Talk:Silla

Population?

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)

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

Keeping Hangul on Infobox and Wikipedia Page

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

1. Hanja and Hangul:

   • Silla
   • 新羅 (Hanja)
   • 신라 (Hangul)

2. Hanja:

   • Silla
   • 新羅 (Hanja)

3. Nothing, leaving the parameter unpopulated

   • Silla

Survey

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• B - Per the consensus met here 00101984hjw (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think we're in agreement: This is essentially what I'm saying above. Pathawi (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Founding date

In this series of edits, KoreaTVS has argued that the established foundation date (57 BCE) is incorrect, based on a single source, 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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

References

@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. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

By the way, regarding my previous edit on this page, which you also reverted, I wanted to say: The marriage of a Persian prince to a girl from Korea may be acceptable, but since this prince lived during the Pishdadian period and since Silla was contemporaneous with the Sassanian dynasty, it is unbelievable that a Persian prince would marry someone who was born hundreds of centuries after him! Please clean up this baseless content until it has clear evidence! KoreaTVS (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@KoreaTVS: The Persian page you are relying on for verification of your claims does not cite any sources. This is even less reliable than a populist newspaper article. I'm afraid if you wish to change the page contents, you'll have to come up with better sourcing. The sourcing for the paragraph about the Persian/Korean marriage is solid enough. It indicates that the Kushnameh speaks of an ancient prince Abtin who travelled to Korea, and it indicates that the Korean president referenced this story in a speech. Both of those things are true (the Kushnameh speaks of the marriage, and the president referred to it in a speech). The fact that the marriage may not have been possible is irrelevant; the paragraph is describing cultural references, not historical facts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, Kushnameh mentioned that he traveled to Korea, but it has nothing to do with Silla(57 BC - 935 AD)!

A very strong evidence is that the historical period of Silla is ancient and it was the period of the Parthians(247 BC - 224 AD), Sasanian(224 AD - 651 AD) Tahirid dynasty(821 AD - 873 AD) and Saffarid(861 AD - 1003 AD) dynasties!

In none of these 4 Iranian dynasties, an Iranian prince married a Silla girl!

And the quoted Iranian prince is from Pishdadian dynasty!

With the smallest research, you will realize that the historical period of the Iranian prince Pishdadian, written in the Kushnameh, is hundreds of centuries different from the historical period of the Silla dynasty.

What evidence is higher than this? Instead of looking at the sources superficially, first check if these two people are the same time period as each other or not?! KoreaTVS (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@KoreaTVS: I don't care whether a Persian prince married a Silla princess. I care that an epic Persian poem says they married, and the president of South Korea mentioned that fact in a speech. Whether or not the fact is true does not affect the correctness of the paragraph in reporting these cultural references. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether it is important to you or not does not solve the problem.

The page where this content should be written is Kushnameh,South Korea and more similar pages.

and king abtin marriage to a lady from Korea, not Silla! Please pay attention to the place of writing each text.

The paragraph in question states:

An ancient Persian epic poem, the Kushnameh, contains detailed descriptions of Silla. Former South Korean president Park Geun-hye said during a festival celebrating Iran and Korea's 1,500 years of shared cultural ties, "The Kushnameh, that tells of a Persian prince who went to Silla in the seventh century and got married with a Korean princess, thus forming a royal marriage."

This paragraph contains two facts:

1. The Kushnameh contains a detailed description of Silla.
2. The former South Korean president said a thing.

Which of these two statements do you claim is incorrect? (Note: the Kushmaneh and the president may be incorrect in what they said, but can you actually dispute that they said these things?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, if I presented you a cited quotation that "John Doe says the world is flat.", you couldn't dispute that. Yes, John Doe is wrong, but the fact that he said the wrong thing is a verifiable fact. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't matter anymore, because now I've read that Kushnameh is written only based on imagination and has nothing to do with historical reality, and the author writes the legend in his mind and whatever is in his mind without paying attention to whether it is really true or not. KoreaTVS (talk)

