Talk:Wasabi

message: I've taken out the "which would be read wasahi in modern language" in "Wasabi (Japanese: 山葵 (originally written: 和佐比, which would be read wasahi in modern language)".  I don't believe there is any reason to suppose that the kanji 和佐比 would be pronounced wasahi and not wasabi; 比 in fact is read as bi in a lot of words (check http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/j-e.cgi/sjis/dosearch?sDict=on&H=PA&L=J&T=%94%E4&WC=none&LI=on for examples).  Correct me if I am wrong. 24.159.255.29 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Old pronunciation and spelling do not have the modern one-spelling-one-pronunciation rule and a kanji has multiple pronunciations. Individually, "比" is read most commonly as "hi" as in "hiritsu"('ratio'), "hikaku" ('compare') and "taihi" (another 'compare'). Dakuon is usually avoided when the original pronunciation is unknown.--Revth 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 和佐比 rendering is leftover Man'yōgana; the pronunciations /hi/ and /bi/ were generally undifferentiated in writing until fairly recently (i.e., 17th century or thereabouts). Jim_Lockhart 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed modern reading of old kanji 

message: In my copy of Good Omens, the car is named "Dick Turpin", rather than Wasabi. Is there a difference between the American and UK versions, or is the article in error?
24.154.116.172 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Omens 

message: This section needs to be trimmed. Many of the entries there simply consist of bare-mention examples without any substantial reference to wasabi beyond the name. I made the change, but it has been reverted. I would like to solicit further opinions. --Eyrian 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, fwiw. I think these "in popular culture" sections in many of the articles on things Japanese, are quite annoying and not at all informative. I don't understand their purpose and think they should be deleted unless one of these nuggets demonstrates some way in which the subject has informed popular culture in some way. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section 

message: Pyuuray the following, in this order:
One grapefruit
One tomato
One white pepper of the Halapenyoh family
One teaspoon of Cardamom
One teaspoon of Wasabi powder or Horseradish pyuuray
Half of a Banana, possibly old
Half of an apple
Note: All five parts of the tung are involved in tasting this: sweet (Apple and Banana), sour (grapefruit), salty (tomato), bitter (grapefruit), hot (Wasabi and Halapenyoh), and flowery (Cardamom, which smells minty), and it may not balance the same way on your tung, so the size of fruit (and strength or kind of Cardamom) can matter. The order is designed against oxidation. One guy told me he tasted lime. Brewhaha@edmc.net 07:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gwokahol:

message: I am not sure that the chip link is strictly useful: 'Additionally, the leaves can be battered and deep-fried into chips.' I am not too well versed in Japanese food, but the idea of 'chips' made from leaves is rather confusing to me. Anyone care to correct/explain this?user:jimjamjak 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It links to chips in the british way, i assume they mean the US/Standard-english kind? If so, someone should change the link.--86.87.28.191 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this comment actually referred to tempura wasabi leaves, as its common for some other leaves to be served as tempura in Japan, like shizou. Nothing like chips/crisps at all really. +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chips? 

message: The following paragraph looks like patent nonsense—a joke, perhaps?—and needs to be substantiated by citing a reliable source:Wasabi can also be used as a raw ingredient to make powerful explosives. Even though it may not combust by itself, isothiocyanates in wasabi are powerful oxidizing agents (which also explains its antimicrobial properties) that can create highly exothermic reactions when combined with certain organic fuels. During the early 20th century, the Japanese military researched the use of wasabi to make "bunker buster" type explosive devices. However wasabi-based explosives were later substituted for C4 and other synthetic explosives.
:*Please source the statement that wasabi can be used for making powerful exposives. As a matter of fact, rather than writing “powerful”, tell readers how powerful so they can judge for themselves.
:*I assume that “[e]ven though it may not combust by itself” is just poor writing for “though it does not combust spontaneously, the isothiocyanates in wasabi are powerful oxidizing agents.” This “may not” construction is ambiguous (and therefore counts as a weasel word) or it’s just plain wrong.
:*What are the certain organic fuels?
:*The writer’s intent in the final two sentences is unclear, as they seem to contradict one another: Why “however” if the wasabi was so good that it could be “substituted for C4 and other synthetic explosives”? On the face of it, this statement looks ridiculous. If “however” is indeed correct, then the following phrase is backwards: It’s C4 and other synthetic explosives that were substituted for (i.e., displaced) wasabi in these applications.
If these statements cannot be rewritten unambiguously AND substantiated with citation of reliable sources, they can be justifiably removed. Jim_Lockhart 06:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasabi as an explosive ingredient?

