Talk:Chopsticks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The forbidden ways to use chopsticks (traditional chinese)

中國人使用筷子用餐是從遠古流傳下來的，古時又稱其為“箸”，日常生活當中對筷子的運用是非常有講究的。一般我們在使用筷子時，正確的使用方法講究得是用右手執筷，大拇指和食指捏住筷子的上端，另外三個手指自然彎曲扶住筷子，並且筷子的兩端一定要對齊。在使用過程當中，用餐前筷子一定要整齊碼放在飯碗的右側，用餐後則一定要整齊的豎向碼放在飯碗的正中。但這要絕對禁忌以下十二種筷子的使用方法。

1、三長兩短： 這意思就是說在用餐前或用餐過程當中，將筷子長短不齊的放在桌子上。這種做法是大不吉利的，通常我們管它叫“三長兩短”。其意思是代表“死亡”。因為中國人過去認為人死以後是要裝進棺材的，在人裝進去以後，還沒有蓋棺材蓋的時候，棺材的組成部分是前後兩塊短木板，兩旁加底部共三塊長木板，五塊木板合在一起做成的棺材正好是三長兩短，所以說這是極為不吉利的事情。

2、仙人指路： 這種做法也是極為不能被人接受的，這種拿筷子的方法是，用大拇指和中指、無名指、小指捏住筷子，而食指伸出。這在北京人眼裡叫“罵大街”。因為在吃飯時食指伸出，總在不停的指別人，北京人一般伸出食指去指對方時，大都帶有指責的意思。所以說，吃飯用筷子時用手指人，無異於指責別人，這同罵人是一樣的，是不能夠允許的。還有一種情況也是這種意思，那就是吃飯時同別人交談並用筷子指人。3、品箸留聲： 這種做法也是不行的，其做法是把筷子的一端含在嘴裡，用嘴來回去嘬，並不時的發出聲響。這種行為被視為是一種下*的做法。因為在吃飯時用嘴嘬筷子的本身就是一種無禮的行為，再加上配以聲音，更是令人生厭。所以一般出現這種做法都會被認為是缺少家教，同樣不能夠允許。

4、擊盞敲盅： 這種行為被看作是乞丐要飯，其做法是在用餐時用筷子敲擊盤碗。因為過去只有要飯的才用筷子擊打要飯盆，其發出的聲響配上嘴裡的哀告，使行人注意並給與施捨。這種做法被視為極其下*的事情，被他人所不齒。

5、執箸巡城： 這種做法是手裡拿著筷子，做旁若無人狀，用筷子來回在桌子上的菜盤裡巡找，知從哪裡下筷為好。此種行為是典型的缺乏修養的表現，且目中無人極其令人反感。

6、迷箸刨墳： 這是指手裡拿著筷子在菜盤裡不住的扒拉，以求尋找獵物，就像盜墓刨墳的一般。這種做法同“迷箸巡城”相近，都屬於缺乏教養的做法，令人生厭。

7、淚箸遺珠： 實際上這是用筷子往自己盤子裡夾菜時，手裡不利落，將菜湯流落到其它菜裡或桌子上。這種做法被視為嚴重失禮，同樣是不可取的。

8、顛倒乾坤： 這就是說用餐時將筷子顛倒使用，這種做法是非常被人看不起的，正所謂饑不擇食，以至於都不顧臉面了，將筷子使倒，這是絕對不可以的。

9、定海神針： 在用餐時用一隻筷子去插盤子裡的菜品，這也是不行的，這是被認為對同桌用餐人的一種羞辱。在吃飯時作出這種舉動，無異於在歐洲當眾對人伸出中指的意思是一樣的，這也是不行的。

10、當眾上香： 往往是出於好心幫別人盛飯時，為了方便省事把一副筷子插在飯中遞給對方。被會人視為大不敬，因為北京的傳統是為死人上香時才這樣做，如果把一副筷子插入飯中，無異是被視同於給死人上香一樣，所以說，把筷子插在碗裡是決不被接受的。

(translation courtesy of Google) Chinese people use chopsticks dining handed down from ancient, ancient, also known as "chopsticks", the daily life of the use of chopsticks is very particular about. General when we use the chopsticks, the correct way to use pay attention to is executed with the right hand chopsticks thumb and forefinger and the upper end of the chopsticks, the other three fingers bend naturally hold on chopsticks and chopsticks at both ends must be aligned. In the use of the process, before a meal chopsticks must be neat yards on the right side of the rice bowls after the meal must be neatly vertical code on the rice bowl of the middle. But this is an absolute contraindication to the following twelve kinds of chopsticks to use.

