Talk:Global spread of the printing press

message: Hello, I just opened this new article. One thing: I am aware that my source (Meyers Konversationslexikon) is pretty dated, but if you add new locations or revise current ones, please do so by giving a reference, so that the article becomes a reliable source for us all. Thanks Gun Powder Ma 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good start. so the users will know what item is verified as it gets improved, I've added a note. DGG 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where should we ask users to add the footnote? With the date, the town, the printer or what? We need a uniform, intuitively understandable method, I just realise. Gun Powder Ma 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to add further locations

message: Looking at your "Germany" list, this is bound to cause trouble soon! Do you know where these places actually are? When was Meyers published - 1942? I suggest you change the heading to German-language printing (which I imagine is correct), anglicise the place-names & link them. Otherwise you are bound to have NPOV trouble.Johnbod 02:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one who is in breach of WP guidelines is you. With comments (and headings) like this you only disqualify yourself. Gun Powder Ma 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it this means you cannot be bothered to clean up your mess! Or possibly that you think it acceptable to describe as "Germany" the capitals of Austria, the Czech Republic (plus several Bohemian towns), and to use "Ofen" for Budapest! Johnbod 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not seem to understand. Unless you edit your brain dead headline, you are in no position to ask anything, let alone talk threatening with guidelines with which you are totally in breach. Gun Powder Ma 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read the article Großdeutschland - this is exactly what your scheme is saying Johnbod 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read from when the source actually is, a reference which had been actually on the page all along. Then you may want to go back, edit your brain dead headline, edit your brain dead reference to 1942, or I suggest you may want to edit other article where you are not so demonstrably in conflict with NPOV guidelines. Gun Powder Ma 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grosse Deutscheland 

message: There is no easy way to categorize all the places where printing was done, especially in central Europe. My impression was that Meyer ordered the places also according to the language the printers used (taking Latin aside). Therefore, Prague belongs to Germany (apart from being a part of the Old Reich then), as the printers (next to the university, the imperial chancellery) used  the German language. Then again, there were sooner or later Czech language printers. All I want to suggest for the moment is do not change the category of te places before we have found here a common solution. It just becomes a mess of what has been until now an orderly structure. Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but next time try putting your facts in a different passage from your diatribe. Listing by language would destroy the 'spread of printing' character IMO pretty much. Also, it is far from being an unambigous criteria. I suggest we replace 'Germany' with 'Holy Roman Empire' which would solve most problems. To do much more is trying to impose technocracy on history, which won't work. We can also add another column for 'language', but actually I would prefer 'comments' here. And "Florence" is anyway a later insertion not done by Meyer. Gun Powder Ma 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I am am sympathetic to that approach, but really I think the only way is either go "German-language printers" or similar , "Greek-language" "Hebrew"(if so),& leave the rest by country, or use modern territories, which I agree would not be best.  All sorts of places (eg Belgium & chunks of Italy) were in the HRE.   Johnbod 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations 

message: :Language would be a separate and different list--consider Italy,where there was the first printing for Italian, I think Greek, and certainly Hebrew. (as for Lisbon, I need to check).DGG 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First printing in Hebrew is not currently listed, and should be. Do you have the info? Can go in the comments box, like music Johnbod 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several conflicting sources. I'll need to check.DGG 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: stranded comments re language

message: there just is no one way. a straightforward one by dates is also useful. But  let s get this one finished by city and by language, & then several arrangements can be done. This list is long, but not all that long compared to others. There is a guideline for names of cities, at WP:PLACESDGG 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just open up a new article, this time by the criteria 'language'? Gun Powder Ma 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  that would not solve the remaining issues on this one, and we all agree we don't know enough about what languages all these printers actually used. Do you fancy researching this? Johnbod 23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I know is that there are several articles at WP concerning the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#See also, each according to its own criteria. Perhaps we should just leave the idea of making a list according to the right and definite criteria, and instead give room to different ways of representing the spread of printing. This would also be in the spirit of WP. Gun Powder Ma 23:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History of the book contains a list of first printed books, mostly by language. Man vyi 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: as for how to arrange it

