Talk:Wasabi

Dreadful English

How about a native speaker improving the awful syntax and style?

Untitled

How can you see if it is imitation or real? Apart from inspecting the label that is Naelphin

I happen to have the same tube of wasabi that's pictured in the article, in my refrigerator. Nowhere on the tube does it say that it is "imitation" wasabi as claimed in the photo caption. On the other hand, the tube doesn't unequivocally state that it contains the real thing, either. So how DO you know? Willie (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article makes a distinction between the correct and incorrect way to use wasabi to flavor food, but does not explain the correct way to use wasabi. Can this explanation be made? Dysprosia 09:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand the following sentence: "However, wasabi's flavor dissolves very quickly in water and the best way to enjoy wasabi is to apply wasabi after dipping into soy sauce or carefully avoiding wasabi from mixing with soy sauce." It seems a bit contradictory. --AlexG 21:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are possibly four ways to apply wasabi on a piece of raw fish:

1. Put a little wasabi on the fish (top side) and then dip it into soy sauce (bottom side) quickly;
2. Dissolve wasabi in soy sauce and soak the fish in it; '
3. Marinate the fish (usually tuna's fatless red meat, aka mi in Japanese) in soy sauce for hours and then put a little of wasabi on it;
4. Same as above, but with soy sauce + wasai.

Method 1 is the traditional way to serve the fish. It helps to preserve wasabi's flavor.

Method 2 is, IMHO, the less civilized way to eat the fish. Very frequently, people just mix wasabi in their soy sauce dishes. Sometimes that could be acceptible. But most of the times, they are wasting the fish. However, some stone age people are trained to kill their food completely down to every single cell before eating it. I find it difficult to put the blame on them.

Method 3 and 4 are special ways to prepare the fish developed some 100 years ago. They did not have refrigerators at that time, so they used soy sauce to preserve the fish. Japanese people did not like tuna's fatty belly meat (toro in Japanese) then.

Have a happy meal. -- Toytoy 00:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Another fun recipe:

Wasabi Pickle

Take bread and butter pickle (The presliced kind) spread a pinch of wasabi on it.

Eat fast.

(Vance Clarend 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

---

Can someone validate or refute the following statement? That the flavor evaporates I can believe, that it would evaporate significantly in the 15 minutes between serving and eating I have some doubts.

"Once the paste is prepared it should remain covered until served to protect the flavor from evaporation. This is why sushi chefs usually put the wasabi between the fish and the rice."

Jerdwyer

Snorting? ouch!

Not sure if some mention should be on the main article page, but WOW this video of an idiot snorting powdered wasabi, well it led me to here to see if it's been mentioned as a "do not do this!" activity yet :)

http://www.media-post.net/link408.php

http://www.filecrush.com/files/wasabi.html

Supposed modern reading of old kanji

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)

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)

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)

Good Omens

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)Abby C.

"Dick Turpin" is the name of the car, "Wasabi" the name of the (fictional) maker. Note that the article says it's called "a Wasabi". --Brazzy 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture section

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)

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)

Horseradish vs. Wasabi

Does the imitation Wasabi also have microbe fighting ability as the real thing? I ask this because, no doubt, I've only had the imitation brand.Jlujan69 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The sulfur in the thioindoles that giv it flavour can probably kill a few microbes. I've read that even Cabbage juice, from probably the weakest crucifer, can defend against (and even reverse) pre-cancerous polyps of the colon. I'd like to remember the book where I read that, but epl was rearranged.

I taste no difference between Wasabi and horseradish, and I've had both. Neither is as powerful after drying and reconstitution. One of them might be naturally green. They are both mother of cabbage, IMAO, no matter how different the roots might look. I've seen varieties with tap roots and varieties with roots like jinjer.

