Jump to content

Talk:2024 South Korean martial law crisis

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

Requested move 3 December 2024

[edit]
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: moved. There is a strong consensus to change the title of the article. I have not been able to determine which is the preferred choice of all the proposed titles, but I have decided to use “self-coup” based on several arguments. (non-admin closure) JD John M. Turner (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Additionally, according to Korean sources, Yoon's martial law actually took effect for about three hours. [1][2] Gasiseda (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is correct, but the article being titled Martial Law declaration implies that only the declaration is merited of coverage. However, the article contains details of the martial law, and not just the declaration. Wikentromere (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ● 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support: "2024 South Korean martial law declaration" is appropriate in my opinion. As others have said, "declaring martial law" is often used colloquially for both the declaration and actions taken to enforce it.Tylermack999 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support per Delta1989 and Yeoutie. Juwan (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Delta 1989 and Yeoutie. Hankow idk (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I believe the "declaration" title wouldn't be inaccurate, as much of the article covers the immediate aftermath of his declaration, and the rest covers the longer-term results. I think the sections covering the immediate effects (protests, action by martial law forces) are closely connected enough to Yoon's declaration for the article title to be called "declaration." Tylermack999 (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Delta1989 and Yeoutie. OpenFuture (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think that a name like 2024 South Korean martial law incident would be best. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[3][4] Gasiseda (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support 2024 South Korean martial law declaration (see below for updated comment), 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 a clumsy way to say stuff, 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)[reply]
Support either 2024 South Korean martial law declaration (per above) or 2024 South Korean self-coup attempt (per usage of term in WP:RS to describe this and WP:CONSISTENCY with similar events - previous instances of martial law in Korea (which led to succesful coups) or the recent example in Peru). Oppose current title as above per WP:NATURAL as "2024 South Korea martial law" is not a natural way to say this in English. 2607:FA49:5543:A300:866:F7D5:7C7D:83AC (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    As VL Masitkosa already said, my comment was agreeing with what you are saying here, I was opposing a name change until we have more clarity as to what happened. 2204happy (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support changing the title to that but only if reporting reflects it V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
Refs
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have identified an additional source using the self-coup framing, again from academics. John J. Chin and Joseph Wright, political scientists and authors of Historical Dictionary of Modern Coups d'état:
Refs
Chin, John Joseph; Wright, Joe (2024-12-05). "What is a self-coup? South Korea president's attempt ended in failure – a notable exception in a growing global trend". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Yoon's short-lived martial law declaration – it lasted just a few hours before being lifted – was an example of what political scientists call an 'autogolpe', or to give the phenomenon its English name, a 'self-coup'.
An even more salient point is that the impeachment proceedings use 친위 쿠데타 (transl. self-coup), as described by AP:
refs
Kim, Hyung-jin; Tong-hyung, Kim (2024-12-05). "Yoon replaces the defense minister as South Korea's parliament moves to vote on their impeachments". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2024-12-06. The impeachment motion against Yoon says he failed to meet the constitutional requirement that martial law should only be considered in wartime or a comparable severe crisis. It alleges he attempted a 'self-coup' by mobilizing the military and that suspending political party activities and deploying troops to seal the National Assembly amounted to rebellion.
Which can be further checked by at s:ko:페이지:2206205_대통령(윤석열)_탄핵소추안.pdf/24. I think that since self-coup attempt is the more precise wording, is similar to an already existing article (2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt), is used by academics who study this field, and is being used as the official description by the National Assembly, it will be strongly worth considering when this move request closes. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally say that alone backs up using the term self-coup, and since official sources and (from what I've seen) public discourse is calling it a coup, it'll result in an inevitable downstreaming into the press V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Suggest alternative: "2024 South Korean martial law crisis" 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Agree, the current title is awkward and this is would probably be more searchable than the current title Synonimany (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this option as well! JParksT2023 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title is good and accurately represents the event. Cfls (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    The guidelines do state, though, that you can use the word crisis, however, "only... when it meets the definition." It would need to first be established that this event fits the definition of crisis, but I don't think we need to rule it out yet. JParksT2023 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we now do have plenty of sources calling it so. Slovborg (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd agree. It seems succinct enough, in my opinion. Image2012 (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per those above. Nightmares26 (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose: Even though it was for a brief period, Martial Law was in effect. Changing it to say Martial Law declaration implies that it was not implemented, despite the military being deployed, and South Korean Presidents also having the power to implement Martial law constitutionally.
