Jump to content

Talk:Silla

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

Population?

[edit]

It seems population is poorly sourced for this article, specifically in that some of them reference the Samguk Sagi without providing a direct citation/online citation which would be preferrable. I'll look for some myself later but if anyone has statistics already would appreciate adding citations to the population of Silla Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this? If anyone has reliable population stats I would appreciate it Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Hangul on Infobox and Wikipedia Page

[edit]

It's not productive at all to just remove Hangul from the various Korean states, especially because now in its current form Hangul is entirely non-existent on the infobox for readers to see. Additionally, the Korean states are not unique at all in this context. Đại Việt has both the traditional Vietnamese script that derived from Chinese as well as the modern romance language inspired script. The Shang dynasty has both the bone script and the modern Chinese script. Same with the Ottoman Empire, etc etc. Hanja is already in the article, it's not like it's being erased from the article, and keeping Hangul with it is the most efficient and productive design. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is entirely that hangul was not the native script used in this polity. While it's of course more nuanced than saying "Chinese characters represent the same system in 1100 BC as in 1900 AD", there is an obvious distinction in the contiguous graphemic evolution of that system, as opposed to hangul, which was essentially invented from scratch in the 15th century. Its presence where the native name would be is misleading to readers who may not know this history. Remsense诉 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this until now, but the key counterpoint is that first and foremost, this effectively erases Hangul from the infoboxes, the resulting changes essentially had Hangul entirely absent from many of the pages of Baekje, Silla, Goguryeo, Goryeo, etc. We have cases of multiple Korean dynasties with no Hangul that not only makes the pages look awkward but also does erasure of Korean identity, hence why again keeping it with Hanja and Hangul is preferable.
Additionally, there are various states that I mentioned beforehand that the same metric is not applied at all towards, such as the Shang Dynasty article, or Dai Viet. There's also numerous other ones like the Ottoman Empire too. And also let's not forget that Joseon had its own hangul removed, which means this rule wasn't even applied fairly to the one state where it shouldn't have been applied to given that Hangul was invented very early on into Joseon and quickly became the script of the commoners, women, and the Buddhists.
The status quo, which has existed for the past two decades or so, is the correct path of keeping Hanja and Hangul together, this change is unnecessary and frankly would cause more confusion to readers. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real justification to have forms that were not used by the state in question, because WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Moreover, since the subject is obviously a part of Korean history, the name with hangul is in numerous other locations in the article, just not the |native_name= parameter, because it was not the native name. If this constitutes some erasure, then that it is an erasure of clear misconceptions about Korean history that we don't want a general audience to have. Remsense诉 23:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is not the case at all, in numerous edits, the Hangul was non-present and thus was only really visible in the infobox such as for Silla. In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1231296695, 신라 doesn't appear anywhere in the introduction and doesn't appear until the second paragraph of Etymology. In some of the less egregious cases, they still didn't appear until the first page of Etymology. Additionally, I saw in the recently made edits it was even worse for the Vietnamese articles, in this case, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1236166538, the current modern Latin-based Vietnamese script was entirely erased from the article.
While you make a fair point, the edits here can just as easily endanger the exact opposite, that people who aren't familiar with the Korean or Vietnames (or other countries) wikipedia articles can get the wrong impression that the Sino-script is the script of modern Korea/Vietnam (and vice versa for other countries) due to the removal.
Again, the compromise of Hanja and Hangul has been the status quo for the past twenty years, I would be supportive and open to notes that state that the script of the era was Hanja, but the edits made for these articles often lead to complete erasure of the modern script. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then hangul should probably be added back to the lead, and not specifically to an incorrect place for it. Longevity and oblique comparisons with other articles are the weakest arguments for retaining a certain presentation of information; each article is assessed on its own needs, and many articles have glaring deficiencies for decades at a time that must nevertheless be corrected. (WP:BEENHERE; WP:OTHERCONTENT). There's nothing to compromise about: hangul wasn't the native script, so it doesn't go in that particular spot regardless of whatever makes a particular editor happy; an idiosyncratic local consensus does not override sitewide policies or basic logic. To be clear, I would also be fine with removing hanja from the infobox if it's seen as misleading, as parameters shouldn't be filled unless they are clear and helpful in the context of a particular article. Remsense诉 00:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal situation it should, but that is not what is happening. What is happening is that Hangul is being erased from the articles, and there is no follow up on it, creating the opposite problem that I have been talking about that can lead to other misperceptions.
And the native script argument creates problems of its own, when does the native script become applicable and when does it not? How would we even define what is the native or official script, what makes the script deserving to be in the infoxbox?
For example the extensive list of Joseon monarchs has both Hangul and Hanja, at what point does it start applying to one or the other? Hangul wasn't officially used until late Joseon, but then again does not mean that Sejong the Great shouldn't have Hangul in his infobox despite inventing it, just because officially it wasn't the Joseon Government's script? And technically, the native script of original hangul was very different from modern Hangul, so then by that technically we should use the exact native Hangul to write out Sejongs name if we did (which would further complicate things, I'm not even sure if the Korean Wikipedians on here would know how to do that unless if we had a linguist). Furthermore, Hangul nearly died out post-Sejong until the Imjin War, this would completely disrupt uniformity for Hangul to appear and then disappear from infoboxes and could confuse readers.
This isn't even getting into the colonial period, Korea under Japanese rule, the Japanese Government tried to ban and eradicate Hangul, so it wasn't the official script of Colonial Korea and not used for government documents and etc and there were generations of Koreans between 1910-1945 who grew up not knowing Hangul due to the spread of the Japanese language, by this point its muddied on if we use Hangul or not because the script was widely banned and not used in official documents. When the script becomes native/official would be impossible to define in these situations.
By doing these changes it would create chaos and irregularity amongst the Korean states infobox pages, not to mention we can't even completely verify if Hanja was used in many of these states (almost all the pre-Three Kingdoms States such as Gojoseon, Buyeo, early Tamna, Jin have barely any historical records or none at all given that the earliest verified and still existing Korean historical records only really begin around the 300s/400s AD). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to dispute any other articles that may or may not also be doing something idiosyncratic and incorrect; we are talking about this article, once again per WP:OTHERCONTENT. If it's not the native name, it shouldn't be presented as the native name, period. To me, it makes perfect sense to be in the lead sentence of the article, but since it's not obviously wrong it would be something that would be decided per article like any other on the encyclopedia. I'd appreciate your help in rectifying articles rather than gesturing to some secret "compromise" that seems to serve the tastes of specific editors rather than the readership or anything else transparent or rooted in site guidelines.