message: The article states that:
"Due to religious qualms, Sultan Bayezid II. prohibited printing in Arabic script in the Ottoman empire in 1483 on death penalty, but underground printing was done by Jews as well as the Greek and Armenian communities".
In fact, the Jewish ans Christian printers were not operating in "underground". They were given permission to print, as long as they don't print Arabic script. (which at the time was also used for Turkish). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.72.45.187 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: I've moved the page back for now, but we need to reach some sort of resolution to this dispute. Hopefully we can do so in a discussion on this talk page. Obviously, since I made the move originally, I think that it should be called spread of the printing press.  Let me outline my reasons:  
* Firstly, the word 'printing', as commonly used, would include (apart from the printing press) printing on cloth, woodblock printing, and photographic prints. This page clearly does not address those topics, it describes the spread of the printing press after it's invention in Germany. 
* Secondly, all 'Spread of ....' pages refer to the most ancient historical use of the term. For example, Spread of Christianity discusses the apostles, not the Catholic church or Protestanism. By this logic, spread of printing should address Middle Eastern and East Asian printing technologies. 
* Thirdly, if this page is called spread of printing, it's content should mirror the page History of printing, and in fact it may be superflous to and should be merged with that page. 
* Fourthly, to start a page called spread of printing with Germany 1439, would imply that printing did not exist before 1439, overlooking the thousand years of print culture that existed in East Asia before hand. 
lk (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the creator of the article and the contributor who added most contents to the article. First, I have to say it is less than perfect style to not consult the main contributor, in this case me, especially when the person(s) who change the article name did not contribute themselves to the article. Going around and changing article name is always a sure recipe for trouble. Even more, it is also ignores the WP concept of stressing competence which, naturally, lies with those who worked most at the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be called "Spread of printing" or "Spread of the printing press" ?

message: A user asked WP:Japan to find references for the first appearance of the printing press in Japan. After a bit of net research, I came across the name "The Jesuit Mission Press in Japan", and from there to this site, with the yearmark: . I added this into the article, but I'm not sure how to reference the year, nor if the page I linked to is sufficient as reference - it is a commercial site afterall. But the Valignano article does mention Jesuits spreading the printing press in Asia, so one could say with some certainty that the info is correct. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Asia 

message: Could I suggest changing the "global" to "geographic". Global is an ambigious term at times, and can be defined as "worldwide" (everywhere in the world), across the globe, holistic, universal etc.. Changing to geographic will also allow alignment of a range of "Geographic spread of ..." articles that have not yet acheived global ("worldwide" spread)--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Please go ahead. LK (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More titling talk 

message: Ferdinand Geldner's 1970 assertion, perpetuated by Man in "The Gutenberg Revolution" 2002) that printing occurred in Africa (an island off the west coast of 
Guinea) before 1501 (in fact 1494, but the title of this - if true- extremely important work and its author are not appended) is revolutionary and not yet accepted. ISTC makes no mention of it.This would add a whole new continent to the world of incunabula. 125.239.105.252 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: Hi Colleagues
I have a suggestion regarding a methodology for accessing much of the information missing in the first table. Under the heading Dates by Location, the first table (Germany, Austria etc) has many gaps for the first printer and also for some dates. 
The British Library has been compiling for the last 30 years a catalogue of every known book printed before 1500 - as many of you know these are called 'incunabula'. They have about 28,000 entries and think they are almost complete. Using their database(Incunabula Short Title Catalogue - ISTC)accessed via: http://istc.bl.uk/search, I have identified most of the missing information. For example:
Strassburg Entry. Date: Change to 'Not after 1460' (from 'Before 1462'), Printer: Johann Mentelin
Lubeck Entry. Date c.1474, Printer: Lucas Brandis
Esslingen Entry. Printer: Conrad Fyner
Laugingen Entry: The ISTC includes no works printed before 1500. Suggest omit as not important.
Merseburg Entry. Date: 1473, Printer: Lucas Brandis, Comment: He seems tohave started two printeries - see Lubeck.
Ulm Entry. Date: 1473, Printer: Johann Zainer
My procedure to obtain the above info was to use the Search facility in the ISTC by entering the City from the Wiki table, and when the list of printed works came up I then used the Sort function to sort by date. This gives the first work printed in the city as well as its date and printer.
Okay, that's my contribution (it's after 4am and I have other work to catch up on). If you approve the methodology, I'll leave it up to one of you regulars to locate the rest of the missing info and update the table. 
One pet peeve while I'm at it. I don't think the entry for Mainz should include Peter Schoffer. Surely Johann Gutenberg deserves sole credit as the first printer (perhaps with Johann Fust's name in brackets as investor/financier). John Man in his book 'The Gutenberg Revolution' (Random House, 2010) makes it clear that Peter Schoffer was introduced to the printing business by his uncle (Fust) after the financing arrangements had been made. Schoffer later took over the printery when Fust successfully sued Gutenberg to recover his investment. Man shows that Gutenberg had been working for several years with a few trusted assistants perfecting his printing techniques before starting on his famous Bible with up to 20 assistants (presumably including Schoffer). I think the inventor of printing warrants a solo credit. That's my pitch - I'll leave it to you to consider changing the entry.
Best wishes
Andy
58.165.107.43 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information in table 

