Talk:2024 South Korean martial law

Request protection

I don't know if it is within Wikipedia policy, but I have noticed that South Korean articles get vandalized more often than others; as such, I recommend that minimum protection be placed on this page to prevent that one guy who spams his insane manifesto. Sir Ross (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow articles about South Korea that much, but I concur on the additional stand point that is will be fast and moving and we want to limit any chance of misinformation. Coasterghost (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but the default is that we don't "pre-emptively" (WP:NO-PREEMPT) protect pages until we have evidence there is an issue. There are multiple admins that have eyes on this article, so rest assured it can be protected quite quickly as things progress. You can also use WP:RPP and folks will act quickly. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I always like making topics like this if nothing else but to find out policies for myself and others. Sir Ross (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true? I pretty much only edit SK-related articles and don't see more vandalism on ours; if anything we may see less. seefooddiet (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a topic someone did earlier that was (while I agree with the anti-communist sentiment) very very biased and effectively calling for unilaterally declaring the legislature communist in the article. I have seen occasional hyper-partisan Korean editors that are very adamant, but that could just be coincidental timing on my part. Sir Ross (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Fairly rare; I've seen more hyper-partisan editors on non-Korea articles than Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox be reformatted to emphasize that this has been countermanded by the legislative? Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a note should be added to clarify that the legislative vote was technically illegal (afaik) due to the martial law prohibiting political activities. Whether the vote is legitimate or not is for Korean legal experts to determine and time to reveal, so I think it should at least have a caveat. Sir Ross (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was considering the combatant infobox also. But then again other reports suggest that Yoon made shortcuts in declaring ML which could make him the first at fault. Borgenland (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Event should do for the time being methinks, it's pretty broad in what it covers. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree for now. Until the situation settles and we get a clearer picture of what is and has happened, then it can be revisited. It's also hard to cite things when the president takes over all of the media, so the page should probably move slow as to avoid making pre-emptive statements of fact based on speculation or yet to be corroborated "reliable sources". Sir Ross (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we have citations for the political parties underneath the National Assembly bullet in the infobox, as well as for the Seoul Metropolitan Government? --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that there's a status= and a result= in the infobox, and the existence of status= supersedes result=. Can we have a consensus as to whether we can just use result= instead of keep using status= (which would mean that we assume the situation will still change)? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Article name change?

Am I right in thinking that "2024 South Korean martial law" sounds odd as a title? Surely, something along the lines of "2024 South Korean martial law declaration" sounds better? Feel free to post any other suggestions you may have. SuperGuy212 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

maybe,Dec. 2024 S Korean presidents short-lived declaration of martial law 2601:14B:4900:3230:D276:850F:7F2:8186 (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Martial law WAS declared by the president , therefore the title is fine. The assembly quickly convened and unanimously overturned the presidents declaration of martial law. In fact some of the military were waiting for the president to declare martial law over before they would stand down , and he finally did.

Support It makes more sense, especially since now the law itself may not be applied after the National Assembly vote. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the current events I believe the accurate title would be "2024 attempted declaration of martial law in South Korea" given it's already been annulled before it came into effect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I may not understand what it means but I do think martial law was declared, it just wasn't enacted. If that's correct then "2024 declaration of martial law in South Korea" sounds fine Qqars (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it was enacted, but the Assembly quashed it. (Which apparently requires the President to approve or something...) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The only similar article was 2022 Russian martial law so that naming convention was followed to make it WP:CONSISTENT. I could see how adding "declaration" at the end might make sense, though let's give it more time. The wordier "2024 attempted declaration of martial law in South Korea" is not WP:CONCISE or WP:CONSISTENT. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem though is that in this case the actual "Martial Law" never came into effect. So it was only "attempted". I don't think there's a more concise title that is actually accurate at this present stage than the one I suggested. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not true it was "only" attempted. Martial law was declared. It took effect briefly, and then a motion was passed to lift it. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - as martial law is now over, the current title doesn’t make sense anymore. -jakeyounglol (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree woo (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: Yes, this is a good name change. Or it can be changed to "2024 South Korean martial law declaration attempt" Elios Peredhel (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Support DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah thought about that to. Nxhon25 (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the president and the army refuse to comply with the vote lifting martial law, I guess the name change would be something like "2024 South Korean coup" or "Coup d'état of december 3th" (depending on how news outlets choose to name it). So let's wait and see

It's a coup attempt, plain and simple. Change it to something like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.78.14.9 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if it is a coup, then wouldn't it be "2024 South Korean self coup"? Sir Ross (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

We should wait until news sources mention this as a coup before considering this. SuperGuy212 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed. Even more so that not even DP leaders used the word "coup", AFAIK 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:399E:9B09:75E1:FCBE (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there are no reputable reliable sources calling this a "coup," so we should not use it as the WP:COMMONNAME. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

