Talk:Fork

Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire is Western

The article claims that the personal table fork was used first during the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, perhaps as early as the Greek Empire. But then it goes on to say that Westerners didn't adopt the fork until [x] century. It is pretty much unanimously agreed that ancient Roman and Greek civilization are Western. In fact, that's wear Western culture originates from. The Byzantine Empire was an amalgamation of both societies so wouldn't it be Western as well? Thus wouldn't Westerners have adopted the fork the same time the ancient Romans/Byzantines/Greeks did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 01:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Greece or Italy is not in Western Europe, according most definitions, including these of UN or CIA, but Southern Europe. Also, according to Huntington Greece is not part of the Western but Orthodox civilization - Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Etiquette

According to etiquette, during the meal the fork is held in the left hand, and the knife in the right.

I'm pretty sure this is the case in either Europe or North America, but not both. Could a helpful etiquette expert please clarify this? - Montréalais 08:53, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- I'm unsure what the standard is for replying in the discussion section in wiki and apologize if I've done so wrong. To answer your question, the fork is held in the left hand while the knife is held in the right hand when eating continental style. American style is the same while cutting, but when you go to actually use your fork to pick up food you put the knife down on the far edge of the plate, and switch your fork to your right hand. I'm pretty sure the American style of using silverware is also referred to as the "zig-zag method" for this reason.

Hope this helps, CatchyUsername — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.50.224 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Upper Classes

man1:What is meant by "upper classes" in 1600? The aristocracy? If so, why not say so? HistoryBA 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

man2: also "aristocracy would sometimes be accustomed to manners" is confusing. not only is it part of something that couldn't possibly be considered a sentance, but the definition of 'manners' at this point in history meant, what we call today, left-overs.

Sporks are better?

I noticed a little spork praise at the end of the first paragraph. Is that vandalism?

Vandalism

I'm clearing up the vandalism that's been put on here, some stuff like "the spoon is enveloped in your mum" and "I LIKE COLD MEAT". I have no intentions of vandalizing wikipedia.82.35.196.165 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't think maybe that in the very first sentence the parenthetical phrase needs to be deleted? It's obviously a joke. A fork never has two tines, as is shown in the picture of a fork with just two tines? 97.117.191.212 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you morons unluck this page or at least do something about the obvious lack of source 16 provides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:C200:558F:35BD:E992:6367:9E2E (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Often refered to as"?

Come on. When was the last time you called a fork the "king of utensils"?

"Excuse me, dear, you gave me two forks by mistake. I don't have a king of utensils."

"Now, son, don't eat your peas with the king of utensils"

King, n. 1. the male ruler of a monarchy; 2. (playing cards) the highest ranking face card; 3. (cutlery) the fork.

Vandalism or not I was blown away by the phrase. I'm going to begin incorporating it into my every day language. Maybe prepare a little speech on the king of utensils for a lull in conversation. --130.126.67.39 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fork... why fork??

why call a fork a fork?? seriously, who came up with the name and why?

I think that we call it a fork because . . . that's what it is!

I found the following:

— [ Old English forca, via Germanic < Latin furca "pitchfork"] (MSN Encarta)

— ORIGIN Latin furca ‘pitchfork, forked stick’. AskOxford)

— O.E. forca "forked instrument used by torturers," from L. furca "pitchfork," of uncertain origin. Online Etymology Dictionary

I don't know if it is possible to find the origin of the latin word. — MFH:Talk 14:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian History

I paste here the modified version of User:66.222.220.176 before reverting.

---

One belief is that the fork was introduced in the Middle East, in the region of southern Turkey before the year 1000. Another prominent theory is that the utensil was first developed in the Balkans by the ancestors of modern day Serbs.

• Contains reference to Serb connection

---

Maybe this is not vandalism, but the reference seems quite poor to me (not scientific at all in fact) and the sources indicate the "middle east before 1000" thesis: see e.g. the google search for fork+introduced+history

If you want to insist, please give a rough estimate of when the serbs invented the fork. — MFH:Talk 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: In fact, Turkey and present-day serbia are not so far from each other, and I can imagine that it's difficult to establish with 100% accuracy where the true origin was. Also, notice that my revert has no anti-serbian motivation, in fact I have many friends in Serbia. But unless better sources are given, the saying "we [serbs] invented the fork" (even if it is common in Serbia) seems not valid as proof of a historical fact. — MFH:Talk 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge into Fork

It was delightful to find different entries for all sorts of forks. 206.208.110.32

I think it rather silly to have separate entries that simply can't easily become more than two or three lines in length. It would be more rational - and less tough on users' mouse buttons - to list the descriptions in this article. I'll give it a few days (two or three) and if no one objects, merging it is. --R. Wolff 17:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and support merging.--Boson 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. All the "different entries" will just be in this article after merging. Same thing. — Omegatron 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Turtle Tribes

I have removed the following:

" and my have been invented by the Turtle Tribes of Early Korea"

because it looks like nonsense and I can no evidence of turtle tribes anywhere in Asia. If their existence and use of forks can be documented, by all means let it be reinstated. seglea 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"As a handwriting tool or pencil, a fork is a tool consisting of a handle with several narrow tines (usually two to four) on one end."

