Talk:2024 South Korean martial law crisis

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 868 hours"

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)

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. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:36, 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)

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)