First, discussion seems to have moved over to Talk:2024 South Korean martial law#Requested move 3 December 2024, though the conversation there is moving over to terms like "coup". Second, oppose. General Park An-su banned rallies and protests, prohibited the National Assembly, political parties and local assemblies from operating, placed all media under state control and ordered striking doctors back to work, with violators subject to detention or search without a warrant. To my feeble understanding, this is very much an implementation of martial law, even though it was lifted before the army could hurt people over it, and "declaration" would give the inaccurate impression that it was not put into force (or whatever is the correct term for enacting a state of martial law). I'm similarly unsatisfied with "attempt".--Kizor 09:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"National Assembly" vs. "Assembly"

Does anyone familiar with the subject know if/when it's acceptable to shorten "National Assembly" to "Assembly"? Does it depend on referring to the building vs. the legislature? Placeholderer (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

What I usually do is use NA once at the beginning and A afterwards to avoid redundancy. Borgenland (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"Unanimous" vote of the National Assembly

I'm not sure about the specificities of South Korean politics but 190/300 members seems close to the number of opposition MPs in South Korea (192/300). Maybe this should be clarified, even if the vote was unanimous in terms of members present, who I assume are mainly members of the South Korean opposition. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's been widely-reported that it was present MPs of all parties, including that of the president's party, voted against it. So it is unanimous without need of clarification. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a useful clarification that the vote was indeed across the board, not the result of a party boycotting the vote or being forcibly blocked to vote. 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:399E:9B09:75E1:FCBE (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Korean military says martial law remains in force until the president lifts it

The BBC reports that the motion passed by parliament did not lift martial law, but required the president to lift it. The Korean military now says that "it will maintain martial law until it is lifted by President Yoon Suk Yeol, despite the nation's parliament voting to block its enforcement." Yoon is obligated to end martial law, but it has not happened yet, so this article should reflect that Adam8410 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The military sides with Yoon. This is an obvious, outrageous abuse of martial law but the military is clearly siding with him. Yoon's party didn't vote against the measure because any form of political activity has been ruled illegal. Yoon and the military are considering the vote invalid. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Status of martial law in the Infobox

While martial law has been repealed by the parliament, the military has stated it will continue enforcement of martial law. Given current military and police actions in South Korea, along with allegations Yoon Suk Yeol is acting against democratic policy, I believe martial law should be listed as ongoing instead of included, though this should be discussed before a change. CitrusHemlock 17:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is basically a (very likely successful) coup in progress. The military has sided with him. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Korean Language

A number of times users have added the Korean language for the words martial law. However, consensus was not provided for that to be added. Could someone please step in and see what’s going on? IanDBeacon (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line is, people seem to think that martial law needs a Korean translation. Not really sure why, as this is normally used in times where something is transliterated, or otherwise exclusive to its native country. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:KO-LEAD we ask people not to use the korean translation for cases like these, but we provide korean text so often for korea-related articles that people think it's a universal practice seefooddiet (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought it would be helpful as a keyword for non-Korean speakers who want to research Korean-language sources., but I see that it violates MOS. Ca ^{talk to me!} 18:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Military says vote is illegal?

I noticed that statements along the line of "The military has said the vote by the National Assembly is illegal." have been repeatedly added into the article, but do any of the sources actually say this? All I see in the sources is the military not complying with the vote, I haven't seen any sources that say the military has declared the vote itself illegal. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anything to that effect. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither I do. It should be removed and stopped. --Cheol (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The military has generally sided with the argument that the National Assembly vote is illegal as any form of political activity is prohibited. Yes. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't get to say that, as soon as sources state that the military has declared the vote illegal then fair enough. Until then, it should not be re-added. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't read Korean. Could Korean readers (or people able to sufficiently handle auto-translators) please be more specific about which military have which opinion? Joint Chiefs of Staff (South Korea) points to some of the top military leaders. Or was it rather a spokesperson for a particular military leader or office? Boud (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

both of the Korean-language sources refer to unnamed "military authorities". I agree with adding the {{who}} template to encourage our editors to find sources with more concrete information. Presumably there are political reasons why news agencies in Korea don't want to print the names of people right now. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

My impression from an auto-translator for the YTN archive snapshot is that it's a spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence who said this - "spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence" would still be more specific than "military authorities". But in principle we're not really supposed to use live timelines as sources ... Boud (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, (at least according to my auto-translator) that article doesn't say anything about the Ministry of Defence specifically declaring the vote illegal, only repeating the martial law declaration that had been given two hours before the vote took place, and saying there was no further official statement. It would be synthesis for us to conclude that an order that preceded a vote by hours explicitly declared that vote invalid, without a source that *specifically* makes this connection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. Unless the military really want to participate in a de facto coup, they're likely to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as illegal. My understanding is that until the President complies with the order from Parliament, technically speaking there's still a a state of martial law, so it's quite likely that the military officials are just being legally conservative - and want to avoid saying anything that could land them in court afterwards. Boud (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And of course whether generic or specific military, it must be reliably sourced, as several people here have said. Boud (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Ughh... I've had to remove this kind of claim once again... @Heiliges Es scheint, dass du hast es hier zum Artikel hinzugefügt (if I got my German right!). It's not rocket science, or German grammar... There's also a discussion further down here about the specific requirements from the Korean constitution (Article 77 of it, in particular), but that's not the point: in any case, it's best to avoid editorialising when there are no sources which state something like this. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yoon's People's Party in infobox

