Talk:Gimbap

Assembly Directions?

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

Wrong Translation

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

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

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

Name of the food

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maki-zushi

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

Origins of food

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

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

The origin of Gimbap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invalid sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gimbap as sushi or as onigiri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taiwanese version of samgak gimbap

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

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

Stop deleting the history

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

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

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

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

Korean origin

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

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

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

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

Terms norimaki and gimbap

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

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

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

This is incorrect. Korean purifying the language by converting or replacing Japanese words in Korean into Korean words doesn't count as a proof of loanword. Having such Japanese words in Korean language is not because of such objects are Japanese but because Korean had used Japanese during Japanese occupation; it is a matter of habit. For example, Korean also purified the word Obon (plate) into Jubsi, but Korean always has had plate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.48.75.250 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Original Word"

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

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

References

Removal of unsourced content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed edits

There is a theory that Gimbap was derived from the introduction of Japanese sushi variant norimaki to Korea during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945), In that theory, they say that, since then, gimbap has become a distinct dish, often utilizing traditional Korean flavors, as well as sesame oil, instead of rice vinegar. The loan word norimaki, which was borrowed from the Japanese dish that was introduced to Korea, was used along with the term gimbap to describe the dish until gimbap was made the universal term, as part of efforts to purify the Korean language. There is also another theory (if you look up references, you can find both types of references) that Kimbob originated from Korea and that Japan adopted this culture from Korea. In this case, the term Norimaki would be the loanword borrowed from Korea. Also, Korean purifying the language by converting or replacing Japanese words in Korean language into Korean words doesn't count as a proof of loanword. Having such Japanese words in Korean language is not because such objects are Japanese but because Korean had used Japanese during Japanese occupation; it is a matter of habit. For example, Korean also purified the word Obon (plate) into Jubsi, but Korean always has had plate. Here, the culture of Kimxam is focused. Kim means seaweed; bob means rice; xam/ssam means wrap. Since Norimaki means seaweed wrap, this is a direct translation of the traditional Korean food Bokxam which included Kimxam. Kimxam traditionally consisted of rice and vegetables wrapped with Kim. This is not really eaten today, but it had been eaten even until Japanese occupation. Of course, there is no proof that today's Kimbob derived from Kimxam. However, there is no proof that it didn't neither. Also, the similarities are striking like the concept of wrapping rice & other ingredients in it. Quoting from Korean Central Research Institute, "김밥의 일본 유래설보다 고유음식설이 보다 설득력을 얻고 있다. [네이버 지식백과] 김밥 (한국민족문화대백과, 한국학중앙연구원)", "Korean origin is more persuasive than Japanese origin for Kimbob. (Korean Ethnicity Culture Encyclopedia, Korean Central Research Institute)". Now, aside from Kimbob having no proof to have derived from Kimxam, there is a proof that Futomaki derived from Kimxam. Kimxam has been recorded to have prohibited cutting. Quoting from Korean Culture Encyclopedia, "김쌈을 싸는 김은 칼로 자르지 않고 통김을 그대로 올리며, 상위에서 손으로 대충대충 잘라서 쌈을 싼다. 칼로 자르면 벼 모가지 자르는 것이라 하여 삼간다.", "Kimxam's Kim is not cut with a knife. It is ripped with hand roughly. Cutting is prohibited as this is considered as cultivating." Futomaki has the same culture. So, when we are looking at Futomaki & Kimxam, we have these unique same traits: 1. no cutting. 2. rice & vegetables wrapped together. 3. 5~6 ingredients massively packed together. Even if assuming the other traits to be coincidence, the unique act of prohibiting cutting shows that Futomaki has to be from Kimxam. According to Korean Cultural Encyclopedia’s published translation of 19th century’s book Donggooksesigi, Page 197, “박, 오이, 버섯 등 각종 채소 말린 것과 콩, 호박, 및 순무 등 각종 무를 저장해 둔 것을 묵은 나물 이라고 하며 이 날 반드시 이 나물들을 만들어 먹는다. 오이꼭지 가지껍질 무잎 등도 모두 버리지 않고 말려두었다가 삶아서 먹는데 이렇게 하면 여름에 더위를 타지 않는다고 한다. 채소 잎이나 김으로 밥을 싸서 먹는데 이것을 복쌈 이라고 한다. 