Talk:Printing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

'Lack of counterevidence'

Just curious, but what kind of counterevidence did Needham have in his mind? How can you positively prove that printing was not transmitted from China? To me, such abstruse statements further prove how pitifully weak the diffusionsist theory actually is. It should be noted that Needham was notorious for making diffusionist claims. Gun Powder Ma 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Poor grammar

This is poorly edited having such solecisms as 'a woodblock printing' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.79.37 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

East Asian Printing

I made minor changes to a couple of assertions. Printing was not first conceived in China, as printing on clothes had been done before by various cultures. Also, the famous Phaistos Disc clearly shows a mature understanding of the concept of printing. And for a diffusion of Asian printing technology, there is still no direct evidence. In fact, a lot speaks against it (lack of intermediaries, profound technological differences). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Powder Ma (talk • contribs)

What "various cultures" that have earlier printed clothes are you talking about? And why do you seem to make a lot of definitive statements on various pages like the one above, "Printing was not first conceived in China"? All the recent books that I have read and all the websites that I have read state that it did. On this WP "printing" page was the 6th c. Egyption cloth that seemed to point to Egypt being the first, but I found various references in books and also right here on WP to printed cloth from China before 220, so I changed it. If there are earlier examples I would be interested in seeing them?White Krane 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right about almost all of this, but take another look at the Phaistos disk. This shows sophistication indeed, but it must have been done using stamps or punches or seals, for the characters were apparently made one at a time. That isn't printing.

DGG 03:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this no printing? Is the criteria of making one or many characters at a time really essential to printing? I added this passage: "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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press Gun Powder Ma 04:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

see further discussion on that talk pageDGG 05:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

but I dont see your sentence there--did I accidentally delete it from there or from here? If so, apologies, but I cant find it in either page history. DGG 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between printing and stamping. In printing you can reorganized the symbols/letters into another variety while at the same time apply ink to the thing you are printing onto, while in stamping you can't. The Phaistos Disc cannot do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImSoCool (talk • contribs)

Top

There is also the difference between commercial printing and fine art printing to consider. While the early history of printing and printmaking are the same, there is a split that occurs. Printmakers owe their artforms to technological advances which continue today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.124.66 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think it's right that the entry for "printer" should be automatically redirected to "computer printer". To me, a printer is someone like Caxton or Gutenberg, and I feel that "printer" should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. Does someone have the power to alter this? user:Deb

---

You do! (And other Wikipedia users do, too). It isn't *very* complicated, but it isn't the most obvious thing on Wikipedia either. I'll give it a shot.

---

I think this page should be moved to "Printing Processes", which is a term that better encompasses the wide variety of methods used, like flexography, lithography, gravure, dot matrix, xerography, etc. TimothyPilgrim Feb 6/04

Can someone translate the German version of this article? It's good, comprehensive and accurate, afaik. Koko1133 21:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


---

I'm trying to find out how commercial prints of paintings are made. No info here, though. Ground 14:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The disc can't put organize its characters into different patterns. That's the difference between printing and stamping. Else we should start talking about Mesopotania in this article as well.

For what it's worth, since it was apparently made by successive impressions of stamps, they can be rearranged. And then typing or using a label-maker would be printing.  ;)DGG 23:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the 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 18:53, 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

---

The printing process of letterpress is not even mentioned (unless I missed it). It was the orginal printing process (that of Gutenburg and others) and is one which was dominant well into the 20th century (I was a letterpress printer). I am not sure how to handle its inclusion under processes but it certainly should be addressed.

---

(No, letterpress is not currently mentioned, which is, of course, an oversight. There has been some discussion of this (in relation to the Wikipedia) on the major letterpress-related mailing list (yes, there is one, with close to 1000 members) and we are currently in the process of drafting a lengthy, detailed letterpress page. Stay tuned.)

Where's a description of process?

Where is color separation , how does it all get turned into dots/linescreen, or stochastic? and film and plates (vs digital) where is water-loving and water hating of the inks on the plates.

Please god help me, I'm an imaging scientist not a printer. I did work at Hallmark for 16 years which qualifies me...but HEEELP! --Dkroll2 01:07, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


I wrote some, but then decided to move it to color printing--Dkroll2 07:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I found some grammar mistakes here, such as: «areas that were less print-centred.»

«Early Pressmen: the person who ran the press. This was physically labour intensive.»

Am i wrong?

10:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)ARPS

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)

Printing the Wikipedia

I heard that was a new iniative to print the wikpedia itself. Should there be alink to that iniative here somewhere? I expected to find it here. --Richard@lbrc.org 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but the question is when would Wikipedia be printed ? It changes with text and articles being altered, added and subtracted continuously from minute to minute, and it expands so rapidly, there seems little point printing Wikipedia itself in material form. It's a living encyclopedia.
Also, the cost of printing Wikipedia (a very, very big, lenghty collection of manuscripts) would require revenue to be obtained to pay for the printed copies. Printed Wikipedia would either cost money to buy, or the printing cost would have to be subsidized by...something or somebody...to make copies free.
Arbo 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First Printing Press in North America

Surely the first printing press in North America would be the same as the first one in Mexico, being that Mexico is in North America, no? --Gantlord 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same, but I think there's a bit of ambiguity in the wording. It is true, of course, that the one in Massachusetts was the first one built in North America, as the one in Mexico was imported. Kelisi 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done. Btw, do you know what the mentioned Cambridge Press is? I ask because the most notable press with that sort of name is surely Cambridge University Press, the world's oldest surviving publishing/printing house. I have no idea how significant Cambridge Press is, but could it either be expanded (to rm the ambig), or cut (if it doesn't warrant expansion in this general article about printing)? Cheers, JackyR 18:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What were early printing presses used for?

