Talk:Printing press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Printing press article.
Article policies
To-do list for Printing press: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Other: Get more references or sources for the article.
This article is part of WikiProject Graphic design, which collaborates on graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Scope of this article

This article is about the printing press. It is not about movable type. It is not about block printing. It is not about Typography. It is not about the History of yypography It is not about the History of Typography in East Asia. It is not about the general subject of Printing. Printing does not redirect here. It links here, as is appropriate, Movable type does not redirect here. it links here, as is appropriate. There is now a prominent link about where to look for analogous developments in East Asia. I was getting tired of continually restoring the integrity of this article 2 weeks ago.I am not happy that it was necessary to do so again. For further comments,see my note at User_talk:Mukerjee . DGG 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bi Sheng invented the first printing press

It is indisputable that Bi Sheng invented the first printing press in the world. As some people are attempting to use clever semantics to make it sound like Bi Sheng's porcelain movable type was not a printing press, when in fact it was an early version of the printing press. I believe that some people here, instead of focusing on historical accuracy, prefer to promote a history that is centralized around Western Civilisation with the purpose of promoting "Western Superiority." As a scientific scholar from the United Kingdom, I am very proud of the achievements of my Western culture. But suffice it to say, I am also a stringent proponent of academic accuracy and human equality, both in the name of science and moral ethics. As such, I must oppose those individuals who place "Western Superiority POV" on Wikipedia as this is supposed to be an avenue of vast information, that maintains NPOV.

please sign and date you comments by entering 4 tildes ~~~~ so the responses can be kept straight. It is undoubted that Bi Sheng invented wooden movable type. There is no evidence that he used a press of any kind--the existing text and the many illustrations show printing in his tradition being done without a press, by pacing the paper on the type and rubbing it with a ball. This is not a press. a press is a piece of machinery or exerting uniform pressure on a flat surface. If you think he used one, find the evidence. It will make quite a sensation in international scholarship. DGG (talk) 02
05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A girl named Bryanna Grioux secretly helped Gutenberg with the printing press she then got murdered when she tried to tell people she did help make the Printing Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.48.251 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese invention of printing press well documented in historical records

I agree with this as well, based on my research which I conducted at the Library of Congress, it is apparently indisputable based on the historical records stored there that the Chinese invented the first printing press and that Gutenberg either developed it independently or was somehow influenced by Chinese technology transmitted to the West, perhaps by Jesuit Missionaries or other influential Western scholars. It is known at least, that the Chinese technology of block printing was already in Europe long before Gutenbergs time (Science and Civilisation in China, Joseph Needham et al.) and may have influenced Gutenbergs developement of his version of movable type, assuming that he developed it "independently." Although, just to be fair, perhaps both the Chinese and Gutenberg should be given credit, since this issue is contentious.

As above, there is no evidence that the chinese ever invented a press for use in printing. if you think there is, produce it. DGG (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gutenberg invented the first printing press

Johannes Gutenberg was the first, I repeat, the VERY FIRST all over the globe, who used a press for printing. That is, in other words, he and nobody else invented the printing press. Specifically, neither Bi Sheng nor any other East Asian inventor, be him Chinese, Korean or Japanese, invented the printing press, for the simple reason that the device of a press was unknown then in East Asia. Why? Because the concept of a continuous screw remained unknown in China at least until 1500 (see Donald Lach: Asia in the Making of Europe, Chapter on Technology).

In Europe, on the other hand, the screw was known to the Greeks since about the third century BC and the press had been invented as early as the second or first century BC and was used for pressing olives by the Romans. Gutenberg then made use of this well known agricultural device, which never ceased to be used in the middle ages, to use it FOR THE FIRST TIME for printing purposes.

Since all the other folks, Bi Sheng etc., have had nothing to do with the printing press and actually had no idea know how one would even look like, I propose to delete all references to them and concentrate on

1. Invention of the printing press for agricultural purposes (invention of the screw) 2. Adaption by Gutenberg for printing purposes

Please sign so we can keep the responses straight. There is, incidentally, no evidence of what sort of press Gutenberg adapted for printing. It may conceivably have been a wine press. There was, interestingly, a press used for bookbinding prior to Gutenberg, but there are no details known. DGG (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The printing press was not invented in East Asia

Thankfully, the deeply misleading passages on woodblock and movable type printing have now been removed from the article. Nevertheless, in order to guard against any possible reversal, allow me to quote two references which make it unmistakably clear that the printing press was unknown in East Asia:

  • This association of die, matrix, and lead in the production of durable typefaces in large numbers and with each letter strictly identical, was one of the two necessary elements in the invention of typographic printing in Europe. The second necessary element was the concept of the printing press itself, an idea that had never been conceived in the Far East.

SOURCE: printing.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 5, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD

  • John Man, in his book, The Gutenberg Revolution (2002), emphasizes as well the absence of other elements in Eastern cultures that could favor the invention of a Gutenberg-style press:

    “Chinese paper was suitable only for calligraphy or block-printing; there were no screw-based presses in the east, because they were not wine-drinkers, didn’t have olives, and used other means to dry their paper.”

SOURCE: Ricardo Duchesne, Asia First?, The Journal of the Historical Society VI, 1 (March 2006), p.83


    • WRONG!!! it is a well known historical fact that the ancient Chinese manufactured wine as well as various other different alcoholic beverages such as sake, which is usually mistakenly associated with the Japanese, for consumption by the general public. The only difference is that it was not as popular in China as it was in Europe due to differences in culinary preferences. Refer to Science and Civilisation in China, Sir Joseph Needham ****
this is true, but the production of neither wine nor olive oil requires a press. There are perfectly good illustration of both European and chinese production of wine by trampling. DGG (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

--> Sections on woodblock and movable type belong to 'printing' or wherever, but NOT to the entry 'printing press'. Ave. Gun Powder Ma 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodblock and movable type printing

I merged the section on woodblock printing and movable type printing in 'printing press' with those here in 'printing'. The reason is that woodblock printing and movable type printing were misplaced in 'printing press', since a printing press is very much a separate invention and has conceptually nothing to do with the others. I know the confusion of printing press and movable type is very common, leading often to the assumption that Bi Sheng or the Koreans invented the press, but nothing of that sort is true. They are really two different things. All printing was done by manually rubbing in East Asia, but Gutenberg's press was a mechanical thing. It worked like agricultural screw presses, which were AFAIK unknown in East Asia until 1500. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that woodblock printing or East Asian movable type printing was dony by a mechanical press. Gun Powder Ma 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moveable type IS indisputably a Printing Press, regardless if it was invented in China or Germany