By doing these changes it would create chaos and irregularity amongst the Korean states infobox pages,

Nonsense. Let's do things the right way and stop intoning darkly about nonsense. Whatever clique that decided this do not own these articles independently of site guidelines; the next step would be to open an RfC about it, where I would guess the broader community would make the obvious choice to use the parameter for what it plainly says it's for.Remsense诉 02:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is still relevant, because starting here would open that can of worms. Just because we are talking about this page doesn't mean we should ignore the consequences that will happen down the road, especially given that the initial edits that started this conversation were done precisely to enforce this uniformity onto the other pages. If the edits were done just to this page then I wouldn't be raising this, but it's very clear that the edits done to the other pages I mention did not happen out of nowhere, it was all done by one editor whose agenda was clearly to enforce their perception of uniformity. The uniformity argument is relevant because again, it's not like only the Silla article was edited, it was merely one of multiple edits with all the same intent and purpose.
Then there are the other problems with the native name argument. If we're strictly talking about native names, the native name for this page wouldn't even be Silla, the state was until 504 AD not standardized with the name Silla, and the reverse argument would hold true for the Goguryeo page (given that Goguryeo changed its name to Goryeo, just as Silla had changed its name from Saro to Silla). The fact that moree than half of Silla's history, the native name wasn't even Silla (and term that only got applied much later in its history) shows the folly of the native name argument, the infobox and page don't reflect that either. So what are the infoboxes reflecting then?
It's reflecting the name and information of the fallen state as recognized by its succesor states in the modern era, in this case, because Korean historiography came to call Silla as "Silla" rather than Saro, it's original name, or Goguryeo as Goguryeo rather than "Goryeo." The addition of Hangul reflects the same, the name and title of the states are the modern understanding of its predecessor state. Using the native name for the infobox is not as effective or useful to readers as the use of the modern name for the infobox which is what the current state of the article reflects.
I don't know what clique you are referring to, this was in all likelihood the organic growth from various Wikipedian editors over the years. I also do not appreciate the way you are painting me as serving "the tastes of specific editors" which makes no sense given that there hasn't been a single person discussing this besides me and you, or advocating a "secret compromise" given that I was the one who openly started this discussion on a Talk Page and preferred the status quo state of the article. If I were an actual bad faith actor I would not be talking with you right now. I have not once implied you were acting maliciously or in a negative light, please do not engage in Wikipedia:No personal attacks to me. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're strictly talking about native names, the native name for this page wouldn't even be Silla [until 504 AD]

Then it possibly shouldn't be there either, but it likely should since it was used at some point during the state's existence.

The addition of Hangul reflects the same, the name and title of the states are the modern understanding of its predecessor state.

No it doesn't; it implies that was the native name used by the state itself.