message: This assertion is simply not true. Even in China block printing did not replace the manuscript which remained similarly important and cherished format (Chinese calligraphy). In Europe the block book was actually very little used: only a few hundred specimen are today known, compared to 500.000 extant books printed by the press from 1450-1500 alone. Moreover, block books only came, at least according to the WP article, only after the printing press, so they are in any case irrelevant. In the Muslim lands the manuscript was practically exclusive form of text production.  Libraries only consisted of manuscripts and no printed matter at all. Printing was even forbidden by the Ottoman sultans once it spread from the Central Europe across the Med. In the other world regions (Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Australia) any form of printing was totally unknown (unless you count stamping as printing). The evidence could not be more clear: in most world regions the printing press replaced the manuscript as the dominant text format. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree mostly with these points, although their bearing on the sentence in question is not all that clear.  Yes, manuscripts should be in there, but I fail to see why block printing should not also be. No-one except GPM is talking about block books, which were certainly a very limited phenomenon. I doubt it is actually correct to say that "Even in China block printing did not replace the manuscript which remained similarly important and cherished format (Chinese calligraphy)." "Manuscript" calligraphy was regarded as an artform sure, but everyday books were block-printed, although doing so involved more significant set-up costs than a Western printed book, and so was not economic for low print-runs.  The contents of the Imperial Library, or those of collectors, can give a misleading impression, and should not be taken as typical - just as royalty in Europe continued to commission illuminated manuscript books for at least a century after printing had become more generally important. I will attempt a compromise version. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In your version, I would remove the redundant "other printing technologies": The printing press displaced the manuscript and block printing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I didn't think there was much else, though a link to that article should maybe be worked in later. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your wording. I would note though that the WP article notes that even in Europe, some block books pre-date the printing press. LK (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just: "Although many had believed that block books preceded Gutenberg's invention of movable type in the first part of the 1450s, it now is accepted that most of the surviving block books were printed in the 1460s or later, and that the earliest surviving one may date to about 1451." There is little certainty there. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  True enough, and we're also not sure when Gutenberg first started printing books on his press. However, block printing of cards and single prints in Europe certainly do pre-date the press. Anyway, this is all moot. Block book printing was an active vibrant industry in Asia, and was  the main method of book printing [in Asia] until about the 19th century. LK (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strictly speaking, printing already started with the first fingerprints which prehistoric men left on the walls of Saharian caves 30.000 years ago. It depends on your definition. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, it's your considered opinion that block printed books are the cultural equivalent of cave paintings, and only books printed on a press are REAL printed books? LK (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my remarks rather refer to the sinocentric equation of wood block printing as the only substantial form of printing done before Gutenberg printing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: We all seem happy with the relevant article wording now, so I suggest we leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The printing press replaced the manuscript from a global point of view 

message: William Colenso was not New Zealand's first printer. The Australian missionary Rev. William Yate printed in August 1830 a small Catechism "Ko te Katikihama III", of which two copies are known. This was printed at the Church Mission Press,Kerikeri,NZ,which is thus the country's first printing place. The earliest printing in the Maori language was "a korao no New Zealand; or, the New Zealander's first book...", G.Howe,Sydney, 1815. Source - "Books in Maori 1815-1900", comp. Phil Parkinson & Penny Griffith, Reed, 2004.125.239.109.62 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: Locations in subtitles are not consistent. Sometime they refer to regions, sometimes to contemporary states and sometimes to modern states that did not even exist during this spread. I propose to follow consistency and to use contemporary states with notes about modern states.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Global spread of the printing press. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nls.uk/catalogues/resources/sbti/mearn_miller.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Global spread of the printing press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310235015/http://www.wan-press.org:80/article6476.html to http://www.wan-press.org/article6476.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Global spread of the printing press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128160440/http://users.telenet.be/projectsara/dirkmartens.htm to http://users.telenet.be/projectsara/dirkmartens.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221063024/http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/RussiaMoscow/treasures_en.xml to http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/RussiaMoscow/treasures_en.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am new at this, so sorry if I tread on anybody's toes.
There is a quote "by 1500, 1000 printing presses were in operation throughout Western Europe and had produced 8 million books." It's attributed indirectly to .... 
"E. L. Eisenstein: "The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe", Cambridge, 1993 pp. 13–17," 
via 
"Angus Maddison: "Growth and Interaction in the World Economy: The Roots of Modernity", Washington 2005, p.17f."
However, I can't find the quote in the Eisenstein book on Google Books. I am getting a paper copy, but perhaps someone who already has a copy could verify this? The error could be Maddison's.
RicardoJuanCarlos 09:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable quote 

message: https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2015/06/08/myths-and-reality-about-the-printing-press-in-the-ottoman-empire --Menah the Great (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A dispute that the printing press was banned in the Ottoman Empire