Talk:Gimbap

Assembly Directions?

I wish for someone to add to the article directions on how to make and assemble gimbap together. --터울 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Translation

Cited on the bottom, the sources 6, 7, and 8 are incomplete sentences. "일본음식에서 유래된 것으로" means "in the origin of Japanese is". Citation 6 is not "한국민족문화대백과[Encyclopedia of Korean National Culture]" but rather a section from Nate Encyclopedic Database. The full sentence is "김밥은 밥에 여러 가지 속을 넣고 김으로 말아 싼 음식으로 일본음식에서 유래된 것으로 보이며 우리나라에서는 근대 이후에 많이 먹기 시작한 것으로 추측된다.", which roughly translates to "Kimbap, a food consisting of rolled with rice and a variety of ingredients, generally viewed as Japanese in origin, is hypothesized to have gained popularity in our country (Korea) afterwards."

It does NOT say that Gimbap (or Kimbap) is derived from Makizushi or vice versa. "보이며" means to be seen or viewed, so it would mean that it is believed to be this way. Also, whatever happened to the Ssambap section? Ssambap is no longer an article. Please either put the information in the section of Gimbap or create a new "Ssambap" article. You cannot delete something in its entirety because you disagree with it; it exists therefore its documentation stays.

Please revise this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.206.254 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Name of the food

Last month I ate "kimbab" in a korean restaurant in London and seeing there was no article about it in Finnish Wikipedia, I started one. There was an article in Swedish Wikipedia for kimbab, but it took some time to find the English version. I don't know korean or how it's translitterated, but the name of the food seems to be spelled gimbap, kimbap and kimbab. Which is the right form? Are the alternate versions common enough to be mentioned in the article or to be redirected here? --Sumiko 08:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And what's the relation between "kimbab" and "bimbab"? The same ingredients, but not rolled? --Sumiko 08:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of bibimbap? Aside from the fact that they are both Korean dishes based on rice (hence bap), I don't think there's any connection. -- Visviva 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and link to the article. I can translate it for the Finnish version of Wikipedia. --Sumiko 22:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... The original Korean is 김밥; kimbap is the McCune-Reischauer romanization, and gimbap is the Revised romanization. We normally follow the Revised system on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), which is why you'll find this article here. Kimbab and gimbab are incorrect, but common, romanizations, so they should probably redirect here. -- Visviva 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And now they do. :-) Thanks! -- Visviva 14:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for explaining the roanization. :) Have to exchange the name of the article in fiWikipedia. --Sumiko 22:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) does not have a section on foods, but does say that before considering Romanisation systems, names should generally be romanized according to their common usage in English sources - that's 'Kimbap', rather than 'Gimbap'. So I think 'Kimbap' would be the better name Happypoems (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maki-zushi

There is no historical evidence that Kimbap came from Maki-zushi. Even Maki-zushi formed current style (one-bite small size) AFTER World War II. During Chosun Dynasity, Koreans usually eat rice with kim(nori in Japanese) and banchan. This evolved into current Kimbap and even there are some theories that Japanese Makizushi was inspired by this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crmtm (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Maki-zushi was completed in Edo period.　nori in Korea had only the paste. And, Japan introduced board Nori to Korea at the Meiji era. --Azukimonaka 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1995, the Ministry of Culture and Sports (文化體育部/문화체육부) of South Korea published a book named "Japanese life wording purification collection" (日本語式生活用語純化集/일본어투 생활 용어 순화집), and proposed that the foreign word 노리마키 (NoRiMaKi) was changed to 김밥 (GimBap). And norimaki (in Japanese language) resembles maki-zushi.

Therefore, I think that there are some relations to these words.

See also:

• Template:Ja icon "The language purification movement in Korea (国語純化運動)", CLAIR (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations) (財団法人自治体国際化協会), Tokyo, May 2005.
• Template:Ko icon "일본어투 용어 순화 자료집".

--Nightshadow28 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Korean article is non-existent, Japanese article requires a login. Both hold no academic value whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.206.254 (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Origins of food

Azukimonaka and nightshadow28, much of Japanese cuisine flowed from China and Korea. There is no apparent authority, treatise or otherwise suggesting that the renaming of "kimbap" is a result of Japanese influence. To suggest that "kimbap" and even the so-called "introduction of nori" is not entirely truthful, as dried seaweed has not been proven to be a purely Japanese invention. Can we delete the last paragraph of this stub? It is not accurate and offensive. Those links you proffer do not demonstrate your point in any case.

