Jump to content

Talk:2024 South Korean martial law crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"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While martial law has been repealed by the parliament, the military has stated it will continue enforcement of martial law.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)

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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 18:06, 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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)

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)

Martial law will be lifted

Reuters reports that the president will lift martial law. Image2012 (talk) 19:35, 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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 367 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! CommissarDoggoTalk? 20:02, 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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)

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)

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.

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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removal of sourced info

CommissarDoggo,

Can you add back the info that you reverted? It was (mostly) properly sourced.

Per the ref: "Speaking to reporters, Wednesday, a ministry official confirmed that it was Kim who asked Yoon to issue a martial law order. This comes hours after lawmakers unanimously voted to nullify it."

[1]

It just needed some tweaking and didn't have to be removed entirely. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Eh, no. The information is already partially in the article, The PPP also urged the removal of defense minister Kim Yong-hyun after it was confirmed that Kim had proposed the martial law declaration to Yoon. and he certainly hasn't been charged with treason or even been impeached at this point; I still stand by the fact that the source failed verification in that regard. You can definitely add that the Democratic Party is looking to impeach Kim though. CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
In fact, it's debatable if that's necessary to add, The Democratic Party later confirmed they would initiate impeachment proceedings against Yoon [zh], along with Kim Yong-hyun and interior minister Lee Sang-min on 5 December if Yoon did not resign. CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI

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

Thanks Queen ❤ CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Rename

For me the article should be modified extensively and should be renamed as December 2024 South Korean Political Crisis of and not martial law declaration, because that statement should be put as an appendix to it 200.24.134.230 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is already a move/retitling discussion happening at #Requested move 3 December 2024 which you may want to read. You may also want to familiarize yourself with WP:NCEVENTS to see why we would not opt for month-level specificity, and why "crisis" is also used with caution. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:34, 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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. [2] China also engaged in the same thing. [3][4][5] seefooddiet (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Then NK is not involved in this, in particular. Secretlondon (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Tanks were seen on the streets,[35]

How solid is our source for this? Tanks would be logistically complicated and journalists have a long history of calling things that are not tanks tanks.©Geni (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they often call anything with treads "tanks". I remember seeing footage of vehicles and they clearly were not MBT that Korea uses like the K1 or K2, more like APCs or IFVs. Until a source specifically names the exact vehicle just say armored vehicles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The wording used in the article is 방갑차, in hindsight the better translation is armored vehicles. Ca talk to me! 23:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
From images, I want to say that I can see wheeled K808 White Tiger, and tracked K200/A1, which are both APCs not MBT or Light tanks. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:10, 5 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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 practicality. 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)
I would continue, but The Anome's discussion below titled #Names for event: press round-up seems to be doing better to resolve the issue. I will note that we can have multiple conversations at once with varying priorities. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:27, 5 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)
More and more RS are using the "coup" labeling:
  • Al Jazeera And how a nation quashed its first attempted coup in more than 40 years, in just a matter of hours.
  • Foreign Policy A self-coup attempt by President Yoon Suk-yeol has dramatically flopped.
  • Jacobin South Korea’s Three-Hour Coup
  • Le Monde South Korean lawmakers thwart president's attempted coup de force
  • El Mundo What many analysts already define as an "attempted self-coup" began with the televised speech of President Yoon Suk Yeol...
  • The Economist His coup attempt was foiled. But grave tests still remain for the country
  • Asia Times South Korea’s sloppy coup attempt: Why’d Yoon do it?
  • The Telegraph Korea’s failed coup
  • The Nation South Korean Protesters Thwarted More Than Just a Coup Attempt
  • Monacle The South Korean coup that wasn’t
  • The Guardian The South Korean coup is a perfect coda to the Biden presidency
Basque mapping (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Starting to get more convincing. May either need current move request to resolve or to pivot current move request. seefooddiet (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Deutsche Welle South Korea reels from apparent coup attempt
The New Yorker A Coup, Almost, in South Korea
WriterArtistCoder (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Let's consolidate discussion in the thread below, "Names for event: press round-up". Repetitive with that thread seefooddiet (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll update that thread. WriterArtistCoder (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
No, the thread already exists is what I'm saying. seefooddiet (talk) 19:13, 4 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". CommissarDoggoTalk? 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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 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." CommissarDoggoTalk? 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 a list 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 C: Prune it once the dust has settled. Secretlondon (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Option B: Prose, and no need to mention specific countries issuing standard keep vigilant and avoid public demonstration advisories whether its as big as China and Japan (they don't get a pass for being "major political players"), or Eritrea (cause they just happen to have posted a reaction in their ministry page and not the other small countries).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Flags in the infobox

