From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Differences between Japanese and Western sushi[edit]

"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.... (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of 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? (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. (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!) (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(Õلō Contribs. 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are at a sushi restaurant in Japan, the sushi you have in front of you is the chef's show case of the entire career. (If you are eating the market-bought version that is not the case: who cares how you ate it? I am discussing about the real sushi with real human energy.) It is proper to show appreciation of his/her energy and skill he (or she) put in. Why don't you be humble and ask the chef how it should be appreciated? However, as far as I am aware of the manners with sushi consumption, it was considered impolite to just start by mixing wasabi and soy sauce. That discussion was on and off TV, and was discussed at my Ikenobo Flower Arrangement Classes. The materials the sushi chefs use and the flower arrangement students use are different, but the principles are the same. They told me to always "try as is, first" and then you can make it as you like. As a Japanese, I consider mixing wasabi into soy sauce to be rather unsophisticated, as it is done by young children who just are learning to eat wasabi. (Little children are not served sushi with wasabi, at all.) Just as you need skills to produce sell-able sushi, you need skills to eat it properly.
Trying as it is served first, without dipping with soy sauce is most appropriate, for it shows you appreciate the chef's art as he made it. If you need to intensify the flavor, however, you should carefully pick the wasabi from the small pile just the right amount you want and place it on your piece of sushi, and then dip into soy sauce separately to consume. That way, the soy sauce stays fresh longer, the sushi won't fall apart because of over dipping, and you have full control of the amount of spice. I usually use hand to eat sushi, but use chop sticks to pick the wasabi for a better dexterity. --Yoshie Pomerville (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about contemporary Japanese, but in my family, the old normal way was to smear wasabi under the fish, and dip the fish side into soy sauce. The wasabi in the shoyu practice seems to be an American thing that I first saw in the late 1990s. I didn't know what to make of it. (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the traditional Japanese eats sushi but here in western , I have seen that lots of people mix wasabi in soy sauce and have raw fish ( sashimi) . And I , myself have mine the same way and it tastes good so I do not see the reason of becoming disaster just by adding wasabi in soy sauce. MikiShwee (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Uramaki in Japan[edit]

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 " 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[edit]

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[edit]

I want to add - over 70 sushi recipes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrolek (talkcontribs) 19:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have an external link I think should be added too. 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...?[edit]

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 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


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

Raw fish infection[edit]

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)

Sorry, eating raw hamburger in the U.S. carries VERY little risk of infection with Taenia saginata, the beef tapeworm. This is because USDA personnel examines the carcasses at the slaughterhouse for the characteristic cyst that can be seen in the animal's meat with the naked eye. Infected meat is called, "measly beef" and the carcass is condemned. You've got an article about it on Wikipedia. Animal husbandry practices in the U.S. also make it almost impossible for cattle to become infected with T. saginata. Read the lifecycle of the parasite. Health Depts. consider it risky to eat raw hamburger in the U.S. because of the chance that the meat is infected with E.coli O157:H7 that causes (sometimes) hemorrhagic colitis. You've got an article on that too. Really, before you start making misinformed statements about parasites and microbes in general I suggest you read the articles available on Wikipedia or in any parasitology text. --Heather Smith, MPH, MLS(ASCP), CLS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sushi "high"[edit]

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! -- (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

That's just about the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.


The glossary does not include the various types of what an american would call "sushi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


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[edit]

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) 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  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. (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed an original research by User:Iantresman[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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)( (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

Meat sushi[edit]

User: 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  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. (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 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, cooked meat is commonly seen as a topping at kaitenzushi restaurants.--ImizuCIR (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC) By 'common', I mean you will often see at least one going around the conveyor belt, though seafood is, of course, more common. --ImizuCIR (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Some random links showing off pork sushi (though beef and of course horse meat probably are much more common): JPNEX (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference removal[edit]

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)

I've removed a reference, also for the second time.[18] My criticism remains unchanged. I can find nothing that indicates that the website provided has any kind of authority. It provides no references itself, and I can not be sure that the page itself has not been just made up. ie. I am not confident that this is a reliable source. --Iantresman (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Western sushi[edit]

that western sushi list is terrible! what is that, the menu off some manhattan establishment?