I will submit more documentation evidencing that "nori" was NOT introduced to Korea, nor was kimbap "introduced" or a product of re-invention from Japan. In fact, it is the other way around. Unless you submit more authority proving either of your points, I will delete the paragraph or ask the Administrator to do so. Azntokki 02:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

The origin of Gimbap

(Some of my comments below were copied from this discussion at AN/I.--Endroit (talk))

This edit by 144.82.106.67, and this edit by Manacpowers (talk · contribs), attempted to replace "is derived from" with "a parent to". This appears to be misinformation, and I will correct this.

Due to the possible violation on WP:CITE, and WP:V, I deleted Jjok (talk · contribs)'s citation from 국립국어연구원. If he can answer my question: how he found the quote in the page of the book, he can put it back to the article anytime. My request for Jjok to clarify the source is so simple that WP:DR seems to not even needed.--Appletrees (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to violation on WP:CIV, I deleted Acuwer's (talk) accusations and statements. In fact, the whole conversation is not productive and it seems that Acuwer just want to provoke. It becomes clear when he start using inappropriate arguments and linking non topic youtube videos just to fuel some dispute. Fniss (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Regards removal of Cyi5697 (talk) added content. Oda Mari reverts my removal and asking me to refute added content when Cyi5697 is the one should provide sources and references. It seems that Oda Mari is bias? Since its heavily debated topic, it should reach consensus before adding on the article. Its already stated "There are two views about the origin of Gimbap... " There is no need for yet another section that someone randomly adding personal POV without providing source or reference. "The origin of kimbap is sushi" is not "...two views about the origin of Gimbap" witch is already accepted and stated in earlier section. Therefore Cyi5697 added section is not NPOV and should be removed. - Fniss (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to step on a hornet's nest here, but for the record, I have a problem with the theory that Kimbap is derived from sushi, as presented here, but for a different reason. The word kimbap may be derived from Japanese "norimaki" (at least kimbap may have been called that before the word kimbap was invented after the emancipation) but that doesn't make it sushi. "Norimaki" just means something rolled in seaweed. Since it's not the same thing as makizushi, I don't see why this article mentions futomaki, which literally means large rolls (Kimbap slices aren't especially large), or why there's a link to makizushi (which is just a different way of preparing sushi that superficially resembles kimbap). Sushi has vinegar. Kimbap has sesame oil and salt. So if it's related to any sort of Japanese dish, it would probably be onigiri, which has the same ingredients, not sushi. In Korea Japanese-style onigiri is called kimbap regardless of its shape. Sushi is called "sushi" and clearly distinguished from kimbap. The onigiri article here on Wikipedia correctly mentions samgak kimbap as a type of onigiri. If no one has any objections, I'll change the link to point to the onigiri article. JohnDavidWard (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. If you wish to add "Gimbap is a type of jumeokbap (that is, Korean onigiri)", you should provide a reliable source. Also if you wish to change to "Gimbap is derived form Onigiri", you should provide a reliable source. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been doing some home improvement and haven't been able to respond. My point wasn't to say anything new about gimbap in diachronic sense, but in a synchronic sense. That is, I'm talking about the taxonomy of gimbap, not its origins. I just put my comment here because I thought it would be relevant to previous discussion on origins, not that I was introducing a new theory. But in the time I've been off Wikipedia, I see that someone else has already tried to correct the article in the same way, so I'll add a new section now about this. JohnDavidWard (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Invalid sources

Since I noticed the quality of reference is quite bad and level of academic value is about zero. I think we should look over the sources. As far as I can see. there is no valid source proving that Gimbap is being derived from Norimaki.

• The article by Kuroda Hukumi (Fukumi Kuroda, actress) is POV. Holds no academic value
• Yahoo! Korea dictionary is obsolete and not valid.
• ref 7 och 8 is obsolete and not valid.
• nisshin-foods.co.jp and nishinippon.co.jp does not qualify as a reliable source let alone a scientific one.

Im not trying to push any buttons. Im updating the swedish wiki and I want to make sure the articles have some sort of credibility and value.. without second hand references. I tried to search for any proof for that statement myself but couldn't find any. Again, there is no source that proof that Gimbap is derived from Norimaki. Im removing the statement until someone can provide valid sources that hold some sort of academic value. – Oppa ^talk –  22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article definitely needs better sources. Most of them are just one line, throw-away references which seem to be repeating popular myths rather than being the result of any research. They should probably be deleted until something better can be found. Also, I don't see why the translations of the references at keep saying "norimaki" since none of the source articles use that word. They all say either "Japanese sushi" or just "Japanese cuisine." JohnDavidWard (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing 초밥 (sushi, literally vinegar rice) with 김초밥 (norimaki or makizushi, literally nori sushi). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My point there was simply that whoever did those translations used the odd word "norimaki" rather than the expected "makizushi." It's not worth arguing about. JohnDavidWard (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gimbap as sushi or as onigiri