It is misleading for the infobox to imply that Yoon's People's Party is against the martial law/coup attempt. It is true (like in any attempted situation like this) that some have opposed his actions as authoritarian and undemocratic, but a large majority of the party's members have not declares the martial law illegal in the assembly (they didn't vote) and several have come out in support of the measure. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

sources? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Until a group of People's Party members come out in support of the coup, the party's leader, the mayor of Seoul, and all members of the party in the assembly have come out against the coup. Scuba 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Police jurisdiction

There are police helping the army keep the protesters out of the Assembly. Whose jurisdiction do they fall under? are they local police from Seoul? Scuba 18:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I've heard there was a mass-mobilisation calling for all police within the general area of Seoul, I'll see whether there's anything more concrete. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

International reactions section (continued from user talk)

Should the international reactions sub-section be formatted as a country-by-country list (with attendant flags) or as a simple prose paragraph (combining similar statements by different entities, to avoid repetition - ex. here)? 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, do we really need to list every government (outside major geopolitical players whose reactions might be relevant in other ways given their longstanding involvement in the frozen conflict between the two bits of Korea) which is "closely monitoring the situation"? That seems almost like routine condolences sent worldwide after mass tragedies... 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

A similar conversation happened after the Crocus City Hall attack, with the general consensus being "keep it short and sweet". CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

!CommissarDoggo Ok, cause I've been getting push-back from here... 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Reaction sections are utter cancer and clog up pages with useless information. It's typically just a list of states saying "We don't like that bad thing happened."Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the section to summarise mostly everything. The Taiwan political spat is local and not germane to the issue so I've removed that specific bit. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@User:Scu_ba - WP:Not vandalism might be relevant reading for you, but in any case, stubbornly claiming it to be won't solve the issue at hand, you seem to be alone in insisting it should be a flag-list. I again invite you to engage with others here. Pinging @CommissarDoggo @Harizotoh9 in case they want to comment further, and also @Borgenland since he seems to have touched the relevant section quite a lot. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I too would like for you to explain why an, admittedly bold, constructive simplification of the text constitutes repeated IP vandalism. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I'd seriously complain about at this stage is how some editors recklessly annex France to the UK when they revert to flag soup. Borgenland (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Having a list of reactions is better than word vomit. If the reversions weren't being made by an IP editor, who went to my talk page to incorrectly cite FLAGCRUFT I might be willing to accept them, as long as the alternative was also of high quality. But just one sentence for each country's reaction stitched together is worse than just making a list for each country's reaction. Scuba 19:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba I don't see how a concise summary of similar and typical ("monitoring closely", urging citizens to exercise caution, &c.) reactions to such an event constitutes "word-vomit", unless people are unable to read sentences longer than ten words (in which case the same kind of problem definitively does also exist with the country-by-country list). Also, stop the personal attacks. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Because what the government of France has to say has nothing to do with what the government of Taiwan has to say. Keep the countries responses separate. It's not that complicated. Scuba 19:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba And it was indeed kept separate because France actually issued a travel advisory, whereas Taiwan (besides the local political spat, which I'm going to go ahead and remove unless you object, as it is not really germane to the issue) only said it was monitoring the situation. If there are several countries making the same kind of reaction, it's probably sign that it's not really a unique per-country response, so there's no need to emphasise the "country" bit by making it into a list and emphasising it again with a flag. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a need to emphasize the country bit because the reactions section should convey what the reactions of the countries are. Scuba 19:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And that can be done just as well by lumping the countries placing travel advisories, "watching closely" and saying for their citizens to obey local guidelines and not demonstrate together.

These are all cookie-cutter responses and thus not really worth listing beyond "countries including w x and y said z." CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Does it really? I could quote again the example I linked on your talk page of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but even for major geopolitical events, reactions by many countries tend to be really similar (like the typical expression of condolences after a mass tragedy); ex.

Over seventy sovereign states and the European Union delivered humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and nearly fifty countries plus the EU provided military aid.

In that context it wouldn't at all be pertinent to "emphasise the country bit", we're maybe not yet a "fifty countries" here but we already have at least a dozen and they all go along similar lines, as @CommissarDoggo points out. If any country really does react in an unusual and significant way which merits to be mentioned separately from the cookie-cutter responses, then we can write a separate paragraph about it, which will at the same time be a better way to do just that than merely exepnding a list entry. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You'll also note that I tried where possible to avoid a one-sentence-per-country approach: this is not an effective solution, whether done in list or prose form. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Short entries work better as lists. Keep it a list. Scuba 19:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba See my previous comment above, but given the fact it seems the situation will be resolved shortly ("Reuters reports that the president will lift martial law", linked below), the international reactions are probably not going to be all that significant (in the short- or long-term), and in any case will likely pale with whatever will happen domestically as a fallout from this. You might not agree, but that probably vindicates the idea of keeping it, as someone else said, "short and sweet" and avoiding making it into a long list. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The list isn't going to get any longer if the martial law ends hence we can keep the list. Scuba 20:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Not the point I was making. As it stands, the list is too prominent, mostly because as correctly identified previously all of the responses are essentially routine if creative ways of saying "we are worried about what is happening in country X". They could be entirely omitted and not much would be lost, but if they're there, there's no need to emphasise them in any way (including but not limited to "having a separate mention for all countries reacting the same way"). As you implied, "just one sentence for each country's reaction" is bad. I don't see how those sentences being in a list makes it better. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Scu ba And the list is indeed getting longer despite the event itself having ended. As I said, it can probably be gotten rid off without any consequence, but I'll abstain for now. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Time for a poll?