내 생각에는 형초세시기 (荊楚歲時記)에 인일(人日)에 일곱가지 채소로 국을 끓인다 고 하였는데 이것이 지금 풍속에는 정월 보름날로 옮겨졌으며.” Translating, “Bak, cucumber, mushroom, etc dried vegetables & bean, pumpkin, radish, etc stored are called saturated Namul; in this day, these Namul are made & eaten. Cucumber tip, eggplant skin, radish leaves are not thrown away but dried then eaten boiled. They say this prevents the heat. With Kim [seaweed] or leaf, rice is wrapped & eaten; this is called Bokxam. Hyungchosesigi says that 7 vegetables are used to boil a soup on Inil. In my guess, this culture seems to have moved to the Lunar January 15th [the holiday at the beginning of the farming similar to Japanese Setsubun] into today's culture.” In this record, they don’t directly say that the 7 vegetables on that holiday is wrapped inside Bokxam (luck wrap). According to Korean Cultural Encyclopedia’s published translation of 1819’s Yulyangsesigi, P121, “이날 김에다 취나물 등속과 밥을 싸서 많이 먹으면 좋다고 하는데 이를 복쌈[縛苫]이라고 하며”, “on this day, inside Kim [seaweed], Chi-namul vegetable & rice are wrapped; they say it is good to eat a lot; this is called Bokxam”. Hence, there are historical records that Kimxam (Bokxam wraps with either leaf or Kim; Kim wrap is called Kimxam) wraps rice & vegetables together. Going to the previous record on Donggooksesigi, the 7 vegetables are (or can be) wrapped together with rice inside Kimxam (seaweed wrap) also known as Bokxam (luck wrap) exactly like Futomaki also called Ehomaki (luck wrap) using 7 ingredients & prohibiting cutting. The most important things about Japanese Maki is that all Japanese Maki evolved from uncut Futomaki & that Futomaki existed in only 1 small region in Japan & that Futomaki is new in Japan. Futomaki was traditional only in the Kansai region during the Setsubun festival. By 2000, this spread to all of Japan; the other Maki types started from Futomaki. Futomaki was called Ehomaki (lucky direction Maki) because it composed of 7 ingredients. 7 is not a traditional lucky number in East Asia. Hence, such name shows that Futomaki is very new to Japan. The Korean references are also important; the absence of old records in Japan is also important. As for Kimbob & Kimxam, they were spread nationwide in Korea. There is another trait that Futomaki & Kimbob match with the name Kimxam. In 1928 May 1st, a Korean restaurant Myungwolkwan wrote an article on Korean food samples. Among Myungwolkwan restaurant's articles, Xam type (there are many different wrapped foods in Korean food) was recorded including Kimxam. Quoting from that, which was called Haetaepo meaning Nori (haetae) Maki (po) except that it was specifically written as Kimxam beside Haetaepo, “김을하동엣것이 상둥이니 구워노면 얄고고으며연도색이나나니라 김쌈은별수업시 죠흔김을티뜻고부벼서 한장식처노코 기름발으로 티업는소곰을뿌려가며 설당을죠곰뿌리고 재여두엇다가석쇠에구어 항용법대로하는대 요사이는 날로구어 진상에찍어서 밥위에노아먹기도하나니라”, “cover Kim with oil, then some salt & sugar. However, this process may be skipped”. Kimbob is known to cover with oil, which coincides with 1928’s Kimxam. This reference doesn’t say how other ingredients are wrapped along with rice, but there are other references mentioning such especially 7 vegetables just like Futomaki (Ehomaki). Haetae is pronounced Nori in Japanese. There is another trait that Futomaki & Kimbob match with Kimxam. Kimxam is classified as a type of Bokxam. Bok means luck; xam/ssam means wrap. Futomaki is also called Ehomaki which means luck (eho) wrap (maki). Whether Kimbob is identical to Kimxam or is an upgraded version of Kimxam is not important. What's important is the connection. Kimbob and Kimxam are different, but it is important that Kimbob & Futomaki came from Korean Kimxam. Since the traditional records focused Kimxam on vegetables, it is likely that Kimxam & Kimbob are not identical. If a Korean cook varies Kimxam's ingredients & makes it into a cylinder shape, that becomes Kimbob & Futomaki. When looking at Kimbob's Kimxam ancestry, Kimbob is the more convenient & commercialized Kimxam. Kimbob is like preparing & varying Kimxam to be sold or to be carried around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibreaking (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Norimaki is a generic term. If we look at a specific type, Kimbob can be compared to Futomaki. Kimbob was likely before Futomaki. Maki is different from Kimbob while Futomaki (Maki's origin) is the same. Futomaki was traditional in only 1 Japanese region, Kansai, during the evening of the Setsubun festival. Kimbob & Kimxam were spread nationwide in Korea. It is logical for Futomaki (which existed in only 1 region in Japan) to have copied from Korean Kimbob & Kimxam that were spread nationwide. It is illogical for Korean Kimbob to have searched & copied what existed in only 1 Japanese region, not nation-wide. Futomaki is similar to Kimbob in ingredients like 5~6 ingredients packed together (massive ingredients is a key feature) with meat or tuna. This is essentially the same form as Kimxam except that Kimxam seems to have been in a rectangular brick form. Kimbob is related to Futomaki (existed only in 1 region in Japan), not regular Maki (spread nationwide in Japan by editing Futomaki). References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibreaking (talk • contribs) 21:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVILity of calling other editors "clingy" aside, these edits are not written in a neutral way. There are some interesting points being raised here, but the section is far, far too much like original research. Saying what is and is not important, or what is or is not "likely" are clear-cut examples of editorializing. Every point must be specifically supported by reliable sources, and every opinion must be clearly attributed to an expert or notable source. Drawing conclusions based on historical documents is a form of research, which is not appropriate. Much of this is also very poor grammar, which makes it too hard to understand. After the WP:3RR block expires, please consider discussing any further edits, briefly, here on the talk page, and please ask questions and discuss rather than edit war. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The addition suggested above is way too detailed to be added into the article. And like Grayfell points out, most of is personal opinion and conclusions drawn from unrelated sources. The only definite reference I can see suggesting a Korean origin is the following:

Quoting from Korean Central Research Institute, "김밥의 일본 유래설보다 고유음식설이 보다 설득력을 얻고 있다. [네이버 지식백과] 김밥 (한국민족문화대백과, 한국학중앙연구원)", "Korean origin is more persuasive than Japanese origin for Kimbob. (Korean Ethnicity Culture Encyclopedia, Korean Central Research Institute)".