Indeed, there really aren't many widespread "Western" sushi items. I've eaten lots of sushi in various parts of the US and apart from the ubiquitous California roll never seen any of the items on that list. Zoicon5 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

far and away the MOST common one in the "west" is SPAM MUSUBI, which isn't even on the list! that's a staple in hawaii, some parts of the west coast, and the one routinely cited by japanese -- both tourists and back in japan -- as how we've mangled their cuisine.

one also occasionally sees "hot dog maki" and "teri-chicken maki" (perhaps as "teri-chiki maki"). in hawaii at least.

even in japan, there are things like "tsuna-maki" (cooked tuna w mayo [as opposed to maguro]) and sake/shake-maki (similar, but with salmon) which strike me as inherently "western". did these backwash in a previous generation?

article should take into account day-to-day sushi found in lunches, picnics, supermarkets and convenience stores. not just all the high-end stuff. (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Spam musubi is not sushi. Hawaiian fusion sushi needs its own section. It's emergence is distinct from the development of "rock and roll sushi." If anything, it should fall under a Japanese American community sushi category.

Also, it would be good to touch on Korean and Taiwan styles of sushi, as a large number of sushi shops are Korean or Taiwan style, and are in the US to satisfy the demands of older Korean and Taiwan immigrants. There also seems to be developing a Thai variation on Japanese sushi, and some people are attempting Mexican fusions. These aren't really Western Sushi, but they are a kind of extra-Japan sushi present in the west. (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: English Wiki[edit]

This page is incredibly hard to understand for someone (like me) who has little knowledge of sushi, due to the amount of Japanese words that are just dropped without explanation. A few selections:

"The original type of sushi, known today as nare-zushi"-->What is that?

"Chirashizushi (ちらし寿司, "scattered sushi") is a bowl of sushi rice topped with a variety of sashimi and garnishes (also refers to barazushi)...It is eaten annually on Hinamatsuri in March."-->Okay, so we defined the main term, that's good, but then we dropped 3 new ones on me.

"During the evening of the Setsubun festival...Futomaki are often vegetarian, and may utilize strips of cucumber, kampyō gourd, takenoko bamboo shoots, or lotus root. Strips of tamagoyaki omelette, tiny fish roe, chopped tuna, and oboro whitefish flakes are typical non-vegetarian fillings"-->Another holiday, and another bunch of vegetables, several of which I have no context for.

I'm not even halfway down the page yet. Basically, I'm saying it would be nice if, when you introduce a new word, you include a parenthetical explaining, in basic terms, what it means. Obviously, if I want to know what a "tamagoyaki omelette" is in detail, I'm going to follow the link--though some, like "takenoko," don't even have that--but if I just want to know about sushi, having all of these unfamiliar words doesn't really explain anything to me. Also, I would be on the lookout for any word that can be removed entirely, as it's maybe not strictly necessary to know the exact type of bamboo, any more than we need to define exactly what species we mean by "carrots," unless on the article for "carrots." (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Inter-wiki links may be valuable there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Etiquette: Chopsticks vs. hands, wasabi mixed with soy sauce, etc.[edit]

I have found several links on the web that disagree regarding the use of hands vs. chopsticks. Some seem to be from Nipponophiles who have ritualized the dining experience according to their perceptions of the way it should be done in Japan, and they vehemently say sushi is only eaten by hand, you don't mix wasabi and soy sauce, etc. Others are more relaxed, and I have read posts on message boards from Japanese-Americans who variously say that older Japanese ate with their hands, while the younger generation has started using chopsticks, or that sushi as sold from a street vendor is eaten with the hands, but with hands OR chopsticks at restaurants.

I have heard the etiquette for dipping the sushi (nigiri sushi?) in the soy sauce involves rotating it so that the fish is dipped, not the rice. The mentions I've seen of this usually involve chopsticks, not hands.

Regarding the wasabi and soy sauce, I have heard that the chef places wasabi under the fish (nigiri sushi) and that it is insulting to 'adjust' the flavor. On the other hand, I have also heard that in America, many chefs do NOT add wasabi (because their 'crude' American diners don't understand that it should already be added.) I have eaten sushi many times (at reasonably priced restaurants,) and usually the wasabi is not added by the chef. Of course, that's probably 'original research,' so take it with a grain of salt.

