This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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)
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 consensusDuja► 10:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.