It seems like this page is missing an important bit of information, namely that gimbap is a sort of onigiri rather than sushi, or at least is classified that way. I can add citations, but I already added what seemed to me like a commonsense change incorporated basically what the Wikipedia page on onigiri already says, but it was reverted. Since this page is apparently heavily edited, it was wrong of me to make the changes without reaching consensus here. So for the sake of discussion, here's my argument:

1. Although the differences between sushi and onigiri are sometimes ignored, technically sushi is vinegared rice. Sushi also usually contains bits of seafood or raw fish. I hope this doesn't need a reference, because it's mentioned prominently in the Wikipedia article for sushi and onigiri already, with only a recipe book as a citation, but it's apparently taken for common knowledge among the editors on that page. Korean has a word for sushi, 초밥, which is distinguished from 김밥. My YBM dictionary gives chobap as "vinegared fish and rice." The Korean wikipedia page on 초밥 makes essentially the same point.
2. Gimbap does not contain vinegar. Instead, it's usually made with sesame oil, which gives it a savory rather than sweet-sour taste. For example, the KBS World Korean Cuisine cookbook app says, "The main difference between gimbap and Japanese sushi is the use of vinegar. While cooked rice for Japanese sushi is flavored with sweetened vinegar, cooked rice for gimbap is seasoned with sesame oil and salt."
3. The description of gimbap as currently written ("Gimbap is derived from Japanese futomaki (Makizushi) during the Japanese rule (1910-1945).") gives the impression that gimbap is merely a subtype of sushi. If we can agree that gimbap is not a type of sushi, then it needs to be rewritten or expanded. I wanted to rewrite it because it seemed to me that the specific language used was not justified by anything in the citations. But leaving that aside, if gimbap is not sushi, then it seems logical to say roughly what it is instead.
4. A subcategory of gimbap is samgakgimbap, which is (I hope we can agree) identical with the most popular type of convenience store onigiri. If samgakgimbap is a type of onigiri as well as a type of gimbap, then the categories of onigiri and gimbap must overlap or coincide. On the Wikipedia page on onigiri, which discusses Korean jumeokbap as a subcategory, it would seem that the English language Wikipedia is using onigiri as a generic cover term for non-sushi rice snacks. This would suggest that, in the loose sense, gimbap can be described as in the onigiri family.
5. Although it would be accurate to describe gimbap as a type of onigiri, this being a Korea-related article, it seems appropriate to use Korean terminology where possible in order to maintain a consistent and neutral point of view. 'Jumeokbap' is the best translation of onigiri available.
6. Although it's a little unusual to call gimbap 'jumeokbap,' it's not that hard to find references describing gimbap as essentially jumeokbap rolled in laver. For instance, a citation on the Korean gimbap page says, "초기의 김밥은 매우 단순한 형태의 주먹밥으로부터 참기름과 소금으로 양념한 밥에 시금치나 단무지 등을 김에 단순히 싸는 형태로..." which means, "Primitive gimbap, in the form of bap from a very simple form of jumeokbap, seasoned with sesame oil and salt, wrapped simply in laver with such things as spinach and pickled radishes..."

Thoughts? I've numbered these points so that anyone can responded to whichever one they think is too weak or unsupportable. JohnDavidWard (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 2. I don't object this point. The source[1] says "In Korea, gimbaps are derived from the Japanese maki sushi, but they are usually stuffed with rice with sesame oil and meat." Also we may be able to find reliable sources supporting this claim.

3. Please see the five sources provided in the article again. Then if you still think the description is not justified by anything in the citations, please explain more about it.

4. 5. The term "samgak gimbap" was coined recently by the Japanese convenience store Seven Eleven probably in 1998. There is no historical relationship between the two. If you have any reliable source "samgak gimbap is a type of gimbap", please provide it.

