DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Sushi

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

California Roll

[edit]

Does anyone know the origins of the California Roll? I know that its a Westernization of traditional sushi but was it actually invented in California? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.240.187 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably... read the California roll article. 107.77.202.209 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sushi In Asia" section seems a bit off

[edit]

The Sushi In Asia section only contains 1 subsection: Sushi in South Korea. To me, this seems odd. Is there any way to expand this section to make it seem less barren? Or perhaps move the Sushi in South Korea section to another part of the page and get rid of this section altogether. It just seems silly to have this as is since there's not that much content there.

Regional Styles, from list of ingredients

[edit]

I think that the "Regional Styles" section from over at List_of_sushi_and_sashimi_ingredients belongs here, since that is simply a list of ingredients. Challenger l (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

[edit]

@35.134.146.62: In this edit, User:35.134.146.62 reverted my short description "Japanese dish of rice and usually fish" (38 chars) to the longer "Portioned prepared vinegared rice topped or rolled with other ingredients" (73 chars), with the Edit summary "The short description is too narrow, calls it a dish, and makes fish too prominent."

Short descriptions are supposed to be limited to roughly 40 characters; the long version here is far too long.

Also, the long description is a definition, which is not the purpose of an SD (WP:HOWTOSD). It also doesn't mention by far the most common form of sushi known to most non-Japanese. I don't see that "usually fish" makes "fish too prominent". Yes, of course there are many forms of sushi that don't contain fish, which I think is reasonably covered by "usually".

It also seems essential to say that it is a dish in Japanese cuisine, which is after all what the lead of the article already calls it. I don't know why .62 objects to the term "dish".

I suppose a more technically accurate SD that fits the 40-character limit would be "Japanese dish of vinegared rice" (31 chars), but I'm not sure that conveys the sense to most of our readers. For that matter, "Japanese dish" would technically be a correct SD, but doesn't communicate as effectively. --Macrakis (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no objection, I have put the fish back in the short description. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "traditional", which adds nothing, and also "usually", which is just pedantic. As I said above, a short description is not intended to be a complete definition. --Macrakis (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oshizushi

[edit]

I changed the image of oshi-zushi. The previous image is not oshi-zushi. It is the image of california rolls that imitated the style of oshi-zushi. But unfortunately someone reverted my edit. So I changed the image again. --Vh523x4 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HEALTH RISKS - regarding the paragraph on EU regulations

[edit]

Hi, I checked the source for this sentence "For these reasons, EU regulations forbid the use of fresh raw fish. It must be frozen at temperatures below −20 °C (−4 °F) in all parts of the product for no less than 24 hours.'" and have to report a potential factual error. The relevant segment of said EU regulation details specifically the treatment of Bivalve Molluscs and not all raw fish. This source appears to be a set of expansions on a pre-existing set of hygiene regulations that may cover raw fish but did not detail the specifics regarding bivalve molluscs and a few other specific areas and needed expansion via this document. Either we need to change the source for this phrase or we need to remove the phrase if no source can be found. 2A02:A03F:8A3F:AB00:A81E:74FD:AF6F:A529 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a source link for your statement? Thank you! JthomasP (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that an assertion without evidence may be equally dismissed without evidence. Challenger l (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Also commonly called a "Caterpillar Roll", its avocado exterior resembles the scales of a dragon."