I'm totally skeptical of the claim that "most sushi bars" only use the fake. It's hard to find the real stuff at American grocery stores, but I've never had a hard time finding it at Asian markets in a variety of cities in the U.S. I am under the impression that I can tell the difference. I find that most sushi bars use the real stuff, and if you get grocery store sushi or sushi off the buffet at an Americanized Chinese restaraunt, you usually get the colored horseradish. Since there's absolutely no source listed for the claim that most sushi bars don't use the real stuff, I think that should be removed unless such a source can be provided. (My evidence is anectdotal, but no statement at all about the prevalence of real vs. imitation should be made unless it can be sourced.) 69.247.73.57 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say you're completely wrong. The ones you think are real are undoubtedly not. Even in many sushi bars in Japan, the wasabi paste will not be made from hon wasabi but horseradish (sometimes with a very small portion of hon wasabi). In fact, the Japanese government even defined wasabi to allow the imitation kind. Next time you are in one of these sushi bars with "the real stuff", ask the chef to show you the wasabi root, as Brian suggests below. Let us know what happens. --C S (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that very few sushi bars/japanese restaurants in North America serve real Wasabi. If your sushi arrives with a lump of green paste with it then the Wasabi is most likely made from horseradish, food colouring and other chemicals. Real Wasabi should be grated at your table. Ask your sushi chef to show your his Wasabi. For more information go to: www.wasabia.com.BrianOates (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, don't eat at the table. Get a bar seat. :p (however this and the preceding comment are not in the appropriate scope of the talk page) It should be noted that the chefs will almost always grate real wasabi at the beginning of any bar service, particularly if you are ordering omakase, and it does seem true that most wasabi at American sushi restaurants is not the proper stuff. Moreover it's rare for good sushi to be served to the customer with a clump of wasabi at all. Both the wasabi and the soy based dressing are more appropriately placed on the pieces (especially when consuming nigiri) by the chef, before presentation. Tomyumgoong (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gwokahol:

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)

this sentence seems to have come out of nowhere. Some copy'n'paste problem?? "These legumes are roasted or fried, then coated with a wasabi-like mixture (usually an imitation). These are then eaten as an eye-watering "in the hand" snack."

222.166.160.28 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

refers to wasabi peas, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.16.61 (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Uses

"Once the paste is prepared it should remain covered until served to protect the flavor from evaporation. For this reason, sushi chefs usually put the wasabi between the fish and the rice."

Comments - Wasabi does not "evaporate" it is more protected from oxidation which reduces its flavor and potency, as well evaporates the water content of the grated root. Wasabi is placed between the fish and rice as a seasoning agent but to smear the wasabi on top of the fish sitting on the sushi would be unappealing, not to keep it from "evaporation", it is not a liquid.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

can you not read? the quote refers not to the substance of wasabi from "evaporating", but the flavour. And please don't start "flavour can't, strictly, evaporate"; in common speech, flavour can evaporate as well as hopes can evaporate, dreams can die, plans can disintegrate, etc.

placing the wasabi in such a way does protect the flavour from the effects of oxidisation, the aesthetic reasons you stated for sushi chefs "hiding" the wasabi are totally wrong. If we had a problem, aesthetically, with having wasabi out in the open - or we wouldn't have lumps of it on the serving dish, and designs made with them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.16.61 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are cranky! What did you have for breakfast, pure wasabi? ;-)

You made very good points, but do note that Christopher Tanner made his comments in a very polite way. You, on the other hand, answered in an aggressive tone ("can you not read?", "And please don't start...") that actually detracts from your arguments, weakening them. If you respond in a more polite way there is a higher chance of getting your point across.

Now, even though I agree with everything you said, I must point out that "common", almost poetic phrases such as "hopes that evaporate, dreams that die, plans that disintegrate", and "flavor that evaporates" is nice but not the best choice for an encyclopedia. The language used in an encyclopedia should be neutral, devoid of subjectivity and of the possibility of misinterpretation. As such, if there is a more clear way of saying something, that's what should be used. In this case, a better phrase could be:

Once the paste is prepared it should remain covered until served to preserve the flavor. 128.169.245.254 (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely and shall see if I can't make said change. Brakoholic (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Chips?

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)

I think the writer was meaning the leaves are prepared and served like Potato chips (crisps for those reading from the UK). It's not hard to imagine, really. Vladamire Steelwolf (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wasabi as an explosive ingredient?

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)

"Duruma" or "Daruma" Cultivar?

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) ps: I've rem-d invisible SineBot's signing of this comment - oops, clicked wrong button.