Moveable type IS indisputably a Printing Press, regardless if it was invented in China or Germany, let us focus on academic accuracy and not the trivial issues of cultural or national superiority as it seems obvious some individuals argue their POV, employing the usage of clever words and semantics such as saying that "movable type is not printing press" etc. when indisputably it is a printing press. There is no debate on this issue. Gutenbergs' main contribution to the technology was simply developing a different design of the printing press, either "independent" or perhaps he may have had some inspiration from Christian missionaries who may have brought back to Europe some knowledge of Chinese movable type printing technology. The historical documents are the utmost and accurate pieces of evidence.

that is simply not the meaning of the words. A press is a device for pressing something using a machine of some sort--usually a screw, but sometimes a lever or a more complicated machine. . Printing in china took place using a ball held in the hand, and used to transfer the ink by the pressure of rubbing. Please do not repeat this error further. The Chinese and the Koreans did wonderful technological innovations in printing--they are indeed responsible for the first invention of movable type. Credit where Credit is due. If you think otherwise, find a quotation from a Reliable source and present it on the talk page here. DGG (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moveable type was invented in China. Printing press was invented by Gutenberg

Movable type, which allowed individual characters to be arranged to form words and which is a separate invention from the printing press, was invented in China by Bi Sheng between 1041 to 1048.

added this part. -intranetusa

"The "disk of Phaistos" [1] of Minoan Crete 1700 BC is relevant if one can form a concept of a moveable-type method of printing before the development of modern paper, inks and presses. It has been, and is likely in the future to remain, a very strong candidate for the first moveable-type printing system."

Unfortunately it is not, see the article on it--it was produced by stamping symbols onto clay. DGG 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

...
Other notable contributions just before Gutenberg's were
- King Htai Tjong (Korea, cast bronze type, around 1403 AD)
- Laurens Janszoon Koster (Holland, wooden type with hand carved letters, around 1430 AD).
...
It would seem that Gutenberg is remembered above others of around the same time for his novel use of the press, a technique for mass-producing durable metal letters, the development of new metal alloys for the type, use of an oil-based ink and several other small incremental refinements. In part, though, the association of movable type printing with Gutenberg is the result of his "being in the right place at the right time" (for the technology to have very great impact), as the movable type printing concept is not a tremendously difficult one ... since it seems to have been independently re-invented, in one form or another, repeatedly through history.
[comments by donb - 12 July 2006]

I understand that this is a touchy subject for many reasons, but I wonder if we might be able to resolve some of the conflict by careful word choice. Much of this argument comes down to definitions of “press.” Is a “press” merely a bed of moveable type on which paper is pressed by hand pressure, or is a “press” a bed of moveable type supported by a frame that exerts mechanical pressure on the paper? Perhaps we could more clearly define our terms at the beginning of the article. I think the distinction between the “invention” of printing and the “development” of machinery should not be overlooked. Would it be fair to say that “printing” (moveable type) was invented in East Asia, while the “printing press” (a machine) was developed in Europe? I'm not an expert by any means, just a user who wants the information to be as accurate as possible. Lastwordsmith (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 29 Feb 2008

"printing press" in a mechanical instrument for doing printing. I think that definition is fairly clear. "Press" as a verb is a more general; you can press something between your hands, but your hands are not a press. I agree that there would be some purpose in separating the material on printing presses as such from the concept of "printing press"as a cultural landmark, but they tend to be discussed together. DGG (talk)

[edit] Part in question

"Some theorists, such as McLuhan, Eisenstein, Kittler, and Giesecke, see an "alphabetic monopoly" as having developed from printing, removing the role of the image from society." Eisenstein doesn't believe that the printing press removed the role of the image from the society. She strongly claims that that didn't happen and everything that has to do with the shift from scripts to print is more complex than that."

I've often heard that Gutenberg's contribution to the printing press was the development of movable type. As opposed to unique fixed blocks of text, Gutenberg used letters which could be rearranged for each page. I'm posting this on the Talk page since I don't know for sure that this is correct.

To my knowledge, your understanding is correct. I think it is alluded to in this article by the statement:

:Used Printing Presses are of definite need. Quality presses are always found at usedpressdepot.com.

Gutenberg refined the technique by inventing an oil-based ink and [metal type],

I added your Ass to the page as I also believe that the above statements are correct -- mike dill

"He is also credited with the first use of an oil-based ink, and using "rag" paper introduced into Europe from China by way of Muslims."

Odd way to say this - can anybody narrow down a little more specifically who these "Muslims" actually were?

[edit] Exactly what did Gutenburg invent?

Who really invented the first printing press? I was positive it was Gutenberg until i read this...


:Largely a misconception. Gutenberg perfected movable type -- the printing press idea had existed for some centuries before but never really perfected, ie—successful. There is a proverb about genius and invention:

"Genius is only recognized in people who succeed"
The Chinese invented the original printing press in around 868 AD( the earliest book printed with a printing press. They did not succeed
Most Wikipedia articles dealing with Gutenberg miss the essential point of his "invention". This Printing article amost hits the nail right on the head. almost—but not quite. It helps to distinguish between a printing press (which might use non-moveable type, woodblocks, engraved plates, etchings etc) and the techniques of printing with moveable type. "moveable type" implies Gutenburg's system of casting type from matrices: Gutenburg's significant contribution was the device called the hand mould. It allowed printing sorts (letters, punctuation, numerals, etc) to be cast in large numbers. A letter matrice was slid into the hand mould at the bottom, the device was clamped shut, and molten type metal poured in from the top. The product was called a sort, and the average printer tradesman could make about one sort per minute.
The hand mold is Gutenburg's key invention & contribution to printing Everything else required for printing with moveable type: paper, ink and a press, existed for 1000 years or more before the 1450's.
The idea of Gutenburg being unique by printing with oil-based inks sounds a bit overrated. Anyone else attempting to make the same invention would have to develop oil-based ink. Water-based inks made with 15th century chemistry were impractical for printing with metal type. This is a POV issue.
Undisputed historical fact: Gutenburg invented his hand mould, and that hand mould that was the first practical means of making sorts in large quantities. The one statement that can be made about Gutenburg with certainty: He perfected the hand mould in Europe, and was first to perfect a metal moveable type system in Europe based on casting sorts from matrices (using his hand mould).
The Chinese developed several kinds of printing press prior to Gutenburg, one that used wooden blocks which were moveable, and another one using ceramic sorts that was not successful; the ceramic pieces were fragile and broke easily. The basic problem with Chinese printing—the reason it never took off—was not due to technical limitation. It has to do with the Chinese language needing between 400,000 and 50,000 ideograms (similar to pictograms), posing a logistics nightmare.
The Koreans came up with their own moveable metal type system separate from European and Chinese efforts, circa 1313. My reference The Day the Universe Changed does not describe the technique used to cast sorts, but notes that letter moulds were made the same way as Europeans later made them—by striking a letter punch (die) into a softer metal which was then hardened to take repeated castings. The technique "...was well known at the time, as it had been in common use since the early twelfth century by coiners and casters of brass-ware and bronze."
The Korean moveable type system did not catch on due to a Confucian prohibition on the commercialization of printing. The technique was also restricted to use by the royal foundry for official state material only. In the early 15th century King Sajong of Korea invented a simplified alphabet of 24 characters for use by common people; may have made large-scale typecasting feasible, "...but did not have the impact it deserved. It may be that the Korean typecasting technique then spread to Europe with the Arab traders. Korean typecasting methods were almost identical to those introduced by Gutenburg, whose father was a member of the Mainz fellowship of coiners." Gutenburg was a silversmith/goldsmith and knew the same techniques of cutting dies and punches for making coins from master moulds as the Koreans adapted to their system.
All Wikipedia articles that discuss Gutenburg need to be updated with the above info and POV-aligned for consistency. Johann Gutenberg article
Arbo 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soy-based ink??

