A user with 34 edits. Account created on 4 November 2019.
1 July 2023
18:1918:19, 1 July 2023diffhist+11
m
Gimbap
Most international resources (as listed here) support the Japanese origin. The insinuation the debate is "just" between Japanese and Korea is unfounded, as even official resources in Korea also support the link between Norimaki and Gimbap.
9 February 2022
10:1110:11, 9 February 2022diffhist−14
Gimbap
Restore fair balance in the discourse on the origin of Gimbap. Further, most international resources (as listed here) support the Japanese origin. Several official resources in Korea also support that origin. The insinuation the debate is "just" between Japanese and Korea is unfounded.
22:5322:53, 22 February 2021diffhist+2,441
Gimbap
Add and restore important source to back up the mainstream theory. Reformulate the sentences to reflect the sources and the degree of theory adoption.
15:5215:52, 21 February 2021diffhist+19
m
Gimbap
Fix wrong source, and removed a source which does not support the claim in the main text. Reformulated text to better reflect the claim supported by the source.
15:4515:45, 21 February 2021diffhist−810
m
Gimbap
Removed the Korean influence theory, as it is unclear what the concept the sentence refers to is. The first mention of Bokssam in Korea dates back to the Joseon era, which is long after the suggested time period for the Korean influence. Instead, reformulated the following sentence to reflect the co-evolution theory as a valid theory among historians, not the "most supported theory" as previously implied - that simply isn't supported by the sources.Tag: references removed
15:3915:39, 21 February 2021diffhist+204
m
Gimbap
Surfaced more content from source about the Japanese influence theory of Gimbap. Removed "Japanese historians" as not only Japanese historians support the theory, and as it conveys the false impression of a niche theory.
A user with 34 edits. Account created on 4 November 2019.
1 July 2023
18:1918:19, 1 July 2023diffhist+11
m
Gimbap
Most international resources (as listed here) support the Japanese origin. The insinuation the debate is "just" between Japanese and Korea is unfounded, as even official resources in Korea also support the link between Norimaki and Gimbap.
9 February 2022
10:1110:11, 9 February 2022diffhist−14
Gimbap
Restore fair balance in the discourse on the origin of Gimbap. Further, most international resources (as listed here) support the Japanese origin. Several official resources in Korea also support that origin. The insinuation the debate is "just" between Japanese and Korea is unfounded.
22:5322:53, 22 February 2021diffhist+2,441
Gimbap
Add and restore important source to back up the mainstream theory. Reformulate the sentences to reflect the sources and the degree of theory adoption.
15:5215:52, 21 February 2021diffhist+19
m
Gimbap
Fix wrong source, and removed a source which does not support the claim in the main text. Reformulated text to better reflect the claim supported by the source.
15:4515:45, 21 February 2021diffhist−810
m
Gimbap
Removed the Korean influence theory, as it is unclear what the concept the sentence refers to is. The first mention of Bokssam in Korea dates back to the Joseon era, which is long after the suggested time period for the Korean influence. Instead, reformulated the following sentence to reflect the co-evolution theory as a valid theory among historians, not the "most supported theory" as previously implied - that simply isn't supported by the sources.Tag: references removed
15:3915:39, 21 February 2021diffhist+204
m
Gimbap
Surfaced more content from source about the Japanese influence theory of Gimbap. Removed "Japanese historians" as not only Japanese historians support the theory, and as it conveys the false impression of a niche theory.