There is no proper reference for this quote, though. Is there any link or a page reference to a print work of some sort?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The reasons given in the source are hardly persuasive and rather funny.

• "첫째, 김밥은 발을 이용하여 말기도 하지만 손으로 직접 말아 만들기도 한다."

"First, gimbap is made using makisu (gimbal in Korean). However norimaki can be made by hand." (implying without makisu)

Norimaki is usually made using makisu. Temaki (hand roll) is a rather recent trend. Also makisu is a Japanese traditional utensil.

• "둘째, 김밥에 들어가는 재료는 일본 김초밥에는 들어가지 않는 것이 많고 김초밥과는 비교할 수 없을 정도로 다양하다. "

"Second, Gimbap's fillings are much diverse than norimaki."

Probably this author compares gimbap with hosomaki which usually contains one filling. Futomaki contains many variety of fillings. Moreover, one of the popular filling of gimbap is takuan (Danmuji in Korean) which is a Japanese traditional pickle.

• "셋째, 우리나라 김밥은 초밥 형태보다는 맨밥 형태가 일반적이며 맨밥의 경우 식초 없이 그 자체로 즐겨먹는 완전한 음식이다. 이와 같은 점 등을 고려해 볼 때, 김밥의 일본 유래설보다 고유음식설이 보다 설득력을 얻고 있다."

"Third, Gimbap does not use rice marinated with vinegar unlike norimaki. Rice without vinegar is a complete food to eat and enjoy by itself."

Difficult to comment on this reason.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is really difficult to follow for those of us with little or no command of Korean. Where do these quotes come from?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't even read, why did you delete the legitimately referenced facts? Also, there is a difference between fixing wording vs deleting the entire content. There is a difference between asking for reference & claiming some specific content to be a lie. Deleting contents instead of fixing (if there is really anything to be fixed at all) is clearly concealing, whitewashing, distorting. Also, it is not up to you to judge their reasons. The point was to show official theories & to show relevant references. Also, who are you to decide to exclude something just because it is long? Is that against the rules or something? Kimxam is a topic very closely included in Kimbob; it should be mentioned. Anyway, here is the new version with fixed references & wording. The key point is how Kimbob adopted the traits from Kimxam aside from whether the cylindrical shape is from norimaki or not. Also, Keep in mind that there are theories (which should be mentioned as they are validly related topics) that Korean influenced Japan in that wrapping culture. Also, your use of language purification has no logic with the example of Obon (plate); it is not because of the object being Japanese but from Korean's habit of using Japanese. I opened a new subsection at the bottom. It consists of 3 parts. 1 is how Kimbob has some Kimxam traits. 2 is how language purification doesn't count as a proof. 3 is how there is a theory (which should be mentioned) that Japan was influenced by Korean wrapping culture.

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, which source (or sources) claim unequivocally that kimbap was developed independently from makizushi? You need to cite a published book with title, year of publication, author and page numbers, or a link to a website. The source also needs to be reliable according to Wikipedia policy.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I referenced, newspapers, quotes, encyclopedias. Read the later version I uploaded. It has more references. If you feel that a specific part lacks a reference, specifically ask that sentence, which I will provide you reference if not already provided. As for a source claiming "unequivocally" that Gimbap was developed independently from Norimaki, this source that you "find funny" (which doesn't make it any less official nor you any more official; just follow the wiki rules of posting official contents) does so. There is also another source which I am using that states Gimbap to have the shape from Norimaki but still having other traits from the traditional Korean food.

Also, why are you deleting the referenced claim how Japanese norimaki "should find its root in Korean Kimxam"? That sentence was literally mentioned & it's a clearly related historical topic for its variety & expansion. On top of it, since Kimxam is a related topic, it makes sense to list a lengthy detail on Kimxam such as its use of 7 vegetables & its use of oiling just like Gimbap. Why are these referenced facts (which are clearly referenced, relevant, official especially because Kimxam is a big official topic in Kimbap particularly in Korea) being deleted? That clearly looks whitewashing, distorting, concealing. Be specific which specific sentences you don't like & with what valid reasons. As for Kimbob, simply put, Korean perceives as always having had this food as Kimxam with or without influence from Norimaki such as the cylindrical shape. This is clearly a different view from how Korean had no such food at all but adopted Norimaki then changed Norimaki (which is what your Wiki page is saying at the moment). That official view must be mentioned.

As for which view is more likely, let the readers make their decisions based on the use of 7 vegetables & oiling (oiling seaweed is not a new culture invented after Norimaki's influence like being claimed right now). Also, it is certainly illogical to use Korean language purification as a proof because Korean did the same for plate (Obon). What is illogical is officially on your wiki page as if it's a valid proof. I will throw your words back at you. Which source (or sources) claims unequivocally that kimbap was developed independently from Gimxam? Also, regardless of your answer, why does it matter when there are official sources saying otherwise which should be mentioned? Why do you get to choose which official sources to upload & which official sources to be neglected?

Also, newspapers are reliable sources especially when they record what is heard, seen, done such as the existence of a claim that Norimaki should find its root in Gimxam. ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".