I would like the article to have more detail: what types of works were the printing presses used for: books? magazines? playing cards? I also was wondering when was color printing was developed, etc. --SeattleDanny

Early printing was used mainly to print books and what are known as "broadsheets" or "handbills". Classic examples of handbills are The Papal Indulgences printed in large numbers by the catholic church and bought by the faithful to absolve them of their sins; Martin Luther's critique of the church (which he never did nail to a church door) that sired Protestantism; any wanted poster or public announcement; standard forms used in commerce. Letterpresses were in later centuries used to print newspapers, and by the mid-19th century magazines and periodicals. The letter press is not well suited to printing small objects like playing cards, which were done with singular metal plates or woodblocks.
Arbo 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but it deserves an entire section. Ideally there'd be a chronology that was specific about which press products became prevalent when, and to what purpose. I.e., when did handbills/leaflets become a major form of political discourse/propaganda? Was it not until after the era of incunabula? What factors made presses, paper, and ink cheap enough to justify printing short runs and/or short products? A good thing to know would be, e.g., how many printers were there by 1470? And by 1501? And what were the major types of outputs in these different early eras? --HarpooneerX 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


By the 12th and 13th century many Arabic and Chinese libraries contained tens of thousands of printed books

It does not seem to be correct. Possibly Arabs knew technology (that they could borrow from China), however did not use it. As far as I know the first known printing house in the Arab world was created in Granada after 1480 and used technology borrowed from Europe. So there could not be thousands of printed books in Arab libraries. Arabs used PAPER books at that times, but not neceserily PRINTED books. Yeti 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Contentious material moved from article

The largest commercial and industrial printer in the world is Quebecor, headquartered in Montreal, Quebec.

I've removed this sentence, which a) was subject to edit-warring, and b) adds almost nothing to the article: other than the two companies, who cares which is larger (and anyway, on which date?)?!

Bear in mind that this is the main article on an international topic spanning hundreds of years: anything very detailed about a specific country (unless significant to the overall history) should perhaps be spun off into "Printing in Country X". A useful addition would be a brief piece on the modern printing industry across the world, (major countries in the industry, their specialisms if any - Italian colour printing, British typesetting, Japan and Korea, ...).

Merge with Printing Press?

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)

I agree (Wikimachine 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Oh my goodness. Never even knew the other article was there. Yes, either they should be merged or a clear, cross-linked division of material hashed out, with titles reflecting this and "Printing" as a dab page. Well spotted... JackyR 19:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be merged with Printing Press, but a better strategy would be to merge Printing Press with Printing and put in a redirect for "printing press". I have just done a cleanup/rewrite of Printing. There is a prop at the Printing Press article for merging Printing Press with Printing, so that amounts to the same difference. Arbo 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better to create a higher level structure for this? I mean there's printing in the large-scale printing industry sense of the word, there are the methods collectively known as printmaking, there are computer printers, and so forth. It seems like what it needs is some structure around it, maybe not a whole lot of merging. Bjorn1101 05:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A Print disambiguation page already exists. If you'd like to help out please add wikilinks to Computer printer, Laser printer, Inkjet printer, Photocopying and the other articles mentioned below, to the Print disambiguation page. Thanks for your input.
Printing Press and Printing need to be merged because the scope and content of Printing Press make it essentially the same subject as that covered in Printing, and some of the content of Printing is duplicated in Printing Press. To clarify: my plan is to merge the content of Printing Press into Printing.
Printing Press can be retained and completely rewritten to make it specifically about printing presses per se, how they work from a technical standpoint, as distinct from the trade and craft of printing covered by Printing.
Printmaking already exists, and there is a proposition on to merge Woodblock printing with that article, but no discussion (no talk page for Printmaking). That merge proposition makes a lot of sense because Woodblock printing and Printmaking are both shorter than their subject matter warrants. I think Intaglio (printmaking) could be merged with Printmaking too, for the same reasons.
In summary, sometimes there are good reasons for merging related articles. In the case of Printing and Printing Press the two articles are competing over common ground. For Intaglio, Woodblock printing and Printmaking it's a matter of inadequate length (for all three), and their close relationship from the perspective of a printmaker: wood block and itaglio are closely related techniques in print making. Mezzotint is another separate article that could be part of Printmaking, given how short Mezzotint is. Intaglio, Woodblock printing and Mezzotint can stay separate articles if someone would expand enough to make them self-contained stand-alone articles, but I get the impression that isn't going to happen in the near future.
Arbo 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pro sorting out Printing and Printing Press, but what's with merging the other article names? They're perfectly respectable stubs which will one day be articles: if we merge them, they'll just have to be re-created later. As long as they are well-linked and co-ordinated with the central articles, there's no need to merge. Perhaps this topic is now large enough to need a navigation box... JackyR 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The same logic occurred to me after I posted my suggestions, so I agree. Meanwhile we could co-ordinate Mezzotint, Intaglio and Woodblock with Printmaking by putting some basics about mezzotint, intaglio and woodblock techniques into Printmaking to make the latter more comprehensive. Do you know how to put a navigation box into an article? I don't, but it can happen faster if somebody who already knows how to do it takes on the task. Arbo 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, i believe Wikipedia should have the most articles it can on it. If someone needed to get their homework done quickly it wouldn't be useful if they had to search around for a long time. but on another point, i do agree it needs work from an expert.