6. There are many theories expressed by Korean people about the origin of gimbap. The Korean article adopted "복쌈" (bokssam) citing an unreliable blog-like report written by a news reporter. If your source is reliable and the theory is widely accepted, you can add the theory as another theory to this article instead of replacing the existent well sourced descriptions.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. 6 I mentioned it above on the talk page, and I'll repeat it here, that I'm not trying to add a new theory on the origin of gimbap. I'm talking about its classification among rice-based foods in a modern day context. Reptiles are descended from amphibians, but it's still incorrect typologically to say that reptiles are amphibians. In the same way, it's incorrect to say that gimbap is a type of sushi. The article doesn't say this, but it implies it, and it needs to be clarified. If I find well-cited evidence for a new theory, I'll certainly add it.
2. 4 That samgak gimbap is a type of gimbap is already mentioned on this page. Personally, I think the fact that convenience store onigiri came to be called samgak gimbap rather than something else says a lot about a lot about what Koreans themselves see as the defining characteristic of gimbap: it's made with oiled rice and wrapped in laver. Of course, it isn't typical gimbap, but neither is a penguin or an emu a typical bird. There doesn't need to be a historical relationship. There's no common descent between agriculture in the Old World and in the New World but they're still classified as the same thing. If you think that samgak gimbap doesn't belong here, delete the section on samgak gimbap yourself. It doesn't really have anything to do with me.
3. 3 Discussing the non-Korean references first, Number four is from a non-academic encyclopedia which covers the whole continent, and contains several minor mistakes in the section on Korea. Number five is from a Spanish cookbook (about ten dollars, less than a hundred pages, paperback). Neither cites sources. I don't think either of them could be considered authoritative when it comes to Korean history. I've complained about the poor quality of the sources here before.
4. 3 Moving on to the references in Korean, it's clear that none of them have the derivation of gimbap as their central thesis, and they're all more descriptive than historical. These sources are reliable, but they don't necessarily support the sentence as written. For instance, number six says "일본음식 김초밥에서 유래된 것으로... 추측된다.", which means "It is speculated that [it is] ... a derivative of the makizushi of Japanese cuisine..." (referring back to gimbap mentioned in the previous sentence). The other two use only slightly different wording. The bad English translation makes what they claim seem stronger that it is. If this is an assumption, it ought to be described as such. If there's ambiguity in the original, it shouldn't be ignored.
5. I had originally changed "is derived from" to "is thought to be derived from or influenced by." Perhaps "assumed to be derived from" works better. I added the other part to avoid the impression that gimbap was and continues to be a sort of sushi, but also I think "derived from or influenced by" is within the semantic leeway of the word 유래. It's one of six or so words for derivation or origin in Korean, and the only one of these that can also mean experiences or influences (gradual, over time, at least when applied to a person or a institution). If anyone has more information on the nuances of that word, I'd be glad to hear it.
6. 3 Also, none of the references use the word "futomaki." Maybe it's somewhere else in one of the books where I couldn't read, but as far as I can tell, it's unsourced.
7. All in all, I'd be happy if we made the sentence consistent with what the sources actually say, and added a new sentence or two to the effect that gimbap is not, technically speaking, sushi, as it's not made with vinegared rice, and so on. JohnDavidWard (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add additional confusing numbers to your response. You are repeating your original research without providing any source supporting any of your claim. Unless you provide a reliable source, I will not reply your comment anymore. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I just started editing Wikipedia about a month ago, but my understanding of WP was that talk pages require only an argument, and that reliable sources instead go into the article itself. I haven't added citations because those go in the article, and it's policy to find a compromise first (If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns.). In other words, I'll eliminate for now any point listed here that anyone strongly objects to. I apologize if the way I presented this information is confusing. Incidentally, I don't mean to criticize, but it'd be more constructive if I knew which specific points are felt to be OR and why (and this applies to anybody else reading this, too). I know that my original points 3 & 4 & 5 amount to synthesis of research, but my thought was that it was not synthesis of material that advances a position because it was a neutral matter of terminology. But if the terminology was your objection, say so, and I'll find another way of describing it. JohnDavidWard (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

so far as I can tell, the heart of this dispuute is that Korean nationalists are offended over the idea of a Japanese origin to this dish, and are furiously trying to prove otherwise. I'm neither Korean nor Japanese, but a historian and I agree with the position that it originated during the period of Japanese influence, it is not the only Korean dish derived from Japan. I have added a line to mention that it includes many distinct elements that distinguish it. I have however removed an irrelevant section with a couple restaurant reviews of kimbap, totally inappropriate for a wikipedia page. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Taiwanese version of samgak gimbap

A Taiwanese version of samgak gimbap is sold in convenience stores in Taiwan and in Chinese is known as "三角飯糰" (Sānjiǎo fàntuán). Though currently they are not covered in the relevant article Ci fan tuan.

The more "typical" types of fantuan however don't really resemble the "typical" types of gimbap. — Hippietrail (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop deleting the history

There's obviously some sort of connection between sushi and gimbap, and one is derived from the other, or both from a common cultural source. If there are competing theories about its history, both should be mentioned. There's absolutely nothing controversial about the idea of shared Japanese-Korean cultural traits.

Removing any mention of sushi here is unacceptable whitewashing. Anyone who wishes to delve into the finer points of nationalism animosity between Japan and Korea can go work on Japan–Korea disputes. This article is about a dish and our readers will clearly want more information on obvious similarities, so leave your nationalism at the door.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was deleted by this edit just before your edit.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Korean origin

I just removed[2] the entire content related to gimbap being a indigenous Korean food. The argument is based entirely on the premise that bokssam evolved into gimbap, and the source for this is the Samgungnyusa. So obviously original research. The other sources were either inaccessible or simply had nothing relevant to say on the matter.