Wikibreaking (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't there a debate going on here? Either use my version of writing to upload, or finish the debate to sort things out.

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, take a look at WP:WALLOFTEXT. No one likes to read through long-winded expositions about the same thing over and over. You need to be as short short and concise as possible and avoid repetition. You were asked a very simple question: which sources actually claim that gimbap was not derived from makizushi?

You cited two sources in your text. One is from an entry from Naver[[3], which is a Korean Intrernet portal that has plenty of user-generated content. That is not a reliable source as specified in WP:USERGENERATED. The second appears to be the food section of the The Chosun Ilbo website.[4] News sites can be reliable sources for a lot of things, but not historical research. This is described in more detail in WP:NEWSORG.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are not willing to read something long, then you shouldn't be deleting nor editing that. You certainly shouldn't be deleting the entire contents neither. When the information is big, then they all should be uploaded when relevant. "Your writing is too long" is not a good reason to delete the entire whole paragraphs as an editor. You are clearly not editing.

That encyclopedia was not written by a user. It was provided by a research institute. Someone is feeding you lies & partial truths. Yes, Naver is like Google. Like Google News, some sections are official. As for that news site was used for the reference to an existing claim in relation to Kimxam. Also, those newspapers make references to the others; they don't publish their own stuffs.

http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=552173&cid=46672&categoryId=46672

This "official" article says 0 influence from Norimaki.

http://www.koreatimes.com/article/372752

This newspaper article refers to the existing claim how Norimaki should find its root in Kimxam.

http://food.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/09/04/2013090402287.html

This newspaper article "introduces" the existing official claims.

The official claims that were referenced should be uploaded here. They are official & they are referenced. Aside from historical research, this is about an official claim existing, which is a related topic. As for the newspapers, they are not doing their own research; they are making references to official claims & researches & references existing already.

Now, expanding upon that related topic, Kimxam should be introduced particularly the use of 7 vegetables, the use of Korean spinach wrapped inside Kimxam, the use of oiling.

Also, where does it say not to use newspaper for specifically historical facts? Doesn't make sense in the first place, but I don't see it anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations

Wikibreaking (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

Decline per WP:NOR.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a new proposed entry focusing on Kimxam lineage by Futomaki & Kimbob. Kimxam is related & should be mentioned.