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)

Health Benefits

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)

→Yeah, plus that entire section is filled with weasel words, if we can't find separate sources for all of these statements they should probably be combined into fewer sentences. Agent Muu (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole section sounds like something from a snake oil salesman. The only "source" is from a wasabi vendor, and they give no actual citations (Johnson et al, 1998 is not a citation unless you give the full reference). I propose removing the whole section unless someone can come up with an actual source.192.55.54.38 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles apart?

Shouldn't the articles Wasabia japonica (plant species) and Wasabi (spice) be apart? Andres (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll set them apart. Andres (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

W. koreana

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)

File:Wasabi tube.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wasabi tube.jpg, 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)

Japanese cuisine

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)

Controversial split

User:Plantdrew split this article to Eutrema japonicum as a plant article. However the most common name of this plant is Wasabi not Eutrema japonicum.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FLORA, the article titles of plants should use the scientific name rather than a common name; this is an exception to the broader policy discussed at WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, WP:FLORA says;

Note that it is often possible to distinguish between plant taxon and plant product, and in those cases it is not necessary to treat both in a single article. For example, it is acceptable to have separate articles on a grape (an edible fruit) and Vitis vinifera (the plant species that most commonly yields grapes). When a decision is made to treat them separately, the taxon article should use the scientific name.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't consider splitting a relatively small article like Wasabi into separate articles for the plant taxon and plant product. However, the condiment/plant product wasabi as currently prepared only rarely contains the root of the wasabi plant. Unless one is eating at a high-end sushi restaurant in Japan, or a VERY high-end sushi restaurant in another country, the wasabi being served is made from horseradish, not the root of the wasabi plant. The wasabi article is already accumulating information on items such as wasabi peas (always made with horseradish based wasabi), and a wasabi spraying smoke alarm for the deaf which actually sprays horseradish. As a common name, wasabi can thus refer either a plant or a product that may or may not (usually not) be made from that plant. These are separate topics, and the plant can be discussed, in accord with WP:FLORA in an article titled with the scientific name while the condiment is discussed at an article with the common name for the condiment.Plantdrew (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You omitted an important description in WP:FLORA. Above quote is followed by the following sentence:

"Such splitting is very highly recommended when there is not a one-to-one correspondence between plant taxon and plant product. For example, brussels sprouts, cabbage and broccoli all comes from the species Brassica oleracea; and several species of Oryza yield rice."

Grape was split because it has many taxa such as Vitis vinifera, Vitis labrusca, Vitis riparia, Vitis rotundifolia, and Vitis amurensis. Apple is not split because its taxon is only Malus domestica.

Taxon Wasabia japonica corresponds only to Wasabi condiments. Wasabi condiments, while some of them are made of a mixture of ingredients, does not correspond to taxon Horseradish. It is rather a kind of an imitation food. This means Wasabi product is a one-to-one correspondence with taxon Wasabia japonica, while an imitation food of Wasabi is widely produced.

As you says above, a relatively small article like this does not have any merit by splitting the article. Rather the splitting this article would become inconvenient for readers.

By the way, why did you use Eutrema japonicum as a title? Wasabia japonica (Natural Resources Conservation Service)[1] or Eutrema japonica (GRIN)[2] seems to be more common. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying any funny business by omitting that sentence from WP:FLORA. It says "splitting is very highly recommended when there is not a one-to-one correspondance", not "splitting is discouraged when there is a one-to-one correspondance". You seem to be arguing the latter. Tea and Camellia sinensis are split in spite of there being a one-to-one correspondance. Non-Camellia based "imitation" teas are discussed at Herbal tea, although as a common name "tea" (at least in the US) arguably includes herbal "imitation" teas as well.

Champagne (243 million Google results) is clearly the common name for Sparkling wine (17.5 million results). "Imitation" champagnes are discussed in their own article. Products made with Imitation crab are routinely marketed as being made with Crab meat. These are separate articles (although crab meat does mention the imitation). Currently, the wasabi article covers 3 topics; the plant, the authentic condiment and the imitation condiment. There is not a one-to-one correspondance between the 2 products called wasabi and the taxon. Nor is there a one-to-one correspondance between the taxon and the authentic grated root product; leaves, stems and flowers are also eaten. In the English speaking world, wasabi is the green paste made from horseradish. Most English speakers will think of the imitation product when they hear the term wasabi, and are not aware that it is not authentic wasabi. As the article is currently structured, it reinforces this misconception. I see four solutions:

1 Splitting imitation wasabi into it's own article and discussing the plant and authentic wasabi in another; unfortunately, the most appropriate title for that article would probably be by common English usage and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Wasabi.