Population

The population of Silla here in this section is inaccurate and uses sources from an non-academic news article. Dusrothans (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I can tell @Dusrothans that you are very likely a sockpuppet for Aminiya. Aminiya (and their sockpuppets) have been the only editors who has been talking about "inaccurate" population statistics of Silla in the last year or so even though its very much Korean historian and non-Korean historian consensus that Silla was the smallest and least populous of the three Kingdoms of Korea. You can claim all you want about "inaccurate" sources but this is general consensus. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

There I added three sources, all supporting the points that Silla was the smallest and least populated state, the fact that you have a brand new account (and made this as your first edit) strongly suggests you are Aminiya given that you made the exact same complaints (with the intent to delete the population statements off). I counted, Aminiya made at least three different attempts all questioning the exact same source (which was published by one of the biggest newspapers in Korea, the Chosun Ilbo, which despite its conservative leaning is a major leading newspaper). Aminiya and their socks were the only editor to dispute this topic in the past year, and edits were made similarly from new accounts and IPs.

When I came started editing on Wikipedia the page was poorly sourced, but other editors added in citations within the last three years so this page's population citations are now fairly well sourced. It is very clear and likely through this new account that you intent on pushing your POV on pages even though you flat out were banned multiple times off this website. You have been disrupting multiple Silla topic pages for years now... Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't even know who this person you're talking about is, and no, I am not this person's 'sockpocket.' Mind you that it's completely legitimate to point out discrepancies in the Silla article which there tons aside from the population statistics. But yes, I did make a new account to point out the inaccurate and sourceless figure of Silla's population. You mentioned the Joseon Ilbo's article but the article simply illuminates one person's (Kim Hosang) perspective and it is certainly NOT the consensus that Silla was the 'smallest' and least populous of the Three Kingdoms of Korea (since at least the 6th century when King Beopheung and Jinheung started their campaigns to conquer the Gaya city-states and the Han River Basin; not to mention that flatlands of the Yongnam Region were one of the most fertile lands at the time and food production is purportedly to have rised since Jijeung's reformation policies). Another major conservative-leaning Korean newspaper states that Seorabol (capital of Silla) had appx. 1 million people alone. The Encyclopedia of Korean Culture gives a conservative figure of about 6.75 million for Unified Silla's early population despite constant wars on multiple fronts for more than a century since the death of Seong of Baekje.

Also, the record containing the figure of 170,000 households is from the Samguk Yusa which was the population of Seorabol, NOT Silla, according to Il-yeon. So to say that Silla was significantly smaller than Baekje and Goguryeo in terms of population is just pure nonsense and outright incorrect. Not to mention that Silla would not have been able to held against Baekje and Goguryeo altogether alongside the Han River Basins after the reign of Jinheung all the way up to Munmu.

Nobody in Korea believes that Silla's population in 660 was only 1 million because of it does not consider Silla's past-time wartime mobilization capability shown throughout multiple wars prior to the Silla-Tang Wars. Silla mobilized 200K soldiers during the Goguryeo campaigns in the late 660s which was more than what Baekje mobilized (130K) when the Tang launched an amphibious landing on its shores.

Hey, if you're going to gatekeep the Silla article, at least be accurate. Dusrothans (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

"··· and was considered less developed and weaker compared to both Goguryeo and Baekje." Also, this. This is just simply not true. The more accurate way to explain Silla is that it was the latest of the Three Kingdoms to develop and expand its territories after centralizing their government and accepting Buddhism as the state religion. By the time of Jinheung (when the Silla-Baekje Alliance broke off), Baekje couldn't even deal with Silla alone and so brought in Gaya and Japan to form a united front against Silla only to be utterly defeated by them during the Battle of Gwansan (관산성 전투) and the Fall of Daegaya. Dusrothans (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

https://db.history.go.kr/ancient/level.do?levelId=sy_001r_0020_0170_0020

[Records of the Samguk Yusa regarding the population of Seorabol (Gyeongju)]

https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0046845

[Encyclopedia of Korean Culture's article on population trends of Korea throughout its history citing various pre-1990 classical research papers and statistics]

The same article you cited (Chosun Ilbo) is also a erring saying that Silla's population was 1 million and then he later mentions that Seorabol population alone was 1 million and that modern Korea and ancient Silla has the common traits of overpopulation of the capital. Dusrothans (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's break down the inaccurate points you make in each area.