The sub-section has grown again from 10 countries when I last checked to 16, including now some places as far away as Ireland and even good ol' Germany (I guess they might know a thing or two about coups and coup attempts - how relevant the short Twitter message they posted is, that's another question)... The above discussion seems mostly clear to me, but the list doesn't seem like it's going to stop growing of its own free volition. So, time for a poll. The question is simple, should we:

• A: Keep the section as is or
• B: Convert the list to prose

Feel free to add other options if I've missed anything. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to those involved in previous discussion and recent edits: Shamrockwikiedit, AINH, CommissarDoggo, Scu_ba, Borgenland. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Option A is prefered as of now for me, thanks. Shamrockwikiedit (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The moment I see Biafra make a comment (and I have had run-ins with such editors) then I will be vehemently pushing for Option B. Borgenland (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option B per all of what I wrote above. I imagine there will be international reactions to this - beyond the mostly to-be-expected embassy and foreign office statements which are being added ad nauseam currently - which will be worth mentioning, and the proper way to do that is via short, well written paragraphs summarising the most significant information (as, for example, done at Russian invasion of Ukraine#International reactions). 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine with option A Scuba 04:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option B, would feel a bit silly to change my vote after arguing for it. I still don't believe that an extensive list of cookie-cutter responses is better than a smaller collecting of "w x and y said z". CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

North Korean involvement in info box

There have been some edits and reverts concerning the alleged involvement of North Korea by Yoon as one of the "parties", but I think a mention of the allegations in the background is more than sufficient, especially as the allegations themselves are non-verifiable. BritishMew (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Unlike the PPP factions which has fewer sources. This allegation is from Yoon himself. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I have severe doubts that North Korea had any hand in this at all and the President never really elaborated on what sort of connection he believed NK has. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

While I doubt that NK directly impacted this situation, it's pretty widely accepted that NK has cyber influence campaigns aimed at destabilizing SK. [1] China also engaged in the same thing. [2][3][4] seefooddiet (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

'Countdown' in the infobox

Could, say, the infobox have a timer, in regard to
"Martial law has lasted for ... hours"? 2001:2020:355:AE51:3899:D753:FC85:AF1D (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't believe that's even possible within the infobox parameters. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{time ago}}; e.g. for the past {{time ago|3 December 2024 13:22 UTC|magnitude=hours|ago=}} yields "for the past 23 hours" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypn^2 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Huh, that's really neat. I still don't think it belongs in the infobox, as "from x to present" is fine, but it's neat! CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

legal stuff

do we have anything about the working of martial law in South Korea? is it in the constitution, or some regular law? what's the wording? is that even legal for a martial law decree to forbid all political activities, including the national assembly? 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:399E:9B09:75E1:FCBE (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You can find the text (in English translation, I assume any conflicts should heed the original Korean instead, if you can read it) on Wikisource (search "Constitution of South Korea") but any interpretation of the day's (night's) events probably ought to be sourced to proper reliable sources. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

^ This, except not just "probably"; any interpretation of the events must be sourced to RS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

We do currently have a link According to Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the president ... [41], though to actually read the English translation of Article 77 you have to go to s:Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1987)#SECTION 1. The_President and scroll down to Article 77.

It feels odd not to link to the constitution more prominently, but that's not Wikipedia's fault, it's the fault of the president and Park An-su for not prominently referring to the constitution. As Writ Keeper says, to what degree the martial law declaration was valid (or not) under the constitution is something we can only state once legal experts comment on that. It does sound to me, a non-lawyer writing on a Wikipedia talk page, like prohibiting activities of parliament would make Article 77.5 meaningless, but this sort of constitutional interpretation will dependent on precedents of prior interpretations and on whatever happens later in the Constitutional Court of Korea. In the short term there'll likely be interpretations by established legal experts, e.g. at Opinio Juris. Boud (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boud Entirely not-admissible for the article, but Art. 77.3, which only allows "special measures may be taken with respect to the necessity for warrants, freedom of speech, the press, assembly and association, or the powers of the Executive and the Judiciary under the conditions as prescribed by Act." would mean that activities of the Legislature (i.e. the National Assembly) cannot be affected (since it is not explicitly mentioned as one of the areas with respect to which "special measures may be taken"), which would mean that the relevant portion of the martial law declaration would bear the same legal effect as that of Johnson's 2019 prorogation of Parliament, i.e. that of a "blank piece of paper". 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - you read 77.3 more carefully than I did. I think I (mis-)interpreted "assembly" as including "assembly (gathering) of the National Assembly" but "powers of the Executive and the Judiciary" sounds very much like the intention is to exclude the Legislature. There should be sources on this sort of analysis sooner or later. Boud (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boud - Ask and your wish shall be granted! "Using the army against the National Assembly is likely illegal even under the terms of martial law in South Korea, since Article 77 only allows the president to take measures affecting the executive and the judiciary, not the legislature. Yoon was attempting an autogolpe, or self-coup, in which a sitting leader seizes dictatorial power." I've added it to the background section to allow linking to both the Constitution article here and to the text on WS, but there's probably going to be some legal repercussions as well (see the Korean Herald on that) so this might be useful. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Martial law will be lifted