One final note, I wonder about the 'British Columbia Roll' that is listed. I have never heard of this, although I've heard of 'salmon skin rolls.' The California roll is a specific style of roll that is known by that name across America, but I doubt the same can be said of the 'B. C. roll.' Is it named that just because it contains salmon, or did it originate in that locale? Unless it is the origin of the roll, or the roll is well-known by that name in other regions, I would think that the listing here (and in the British Columbia Roll article itself) should be changed to salmon skin roll, with a mention that it is sometimes known as British Columbia roll or B. C. roll. (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

green plastic "grass" separator strips?[edit]

Typical japanese sushi set.jpg

Is there anything to say about the little green separators, visible down the middle in the tray in the picture to the right? Are they supposed to look like grass? Do they have a name? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It is called baran[19] or kiri-zasa (切り笹 literally cut sasa). Originally baran was made of Aspidistra elatior (葉蘭 haran) and kiri-zasa was made of Sasa veitchii (熊笹 kuma-zasa). It is originally made for a garnish of sushi [20] and its technique is called sasa-kiri (sasa cutting) or haran-kiri (haran cutting).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I've taken the liberty of transcribing your explanation more or less straight into the article. Feel free to adjust. (At first I was going to put it in the Presentation section, but it ended up fitting better in Condiments.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the phrase used to end the paragraph on baran "today the strips are usually made from green plastic" should be changed. I don't think the cited source makes that claim and from experience I think the phrase generally only applies to bentos and cheap take-out. I believe in most upscale sushi bars the more traditional cut leaves are still used. I think the section can use a little more fleshing out in regards to the purpose/significance of baran beyond just mentioning that it separates the pieces of sushi.StrangrDangr (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Too many characters[edit]

While すし, 寿司, 鮨 are common ways of writing "sushi" in Japanese, all of these are esoteric at best: 鮓, 寿斗, 寿し, 壽司. Any objections to removing them? Jpatokal (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no, so they're gone now. Jpatokal (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]


Which image is better for the lead? 1 or 2? To me, 1 is obviously better (it's a higher quality photo, it's brighter and has better clarity), but user:Oda Mari replaced it with image 2 citing "The man and a chopstick is bothersome" (the person depicted is, for what it's worth, not a man). I think number 1 is obviously better and I would like to reinstate it, unless there are any protests. JPNEX (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The background is definitely bothersome. You cropped a foreground dish but left the annoying background intact. Furthermore, the angle of the image is too low, so it is hard to recognize the shape of sushi. If ordinary people take a picture of sushi, the angle would be like these. A lead image should be a comprehensible picture of the topic. Although the current image may not be the best, your image is the worst.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I'm confused by your profile and talk pages - could you please clarify whether this account is operated by the same person as the Oda Mari account? If so, could you please keep to one account per issue? (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this image then? (3) [21] JPNEX (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Western sushi is not needed. Oda Mari (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Sushi[edit]

Oddly enough, this section doesn't link to the Japanese page, which I found odd. It also uses self-published reference material, but the Japanese page ( on "Nare-zushi") confirms some of this research, including specifying what to call the fermented-fish sushi when eaten with and without rice. My Japanese isn't great, but I had a local quickly confirm this when checking some student work with research that was a bit "fishy" (sorry, couldn't help myself!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengarsw (talkcontribs) 00:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources or citations; see WP:CIRCULAR. However, translating some of the information from the Japanese article and including that, along with the citations used in the Japanese article, is okay; see WP:COPYWITHIN. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fugu Prohibited to Emperor[edit]