Fust as Gutenburg's financial backer

User 72.57.8.158 placed a citation request for the sentance about Johannes Fust being Gutenburg's financial backer. Court records from the city of Mainz just before Gutenburg's 42 line bible was published record that Fust was granted posession of all of Gutenburg's equipment and materials to settle the debt Gutenburg owed on the principal sum loaned to him by Fust to enable Gutenburg to "complete the work on books". Gutenburg put up his workshop as security for the loan of 800 gulden, with interest at six percent.

These details are from The History and Technique of Lettering by Alexander Nesbitt, first published by Dover Books in 1957, republished four times since, and considered a solid, reliable history of lettering and typography. Dozens of other published accounts by type historians and general historians cite this same evidence as one of the few facts about Gutenburg's life known with certainty. I have removed the citation request.

72.57.8.158 also wanted to know "why the heck is that here!". The statement is there as an example of Methods and Formats of Managing Financial Outlay.

Arbo 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

printing/printing press

and other overlapping articles--I've just been through here for other reasons--I'm working on the articles about publishing. Obviously these two pages have a great deal of overlap, but I think there is enough aboutthe specific machine to discussseparately, just as typsetting is discussed separately. "Printing" is the main article, for it deals with the processing of putting it all together, which is the really key invention, done by gutenberg & possible others at about the same time. I would not want to say Gutenberg was the only person involved, though I agree he was the central one. Since others still do not, and the alternative theories even if less likely were important historically, they do have to be discusses, for it is very much as POV issue. . (The production of the type is possibly another invention, though as the physical evidence does not survive the way his Bibles do, it's a good deal harder to figure out what he was doing--this to be perhaps discussed separately). I'd like to work this out in stages, together with Arbo. (I approach this from librarianship and bibliography, not through computer science)DGG 04:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for a brief mention of Printing presses here and point to the main article. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Prints" should not redirect here

It should probably have a disambiguation page covering:

- prints as in printmaking or old master print, plus the Japanese woodblock ones (various scattered articles - as in fabic patterns - "floral print" etc - as in computing - as in printing - as ? in publishing

Otherwise it should go to printmaking for now Johnbod 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

IGNORE MY ONE HERE - I fogot there was a print disambig. have redirected prints to that Johnbod 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

printing on clothes

Do you have a reference? When are the oldest printed fabrics?DGG 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

- Is this addressed to me? On wrong page i think. Anyway Hind (pre-carbon dating) says "VI or VII centuries AD" from Eygpt. I have put this in the article, compromising at "about 600AD" Johnbod 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be of help for a start: Seals were also known in the ancient Near East; the Babylonian inscribed seal-cylinders, which rolled over soft clay and left in it an imprint of the text, represent a method analogous to our book-printing. In India wooden blocks for making impressions on textiles were known, but they were never applied to books; likewise the Polynesians who are ignorant of seals and letters utilize blocks for printing designs on their tapa, and the Dayak of Borneo use them as well for impressing tattoo marks on their bodies. In ancient Mexico paper was manufactured from maguey fibres, but no advance was made toward printing. Carter is still inclined to presume that European typography resulted from block-printing, but he overlooks the fact that wooden types were never made in Europe and that the alleged development from wood-engraving to typography has been successfully contested (bibliography B. Laufer: Review of ‘The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward I’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 47. (1927), pp. 71-76 (p.72)

- the above from Gun powder Ma. Not really; you will find better information at Woodblock printing. This source seems to contradict your usual position I notice! (last sentence) Johnbod 14:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the very least it indicates that cloth printing was also known in ancient India. As for your second statement - which position do you mean? In fact, Carter - a missionary to China writing in the 1920s and the person here reviewed - is one of the very few scholars who claimed a westward transmission of printing and the only Western scholar which I know of who has dedicated the subject a whole book. The point, however, is that Laufer actually heavily criticises in his review above that assumption! To my knowledge, no additional information pointing to such a diffusion has become known since the 1920s.... Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- well actually he gives no date indication for India at all. I have seen references to very early (C5 BC) Indian exports of printed cloth to the Greek world, but until I get a solid reference won't add anything on this to woodblock printing. Johnbod 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That goes without saying. The quote is just meant to serve as an orientation guide where to look for further evidence, nothing more. Regards Gun Powder Ma 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

None of this Phaistos stuff belongs here. The Disc may be an example of stamp technology. That does not mean "printing". This is all Original Research by Gun Powder Ma, and should not be kept on this page. -- Evertype·✆ 18:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave sources and reasons, you gave none. Hence, the section remains until you yourself bother with facts and reason . That's how Wiki works. Gun Powder Ma 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not lecture me about the Wikipedia, and attack me ad-hominem as regards "reason". You have been editing on the Wikipedia only since 2006-09-03. The noble history of printing must, of course, begin with the Chinese. I love the Phaistos Disc. Truly I do. But the suggestion that impressing stamps in a single clay exemplar does not equate to "printing", and just because someone in an external source said it did does not mean that this article should be made a forum for kookery. -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Phaistos Disc

The Phaistos Disc is the first known document to clearly show an understanding of the concept of printing, if printing be defined as reproducing a body of text with reusable characters. The Phaistos Disc is a clay tablet, found in the Minoan palace of Phaistos Crete, Greece. in 1908 by Italian archaeologists. It features 241 tokens, comprising 45 unique signs. So far, the disc has remained undeciphered, although many of the signs represent easily identifiable every-day things. The unique character of the Phaistos Disc stems from the fact that the complete text was produced by pressing pre-formed hieroglyphic "seals" into the soft clay, in anticipation of the much later movable type printing technology. Having been variously dated between 1850 BCE and 1350 BCE, the Phaistos Disc thus would precede the invention of movable type by more than two millenia.