message: Hi.  "Duruma" looked odd to me.   Google for "Duruma"+"Wasabi"    -->
turns up almost only pages that quote the article.  Google for "daruma"+"わさび" ( though I'm sure this needs no explanation for many folks reading the article , I should mention that "わさび" is "wasabi" in hiragana) turns up a lot more, including this.  It's someone's personal page, hosted by their (apparently) former university. Though obviously  the work of an expert (and damn interesting reading), as arguably a self-published source I guess it isn't a link that could be cited.   I do think that it, plus the search results - and this the context of an article that has citation problems - alter the balance of probabilities very much in favour of changing the cultivar name.  --Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, I really should do basic research before I go spouting off.  http://www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/engl/Wasa_jap.html is already included in Wasabi#External_links. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Duruma" or "Daruma" Cultivar? 

message: I've added a citation request for the list of health benefits at the end of the uses section - without some sourcing, it seems dubious at best, and like snake-oil sales pitches at worst.  Does anybody know of some decent science for this?Neil (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Benefits 

message: Shouldn't the articles Wasabia japonica (plant species) and Wasabi (spice) be apart? Andres (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you do that, could you perhaps first explain why you think it would be better to split this article into two? --DAJF (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because these are different topics. Besides, the spice seems to be made of other Wasabia species too.  Andres (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please split them apart. Since wasabi (spice) is almost always horseradish in the English speaking world (and apparently Japan too), these are clearly different topics. It would be good to have a page about the plant species (which has a clearly defined identity) as a well as a page about the condiment, which discusses the issues with the condiment's identity. Having Wikipedia discuss the condiment under the name of something that is almost never in it is misleading. Plantdrew (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles apart?

message: I think I need to clarify this info. Wasabia koreana is called Gochunaeng-i (고추냉이) in Korean. Komitsuki (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  W. koreana 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Wasabi tube.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is there a Japanese dish that is referred to with this name ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.93.64 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese cuisine 

message: Should there be an image showing wasabi as a paste?  I think this is the most common form that people eat, at least in the US.  Some options are already on Commons:
File:HK 北角 North Point 和田 Wada Japanese Restaurant 放題 Buffet dinner 山葵 green Wasabi 30-Mar-2013.JPG|
File:HK 北角 North Point 和田 Wada Japanese Restaurant 放題 Buffet dinner 山葵 green Wasabi Mar-2013.JPG|
File:Wasabi by No Grand Design.jpg
MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Λυδαcιτγ 23:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hi. I see that the part of the wasabi plant from which the wasabi spice is obtained is being referred to either as a root or as a rhizome. It is not any of these, it is merely the stem on which the leaves shoot from and grow. It is most certainly not a root. A rhizome on the other hand is a storage mechanism and can be removed from the plant without affecting it much. Please look at the photos below, first of wasabi plants, then for comparison, kale, another brassicaceae, where you can clearly see the almost identical stem. I thank you for your attention. 
http://shizuokagourmet.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/wasa-8_0001.jpg
http://shizuokagourmet.com/wasabi-a-visit-to-its-birthplace-in-shizuoka/
http://steamykitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/real-fresh-wasabi-1-19.jpg?6ff701
http://www.steamykitchen.com/15015-real-fresh-wasabi.html
http://media.oregonlive.com/mix_impact/photo/wasabi-party-caption2jpg-66c59895f7199780.jpg
http://www.oregonlive.com/mix/index.ssf/friday_night_dinner_party/recipes_from_a_surfer_beach_party_hosted_by_a_wasa.html
http://www.japan-feinkost.de/shop/img/wasabiwurzel.jpg
http://www.japan-feinkost.de/en/shop/lebensmittel/wasabi_kinjirushi.php
By comparison, let's look at kale, another brassicaceae
You can see an almost identical stem. The fact that the wasabi stem is below water does NOT make it a root or rhizome as the Wikipedia in various languages are calling it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Kale_plot_in_Kenya.jpg
http://www.ravennablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/tall_kale_crop.jpg
http://static.squarespace.com/static/526be86be4b09bac0b20b504/526bea2ae4b0269b7a3d8b7d/526bea57e4b0269b7a3d908d/1351755010000/green-city-acres-3.jpg?format=original
http://fromfinancetofarming.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tall-kale.jpg
Regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As the majority of the Western world refers to the portion of the plant used for flavoring as a root and/or a rhizome, perhaps the article should include a paragraph to address these misnomers rather than just doing a global replace of "root" with "stem".  Perhaps this article (Catherine I. Chadwick, Thomas A. Lumpkin and Leslie R. Elberson: The Botany, Uses and Production of Wasabia japonica (Miq.) (Cruciferae) Matsum; Economic Botany Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1993), pp. 113-135; Published by: New York Botanical Garden Press; link requires JSTOR access) will be helpful. Dwpaul Talk    15:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dwpaul. That is not only a very valid, but also very constructive point. Including such information would indeed be a logical complement to address the misnomer. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is NOT a root or a rhizome 

