Talk:2024 South Korean medical crisis

Title changing

I suggested title change to "walkout" rather than "strike". Please see these news sources.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC) --Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) (edited more)

Please format to the Requested move discussion, WP:RSPM, setup to help gain a wider consensus. In response to your sources:

• "South Korea doctors’ strike: government moves to suspend thousands of medical licences" - The Guardian [8]
• "South Korea deploys military, public doctors to strike-hit hospitals" Reuters [9]
• "S Korea deploys military reinforcements to hospitals hit by doctors strike" - Al Jazerra [10]
• "Why have 10,000 junior doctors in South Korea resigned in protest against the government?" Euronews [11], in body "The striking doctors-in-training claim that most of the additionally recruited medical students would also likely try to work in high-paying, popular professions like plastic surgery and dermatology, like current medical students."

When I searched on Google for either strike or walkout, the results returned overlapped each other, and it would boil down to which is either WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:NDESC. I think "strike" itself is understandable, and it is not just a simple "walkout" from one's job since it couples with the usage of mass resignations. Are the doctors expecting all to be hired back after the labor action ends? – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@– robertsky: Then, how about "mass resignations" as a title?
1. It is used in news sources such as [12], [13], [14], [15],
2. "[S]ince it couples with the usage of mass resignations", then the most non-judgmental descriptive titles should be "mass resignations", rather than "strike" or "walkout". --Y-S.Ko (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Strike is non judgemental enough. – robertsky (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The government said "the argument made by some that the trainee doctors’ collective action is it not a strike".[16] "Mass designation" is a better term. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't sing to the tune to the government on Wikipedia (see WP:OFFICIAL), especially when it has been reported otherwise. Once again, open a Requested move discussion so that other editors may be notified to join in here. – robertsky (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your view.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 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: page moved. The word "crisis" does not appear in the lists of words at WP:WTW. "Crisis" occurs in page titles nearly as often as "strike". Changing "doctors'" → "medical" is consistent with the term used for the predecessor strike of 2020, and arguably if the issues behind the strike of 2020 have not been resolved after four years, the situation has escalated to become a crisis, a term commonly used in sources. The article's lead should mention the major components of the crisis, including the doctors' strike, students' boycott, aging population expected to need increased care, and relative shortage of doctors in rural areas. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 South Korean doctors' strike → 2024 South Korean medical crisis – (1) "Crisis" is much used in both mass media[17][18] and academic sources.[19][20] (2) Precision: This involves not only trainee doctors, but also great number of med students.[21][22] The name "doctors' stirke" cannot include this activity of med students, becuase med students are not "doctors". Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lean oppose; I'm not a fan of "crisis" as it leans non-neutral. If there was a more rigorous proof of WP:COMMONNAME then I would consider supporting, but until then I lean oppose.

I alternatively support move to 2024 South Korean medical strike. This title is inclusive of med students, and is more descriptive and neutral than "medical crisis". seefooddiet (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@seefooddiet: I don't think 'medical strike' inclusive of med students, becuase action of med students is not a "strike action", because they are not workers. Hankyoreh, Healthworld.com, Asianews, Korea Hearld, Joongang Daily, Chosun Daily used "crisis". Both The Hankyoreh (described as "centre-left") and The Chosun Daily (described as "right-wing") used "crisis". The Lancet, which is an academic source, also used "crisis". Therefore neutrality is not a great factor in this title change. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Fair enough, change my vote to support. seefooddiet (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Also to clarify, by "neutrality" I didn't necessarily mean political neutrality. I meant it more in the sense of WP:WTW; in general we should avoid words that are emotional, and "crisis" is peak emotional. However, if the usage is common enough we are allowed to use emotional terms. seefooddiet (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose nothing much has changed since the last conversation in March 2024. It is still being reported as a strike in various international news outlets as well. CNA Reuters AP News SCMP The Diplomat, etc. – robertsky (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