The article states that Gutenberg used soy-based ink. Is this correct? It seems quite unlikely and contradicts the Printing article. --NBR 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this must be vandalism? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

::Johann Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg German craftsman and inventor who originated a method of printing from movable type that was used without important change until the 20th century. The unique elements of his invention consisted of a mold, with punch-stamped matrices (metal prisms used to mold the face of the type) with which type could be cast precisely and in large quantities; a type-metal alloy; a new press, derived from those used in wine making, papermaking, and bookbinding; and an oil-based printing ink. None of these features existed in Chinese or Korean printing, or in the existing European technique of stamping letters on various surfaces, or in woodblock printing.

So I'm thinking SOY-BASED should be OIL-BASED? I've gone ahead and changed this - please change back with an explanation if soy-based ink was in fact part of Gutenberg's invention.... Lijil 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture trouble

I've tried downloading this picture, resizing it and re-uploading it, but for some reason, it isn't working. Can somebody fix the size, please? -- Zoe

Is that my fault because I am the one who put the initial big picture. Is uppercase extension problem? Anyway, I resized the picture. -- Taku 01:10 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

What do each of the numbers in the diagram refer to?

Noldoaran 23:45, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] China and printing: the first printing press

The paragraph which follows seems a bit wobbly:

"In China, there were no texts similar to the Bible which could guarantee a printer return on the high capital investment of a printing press, and so the primary form of printing was wood block printing which was more suited for short runs of texts for which the return was uncertain."

I know nothing about the market for books in tenth century China, but the claim that block printing is more suited to short run work than metal type is not explainable by the economic argument used. The reason that Gutenberg's development took root so quickly is that it SAVED money as against the more expensive/time consuming method of block carving.
Not exactly. The success of Gutenburg's method had much more to his key invention, the hand mould, as I have described in detail further up this discussion page.
Arbo 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Setting a page of type was much quicker/cheaper than carving a large wood block. The shorter the run the more "damaging to the bottom line" this difference becomes. If it costs $2000 to originate a book by carving wood blocks and $1000 to do it by type setting, the cost pricture for editions of different lengths will be (assuming the cost of machining is the same for both methods -- let's say $1 --, and ignoring the capital cost -- which IS the real explanation) Letterpress
100 @ $1 = $100 + $1000 = $1100, or $11 each
500 @ $1 = $500 + $1000 = $1500, or $3 each
1000 @ $1 = $1000 + $1000 = $2000, or $2 each
Wood Block
100 @ $1 = $100 + $2000 = $2100, or $21 each
500 @ $1 = $500 + $2000 = $2500, or $5 each
1000 @ $1 = $1000 + $2000 = $3000, or $3 each.
The point here is not wether these costs are correct: it's the relationship between the unit costs for the different quantities that's the point. The claim that "wood block printing was more suited for short runs" is exactly the opposite of the facts. At 100 copies wood block is 90% more expensive, while at 1000 it's only 50% more expensive.

Now it's true that you couldn't run millions of copies from a wood block, but neither was Gutenberg running that many copies. The big reason why letterpress printing was not developed in the Far East is to do with the investment of capital: for whatever reasons (and no doubt the re are many) China was not a place where specualitve investments could be made, and their inventions were developed by others.
Not exactly. The success of Gutenburg's method had much more to his key invention, the hand mould, as I have described in detail further up this discussion page. The advantage of Gutenburg's method was a matter of economic scale in being able to make vast quantities letters to print with very cheaply.
Arbo 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that the explanation, explicit includes capital costs (i.e. the cost of the press). Once you include that then the cost becomes uncompetitive unless you are going to use the press a lot. Roadrunner 21:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removed this. First of all, we do have a very good idea of the comparative literacy levels between China and Europe. Second, I'd like a reference for the second statement since it appears a bit odd. Roadrunner 21:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed uncited, vague mention of movable type being used "years before" in China.

[edit] Translation from German

  • Article: de:Buchdruck (and some of the linked-to pages!)
  • Corresponding English-language article: printing
  • Worth doing because: German version is much more complete than English, english one is quite poor, doesn't cover topic adequately
  • Originally Requested by: Lady Tenar 00:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Status: Got tired of this sitting here. I added most of the information from the German into printing press and some of it into printing. A few bits I left out as well. Maybe someone could take a look. I did a lot of Internet verification of details, but maybe this should be looked at more closely. Mpolo 18:54, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: May be this should be done by someone who knows a bit about the topic, i'm not doing it myself because i can't translate most of the words specific to printing


[edit] Ancient history section removed

I have removed the section below. The relationship of the Phaitos Disc to moveable type is a misconception. Some of this info is relevant to the history of punch cutting and could go into history of typography, but I dont think it needs to be here. Maybe there should be something on early development of presses, eg olive oil / wine presses whhich were adapted by Gutenberg, otherwise this Ancient history seems irrelevant.