[edit]

Is that a fact? Drsruli (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the wording to "is said to resemble", which seems a little more grounded. Buddy Gripple (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate sections

[edit]

I've hidden a section under 'History' as it duplicates a section under 'Types', see my edit, both sections were titled "Nigirizushi". Either they should be merged, one should be deleted, or they should have different sections titles. Removing the section under 'History' seemed the correct option, but I've only hidden it while seeking others input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to omit the description of the birth and development of the most common type of sushi, nigirizushi, from the History section. The description in this section clearly focuses on the historical perspective of nigirizushi, and its omission would leave one of the most important pieces of information in the history of sushi unexplained in the History section.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since nigirizushi is a type of hayazushi, I have moved the explanation to the Hayazushi section, leaving the important explanation intact.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, thanks SLIMHANNYA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Sushi

[edit]

Regarding this section: "Sushi in Japanese restaurants has existed in Australia since the 1950s, but the first Australian-style sushi only appeared in 1995, in a stall called Sushi-Jin in the Target Centre food court at 246 Bourke Street, Melbourne. The owner, Toshihiro Shindo, started selling takeaway sushi rolls which he adapted to Australian tastes. "

The first store selling this type of Sushi was in the Hunter Connection and opened in 1993. The owners were Mr. Masao Sano and Mrs. Takiko Sano and the company was "Tokyo Roll". They soon after opened a store in Kings Cross. After that they found an investor in Nozaki Foods. With the new investment they opened a central kitchen in Willoughby and a flagship store in the Centrepoint Mall. In 1997/1998 Sano-san fell out with Nozaki Foods, and started a rival business, "Sushi Roll", with the backing of a new investor, which retained the Hunter Connection and Kings Cross stores. They opened a new kitchen in Artarmon and a new flagship store in the Myer Centre, off Elizabeth Street.

At the time Mr. Sano spoke with a patent lawer about protecting this type of "Autralain Sushi" but was told that as it would be considered a process it would be difficult to patent.

I made a blog post about information here: https://femorofella.wordpress.com/2024/11/15/australian-sushi/

Also a reddit post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JapaneseFood/comments/1grs2ao/australian_sushi/ SoldierBlue01 (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)][reply]

Edit: I'll add that a competitor to Tokyo Roll, Sushi World, began business in 1996, operating a chain of stores from Camperdown. Sushi World sold Korean "kimbap" style rolls. "Kimbap" are the same size as Japanese chumaki rolls but used flavoured nori and different filling. They sold rolls cut in two, mimicking Sano-san. They were reported for breaches of hygene regulations in 1997.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/lid-lifted-on-risky-fast-food-cover-up-20070529-gdq95g.html

I can assure you there were no such hygene issues at kitchens run by Mr. Sano. We were audited by Ansett before providing sushi for their Frequent Flyers club lounge and no serious issues were found.

  • User:SoldierBlue01, you don't need to assure anyone here of that, but I am just not sure what you are trying to argue--there's too much in here. There was an earlier place that sold Australian sushi? Fine--but cite a reliable source, please. A blog post won't do. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was able to contact the creator of https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/takeaway-sushi/ and they were able to cofirm the timeline for the stores I mentioned to degree that satisfied them. They updated the details using me as a primary source.
Either way, the reference you have used, https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/takeaway-sushi/, has been changed so the content of the entry for Australian sushi should be updated accordingly, or if you still have doubts you should probably remove the refernce entirely. SoldierBlue01 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that Tokyo Roll was the first restaurant to sell "Australian Sushi", and that the creator was most almost certainly Masao Sano. This is significant for several reasons. When it started, 1993, not 1995. Where it started, Sydney, not Melbourne, and who started it, Masao Sano, not Toshiehiro Shindo. I worked with Sano-san and know the business intimately. I'd like advice regarding the best way to prove this. All you seem to have done is use internet articles. Tokyo Roll pre-dates the internet. I could go through newspaper archives to look for contemporary reviews. I can look for business registrations for the registration date. I can go back through my own tax records to find when I worked for Sano-san. What else do you need?

Edit: SMH and Heral Sun are only archived digially to 1995. There is a flurry of sushi related job ads in 1993, which are probably from the Hunter Connection. After 1995 I'd need to check the microfilm at the NSW State Library. Difficult as I live in Japan.

Edit: The source you have used, https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/takeaway-sushi/ , is itself essentially a blog. I'll contact the author directly to see about the best way of ammending this history.