(1) I think "crisis" and "strike" are both used in news outlets (i.e. "A KMA spokesperson weighs in on the ongoing strike and South Korea’s medical crisis", "South Korea’s healthcare crisis deepened this week as senior doctors and medical professors joined a protracted strike to protest increasing medical school admissions.", "Doctors' Strike in South Korea. Military Doctors Deployed to Hospitals. South Korea's Healthcare Crisis.") (2) But "strike" cannot be applied to activities of med students, who outnumbered junior doctors. Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1. the articles are more on the strike actions. 2. the medical students joining in are a recent development. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Med students' class boycott began in March, and med students' class boycott is reported in news media, and Education Minister remarked on it.[23] And students' boycotting licensing exam is also reported in quite some detail.[24] --Y-S.Ko (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Touche. changing to support then. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the word 'strike' makes sense because the keyword is also used in the 3 previous doctor strikes which happened in 2000, 2014 and 2020 even if they are not strictly 'doctor's strikes'. Among these strikes, in 2000 and 2020 medical students also denied taking the Korean Medical Licensing Exam [25] and residents stopped working from the training hospital. Even if the medical students' movement is not strictly speaking 'strike', the keyword was still used 'strike'[26], also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South_Korean_medical_strike (this document does not say that this is due to the incrementing the medical student addmission by 400 students, but I left its reference in this - 2024 - document). Also, the fact that the news are including 'medical crisis' does not imply that the title of this document should be changed to 'medical crisis' because as the news still explicitly uses 'doctors' strike'. – hardynotifier (00:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC))

It is a multifaceted situation involving a combination of resignation, student activity, and strike action. Referring to it solely as a "strike" fails to capture the full scope and nuances of the situation. In this situation, some medical professionals choose to resign from their positions as a form of protest or due to dissatisfaction with the working conditions or policies. Meanwhile, medical students are actively involved in various forms of activism, such as protests, boycotts, or refusing to participate in certain educational activities. Their involvement is crucial, yet it differs from the actions of employed medical professionals. There are also organized strike actions where groups of medical professionals. This aspect is important but is only part of the overall picture. The goals and methods of these actions are diverse. Resignation often aims for individuals to exit their current positions as a form of protest or to seek better opportunities, without involving collective bargaining or coordinated pressure. Students’ activities can include advocating for educational reforms, changes in policies affecting their future careers, or expressing solidarity with working professionals. Their methods may include protests, walkouts, or other forms of civil disobedience. Strikes, on the other hand, aim for collective bargaining to achieve better working conditions, wages, or other employment terms through coordinated action to exert economic pressure on employers or policymakers. Therefore, the situation, involving resignation, student activism, and strike action, contributes differently to the overall situation. Referring to the situation solely as a "strike" simplifies its complexity and fails to acknowledge the distinct roles and impacts of each component. A more comprehensive term or description that encompasses all these elements is necessary to accurately represent the full scope of the situation. Y-S.Ko (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this; it's more complicated than just a strike. seefooddiet (talk) 08:43, 8 August 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.

POV

I'm concerned about potential WP:POV in the article, in favor of the doctors' side. Note: I want to be clear, I don't have opinions on this issue, I don't really know all that much about it. But I am familiar with Wikipedia standards.

There are emotionally charged phrases being used in numerous places in the article. Relevant: WP:WTW. Phrases like "Taking advantage of healthcare providers", "suffers", "forcing", "failure of the government", and "neglected". All of these terms could be substituted for more neutral, dry terms. Some of these are allegations that aren't being attributed to an analyst inline, per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

Other issues with MOS:SAID; "it has been often pointed out", "the study showed". Also potential WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, "although their arguments are convincing". The "Media: Amplification of government message" section has analysis along this line. The section contains clear opinions/analysis that isn't directly attributed to the writers of the sources inline.

One major note imo: a significant portion of the text in this article comes from opinion pieces/papers by South Korean doctors. Given the huge proportion of doctors that align with the strike, I'm concerned about the neutrality of these sources. On the other hand, it seems like there's very little discussion of the government's rationale for its policies. Granted, I'm not all that familiar with this topic, so it's hard for me to say if this is proportional to what's been covered in the press or not. What would make me more comfortable is analysis from external observers.