2 Splitting into 3 articles for the plant, the authentic product and the imitation product. That has the same titling issues as #1, and the articles will be very short. I don't think a 3 way split is necessary; the condiment (authentic or imitation) can be considered a single subject.

3 Rewriting the lede of the current article so that it discusses both the authentic and imitation products rather than the classification of the plant. If the article is no longer focused on the plant but on the products, then I see no reason not to go with #4

4 Split the plant into a separate article titled by the scientific name and discuss both the authentic and imitation products at Wasabi, as I had done.

I should not have mentioned the size of the article above. The issues here is WP:CONSPLIT not WP:SIZESPLIT. Short articles can still be split if the content is different. The plant is one subject, the product (made with either of two different plants) is another. Yes, plant and product could potentially be discussed together, but in this case the product does not precisely correspond to the plant, and it is misleading to readers to have the article focus on the plant and the authentic product when they are far more likely to encounter the imitation product.

Eutrema japonica is wrong, in spite of it's widespread use. The scientific names of genera have a grammatical gender, and the names of species must agree with the gender. Eutrema is grammatically neuter, so the names of species in Eutrema should generally have the neuter ending "-um" (see species list here:[3]). Eutrema appears at first glance to be a grammatically feminine genus; the ending "-a" is usually associated with feminine genera. Confusion about the grammatical gender of Eutrema led to the wide use of Eutrema japonica in the literature. Wasabia japonica is the correct name if Wasabia is a separate genus from Eutrema. While some botanists in the past had thought these were two different genera, with recent advances in molecular biology, Wasabia is no longer recognized as a distinct genus from Eutrema.Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Please make you discussion succinctly. We don't call Camellia sinensis as tea. You are insisting the split only by technical reason although there is no technical problem with this article. I am discussing whether the split benefits readers or not. As I said above, a relatively small article like this does not have any merit by splitting the article. Rather the splitting this article would become inconvenient for readers. The split makes the plant title from the most common name Wasabi to the least common name Eutrema japonicum. It makes the plant article virtually inaccessible by name. The only way to access the plant article is a link in the condiment article.

I know botanists generally prefer a scientific name for a plant article name. I saw a newbie moved many plant article names to scientific names before and all the moves were reverted.[4] And you seem to be one of those editors.[5]

P.S. Please note that an article title is not determined by a grammatically correct name but by the most common name.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you find this version acceptable? User:Plantdrew/Wasabi I've changed the lede paragraph to focus on the condiment with prominent mention of imitation wasabi and moved the information about the plant into it's own section.

P.S. Please note that a correct scientific name is not determined by most common usage. Outdated and misspelled scientific names can and do appear more widely in the literature than the currently accepted and correctly spelled name. Plantdrew (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As you haven't objected in a week, can I make the edit suggested above (at: User:Plantdrew/Wasabi) without getting reverted? I'd like to focus this article on the condiment, and hope to add enough content that you'll agree to splitting the condiment and plant into separate articles.Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This restructuring looks good to me, and I'd say go ahead and make it. This article definitely needs to better address the most common usage of the term, which is to refer to the condiment. Λυδαcιτγ 14:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Images

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:

• 
• 
• 

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Added. Λυδαcιτγ 23:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is NOT a root or a rhizome

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)

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)

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)

name why is it different in the Japanese article?

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)

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)

materia medica

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wasabi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article needs significant work in regards to citations: Single source Unreferenced sections

Last edited at 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Physical Composition

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)

Missing Images

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

False advertizing

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)

@WereTech:, 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)

It is indeed a sad state of affairs. Buyer beware and always read the ingredients before purchasing, because the packaging can say anything apparently. And even reading the ingredients be careful. For example "...Wasabi Powder (Dextrin, Arabic Gum, Horseradish Powder)..." on the label for the related product which obviously contains no Wasabi at all but is listed as an ingredient as "wasabi power" <- which definitely is not "powered wasabi".WereTech (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Cognitive health effect

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)

References

broken formatting

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