1, sitting in waiting: This means that at or before your meal process which, chopsticks length arrhythmia on the table. This approach is very unlucky, we usually call it sitting in waiting rooms. Its meaning stands for "death". Because the Chinese people in the past that died later put into the coffin, people pretending to be into the future, but also did not cover the coffin lid, part of the coffin before and after two short planks, on both sides of the bottom of a total of three long board pieces of wood together together to make the coffin just happened, so that it is extremely unlucky.

Pawn: This practice is extremely not chopsticks, with the thumb and middle finger, ring finger and little finger pinch chopsticks, while the index finger extended. Beijingers eyes of called "curse Avenue. Because eating index finger extended, total finger others, the Beijingers general forefinger to refer to each other, mostly with accusations mean. So, with your fingers people eat with chopsticks, is tantamount to accusing others, which is the same as the same curse, can not be allowed. Another is the meaning of the meal that is to talk with others and a person with chopsticks. Products chopsticks the Sound: This practice is not enough, one end of the chopsticks in your mouth, mouth to go back to sucking, not when the issue   sound. This was seen as an under *. Mouth sucking chopsticks itself is a kind of rude behavior in eating coupled together with the sound, the more annoying. So generally appear that this practice will be considered is the lack of tutoring, the same can not be allowed.

4, strike a light knock cup: this behavior as a beggar begging practice meal with chopsticks tapping the dishes. Because the past only beggar was hit with chopsticks to Fanpen mouth noises accompanied supplicate to pedestrians and give alms. This approach is considered to be extremely under * things despised by others.

5 executive chopsticks Xuncheng: this by holding chopsticks, to do no one else like patrol looking for the dish back and forth on the table with chopsticks, and know from where the next chopsticks. Such behavior is typical of the lack of training performance and defiant extremely disgusting.

6, fans and chopsticks dig graves: This refers to holding chopsticks dish could not push lightly, in order to find their prey, like the grave robbers dig graves general. This approach with the fans and chopsticks Xuncheng "similar, belong ungentlemanly practice, ad nauseam.

7, tears chopsticks Pearl: In fact, this is their food into your plate with chopsticks, the hands are not neat, living on the soup to other dishes on the table. This practice is considered a serious faux pas, the same is not desirable.

Trading Places: This means that the meal chopsticks upside down to use this approach is very looked down upon by the people, the saying goes, beggars, so regardless of face the chopsticks so down, this is absolutely impossible.

The 9, Dinghaishenzhen: plug plate dishes during a meal with one chopstick go, this is not enough, this is a shame of the same table dining  people. Meal to make such a move is tantamount to the meaning of the European public of the extended middle finger is the same, which is not enough.

10 publicly burn incense: often out kindly someone else hold rice, inserted a chopsticks in the rice and handed the other in order to facilitate the easy way. People will be as disrespectful, because Beijing's tradition to do so only burn incense for the dead, If a chopsticks into the rice, is tantamount to being assimilated to give the dead burn incense, so to say, the chopsticks inserted in the bowl is never acceptable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.94 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

你的來源在哪裡是? z ε n ♪ 07:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And your source is...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.37.232 (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; it's a talk page recommendation. My frank opinion is there are no sources for all of that. Query: is it allowed to place things in foreign languages here in the ENGLISH WP? Just wondering.~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

thousands of years

The claim

China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam have had chopsticks as part of their traditional eating utensils for thousands of years.

is dubious, certainly the Japanese seem to have got chopsticks less than 2 thousand years ago. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of deliberately unsigned comments

The title says it all. It takes no effort to sign, and even a bot will automatically sign for you, if you let it. But there were users coming here in the past, posting with no signature whatsoever. Per general rules of article talk pages, such unsigned comments will be deleted. If there are objections per Wikipedia rules, please let me know. This is not an example of WP:OWN, it's an exercise in preserving the integrity of a talk page.--Djathinkimacowboy 04:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the correct way to handle this problem. Use template:unsigned with the name of the editor and add it to the comment. Also, editing other people's comments on talk pages is a huge no-no. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

About: "rice in China is rarely served on a plate"

This is no longer true now, especially in Chinese fast food restaurants. Either they put the rice, shaped by a bowl, on one side of the plate (the remaining room for vegetables and meat), or they spread the rice on a plate, mixing with other ingredients. Jack920910 (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is very true, Jack, but it is A) insignificant to the subject because you're talking about rice presentation in Western restaurants; B) it is OR.~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack is not talking about rice presentation in Western restaurants, he's saying that this is how rice is served in fast food restaurants in China. (This is also how it's often served in cafeterias, and it's served on plates in 盖饭.) Even though it's OR, he wasn't proposing to put this information in the article, but to remove the [also unsourced] statement "rice in China is rarely served on a plate". That is a good suggestion, and I will do it now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This truly sucks...alot