Reuters reports that the president will lift martial law. Image2012 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2024

2024 South Korean martial law → 2024 South Korean martial law declaration – From what I can tell martial law wasn't actually implemented. Sources only actually say that it was declared and new sources say it has been nullified by the assembly. Calling it just "martial law" is probably WP:CRYSTAL.

The following discussion has established that it was actually put into effect for about three hours. This vote should still go on as there are other concerns for the title. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The martial law declared by President Yoon was actually in effect. After martial law was declared, special forces from the Capital Defense Command entered the National Assembly and attempted to arrest opposition lawmakers, and 190 lawmakers later passed the martial law lifting inside the Assembly. Gasiseda (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, according to Korean sources, Yoon's martial law actually took effect for about three hours. [5][6] Gasiseda (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would wait for more sources. The President complies with the Parliament to end Martial law. Article 77. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

When something begins and then ends, it happened. If something is retroactively declared illegal that's a different matter; I think this was all handled legally. seefooddiet (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

An example of a govt action which happened and then was declared illegal would be the 2019 United Kingdom prorogation controversy, though that obviously would be wrong here. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect - martial law was declared, briefly implemented, then voted on to be lifted by the National Assembly, and then announced by the president that he was rescinding his declaration. It is not just the "declaration" that is the subject (or heart) of this article, but the entire martial law crisis. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gasiseda. It went into effect. seefooddiet (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, a declaration usually means something did go into effect, as in a "declaration of war". 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Gasiseda, but support rewording (edit); martial law was effectively in place for several hours, with armed forces members carrying out some of the actions of martial law. A possible alternative name could be 2024 South Korean attempted coup d'état, although that will depend on how media and SKorean politicians choose to interpret and name the event; it's not yet emerging as a common name; moreover, it would be a self-coup. Boud (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (edit Boud (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC))

  Although I oppose using the name “2024 South Korean attempted coup d’état”, I agree there should be a name change. Hankow idk (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  ● Oppose: I think it's fine enough as is. Though In my opinion "2024 South Korean attempted coup d'état" could work if it's well-sourced, plus this seems a bit similar to what happened in the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt. InterDoesWiki (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  2024 South Korean attempted coup d'état is a good title, the events definitely seem to have the makings of a self coup, with airborne troops being deployed to assembly and attempting to arrest representatives trying to overturn the declaration (my guess was their commander was in contact with the president). It could be changed only if reporting over the coming days reflects this, however. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, "coup d'etat" would be original research, as no reliable source or news site is using that in any of their headlines. You have 41 lifetime Wikipedia edits, so you may not be aware of our guidelines on these matters. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I'm saying, that we can only title it that if reporting reflects it, did you not fully read through what I said? V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  should be a self-coup or a generic wording like political crackdown or crisis. Maybe we should leave space for further major events that resulting from this event.  Hwi.padam   01:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support "2024 South Korean martial law declaration" or similar, though not for the reason initially proposed. The current title is awkwardly phrased, and declaring martial law is generally read by people as martial law being implemented. If martial law had not been implemented, you could see a title such as "2024 South Korean martial law declaration attempt". --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like that the phrasing “martial law declaration attempt” lead people to think that he attempted to “declare martial law”, not that he “attempted to implement martial law”. Declaring and implementing two very different things. I think “2024 South Korean attempted martial law implementation” would also be a suitable candidate. Hankow idk (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support or if there is a problem others have with declaration I also support 2024 martial law in South Korea as the current title is extremely awkward. Yeoutie (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Delta1989 and Yeoutie. Juwan (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support for Delta 1989 and Yeoutie. Hankow idk (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support "2024 South Korean martial law declaration", as Yoon backed down. Alternative proposal: "2024 South Korean martial law controversy" --Minoa (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm disappointed the proposer did not seem to pay attention to or engage with the conversation above at #Article name change? where some of these issues were being discussed. It is clear that martial law was declared and was executed, if only briefly, and was shortly after voted on to be lifted. This may still be considered under a murky situation depending on which constituency one believes. Therefore, it is not just "the declaration" that merits an article and coverage, but the entire crisis around martial law in 2024. There is also some irony in that after being concerned about WP:CRYSTAL, there is so much inappropriate speculation about a "coup" when no reputable reliable sources are using that terminology (as of 5:30am time in Korea). - Fuzheado | Talk 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Delta1989 and Yeoutie. OpenFuture (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Even by your own wording about the martial law being "nullified" by parliament already implies that martial law went into effect in the first place. We are looking at facts not if he succeeded or not or how long it lasted. Weird comments supporting this without logic. GaterRaider (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that a name like 2024 South Korean martial law incident would be best. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Yeoutie. I support 2024 martial law in South Korea. The key point of the entire article now is that President Yoon used the president's authority to declare martial law and then actually enforced it, and lawmakers with legal voting rights later lifted martial law through voting. President Yoon's declaration of martial law exercised the president's own rights, and the lawmakers' approval of the lifting of martial law is also the lawmaker's own right. Some opposition-supporting Korean media define it as a coup, but we currently lack sources to define it as a coup. Gasiseda (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would support 2024 martial law in South Korea seefooddiet (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would also support 2024 martial law in South Korea RyanAl6 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Support "2024 marital law in South Korea" instead. I've striken below. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Myrealnamm I don't think this has much to do with Marital law... 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support change to 2024 South Korean martial law declaration or 2024 South Korean martial law controversy. Based off the articles linked above by Gasiseda, it seems the "martial law" was limited to airborne troops being deployed to the assembly and trying to arrest representatives. While this can be described as martial law, it was a failed attempt at enacting a single part of the first point, which, I believe, is more fitting of the suggested titles, which presents the events as more an attempt at full martial law, rather than full martial law as suggested by the current title. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion According to a report by the Chosun Ilbo, a leading conservative media outlet supporting the ruling party, all South Korean troops were armed and on standby shortly after martial law was declared. This was already in effect nationwide, as protesters and lawmakers could be immediately suppressed by force at the behest of the commander-in-chief, the president.[7][8] Gasiseda (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Didn't know this, although I feel the second article somewhat backs up my point, with the soldiers seeming just as confused as the average citizen, and them just being placed on standby and waiting for further direction, not being actively deployed across the country, aside from a small contingent of soldiers. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion I want to remind you again that what we need to know here is not to discuss whether or not the military is actually deployed. What's important is that martial law has taken effect and the military and police have been mobilized. It took effect immediately after the president declared martial law, and soldiers were on standby. The fact that some soldiers and police officers were deployed to the Capitol means that martial law was already in effect, which is not an issue that can be defined simply as the president's attempt at martial law. The article is not about the president's attempt at martial law, it's about a series of events that have already happened under martial law. Gasiseda (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