Also Oppose Changing to Self-Coup Attempt (At least not yet): Nobody yet knows, nor anyone close to him like advisers and such, as to why he declared Martial Law. He claims there were North Korean anti-state actors. Until we know more, I oppose this change. Wikentromere (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the title as it currently stands is not clear as it could be. I am not really sure if I am persuaded by the various arguments made by other editors about the incredible nuance of the whole situation as well. So if not this change, then something like 2024 South Korean martial law crisis, as @The Anome @Boud suggested. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...How does it do that? Mlvluu (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A declaration of war also technically goes into effect... 2607:FA49:5543:A300:0:0:0:2D3A (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, talking about the infobox I can see that it took 4 hours or something like that, I think it seems more like a declaration of martial law instead of just a martial law.
TeratingaKevinBaughsNewFriend (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it should be clearer that this is a failed coup d'etat. RisingTzar (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and @Skarmory: Feeglgeef (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this were a declaration article, I would expect it to be about the act of law. Now the scope is much wider and it should remain the so unless the time comes to split the article. Przemub (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The prevailing view among Korean jurists seems to be that the declaration itself is well within the power of the president, and therefore, it went into effect for a couple hours. Whether it was in effect until the National Assembly voted to demand lifting of martial law or until President Yoon actually lifted it is debatable – the former would be approximately 3 hours and the latter 6 hours. Lifting martial law is not comparable to annulment, where a marriage null and void is legally almost as if it never happened. The fog of martial law fell over all of South Korea and was lifted, and therefore, it happened. It serves no purpose to limit the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motjustescribe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some remarks above that the law wasn't de facto in effect that are difficult for me to understand. Could @GreatLeader1945:, @MinJ C: or anyone else please help me get it? To my feeble understanding, Yoon Suk Yeol's declaration was to enter into force immediately, the replacement of civilian government by military rule and the suspension of civil liberties made it textbook martial law, and the military backed it with violence or the threat of violence, making it de facto come into effect regardless of whether it had de jure dotted all the i's and crossed the t's, and whether it lasted long enough for the the military to make good on that threat. For the time being I oppose changing to "declaration" since it can give the impression that this fell short of a full-blown state of martial law, when in fact South Korea was under martial law for several hours. See, for example, Minoa's words above. Anything like "martial law attempt" is right out. I also oppose "crisis" or "incident". Hwi.padam called those generic wording, and that's true and why they're unacceptable. They're so generic, a title like that fails to convey to the reader what the article's all about. I support "coup", "self-coup" or words to that effect. The article has been greatly developed in the time since the move proposal was made, and what it now describes, including the systematic arrest of political enemies (who, not coincidentally, would be needed to lift the state of martial law), is clearly a coup. --Kizor 17:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose + Suggestion. Let's not mince words: Yoon declared according to his worldview and appointed Park An-su, multiple parliamentary investigations against the executive & military side already divulged all of their moves constituted martial law, National Assembly voted nullification as declared in the Constitution, Yoon ended martial law only after a few hours later. For the Suggestion part, include the informal domestic term (patterned after the four recent coups) with the following options:
Insurrection of December Third (Korean: 12·3 내란; Hanja: 十二三內亂; literal "12·3 Insurrection") - most popular option domestic-wise (e.g. MBC News, Korean Wikipedia)
Situation of December Third (Korean: 12·3 사태; Hanja: 十二三事態; literal "12·3 Situation")
State of Insurrection of December Third (Korean: 12·3 내란 사태; Hanja: 十二三內亂事態; literal "12·3 Insurrection Situation")
Heran et Sang'gres (talk) orig post 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC); edited 07:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with the translate-from-Korean suggestion as it would be quite an improvement, though I guess anything is preferrable to the current title which is just awkward English.. However, the issue with it would be that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." i.e. Korean sources don't matter much (except if it were the case, that this was not covered in English sources...). "[self-]coup attempt" could maybe work in that regard (and would be consistent with the previous coups/...). 2607:FA49:5543:A300:214C:E50D:267D:E065 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Disputed - There was consensus to move, but the choice of "self-coup" or "coup" title is not borne out by the discussion or consensus. The one that seems to have emerged is "2024 South Korean martial law crisis." JD John M. Turner can you give a more detailed explanation of your decision as I would like to move it to this new title. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to 2024 South Korean martial law crisis - I have gone ahead and WP:BOLDly moved the page. @JD John M. Turner as a user with fewer than 350 edits, please avoid closing page moves of high profile articles such as these and leave it to more experienced folks. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I really thought it was a WP:SUPERVOTE or that the closer is simply inexperienced. I'll note that not long ago the closer WP:MOVEWARed on Internal conflict in Peru. While there might be a good case to use "self-coup" or equivalent here, I think the best course will be to open a new RM specifically for that. Even though WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE exists, it is incumbent upon the closer to ensure the title chosen is the least controversial among all alternatives. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration full text inappropriate

