Talk:Unified Silla

Merger
Not sure I understand the reason. There is certainly more than enough to say about this period of Silla -- indeed, about the very use of the term "Unified Silla" -- to take up a full article. Cheers, -- Visviva 14:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article must be merged to Silla. Unified silla is covered by the article Silla. --Hairwizard91 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True. And Silla is covered by the article Three Kingdoms of Korea, and the Three Kingdoms period is covered by History of Korea.  Should we merge all of them too?  -- Visviva 16:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha funny. I mean that there was no Unified Silla. Silla just occupied the territory of Baekje, and there was Balhae in north. So, I have changed the period or era in History of Korea based on the KOrean highschool history book. It may be fine to change the name into "Silla in North-South States' Period." Do you have another good name of this ?--Hairwizard91 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since an IP has again suggested a merger, allow me to defend the name (not necessarily a separate article) "Unified Silla":
 * Please don't forget that the name "Unified (= Tongil) Silla", when taken by itself, does not necessarily imply that some state unified all territories that would later become Korea. The name could be understood – even if this is not what its creators intended – to merely imply that a state known to us as Silla controlled more or less all territories it ever did at that time, unlike at some other point in time. In other words, Silla was united, not Korea. It should also be noted that, again unlike Korea, there has never been a time before or after "Unified Silla" when several Sillas existed, but simply a period when not all territories that would later belong to Silla belonged to it yet. So, the term makes sense as soon as you understand it as something completely different from what we mean when we speak of a "Unified Korea" as opposed to a "Divided Korea" before or after it.
 * This is of course ignoring the Korean propagation (via school history books) of the term 남북국시대 where it is probably used to imply that Silla and Balhae somehow are two parts of a whole. Wikipeditor 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there is a general concensus that “[the term ‘u]nification[’] is used only when all states included in the Korean history at the same era become one state”. Wikipeditor 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus Duja ► 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Literature

 * Primary source
 * Choi Chiwon(최치원), Sabulheo Bukguk Geosangpyo(사불허북국거상표 謝不許北國居上表) 897 AD
 * Kim Busik(김부식), Samguk Sagi(삼국사기) 1115 AD.
 * Yu Deukgong(유득공), Balhaego(발해고) 1784
 * Kim Jeongho(김정호), Daedong Jiji(대동지지, 大東地志) 1864


 * Secondary source
 * Jang Dobin(장도빈, 張道斌) National History(국사 國史) 1946
 * Gwon Deokgu(권덕규, 權悳圭), Joseon yugi(조선유기 朝鮮留記) 1924
 * 권덕영, 남북국시대 신라 황해 경영의 기반(The Basis for the Management of Yellow See by Silla in North South State Period), 한국사학회, 58, 337 (1999).
 * 이이화, 한국사이야기4 - 남국 신라와 북국 발해 (The Historical Story of Korea 4 - South State Silla and North State Balhae). 한길사 ISBN 8935651435
 * 김영하, 신라의 삼국통일은 타당한가(Is it reasonable to say unification by Silla), 역사비평, 20, 183-190


 * There are several secondary literature to say North-South state period except the above source.

Move to Silla in North-South State Period
This page must be moved in order to clarify the historical fact such that there were two Korean state in this period. --Hairwizard91 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, proposed title is non-intuitive and unnecessarily long. It violates both Use common names and the general spirit of Naming conventions (namely, that titles should be short and intuitive).  Are there reputable sources that refer to the period this way?  -- Visviva 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also per points made at Talk:History_of_Korea. -- Visviva 13:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The suggested title is long, but unified silla does not say the historical fact. If someone who read Unified Silla may understand there was no state in the north of Silla, but this is not true. This implies that Unified Silla does not reflect on the true history. The term of unified silla does not exist in the search engine of Korean National History department(국사편찬위원회)(You can search the "통일신라" and "남북국"). No search is found if you using 통일신라. But, you can find if you used 남북국. So, can you suggest any good name, or did you find any source that describe the unified silla such that the historical fact is considered correctly though I think current suggestion is not bad.
 * Even primary source of Samguk Sagi and Balhaego(발해고) used the expression of Bukguk(North State) for Balhae and Namguk(South State) for Silla. And these expression of primary source is used currently in some secondary source shown in the above. --Hairwizard91 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, I think unified silla was old term that had firstly used by Japanese colonists.--Hairwizard91 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the term "Unified Silla" is used in thousands if not tens of thousands of books and articles. There is still no grounds for moving.  Further, the term is correct; Silla's unification may have been incomplete in many respects, but nonetheless it was a unification.  Silla did come to control all of Baekje's territory and a respectable chunk of Goguryeo's as well; that is what the term "Unified Silla" is generally meant to represent.  The terms "Northern and Southern States" and "Unified Silla" are not mutually exclusive; they refer to the same historical period over different geographical scopes.  In terms of reader confusion, I really don't see your point.  There is no more reason to say that "Unified Silla" excludes Balhae from Korea than to say that the term "United States" excludes Canada from North America.  This is just silly.
 * Note that 통일신라 ("Unified Silla") is also used in the Korean-language version of the Korean history template, and in the Korean-language article on Silla. Are the users of the Korean Wikipedia so benighted, that they are using incorrect terms for their own history?  In any case, shouldn't your campaign to "fix" Korean history begin there, rather than here?  -- Visviva 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you pointed. The unified Silla means that Silla had unified mainly Baekje. I agree with the point. There had been Unified Silla and Balhae in the Period of North South States. Thus, the article of Unified Silla cannot contain any context of unifying the three kingdoms. It should contain the two kingdoms among the three kingdoms of Korea.
 * But, you cannot compare the united states and canada with the unified silla and balhae. Are USA and Canada categorized into the story of american? No. Your comparison is not logical and sound comparison. Moreover, you have a mistake not to differentiate the two words of "united" and "unified". They are completely different meanings. --Hairwizard91 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the term of Unified is not correct if Silla unified only Baekje. Unification is used only when all states included in the Korean history at the same era become one state. So, the unified Silla cannot be used. It is so illogical word "incomplete unification". There is no word of incomplete unification. Unification can only be used when three of the kingdoms are unified. Only unifying one state cannot use the term of "unified". It is no scientific word and no logical word. --Hairwizard91 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another todo article
I'm currently working on Naval history of Korea. If any of you guys are still working, I'd like some help here....=/ Good friend100 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC

"Later" Silla?
The former name of this article "Unified Silla" is commonly known name in Korea. Also the name "Unified Silla" is used in official textbooks. -Jonghyun0411 (Maroon 5) 15:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Later Silla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003092928/http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Column/view?articleId=109953 to http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Column/view?articleId=109953

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Map pf Later Silla error User: Samhanin
고고학적 증거로는 통일 신라가 요녕 지역을 지배를 안 헸는데, 지도상에 왜 그런 표시가 나오는지 모르겠는데요. 영문 위키백화에 이런식으로 나온다면, 왜곡 역시라고 틸림 업습니다. 설명 부탁드랍니다, User: Samhanin. 감사합니다. There is no archaeological evidence that Later Silla controlled the present day Liaoning Province. User: Samhanin should explain this map that distorts history. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.21.250.53 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC) They accept maps for publication without checking the sources. In addition, some states often changed their borders. For example, 668-698, the Silla border passed along the Yalu River, included all the Changbai Mountains, but did not include the modern North Hamgyon where the Proto-Jurchens lived and then in the Korean period it was called Yukchin. Then Bohai took away the mountainous northeastern part of the Silla possessions in the modern DPRK. But Wonsan is Silla city. However, in the west, the border ran along the Pyong River and Anju was a Korean fortress, not a Bohai one. The territory between Yalu and Pyong was contested and the subject of constant conflict. Which, however, did not develop into a war for 30 years due to the arbitration of the Chinese Tang Empire. Which both countries recognized as a suzerain. After the conflict in 735, China recognized the Penn border. But Silla retained her nobility in the area that had passed Bohai. The entire period of its independent existence (745-892), Silla had just such boundaries. But it hurts too many of the nationalist claims of both Korea and China. Unfortunately, the history of the region is an instrument of politics. Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's cartography is a real problem.

Requested move 24 August 2021

 * 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.  Mdewman6 (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Later Silla → Unified Silla – No source listed on the history of the kingdom of Silla calls this kingdom Later Silla. Even the Korean on this page translates to Unified Silla 통일신라. As such, with the sources on the history of this kingdom naming it Unified Silla, then Unified Silla is the proper name. Sanctusune (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2021 (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.
 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Judging from the page's previous page moves and edit history, these changes may be controversial and could be contested. A discussion should occur as both names seem to be equally reasonable page titles. Happily888 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I was unaware that this might be controversial, so let me elaborate as to why the title here should be changed to Unified Silla. Unified Silla is used in the official history of the Silla Kingdom, after it conquered Baekje and Goguryeo in the 7th century. In Academic works about the subject Unified Silla is always used, for example: www.newworldencyclopedia.org, www.worldhistory.org, www.britannica.com, and www.museum.go.kr the official website for the Korean National Museum all use the term "Unified Silla" besides internet sources there is some written ones as well such as Korea by Jill DuBois who talks about Unified Silla on page 22 and A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee and Ki-baek Yi that also talk about Unified Silla on page 73 and A Korean History for International Readers: What Do Koreans Talk About Their Own History and Culture? by The Association of Korean History Teachers (which is the same group that deals with official Korean history textbooks in Korea) talk about Unified Silla on page 83 and in none of these works is the term "Later Silla" even mentioned. This is not to say that title "Later Silla" is not ever used but it is not the officially recognized title of the Silla Kingdom once it had unified the Korean peninsula. Sanctusune (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. There should still be a discussion on this before a move, mainly because of comments made in this previous request. Happily888 (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and I understand, I hope to be able to contribute to a consensus as the discussion of this topic continues. Sanctusune (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Sanctusune. Wikipedia articles in most other languages use the name "Unified Silla" as well. Esiymbro (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)