Talk:Sushi

Differences between Japanese and Western sushi

"adding wasabi to soy sauce is a disaster." citation #19...I dunno, but it seems like this is too much of an opinion, and shouldn't be used considered reliable....75.72.221.172 (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that...it might be nice to put in some context about what is often done by Westerners in contradistinction as to inside Japan. --C S (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. But like what? I can think of nothing

. Oda Mari (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I know many Americans (and I think Europeans) add wasabi to the soy sauce dish; they think this is the traditional Japanese way. I can probably source that...I remember seeing several articles on things like "sushi etiquette" written in newspapers and such. Many Westerners also think that sushi is supposed to be eaten with chopsticks. They are shocked when they see someone (like Japanese) pick up sushi with their hand. Humorously, when I tell Japanese people about this, they are shocked, because they didn't know Westerners could use chopsticks. :-/ --C S (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't think that adding wasabi to the soy source dish is a matter of etiquette. Maybe it's a matter of ignorance or preference. There's no need to do so, you know. Because wasabi is already in the sushi supposed to be needed wasabi like raw fish toppings or kappamaki. When eating sashimi, people add wasabi to the soy source dish and there's a word, wasabi-joyu. I think most of Japanese do not care how others eat sushi. Oda Mari (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably worth mentioning that sushi in the US (and perhaps other countries) has no or little wasabi in it. The customer decides how much to use, mixing it in the soy sauce. (Also, probably not appropriate for this article, but the difference between nama-wasabi and the wasabi paste (neri?) is worthy of note in connection with wasabi.) Wakablogger2 (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted tabbing. There are good and suitable combinations of toppings and wasabi or.... It is said wasabi is suitable for almost raw fish. But, grated ginger is for Ika, Aji, Iwashi etc, instead. Ikura, gyoku etc. are served without wasabi. So if you add wasabi to the soy sauce dish, the taste will be complicated and bad...--Kurosuke88 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Complicated" and "bad" are not really objective terms when talking about food. You can argue what is and what is not traditional among the Japanese, but you cannot argue that adding some condiment will make food taste "bad", especially when lots of people do it. Some people like rotten cheese; some love raw fish... others think those things are disgusting. Do you see my point? 190.191.247.20 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The etiquette section now isn't clear whether it's describing Japanese or Western etiquette. I don't think I've ever seen people in Japan mix wasabi and soy sauce, or seen a Japanese chef make nigirizushi too big to eat in one bite, both of which the section says are common.

Since "etiquette" means the rules about what one is supposed to do, rather than what people actually do (that would be "practice"), I think this section should be modified to reflect the differences between Japanese and Western etiquette, and indicate how common practice differs from those rules. --Bigpeteb (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"IMHO, I don't think that adding wasabi to the soy source dish is a matter of etiquette." Indeed, it goes against etiquette. Of course, etiquette is subjective, but it's safe to say that it's historically not the way to do it. It's true that a lot of Westerners do it, in part because wasabi is almost always not on the sushi itself but on a separate dish. "The customer decides how much to use, mixing it in the soy sauce." This isn't done so people can decide for themselves how much wasabi to add to the soy sauce, though :) It's done so they can put the wasabi on the sushi themselves. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As a Westerner, I've never heard of this piece of "etiquette". You are supposed to do with wasabi whatever you want, and nobody at the restaurant -- not even when the owner or waiters are of Japanese origin -- tells you otherwise. I've seen people put wasabi in the soy sauce, on top of the sushi, and on both at the same time. So at least in the West, there is no etiquette about it. I'm fully willing to believe in Japan there is, but sushi has long gone beyond Japanese customs (some sushi that has become popular was not even created in Japan!) 201.231.81.53 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good coverage of differences between Western and Japanese sushi generally would be good (e.g. a large amount, perhaps even a majority, of American sushi has avocado and mayonnaise as ingredients, due to the continent-wide influence of California roll and other American adaptations of sushi to U.S. palates). The article need not restrict itself to etiquette differences. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Uramaki in Japan