I don't know what clique you are referring to

Whoever created this consensus we're supposed to adhere to instead of what we're generally supposed to do for any other historical context.
You said there was some previous agreement, and that was what I was referring to in my reply. In any case, if you're not presently convinced I'll likely be opening an RfC about the use of |native_name= in infoboxes for historical Korean states soon.Remsense ‥ 论 22:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What should be listed as the native name in infoboxes for historical Korean states?

[edit]

What should be included in the |native_name= parameter used by the {{Infobox country}} on articles about Korean states that existed prior to the 15th century? Remsense ‥ 论 13:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Hanja and Hangul:
  2. Hanja:
  3. Nothing, leaving the parameter unpopulated
    • Silla

Survey

[edit]
  • B – Hangul was first invented in the mid-15th century. Prior to that, the only writing system used in any capacity by any Korean state was Hanja. To list Hanja is inevitably misleading to many readers who do not know the timeline, and in my opinion it may reinforce subtler misconceptions about Korean history as well. As all applicable forms are listed in numerous other prominent places in these articles, C would be my secondary preference. Remsense ‥ 论 13:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is option A too long in terms of MOS:IBX? Since the use of Hanja is very uncommon in contemporary Korean sources, I think it still may be helpful to keep the Hangul as a reference. This is really the only reason I would support option A, though.
    On a side note, perhaps we could move the two other names (徐羅伐/斯羅火) down to the template:infobox korean name. I wish the template supported Yale Romanization as well, but it'll fare better than the current state of the infobox. 00101984hjw (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate the specificity of the issue: the hangul can be literally anywhere else, as it's clearly relevant and useful in the context of each article. But it's simply not, in my view, the "native name" of the state. Remsense ‥ 论 19:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the real problem here is, as you've mentioned below, the semantics of the parameter. Still, it feels absurd to remove the hangul completely from the infobox. Silla was a Korean state and 신라 is how it is referenced in almost every Korean source. Would the infobox still be misleading even with the "(Hangul)" next to it? If that is so, I'd have no objection with option B. 00101984hjw (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B: This is a somewhat weak vote based solely on the options presented. I'm actually not sure whether or not Hangul should appear in the Infobox: I think we should bear in mind that a language is not an orthography & vice versa, so I'm not too borrowed by an anachronistic orthography appearing here. 신라 seems inappropriate, however, if the pronunciation at the time of Shilla—following the Infobox, I have no better information—was 서라벌. (Am I misunderstanding this?) I'll say a little more about the issue of using Hangul in the Discussion section below. Pathawi (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: This is a no brainer decision for me. To suggest removing hangul for Silla is politicizing what was previously a non-issue. It may also be considered offensive to Korean descendants for the misinformation of labelling a Korean kingdom as anything else. Lastly, the modern Korean state currently refer to the Korean kingdom in Hangul.MNShibriya (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The points here:
    • previously a non-issue – Wholly irrelevant, a lack of previous discussion about how an article is wrong is neither a consensus for nor a justification of it continuing to be wrong. (WP:BEENHERE)
    • offensive to Koreans for mislabelling a Korean kingdom – this is a spurious characterization, as nothing would be added or removed that would make one think this. I don't really need to justify that further, but if it's bothersome for you that a Korean state wrote a lot in Chinese or wrote using a Chinese script, that's a problem you have with Korean history and not this attempt to present it without anachronism. The hypothetical offense would be irrelevant even if one had reason to think it may be incurred, as Wikipedia is not censored.
    • Lastly, the modern Korean state currently refer to the Korean kingdom in Hangul – This article isn't about the modern Korean state, and Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an outlet that uses language because it's somehow official—especially not text in non-English languages, which is included only when it it is directly relevant to an English-language audience's understanding the topic.
    Remsense ‥ 论 07:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C the current infobox seems to be a mess. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE clearly states that the infobox should summarize and not supplant information in the body. What is the sense in stuffing the first nine lines of the infobox with linguistic details that aren't deemed important enough to discuss in the body? There is literally a box below with the Hanja and Hangul spellings—why are both needed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per a strict interpertation of Template:Infobox country which instructs Country's name (usually full name) in its official/defacto language(s). Since Hangul didn't exist, it couldn't have been the official/defacto language. The article represents elsewhere what the Hangul is so it's not like Hangul is being erased from the article if it is removed from the infobox. Moreover, I do not find the argument regarding Chinese dynasties using the old script + new script compelling because the modern script descends from the ancient script. Hangul was created, to my understanding, separate from the Hanja. For instance, the Ryukyu Kingdom doesn't use the Japanese 琉球王国 at all in the infobox, but uses the Okinawan 琉球國. Soft second choice of C. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - As the name of the country in its native language when that country existed, which is what the infobox is for in my understanding. I understand that this is a Korean topic, and there is a modern Korean way of writing this, but it isn't how that country itself wrote its name, and this is not the Korean language wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - Per the consensus met here[1] 00101984hjw (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I voted for B for fairly provisional reasons. I wanted to say a little bit more about the use of Hangul here: A language is not an orthography, nor vice versa. If 서라벌 is an adequate Old Korean representation of the name 新羅, it's not obvious to me that it's not appropriate for the native_name field. Neither is it obvious to me that it belongs. I think the core question here is what that field calls for. We should probably want this to be consistent across uses of the infobox template. I wonder if the conversation might be better had at Template_talk:Infobox_country. Pathawi (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long reply to this where I more or less disagree that orthography is to be treated (esp in this specific instance) as wholly subservient to language, but I didn't finish it and it seems to have disappeared. Remsense ‥ 论 19:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Saying that 서라벌 would be a good representation of Old Korean seems odd as it neither represents Old Korean pronunciation or how it would have been written at the time if it was at all. Qiushufang (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get 서라벌 from the page itself—I don't have any other reason to think it's correct. My argument is not that 서라벌 should appear, but: 1) that I don't think that a field designating language automatically tells us anything about orthography; &, 2) that for this to be consistent, the appropriate place for the conversation is the Talk page for the template. I am not claiming that 서라벌 is a good representation of the Old Korean pronunciation (tho the page does at present say this). Pathawi (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say 'different from' rather than 'subservient to'. Actually, employing Chinese characters because they were in use at the time & rejecting Hangeul because they weren't is treating orthography as subservient to language. Pathawi (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is whether such a decision can be enforced here or be adequate enough to set precedence for other articles, which it will surely be used for in the future. Removal of either Hanja or Hangul will surely incur further reversions and criticism by numerous users for political bias. Having only Silla without either Hanja or Hangul also does not seem feasible considering the precedence of other similar articles including the native script alongside the modern romanized name. On the basis of precedence, I'm sure there will be further reversions as well if only to add something that is "missing" found in other articles. I can see an argument being made for including only Hanja for the sake of "accuracy" or brevity but that runs into the same problem of enforcement. Considering the issues in any change, I think the current representation of both Hanja and Hangul is a fine compromise, and perhaps alternative spellings other than one Hanja and Hangul transcription can be moved to another box. Qiushufang (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue could be resolved with some clarification on the semantics of what the |native_name= parameter is for. Remsense ‥ 论 22:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in agreement: This is essentially what I'm saying above. Pathawi (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I generally agree with Qiu's comments, A or C are the only realistic options, enforcement is a whole other can of worms that would be opened due to precedence, and it seems that generally the native name parameter is applied moreso towards a combination of the native script of the modern state + the script that was used based off all the other pages (Shang, Ottomans, Dai Viet, etc)
Additionally, given that the infobox of Silla (and every other Korean state) says "Chinese Script (Literary)" I don't find the misinterpretation argument all that convicing, it's very clearly shown on various Korean Wikipedia state pages infoboxes that Hanja was used during the existence of said state. I'll reiterate the current compromise works best for everyone. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date