The exact classification of the Phaistos Disc in the history of printing, however, remains a matter of debate. While there is a consensus among experts that the signs of the disc were not scribed by hand, the question is whether the signs are to be viewed as printing or stamping, and whether the defining criteria should be the technology used or the concept implied. Benjamin Schwartz, for example, viewed the disc as "the first movable type" on the grounds that the inscription was imprinted with individual stamp dies, raising even the possibility that "the disc itself was a matrix for imprinting its text".[1] H. Th. Bossert called the disc 'the oldest, with movable type produced print work of the world' (1931), too.

On the other hand, a stricter definition of printing may not support such a view. Going by a traditional definition that printing is 'a technique for applying under pressure a certain quantity of colouring agent onto a specified surface to form a body of text or an illustration' (Enyclopaedia Britannica), which is not the case with the Phaistos Disc, the disc is technically not printed.

Thus, in an attempt to harmonize the conflicting positions, while it may be technically still proto-printing, the Phaistos Disc may constitute conceptually the first movable type print work of the world.

Criticism of the above text

It is replete with weasel words. It "may" be movable print. "if printing be defined". "clearly". "While there is consensus among experts (who?) that the signes of (on?) the disc were not "scribed" (my goodness) by hand"... "May not support such a view". "Thus". This entire paragraph is written in the style and to the level of a secondary school essay. It reeks of original research and POV. Accordingly I have removed it from the text of this otherwise splendid article. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The disc is obviously a border case, hence a circumspect language. Actually, if you think about it, the difference between stamping and printing is just a gradual one, and the Phaistos Disc is evidently somewhere in between. It would be an omission and an unjustified preliminary decision to keep it out of the article. You have still brought no facts or counterarguments to do so, so I request you to stop editing unless you bring them forward. Gun Powder Ma 01:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Gun Powder Ma, you have not convinced me, with your "obviously" and your "evidently" and your suggestion that "the difference between stampting and priting is just a gradual one" (differences cannot be "gradual"; you apparently believe that there is an evolution of technique here). Your bring a thesis "The Phaistos Disc is printing" and it is nonsense. Printing is not stamping images in clay. That is pottery. It may be writing, like Cuneiform, where you impress characters in clay. But printing is a process for the duplication of text or images, and there is nothing whatsoever in the Phaistos Disc which indicates that it was used for duplication. This thesis does not belong in this article. -- Evertype·✆ 10:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says "'printing' is a process for the duplication of text or images"?? printing.Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD: "traditionally, a technique for applying under pressure a certain quantity of colouring agent onto a specified surface to form a body of text or an illustration. Certain modern processes for reproducing texts and illustrations, however, are no longer dependent on the mechanical concept of pressure or even on the material concept of colouring agent. Because these processes represent an important development that may ultimately replace the other processes, printing should probably now be defined as any of several techniques for reproducing texts and illustrations, in black and in colour, on a durable surface and in a desired number of identical copies."

Your argument isn't even good enough to be specious. You are a newbie, and you are trying to put your POV research into this article where it does not belong. NO credible scholar considers the Phaistos Disc an exmaple of printing. There is no duplication involved. There isn't even a second document in this script. Please stop trolling your POV original research and accept the consensus of other editors of this article that the Phaistos Disc does not belong here, and it certainly doesn't belong at the top of the article in prose which is by any definition badly written. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the modern definition, ("are no longer dependent on the mechanical concept of pressure or even on the material concept of colouring agent") woodblock printing would be no printing either anymore... Are you aware that there is no agreed definition of printing and that it is changing with technological progress? I say that the fact for the first time a whole text was reproduced with reusable characters warrants an entry. At the very least it is technically a precursor and conceptually, according to a reasonable definition, even pretty close to, if not already 'printing'. Gun Powder Ma 10:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What is needed is simple: a verifiable and suitable source which describes it as printing. With that, we have a sourced reference. Without, it cannot be justified. I have no view on whether it belongs or not, apart from that. Notinasnaid 10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This is utter nonsense. Will someone please delete the Phaistos material which is marring this article? I have deleted it twice. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Appears that there was a big argument in a history forum about this before all these changes took place.http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14835&PN=2
I would also like to mention that woodblock printing would fit perfectly under the "modern definition". It's not a modern process, but it applied "pressure", and it also applied a "certain quantity of colouring agent". I don't see the fuss. ImSoCool 4:16, 30 October 2006
Don't bite the newbies; let's judge the work, not the people. The newest person here can conceivably be doing the best work. Let's look at the work. First, the definition. There have been several definitions given--there are several semantic concepts: impression, mechanical device, and multiples. As the EB def observes, impression is not applicable to some processes that are generally called printing, at least in the fine arts usage, & even in "normal" printing of text offset or xerography or ink jet or diffusion printing stretches the meaning of impression quite a bit. The pd, according to the erudite and well-sourced article (and direct observation) le, produced by the successive application of stamps. It is not produced by a mechanical device, because its the successive application by hand, as the article (&, again, observation) shows.But as the definition--GPM's definition goes on to require , "techniques for reproducing texts and illustrations, ... in a desired number of identical copies."

But it is not a device for the making of multiple copies, or produced as one of a set of multiple copies, or identical copies. (same argument). It is not a reproduction or copy of anything, any more than a cuniform tablet is. We can use elementary logic--that's not OR. The Phaistos disk is not printing or proto-printing by any of the definitions that have been given, and unless someone can find a reliable definition that includes it, it just plain is not printing. It's an important object in the development of writing, and possibly the development of the alphabet, except that the article makes clear nobody has much idea of how it fits.