After thinking it over I now support 2024 South Korean martial law crisis, as said by The Anome and Boud, instead of my previous two suggestions. I see how despite troops not being deployed martial law was still somewhat enacted, but I stand by my previous point, of it being very limited. It would also be more accurate than describing it as a controversy, as it will almost certainly result in the president's impeachment. I do also support 2024 South Korean self-coup attempt (in the style 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt) if reporting reflects it. V. L. Mastikosa (talk)

• Support, yes. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Wait, but... I think South Korea withdrew the declaration, didn't they? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, as it was actually in force, if only for a few hours. I would, however express support for changing the article title to something like 2024 martial law in South Korea, as the current title is awkward as others have pointed out. JParksT2023 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 martial law in South Korea would sound better than the current title, since the current title could be interpreted as a particular law that was voted on or came into force in 2024 in South Korea, rather than an episode of martial law. Boud (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Another descriptive title could be 2024 South Korean martial law crisis. It's stronger than an "incident", and the peak of the crisis seems to be over, though it looks like it will continue with attempts to impeach the president, making it a crisis that only just started with the brief period of martial law. Boud (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support 2024 South Korean martial law declaration, as like a declaration of war, a state of martial law did happen and did de iure ("de facto" is less obvious, as not much seems to have been done about the protests that happened, but that's not relevant) exist for at least several hours overnight; and additionally per WP:CRITERIA and WP:ENGLISHTITLE as the title should be written in English in a way that "would [be used] naturally" by editors and readers alike. "Martial law" is usually clarified as a "period of martial law" or a "state of martial law" or something like that, but on its own looks very awkward ("There was martial law in Korea"... is wrong, no doubt). Appending "declaration" at the end is the shortest way to fix this. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support 2024 South Korean martial law declaration, because the current title is awkward. Martial law was only briefly and unevenly enforced, so "declaration" is perfectly fine to me, but I'm not opposed to "incident". The Moose 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Gasiseda, but support rewording I would support 2024 South Korean self-coup attempt. These events were practically identical to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, which bears that title. Zellfire999 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is a good and reasonable suggestion and is an accurate description of what seems to have happened, although I would say that no action should be taken until it becomes fully clear what happened, which should hopefully be in the next few days. 2204happy (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are no reliable sources using the "coup" language in their headlines or analysis. With all due respect, the discussants in this thread have a total of 1,000 edits, with some of them less than 200 or even 50 edits. This is the encyclopedia where anyone can edit, and we try to be welcoming. But please try to learn and understand our article title guidelines at WP:NCEVENTS. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's clearly what's already been suggested, simply stating someone believes it's an attempt at a self coup and that we shouldn't name it as such until reporting aligns is an example of following conventions. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I support changing the title to that but only if reporting reflects it V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's now at least two reliable sources using "self-coup", and notably they're using it in a retrospective, academic sense so I think deserve more weight than the terminology used in live reporting by Reuters or AP:

• Palmer, James (2024-12-03). "How South Koreans rejected martial law". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2024-12-04. Yoon seems to effectively be attempting an autogolpe, or self-coup, in which a sitting leader seizes dictatorial power.
• Tarrow, Sidney (2024-12-03). "Cornell expert available on South Korea imposing martial law". Media Relations Office. Cornell University. Archived from the original on 2024-12-04. This is the first time since the 1980s that martial law has been declared in Seoul, which led to a self-coup from within the military

Using CS1 templates here so they can be copied into article later.
I think this title is now well-supported. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree - the vast majority of mainstream news sites or reliable sources are not using "coup" in any headlines or general descriptions. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"which led to a self-coup" is referring to the incident in the 1980s, not Yoon's. Sourcing is not strong enough. seefooddiet (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, it also hasn't even been 24 hours since the declaration, wait a few days before tallying sources, which will give time for reporting to settle on a consensus for or against the self-coup narrative. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: this article is primarily about the implementation, effects, and aftermath of a (possibly still ongoing) period of martial law, of which the declaration is only a component. Support better rewording or change to 2024 South Korean self-coup attempt. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I think the article name needs changing — it feels an incomplete sentence — but I don’t think the declaration should be the focus. I think anything beyond the current is a bit WP:CRYSTAL though. We should probably wait to see what else occurs, otherwise we may end up having this conversation again. MrSeabody (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest alternative: The current version is certainly poor: as MrSeabody says above, it sounds incomplete. I recommend the name 2024 South Korean martial law crisis as an alternative. — The Anome (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree – if there is a tweak that is worth considering, adding "crisis" at the end would be a good catch-all solution to capture the dynamic. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the problem is that there's no such thing in idiomatic English as "a martial law" - the idiom is a state of martial law. — The Anome (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is good and accurately represents the event. Cfls (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. The article is only partially about the declaration, and more about the crisis as a whole. And while it was certainly a crisis, WP:NCEVENT counsels us to [t]ry to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. Accordingly, given that the existing title is a bit awkward, support 2024 martial law in South Korea per folks above. If an English common name emerges we can switch to that in due course. -- Visviva (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: I would eventually support any title using the "coup" language, but we'll have to wait for retrospective analyses to be published first. Slovborg (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed - current title isn't great, but I don't want to place emphasis on just the "declaration". I support a move to either alternate proposal, 2024 martial law in South Korea or 2024 South Korean martial law crisis, though I slightly prefer the latter. I'd eventually support using "self-coup" language as I personally think it's pretty obvious, but obviously sources would need to catch-up as I presume they will. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"martial law crisis" is an action of labelling. I think this is inappropriate and the expression should be neutral. Cfls (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree. It seems succinct enough, in my opinion. Image2012 (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as per those above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gasiseda Abo Yemen✉ 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support renaming to 2024 South Korean martial law crisis - unusual event, and I'm not sure any other word will quite cover it. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as per those above. Nightmares26 (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per the arguments listed. Martial law was never de facto in force, although nominally declared by Yoon. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 11:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support the martial law instituted by the president was not de facto, as stated above. Beyond this, still, it is unclear if it was ever de jure in force either. The president did not follow proper procedures in his proclamation of martial law. Opposition parties have said the martial law was never valid and that it was unconstitutional from the start. The Supreme Court itself is also considering the legality of the issue. Given that, it may be incorrect to state that martial law actually came into effect, as it's still up in the air, declaration, crisis, or controversy are seemingly more accurate titles. Something can usually little be without de jure or de facto, but as of now, the supposed martial law is lacking potentially both. MinJ C (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Coup?

Would this fall under the definition of a coup against the elected government? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not really for us to say--we need reliable sources to refer to it as such before it's relevant for a Wikipedia article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that, Im just reading some of the reactions from S. Korean lawmakers. The military attempted to arrest a few. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

'It feels like a coup d'état' - martial law sparks worry in South Korea RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Difficult to say, and it's not- yeah, what Writ Keeper said. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, otherwise it is original research. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Are there multiple reliable sources that claim such? WP:ORIGINAL 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It may well be characterized like that in the future, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves and the media's present and future characterization of it. If the terminology shifts in the future, we can change it, but for now, "martial law" is the most accurate depiction of what happened. JParksT2023 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it's firmly established now that we should wait for sourcing; further comments to this effect not needed seefooddiet (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There's at least one source with two organisations using the term, and an indirect case:

The Guardian: South Korea's main opposition Democratic party had called president's move 'essentially a coup d'état' ... The Centre for Military Human Rights, an NGO, ... accused Yoon of staging a coup,;