Sounds almost as if the fork was a handwriting tool. And anyway, since when do handwriting tools usually have two to four narrow tines on one end? Acdx 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Runcible Spoon NOT Spork

A spork and a runcible spoon are not the same thing. They have similarities, yes, but the fact that the word 'runcible' was invented by a nonsense poet who didn't really know what it meant throws it into disregard slightly. Edited. BB 30/10/06

History Non Sequitur

The first sentence in the history section, "It is a commonly believed myth that the table fork was introduced to West during the Middle Ages, as the Romans used forks for serving.", makes no sense. It only gets worse as you read the section. Can somebody knowledgeable correct? 65.80.244.199 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Two stories keep coming up in my research for this. One is that the fork was transferred to Italy by a byzantine princess when she married the Doge of Venice, Domenico Selvo. Or, it was transferred by princess Theophanu (also of the Byzantine empire) when she married the soon to be Holy Roman Emperor Otto II.

--Ianboggs 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Heretic's fork

How noble of you to remove heretic's fork from this article (eating forks), you regard as being tasteless. However, would it not have been a good idea also to link to that article through the disambiguation page? Anyway, have done so now (see fork (disambiguation) as well as some of the others, such as broadfork, spading fork, etc. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Andreus Vesulius?

This is vandalism. There is no such person, but there is an anatomist and physician called Andreas Vesalius but he had nothing to do with any fork. I will revert this every time it is re-entered unless it cites sources to the effect that he introduced the fork as an eating implement or surgical item in Northern Europe. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters?

Didn't the show Mythbusters once try shooting forks from a cannon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More pictures and descriptions of types of forks?

Is it possible to have more information on how to tell the different types of forks apart? There's no info at all on the berry fork for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.33.172 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fish fork

I understand that lacking of a better candidate for an image will force to use a diagram, but this diagram is too simple, there is not information about the main features of a fish fork that can be conveyed by the image. For example, fish forks usually come with an incision or hole (probably not the right word) on the edge, close to the handle, that allows, with the aid of the fish knife, to hold and pull out the fish-bones. It is also smaller than table fork and in many cases made out of silver.  franklin  02:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• examples [1], [2], and this one that have the incision in between the tines [3].

I haven't found a free image of a fish fork but having a misleading (misleading because it says nothing) doesn't seem appropriate.  franklin  02:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette, Environment Sections

Having read the "chopsticks" article on Wikipedia, I think there are two sections that this article is lacking. An etiquette section should describe fork etiquette among countries that use it, and an environmental impact section to describe how disposable forks are affecting the environment. Refer to that article for a better idea of what I mean. 97.102.165.239 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman fork.

I have change little the roman section. Indeed the fork was commonly used in Roman Empire with other instruments as thimbles for hot meals. They had two (a lot) or three tines (less).

Speciments are displayed in Padua Archeological Museum and Torcello Museum but they are only examples.

See: this book of Padua museum: http://books.google.com/books?id=JmhX4rLLl-UC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=le+forchette+del+museo+di+torcello&source=bl&ots=JGzfwj_jN8&sig=bC7DymN1pONCvB5HaJ9jm71OlbU&hl=en&ei=5ZbTTffLEsfEtAbh-6HeAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=le%20forchette%20&f=false pag. 204.

About venetian area: The venetian name for fork "piron" come directly from the greek word "piruni" and not from latin. So it is the possibility that the venetian aristocracy (of bourgeois origin) newly learned the use from Byzantine wives.

While for western aristocracy especially those of Germanic origin it was a blasphemy to use a fork...it was considered decadent.. There was also religious reason for the disappearance of the fork in fallen Western Roman Empire: the Church was against the use of a fork because it reminded the devil, indeed only recently in advanced modern era the use of fork became common in monasteries.

