a notable aspect of the group's history. While I agree that the article should avoid undue detail, I don't think WP:BLP or "we are not the news" justify omitting a well-sourced, legally significant event altogether. The appropriate approach would be to summarize it and in proportion to its significance, rather than exclude it entirely. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk)

@Wehwalt, Spiral6800, Kittysaurusr, Orangesclub, and Chiyako92: ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Are the people you have pinged significant contributors to this article? I would remind you, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidencerests with the editor who adds or restores the material." WP:BLP.

You make several assertions in your last statement, that BTS has not been sued before, that therefore this case has outsize significance and must be reported at length. Are you able to point to secondary sources that make such claims? Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging ErnestKrause and Btspurplegalaxy, the other FAC nominators. To answer two of your other points, I have no disinclination to allow negative information about BTS in this article. I have never seen them, and don't actually like their music, I was asked to help out with the writing and sourcing of this article. And every lawsuit, no matter how misguided, is "formally pursued".

In an effort to compromise this matter, can you give me a version summed up on two or three sentences, that we can include and either expand or delete as developments show necessary at a later date? Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I pinged those editors because they have previously participated in BTS-related discussions, and I wanted broader input rather than to canvass for a particular outcome. Regarding the substance, I agree that WP:BLP requires us to be especially cautious with material about living people, and I am not contend that every lawsuit belongs in the article or that this one should be covered at length. My view is based on the fact that this filing has received substantial, independent coverage across multiple reliable secondary sources, including Billboard, The Korea Herald, The Straits Times, Music Business Worldwide, The Washington Times, and ABS-CBN, all of which treated the lawsuit as a notable development in BTS's career rather than a passing news item. These sources also report both the plaintiffs' allegations and Big Hit Music's categorical denial, allowing the matter to be presented in a balanced, attributed manner rather than as fact. That said, I acknowledge that I cannot point to a source explicitly stating this is BTS's first lawsuit or that it has exceptional significance, so I do not intend to rely on that argument. Instead, I think the discussion should focus on whether the breadth and quality of secondary sourcing justify a brief, neutrally worded summary that gives the event due weight while remaining fully consistent with WP:BLP and avoiding undue emphasis.

Maybe this would be appropriate: "In July 2026, songwriters Melvin Moore, Tim Sommers, and Jordan Odegard filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States against Hybe, Big Hit Music, and the credited writers of BTS's song "Swim", alleging that it copied protectable elements from an unreleased demo. Big Hit Music denied the allegations, stating that "Swim" was independently created and that the claims were without merit. The lawsuit remains ongoing." ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A separate section for this is a definite WP:DUE issue; I agree with Chiyako92 that this fits better at Swim (BTS song) with brief coverage here. "The lawsuit remains ongoing" is not necessary and should not be included per MOS:RELTIME and WP:NOTNEWS. Wracking ^talk! 17:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm late to the conversation, but I'm inclined to agree this is far more suited for Swim's article. Given the length of the group's article as is, I think it merely makes it longer than necessary. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 05:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This issue on law cases seems to come up many times on the Donald Trump page as well. Cases are contemplated, then they are filed, then they may be dismissed, then they may be negotiated, then they may or may not go to court, then they may or may not be appealed. The current issue which is put forward about a single filing in CA seems very preliminary. I'll need to agree with Wehwalt about the preliminary stages of this matter, and at this stage the contemplated edit would need to be much shorter for discussion purposes. Supporting Wehwalt on this, and there should not be this many reverts on the main page concerning this discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Covering the lawsuit case at length on this page seems excessive to me. I think we could just briefly mention it in the bio and link to the dedicated section in the Swim entry. Once the case is over, we can discuss again what to write based on the court's decision on whether it is plagiarism or not. Chiya^ko92 12:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest adding "BTS Monuments: Beyond The Star (2023) to BTS videography section, it is a small documentary that came out on Disney+ a while ago that is not listed, I am new to editing and wanted to get feedback first.

What should also be added is BTS chose not to submit to the Grammys this year after the addition of the "Best Asian Pop Music Performance" category. Elli212 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It is already listed in List of Disney+ original programming. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s totally worth it. It did have enough coverage to make it into the Videography section in my opinionBengalMC (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

not really 2013

bts technically debut 16 years ago we don't count the TV debut cos it really don't make sense and also they start make music 2010 2011 and 2012 not just 2013 Hey675 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

ARMY redirect hatnote

User:Wehwalt, can you explain why you reverted my edit? It is customary to use hatnotes to help people navigate. If someone types ARMY into the search box, they might not want to end up here, so I added a link to the disambiguation page. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 17:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't redirect here in the first place to be honest RachelTensions (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes go on top. They are tolerated though they use prime space in an article. Interrupting an article for a hatnote to a disambiguating page seems to me to be useless. I could live with removing the redirect as a solution.. Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Hatnotes can go at the beginning of an article, or a section. It's the first line of WP:HATNOTE. RachelTensions (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

They can, but to avoid clutter, it is not a routine matter. Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hatnotes don't all go at the top of the article. They can also go at the top of the relevant section. This is a trivial case in which a hatnote is necessary. If you disagree with the redirect itself, then we can talk about it at RfD. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 14:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I've boldly altered the redirect. Note that you created this by creating the redirect in the first place. The pedia and this FA got along fine without either until you did this yesterday.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Saying we "got along fine" before is not an argument. You turned the redirect into a WP:TWODAB that needlessly complicates user navigation, just because you think adding a hatnote would "use prime space in the article"? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 21:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how it complicates things. What it does is peel off uninterested editors before it reaches the article. I regret any uncalled for implication in my comments, but if the redirect created a problem, it was probably unnecessary to create it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Note that you created this by creating the redirect in the first place. The pedia and this FA got along fine without either until you did this yesterday. The snark is unnecessary and unbecoming of someone in your position. RachelTensions (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I regret any snark, but the fact that remains that the redirect wasn't really necessary. Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

"ARMY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ARMY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 October 9 § ARMY until a consensus is reached. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 23:03, 9 October 2026 (UTC)