![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this comment. I'm not too experienced with this. The Korea section says that Hangul was created "a generation before Gutenberg would begin working on his own movable type invention in Europe". In the Wikipedia article on Hangul, it says it was devised in 1443, but the Wikipedia article on Gutenberg says he started doing movable type printing in Europe in 1439, and developed it over the next couple years. So according to those two articles they happened at almost the exact same time, not a generation apart. I'm not going to edit any of these articles because I'm not in this field and I don't know the source of the discrepancy.
Amulekii ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Korea used Chinese writing system before the invention of Hangeul.Official documents and government census data etc.as old as a century are all stored in multiple layer guarded document storage facilities(문서고) unlike Europe which has only vague history documentation without synchronized timestamping.
I've added to the excellent copyedits and rearrangements of Mukerjee, who has much improved what I edited very late last night. I've changed a few words to better indicate the degree of certainty of some of the theories, as specified in their main articles, and to further identify the East Asian and European developments (for example, Gutenberg invented many things, but not paper). I'd be grateful for identification (and translation into English, if necessary,) of the key part of the reference on Uighur printing. DGG 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Since movable type is the alternative technique to block printing, discussions of the detailed technique of block printing do not belong here. They should be moved to the more appropriate article, and replaced by a few words with a link. Material relevant to the spread of printing techniques, however important historically, that are not specifically movable type, do not belong here either, and should be moved to a more appropriate place. If there is no more appropriate place, perhaps a new page is needed, "Diffusion of printing technology", distinguished from the spread of the European techniques deriving from Gutenberg, but possibly most of this would fit into a section on the History of typography in East Asia "Diffusion of typography from East Asia". I requested documentation on the Uighur use of movable type, and none was forthcoming, except a statement that if use in that area took place, the Uighurs were there, reputed to be literate, and might have done it. Perhaps those who know more about this could select the appropriate places, do the moving, and leave the links. I do not remove other editors' material without prior discussions, as I am now doing. Alternatively, what do other editors working on this think about an additional page, as I just mentioned? DGG 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
While the recent edits were being done, the entire question was reopened three days ago on the Village Pump, though not seen till now. Ive commented, though it is not the right place. I ask again whether block printing is movable type? sounds ridiculous, but it's still in here. spread of printing is a more subtle question, as mention above. But block printing--that makes no sense. If anyone wants it in here, would they please defend it. I altered the wording so it looks a little less absurd. DGG 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please look a the preview when tinkering with the headings, and please defend edits here, not on the edit summary. so we have a concise summary with all these many edits. DGG 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I put block printing into the original narrative as an example of a precursor to movable type, a kind of transitional, intermediate step.
Why is "movable type" so-named? Because the metal type pieces are movable, positionable, can be arranged in almost any combination to form a page image. Block printing with an individual woodblock for each glyph is quite similar to movable metal type: the blocks can be arranged and a page image composed from them, but the technique is nonetheless called "block printing".
The text says as much, in explanatory fashion:
Key words: movable wooden blocks, wooden movable type.
The labels "Woodblock printing" and "Movable type" bear linguistic bias and lead people to think of block printing and Movable type as different schemes. The only major difference (aside from using a printing press or taking rubbings) is the material used for the types and the method of producing or reproducing them.
Wang Zhen's movable wooden type system did not succeed. Pi Sheng's movable metal type system almost took off but the classical Chinese syllabary stalled it. Gutenberg's movable metal type system succeeded, and won for itself the title of Movable Type.
Movable woodblock type printing is not recognized as movable type because history gave it a crumby innacurate name.
Arbo
talk
05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The original manuscript I donated [ [1]] contained a translation error. I made a mistake. From The Gutenberg Revolution; the wooden blocks that succeeded Pi Sheng's clay types were only used to make sand moulds to cast the thin metal stamp types.
I've changed the errant passage and given it citations. Thanks for pointing it out Johnbod. I like to be corrected.