1) Your claim that it was "NOT the consensus that Silla was the 'smallest' and least populous": Two historians, Richard McBride and Michael Shin both describe early Silla to be smallest in development. Of course the sizes of the kingdoms waxed and waned, but for most of the Three Kingdoms history, Silla was objectively the smallest in population, development and even size due to Goguryeo and Baekje's closer and more advantageous geographical position when taking in Chinese technology. You essentially are asking us to cherrypick the data so that the few times when Silla was bigger, those specific data points should be referenced. You make a point about how Silla expanded in size during Beopheung and Jinheung, but then you forget to mention that Silla then massively shrunk in size again during later reigns pre-unification due to the Goguryeo-Baekje alliance. So by the 600s AD Silla was on the defensive, Historian McBride references the point that Baekje kings Mu and Uija repeatedly took towns and cities from Silla so that by the 640s even Daeya Fortress fell, which led to the death of the future King Muyeol's daughter and son-in-law.

2) Unified Silla had a population of 6.75 Million: This is already pointed out in the Article, the 700 AD estimate already has the population at 6 million. The article you are criticizing is specifically talking about the size of the kingdoms pre-unificiation, not post-unification when it provides that 1 million statistic on Silla. If it were talking purely about Silla post-unification, it would mainly be focusing on the 6-7 million figure. You make it seem as if that 6.75 million population statistic is from Sillans only when the Sillans were outnumbered by the huge amounts of Goguryeo and Baekje people that they had conquered. The 1 million population claim of Seorabal is also incredibly questionable, even Korean historians doubt it, and disregarding even that, historians can't even agree on how many people are in a household. One of my sources say 2.4 people per household, which gives us a more reasonable estimate of 400,000-ish people for Seorabal, while others claim 5 people per household. Not to mention, you might be misunderstanding this, but Seorabal's population ballooned AFTER unification, not before. Seorabal's population increased due to the increased wealth and power of Silla following the unification, not before it.

3) First off that is a questionable claim you make, but the claim that "Silla mobilizied 200,000 soldiers in its war against Goguryeo": At Hwangsanbeol, Silla mobilized 50,000 men, which is a massive farcry from your 200,000 claim (which you claim is larger than Baekje's army of "130,000", which you don't have citations for either). I also find it strange because that 130,000 army claim is close to the size of the Tang expeditionary force that attacked Baekje, which suggests it is in fact not the real army size for Baekje. Not to mention, sources point out Silla's army began to balloon in size after conquering Baekje and Goguryeo (by using them as allies and conscripts). so your claims that Silla had a "bigger" army is naturally explained by the fact that they just absorbed the armies of the defeated two kingdoms.

4) "By the time of Jinheung (when the Silla-Baekje Alliance broke off), Baekje couldn't even deal with Silla alone and so brought in Gaya and Japan to form a united front against Silla only to be utterly defeated by them during the Battle of Gwansan (관산성 전투) and the Fall of Daegaya:" This isn't true (and the reverse could be said for Silla being so weak in the 300s/400s AD that they had to let Goguryeo station troops inside Silla and become a protectorate), your understanding of events is incorrect. The accurate timeline is that Baekje and Silla attacked Goguryeo in the final years of their alliance, then after Baekje had been exhausted attacking Goguryeo (and taking the Han river basin), Silla betrayed Baekje and seized the basin and killed Baekje's king. Baekje, weakened by this betrayal, had to rely on Gaya and Japan against Silla. Silla had developed and grown, but you imply that Silla's strength came purely from development (to some extent it had significantly grown) but Korean historians generally agree that Silla surprise attacking its ally after letting Baekje do most of the hard work is actually why Silla was able to conquer the river basin and defeat Baekje.

