Talk:Unified Silla

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus Duja► 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Use common names and the general spirit of Wikipedia: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#The_term_of_period_of_unified_silla. -- 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)[1](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.