Sorry about that, people. Please have this nice cup of coffee and a sit-down :)
A piece of type made from wood --- the object ought to be called a wooden type or in typophile nomenclature, a wooden sort.
Arbo
talk
16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a myth. It was no more compact than the roman type Griffo and Aldus were using to print Latin texts. Please refer to User talk:Tphinney#Griffo italic not so compact afterall. The myth was removed from the History of western typography, and should be removed from every otehr article it appears in, eg: Aldus Manutius, Aldine Press, et al.
That Manutius did in fact produce compact editions of the Latin classics speaks for itself—the evidence is incontrovertable. The italic face used in them offered no space saving advantage however, so exactly how the editions were made more compact is a matter to be researched.
Arbo
talk
08:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the statement that Gutenberg was first to do this. The Koreans and Chinese did it first. Please avoid putting speculative statements into the text. Stick to the facts available in print sources.
Arbo
talk
09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Gutenberg and the Korean type casting system were a world apart:
- Additionally, there were a few centuries between them -
All in all, JG's invention was technologically a world ahead, being one of the main reasons why printing spread like wildfire from Mainz throughout Europe.
- and centuries before, it spreaded throughout Asia from Korea -
So could someone please stop the East Asian centrist gang from constantly insinuating how similar Korean printing was to Gutenberg printing? It was not. We have had a tough time keeping their totally unfounded claims of invention from the printing press article, it seems certain users try their business now at others related topics. Regards Gun Powder Ma 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- and germans on their german page don't even mention Korea. Life goes on... even if Korea invented book-printing!
"JG or his immediate successor Schoeffer developed a steel matrize as mould. The Koreans used impressions in the sand."
- At that time, Europeans lived together with their pigs and chickens in one room -
"JG invented a type case. I am not aware the Koreans had one...JG invented a steel composing stick. The Koreans used first little bamboo rods, then wax to keep the letters together."
- so Gutenberg redesigned Korean printing system -
"The Koreans used wooden or copper letters."
"All in all, JG's invention was technologically a world ahead, being one of the main reasons why printing spread like wildfire from Mainz throughout Europe."
- IN EUROPE! -
- EUROPE! -
- NOT IN ASIA! -
- SOURCES PLEASE! -
-SOURCES PLEASE! -
"So could someone please stop the East Asian centrist gang from constantly insinuating how similar Korean printing was to Gutenberg printing? It was not." - so could you please accept that book-printing in its pure form originated from korea???-
There is this paragraph at the bottom of the section (just above metal movable type in Korea):
This belies the whole point of this section - it simply cannot be that bronze or copper were also being cast. Around 1300, tin was being cast in China - the type may have been wafer-thin - it surely failed with the inks they were using then. This sentence is too vague and sweeping... Anyone to throw some light on this? mukerjee ( talk) 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In the last week or two, partially as a fruit of our arguments, I have learned things that I had not known before and have caused me to revise my view on some of these matters, which I oversimplified. I list them below & will insert them with sources & 'and each is something I did not know a week ago. I Perhaps we should all do some more reading and only after that, some more writing. What I put into articles from now will have a source, since I now have read some sources.
Do any of us know enough metallurgy to say what could and couldn't have been cast?
I mention once more that POV is not at issue. Not one of those here knows whether G was influenced by EA or, if he was, what form the influence may have taken--a stray artifact, "how could this have been made" or a story from a merchant, "I heard thus and so, but I don't know any details." Nobody else in the world knows either, of we wouldn't be having these discussions. It's all opinion, & none of us is necessarily more expert than the others--if any of us is expert at all. All we can do is reason from known cases of cultural transmission. Fortunately there is a closely relevant one, known in detail: paper. If this knowledge could get transmitted, anything could have been. But the transmission of paper making left abundant evidence--why didn't the others? I do not detect any true POV, though I do detect different attitudes to the word "could" and its synonyms.
