Talk:Genroku

Takeshima(竹島)/Ulleung-do (울릉도) Dispute
(1) Kusunose just recently added "Ulleung-do" in the context of noteworthy events of Genroku 9. I wonder if maybe this would be better introduced in the context of a note, if at all? Perhaps this discussion page is an appropriate venue to explain what I've done and to invite comment or further edits?
 * Genroku 9 (1696):
 * Crossing the sea to Takeshima(竹島) banned.
 * Takeshima is also known today as Ulleung-do (울릉도). Although the Liancourt Rocks were not considered disputed territory in Genroku, South Korea claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Silla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County. Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905. Today, South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima, in Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.<./ref>Image:Part of Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu.jpg|Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part, 1775, Japan).  Matsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E.

(2) As I did not myself upload the information about this Takeshima travel ban -- and since there is no source cited for this minor "fact", I'm at a loss to assess whether its reliability. I suppose it's possible that the bakufu's travel ban, if it were verified, might have been intended to apply to some other Takeshima island? I notice that there appear to be a number of unresolved issues in the Joseon and Edo Period segment of the Liancourt Rocks article; and the discussion page does suggest additional unanswered questions. Again, it seems appropriate to invite comment or further edits? Ooperhoofd 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether or not this fact is true, but I think that the present-day dispute is entirely irrelevant, and should be removed. Besides, what happened to Dokdo? It's suddenly called Ulleung-do now? LordAmeth 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the suspect "fact" in Genroku 9 pending some unknown source citation; and the edit summary will alert anyone who may be interested that there are relevant comments and questions here. Ooperhoofd 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Early orientalists
The content on Kaempfer in Nagasaki is very interesting, but perhaps it would be better to move the details to the page on Kaempfer himself, leaving the link. (Also: is there a reason the names of Titsingh and Siebold, etc. show up in the "See also" section? No explanation is provided.) MB, 129.194.8.73 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Complying with suggestion -- moving text here for further discussion:
 * G2 (September 16, 1689): German physician Engelbert Kaempfer arrives at Dejima for the first time. Bakufu policy in this era was designed to marginalize the influence of foreigners in Genroku Japan; and Kaempfer had to present himself as "Dutch" in dealings with the Japanese. Regardless of this minor subterfuge, an unintended and opposite consequence of sakoku was to enhance the value and significance of a very small number of thoughtful observers like Kaempfer, whose writings document what he learned or discovered first-hand. Kaempfer's published accounts and unpublished writings provided a unique and useful perspective for Orientalists and Japanologists in the 19th century; and his work continues to be rigorously examined by modern researchers today.
 * See also An'ei -- Carl Peter Thunberg, Isaac Titsingh?
 * See also Bunsei -- Philipp Franz von Siebold?
 * Plausible improvement in focus. --Tenmei (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)