If anyone else wants to include a Korean origin theory in the article, I recommend reading the policy documents at WP:NPOV and WP:RS before contributing.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This was already discussed above #Gimbap as sushi or as onigiri.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Terms norimaki and gimbap

I just want to make this clear, in order to avoid any potential conflict regarding the subject matter. Presently, the sources provided indicate that gimbap was indeed derived from the introduction of norimaki or some other type of makizushi. However, saying that gimbap was "originally called norimaki" is an unsupported claim. All the sources say is that gimbap and norimaki were both used to describe the dish, but that later, the National Institute of the Korean Language made the former standard. I would avoid incorporating personal interpretations of the sources in order to maintain content neutrality. BlackRanger88 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "originally" is self-evident because the norimaki was introduced to Korea from Japan. The food cannot originally be called "Gimbap" when it is introduced to Korea. Anyway, we cannot prove when the term gimbap began to be used for norimaki, I will compromise the wording from "the name was changed to gimbap by ..." to "the name was ceased to be used by ...".

By the way, why did you remove the sentence "Gimbap was called norimaki" entirely? If you disagree the word "originally", you should simply remove the word. Also you removed the link to Linguistic purism in the Korean language. You are just removing what you don't like. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"You are just removing what you don't like." No, I'm following what the source actually says, instead of including my own nationalist interpretations in the article.

"The term "originally" is self-evident because the norimaki was introduced to Korea from Japan." No, it isn't. Let me make this simple as possible. Norimaki was introduced from Japan to Korea. The Koreans subsequently developed a distinct dish that became described interchangeably by the terms gimbap and norimaki (a name taken from the Japanese dish that was first introduced). The dish that the Koreans developed is the subject of the article, not norimaki. As such, saying that norimaki was the original name of the distinct Korean dish (known today as gimbap) is not accurate.

To address your other concern, I substituted the link Linguistic purism in the Korean language to National Institute of the Korean Language because the latter was the actual agency that initiated the several reforms to remove loan words from Korean vocabulary. It makes more sense to ascribe the action of "standardization" to an entity rather than to a broad policy.

I'm going to avoid immediately reverting your edit to hopefully avoid what is seemingly becoming an edit war. Please explain any objections you have to my responses using logic and evidence, rather than making responses such as, "You are just removing what you don't like." I don't have time for such nonsense. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to separate an early stage of gimbap which is almost the same as the Japanese norimaki and "a distinct dish" developed by Korean. Gimbap evolved from the Japanese norimaki and became the current form of gimbap over time. "a distinct dish" didn't emerge suddenly. You cannot separate an early stage of gimbap and "a distinct dish" as different dishes. It is your WP:OR. An early stage of gimbap was apparently called norimaki. So "Gimbap was originally called norimaki" is legitimate.

As for "Linguistic purism in the Korean language", the article best describes the background of how Japanese words were replaced by Korean words. I don't care to add National Institute of the Korean Language to the description but cannot accept the removal of the link.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix asked me to comment on this, so here goes:

There appears to be a clear citation to the fact that norimaki has actually been a Korean term (which is of course a purely phonetic loan from Japanese). The reference appears to confirm that this was deliberately changed to gimbap. That would make the details of its early development within Korea pretty irrelevant, or at least way too specific. I agree with Phoenix that drawing conclusions about the parallel existence of both norimaki and gimbap in Korea kinda amounts to original research.

As someone who knows East Asian history in general, but not that much about Korean history, I believe the link to linguistic purism in the Korean language is extremely relevant and informative to the average reader. It makes perfect sense in the historical context of Korean exceptionalism and Japanese occupation; ousting an former enemy not just militarily, but even removing them from culture and language itself is a perfectly natural response. Linguistically, it's also quite similar to how Chinese has preferred to "translate" Western loanwords over phonetic borrowings. The latter is more heavily influenced by phonology and orthography in Chinese, but it's a very useful parallel. Linking to the language institution is not informative in my view. It would be like trying to explain the Japanese occupation of Korea by linking to the Imperial Japanese Army.

So in conclusion, it appears we can confirm that South Korea altered an existing, borrowed norimaki to the modern gimbap. So one word was rendered into another. What we don't know is exactly when the distinct Korean sushi variant appeared. The latter is pretty important to keep in mind: this is still a Korean interpretation of sushi. That Korean national pride tends to obfuscate is not relevant. That's a matter of language and nationalism, not cuisine history.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Peter: Thanks for weighing in. However, the reference you're describing does not say that the term norimaki was changed to gimbap. What it does say, is that both terms were being used interchangeably and that the latter was made standard. The common usage of both terms prior to standardization is NOT my original research, but rather is simply stated within the source.