NYT live feed chief spokesman of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea, Jo Seoung-lae ... 'Trying to disable' the National Assembly's authority to call off the martial law decree 'is a coup d'etat and a plot to overthrow the government,' Jo said. although this only describes acts of opposition to the anti-martial-law vote as a coup; this brings up 2024 South Korean audacious attempt to overcome political deadlock as a NYT euphemistic title that probably would get snow-closed in an RM here, despite NYT's reliability. Boud (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Needs firmer evidence; let's try to not discuss this much more unless the case is compelling, takes up space seefooddiet (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait, why can't sources be discuss? Size rules don't really apply to the talk page, outside of archiving rules. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No restrictions except for common sense. You're free to debate it but there's a reason the other commenter didn't continue the discussion after my other comment. They would have if they felt they could have changed the page with the debate. Debates that don't change the page are less helpful and we have bigger priorities. seefooddiet (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• It certainly sounds a lot like an attempted self-coup, but let's wait for more reports from reliable sources to see how they characterise it, and whether a consensus develops. — The Anome (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  [9] seefooddiet (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• South Korean politicians are now referring to it as a coup. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/12/3/live-south-koreas-president-yoon-declares-emergency-martial-law?update=3362830 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:4C11:E110:A3AA:228F (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  We'll have to wait for stronger evidence from international press. South Korean politicians, like politicians everywhere, sometimes use hyperbole (I'm not saying it wasn't a coup, just saying in general what matters is the terms the press uses). seefooddiet (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Now the press is calling it a coup. https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20241204050063 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:4C11:E110:A3AA:228F (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  nowhere in that article does it say "coup" seefooddiet (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Policy certainly has an interesting piece. It does refer unambiguously and consistently to this as a failed self-coup. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a stronger piece of evidence, but need to demonstrate consensus. Ideally major pieces in other publications. You can find single anecdotes like these anywhere seefooddiet (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay to use Korean news as a source for this article?

I am an editor in Korea and would like to include Korean news sources in my articles. Is this possible? There are guidelines in the Korean Wikipedia to use Korean sources whenever possible. Also, if I add content in the future, please check for grammatical errors. Heiliges (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's allowed and welcomed, although English-language sources are preferred if they are available. On the English Wikipedia, we view these Korean sources as reliable: WP:KO/RS. The red ones are seen as unreliable. seefooddiet (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Heiliges: There's also a general guideline at WP:NONENG. At WP:KO/RS, it looks like only one source is green (a music source) and there are lots of neither-green-nor-red sources that need discussion. So the short answer to the question is "yes", but the longer answer is that you should be willing to go to the talk page to negotiate when, for example, it makes sense to replace a particular Korean-language source by an English-language one, or if it's better to keep both, with the aims both of good sourcing and of practical verifiability. Centralising source reliablity discussions at the talk page of WP:KO/RS and updating the table there should help. Boud (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

KO/RS is in the middle of being reformatted; I wouldn't read too far into the lack of green sources at the moment. Most of the sources without coloring we considering reliable. If there's anything "needs discussion" that's just pending and was formerly unambiguously considered reliable, so it has the assumption of reliability by default too. seefooddiet (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Heiliges So long we don't end up with absurd stuff like this 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Korea is a democratic country with a strong press so their sources are fine and even encouraged. It all depends on the specific news media of course but if you can read Korean you most likely know how to navigate to the best quality sources. It's the lesser developed countries like India, or Ukraine, that you have to watch out for. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment... Adequate answers were already given in the thread, and this comment includes a needlessly controversial statement (about development and reliability of sources) that could get people angry and start side debates.

Other people, do not debate the commenter on the development comment. seefooddiet (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2024

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: procedural close. Can't have two active RMs at the same time for the same page. See above discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 South Korean martial law → 2024 South Korean attempted coup d'état – Foreign Policy magazine and Sidney Tarrow have described the martial law as an attempted coup. woo (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There's already an active move request which, per WP:RM, we should resolve first. MrSeabody (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Would it be appropriate to close this move request until the other is completed to prevent the bot from updating it on the article? Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is almost certainly a textbook case for a procedural close, but I can't do it (don't know how, and am involved in the discussion in the other WP:RM so conflicted for a WP:RMNAC anyway). MrSeabody (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2024 (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.

Clarification of timing of announcement

I don't want to be very involved on this page, however I've noted an inconsistency between the time on the first line of the article, the time in the info box, and the time on the first line of the description of events. Whereas one part of the article says the declaration happened at 10:27 p.m. KST, the other part of the article says the declaration happened at 10:22 p.m. KST. I hope someone can clean it up with an appropriate clarifying reference for consistency. Re.educated (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI

I've started Draft:Impeachment process against Yoon Suk Yeol. charlotte ^👸♥📱 06:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Some reference or link about the "Martial Law Act"

In the part of the article where it says what Yoon decreed, it mentions the Martial Law Act thrice. As far as I can tell, no wikipedia article exists about this. And I also can't (easily) find a source for what the actual Martial Law Act says. Should we add a section describing what the Martial Law Act mandates? Cheespeasa1234 (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Should make the article longer.

To little details about the riot. And also remove some of the see also because to many references. Just a suggestion. Nxhon25 (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)