5) You provided two sources to make these claims, but Im not sure if you can read Korean but I can, and the Korean used in these articles straight up would not support your arguments. I already discussed the Samguk Yusa point, but here is what your sources actually say:

"...그 지역에 사는 외국인이나 이민족도 포함된다. 인구총수 추이만 보면 삼한시대 482만 명, 통일신라시대 675만 명, 고려 초기 780만 명, 조선 초기 991만 명, 일제강점기 초기 1,293만 명을 거쳐, 현재는 남한만 5천만 명이 넘는다..."

"...This includes foreigners and minorities. The population was around 4.82 million during the Samhan period, 6.75 million during the Unified Silla, 7.8 million in early Goryeo, 9.91 million inearly Joseon, and 12.93 million in the early Japanese colonial period; currently, the population in South Korea alone exceeds 50 million..."

So nowhere in this article does it say how many people pre-unification Silla had. It only gives us inferences that the population grew, so it doesn't really support your claim either, because this only covers the total population of Koreans (including foreigners and minorities) not Silla specific except the 6.75 figure (which covers Goguryeo/Baekje people Silla absorbed). And that specific figure (the 6.75 Million estimate of people Silla had/will absorb) from your own source, that same source you claim supports your point that Silla's population is larger than Baekjes, is word for word the exact same source and argument I have been defending this whole time. "또한 고구려조에 보면, “고구려 전성기에 21만500호”라는 구절이 있으며, 『구당서(舊唐書)』의 고종건봉3년(高宗乾封三年) 계사조(癸巳條)에는 “고구려 멸망 때(668) 민호(民戶)의 수가 총계 69만7000호가 되었다.”고 부기하고 있다. 변한 · 백제조에는 “백제의 전성기에 15만2300호”라고 나와 있으며, 태종춘추공조(太宗春秋公條)에는 “백제가 멸망할 당시(660)에…… 약 76만호였다.”는 기이 있다. 한편 진한조에는 “신라 전성기에 경중(京中)의 호구수는 17만8936호”라고 기록되어 있다. 이 밖에도 『삼국유사』에서 삼국시대의 인구분석에 실마리가 될 수 있는 기록으로는 「가락국기 駕洛國記」에 기록된 “구간자시추장령총백성구일백호칠만오천인(九干者是酋長領總百姓{{%310一百戶七萬五千人)”이라는 구절이 있다." It cites the same exact household statistics I cited, down to Silla's 170,000 households, which you have been claiming was incorrect...

6) The source did not err, the source is pointing out that pre-unification, Silla had a population of around one million, and that post-unification, the Sillan capital could have had a population of one million. This is to point out the growth of Silla. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dusrothans I agree with Sunnyediting99. There is a broad historian consensus on the population statistics of Silla and the information thus provided is not convincing. The primary sources in 삼국사기 are the ones that have most commonly cited the small population size of Silla. While the limitations of the document are discussed such as in the article "Silla Economy and Society" (published in the Korean Studies journal Vol. 28 (2004), pp. 75-104 by Chong Sun Kim talk of the limitations of the document but also affirm the statistics that are provided here. What about the book "A History of the Early Korean Kingdom of Paekche" by Jonathan W. Best which is from Harvard East Asian Monographs and the Harvard university press? While also discussing the possibilities that it could be referring merely to the capital, it still states common consensus that it is talking about the population of the general state. While discussion is still currently under way as to whether the documents are referring to Seorabol, historians have generally disregarded this claim. You state this with great confidence but historians would not agree with you. Unless you have a scholarly source on par with Harvard university press, Center of British studies on Korea, or other noted authority, your comments sound more like a bias without hard evidence.

You are using a "possible" interpretation of the sources as if it were fact when the broader historian community does not come to the same conclusions as you do. Therefore any edits will continue to be denied unless you can convince us here with solid evidence from noted historians or from the aforementioned historical publications. Sanctusune (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Not sure whether if it's accurate to depict Silla as the 'weakest' of the Three Kingdoms