[edit]

The 15-paragraph blockquote in § Declaration of martial law violates Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. How should we summarize it? 172.97.141.219 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of the Assembly vote

[edit]

In the Analysis section, someone wrote that The Economist claimed the legality of the Assembly vote to lift martial law is questionable because martial law suspended political activity. I don't subscribe to The Economist so can't read the cited article, but the legality of the Assembly vote to lift martial law is most definitely not in question. Nowhere in the South Korean constitution does it grant President the authority to suspend the National Assembly. Suspension of political activity may be valid under martial law, but that only strengthens the legislative immunity enjoyed by members of the National Assembly. Can someone check the Economist article and see if it says something similar to what's written here? Motjustescribe (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and the economist article doesn't seem to use that wording nor even indirectly imply much about a constitutional crisis. My understanding of the situation aligns with yours. I just deleted it. seefooddiet (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also read the article and they didn't say like that. It was added by User:Scu ba. Special:Diff/1261199881-Namoroka (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Splits

[edit]

The protests, either due to the martial law or triggered by it, should be depicted in another article.

Also, the ruling party and opposition parties have been in conflict for a long time, over the government budget arguments and the impeachments of numerous ministers in Yoon's gov (Ko version). After the martial law, the parties are arguing how to deal with Yoon, with the head of the ruling party unilaterally announcing that Yoon "will not carry out his power anymore," the conflict(s) may become a separate article as well. Johnson.Xia (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Two major political parties beefing is nothing new and doesn't warrant its own separate page – it likely fails WP:EVENT. Protests that followed martial law also fail WP:SIGCOV. Most news coverage on the protests has had a nationalistic undertone, extolling Korean democracy (whose pride is warranted but not appropriate for Wikipedia), and therefore, does not address the nature of the protests directly. Motjustescribe (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — these protests of South Korean public appear to be both directly related to the martial law declaration and also endogenously-generated by that declaration. They are not a separate WP:EVENT, and should not therefore have a separated article. N2e (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The protests are directly related to the event, it would be odd to have a separate article.
And what motjustescribe said regarding political party disagreements. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now if the protests significantly developed they may be worthy of their own article, but for now it doesn't look like it. Mostly attached to the martial law crisis itself. seefooddiet (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment efforts section should be renamed

[edit]

The "Impeachment efforts" section is serving as a placeholder for new development updates, which is understandable given that this is a developing story. I just think the section should be renamed appropriately. At a later point (likely if President Yoon gets impeached and the case proceeds to the Constitution Court), the martial law incident should be considered concluded and we should create a separate Wikipedia page for subsequent developments. Any thoughts? Motjustescribe (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly divided the impeachment section by adding a subsection for legal investigations, and moving material there that was about legal investigations into the individuals involved rather than impeachment proceedings. I thought this would help make the impeachment section clearer and more focused, but feel free to undo it if you think it doesn't work. Helpful Cat (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I think it works very nicely. Motjustescribe (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Helpful Cat (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation split

[edit]

Elements that cover the investigation into the president and other individuals should be moved to another article (do not know a name for it though). Multiple arrests and police raids have occurred and a special counsel has been created; there is enough information to make it its own article. EchoLuminary (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about splitting it into a separate article at this point, but I've split material about legal investigations into individuals into its own subsection for the time being, so it wasn't lumped in with impeachment proceedings. Helpful Cat (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add 'election fraud conspiracy theories' as a cause

[edit]

Many news sources alluded to election fraud conspiracy theories as the main reason Yoon declared martial law.

Hashflu (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_South_Korean_martial_law_crisis&oldid=1263257510"