::==Ancient history==

The oldest use of moveable type comes from about 1500 BC. The Phaistos Disc is the oldest example of a printed work produced with moveable type (Bossert, 1931).
Seals and signet rings also preceded printing. Nobles would carve a seal or a ring to press onto documents as official verification. This technique dates back to ancient times.

--mervyn 18:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The statement

"...oldest use of moveable type comes from about 1500 BC. The Phaistos Disc is the oldest example of a printed work produced with moveable type..."

is incorrect, because the Phaistos disc was not printing with moveable type, but more akin to printing with a daisy wheel printer or a Dymo labelling machine. Do we call either of those two printing with moveable type? Nope, because they're not.
Arbo 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You say it 'is a misconception'. What is your source for that? The bit you removed had a bibl. reference. I think you should at least match that with one of your own. Prater 18:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a misconception because the Phaistos Disc does not print by means of "moveable type".
Arbo 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly maintain that "movable type" is totally out of context with regard to the Phaistos Disc. Movable type is cast in quantity from matrices, which in turn are made from engraved punches. AFAIK there is no evidence for movable type before the 1400s. I suspect it originated as a misconception from engraved letter/ideogram punches - of which, indeed, the Phaistos Disc is an early example. Unless you can advise me better, I think wikipedia should not connect the Phaistos disc with "movable type". Any standard work on printing history eg Lucien Febvre "The Coming of the Book" will give the background information.

--mervyn 06:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) The title of that book suggests it is not a history of printing so it is no surprise it doesn't mention the fact we are discussing. Bossert and Chadwick say it's printed text, who supports your view? Prater 09:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The book does not have to be a dedicated history of printing to contain relevant information. As long as the information is accurate and relevant, it is applicable to this article on the printing press. And, there is a difference between "printed text" and printing with moveable type. The process of printing with the Phaistos Disc is not the same as the process of printing with moveable type. In other words, there are different ways and methods of printing.
Arbo 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
this is not about finding a counter source, it is about rejecting a statement made by a source in 1931 that contradicts accepted understanding of the term movable type. The technique of impressing characters into clay from a seal or punch is not what is meant by the term "movable type". In any case, my other argument still stands that the "Ancient History" section is not relevant to the Printing Press article so I think it best to leave it removed. --mervyn 10:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Right on Arbo 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Further to my above comment, you have amended the ref to movable type on the Phaistos Disc page, thanks. --mervyn 10:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Glad to oblige. And I do in fact agree with the removal of that section from printing press (If only because none of it involved any presses!). Prater 11:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

The article on Johann Gutenberg has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support it with your vote!--Fenice 21:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gutenberg or the Chinese

Many people say it was the chinese who invented the first printing press, many people say it was Johannes Gutenberg. But who is correct? I do not know and i would like to know. Thankyou

[edit] Revolution

Burke in Day the Universe Changed suggests it started a revolution, making memory & eyewitnesses less important than documents... Trekphiler 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Movable Type

Does anyone else find it inappropriate that a link to Movable Type - the blogging software - appears on this page even when someone comes to it from direct links to "Printing press"? It has no place on the "Printing press" page. I'll remove it in a week if there are no objections. THE CHINESE INVENTED THE PRINTING PRESS

As the notice says, "Movable type" redirects there. In such circumstances, the notice is shown unconditionally. This is common practice; compare, for instance, Central Intelligence Agency. --Sneftel 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something I would like to see added to this article...

I think this article could use a section on the status of the printing press today; specifically, in the face of newer, more modern techniques, why is it's use still so wide-spread in industries such as the newspaper printing industry or the book printing industry?

My husband works in newspapers, and his paper got a new press, and I asked him why newspapers are still using that sort of technology instead of, say, laser printing directly from computer. He's a reporter, not a press operator, so didn't know. However, for a document that is only intended to have one run (like a newspaper), albeit a large run, what advantages are offered by a press rather then more modern (and one would think faster and more efficent) printing technology?

As it stands the pages are sent by computer to the press operator, and then metal plates must be made for each page each day. Why can't they adapt the same technology that allows computer printers, fax machines, and photocopiers to print without plates? What modern advantages to presses have?

Obviously, not knowing the awnsers I can't add the section, but maybe someone who does know could?

Flexographic and offset litho web printing may seem out of date or outmoded, but the latest presses of that kind are in fact fully up to date with digital technology, and still offer the most economical means of printing newspapers. The advantage is a matter of economics and scale of production. The technologies inside your "...computer printers, fax machines, and photocopiers [that] print without plates..." are practical for a small office or home, but not practical for large-scale print operations producing tens or hundreds of thousands of copies. Laser printing directly from a computer would be too costly per imprint, and laser toner doesn't stick very well to newspaper. Contrary to what you might think, laser and bubble-jet printing are far slower than a flexographic press, which runs off huindreds of copies per minute. Printing from flexographic metal plates is still the cheapest and fastest method for printing newspapers. Offset presses offer the same advantages for book printing.
The main change in the digital era is the way plates are made---with a digital imagesetter instead of the older photo-bromide process.
I am more than happy to add this perspective once we sort out which of the articles on printing and publishing will be merged.
Best regards, Arbo 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with printing?

What do people think about merging these two articles? It seems to me that some of the information is duplicative and Wikipedia could maybe get by with one article and a redirect from Printing press to printing. The printing article is, I think, a better article, but the printing press article has lots of information the printing article doesn't. What do others think? Good idea? Bad idea? ONUnicorn 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Definitely. I've left a message of support on the talk page for Printing. The best strategy would be to merge Printing Press with Printing and put in a redirect for "printing press". Unicorn—do you know how to do a merge? Arbo 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Movable Type already redirects here, and this trend to merge every article under the sun is rather scaring me. Printing is a generic process, but the Printing Press is a specific type of process with specific and significant roots in history. Rather than hacking up the article to make it fit into Printing, I wish it were expanded upon. Some things I feel are missing are historic events that included the destruction of printing presses in an attempt to oppress freedom of press, how the printing press brought about printed news, and how news media became known as the 'press' because of this. "Stop The Presses" also needs to be mentioned.
If you must merge Printing Press with Printing, then please merge Printing with Writing, and Writing with Words, and Words with Letters, and Letters with Drawing. - Eric 04:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of invention of rotary press

Just been reading the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the rotary press, and it says:

:"In 1844 Richard Hoe in the United States patented his type revolving press, the first rotary to be based on this principle. It consisted of a cylinder of large diameter, bearing columns of type bracketed together on its outer surface; pressure was provided by several small cylinders, each of which was fed sheets of paper by hand. This system gave speeds of more than 8,000 copies per hour; its only drawback was its fragility; faulty locking up of the forms caused the type to fall out of the cylinder. ("Printing." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Sept. 2006 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-36841>.)"