I think we can all agree that Goguryeo pretty much maintained overall superiority for most of its time in comparison to its southern counterparts, but it's an understatement to simply say that Silla was the weakest of the Three Kingdoms during its rivalry with the other two (or three if we include Gaya). It would rather be more accurate to say that Baekje, Silla, and Gaya all took turns in actually claiming superiority at certain points in history. Silla clearly wasn't in a good place during the 5th century when Baekje, allied with Gaya and Wa (Yamato), invaded Silla only for Gwanggaeto the Great to take with him 50,000 troops to Silla and relieve them. But the shift took place in the early 6th century following an accumulation of Sillan kings consolidating its power through wise policies and reformations instigated all the way back during Nulji's time until that of the reign of Jinheung. Beopheung conquered Geumgwan Gaya while sabotaging Yamato Japan by initiating the Iwai Rebellion. Jinheung later wrestled with Baekje, Gaya, and Wa altogether in the Han River Basin where there was a direct route to China via sea and South Gyeongsang Province where the many of the Gaya states were situated in. The alliance failed despite, and Silla eventually conquered Gaya by taking out the Gaya city states one by one with Daegaya and Aragaya included; not without defeating Baekje, Gaya, and Wa expeditionary armies all at once. It even defeated and conquered some Goguryeo's territories alongside South Hamgyong province. Though Silla would often times be pushed back by Baekje and Goguryeo [since both were semi-allied with one another against Silla] later on, Silla managed to fend itself pretty well under the rule of Jinpyeong, Jindeok, and Seondeok until a necessity to forge an alliance with Tang surfaced. Silla maintained militaristic superiority over Baekje most of the time ever since Kim Muryeok killed Seong of Baekje during the Battle of Kwansan while it wrestled with Goguryeo in Northern Gyeonggi. It was far from the weakest state of the Three Kingdoms but rather one of the most militaristic states at the time when the Unification Wars of the 6-7th c. were taking place. What I'd like to also clarify is that Later Silla did not 'inherit' Baekje's maritime prowess because it already had a powerful navy by the time of the Silla-Tang War where it defeated the Tang navy during the Battle of Gibolpo. Silla already managed to conquer Usan-state in 512 under the leadership of Kim Isabu and a maritime reformation already took place during the reign of Jinpyeong with the establishment of the 선부서(船府署; Naval Affairs Bureau).

Point is, I think Silla is severely underestimated and downplayed in this wiki section as if it accomplished unification solely upon the intervention of the Tang Dynasty [which Silla would later defeat during the Silla-Tang Wars]. ~2026-34725-62 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we rely on the analyses of scholars, and strongly discourage users from making their own analyses of situations.

What we do is give the most weight to viewpoints that are mainstream among scholars/experts in the topic area. Then we cite them and basically just summarize what they think. We do not apply our own analysis.

Can you cite sources that specifically have this viewpoint? Specifically, that the Three Kingdoms traded superiority. If you do, please share the sources (including page numbers if relevant). grapesurgeon (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Per grapesurgeon's point we need sources on your claims, also, the "Silla was the weakest/smallest of the Three Kingdoms" is an actually sourced comment by historians from both West (McBride) and Korea/ethnic Korean scholars (Shin and the other Korean sources).

This is going to just be a repeat of the population talk page point which im happy to repeat but its just very repetitive, but population stats on Silla (and the other two kingdoms) are spotty but general consensus is that Silla did indeed have the smallest population of the Three Kingdoms throughout most of the period, given that Baekje's territory (present day Jeolla Provinces) was historically way more fertile while Goguryeo's territory was way larger. Not to mention, while each of the kingdoms waxed and waned in size and power, Silla was from its semi-lengendary foundation (57BC) until 553AD (when it betrayed Baekje) not the pre-eminent power on the peninsula. Silla did not fully annex Gaya until the 560s, so we have this whole strech of the Proto-Three Kingdoms/Three Kingdoms of about 600 years where Silla objectively isnt the strongest (of the other two) since it was Baekje first and then Goguryeo afterwards in this entire stretch. Silla did briefly have a contested claim as the strongest (it was at least stronger than Baekje by 553AD) against Goguryeo but even then it got put in the backfoot by the late 500s/early 600s.

Silla defeating the Tang Dynasty (using Baekje and Goguryeo allied troops) is already mentioned in the page + theres a whole other page dedicated to it. Note: Sources taken primarily from Silla and Timeline of Korean history, the latter page's sources added by me a few years ago. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

References