[edit]

In this series of edits, KoreaTVS has argued that the established foundation date (57 BCE) is incorrect, based on a single source,[1] an article published on the Korean website MinPlusNews. The article claims its author is a "Korea History Researcher", but surely such an important issue as the founding date of an empire should be discussed in more established academic journals rather than populist news websites. I invite @KoreaTVS: to discuss this matter. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
Please check! This is not based solely on a source from a news website!
As I mentioned, if you look at the author of the SamgukSagi(Kim Pu-Sik), you will see that he wrote this book at least 5 centuries after the events of the Three Kingdoms, and on the other hand, he was from the royal lineage of Silla, so his source is not considered primary.
In an official conference held in South Korea with a group of South Korean scholars, it was mentioned why we easily believe this history, while we can realize with a little research that there are contradictions in history? If you wish, I will also include a link to it for greater certainty

It is also mentioned in Wikipedia.

Instead of criticizing me, please investigate this issue and then judge. KoreaTVS (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "고구려 건국연대를 아시나요?". 현장언론 민플러스 (in Korean). 2018-02-13. Retrieved 2024-12-16.
@KoreaTVS: No criticism was directed at you. My point is that a change of this nature requires a more reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed academic journal. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but on the Persian page of King HyeokGeose, it is mentioned that during the reign of King HyeokGeose, the founder of Silla, the Mahan confederacy was destroyed by Baekje, at the same time that Park Hyuk Gose, with the alliance of SamHan, succeeded in removing Wangeom Song, the capital of ancient Joseon, from the domination of Jin Han.
This indicates that Silla was founded at the same time or after Baekje.And as you know, the origin of Baekje begins with Goguryeo.
this is translated text from Founder of the silla dynasty,King HyeokGeose's persian page on wikipedia that shows Contemporaneous events during his reign are related to the Baekje Dynasty.
KoreaTVS (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silla&oldid=1263419917"