Our article says

:"Later on in the middle of the 19th century the rotary press (invented in 1833 in the United States by Richard M. Hoe) allowed millions of copies of a page in a single day. Mass production of printed works flourished after the transition to rolled paper, as continuous feed allowed the presses to run at a much faster pace."

Can anyone check the year the rotary press was invented? Either it was invented in 1833 and not patented till 1844 - or else either we or the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong. Lijil 17:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movable type and other things

  • I agree completely with that movable type should not redirect here, especially since this article defines it as a separate invention. There is a article on typography, which has a very brief discussion of the technology of movable type, and I suggest that additional material could be put in there; (I know enough to add based on the standard books on the subject) and the redirect changed. Perhaps this will solve some of the problems referred to above.
  • A composing stick is an early improvement, not a later invention in the sense of the other see alsos
  • A good deal more is needed about the later technologies, but I am not really competent for this one. DGG 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Since neither we nor anyone apparently knows whether or not the inventions were independent, we might as well simply present them both, along with the appropriate references that had previously been added. The important thing is to present both.

  • I still search for a better place to redirect "movable type". This one isn't sensible, because we do all seem to agree that they were independent inventions, whether in Europe the same man made both of them, or combined them in a novel way. DGG 06:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Upon further thought, I have decided to move it to Typography if nobody has a better suggestion. DGG 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phaistos disk

As it is concluded in this article not to be true movable type, what is the point of a 75 year old quote that it is? DGG 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But what do you want? A black and white article? Obviously the Phaistos disc is a border case, therefore I am also giving room to views which support the notion of it being movable type.

Gun Powder Ma 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's more a matter of space. but it can't really be discussed in less, & the remedy is to add more material on the later printing press that is so badly needed. I am not going to argue about this too much, when we basically agree about so much of the controversy on this and related pages. I'd rather deal with the POV there.
I don't see your sentence

"The Phaistos Disc clearly shows an understanding of the concept of printing, that is to reproduce a body of text non-manually with reusable characters."

I hope I did not accidentally edit over it, or deleted anything else by mistake.

That doesn't mean you've convinced me, for

  1. the very learned people fighting on the disk page have none of them thought to mention it.
  2. Can you cite any modern ref. that treats it as a serious precurson? By your chosen definition in the page it is not printing. (Equally, I would have to look for something modern that says it isn't.)
  3. It would only resemble printing if the characters were impressed at the same time, or in a mechanical fashion. Since according to the article on it the characters overstruck each other, & are found on both sides, and go from the edges in, it doesn't seem it's very close.
  4. I'm not sure what you mean by non-manually? I don't think you mean a machine, but rather a character-shaped device rather than a stylus or brush or pen.

Anyway, I've added your new sentence to the disc page, because it is certainly at any rate worth mentioning there, adjust it if preferred. And perhaps this should go on the printing page instead, because it did not use a press? (see #3, above) DGG 06:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the 'non-manually', added a quotation and rephrased parts of the text. I am going to post the passage also in 'Printing'. Gun Powder Ma 10:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want this information in two separate articles? I think it makes better sense in Printing, because if might or might not be a form of printing. The overlapping letters demonstrate that it was not produced in a printing press, even a primitive one. It therefore does not belong in this page at all. I don;'t want to dispute endlessly on whether or not it is printing, but keeping what is after all a side issue in two places is wrong in principle. Obviously it doesn't waste paper, but it does waste reading time, and cause confusion. I am trying to clean up this set of related pages and a number of other people have put their special topic in more than one place, & it's obvious where this has led.
Suggestion--Put it in printing, make sure everything you want to say is in there. List it as a cross ref in printing press & anywhere else you like. I am a little puzzled by your insistence on spreading the news about it. If you had a talk p. we could alternatively discuss it there, or use mine.
Alternative suggestion: put it in the article for the disk, and make a section in printing, giving 1 sentence & the link.
Second alternative: as there's a lot to say about it, make an article, where all the alternatives can be discussed in depth--that is what you do want, I think, & it makes a lot of sense.
Let me know when you decide. Either of us can do the clean-up. DGG 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This may be the single most enigmatic object in the world,

Ok. I take it out from 'printing press', and keep it at printing. Later we also have to take out the sections 'woodblock printing' and 'movable type' from 'printing press' which do not belong there either. As far as the article 'Phaistos Dics' is concerned, I reserve myself to either post the whole section there, too, or make a cross reference to 'printing', however unusual that may be to talk about a thing in another article. At any rate, the section in printing has to be kept, because this is the very first instance of the long development of printing and we have to add later also a section about 'printing on clothes' which predates printing on paper clearly. The important thing is to show the evolution of printing and not to let it begin with an arbitrary date or partial invention. You do not start an article on WW II with the 1. September 1939, either, do you? Gun Powder Ma 12:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your cooperation. I consider the short section of woodblock printing is justified as referring to the main article on the subject, and since woodblocks in Europe may have been printed on something like a printing press. "Movable Type" has moved around (no pun intended) quite a bit before you & and I got here. I think it does indeed warrant a separate article, but this would apparently mean asking to reconsider a RfD vote.--it ended up mostly merged into Typography, not Printing. I think the vote was probably based on the very similar content at the time, not the logic of the subject. Incidentally, do you have a ref on early printing on cloth? It's new to me?

In friendship, DGG 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


No reference yet, but I have already seen a lot of pics of ancient cloth printing online. It is very rarely talked about. Until I have no references and/or pics, I will not write anything about it, of course. In my view the final structure of the history of 'printing' should be 1. Stamping 2. Phaistos Disc 3. Cloth printing 4. Woodblock printing 5. Movable type printing, etc. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus text, perhaps

I have tightened up the early part of it, and perhaps it would be fair to consider the lead, section 1, and section 2.1 as at least preliminary consensus text (which does not of course imply that it could not be improved -- I hope it will be. I have marked one or two places where citations are I think needed. Perhaps further elaboration of 1 and 2.1 should be relegated to the more detailed articles. I would not object to a single short sentence saying something like, The existence of stamping as a progenitor of printing is recognized, though details are uncertain, with a see also to the PD) I do not want to add it until there is agreement on the wording, and on its inclusion. As for "The Catholic church decided not to make a monopoly on printing", it seems a little odd to me, since certainly the various branches of the Inquisition made a success of it. I've left it in the hope it can be clarified.