I see they've been added, removed, re-added, and so forth. Maybe it should be discussed here. I've removed them, following MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and the linked from there MOS:MILFLAGS. MILFLAGS, if applied broadly here (this was after all some form of a conflict, even if no shots appear to have been fired...), puts forward the questions "Can flag icons be used consistently? In other words, do all the groups in a given list have usable flags?" - I contend that, as the flags are not easily recognisable (to the readers of the article, who are overwhelmingly not Koreans, and even I guess to Koreans), this defeats the entire purpose of using them in the first place - particularly if one also takes into account MOS:ACCESS. The political party affiliations can be expressed with abbreviations, there's no elegant solution for the presidential side but the exact affiliation is not that important there and in any case clearly explained in the articles. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The acronyms are less effective in giving out who is who in this affair and as a visually challenged person, I find the exclusion of flags in the infobox to be unhelpful in reading the article. The latest revision also negates the actual hierarchy of events and implies that responsibility and powers were shared equally on both sides like some collective leadership. Borgenland (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Borgenland Not sure I understand (do you "oppose" flags in the infobox or "oppose" the change?), and also not sure I see how my edit "negates the actual hierarchy of events and implies that responsibility and powers were shared equally" - the most relevant figures are listed first as before, and I really didn't change anything for the political party leaders except replace the flag with the abbreviations. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I oppose the change. And I meant the hierarchy of persons in which Yoon appears to be sharing coequal powers with his subordinates. Borgenland (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Borgenland I've tried finding a fix but that's a problem that was there before as well, not sure how to fix it. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I tried looking at military battle articles for the obvious comparison but even there there's just no showing of the hierarchy in the infobox, with - Battle of Austerlitz (too many to explain, but the hierarchy should be obvious if you know who's who) - or without - ex. Battle of Passchendaele (Haig was the BEF Commander, Gough and Plumer being subordinates; similarly Ludendorff was overall commander on the German side &c) - flags. Listing top to bottom seems to be the best solution. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Restore - I don't mind keeping the acronyms, but since they are unclickable, I had to try to figure out what each acronym meant. It doesn't help that the Parties section isn't listed in the same order as the Lead figures section. Even if it was, I had to hover over the link to see what party used what acronym. (For mobile users, that would mean clicking on five article, loading them to get the acronym, and assuming the last party acronym.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Super Goku V I think I've found an easy solution which requires neither excessive links, nor making the information less accessible to visually-impaired users, nor setting a bad example and adding a bunch of hardly known and hard-to-distinguish flags. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Background / Motivation?

What might have motivated President Yoon Suk Yeol to take this step?

Might this article be improved by the addition of a section on "Background" that summarizes the events that appear to have motivated this?

From reading the Wikipedia article on President Yoon, I gather that he has taken numerous unpopular decisions leading to, among other things, a major 2024 South Korean doctors' strike and a landslide victory of his opposition during the 2024 South Korean legislative election. Rather than accepting this electoral defeat, Yoon declared martial law in an attempt to stay in power after his popularity ratings had been sinking for most of his time in office.

However, I have NOT been following South Korean politics enough to feel comfortable adding something like this myself. I mention it, because it seems like an obvious question, and it took some effort on my part to get the answer I just outlined.

Thanks to all who have created this article and brought it to its current state. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion about this in the various news sources I've just posted above. — The Anome (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
We never add our own opinions, only what published sources say. Secretlondon (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


Ahn Gwi-ryeong photo

Hi all,

Does anyone know how we could go about getting the rights to include one of the photos of Ahn Gwi-ryeong grabbing a soldier's gun? The incident is currently mentioned with sources in the article prose and I'd say it's probably one of the most iconic or viral images to come out of the event, so it would be great if we could include it in the paragraph that mentions it. I would try to do it myself, but I'm not sure what the process for requesting image rights from rights holders looks like so I thought I'd ask here instead.

Thank you,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The video was captured by OhmyNews, and thus they are the legal copyright holders of the video so we cannot use it. We would need a copyright free image of her or the incident. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Could possibly ask them to release copyright but it'd be such a longshot.
Alt method would be a WP:NONFREE screenshot of the video for this article, but I don't think we have proper justification to do so. seefooddiet (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Many people were there at the event and they took photos or videos, so it's possible someone else has an alternative viewpoint, and they may upload them as copyright free images. Or there can be a copyright free image of Anh and we just use the description that this is the person the text is talking about. The incident has generated a lot of news coverage.Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
There's a reddit thread at r/korea where someone was at the protests. Can someone with a reddit account ask them to upload pics to commons? seefooddiet (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm on it on that AMA post, they had some pretty neat photos. CommissarDoggoTalk? 14:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Seefooddiet The fella informed me that they had released the images into the public domain, so I've uploaded them on Commons CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Nice work :) seefooddiet (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_South_Korean_martial_law_crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1263221770"