Can't see why people keep editing the article and making a mess, then doing that without discussion here. Same old place, same old crap, same old, same old, same old. Does WP have a link from the expression "same old" to this article?75.21.102.182 (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Cooking Chopsticks

This section needs to be cleaned up because it implies that the extra long chopsticks are of Japanese origin only. Those long cooking chopsticks are found in lots of cultures including ones of Chinese and Korean origin. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.30.43 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chopsticks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420132343/http://my-hashi.jp:80/purpose/index.html to http://www.my-hashi.jp/purpose/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Health effects section is unbalanced.

The article's "Health effects" section currently speaks about the negatives only. However, chopsticks have positives, too. It is more difficult to use them, thus people can't "shovel" excess amounts of food into their mouths as if spoon and fork were used. Eating less is healthy or as the okinawans, residents of the famous japanese centennials' island put it: for longevity always stop eating before the stomach is full! 92.52.225.134 (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We're going to need a reliable source for that claim. Ogress _smash! 21:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Image on How to Hold Section

Is it just me, or is the image that demonstrates how to hold chopsticks a little off? I'm pretty sure that the correct usage has an extra finger on the hand. 75.133.147.207 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"Naval mines" lede

An IP has been repeatedly restoring their preferred lede to the article, including excessively lengthy details about "over 63 huge 137 m (450 ft) long Ming naval ships armed with Chinese developed cannons, naval mines, rockets and guns" which are not mentioned in the article body, and sourced to references which don't appear to mention chopsticks directly (although I can't check the 1421: The Year China Discovered America book reference).

If it's worth writing about a direct link between Zheng He's naval expeditions and the spread of chopsticks around the world, this should be written in the body of the article rather than being crammed into the second sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Philippines

Some IP deletionist- vandal trolls and trolls here removing philippines from the list and replacing them with trollings and vandalism quit this bulshit.(Jasper0070 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Yeah, it's annoying. All we can do is revert the vandalism and put the trolls on warning, eventually getting them banned. Reify-tech (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Lyndonbaines and his IP minions

i have to speak out on this issue , because a User named Lyndonbaines is an Indonesian who is doing nothing but to troll philippine articles, further more he had been blocked a week ago (after he got numerous warning by deleting a sourced statements), but seems this user was using different types of Guerilla activity using several IP Address just to Troll articles which is related or included the Philippines. His IP minions must be watched at must be block because he doing nothing but to hijack information's stay sharp ! (Jasper0070 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chopsticks. 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/20120428055442/http://www.chinaculture.org/chineseway/2010-10/21/content_398082_4.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/chineseway/2010-10/21/content_398082_4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505201006/http://www3.news.gov.hk/ISD/ebulletin/en/category/healthandcommunity/061222/html/061222en05008.htm to http://www3.news.gov.hk/ISD/ebulletin/en/category/healthandcommunity/061222/html/061222en05008.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) 17:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Bronze chopsticks (Goryeo dynasty).jpg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.]KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.]In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

Add Mongolia or Delete Thailand?

Chopsticks are not used by Mongolians to eat native Mongolian foods, but they're not used by Thais to eat native Thai foods either. In both countries, they're used either to eat foods from other countries or by migrant communities. So logically, either a section on Mongolia should be added to this article or the section on Thailand should be removed. 1.126.106.142 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Correctness of "The proper way of holding chopsticks" image

This image shows the lower chopstick held between the tips of the ring and pinky fingers, when according to the Use section, "the lower chopstick is stationary, and rests at the base of the thumb, and between the ring finger and middle finger". The text is consistent with my understanding of the normal way to hold the chopsticks in Japan, at least. The "Chopsticks in use" image in the Use section also supports this. It's not a big deal, except that the caption for the erroneous image is "The proper way of holding chopsticks". I suggest that the image is an unnecessary extra image of a hand holding chopsticks, and could probably just be removed. Runox (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The article probably changed since this 2018 comment. Someone added recently verbal instructions next to the current "Proper way of holding..." picture. The picture is not completely right. The instructions can be further enhanced. New chopstick grip pictures in hi-def has just been added to the Commons recently. These can be used to help illustrate the use of chopsticks. These changes will be done together with the article overhaul. Fred Hsu (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Runox - please come check out the article again. It's still being worked on. But there are proper sections on chopstick grips now, plus better pictures illustrating the standard grip. More are being added tonight and tomorrow. Fred Hsu (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the offending image has been removed at some point. Thanks. Good luck with the revision. Runox (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Enhancing this article holistically

I propose to enhance this article holistically as described below. Please contact me with feedback, ideas. Or comment here. I am starting with the version 07:23, 21 December 2020 Quarangle. I've looked at recent histories prior to this version to to make sure I am starting with a relatively clean version.