So where does this discussion go? it goes as one of the conceivable interpretations of the pd, if the people working there--all much more learned in this than I am--think it makes sense.
As Notinasnaid said, if there's a reliable source calling it printing, it would be worth a sentence. It might be a freak definition, the pd certaily seems to have inspired quite a number of odd hypotheses. Just like the other non-consensus hypotheses, it would warrant a proportional mention, a/c the WP rules. I repeat: proportional. Enough already!DGG 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Who says it is not a device for the making of multiple copies or identical ones? These are reusable dies with which you can do EXACTLY THAT JOB. And one author even suggested the disc might have been a print form itself, which would make it 100% printing. But even as it is, the fact that for the first time a whole text of body has been created by reusable characters has been certainly a real step towards printing, if not already printing itself. I mean it is obvious that the PD represents a border case. If you are confused by complicated matters like Evertype, then a reference to the PD may indeed not be appropriate. But if you view the development of printing as an evolutionary process, which it is, an omission amounts to a mistake. It won't make the Phaistos Disc go away. I just read another author who said 'the PD is not printing, but type writing'. Errr? So the Minoans did not invent printing, but the type-writer or what..?

I do not appreciate the ad-hominem attack. In point of fact I know rather a lot about the writing systems of the world, and indeed about the Phaistos Disc itself. I am in no way confused. You have made a poor case at best; there are silly suppositions in print that the Phaistos Disc is a board game, to; it appears that you should expect a fat (badly-written) paragraph to crown that article as well. -- Evertype·✆ 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, it is obvious that the PD presents a formidable problem of definition. The simple-minded stance of 'if it is not 100% printing, it is not printing at all' does not work in the face of the fact that there is no agreed definition of printing. Therefore, the PD DEFINITELY warrants an entry, although we can talked about its exact length. I refrain from restoring the original version in the interest of a fruitful discussion, but reserve myself the right to do so. Regards Gun Powder Ma 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, where is the source? This is the crucial step in resolving the dispute. Notinasnaid 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I already gave one source: Benjamin Schwartz, „The Phaistos Disk,“ Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2. (Apr., 1959), pp. 105-112 (107). I wrote "Benjamin Schwartz, for example, viewed the disc as "the first movable type" on the grounds that the inscription was imprinted with individual stamp dies, raising even the possibility that "the disc itself was a matrix for imprinting its text". Which means I gave
  • an exact source (verifiability)
  • a serious, scientific source (Journal of Near Eastern Studies)
The problem is that some people think own a better definition of printing than others and they can dictate what sources are appropiate and which are not. The problem then gets worse, when these people edit texts without consultation and without giving reasons. That's not helpful.
The arguments presented by Gun Powder Ma are uninteresting, and wrong. It is not "obvious" that the Phaistos Disc is difficult to "define". Common sense is not "simple-mindedness". Gun Powder Ma is bending over backwards to make the Disc fit into the printing article. Whether we have an "agreed" definition of printing (and I have no problem with what is in the article), that does not "definitely" warrant an entry. Evidence that the Phaistos Disc were an instance of printing would do that. And there is no such evidence. -- Evertype·✆ 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think they are uninteresting only in that they aren't what matters in Wikipedia. The source is what matters: if no source can be produced, the best reasoned arguments in the world don't matter. Even if someone produces an utterly compelling case and we all agree, that would represent original research, which has no place here. Similarly, if a respected source we disagree with says something, that has a place. But please, can we keep it civil and assume good faith? Notinasnaid 10:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If the definition of printing is "arguable"(assuming that printing involves the definition of impressing things into clay instead of colouring things onto writing materials), then why isn't the printing press? Many authors claim the Korea/China invented the printing press and many authors don't. Yet GPM edited out much of that, as according to his own definitions that the printing press must be a machine(which some agree with and some don't), as well as to his definitions that some of the more complicated Chinese movable types are not. I say, if the Disc(in which GPD's source from Encycopedia Britannica actually dissaproves the disk as a printing device) should be mentioned in printing, then so should block printing and movable type have a page in the printing press. ImSoCool
I'm joining this discussion at DGG's suggestion. The comparison to traditional printing is flawed for a number of reasons. The problem I see with this is conflating of "movable type" with printing. Stamping technology predates printing in all cultures by centuries (at the very least). While that is a component of printing, it's not the only one.
Let me attempt to bring some definitions to bear. Printing can be characterized as the mechanical duplication of a master image accomplished through the controlled application of a coating to a substrate.
So, let's travel down that route. Taken from this perpective, Gutenberg (and Pi Sheng's) innovation was creating stable building blocks that could be temporarily combined into a master image. In the disk's case, there doesn't seem to be a master image or matrix used in the manufacture of the disk. If I understand the disk article, each stamp was used individually and therefore each disk would have positional variations based on everything from stamp choice, to ordering, to operator error. Thus each disk produced starts back at "zero" and must be built from scratch. Further in every other printing method, while there might be variation in where the master image appears on the page, everything within the master image should stay in constant relative position. The same cannot be the case for the disk. For all these reasons, the disk represents a significantly different mode of (re)production than traditional printing. Stamping yes. Printing no.
Even if we're going to accept that stamping could be printing and a master image doesn't need to be applied in a single pass, there is then the issue of ink (broadly defined). What is necessary is for a coating to be applied to the substrate (ink on paper, toner on paper, ink on textile, circuit on board, ...). While stamping is a form of impact image transference, that alone isn't printing (and impact is no longer even required for printing). This is exemplified by the fact that stamping (embossing and debossing) are categorized "finishing" techniques and not printing techniques within the Printing Industry. Again the disc fails here.
OK. to complicate things, and potentially seem to contradict myself, a stronger comparison could be made with emerging Digital Printing/Variable Data Print technologies. In these cases, the printing device re-images on each pass. Thus we don't have to have an exact reproduction each time. That said, we're still dealing with a master image, albeit a different one each pass. In that respect the manufacturing metaphors still don't work. And there is still the issue of no ink. What the disk represents to me is "variable data stamping."
Finally, it seems to be while this can be noted as an example of "proto-moveable type," it's a footnote in the broader narrative. There's no real way of establishing a strong link between this and any of the other eventual developments of movable type (in much the same way that it seems real sketchy to suggest that Gutenberg was somehow influenced by East Asian printing).
— Matt 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Benjamin Schwartz, „The Phaistos Disk,“ Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2. (Apr., 1959), pp. 105-112 (107)