--Andriolo (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Bible reference to a fork

The following information is wrong and should be deleted:

"...and it is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in the Book of I Samuel 2:13 ("The custom of the priests᾽ with the people was that when any man offered sacrifice, the priest᾽s servant came, while the fresh flesh was boiling, with a fork of three teeth in his hand..."

The actual passage from Book I Samuel 2:13 refers to a flesh hook used to remove large hanks of meat from a cauldron and not a fork. See the actual passage from KJV:

"And the priests' custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest ̓s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand;"

The continuation of this passage makes absolutely clear that it is a flesh hook an not a fork:

"...And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither."

In the Septuagint the corresponding word is κρεάγρα meaning precisely a meat hook.

Proteusx (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

“God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks - his fingers" quote

This quote is sourced to a geocities page which gives no additional references. Googling it only turns up references that either cite this page or the original geocities page. Where does it actually come from? --2.218.115.118 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

mostly metal?

Our entry states, without source, that forks are usually made of metal. While that is the traditonal material (reference needed), it is possible that the quantity of disposed=of plastic forks out=wieghs, or at least out=numbers metal ones. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Fork → Fork (cutlery) – too easy to mis-link from the popular domain of software fork (software development). Other possible names table fork, fork (utensil) etc MfortyoneA (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

see above I found quite a few places where people had mis-linked to this article from other contexts. I've fixed those, but the point is the robustness of the encyclopaedia: if fork was the disambiguation page, it would have instantly alerted people. the software world is fast moving with many online participants. mis-links that I found: LibreCAD; Warfare in Medieval Poland; UltraBASIC; Odoo; Gib; Ryosuke Nomura; Open-Sankoré; MuCommander; 1984 Network Liberty Alliance;Dialog (software) MfortyoneA (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The disambiguate link deals with this matter. Rwood128 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

sure, that didn't stop all the mis-links I listed above. Better when a machine can check for you. humans are error-prone MfortyoneA (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? Now I understand why you are editing like this – and making all these errors, in non-computing related articles. Please read the advice of other editors before continuing: see [[4]]. Rwood128 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Every single primary topic runs the risk of having "mis-links". That by itself is not justification for moving an article. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would argue there's no need for primary topics (far safer to assume ambiguity will only ever go up as the encyclopaedia grows), but as thats the way it is, so I'll continue to look for the worst ones to challenge (like enclosure) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose sympathetic to MfortyoneA's point, dab pages are good for bots, but all the same as Rwood128 and Xezbeth, this is a case like apple, a fruit. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would argue it's significantly worse than apple, because there it's just 'a fruit', 'a brand name'. Fork however has a multitude of technical and figure-of-speech meanings. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the obvious primary topic would be the fork (utensil), a universal term, a software fork is a term only notable to a particular subset of people, who are programmers. It seems like systemic bias to diminish the importance of actual forks because a programmer thinks software forks are equally as important._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RF. I can't believe this is really happening... oh, nevermind. —  AjaxSmack  23:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only is the utensil the clear primary meaning of "fork", but the agricultural tool and the working end of a forklift both see much more common discussion in sources than any computing term. As well, there are multiple unrelated senses of "fork" in computing and software development; mere common usage in computing-related context doesn't establish that one such meaning is most common. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but I've created the redirect to point to this page, since people who are aware of other meanings may search for that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fork. 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/20081207064108/http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail.html?&priref=70534&_function_=xslt&_limit_=10 to http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail.html?&priref=70534&_function_=xslt&_limit_=10

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fork. 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/20111130071645/http://www.cm-loures.pt/Agenda_out11_PMes.asp to http://www.cm-loures.pt/Agenda_out11_PMes.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Forks

Despite the general idea that "lists of information" are not welcome on Wikipedia, I like this convenient, alphabetical list of the types of fork and propose that we keep it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pointless passages in "History"

In "History" I found this passage:

Long after the personal table fork had become commonplace in France, at the supper celebrating the marriage of the duc de Chartres to Louis XIV's natural daughter in 1692, the seating was described in the court memoirs of Saint-Simon: "King James having his Queen on his right hand and the King on his left, and each with their cadenas." In Perrault's contemporaneous fairy tale of La Belle au bois dormant (1697), each of the fairies invited for the christening is presented with a splendid "fork holder".

It comes after a paragraph whose topic is the spread of the table fork in southern Europe, and before a paragraph whose topic is its spread in northern Europe, so thematically it is out of place. The cadena is mentioned in the paragraph that precedes this one, but that mention does not warrant any anecdotal elaboration. Since, then, the matter of the paragraph is irrelevant to the topic, I will eliminate it.