Uramaki has not been so popular in Japan and almost of maki-mino is not uramaki because it is easy to hold maki-mono with nori skin by fingers. Howeer, since a part of western people hate the black impression of maki-mono with nori skin, then uramaki becomes popular in western countries than nori-skined maki-mono. (by Kurosuke)

Interesting explanation - can anyone find a citation to back this up? For now I've replaced it with "...is not as popular in Japan." Cammy (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the citation. See the bottom section of this page. Oda Mari (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks correcting and finding citation. I am Japanese who loves sushi. I am interested in the difference of sushi/other culture between Japan and other countries. Sometimes I go to sushi bar in US and other countries when my trips. While I will add new information in [en] wikipedia, please inspect and correct the English in my editing, thanks.--Kurosuke (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercury as a health risk

Not sure if this has been brought up previously, but mercury poisoning is associated with eating some types of fish, irrespective of whether they are eaten raw or cooked. This isn't a health concern restricted to eating raw fish. I have modified the section's lead accordingly.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. --Tom140996 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New Link

I want to add www.sushievening.com - over 70 sushi recipes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrolek (talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have an external link I think should be added too. http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/main/fish/seafood/sushi-glossary.asp It's a really extensive glossary of types of sushi and sashimi, and related terms. IceAgeHeatWave (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Health risks - doesn't make sense to me...?

Many sushi restaurants offer fixed-price sets, selected by the chef from the catch of the day. These are often graded as shō-chiku-bai (松竹梅), shō/matsu (松, pine), chiku/take (竹, bamboo) and bai/ume (梅, ume), with matsu the most expensive and ume the cheapest.

The reference to matsu at the end is confusing as it isn't in the list of 3 grades preceding it. Are there more grades? Ride the Hurricane (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is in the list. Read the second line carefully. Anyway, I copy edited it. Oda Mari (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought twice and self reverted. Oda Mari (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the development of the human ear, is that the sashimi interferes with the natural horomonal growth process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.128.5 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

whale

whale is used in sushi some times, though not legally in some places. why isnt it on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Raw fish infection

I've removed the raw fish infection diagram, which I note is in several other articles already. Per the sourced content on the page, there are fewer than 40 such infections annually in the US, so as a weight matter it does not belong. Further, to add in an English encyclopedia a graphic depiction of health risks of eating what is considered an ethnic food does project a bit of cultural prejudice or ignorance. There are health risks of all kinds of food - for example, eating hamburgers (which are supposed to be cooked to medium rare, meaning not fully) creates some risk of tapeworms. Eating egg dishes can cause salmonella. Are we going to add an image of tapeworms to the hamburger article? How about obesity pictures to the fried chicken article? Those are much more common health risks. Anyway, the information is already there in the articles this one links to. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sushi "high"

I'm wondering if anyone has any references for a phenomenon which I'll call a sushi "high". It occurs to my girlfriend every time she eats sushi - she gets these blissful sensations and gets incredibly giddy. I find the change in behaviour quite dramatic and it only happens when she consumes large quantities of sushi (mainly nigiri). Any ideas? Obviously it's not a problem, but I'd like to hear an explanation, and if it has a reference I think it should definitely go into the article. Thanks! --79.152.120.25 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a sushi "high". Your girlfriend just enjoys eating it, I guess. 201.231.81.53 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Glossary

The glossary does not include the various types of what an american would call "sushi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.67.219 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems strange that both Oaiso and Okanjou are listed in the glossary of specialized terms used in the sushi culture. I wonder why my version was undid. Okanjou (or Okanjō is more consistant in this article's romanization) is just a standard Japanese and also the explanation "Customer should not say Oaiso." should be done at the dot point of Oaiso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.130.9 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a recording of the French pronunciation of "sushi"?