proposed addition

There is also another theory (if you look up references, you can find both types of references) that Kimbob originated from Korea and that Japan adopted this culture from Korea. "Korean origin is more persuasive than Japanese origin for Kimbob. (Korean Ethnicity Culture Encyclopedia, Korean Central Research Institute)". Korean purifying the language by converting or replacing Japanese words in Korean language into Korean words doesn't count as a proof of loanword. Having such Japanese words in Korean language is not because such objects are Japanese but because Korean had used Japanese during Japanese occupation; it is a matter of habit. For example, Korean also purified the word Obon (plate) into Jubsi, but Korean always has had plate. The important names for Kimbob’s relation to Japan is Norimaki, Futomaki, Bokxam, Kimxam. Historically, there is no record that Kimxam was rolled into a cylinder. It seems that Korea adopted this shape during Japanese occupation. Since Japanese Norimaki was shaped cylinder even before that, Kimbob’s cylinder shape is an imitation of Norimaki. However, covering with oil or wrapping about 7 abundant ingredients are like Kimxam. The evolution in the diversity of ingredients to the use of ham, tuna, meat also differs from Norimaki. The taste & ingredients are the extension of Kimxam. There are 2 traits in Kimbob: cylindrical shape & the taste of ingredients. The shape is from Norimaki. For the trait in taste, Kimbob covers with oil & wraps abundant ingredients at the same time. In 1928 May 1st, a restaurant Myungwolkwan published articles “Korean Food Traits”. Among Myungwolkwan restaurant's articles, Xam type (there are many different wrapped foods in Korean food) was recorded including Kimxam. Quoting from that, which was called Haetaepo meaning Nori (haetae) Maki (po) except that it was specifically written as Kimxam beside Haetaepo, “cover a paper of Kim [seaweed] with oil, then some salt & sugar. However, this process may be skipped”. Kimbob’s trait of covering with oil like Kimxam shows a connection between Kimbob & Kimxam. This isn’t a new recipe nor Japanese recipe but a traditional Korean recipe. Aside from the use of oil, the article also mentions Kim to be a form of paper. Now, let’s see the ingredients. In Kimxam, the important thing is the use of 7 vegetables. Those vegetables can be eaten separately or wrapped inside Kimxam; it’s the taste of Korea. According to Korean Cultural Encyclopedia’s published translation of 19th century’s book Donggooksesigi, Page 197, “Bak, cucumber, mushroom, etc dried vegetables & bean, pumpkin, radish, etc stored [pickled] vegetables are called Mugen [rancid] Namul; on this day, these Namul are made & eaten. Cucumber tip, eggplant skin, radish leaves are not thrown away but dried then eaten boiled. They say this prevents the heat. With Kim [seaweed] or leaf, rice is wrapped & eaten; this is called Bokxam. Hyungchosesigi says that 7 vegetables are used to boil a soup on Inil. In my guess, this culture seems to have moved to the Lunar January 15th [the holiday at the beginning of the farming similar to Japanese Setsubun] into today's culture.” In that record, they don’t directly say that the 7 vegetables on that holiday is wrapped inside Bokxam (luck wrap). According to Korean Cultural Encyclopedia’s published translation of 1819’s Yulyangsesigi, P121, “on this day, inside Kim [seaweed], Chi-namul vegetable & rice are wrapped; they say it is good to eat a lot; this is called Bokxam”. Chi-namul is a vegetable similar to spinach. The record specifically said that it goes inside Kimxam, not outside. Hence, there are historical records that Kimxam (Bokxam wraps with either leaf or Kim; Kim wrap is called Kimxam) wraps rice & vegetables together. Going to the previous record on Donggooksesigi, the 7 vegetables are (or can be) wrapped together with rice inside Kimxam (seaweed wrap) also known as Bokxam (luck wrap). Korean Kimbob’s ingredients have evolved with ham, meat, tuna, etc, but the basic structure still matches with the traditional Kimxam. Hence, Kimxam uses Japanese Norimaki’s cylindrical shape while using Korean Kimxam’s oil covering & Kimxam’s Lunar January 15th vegetables (can be eaten separately or inside Kimxam) as the basis. Kimbob’s taste connects to the traditional Korean taste. On top of that, it evolved for the diversity in ingredients such as ham, tuna, meat, etc. The reason Kimxam is similar to Norimaki is relevant to the claim that Norimaki’s root is Korean Kimxam. Quoting from Korea Times as one example of such perception how Korean influenced Japan with that culture, “Japanese Norimaki should find its root in Korean Kimxam culture.” Kimxam & Futomaki have many common traits. Unlike how Kimxam was spread nationwide in Korea, Futomaki was eaten only in Japan’s Kansai region during Setsubun festival. This culture is said to have spread nationwide in Japan by 2000. The other Maki types started from Futomaki. Futomaki is also called Ehomaki. This means luck direction Maki. Since Japan’s Norimaki started in 19th century at the end of Edo era, Kimxam’s history (recorded even in 18th century Donggooksesigi) is older. First, let’s look at the names. Kimbob is a new word, but Bokxam & Kimxam are traditional words. Norimaki’s Nori means Kim (seaweed) & Maki means Xam (wrap). Futomaki is also called Ehomaki; Eho means Bok (luck) & Maki means Xam (wrap). Hence, Norimaki & Futomaki are direct translations of the traditional Korean terms Kimxam & Bokxam. Now, let’s see the specifics. Even if the cylindrical shape was started by Japan, there are many other traits started from Korean Kimxam. Second, Futomaki does not cut just like Kimxam. “Kim wrapping Kimxam is not cut with a knife; the whole Kimg is used entirely; it is ripped roughly with hands when wrapping. Cutting with a knife is prohibited as it’s considered as harming crop.” Third, aside from the culture of prohibiting cutting, Kimxam’s important trait is the use of 7 vegetables in Lunar January 15th. Those vegetables can be eaten separately or wrapped inside Kimxam; it’s the taste of Korea. Futomaki also uses 7 ingredients. According to Donggooksesigi & Yulyangsesigi, such vegetables are eaten on the Lunar January 15th when Kimxam is eaten. Also, they can go inside Kimxam. Fourth, Futomaki was eaten only on a holiday like Kimxam. It is much later that this became a casual food. It was originally eaten only during Setsubun Festival (the beginning of spring) in only Kansai region. This is similar to the Lunar January 15th (the beginning of farming) when the 7 vegetables & Kimxam are eaten for luck. References

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm rejecting this request because it's merely a longer version of what has already been suggested. Please read Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material carefully before suggestions additions like this. I would also recommend taking a look at WP:Wall of text. Keeping replies concise and to the point is essential.

The language of the suggested text is also generally substandard. I also have no idea why non-standard spelling like "kimbob" and "kimxam" are used.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If the spelling is a problem, just fix it. Also, since they are Korean words, as long as they sound the same (why are "original" spellings supposed to be looked up), that shouldn't be an issue. Why are you rejecting the whole contents? Be specific which specific sentences are "unacceptable" to you and with what valid reason. For example, Gimxam is an important topic in Gimbap. Why is this topic entirely absent? That makes no sense.

Finish the debate up there, or upload my version of my writing. Pick one. You are neither debating nor uploading my writing.

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All right. Two very basic examples of what I object to:

• Korean purifying the language by converting or replacing Japanese words in Korean language into Korean words doesn't count as a proof of loanword.

It's effectively you personally trying to make an argument for your case. This is pure synthesis, which is not allowed on WIkipedia. Your text is packed with these.

• Second, Futomaki does not cut just like Kimxam. “Kim wrapping Kimxam is not cut with a knife; the whole Kimg is used entirely; it is ripped roughly with hands when wrapping. Cutting with a knife is prohibited as it’s considered as harming crop.”

Besides being the same type of argumentative text, this is also very poor English. It also uses a form of romanization of Korean that does not match any of the common standards out there. This is very basic stuff that you can easily look up yourself.

Other than that, large chunks of the suggested addition is both synthesis and completely unreferenced. You're free to ask for a second opinion, but I doubt you'll get a positive response from anyone other experienced editor.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, synthesis is a combination. I am not doing any reasoning here. It is a logical fact (without combining any different facts) that Korean using Japanese word for an object doesn't necessarily say that the object is Japanese origin. You shouldn't have listed that nonsense in the first place as a proof. As for the other parts, I can remove the sentences like "of course, this book doesn't explicitly say that those 7 vegetables go inside Kimxam".

