Talk:Printing press/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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?

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)

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)

Diagram

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

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

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


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)

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)

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)

Shame there isn't more details on the political side of the advent of the printing press. I recall reading that most of the produced paper were owned and commandeered by the church and/or the "local" government before the introduction of the press, and that the press in itself represented an opening in this closed "market" as producing a manuscript was well over the price any private organisation could actually afford, and therefore the need for the main producers of written texts to sue Gutenberg in the first place.
On a side note, I think that comparing the internet to the printing press (as a revolution) is actually ignoring the strong opposition of major players against this new technology (the printing press), where as the internet has been embraced the most. In that regard the internet isn't a revolution as it is not fought against. On the other hand if you do mention the peer to peer technology, that could be a valid comparison as all the players involved in the technology are looking for a solution, which are ranging from denial and lawsuit (RIAA) to acknowledgement(ISP/Users).94.193.57.20 (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Handkerchief press

Yes really. I was at this [1] 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)


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)

Harry, I agree with you, but they are conventionally discussed together. I think the conventional view is outmoded scholarship, mostly based on Lucien Febvre's The Coming of the Book (originally published in 1958) but it will take some time until it can be corrected. As far as i know, the best book on the contemporary scholarly view is The Myth of Print Culture by Joseph A. Dane, 2003. I have a copy, and hope to put in some material from there. DGG (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Printing Press in Koramangala, Bangalore

There is no printing presses in Koramangala so, I have started Printing Press in Koramangala, i.e. SRIVAIBHAVALAKSHMI PRINTING PRESS, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. contact me for printing works Email ID : srivaibhavalakshmi.graphics@gmail.com, WEB : HTTP://SVLPRINTERS.GOOGLEPAGES.COM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.65.8 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lightsaber

Just a warning: Stephen Colbert noted a while back that the article on the lightsaber was longer than the article on the printing press. After that, the lightsaber article was radically trimmed, and for a while the printing press article was longer. But now the lightsaber article is longer once again. Serendipodous 05:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

debate about the origin printing press aside - the comment in the introduction about 'all technological inventions happened in China a long time before anywhere else' is an outrageous claim.

it has been removed. DGG (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Uighurs and Printing Press

Check this source for Uighur's Printing Press. I think it should also be included. Will try to look for books about this. http://the_uighurs.tripod.com/Scrpt.htm Ancalimonungol (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Johannes Gutenberg (creator of the press)

Johannes Guttenberg was just intrigued by the way that books were binding and put together and this intrigued him to start and pursue something as the movable type, little did he know that his invention of the printing press would effect the society in such a large way. Gutenberg was not the only man or women involed in the creation of the printing press he worked with others but they were not as heavily involved as Gutenberg. His printing press became well known around the world when he came out with the Gutenberg bible, otherwise known as the 42 lined bible. The bible was very elegant and admired by many people. After ashort time period he then shortened his famous Bible down to a smaller 36 lined Bible ( 36 lines per page). The ideas of the Rennisance were much easily shared through Gutenberg's invention of the printing press, people were able to access and see the information much quicker than ever before. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megfinley (talkcontribs) 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Meltzer, Milton, Great Inventions The Printing Press, Tarrytown New York, Benchmark book: 2004.