are we finished yet

If we were doing this the proper way: First step--will take a few days, as it isnt on line--is to read the article mentioned and see what it actually says, because to some of us it seems a very strange assertion Second step--will take a good deal longer-- to see if anyone has specifically contradicted him 

 or criticized him.

And could someone say exactly how both the impressed letters and the stylus touchups could have been reproduced in the relevant period? This is really OR; I'm going to at least read the article, since I'm curious. Can someone please tell me what a printing press would be if it were not a machine? The general article is printing.

  1. the printing press article talks about printing presses.
  2. block printing talks about block printing.
  3. movable type has to go somewhere, it was voted not to have an art of its own before I got here, so it goes here unless someone has a better place that doesn't contradict the RfD.
  4. And the phaistos disc article talks about the disc. As evertype says, there are lots of interesting but unlikely theories about it there.
Would someone please like to write something more where we need it, instead of this. Start here, we need material on the 17th 18th and 19th century--it doesnt take deep scholarship , just enough to summarize. There are plenty of easily available sources. DGG 07:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This isnt the page to argue about east asian printing presses.
GPM, I know it isnt required, but some of us have posted some information about ourselves on our user pages.

Needham quote

There seems an implied contradiction in the use of the word "must" in the quote, which--considering wording "must not only have seen Chinese samples, but perhaps had been taught by missionaries or others" and the total absence of evidence, which leads me to consider if Tsien's "must" might not have been rhetorical. To be postponed until I can check a copy ofthe book. DGG 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Admiral Zheng He dropped them off in 1421. Johnbod 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

illustration in 3.1

obviously needs formatting properly; i have yet to learn how.DGG 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

short run printing

We do need a section on it, though Rmcdavid's is hardly acceptable. I tried to use it as the basis for a reasonable summary, until I realized that it describes not the standard technology of short-run printing, but an elaborate and unusual variety of it practiced by the business organization he describes. But I do not know enough to write a good one from scatch.DGG 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

part of the printing press

Yes, a very useful addition, but shouldnt it go in the article for print press rather than here?DGG 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)→→

I agree. :-) Gun Powder Ma 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the section, as discussed.DGG 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

further reading

I think "Further reading" is the usual name of the section you added, This is the en-WP, and i think it is not usual to list non-English language items. If you do decide to keep it, please at least add a translation of the title.DGG 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Journeyman?"

80.175.121.69 reports:

Misleading: The origin of journeyman is not journey (travel) but the french word for Misleading: The origin of journeyman is not journey (travel) but the french word for day because they were employed by the day - this section needs rewriting.

$112 billion claim

From the article:

In 2006 there are approximately 30,700 printing companies in the United States, accounting for $112 billion

Accounting for $112 billion WHAT? Revenue? Profit? Market Cap?

Confused, Texas --146.87.248.62 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wang Zhen and Hua Sui

For these two important figures of China, I have added information on them in this article for their wooden movable type and metal movable type, respectively. For more information on either of them, refer to their separate articles (with citations and listed reference).--PericlesofAthens 08:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It says Wang Zhen created Wooden Movable type in 1298 but his article says he was born in 1290 so he created Wooden movable type when he was 8 years old? Jegal 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge this article with Printer (publisher)

I just came across Printer (publisher), and it really is weak, given the importance of the topic. I propose that we (a) redirect it to this article, (b) incorporate its content here, and (c) change the dab page to lose the word 'publisher'. Views? Barnabypage 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - except you might as well keep the page as a redirect - no harm in that. Johnbod 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been proposed several times before, and I continue to think it a poor idea. Printer refers to the current trade, and printing to the development and basis of the art.It's a valid distinction, and part of its purpose is to permit the page on Printer to develop independently of some of the fights that have taken place here about who invented the art of printing.
The thing to do, if you are interested, is to expand the printer article, as you are 100% correct that it needs some help. DGG 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of the Mass Media (broken link)

I'm going to update the external link since the old one doesn't exist anymore.