This is an English-language page, about a Japanese food, so why is there an audio file of a French pronunciation? Any objection to removing it as being irrelevant? Bigpeteb (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the pronunciation? Is there any difference between a French and an English pronunciation? Is there an audio file of en pronunciation? Oda Mari (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the pronunciations are different, and this is totally irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.31.16 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nyotaimori

I removed the nyotaimori description. It's inappropriate at here.

1. It's not only a standard presentation, but also it's a food play.
2. Not available at any restaurant. Not existent in sushi restaurants in Japan. This page says "Even so, it is not commonplace or even socially acceptable, happening mostly in sex clubs and at gatherings for organized criminals." [1] See also [2].
3. There is no historical records in ja that says this is a traditional custom in Japan. [3] A lot of en sites say it's a Japanese custom, but they don't have any source. Oda Mari (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your criticisms. For references, here is the text I added, the last paragraph in the section on Presentation.

Nyotaimori is about sushi, as is this article; my first reference was to a book on sushi, so it is appropriate.[4] It does not matter whether Nyotaimori (a) refers to food play, (b) is available at restaurants, (the New York Times reference [5] I gave refers directly to a Japanese restaurant) (c) is organised by organized criminals (d) or is part of Japanese culture. My description did not mention any of these.

Nyotaimori is notable. And it is directly relevant to sushi. My description was factual and, non-salacious, and did not include any non-referenced material. --Iantresman (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the title is "presentation", the section deals with the style of sushi restaurants. And customers order sushi or choose sushi on a plate there. Presentation is not an item customer to order/choose. Your addition looks like there are lots of nyotaimori sushi restaurants. If there are many restaurants serving only nyotaimori, it should be included. But actually there are not. If there are so many, nyotaimori restaurants would be prohibited as it's insanitary. [6] Furthermore, nyotaimori is not a presentation of sushi. It's a presentation of a human body. The selling point of Nyotaimori catering in the US and European countries is the human body platter, not sushi. The combination can be described as naked body and food. Sushi is just an accompaniment and it can be replaceable with other food like cakes, canapé type appetizers, etc. Nyotaimori is a kind of a bachelor party idea. It is not a Japanese tradition/custom nor a standard way to eat sushi. It is a food play categorized as sex related culture, not in a food category. The article is about sushi as food, not a toy, and ordinary sushi restaurants. That is why it's irrelevant. As for notability, the link to the main article in the See also section is sufficient.
Schultz's book says "A longstanding tradition that dates back to feudal Japan," and NYT says "Nyotaimori is associated, in legend at least, with Japanese organized crime, but solid facts on its origins are extraordinarily difficult to pin down. " And Chicago Sun Times says "the practice is a centuries-old tradition in Japan, done these days at high-end restaurants. "[7] Please explain the differences. They don't provide sources, and they are unreliable. Though you didn't use the information, I don't think it's appropriate to use them as RS at the same time because of their different description on the origin. Those pages include unsourced information and they are possible factual errors. Oda Mari (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The text can be moved to another section if the "presentation" section is not suitable. If there are not lots of nyotaimori-style restaurants, then it's easy to re-phrase it. If some consider nyotaimori to be insanitary, we can say so. I agree, it's not standard, we can say so.

Either way, nyotaimori is notable. I provided 4 references including the New York Times. Additionally, there is Britain's Telegraphy newspaper[8], the Daily News of Los Angeles [9], reported by Fox News [10], the Chicago Tribune [11], another from the New York Times [12], Singapore's Strait Times [13] plus the notable TV series, Masterchef (see YouTube clip at 5:15).

So let's work out how we're going to word the text and where to include it. --Iantresman (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it merits more than a listing under the "See also" section, if even that. Note that it's already present at Template:Sushi. — Myasuda (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised the nyotaimri is in Template:Sushi so I removed it from the template. User:Iantresman and User:Myasuda, thank you for remind me that ridiculous edit. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should be removing nyotaimri from the template while the discussion is in progress, just because you personally consider it ridiculous. The New York Times did not consider it ridiculous, and neither did several other newspapers, a TV show, and several books on sushi. --Iantresman (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd heard of this "practice" as something depicted in some film. Of course all sorts of things are depicted in films; often their outlandishness (an ejector seat in James Bond's car, etc) constitutes much of their charm.

