Talk:Gimbap

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assembly Directions? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wrong Translation

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

text: 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)
replies: text: And now they do. :-)  Thanks!  -- Visviva 14:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for explaining the roanization. :) Have to exchange the name of the article in fiWikipedia. --Sumiko 22:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Name of the food

message: 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).
: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)
thread_title: Maki-zushi

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins of food 

message: (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 , 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 '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The origin of [[Gimbap]] 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taiwanese version of samgak gimbap 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. It was deleted by this edit just before your edit.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop deleting the history 

message: I just removed 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)
replies: text: Agree. This was already discussed above #Gimbap as sushi or as onigiri.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean origin 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is acceptable. I'll go ahead and add that in. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unsourced content

message: 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.
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)". "Korean Central Research Institute" In this theory, a traditional Korean food Gimssam is particularly focused.
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)
thread_title:  Don't bother editing Kimbap article with my contents, I just made a separate article on Kimbap. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 () translates into the English word "gimbap". --Brett (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfect. Thanks Brett. Barte (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: " 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)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History part makes no sense 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History (Language Used) 

message: “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)
thread_title:  Confusing theories? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  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. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Italic title reason