Both Japan and Korea did a study regarding the maps found at the "United States Library of Congress". The Koreans studied 228 maps. The Japanese studied 1435. Of the maps studied by Korea, 103 showed "East Sea" (and the like) and "Oriental Sea". Why would they group East Sea and Oriental Sea (two very different names with very different meanings) together, but separate all the other names?
The Japanese study [5] mentions the Korean study, but the Korean study [6] does not mention the Japanese study. I guess my point is this: why would Korea only study 228 maps while Japan studied 1435 maps? Both Korea and Japan used the same source (United STates Library of Congress), but Japanese did a larger study encompasing more maps. Did the Korean study select maps that would favour them? The Japanese study appears to take a larger scope trying to show "all" the maps. I find the Korean study very odd and suspect. Masterhatch 31 August 2005
Apparently the Korean government arbitrarily picked up 228 maps at the LoC. As mentioned in the Japanese report, it is impossible to do random samples of maps available at the LoC because not all maps have been electronized. The only fair way would be to investigate all maps available at the LoC, which the Japanese government did. --Tkh 22:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
韓国は228、日本は1435の地図を参照と発表。しかし同じソースでありながらこの数字の違いはどういうことか? >I find the Korean study very odd and suspect. Masterhatch 31 August 2005
↓↓↓↓↓↓ Summer on the Sea of Japan. The crew of the Pequod grows impatient to turn the ship's prow to the south and head for the equator and the "Season on the Line", a chance to holler "There she blows" for Moby Dick -- and win that gold doubloon nailed to the mast. Summer on the Sea of Japan: ↑↑↑↑↑↑