Think these issues require a major cleaning to fix; basically every sentence needs to be examined and more sources need to be pulled in. seefooddiet (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@seefooddiet: I fixed some problems. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@seefooddiet: (1) I think some of WP:WTW is fixed by my edit. (2) I don't think "although their arguments are convincing" is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because it is from Korean article Media Framing of a Social Conflict - A Case Study of Medical Doctors' Strike in Korea, I don't think "Media: Amplification of government message" is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because it is information from Korean Medical Education Review article. (3) But, I have a different problem in this article. This article is too journalistic rather than encyclopedic. (WP:NOTNP) Furthermore, there are too many Chinese newspaper sources, which can be replaced by more academic sources or English sources. (4) I think real problematic section is "Government" from "Reactions". This section cites only February newspaper sources. I think this should be expanded by using more recent sources. (compared to 2021–present United Kingdom cost-of-living crisis, really lack of quality) Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think little discussion of the government's rationale is that problematic. (because it is discussed in "Demographic change of South Korea") I don't think neutrality of the sources is that problematic. (Many sources are newspaper articles, not by doctors. Of course, there are some sources written by doctors, but are published in academic journals, which is generally more reliable than newspaper.) However, I think that real problem is little discussion of the government's action/reaction in "Reactions" section. Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Although their arguments are convincing" is original research. We cannot judge what seems true or false using Wikipedia's voice. We can say things like "this one scholar thought their arguments were convincing", but you can't say "These arguments are convincing". It's a subtle but importance difference.

"Media:Amplification of government message" has many similar issues. It's stating subjective opinions and analysis as fact using Wikipedia's voice. Those opinions need to be directly attributed inline to scholars.

The article is journalistic, but that's to be expected given a current event. It doesn't strike me as a significant problem; we need voices from both academia and high quality journalism. Chinese sources should be fine as long as they're in reputable newspapers; we need non-Korean perspectives. And while having peer reviewed pieces from doctors is better than having newspaper articles from doctors, just because they're peer reviewed doesn't make them neutral. Academic journals publish opinion pieces all the time.

And I don't think the government opinions are sufficiently explored in the demographics section. Nor are much of the justifications for their specific actions explored elsewhere in the body. E.g. "the government did x, with the explanation that y". So far it reads "The government did x, and doctors protested".

I don't really agree with a lot of your takes; a little concerning... Think we need other people in this conversation too. seefooddiet (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well,.. the problem is lack of sources, not neutrality of sources. Determining if something is biased is quite challenging. For example, while an article about Alex Jones might seem very negative, it isn't biased because it accurately mirrors the predominantly negative mainstream coverage of him. According to Google scholar search, it does not seem that rationale of government is much discussed... (at least academically.) This article reflects this. Maybe there are sources which discussed rationale of government. However, not providing source about this make the argument "this article is not neutral because there are little discussion about rationale of government" unconvincing. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think the South Korean government is publishing academic papers in English, and coverage of this event from people who aren't South Koreans doctors in academic papers is lacking. We're not getting the full picture just from Google Scholar.

To reiterate, academic papers are nice but for current events they're often limited or niche to certain perspective. Journalism is acceptable for filling in those gaps. seefooddiet (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also this is a side note, but some of the changes you made after my original post have grammar errors in them. The article still needs a more thorough scrubbing and I have other priorities at the moment so I'll abstain for now. It'd be nice if other people can participate in this dialogue and contribute to cleaning the article up. seefooddiet (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with this concern. Even if this is a topic that can flow to emotionally stance, writers of this document should stay neutral even if one is a stakeholder of this event. Also, the gist of this document should stay clear even if the opinion about the healthcare system of South Korea can vary - it is the increasing quota of medical school admissions that caused the actions of doctors, otherwise it does not explain why the actions just did happen after announcement of the increased quota, not before or later. Hardynotifier (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hardynotifier: In your edit on "Requested move 4 August 2024" section, you cite the Korean source. Can you read Korean? How about using this South Korean government's briefing website? Y-S.Ko (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I searched more on South Korean government's position. Then I found South Korean government's briefing website. How about using this website as a source? --Y-S.Ko (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, so it's less desirable, but if you really need it for something you can use it. Ideally we should rely on WP:SECONDARYSOURCEs. seefooddiet (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20240804050074. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)