I worked a little on section 2.2, but to my eyes it remains very vague and quite repetitive. It is essentially a recapitulation of the development of culture over the last 5 centuries, and it's hard to summarize that. Every sentence is a drastic ovesimplification. I hope others can do better with it than I did, though I am going to make another try. In particular, the Gieseke quote out of context does not make sense to me, unless "one piece of information" is interpreteted extremely broadly--Newton's Principia is not one piece of information.

The following sections await. But I think I would like to work for a while on some other subject entirely. DGG 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs an actual explanation of how a gutenberg style press works - ideally with diagram or better picture

Johnbod 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, Microsoft Encarta has such a diagram. Better than a thousand words. Gun Powder Ma 10:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] colour

Found the refs, found other refs too & will add. Worth writing an article on the Psalter to give the details. DGG 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handkerchief press

Yes really. I was at this [2] this week & they had a very neatly made one "mid C15" from I forget which Italian museum. About 9 inches press space between two screws (maybe 6 inch screw travel up & down). They said irons weren't invented until the C17. Just FYI Johnbod 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

Although WK proved to be a sockpuppet, the article has now been appropriately restored. I hope my fellow editors will now work on the article, instead of defending themselves against each other. DGG 02:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted everyone to know that I am not a sockpuppet and DGG, Johnbod, Khoikhoi, and Dmcdevit now all know this. I guess there is a student as the university where I teach that created a lot of sockpuppets all at the same time, just when I created my own account, and he also usually works on articles related to China. Anyways, hope that I can help!White Krane 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PP in China

Where is this now discussed? And shouldn't this be moved or copied or at least referenced in the HTEA article?

Where and when did the "PP in China for centuries" come in and if it is true, then I believe it needs to be discussed at the very beginning of this article, not hidden down in the middle. We would also have to change a lot of other pages as well. Ma's arguements in the Talk above seem to disprove any printing press in China, and I agree with him that the printing press is a different thing than movable type, which China DID have for at least 400 before Gutenberg. White Krane 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue here is "when does printing equipment become a press" - or more precisely, something we can call a press without being misleading or confusing for casual readers. At the moment we have only been able to reference printing by "rubbing" (see woodblock printing) in pre-Gutenberg Asian printing - ie the ink passes from the block/type to the paper by manual pressure with a hand-tool. GP Ma objects to calling the equipment for this, whatever else there is in the way of formes, type-boxes & general furniture etc, a "press". I can see his point, although I am in two minds about it myself. Anyway, we need more detail on what the Asian equipment actually looked like & did to resolve this, I think. Johnbod 18:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The place to put the details, when we do resolve this is on the HTEA page; as we do not seem to have a section on the PP in China, this sort of summary of what we have been discussing should go there. , The place to put a summary if there is anything to summarize, is here. Until there is, the phrase should go out--without the least prejudice towards putting it back in again. But Johnbod, is there anyone knowledgeable who has ever referred to rubbing as using a printing press? As I've seen it described, the key element is a screw, as in the presses for other purposes. In terms of the definition in the first sentence of the article, the key phrase is "mechanical device"
In using terminology, even more than any other sort of discussion, we really have do have to follow the scholarly consensus. Not just because of the WP standards, but in any context at all, because otherwise it will really confuse the reader. Rather than have another quarrel, I've changed the language, and copied it into the HTEA page in a new section, which I hope others will add to.DGG 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced of the magical importance of the screw, which after all has long been superceded in Western presses (and from very early on in the case of the high-pressure presses needed for engraving). But I think when the pressure in the contact between paper and block/type is mechanical rather than manual a line has been crossed. DGG, I'm not entirely happy with your edit on the other side - you say "it is not clear" when really it should be "we are not clear". But as a temporary thing I guess it is ok. Johnbod 03:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The section on the effects of printing is too sweeping

The section on the effects of the printing press attributes too many scholarly developments in the late 14th and early 15th centuries to the printing press, and betrays a certain ignorance of the manuscript world. My three main qualms are as follows:

1. The article notes that the press made authorship more important. This is blatantly incorrect. Since the late 14th century, scholars regularly identified themselves in their treatises (and treatises were sometimes wrongly attributed in an effort to give them more authority). The development the author notes is just a continuation of this. What the printing press did do was allow for scholars to debate eachother in writing, as they could expect all readers to have copies of both treatises.

2. According to the article, manuscripts had a visual emphasis that printed books did not have. As a percentage of total popoulation, more early printed books had illuminations than did manuscripts in the 14th and 15th centuries. If anything, the development of the printing press made authors more likely to use visual aids, since diagrams could be created separately by skilled craftsmen and could be reproduced accurately. A good example is Euclid. Very few manuscripts of Euclid have illustrations, but all but a very small number of printed editions do. I am personally amazed at the amount of math that medieval scholars could do in their head without seeing the diagrams on paper. Indeed, as a result of the press, we are now more visually oriented than ever - and a good amount of time is spent creating visual representation of ideas than ever (see Edward Tufte). It can be argued, then, that the printed book made us think even more metaphorically and made us more visually oriented.

3. The article states twice that the printing press led to the production of works in vulgar languages. Nope. Actually, if you look at the number of manuscripts written in vulgar languages before 1500 and the number of books not written in Latin before 1600, you will see a huge drop-off. The reason for this is that manuscripts were made for individuals, whereas books were made for a market. In addition, the production of manuscripts was never really regulated, but printed books required an imprimatur - official permission to be printed. In these two regards, however, printed books did have an effect on the vulgar languages, in that they resulted in the homogenization of dialects into high languages in which books could be sold widely to a population in a form that was approved by the authorities.

Harry 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page formatted

I went and changed all the quotes to blockquotes, fixed a title, removed the horzional lines and fixed a typo or two. Please tell me if i made any errors in correcting the page, as the talk page is very long and I had to run thorugh it about ten times to find all (I hope) the errors. --Ashfire908 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetorical device comment

This line seems unnecessary, as it is a bit obvious, and the wording is confusing as well.

"...—a rhetorical device, which alludes to the pivotal role of the printing press in the global spread of printing."

Do we really need it, should it be rewritten to be less confusing, or should I delete it? --Ashfire908 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

what we really need is a disam page to distinguish the two uses of the word. Though the same word is used for both, and they are sometimes treated together, they are really two topics. This confusion, however, is not unique to WP, . I think at least this much is necessary to make a demarcation, as without it the contents moved around a good deal. But a better wording is always desirable., if you can find one. DGG 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] last set of deletions

I agree with most of them, but such an extensive change should be proposed here first. I have re-inserted the ones that I personally think important. Rather than change it back, we can then discuss them here, and see what other people think.