My contention to Phoenix's addition is not whether or not gimbap was derived from norimaki (that has been made clear enough), but rather that the term norimaki was exclusively used first and then "changed" to gimbap. That claim is simply not supported by the sources, and thus constitutes WP:OR. If you would like to make that claim, I suggest that you add a source to support that.

@Phoenix7777: "An early stage of gimbap was apparently called norimaki." Well, none of the sources support that. What they do say is that gimbap was derived from Japanese norimaki, and the last source (referring to linguistic purification) states that both terms were widely used in Korea until gimbap was made standard. So again, this is not my original research, but rather strict adherence to the sources provided.

I see both your points about which link to use, and am willing to compromise. But, I suggest that the passage be reworded to:

"The terms gimbap and norimaki had originally both been used interchangeably to describe the dish. However, after the end of the occupation period, gimbap became standard, as a part of efforts to purify the Korean language." BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Pardon the misinterpretation. Phoenix. I don't really know any Korean except for what I can get out of Google Translate and some basic knowledge of Chinese and Japanese. BlackRanger's wording seems very appropriate, though. Go for it.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No. the source never says "both terms were being used interchangeably and that the latter was made standard". It simply says "Use gimbap instead of norimaki". So it is unknown whether the term gimbap was existed or coined at the time of publishing. We cannot prove when the term gimbap began to be used for norimaki, Probably the term gimbap was coined after the end of WWII when the language purification movement began.

"An early stage of gimbap was apparently called norimaki." is not an extraordinary claim because Japanese brought the dish to Korea. Instead, "An early stage of gimbap was not called norimaki." is an extraordinary claim. However "The terms gimbap and norimaki had originally both been used interchangeably to describe the dish." is an extraordinary claim. It is quite unlikely that gimbap was called "gimbap" when Japanese norimaki was introduced to Korea.

I do not continue this discussion until a reliable source supporting the extraordinary claim is provided because this kind of discussion never end unless discussed based on a reliable source.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see how "used interchangeably" could mean all that, Phoenix. Language change is always gradual unless we're talking about official names of things, like towns or organizations. Dishes don't have official names, though. I'd hate to see this minor disagreement in wording become a bone of contention, so I'll agree that a super-strict interpretation of the source is indeed safer.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Phoenix7777: I think the disconnect here is that you haven't read the source in its entirety. The stand-alone page you added cannot be understood without the context of the rest of the source (i.e. the website). I recommend that you spend some time reading about what the agency does, which is easily accessible under the introduction page and other supporting pages, rather than the single page that you're seemingly referring to. Additionally, if you're just referring to the specific page that you linked, it says absolutely nothing about norimaki being the "original" word. It simply says that the word is now considered improper. That assumption you made ultimately constitutes WP:OR.

Finally, you cannot expect me to go out of my way to find sources to disprove the unsourced claim you made. That makes no sense. You would need to add additional sources that actually state the claim you're trying to make, if you want to keep the sentence as it is in the article. Peter, in regards to preserving a strict interpretation of the article, in should be made clear that presently, the source Phoenix added does not, in any way shape or form say that norimaki was the "original" term used. @User:Phoenix7777: Please, if you can, show me where in the source it says "Norimaki was the original term for gimbap", "gimbap was first called norimaki" or something of the sort. If you can, I will gladly revert my position. If not, it should not be included in the article, end of story. I think that this assessment is the most objective way of determining the validity of the content in question, in order to avoid adding personal interpretations of the source content. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion: It has occurred to me that the word "originally" may be the most contentious part of the sentence. Since the sources do not say which term was originally used, or if both were, I suggest that we avoid using the word entirely. My new recommendation is as follows: "The terms gimbap and norimaki were at one point, both used to describe the dish. However, after the end of the occupation period, gimbap alone became standard, as a part of efforts to purify the Korean language." BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is the source supporting "the term Gimbap had originally been used"? Anyway I am willing to compromise the wording of the description. Your proposal is not so bad, if following points are revised.

1. "at one point" is unnecessary because readers may ask when "at one point" is.
2. "after the end of the occupation period" is unnecessary because it implies the term gimbap was existed before the war.

I propose "The terms gimbap and norimaki were both used to describe the dish. However, as part of efforts to purify the Korean language, gimbap alone became standard."―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Including the phrase "at one point" doesn't invite questioning as it used simply to indicate that the action happened exclusively in the past.