Just a question

Greetings all, I am a complete newbie here so please don't flame me too hard, I just have a question -- is there anyone working on this page currently who has professional experience and/or formal education in printing & publishing? Thanks much. RabbitMt 14:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am formally educated as a graphic designer; emphasis on print design and technical details. I have nearly completed my BFA. —Parhamr 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
have you some suggestions or edits?--please be WP:BOLD, and go right ahead and make them.DGG (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just curious. I've been working in the printing & graphics industry for close to a couple decades now and I was a bit surprised at how, um... well, at the risk of seeming unduly critical, the taxonomy of the printing & graphics sections seemed rather uninformed to me. Although it has been a while since I looked and I know people have been actively working it since then. E.g., IIRC, all the printing sections are under the category "graphic design," which totally threw me off and made it hard to drill down to what I'd been looking for at the time. Would some suggestions regarding the taxonomy be helpful? I seriously don't want to step on anyone's toes -- I appreciate the amount of work others have put into this effort thus far. RabbitMt 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
we are reliant upon new ideas, and nobody or no group at WP can control an article or a section--see WP:OWN. There is an unresolved tension between historical, technical, and aesthetic elements in this group of articles; arrangements in WP are a matter of continually adjusted compromise, and we will all be grateful for any new ideas we can get.(My own personal bias, by the way, is bibliographical and historical.) Even if they turn out not to be liked, the discussion will do us good. There is never anything wrong with suggesting changes. Just dont move major sections or articles around without discussing them first; when major changes are agreed on, there is a lot of corresponding moves and redirects necessary, so they need planning. Reverting them is a real pain. DGG (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
I have been a professional graphic designer for 20 years and specifically Pre-press for the last 6. I am intimate with all current forms of re-production. As stated above (and below by me) parts of this article are (or were) so horribly written and organized, that I deemed them beyond repair. After successfully lobbying for it, the hideous POV original research 8 points of printing is gone. The edit war I started by gutting the Phastos Disk nonsense earned me my first Barnstar, so I know someone likes what I'm doing. Next step is to remove 'applications of printing' headlines with no information. Really this is just of list of things that can be printed. Unless we talk about the specific methods to print these things, why are they headlines? Specifics will be listed other places. Therefore it should go. I'll wait a month. MiracleMat (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done that, without prejudice to them reappearing with material. They are hardly a necessary set of headings though - playing-cards? Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

History part

Shouldn't the entire History of printing section be narrowed down to a few lines. There is no reason for a section this long considering there is already a separate page all about it. Benjwong (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the history section currently start with Block printing in Europe. it should follow an outline similar to the main page on History of printing. That is, it should be divided up into the following sections: Pre-history; Woodblock printing; Movable type; Flat-bed printing press; Improved flat-bed presses; Rotary printing press; Intaglio; Lithography; Offset press; Screen-printing. lk (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Eight steps involve in printing production

The "Eight steps involve in printing production" section switches POV several times (I see both "you" and "we" in it, which doesn't fit with the 'feel' of the rest of the article), and is incomplete (several of the 8 steps are not explained). I don't don't want to mess about with it as I don't have enough understanding of the subject to correct it, but it needs someone who does know the subject to clean it up a little there. Daoine (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How did we get here?

As a professional in the field of graphic design and printing (specifically pre-press), I am stunned at the state of this article. The edit wars and complete focus of things off-topic are amazing. The complete lack of attention to the attrocious last topic "8 steps of printing production" just tells me that people editing here must be distracted by a great many things. I can definitely help here and would be happy to do so, but before I come out of wiki semi-retirement, I would appreciate a little background on the current state of affairs.

  • 1. Are the edit wars done? Dumb things like this are reason I left wiki in the first place. What once seemed to be a credible source by many is now losing steam in the intellectual world. Wikipedia is thrown under the bus more and more and regarded as a joke, partially because of people that habitually revert good edits to nonsense.
  • 2. WHY is this ridiculous Phaistos Disc nonsence STILL in this article? It is not printing. It's a clay tablet.
  • 3. Can someone let me know what the hot topics are now so I can avoid editing something that will be attacked instantly. I respect talk pages, but they scare me when they are several times LARGER than the article themselves. I will avoid the Phaistos Disc right now, even though any intelligent person can clearly see it has no place here. MiracleMat (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

  1. The edit wars on these topics were mainly between those who wanted no mention of East asian printing, and those who thought that it was the clearly established progenitor of Gutenberg's printing. Both parties keep coming around, but they are relatively stable. The other problems with this and the similar range of articles is the scope: the appropriate emphasis between the invention of printing, the subsequent development of printing, and the ways printing is now carried out. Personally, I'd organise this as a main summary style article,--the majority opinion seems to use "typography" as the main article.
  2. Personally, I agree with you about the Phaistos disk, but there is a single good reference in a reliable source that proposes it as an example of printing. I'd love to find another source that shows it to be nonsense. When we do, we can demote it to the appropriate way to mention FRINGE. We have to follow the sources, not common sense.
  3. For example, try specific prepress techniques. Do you know historical ones not covered in Wikipedia yet? Particular major widely=used machines or programs or media? DGG (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Moregenerally, when you make a major text change under WP:BRD using Bold, and someone Reverts it, the next step is to discuss, as here, not to reinsert it in the article. That countsas starting an edit war, which is never the way to effect desired changes. DGG (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All true, but you should be fairly safe adding any sensible referenced material relating to periods after 1500 - as you point out, none of the edit warriors gives a toss about that. I certainly don't agree the typography should be the main article, except for, well, typography. There is also printing press, also pretty poor. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Phaistos

I see it's back again. I think we should discuss the matter here before reverting. My pwn opinion of why it stayed so long, is that people got tired of arguing, not that there was consensus. DGG (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Get it OUT MiracleMat (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
How many more scientific sources do we need for reintroducing the PD? "Consensus" is no way to make a scholar's opinion go away. Those who believe otherwise, were right in leaving WP. As already argued, what we really need are scholarly reviews explicitly refuting the idea of the PD. And even then we have to keep in mind, there is still one expert saying the opposite.