I have once more reverted to the last stable sourced version. I remind everyone this is the article on the printing press, not movable type. The lede paragraph contains the scholarly consensus, as I understand it. if additional material is introduced , it must be exactly sourced. DGG (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The current versions introduction which you've reverted to completely about the movable-type press, with a deeply ingrained euro-centric bias, which contradicts much of the already sourced material in [Printing] and [Bi_Sheng]. --Davémon 11:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gutenberg POVness

I have a question. If Korea was the first to bring about the metal movable printing, how could Gutenberg's printing method being superior apply to Korea (in that comparison).

Also, what's the point of writing a big chunk of the article on the "Gutenberg Western Civilization point of view" (& it's placed as the very first paragraph after the intro, eh hem)? Maybe the person who wrote all that is a Gutenbergian Asian-hater? (Wikimachine 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

for details about the Korean method, see the article History of Typography in East Asia and the specialized literature which needs to be incorporated there. It's a fascinating subject, and I expect to do more with it, to the limit of what's available in European languages. The point is that it almost certainly did not influence the European development. it was metal movable type to be sure, but if anyone has evidence that it was used in a press let it be produced. Wikimachine, do you know of some? What can you add to that article on this--or on aythingelse--additional workers are very much needed here.

It is just conceivably possible that Chinese movable type may have been known in the West--though it too was was never used in a press--but centuries of effort to find a direct link have failed. Considering that there are undoubted cases where there is a direct link and it is easily demonstrable--such as paper, the absence of any evidence at all makes the null hypothesis that there was no influence. But this is discussed in the history of typography article and elsewhere. But the Korean presses should be mentioned here as a separate tradition. There really are multiple traditions, and the printing press based one derived from Gutenberg is not only unique technically, but the only one of the traditions that really had major cultural influence. That's the noteworthy thing that Needham and associates were faced with: the failure in China, and the success in Germany. (Needham did not actually write the vol. on printing in his well-known series--the eminent Chinese specialist Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien was the author. ) It was a peripheral method of production in China & a niche method in Korea--but the basis of intellectual civilization in Western Europe. This has been explained of grounds of technology, or economics, or many other things, and does not represent in any way any greater merit for Western civilization. DGG (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Chinese side of things does deserve a mention in the intro, even if the cultural impact was limited. We're talking about a technology, not a cultural development. Also, people, there's no need to wikilink every noun, and certainly not the same noun 3 times in the one paragraph. It just makes it harder to read the article if every word is linked. See WP:MOS-L. -- Hongooi 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It maybe difficult to link Gutenberg and East Asian Prints, sometimes western history excludes Asians. For example Chinese contributions to development of American railroads. We know that metal printed material existed before Gutenberg and it was from Korea. We know clay prints existed in China even before that. We should just state what we can prove for now and maybe add a section on possible theories. One other thing, the Chinese side seems to keep putting in this vassal relationship with the rest of Asia, but it should be noted that the vassal relationship was not all throughout Asian history. Japan had a vassal relation in the early days with China, and it was off and on as their needs and development changed, and Korea also had a vassal relationship that was off and on. Only during times of war and need did the relationship exist. If you look at Korean history one point in time when Korea did not have much of a relationship with China was during the Koryo Dynasty. In fact, the writing during the Koryo Dynasty refers to itself as an empire and the ruler an emperor. This is vastly different from the beginning of the Joseon Dynasty which refers to itself as a Kingdom/King. The Koryo Dynasty had a peaceful transition their was no unification war. It was also during the Koryo Dynasty that China was conquered by the Mongolians. If your going to put in this vassal perspective please don't do it in a general form. The vassal relationships were always transitional and Koryo was not a vassal during this time period. Maybe you should mention it in more detail the China article. Also, the alliances were with specific dynasties, not with China as a whole, that is worth mentioning cause China tends to think anything with in comtemporary China belongs to them, but a vassal relation with the Manchu are not with the Chinese.--Objectiveye 03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

provide the references. and if you vandalize the article further you will be blocked. And discussions of whether the Koreans or the Chinese are responsible for printing in Korea don't belong at this article, but the sources in the books cited indicate that at least some of it it was a Korean response to Chinese invasion. DGG (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What is going on here, I thought this was common knowledge. The first printing technologies were from China made of Clay, then around the 1250's AD the Koreans print with metal moveable print; http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/printing_3.htm A museum in France has metal moveable prints from the Koryo Dynasty, if you look at the reference above it shows you a metal moveable print from the Koryo dynasty. What in the world is going on here!!! I didn't realize this was a issue or was controversial. The only real question to ask is why in Asia did the printing press not have a similiar impact as it did in Europe. If you look at all the references about Gutenbergs printing press, their is always a footnote or it start out by stating "in the west" the first printing press was etc.... I'm confused about the controversy in this article, are the other editors stating that China didn't have the worlds first prints, are the editors stating that the metal prints from Korea are not metalic enough, are the other editors stating that Asians did not have these inventions.....I'm confused about the controvesy in this article. Please, someone clarify for me what the arguements are about. Another reference just in case; http://www.koreanculture.org/06about_korea/symbols/11printing_heritage.htm Thanks --Objectiveye 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason why the article is getting edited so much is because, the article is not inclusive of the world and Asian history of prints. It appears to be ethnocentric to the west. The article is using one term the "press" to entirely exclude or relegate as insignificant the print history of East Asia. If you modify the article to be less ethnocentric toward Europe it may get edited less. If you have a section on Print history of the world first, before padding Gutenberg on the back. People might not feel as if this is a silly article.--Objectiveye 23:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think if the article included more info on the human history of prints especially in the intro section. And not focus on weather or not it is a "press" or press-type, it would be less ethnocentric and others would feel a sense of inclusion. (There would be less edits) Otherwise it seems to be some sort of ethnocentric article, which is excluding the world history of prints by using a narrow definition for the term "press". I'm telling you instead of having a Euro-centric article about the printing press, may be make it a inclusive article about human history of prints and later how it affects the world. I'm sure the article will get less edits if you write it that way. Then if an editor needs go in to detail about Gutenberg's printing press, we should have that in the Gutenberg article --Objectiveye 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, thats my 2 cents......You guys can edit the article however you want to, I'll leave it alone. I understand your way of categorizing, but I think it is just following the same ethnocentric method that western history books in the US follow. It may make some feel as if the world history of prints is being relegated as less significant to the west. I was hoping for a more inclusive version in Wiki. Thanks for the entertaining discussion. I hope more people think about what I said, if they get frustrated with the constant edits by other users. --Objectiveye 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported claims