If you don't like "at one point", I recommend using "The terms gimbap and norimaki were once both used..." Coming from a native English speaker, it just sounds better.

Using the phrase "after the end of the occupation" doesn't imply that gimbap existed before the war since the previous passage explicitly says, "Gimbap was derived from the introduction of Japanese sushi variant norimaki to Korea during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945)." That leaves no room for ambiguity. It is actually more informative for the reader as it helps imply that this was a movement was a response to the end of the occupation period.

How do you feel about this rewording, "The terms gimbap and norimaki were once both used to describe the dish. However, after the end of the occupation period, gimbap alone became standard, as a part of efforts to purify the Korean language. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No. If you don't like my proposal, I won't compromise on the wording.

Please note that the term norimaki was used from the introduction of the Japanese dish until the language purification movement began. So current description is nothing wrong with it. If you don't like "originally", I will change the description more accurately "Gimbap was called norimaki from the introduction of the Japanese dish until the Language purification movement began." I urge you to accept my proposal and finish this unconstructive discussion.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If I can hear logical reasoning against my proposal, I will consider it. Until then, no, I won't revert it just because you're being stubborn. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Then this discussion was broke off. I tried to make concession, although the current description is legitimate. I won't reply anymore until you provide a source supporting "The terms gimbap and norimaki had originally both been used interchangeably to describe the dish."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Except, that's not the claim in question. I'm challenging your usage of the phrase, "Gimbap was originally called norimaki, however the name was changed as part of the National Language Purification Policy." That's what's in question here.

Let me suggest this, because I'm sick of dragging on this discussion, I am willing to accept your previous proposal with the addition of the word "once", as seen exhibited here: "The terms gimbap and norimaki were once both used to describe the dish. However, as part of efforts to purify the Korean language, gimbap alone became standard."

This compromise removes the "after the occupation part" since that seems to be your main issue with my proposal, and it would end this ridiculously long dispute. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit: And just to be clear, since you appear to be a non-native English speaker, the word "once" in this context simply means that in one period of time, both terms were used. I don't see how inclusion of this word could be contentious. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Original Word"

• The disconnect here has likely been because of what the term "original word" (원어) is referring to. That term is not being used to say that norimaki was the original term for gimbap, but rather that norimaki an original word that is now being eliminated. As such, the source does not say that the term "gimbap" was invented to replace norimaki, but rather that the word was simply eliminated from Korean vocabulary. I hope that helps clear up any confusion.

As such, regarding compromise, if you also take issue with the word "once", then I suggest, "The terms gimbap and norimaki were both used to describe the dish until gimbap alone became standard as part of efforts to purify the Korean language." BlackRanger88 (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content

Phoenix, your refusal to cooperate and find compromise does not excuse the inclusion of blatantly inaccurate information in the article. As such, I will be deleting it. The content in its current form should be restored, if and only if you can find a reliable source that says, "Gimbap was originally called norimaki", "Norimaki was the first word used for gimbap", or something along those lines, as per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Please note that I will consider repeated additions of this same content without verification as vandalism, and will report it as such. Thanks for your understanding. BlackRanger88 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777: The reason I used the term "some Koreans" is because without the term, it makes it sound as though norimaki was the only term used before the linguistic purification movements, which is misleading to say the least. Ultimately, the source does not say that norimaki was the only term used before it was removed from Korean vocabulary, so making the content appear to say as such would be inappropriate. Logically speaking as well, the purification movement wouldn't use a term that none of the populace used before to replace a commonly used term. If you don't like "some Koreans" then I suggest using, "The term norimaki was used by some to..." BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No. The word "some" does not reflect the fact. How about using "along with gimbap"? The sentence will be "The loan word norimaki, which was borrowed from the Japanese dish that was introduced to Korea, was used to describe the dish along with gimbap until..."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That is acceptable. I'll go ahead and add that in. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

there are clingy people lurking on this article keep deleting legitimately referenced facts & logical corollaries from those facts

There are clingy people lurking on this article keep deleting legitimately referenced facts & logical corollaries from those facts. First, there are 2 different theories on Kimbap's origin. They only show 1 side; they delete the other theory. Second, they delete legitimately referenced facts such as how Kimxam doesn't allow cutting. They just delete that kind of referenced fact for no reason. Third, they delete logical corollaries from the new inserted facts (why the other theory is more likely) as if they are opinions instead of logical corollaries. The following is the accurate referenced contents I had added which some lurkers kept deleting.