DEPOSIT:

Pre-history

Main article: Phaistos Disc
A replica of the Phaistos Disc

The Phaistos Disc (Phaistos Disk, Phaestos Disc) is a curious archaeological find, likely dating to the middle or late Minoan Bronze Age. Its purpose, meaning, and place of origin remain disputed. The artifact was made by pressing pre-formed hieroglyphic "seals" into a soft clay disc, in a clockwise sequence spiraling towards the disc's center. The unique character of the Phaistos Disc stems from the fact that the entire text was inscribed in this way, reproducing a body of text with reusable characters. This unique artifact is sometimes classified as an early, if not the first, document printed with movable type.[1]

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

stamps are not movable type. DGG (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! It's set, you can't change it. Besdies, this thing has it's own article. Gun Powder Ma, do you own stock in the Phaistos disk magnet company or what?MiracleMat (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we might even refer to it very briefly as a minority view; after all GJ is a reliable scholarly source. In my opinion it really relies of a really far-fetched definition of movable type,but I'd still like to find a published ref. referring to Brekle's work so it wouldnt be just our personal opinion. DGG (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Herbert E. Brekle, "Das typographische Prinzip", Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, Vol. 72 (1997), pp.58-63 (60f.)

types of printing

As playing cards were among the first objects printed using blocks, I think it relevant to include this somewhere. The printing of miscellaneous objects is a little studied offshoot of the industry, but it's real and technically significant: labels, tickets, packaging. DGG (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but does it need a section, when the rather good security printing doesn't even have a link yet? Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add the external link:

www.graphicartsonline.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billesler (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Religious Impact

In the Muslim world, printing, especially in Arabic or Turkish was strongly opposed throughout the early modern period (printing in Hebrew was sometimes permitted). Indeed, the Muslim countries have been regarded as a barrier to the passage of printing from China to the West. According to an imperial ambassador to Istanbul in the middle of the sixteenth century, it was a sin for the Turks to print religious books. In 1515, Sultan Selim I issued a decree under which the practice of printing would be punishable by death. At the end of the century, Sultan Murad III permitted the sale of non-religious printed books in Arabic characters, yet the majority were imported from Italy.

The above is missing source. Faro0485 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki software functionality....

I'm wondering when post-printing spelling checking will be enabled in the future wiki software version, which is supposed to be simulating the vertual process of hard-copy printing, as not every wiki writer use a validated computer and a validated ISP, by which an error could occur during data transmitting.--222.64.211.100 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

These term needes to be added....

Social Impact

"Dangerous Reading: reading was seen as a dangerous pursuit because it was considered rebellious and unsociable. This was especially in the case of women because reading could stir up dangerous emotions like love. There was also the concern that if women could read, they could read love notes."


Well if they didn't want women reading to prevent stirring up emotions like love (do they mean lust?) then why would a man write love notes in the first place? Why would you write love notes to someone that could not read? This makes no sense at all.

Surface printing

The page on Surface printing does not give much of an explaination what it is. Does it need to exist? Perhaps it needs to be incorporated in this page. JPKos (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't noticed that article. It seems particularly uninformative as it stands. Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Surface printing is in fact another name for Letterpress printing. JPKos (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Job printing

I'm currently working on an article on a newspaper, and would like to Wikilink the term "job printing". Unfortunately, I can't find a good target for the link. If someone could suggest a good article or section to which to direct the link, either here or at my talk page, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent inventor of the printing press with Wiki from another language

The article states that the printing press is developed by J. Gutenberg. That is all nice and well but in the Dutch wiki article it is stated as follows:

'In de Westerse wereld wordt de Mainzer Johannes Gutenberg algemeen, hoewel zonder aanwijsbare grond, gezien als een waarschijnlijker uitvinder dan de Nederlander Laurens Janszoon Coster of de Vlaming Dirk Martens.'

Which is translated as:

'In the western world is the Mainzer Johannes Gutenberg in general, without physical evidence however, seen as a more probable inventor then the Dutchman Laurens Janszoon Coster or the Flemish Dirk Martens.'

Will the real inventor please stand up. 83.136.195.130 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well they are Dutch, or nearly so. The issue has been extensively discussed here in the past, & Coster and Martens are covered in other articles. I don't know if it is your translation, but Gutenberg is the one who left "physical evidence", which Coster & Martens did not, afaik. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

incomplete student babble

"While the invention of printing has been discussed conventionally in terms of its value for spreading ideas, its even greater contribution is its furthering of the long-developing shift in the relationship between space and discourse".[1] The proliferation of media that Ong is discussing in relation to the introduction of the printing press, to the death of an oral culture and that this new culture had more of an emphasis on the visual rather than in an auditory medium. As such the printing press gave birth to a more accessible and widely available source of knowledge in the sense that it broke down the boundaries between the possessors of knowledge and the masses. The narrative or discourse now existed in what would become indirectly through time, the global village.

This has been placed the body of the text with no explanation or link to the surrounding material. As if cut/paste from a student's notes. It is also too jargony. "space and discourse", "narrative or discourse" QuentinUK (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Printing Job Description Article

Hello,

I would like anyone to make a Wikipedia page/article over Printing Professional, that is the one who works as an industrial printing specialist. Please anybody co-ordinate with me, so that I would send him or her more ideas and details regarding creating the a special and a separate page on Wikipedia that would describe a person or a printing industrialist.

Regards. SB (~~SB~~ (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC))

If you search Wikipedia for 'request article' you will find how to request a new one. However, I don't think you will get much enthusiasm for the one you suggest here- there are few articles in WP on jobs, and I think you are suggesting something more specialist than a printer, for which there is only a very brief note.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Printing. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Printing. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

section: the printing press

heres an illustration with the caption saying "The invention of printing, anonymous, design by Stradanus, collection Plantin-Moretus Museum" which seems to be incorrect, as it looks like the PROCESS of printing and NOT the invention of thereof. left a remark on the pictures discussion page about it. the mistake (if it is as i suppose) originates from the dutch original page for the picture. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

Etymology?

Should I add a section about the etymology of the English word “printing”? I feel it would be helpful for readers to know where the word comes from.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/print CampWood (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Briggs-Burke was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Printing/Archive_1&oldid=1182829989"