message: When I look at the Japanses Wasabi article I see Wasabi listed as " ワサビ " and the first word as " ワサビ（山葵）" yet THIS article says it is referred to as " (わさび（山葵）?, originally 和佐比; " NEITHER of these look like the word in the Japanese article. CAN someone who actually read Japanese correct this OR explain why the form is different if this is actually correct? There does not seem to be etymology with the English article at the moment. I mean the Japanese etymology NOT that the word was loaned into English from Japanese, whenever that was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.9.87 (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ワサビ, わさび, and 山葵 are the same thing in different Japanese writing systems. The first one is in katakana. One typical use of katakana is in species names. The second is in hiragana. One typical use of hiragana is giving pronunciation. They are both phonetic alphabets with exact equivalents between the two (ワ=わ="wa", サ=さ="sa", ビ=び="bi"). In this usage, the difference is like regular vs. italic text for species names in English. 66.92.147.159 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  name why is it different in the Japanese article? 

message: If someonw has time for translating Japanese then...
(本草和名 Honzō Wamyō?), could be a good thing to translate here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.15.235 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  materia medica 

message: Substituted at 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: There is a small section of the chemistry of wasabi in the article that needs to be expanded. Also, the section on preparation could be expanded as well. The physical composition of wasabi could be mentioned as well as the molecules that make wasabi spicy and create its unique flavor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia033 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Composition 

message: There's a fair few missing images on the page for the gallery, is anyone able to replace them? Sata1991 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wasabi. 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/20110806033433/http://www.sushifaq.com/sushi-items/sushi-items-wasabi.htm to http://www.sushifaq.com/sushi-items/sushi-items-wasabi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As far as I'm concerned, putting "wasabi" on something that has no wasabi in it is false advertising.
How are food companies getting away with this?
I love Wasabi, but I have allergic-like reactions to mustard.
Isn't labeling something Wasabi and putting mustard in it kind of like filling a wine bottle labelled as wine with beer or filling a caviar container with catfish roe? Sure it says in fine print that it's just beer or fish roe, but the sell-point of the item is the labeling saying what it is and not the list of ingredients. They have the essential ingredients "type" alcohol or fish eggs in these examples, but they are far from what one would be expecting or maybe tolerable to.
It seems like from this article the basis of labeling something as "wasabi" someone could just as well stick cabbage in the product and add jalapenos and get away with it.
I thought there were stricter standards on food labeling than this.WereTech (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , food labeling standards are not very strict, and where strict standards exist, they're not necessarily enforced. Multiple species are often sold under the same name; "true" cinnamon is Cinnamomum verum, but Cinnamomum cassia is the source of most cinnamon sold in the United States. Pinus pinea is the traditional source of pine nuts used in Italian cuisine, but most pine nuts in the US are imported from China these days, and come from one of several different species. Chinese pine nuts may cause long lasting taste disturbances. Seafood mislabelling is rampant. While the FDA does have standards about appropriate labels for seafood, these standards aren't enforced. According to the FDA, Lutjanus campechanus, a species that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, is the only species that can be marketed as "red snapper". Yet I see "red snapper" in stores that comes from Peru or Indonesia and which can't possibly be L. campechanus. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Folks, please review WP:NOTFORUM.  If this discussion is going to result in improvements to the article, please make them; otherwise, please wrap it up. General Ization Talk   03:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  False advertizing 

message: I hope that somebody better than I can add this recent news to Wasabi#Nutritional information or a better location. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/21/4608. Here's a sample reporting article: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/wasabi-found-to-boost-brainpower-in-seniors#Wasabi-improves-working-and-episodic-memory Tom Haws (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive health effect 

message: can someone fix the broken formatting in the top part of the article? 194.230.147.23 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken formatting