What's your point? That Futomaki cuts? Or that Kimxam cuts? Cutting is prohibited in Kimxam. If you don't like the comparison, we can put Futomaki (which should be mentioned as it is a big topic in Kimbob & many traits match Kimxam including its nickname luck wrap). I don't mind trimming the wordings. If that's what you are after, we can go over it. In fact, I am going to write the paragraphs again & upload here later.

You can fix grammar & wording if that's what you are worried. The important part is the content. Also, I've never had a problem with my grammar before. I am not a great writer, but I've never had trouble being comprehensible.

Be specific which specific sentences are unreferenced & which specific sentences use the combination of facts to draw another fact.

Wikibreaking (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a new version with different wordings. I am going to number these paragraphs. Check which numbers are acceptable.

proposed addition new version January 5th

1. There is also another theory (if you look up references, you can find both types of references) that Kimbob originated from Korea and that Japan adopted this culture from Korea. "Korean origin is more persuasive than Japanese origin for Kimbob. (Korean Ethnicity Culture Encyclopedia, Korean Central Research Institute)". 2. Korean used to speak Japanese during Japanese occupation; Korean still had the habit of using Japanese words even after liberation, which Korean had fixed by language purification. Korean has purified the language on various Korean objects such as plates (from Obon to Jubsi) by converting or replacing Japanese words in Korean language. 3. The important names that pop up for Kimbob’s relation to Japan are Norimaki, Futomaki, Bokxam, Kimxam. There are claims that Kimbob’s cylindrical shape is from Japanese Norimaki. There are also claims that Korean Kimbob significantly differ from Norimaki in many traits, which Kimxam is often attributed to. Kimbob covers with oil & wraps abundant ingredients at the same time. Since Kimxam & Futomaki are huge topics in Kimbob, let’s introduce what they are. 4. In 1928 May 1st, a restaurant Myungwolkwan published articles “Korean Food Traits”. Among Myungwolkwan restaurant's articles, Xam type (there are many different wrapped foods in Korean food) was recorded including Kimxam. Quoting Kimxam, which was called Haetaepo meaning Nori (haetae) Maki (po) except that it was specifically written as Kimxam beside Haetaepo, “cover a paper of Kim [seaweed] with oil, then some salt & sugar. However, this process may be skipped”. There is a claim that the use of oiling is a new recipe created by editing Norimaki, but Kimxam already had this trait. Aside from the use of oil, the article also mentions Kim to be a form of paper. 5. Kimxam was eaten on Lunar January 15th when roughly 7 vegetables were eaten. Korean wrapping food style is that they can be either eaten together or wrapped inside the wrap. They are the taste of Korean anyway. According to Korean Cultural Encyclopedia’s published translation of 19th century’s book Donggooksesigi, Page 197, “Bak, cucumber, mushroom, etc dried vegetables & bean, pumpkin, radish, etc stored [pickled] vegetables are called Mugen [rancid] Namul; on this day, these Namul are made & eaten. Cucumber tip, eggplant skin, radish leaves are not thrown away but dried then eaten boiled. They say this prevents the heat. With Kim [seaweed] or leaf, rice is wrapped & eaten; this is called Bokxam. Hyungchosesigi says that 7 vegetables are used to boil a soup on Inil. In my guess, this culture seems to have moved to the Lunar January 15th [the holiday at the beginning of the farming similar to Japanese Setsubun] into today's culture.” 6. According to Korean Cultural Encyclopedia’s published translation of 1819’s Yulyangsesigi, P121, “on this day, inside Kim [seaweed], Chi-namul vegetable & rice are wrapped; they say it is good to eat a lot; this is called Bokxam”. Chi-namul is a vegetable similar to spinach. The record specifically said that it goes inside Kimxam, not outside. Hence, there are historical records that Kimxam (Bokxam wraps with either leaf or Kim; Kim wrap is called Kimxam) wraps rice & vegetables together. Kimxam was spread nationwide in Korea. Bokxam means luck wrap; Kimxam means Kim (seaweed) wrap. Also, Kimxam prohibits cutting when wrapping. “Kim wrapping Kimxam is not cut with a knife; the whole Kimg is used entirely; it is ripped roughly with hands when wrapping. Cutting with a knife is prohibited as it’s considered as harming crop.” Kimbob evolved for the diversity in ingredients such as ham, tuna, meat, etc. 7. The reason Kimxam is similar to Norimaki is relevant to the claim that Norimaki’s root is Korean Kimxam. Quoting from Korea Times as one example of such perception how Korean influenced Japan with that culture, “Japanese Norimaki should find its root in Korean Kimxam culture.” Since Japan’s Norimaki started in 19th century at the end of Edo era, Kimxam’s history (recorded even in 18th century Donggooksesigi) is older. 8. Futomaki was eaten only in Japan’s Kansai region during Setsubun festival. This culture is said to have spread nationwide in Japan by 2000. The other Maki types started from Futomaki. Futomaki is also called Ehomaki. This means luck direction Maki. Futomaki is known to have prohibited cutting & to have used 7 ingredients. Futomaki was eaten only during this time; it is much later that Futomaki became a casual food. References

Wikibreaking (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if you guys are taking a break or what. Either upload my writing or start marking off which numbers are acceptable & which numbers are unacceptable. For the acceptable ones, don't delete but upload. They are clearly related topics. For the unacceptable ones, provide valid reasons. We will assess them. For example, I find it ridiculous how "if Korean performed language purification on a Japanese word, then the object of that word is Japanese. Korean did this for Norimaki to Kimbob. Hence, Kimbob is a loanword from Norimaki" is not synthesis while "Korean also purified the word Oban (plate) to Jubsi, but Korean always has had plate" is synthesis. What you have right now is the one that is synthesis packed with implicit premises. What I have is a direct logic & a direct counter example. If you have a problem with the direct sentence "that proof is a nonsense", then remove that direct sentence; let the readers decide that obvious logic.