At the end of the section I found this paragraph:

In 2016, Polish Deputy Defence Minister Bartosz Kownacki claimed that Poland "taught the French how to use a fork".[20] The truth is less clear, as Henri III (1551–89) was the one to actually introduce proper usage of the fork after a journey to Poland, however on the way home he apparently went to Venice to visit his mother's homeland, where he supposedly discovered the table fork.

Since the preceding paragraph brings to a close the topic of the spread of the fork in Europe and North America, and this final paragraph harks back to the introduction of the fork into France, but its content muddies the question by making an issue of a highly disputable claim in recent years, it serves no purpose whatever. I will eliminate it as well. Wordwright (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article on a fork in Wikipedia says that the rest of Europe didn't adopt the fork until 18 century. On the contrary, Hrnry III de Valois, who was a king of Poland and later a king of France, introduced the use of forks on the French court after his arrival from Poland, where fork was used long beforehand, probably add a result of the Italian born queen of Poland, Bona Sforza. The other possibility is the middle Eastern invaders left it behind when the kingdom of Poland and Romania won over the Turks. Gabriela Nowak (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Rest of Europe adopted the use of a fork in 18 century?

The article on a fork in Wikipedia says that the rest of Europe didn't adopt the fork until 18 century. On the contrary, Henry III de Valois, who was a king of Poland and later a king of France, introduced the use of forks on the French court after his arrival from Poland, where fork was used long beforehand, probably as a result of the Italian born queen of Poland, Bona Sforza who brought it from Italy in early 16 century. The other possibility is the middle Eastern invaders left it behind when the kingdom of Poland and rest of Central and Eastern European kingdoms won over the Turks. Gabriela Nowak (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

There are artefacts of Persian Sassanid spoons and forks dating back to the 4th century. Even here on Wikipedia.

So, the section of Persians utilizing forks from the 9th century onwards is completely incorrect, as forks were already in use and production from the 4th century in Persia as the historical records have shown. Similar to the Byzantine Empire.

Please revise that section of this Wikipedia page accordingly. 2003:EB:A715:3E02:3CF3:ABF6:D6C8:869E (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

This article doesn't mention strawberry forks. Would like to see strawberry forks added.

http://fiveoclockteaspoon.blogspot.com/2009/06/strawberry-fork-remembered.html Skeletonkeycollector (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs to modify Roman and medieval arabic use

"In the Roman Empire, bronze and silver forks were used, many surviving examples of which are displayed in museums around Europe. Use varied according to local customs, social class, and the type of food, but in earlier periods forks were mostly used as cooking and serving utensils."

To me this sounds like they were used like today. And no only rarely used and only as kitchen tool: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00665983.2007.11020711

"By the 10th century, the table fork was in common use throughout the Middle East."

This is contradicted by the very same sources are the article referes to! In fact it clearly states that not much was seen of forks until 1526 and still the article states unvalidated that "By the 11th century, the table fork had become increasingly prevalent in the Italian peninsula "

Very missleading article

https://archive.org/details/mediterraneanfea00wrig/page/82/mode/2up?view=theater F Svensson (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

While I totally agree with your general premise: the history section is currently very confusing to read, the explanation is simple: sometimes there are missing adjectives in our text like "silver", "table", "widespread", "rare", "English", etc. The sources tend to omit these in a particular sentence if the research is concentrated on a narrow topic, so sourcing has to be done carefully. While good sources are easy to find for particular cases, like

• Sherlock, David (2007). "Roman Forks". Archaeological Journal. 164 (1): 249–267. doi:10.1080/00665983.2007.11020711. ISSN 0066-5983.

(with its very clear statements "There is no literary or pictorial evidence for Roman table forks", "Roman forks are very rare", still "The presence of a fork in combination with a spoon is strong evidence that the Romans did in fact use them for eating", underlining is mine), I do not know of any high-level research reviews on the broader subject, so it is not easy to correct the deficiencies pointed out by you. However, I propose to use Sherlock (who is already cited here) as a basis for Roman and partially Byzantine forks. Викидим (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Per the article, while China can claim the earliest (known) fork of any kind, it was the Byzantines who first used the dining fork. As the dining fork is what the word "fork" refers to in everyday English, I suggest adding Category:Byzantine inventions without removing the Chinese category. InherentDogma (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not quite clear-cut, see the reference to Sherlock in the previous section. Problem is simple: it is not possible to tell a smaller cooking/serving fork (that have a very long history) from a dining one, so literary or pictorial evidence is needed that is mostly lacking due precisely to a mundane nature of the dining fork. Викидим (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)