I looked at one or two of the sources proffered. The NYT presents it as a kind of "adult" entertainment. This reminded me of something a (good looking) friend of mine had told me about a modeling competition: she and the others had been asked to do some "rock climbing" (presumably indoor) in stiletto heels. If I had a source for that, should I create a paragraph about it within a discussion about footwear for rock climbing?

Are there any estimates for the percentage of sushi meals that are served off human (or other) bodies? My uneducated guess is that it's 1^−6% or below. The way it's presented in this article gives the impression that it's 5% or above. Would you care to improve on my guess and impression, Iantresman? -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing in the text to suggest how frequently nyotaimri takes place. But if you feel that without indicating, it gave the impression of disproportionate use, then by all means qualify it. There is no dispute that nyotaimri is uncommon, but the dozen or so references demonstrate that it is notable. --Iantresman (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's try a straw poll to decide once and for all. I've put in an RfC below. --Iantresman (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Nyotaimori: Novelty naked sushi serving

Should the article on sushi mention: Nyotaimori (Japanese: 女体盛り, "female body presentation"), often referred to as "body sushi," the practice of serving sashimi or sushi from the body of a woman, typically naked. Nantaimori (Japanese: 男体盛り) refers to the same practice using a male model. References: (1) The Sushi Book 2007 (2) tokyoreporter.com 2009 (3) New York Times 2007 (4) Telegraph 2009 (5) Daily News of Los Angeles 2008 (6) Fox News 2008 (7) Chicago Tribune 2005 (8) New York Times 2008 (9) Singapore's Strait Times 2011 (10) US Masterchef (11) Sushi And Beyond book 2010 (12) Plus the references in the article on Nyotaimori. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It may be an uncommon novelty, but the dozen or so references seem to suggest notability. --Iantresman (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is not for your benefit after four years indefinite block[14] to dispute in this article. I suggest you to leave from this article at least a month to cool down. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You puzzle me. How does Iantresman seem uncool, what has his benefit got to do with any of this, and how has an earlier block got to do with any of this? -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is puzzling for any person when if the user had problems in editing of five times of blocks resulting the indefinite block.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I can't quite manage to parse this. Meanwhile, I'll make guesses. Are you saying that somebody who was blocked five times, or blocked indefinitely, should not start an RfC? (If so, where's the policy or guideline that says this?) Are you saying that Iantresman is exhibiting behavior that shows a need to cool down? (If so, what?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Hoary, why are you desperate to defend the user? The user is currently unblocked under the probation. I just expressed a friendly warning to the user. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't want to defend the user or to censure him, and I'm not aware of any desperation. He's requesting comments. I don't understand why this request should bring a warning, even a friendly one. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Iantresman has engaged in good faith discussion in the topic and presented WP:RS to support their argument and simply been unable to reach consensus with other editors; an RFC is entirely appropriate. 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment on sources (1) Aha, Celeste Heiter says that it's "a longstanding tradition that dates back to feudal Japan". (Meanwhile, Schultz is the photographer.) What makes Heiter think so? She doesn't say. Here's her profile. There's nothing within it to suggest that she knows anything about Japanese culinary history. (2) Link gives an error message. (3) Seems to show that it goes on in W Hollywood. As for its allegedly Japanese origin, there's a speculation by this fellow, whose speciality seems to be theater. (4) Seems to show that it goes on in London; the claim that it "has been the preserve of the Japanese elite for generations" comes with no supporting evidence. (5) Link gives me an error message. (6) Oh dear, are people taking "Fox News" seriously? My favorite nugget within this one: "The ritual known in Japanese as 'Nyotaimori' (which means 'female body presentation') originated in Japan hundreds of years ago as part of the geisha scene, historians say." Oh yes? Which historians, and where do they say this? (7) This appears to show that this goes on in Chicago. (8) Seems to show that it goes on in NYC. (9) A minor source for a claim that this is done in Singapore, but a decent one. (10) It's a Youtube, which I can't watch. Can a Youtube be cited? (11) I haven't seen Sushi and Beyond and thus can't comment. (12) Which one? -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to compare these references, to the same standard as those that are already in the article. e.g. [1] "Sushi Encyclopedia" which looks like a personal website with no substantiating references. A reference to (3) the Guardian newspaper[15], and two (19)(23) to others in the New York Times. I think we'll find that very few of the authors of the references in the article can substantiate their knowledge of "Japanese culinary history". BTW, YouTube is not given as a reference, but the US series of Masterchef, of which a clip is available on YouTube. --Iantresman (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd never heard of "Masterchef" but it sounds daft (MasterChef is a 2010 American competitive cooking reality show, open to amateur and home chefs). I don't understand how it could be used as a source for anything. ¶ Yes, certainly one should be evenhandedly stringent in sourcing. Feel free to remove any other reference that cites mere bloggery, reality shows, and suchlike. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're striving to get all our references to be peer-reviewed, but the MasterChef reference contributes towards demonstrating that Nyotaimori is notable enough to be included in a family TV programme. --Iantresman (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, it does seem that eating sashimi or sushi or both off the skin of live humans is a newsworthy practice in certain nations. (As for Japan, an unreliable source tells me that yes, sashimi has been eaten like this.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yes, the practice is done in Japan (also referred to in the West as "body sushi"), but it's very rare as pointed out in [16]. However, we're not debating the notability of nyotaimori, which already has its own wikipedia article. We're debating the extent to which it merits mention in this article. As noted in the link I provided, the practice is "very rare", in which case I can't see it meriting more than a "See also" link (at most). An apt comparison is that while there are a handful of people that enjoy eating a peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich, the article peanut butter does not emphasize this unusual combination, and simply has a "See also" link to "peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich" for those who might be interested. — Myasuda (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• See also As Nyotaimori is notable enough to have its own article and related to sushi, some connection is appropriate. As the evidence presented indicates it is not a particularly common practice simply including it in the See Also is sufficient.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Because it is a food play. Whipped cream, chocolate syrup, and wakame are mentioned in the food play article. But those three articles do not mention about the play and are not even linked to the food play article. Why only nyotaimori? Oda Mari (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Leave as a "see also"; don't mention further, per Myasuda. But a pile of howevers: Motivation: I've no reason to think that the addition wasn't in good faith or that the objection to it wasn't in good faith. If the section on serving were much longer then this might even be a good addition. Sourcing: I can (and did) quibble with some of the sources that have been adduced, but even after removing those that I think are problematic, the proposed addition is pretty well sourced and is outstandingly well sourced by the standards of this article. (By contrast, consider the section on nori, for example.) Lubricity: Iantresman says above that My description was factual and, non-salacious and I think this is true. Possible "ad hominem" stuff: I find the "friendly warning" above. A friendly warning could just as easily have been placed on the user's talk page. It's hard not to think that this was intended to tell people: "There are two sides to this dispute, and one of the two is associated with an indefinite block." Except that the indefinite block has finished, and it appears to have been irrelevant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Do not mention here at all per Oda Mari. I'll bet we can find numerous sources verifying the existence and even social significance of naughtily shaped cakes. Nevertheless the cake article doesn't include these in a comprehensive treatment of cake shapes. Wasn't it someone's law that no matter how innocuous the topic, someone, somewhere will have a porn site related to that topic? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See also As Nyotaimori is notable enough to have its own article and is clearly related to sushi, some connection is appropriate. Hiding it, would be close to censoring. It is not a major element of sushi, so it is good enough to mention it in the "See also"-section. On the other hand, the remark by Phoenix7777 about the block is completely inappropriate! Where I live, they call that backstabbing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also only Users wanting to investigate this topic might well start at the Sushi article, since the term Nyotaimori is much more obscure (certainly to English-speakers). Having a "See also" link would be helpful to them. However, as a fringe activity, and not one directly related to the convetional preperation and consumption of sushi, this doesn't belong within the article body. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've been waiting for some consensus to appear, and think we now have it. Of those who indicated a preference, we have:

• 1 in favour of included a description in the article
• 2 oppose any mention in the article
• 3 suggest a mention in only the "See also" section
• 2 comments which don't appear to have a preference

If I change my suggestion of included text in the article, to also mentioning a link in the "See also" section, then we have 2:1 in favour of a "See also" link. I'll add a link, and note that consensus can change over time. --Iantresman (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A case of the "Fuji-yama" or "Crazy Japan" syndrome. I think mentioning it in the "see also" is fine, but it's important to point out (in the nyotaimori article perhaps) that it isn't verified anywhere that it is an actual Japanese tradition. 126.59.94.251 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed an original research by User:Iantresman

User:Iantresman picked three old articles/picture and edited as if they were the oldest account referencing to the sushi in the West, adding an original research "One of the earliest reports of sushi in Britain". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my removed text,[17] I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

• My reference to the 1929 London Times article, does not claim it is the oldest account. But it is an old account. It has been originally sourced by me, but it is not original research, I have not introduced nor "synthesized" information that was not there.
• Likewise, the 1953 British report is one of the earliest reports of sushi in Britain (you can check that yourself by looking at various news sources). At the very least we can say that sushi was known/reported in Britain in the 1950s.
• And finally, the 1953 US report itself credits Prince Akihito with introducing sushi to US officials. Is it THE earliest? I don't know, but the report still credits the Prince.

If you compare what I say, with statements that are already in the article, and their sources, I see that we boldly claim, for example, in the first sentence in "History" that "The original type of sushi, known today as nare-zushi (馴れ寿司, 熟寿司), was first developed in Southeast Asia, and spread to south China before introduction to Japan". The source appears to be a personal website called "Sushi History". I don't think the source is very reliable (it has no references itself), and I don't think that the Wikipedia statement is accurate -- the very page referenced also says that "It does not exactly known still now when and how sushi came to Japan".

In other words, we are not being consistent in how we are assessing our sources, and the conclusions drawn. --Iantresman (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the addition said:

British readers were introduced to sushi in a 1929 London Times article,[ref] "A Dinner In Japan." Times [London, England] 23 Apr. 1929: 19. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 18 Dec. 2011.[/ref] which describes a dinner in Japan: [...]

One of the earliest reports of sushi in Britain, occurred when the then Prince Akihito (明仁, b, 1933) visited Queen Elizabeth II during her Coronation in May 1953.[ref]30th May 1953 "Japanese women eating sushi whilst they wait to catch a glimpse of Prince Akihito, in England as a coronation guest of the Queen]", photographer John Chillingworth, Picture Post at Getty Images[/ref][ref]"Prince Akihito Eats and Runs at Own Soiree", Chicago Daily Tribune, May 4, 1953, page 22[/ref] Later in September 1953, Prince Akihito is credited with introducing sushi to Americans at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, hosted by Ambassador Eikichi Araki ((新木栄吉 1891 – 1959).[ref]"US Officials Know of Sushi Thanks to Japanese Prince" The Milwaukee Journal - Sep 11, 1935[/ref]

I count four sources, not three. "Introduced" may suggest "first introduced", but does not entail it. To reduce the risk of being misunderstood as "first introduced", it can simply be reworded; e.g. "British readers had an early exposure to sushi [...]."