Also, if you can't even read Korean references, why are you interfering this much on Korean articles? Whether Korean or not, I would expect you to be bilingual in Korean & English as well as being intimately knowledgeable with Korean culture. Why are you the ones with loud voices here instead of such actual (I am going to use this word for now) qualified editors that can actually read the relevant references?

I numbered my paragraphs. Check which paragraphs are acceptable & check which aren't. Give me the numbers. We will go from there. For example, number 6 paragraph is just listing quotes on Kimxam (which is a related topic), hence, that should be uploaded.

Wikibreaking (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Pending - Hi @Wikibreaking:, please have patience. Your proposed changes are fairly large and require consensus. Also a small reminder to be polite to other editors. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother editing Kimbap article with my contents, I just made a separate article on Kimbap.

As for here, *AT LEAST* mention that there is a theory that Kimbap has its root in Korean Gimssam, then link to Gimssam article. So, here is the following paragraph that can be briefly mentioned. Then, just redirect the users (the ones that are interested in deep facts instead of what is presented here) to my Gimssam article written specifically on Gimssam with a brief mention of Gimbap. The readers can decide on their own which theory is more likely after reading the details on what Gimssam is such as the use of oiling, wrapping rice with paper-like seaweed, dry vegetables like carrots, long vegetables like spinach, pickled vegetables like pickled radish. All these traits exist both in Gimbap (typically oiled with carrots, spinach, pickled radish Danmuji) & Gimssam.

I am fed up with you guys, just insert this 1 short paragraph then redirect to Gimssam article to learn deep details on it
There is also another theory that Gimbap originated from Korea and that Japan adopted this culture from Korea. "Korean origin is more persuasive than Japanese origin for Kimbob. (Korean Ethnicity Culture Encyclopedia, Korean Central Research Institute)". In this theory, a traditional Korean food Gimssam is particularly focused. References

That encyclopedia was written by a research institute, not a regular internet user. Also, that's a validly existing theory. Hence, there is no reason why this should not be mentioned. It's an official theory with an official reference. Then, the readers can read on Gimssam. Then, they can make their own decision whether it makes sense for Korean to have had no such food, imported Norimaki, then invented all those traits afterward, or for Korean to have had always Gimssam then just changed the shape (cylindrical) after Norimaki was introduced. As for Danmuji (used in Gimbap), that is a Japanese radish pickle. However, Korean also always has had radish pickle (far longer than Japanese) which was used in Gimssam. There are multiple different versions like radish kimchi, dongchimi, etc.

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gimbap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325173337/http://www.cnngo.com:80/explorations/eat/asia-street-food-cities-612721?page=0,7 to http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/eat/asia-street-food-cities-612721?page=0,7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Italics

According to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." Can we assume that gim, bap, and gimbap all qualify, and should be italicized throughout? Barte (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Barte: Hi! I've unitalicized "gimbap" unless he word is used to denote the word itself. According to this source (on standardized translations and transliterations of Korean dishes, by the National Institute of Korean Language), the Korean word gimbap (김밥) translates into the English word "gimbap". --Brett (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Brett Cox: Perfect. Thanks Brett. Barte (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion

" Gimbap is easy to eat and is good to eat outside because the bowl does not get dirty even after eating all the Gimbap" was removed due to being an opinion. Easy to eat is a subjective claim Ehgarrick (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

History part makes no sense

Briefly looking through this talk page, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on various things. The history section is one of them. I am not here with any agenda seeing as I am neither Korean nor Japanese. I just want to point out that the following paragraphs (copied straight from the page) under the History section makes no sense.

"Some sources say it was derived from norimaki, a Japanese sushi variant introduced to Korea during the Japanese occupation.

For a long time, the Japanese ceremony used to be called “Norimaki” in Korea, but in 1948 it was designated as “김밥 (Kimpapu)” by the Korean government's policy to enrich the national language."

1. What is "the Japanese ceremony" supposedly called "norimaki"? Norimaki is just a type of sushi, not a ceremony.

2. 김밥 is not read as "kimpapu". That looks, instead, like an amateur romanisation of "キムパプ" (kimupapu).

3. There seems to be no sources for the 1948 language policy.

Again, this discussion is solely made to comment on the problematic quality of this part of the article, not a nationalist attempt at claiming the origin of gimbap.