An example of defensive over-reaching is this post keep being deleted with nonsense like "encyclopedia doesn't count as a reference". Using encyclopedia or not is not up to you to decide; encyclopedia is a legitimate reference on historical facts & academic perception; you are clearly over-reaching & there should be a restraint against this kind's meddling. Many sources are legitimate to verify historical facts & perception. Many different sources can be used as references including newspaper, encyclopedia, etc; they are accepted as valid references in general as a matter of the authenticity making the contents qualified. The sources are reputable; the contents & references are authentic, legitimate, qualified. It is not up to you what sources, what contents, what references are legitimate. What makes them legitimate & qualified is authenticity. If the authenticity is there for facts or perception, then the references are qualified. It is a matter of having an authentic proof. Being an authentic proof makes the reference qualified. It's about proving what is being heard (someone saying), what is being seen, what is being done.

There is a theory that Gimbap was derived from the introduction of Japanese sushi variant norimaki to Korea during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945), In that theory, they say that, since then, gimbap has become a distinct dish, often utilizing traditional Korean flavors, as well as sesame oil, instead of rice vinegar. The loan word norimaki, which was borrowed from the Japanese dish that was introduced to Korea, was used along with the term gimbap to describe the dish until gimbap was made the universal term, as part of efforts to purify the Korean language.

There is also another theory (if you look up references, you can find both types of references) that Kimbob originated from Korea and that Japan adopted this culture from Korea. This seems more likely for the reasons shown later. In this case, the term Norimaki would be the loanword borrowed from Korea. Here, the culture of Kimxam is focused. Kim means seaweed; bob means rice; xam/ssam means wrap. Since Norimaki means seaweed wrap, this is a direct translation of the traditional Korean food Bokxam which included Kimxam. Kimxam traditionally consisted of rice and vegetables wrapped with Kim. This is not really eaten today, but it had been eaten even until Japanese occupation. Of course, there is no proof that today's Kimbob derived from Kimxam. However, there is no proof that it didn't neither. Also, the similarities are striking like the concept of wrapping rice & other ingredients in it. Quoting from Korean Central Research Institute, "김밥의 일본 유래설보다 고유음식설이 보다 설득력을 얻고 있다. [네이버 지식백과] 김밥 (한국민족문화대백과, 한국학중앙연구원)", "Korean origin is more persuasive than Japanese origin for Kimbob. (Korean Ethnicity Culture Encyclopedia, Korean Central Research Institute)".

Now, aside from Kimbob having no proof to have derived from Kimxam, there is a proof that Futomaki derived from Kimxam. Kimxam has been recorded to have prohibited cutting. Quoting from Korean Culture Encyclopedia, "김쌈을 싸는 김은 칼로 자르지 않고 통김을 그대로 올리며, 상위에서 손으로 대충대충 잘라서 쌈을 싼다. 칼로 자르면 벼 모가지 자르는 것이라 하여 삼간다.", "Kimxam's Kim is not cut with a knife. It is ripped with hand roughly. Cutting is prohibited as this is considered as cultivating." Futomaki has the same culture. So, when we are looking at Futomaki & Kimxam, we have these unique same traits: 1. no cutting. 2. rice & vegetables wrapped together. 3. 5~6 ingredients massively packed together. Even if assuming the other traits to be coincidence, the unique act of prohibiting cutting shows that Futomaki has to be from Kimxam. This means Kimbob is from Kimxam.

Norimaki is a generic term. If we look at a specific type, Kimbob can be compared to Futomaki. Kimbob was likely before Futomaki. Maki is different from Kimbob while Futomaki (Maki's origin) is the same. Futomaki was traditional in only 1 Japanese region, Kansai, during the evening of the Setsubun festival. Kimbob & Kimxam were national in Korea. It is logical for Futomaki (which existed in only 1 region in Japan) to have copied from Korean Kimbob & Kimxam that were spread nationwide. It is illogical for Korean Kimbob to have searched & copied what existed in only 1 Japanese region, not nation-wide. Futomaki is similar to Kimbob in ingredients like 5~6 ingredients packed together (massive ingredients is a key feature) with meat or tuna. This is essentially the same form as Kimxam except that Kimxam seems to have been in a rectangular brick form. Kimbob is related to Futomaki (existed only in 1 region in Japan), not regular Maki (spread nationwide in Japan by editing Futomaki).

The most important things about Japanese Maki is that all Japanese Maki evolved from uncut Futomaki & that Futomaki existed in only 1 small region in Japan & that Futomaki is new in Japan. Futomaki was traditional only in the Kansai region during the Setsubun festival. By 2000, this spread to all of Japan; the other Maki types started from Futomaki. Futomaki was called Ehomaki (lucky direction Maki) because it composed of 7 ingredients. 7 is not a traditional lucky number in East Asia. Hence, such name shows that Futomaki is very new to Japan. The Korean references are also important; the absence of old records in Japan is also important.