(Updated on 2020-01-13: the overhaul is done. Compare the prior version before the overhaul, to the completed version)

A) I propose the following article shape. I'll put up a under-construction template during this time.

• Origin and history
  • as cooking utensils
  • as eating and serving utensils
  • propagation throughout the world
  • naming in different countries

• Styles of chopsticks
  • physical characteristics
  • {variations by country}

• Using chopsticks
  • anatomy of human hand
  • chopstick grips
  • the standard grip

• Learning to use chopsticks
  • instructions
  • learning aids
  • training chopsticks

• Chopstick customs, manners and etiquette
  • general customs
  • {variations by country}

• Global impacts
  • health effects
  • environmental impacts

Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This structure per subtopic sounds good. I personally don't like the strong separation of sections by countries, as it disallows a comparative overview. This would resolve that. --Cold Season (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

B) References and notes

I like how there is one "note" in this article. Some references such as the very first one on how "箸" is no longer used in most spoken languages can become notes as well. In think in time these notes will be useful in "expanded articles".

I've always struggled with inline-defined references which clutter the main text. Those are easily broken when different people edit individual sections without considering shared, named references. I would like to try the list-defined references WP:LDRHOW this time. Fred Hsu (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I will try to remove conflicts in the use of references, and fill in gaps where I see one, to the extent I am able to. I am primarily using "Wang, Q. Edward (2015). Chopsticks: A cultural and culinary history. England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107023963" as reference during the initial phase, as a shortcut. I'll reference pages in this book which can be used later to replace some temporary citations with original sources that Wang cited in his excellent book. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Updates on the progress

The lead section is done. The two first sections are harmonized, copyedited: Origin and history, and Styles of chopsticks. Fred Hsu (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

COMMENT: Fred Hsu: This is great! Thanks for the note on my Talk Page letting me know that you are taking this on, especially as an overall re-do, not just adding things here and there. I hope that this will be an example for other editors.

Couple of cheerleading comments, though, mostly minor, and which you may be planning in any case.

• MOS:LEADCITE advises that the lead does not need to have notes for non-controversial information that is referenced elsewhere in the article. In any case, present notes #4 & #5 are not Reliable sources and could be removed.
• Maybe a disagreement on the us of Notes. Notes and References suggests that explanatory footnotes "give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article.” My take would be that if information is important it should be in the text, where it is less likely to be overlooked; if it is not important then it could be cut.

Note A (“Still widely used...”) is important and could go into the lead, since readers need to know that the use and names changed over time. A note in the Info Box is likely to be overlooked. NOTE B's information on the differences in Southeast Asia is better off in a section below.

• I agree with your objection to “inline-defined references,” such as the ones in the article that repeat the same information. Since you are taking the lead here, I would defer to your judgment, but there are several ways to cite described in WP:CITESHORT or the main article Help: Shortened Footnotes. The advantage of the {{sfnb|Author|year}} form is that it avoids the problem you correctly point out, that new editors can break the citation.

The other big advantage to this form is that it allows the important references to be gathered in a "References and further reading" section so readers can see what the important sources are, rather than sifting throught the notes.

All the best in the New Year! ch (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: CWH: thanks. Make sense.

• on MOS:LEADCITE, I'll move the references to sections below where the information is found again, and expanded. That's where the references should live, as you pointed out. I think I'll preserve #4 and #5 in this initial phase. And later replace them with more reliable sources, if that makes sense to you. I have already gotten rid of one or two references, but those were obviously bad ones. Since I am making lots of shuffling, I want to preserve any remotely useful info in this phase :D
• on Notes - yeah. I do feel the same. I am using the newfound predefined reference groups just to cache these possibly useful notes during this initial phase. I think all notes should become text. And if appropriate, they should be moved into expanded articles in the future.
• on sfnb - ah! I thought I found that {{r}}. I think you are right, sfnb can be even more useful. Right now I only moved one shared reference to the reference section. I will try to switch to this soon. Thanks.