This article is experiencing repeated attacks. If there is a case for the inclusion of invention prior to Gutenberg then include good references. As it stands and based on a review of the contributors edit history these unsupported claims look nothing more than nationalism. 86.147.253.98 (signature added)

[edit] Context

There is no need for a section on pre-gutenberg printing presses until there is some information that there were pre-Gutenberg printing presses, or at least that anyone has ever said so in a RS. An illustration of the remarkably ingenious Chinese arrangement of movable type that does not show a printing press belongs in other articles, not this one. Some of the earlier problems may be a confusion of the english verb press with the noun. To press is a multimeaning term possibly applicable to hand operations of various sorts, but a press is a machine. This article is about machines used for printing. DGG (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to

The point of this section was that it providedi nformation about what actually happens in the use of a press. Though the wording may appear non-encylcopedic. I think it needs to be considered for restoration, because I think the basic material may not be clear without it. DGG (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point; maybe turning it into a diagram or making the list more concise would work better? —Parhamr 00:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Potential book sources
Potential video sources
Potential image sources

I will try to get the above books. —Parhamr 09:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Briggs and Burke

Is a general elementary textbook on graphic arts, and is not a universally used authority. It's an elementary level tertiary reference only, and there are much more reliable sources for every aspect. it's absurd to base the main argument on quotations from them. it's enough to list them as a general reference. I am going to adjust the article accordingly. DGG (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But is the main reference useed, Meggs, any better? Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge revert

I just reverted way, way back, removing a number of POV'd essays and some vandalism. I may have removed a couple of good edits when I did so, however -- so if anyone finds something good I reverted, fix it, please. Thanks! Gscshoyru 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider most or all of what you did very acceptable---I woouldnt have called it POV exactly, but rather material that was somewhat outside the main point of the article. DGG (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giesecke 1989

There was a question in SHARP-L regarding the enigmatic Giesecke 1989. If http://www.jchilders.com/imd450/printingpress/effects.html has the priority there might be a copyvio? --Historiograf (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is more likely that the Childers page - which has a disclaimer at the bottom - "borrowed" from this article. It is traditional for this type of in-line citation ("(Giesecke, 1989; 325)") to be paired with a fuller citation (i.e. including title) in a bibliography which should be in the "sources" section here. This lapse is sadly ironic given the subject at hand. jbeekman-atsign-jclibrary-dot-org 11/27/2007 15:00 EDT

[edit] Now seriously

Seriously, who is poor fellow (or fellows) who never tires to spin the article into a story about East Asian printing, despite the fact that the printing press was invented 10 000 miles away and the vast majority in scholarship agrees on its local Middle European origins? So fine, somebody has gone to pains to dig out some obscure quote that Gutenberg actually owned his press to Chinese paper...as if he had constructed his machine from it...

I am now not addressing the blockheads, but the reasonable minds: Don't you also feel that this article now the touch of cultural propaganda or not? I feel quote and science are misused here - but also at other pages concerning printing - in a grand scale to push an agenda.

I am refraining for now from any changes to show my faith in Wiki's self-cleaning abilities, but if this trend of cleverly introducing and interpreting quotes and minority views is not stopped, others and me might see compelled to follow the same path. After all, we all know that there is a quote for every conceivable opionion, but far from all opinions are actually worth quoting. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: For those who are not immediately familiar with the subject: Mechanical presses as used in European printing remained unknown in East Asia,[1] [2] therefore the whole article creates a false image. Instead, printing remained a unmechanized, laborious process with pressing the back of the paper onto the inked block by manual "rubbing" with a hand tool. In Korea, the first printing presses were introduced as late as 1881-83[3] [4], while in Japan, after an early but brief interlude in the 1590s[5], Gutenberg's printing press arrived in Nagasaki in 1848 on a Dutch ship.[6]
China's contribution to the printing press with the movable type should be given more credit. It is barely mentioned in the wikipedia article, as if the contribution were insignificat.--Jtd00123 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Jtd--the reason "China's contribution to the printing press" are not given more credit here is because there were not any such contributions. They never invented a printing press. They did invent movable type, and their invention is very fully discussed both in the general article there and in other appropriate articles. The actual historical credit is glory enough. DGG (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Ricardo Duchesne, "Asia First?", The Journal of the Historical Society, Vol. 6, Issue 1 (March 2006), pp.69-91 (83) (PDF)
  2. ^ printing.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 5, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD
  3. ^ Albert A. Altman, "Korea's First Newspaper: The Japanese Chosen shinpo", The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 43, No. 4. (Aug., 1984), pp. 685-696
  4. ^ Melvin McGovern, "Early Western Presses in Korea", Korea Journal, 1967, pp.21-23
  5. ^ Akihiro Kinoshita, Keiichi Ishikawa, “Early Printing History in Japan”, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, Volume 73.1998 (1998), pp. 30-35 (34)
  6. ^ Akihiro Kinoshita, Keiichi Ishikawa, “Early Printing History in Japan”, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, Volume 73.1998 (1998), pp. 30-35 (33f.)

[edit] coster et al

This is fringe--and was fringe even the the 19th century. erratically, the main article in the 11th eb was written by someone who believed it, though other articles in the same ed. make it quite clear otherwise. This needs to be discussed, but not really in this article, its already discussed in history of typography. The EB stuff needs to be attributed to the actual author of the article--not an official position of the EB. Let me think of the best place to put it, and then it can be expanded & fully referenced. For the moment I moved the material to a separate section here. it does not belong in the main discussion as if it is considered equally likely as gutenberg. Which reminds me to find better sources generally than the over-general over-elementary graphic arts textbook being relied upon here. DGG (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that broadly, but before I saw this reinstated it as a footnote, which I think is a better holding solution. I agree better sources are needed - in particular the article does not explain that the classic double-strike "Gutenberg press" does not appear until ca. 1500 - JG himself used a single-strike press, like printmakers. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
John,I think the footnote is indeed better. I think we'd need to say G presumably used a single-strike press, as nobody knows what he actually did use.DGG (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently close examination of his pages proves this; I'm not sure how. But as it is the article doesn't give enough detailed description of either type. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)