So where's the "original research", Phoenix7777? -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Iantresman, You are saying as if "there are many robbers unarrested, so why me?" As I said above, it is inappropriate to list the oldest news simply found in Google news search as a history. It is an original research and misleading as if it is really the oldest mention of the sushi. So I propose a compromise to add your news in a subsection "Appearances in media in the West" chronologically without any comments like "One of the earliest reports". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the robbers analogy. I have no problem with a rewording or replacing of the sentence "One of the earliest reports" , though I disagree that "one of the earliest reports" is the same as "the oldest report". --Iantresman (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've re-introduced the text in a subsection. Please feel free to note any more text that you feel needs changing. --Iantresman (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I think your edit is appropriate. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I just discover the earliest reference to sushi in the Oxford English Dictionary, so I've added that, and also a couple of sources that pre-date it, so I mentioned those too. I don't think I've made any improper claims about them, but let me know if you think otherwise. --Iantresman (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with your edits. I admire your research capability. I hope you think my objection to your initial edit is legitimate after you found the more earlier mention of sushi. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly regarding the phrasing, but we got there in the end. Thank you for your input. --Iantresman (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Japanese script

The article has a lot of Japanese script. Often, I don't know why. Example:

The contemporary version, internationally known as "sushi", was created by Hanaya Yohei (華屋与兵衛; 1799–1858) at the end of the Edo period in Edo.

I'd make that:

The contemporary version, internationally known as "sushi", was created by Hanaya Yohei at the end of the Edo period in Edo.

Anyone wanting to know the kanji for his name, or his other vital statistics, can simply click on the link to his article.

Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it certainly makes sense to remove the kanji. I think Japanese readers will generally be reading the Japanese version of Wikipedia, and as you say, can always check the Japanese in the appropriate article. I wonder whether there are any style guidelines elsewhere?

With regard to the vital dates, I do think that this can provide some context. If sushi was created by Hanaya Yohei (1799–1858), it gives you a general date of when sushi must have been created? --Iantresman (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is simple. See MOS:JAPAN#Using Japanese in the article body. It says "If the word is linked to an article which includes the Japanese script, then, Japanese characters are unnecessary in the original article,..." I am a bit surprised Hoary doesn't know this guideline. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know the guideline either, so thank you for the pointer. Wikipedia has a lot of guidelines. --Iantresman (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Phoenix7777, I did know the guideline. -- Hoary (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "umami"

According to this article, "umami" is defined as the five basic tastes. This is incorrect. "Umami" is "savoriness" and is one of the five basic tastes, including sweet, sour, bitter, and salty. (see Umami Wiki article)(75.65.220.111 (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

Meat sushi

User:126.59.94.251 recently inserted a picture caption claiming that meats such as pork and beef are common sushi toppings. I reverted it - it was unsourced, I've never encountered such a thing, and there's no mention of it in the article text - but have since discovered a couple of passing mentions of such "meat sushi" on the web. If it exists, should we not have article text on it, rather than just a picture caption? There's a mention of Sakuraniku in the List of sushi and sashimi ingredients, but that appears to be the only reference on Wikipedia to this dish.

Bringing the idea here for discussion first, since I suspect many other sushi enthusiasts who haven't encountered meat sushi would revert such an addition if it was implanted without consensus. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a clarification, I didn't say they're common, I said "not uncommon" (and added "in Japan" for clarification). They're more common in places that specialize in meat than places that specialize in sushi, with the exception of kaitenzushi - look up any Japanese kaitenzushi online you'll see almost all of them have meat-related sushis on the menu. A few examples of toppings I've encountered: boneless beef shortribs (karubi), cow tongue (gyutan), ham, pork belly (butabara). Toppings that are associated with kaitenzushi and children's menus: "hamburg" (beef patty), sausage, tonkatsu. 126.59.94.251 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to give you a clue how common it is, here are a few menus from a couple of Japanese kaitenzushi restaurants - I checked 7 menus, all but one (kura zushi) had 1 or more meat nigirizushi on the menu. Gatten Gourmet Kaitenzushi Shintake Kaiten Akindo Sushiro- Genki Sushi Kappa Zushi Choushimaru Sushi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.59.94.251 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference removal

I've removed two references (one of them for a second time) which link to what appears to be personal websites. I can find no references within the sites, and no indication of authorship, so I can't ascertain whether these are reliable sources. I think that a case needs to be made to include them, which I current feel is not being met. --Iantresman (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)