I have removed the claim that the Emperor is forbidden to eat fugu on the grounds that it is too risky. This seems very unlikely as Japanese people know that fugu consumption is not inherently risky. So long as one consumes only the flesh, which contains only a low concentration of tetraodatoxin, fugu is quite safe. (I have eaten fugu sashimi myself.) Deaths from fugu poisoning are almost entirely due to preparation by amateurs who do not know how to distinguish the safe parts from the parts of the fish that contain dangerous concentrations of the toxin, and who are often motivated by the cost of the fish to include rather than exclude. The other deaths result from the deliberate consumption of parts of the fish containing high concentrations of the toxin. For example, the famous kabuki actor Bandõ Mitsugorõ VIII died of fugu poisoning in 1975 because he ate four portions of fugu liver, which it is illegal to serve. The chef who served it to him lost his license. The point is, Japanese people are well aware that fugu prepared by an expert is perfectly safe. Obviously the Emperor's food is prepared by experts. This alleged prohibition is just the sort of urban myth likely to arise among foreigners who don't know what Japanese people know about fugu. The only source for this is an article in an American popular magazine by a journalist whose expertise is business, a far from authoritative source. In the absence of an authoritative source I don't think this alleged prohibition belongs in the article.Bill (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why include Nyotaimori in "see also"?[edit]

I'm a Japan-born Japanese female, and surprised to find the word "nyotaimori" in "see also" section. It's pervert and as far as I know sexual /pornographic fantasy, at least I don't know the real world sushi bar which offer it publicly. And it's not sushi limited notion; as far as I know it's rather related to the delicacy in general, specially sashimi; or you could say all fine dishes you find extravagant. Personally I feel offended to find such porno related notion in this context, but you could offer other necessity for this inclusion. Please give such necessity (perhaps for English readership specially) of this inclusion, with citation preferably. If anyone fails, I think, this word should be wiped off here. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sushi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sushi" meaning clarification[edit]

I saw previously on this talk page from 2007 a discussion about the literal translation/meaning of the Japanese word "sushi". Previously, it has been said that it refers only to the rice, the vinegared rice, or even meant "snack". I've also seen from a few different reliable sources that it literally translates to "sour" or "with rice". The array of different information makes me curious. Has this conflict been resolved? I feel that the literal meaning of the word has enough importance that it warrants an explanation.

Emrosemoore (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Common misconception[edit]

The article List of common misconceptions has an entry about sushi not meaning raw fish that was removed at this edit since it doesn't appear to be mentioned in this article. Should it be mentioned here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: You seem to be confused. Read my edit summary. It has nothing to do with whether the misconception is mentioned here. I removed it because if fails one of the criteria established by consensus for inclusion in the article: "The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception" (bold added). There is no source that it's a common misconception. You can see the criteria for inclusion if you open an edit window for the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Great pictures showing varieties of sushi and how is the sushi prepared.

Clear history on the origin of the sushi supported by strong citations.Linjj (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello!! This "Sushi" article is absolutely great! It is well referenced, has good images, pronunciations, an history! The translation/alternative names in Japanese was captivating! The pronunciation of all types of sushi and its ingredients was a big help. The fact that you had wiki links every now and then was a easy way for me to get more knowledge! The best was when i got to read the original origin and regions from which the sushi came from, Yes i knew sushi was Japanese but i didn't know about its expansion and birth. That picture posted in the body of the article: "Types of Sushi” was perfect and perfectly places for all the sushi eaters AND non sushi eaters to have a visual understanding of what Sushi looks like. Personally, as a sushi lover i did not even know there was coned sushi!! Also, it was beyond interesting when you specified the a type of sushi that is eaten annually, i knew a type of this food had to be used ritualistically but i didn't know what it was called. Although I was hoping the sushi type Temaki had a picture!! All "types of Sushi" had a picture except for this one. You spoke about the risks and hazards of eating 'raw' fish but i would like to see a reference article of cooked sushi? You referred to it as "hot" or "cold" but does the cooked sushi come out steaming hot? A bit more of information on that or a link or reference would be great. I believe the sentence in your article "Originally, when the fermented fish was taken out of the rice, only the fish was consumed while the fermented rice was discarded.[3]" was repeated in the paragraph above it where you mentioned this, also, this sentence is weirdly structured. I hope to have been of some helped, i really enjoyed this article. --Dianaboli18 (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dianaboli18: Nice enthusiasm, Diana. Remember that it is not a singular "you" that made this page, but rather a whole host of people worldwide! Just a note for future posts. Alfgarciamora (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)