Update: Nonsensical part was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayontulips (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

History (Language Used)

Just avoiding an edit war and posting my suggestion here. The article was recently changed to suggest that the 'most widely adopted theory' is the 'Japanese origin' theory, thereby suggesting that the 'bakssam origin' theory is 'fringe'. I know there has already been a lot of discussion on the merits of both theories in this talk page. That's why I propose this edit:

1. Put in both the introduction and 'history' section that the origin of gimbap is contested. Both theories have sources to support them, but nobody can definitively say that one is correct over the other (ie. there's no consensus). Some of the sources linked to the 'Japanese origin' theory acknowledge this. The 'Ministry of Culture' page refers to the debate, and doesn't only support this theory, for example.

2. Make no reference to which theory is 'the most widely adopted' or the use of similar phrasing. Per WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL, the article should just describe disputes, rather than engage in them. To suggest that one theory is necessarily better than the others (especially considering the lack of scholarly work on this topic, because... it's a food) would violate them. One user suggested in the revision history that it would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. However, the policy only applies to fringe theories; the fact that both theories are described and sourced in detail in the article and talk page suggest that neither fall under this.

TL:DR: Change the language so that neither theory appears favored over the other. Thoughts? NettingFish15019 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Confusing theories?

“Production of gim in Gyeongsang and Jeolla Provinces is reported in books from the 15th century, such as Gyeongsang-do Jiriji and Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam.[20][21] Yeoryang Sesigi (열양세시기), a Joseon book written in 1819 by Kim Mae-sun (김매순) refers to cooked rice and filling rolled with Gim as bokssam (복쌈; transcribed using the hanja 縛占, pronounced bakjeom in Korean).[7][8] One other theory suggests that Gimbap was introduced to Japan during the Baekje period.[22][23]”

On the last part, how is it possible that gimbap was introduced to Japan during the 600s if the production of gim was only recorded as early as the 15th century? ^That part is incorrect. Gim has existed in Korea since 57 BCE to 668 CE.

It is more likely than anything that makizushi was introduced to Korea from Japan even before the occupation because it is recorded that makizushi has been around since at least 1749 from the following literature: http://kotenseki.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/100249438/viewer/1 http://kotenseki.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/100249399/viewer/19 Tomicalover (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ita-nori (sheet form of nori/gim) must be mentioned because it is required to make gim and itanori was not used in Korea until the era of japanese occupation

Mention about "Ita-Nori (板海苔)" is very important for the article.

Gimbap is required to be wrapped by the dried Sheet form of gim "Ita-Nori (板海苔)". Ita-nori was invented in Asakusa, Edo(contemporary Tokyo) , around 1750 Edo era of Japan for the purpose of making makizushi. 
Gim had been consumed as paste form until the sheet form "Ita-nori" was transferred from Japan to Korea at the period of the Japanese occupation of Korea.
Ita-nori and makizushi was transferred to Korea during the Japanese occupation of Korea and it became Gimbap which has current form of sushi.
 Gimbap is originated in makizushi because of it.  Even If you wrapped raice by paste form of gim, it is not a Gimbap.  But a different meals. 240B:C020:491:30BC:4C32:B27E:9D2A:6DA2 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fix Ita-nori (sheet form of nori/gim) must be mentioned because it is required to make Gimbap. and itanori was not used in Korea until the era of japanese occupation.

Gimbap is required to be wrapped by the dried Sheet form of gim "Ita-Nori (板海苔)".

Even If you wrapped rice by paste form of gim, it is not a Gimbap. But a different meals.

Ita-nori was invented in Asakusa, Edo(contemporary Tokyo) , around 1750 Edo era of Japan for the purpose of making makizushi.

Gim had been consumed as paste form until the sheet form "Ita-nori" was transferred from Japan to Korea at the period of the Japanese occupation of Korea.

Ita-nori and makizushi was transferred to Korea during the Japanese occupation of Korea and it became Gimbap which has current form of sushi.

Gimbap is originated in makizushi because of it.  Even If you wrapped rice by paste form of gim, it is not a Gimbap.  But a different meals.  the meals which book of Joseon era was mentioned was just a rice meals wrapped by paste form of Gim. It us not a Gimbap.   

　Gimbap is especially similar to the Japanese Futomaki ,the sort of makizushi which is not always one ingredient nor always including the raw fish but a rolled with several ingredients such as takuan(yellow pickled radish which always included in Gimbap as danmuji ), vegetables, egg , shrimp , fish and meat. 240B:C020:491:30BC:4C32:B27E:9D2A:6DA2 (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you the unregistered user who has persistently been changing content on this page and been reverted each time? If so, then you have finally figured out the correct way to go about inserting contentious edits on a page: discussing it on the talk page. Now, what you say about gimbap may very well be true, but unless you support it with proper references, on what basis is anyone to know that you're not simply making it up? This is called Original Research, meaning "I know this personally, therefore it's ok to put it in the article, since it's true". Unfortunately, you cannot do that on Wikipedia. In order to insert or change content, you must provide proper references to support it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Italic title reason

Hi @User:Larry Hockett, you recently removed the category in the reason parameter for this article's title being italicized. Could you please clarify why you did this? Should a reason not be listed in the hatnote? Thanks. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. Per MOS:ORDER, categories are placed after everything else (except for stub templates). With that said, I don't know much about Template:Italic title and the template documentation isn't much help, so I won't object if the edit is restored. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@User:Larry Hockett, you're right, categories sit at the very bottom of an article; I was mainly wondering what to list as a reason for the italic title. I'll try to see what I can find. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)