Cool beans. I learn something new every time I try to enhance a new article. It has been a long time since I made large changes to articles. I've been mostly reduced to uploading (hopefully) useful images in the last few years. Fred Hsu (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

COMMENT

Thank you for notifying me about your major rewrite of this Level-4 Vital Article. It was badly in need of reworking, with a hodgepodge of poorly-referenced, badly-coordinated bits and pieces cobbled together. What you propose sounds eminently useful, and I will watch it with great interest.

One of the many problems I have seen repeatedly is a lack of specific page numbers with frequently-used book-length references such as "Wang, Q. Edward (2015)". I assume that you will fill in page numbers appropriately as you add or confirm references during the rewrite, by using Template:rp or something similar.

Another minor problem is the existing article's inconsistent use of the "serial comma". I strongly urge you to use a comma before the final "and" in a list, except in the very rare cases where it may cause confusion or ambiguity. Commas should always be used appropriately to separate or to group together words, in ways that enhance readability and clarity. These dual goals are an overriding priority for writing Wikipedia articles which are seen by large numbers of readers throughout the world, and supersede arguments for or against any particular "national" style of English. Indeed, Wikipedia editors have collectively decided that "logical quotes" (MOS:LQ) are more readable and less ambiguous; I strongly support this, even though it is the opposite of the dogmatic rule I was taught in an American high school, many decades ago. Reify-tech (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Reify-tech - yeah. I happen to agree with you on all these points.

• On page number in references: I already do that with Wang references. I love it.
• On Oxford comma: I try to do that, as you can see from my current edit. I only omit it for very lists where every item is a single word, and there are no ambiguities. But I may not always succeed. I'll proofread after the whole thing is done.
• On logical quotes: yeah, that's my beef with the American system as well. But I didn't realize there was a British way. I often sneak punctuation marks out of the quotes, hoping that people won't catch me. Now I'll just point to logical quotes ;D

Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Updates 2 on the progress

The "Using chopsticks" section now clarifies that there exists a variety of grip types, but there is consensus on a traditional, standard grip. There are now pictures illustrating alternative grips, as well as one on the standard grip, plus a terminology picture establishing names of finger parts for consistent references to these. Hopefully I'll finish the rest of the article before the working week starts. Fred Hsu (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Update 3

The learning section is finished. This section was missing before. But if one were to search for "chopsticks" on YouTube, all top results are about "how to learn to use chopsticks". Unfortunately, there isn't much written literature to rely on for this. See the summaries I've come up with so far, and the special note I added on this lack of literature. On the other hand, most of the points can be readily confirmed by looking at pictures and videos of people using chopsticks. On learning aids, it is possible to link to marketing materials or even product pages. But I don't see that being too much useful. I kept summaries simple, neutral and true to real world objects. If anyone has ideas about how to improve references for these, please help. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. You are right not to link to commercial or marketing sources.ch (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The overhaul is done

To Reify-tech, CWH, Cold Season, and User:Runox: the overhaul is done. I'll still be making some minor tweaks. But I think the article is in a better shape now. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Loud cheers and many thanks!! ch (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is greatly improved overall, and provides a coherent framework for others to add in their expertise and improved references in the future. Good work! Reify-tech (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, for ideas, and for follow-up clean-up edits. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Song Dynasty silver chopsticks, cup, and spoon.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation for Confucius / Mencius Quotes?

The quote, "Confucius himself allegedly said that knives are for warriors, but chopsticks are for scholars" is sourced from this JSTOR article, but the quotation is unsourced. I've searched the Pre-Qin texts on Ctext for any occurrence of 箸, but I couldn't find anything.

I also couldn't find the part where Mencius claims that the junzi shouldn't have knives at the table, though I did find the preceding portion of the quote. See link here.

If nobody can find a source, could someone change the article to reflect the apocryphal nature of these quotes? Confused Sea Creature (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Reversed ring finger/middle finger in image 'standard grip'

The index text for the image 'parts of the hand', has ring finger and middle finger reversed. 77.249.238.201 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

questionable final entry <rectum>

May be valid advice, but not supported by external media. And probably not appropriate for this article. 84.65.164.148 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Earliest Reference--Contradiction?

The text states, "The earliest known textual reference to the use of chopsticks comes from the Han Feizi, a philosophical text written by Han Fei (c. 280–233 BCE) in the 3rd century BCE." Later, it states, "Confucius' reference to chopsticks in his Book of Rites suggests these items were widely known in the Warring States period (c. 475–221 BC)." The latter seems earlier than the former. Should the text be revised, or this is a reference to the date of the manuscript rather than the date of the composition of the work?--216.15.56.15 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)