Interesting word, could. The knowledge of movable type could have passed to Mozambique, where the Chinese traded. An escaped slave could have brought the knowledge to Ethiopia or Yemen. An Italian merchant might have acquired the servant. The servant may have told a child, who, in his old age, told some goldsmith. The possibility of transmission does not prove transmission. Consider all the Chinese inventions which were not transmitted. I could extend the above sequence to show it was transmitted to the Greenland Eskimo. -- But I made similar fun earlier of the Uighur, and it turns out Christensen has a photo of the printing & perhaps the type.
Interesting word: similar. What counts as similar enough? Two qys--similar enough to make it conceivable, and similar enough to prove it. Remember, we cannot even prove G's method of making matrices, or of using them.
What we can do is what good WP articles do: give the evidence, gve a quote or two for the opinions, and let the reader decide.
I am heartily disgusted with not only having to do this again every day or do, but having to do this again every day or two in 3 or 4 different places. I continue with my principle that he who says the first sarcastic or derogatory word is wrong, and he who says the second is equally wrong. And if anyone thinks I've overdone it myself, let me apologize here and now.
If there is any among us who claims such professional competence that his opinion is the one that matters, let him give the evidence. More to the point, since this is WP, is there any among us who claims to have read all the sources? (I intend to before I'm finished-I'm about 10% of the way.{please the others of you, keep up with me. Start by reading the whole of Christensens essay.) Ma, in this connection I would be much more comfortable working with you if you had a meaningful user page. In the future I intend to respond only to those edits that insert new data, not merely new arguments. DGG 06:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ma, I don't think we basically disagree--the difference is that I leave the subject a little more open, but not as far as those who are certain the invention in Europe was a case of diffusion. Christensen is sufficient authority that the possibility of diffusion must be taken seriously.
DGG 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Positive counterevidence:
These four lines of reasoning could be greatly expanded to make a convincing counter-case. I found out the more you go into details, the more unlikely is a transmission. Other than the mere concept, Gutenberg printing shared little similarities with East Asian printing. Gun Powder Ma 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
':I agree that we should concentrate on adding substance to the text, rather than going endlessly over formulations. However, as I am sure that you are acquainted with Popper's verification criteria, you know it is impossible to prove the absence of a thing, in our case the absence of a Eastern transmission. By the same line of reasoning, we cannot prove the absence of star ships among the Mayas or power plants with the Aborigines either. So, this means little next to nothing. The counterevidence I posted above is as good as any as long as we don't stop to trust common sense. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Many technologies were passed along the silk road, from paper making to gunpowder. Even if it was an independent invention, does it really matter if it was "independently invented" hundreds of years after it was first invented? Afterall, given enough time, any culture can independently invent anything. We are credited with inventing the atomic bomb, but given enough time, the Russians, British, and French would have invented it themselves without help.
-intranetusa
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Intranetusa (
talk •
contribs)
02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
@what is commonly regarded as an independent invention: Are there any clues that Gutenberg had copied the Koreans? Otherwise this sentence needs rewriting. Shinobu 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A five-century long search for critical evidence that would show diffusion is lacking, while the evidence for it being independent has gaps as well--the key invention, the development of the mould, is undocumented & the physical evidence uncertain; we do not know the steps of the invention the way we know the steps by which Edison invented the incandescent lamp. Whatever term we use, there are complaints.
Some of the parts of Gutenberg's invention were certainly novel to him. The use of a press, the use of oil-based ink to provide permanence, the discovery of a useful alloy for casting--all of these are certainly due to him. One key component, the use of paper, obviously was diffusion. Another, the use of engraving to produce the master, was common practice in Europe & the history goes too far back to help. The mould is a mystery & recent technical analysis has made it yet more so. The concept of movable type--rather than a specific implementation of it--is hard to pin down.
As it happens, both Ma and I agree that the great likelihood is that movable type occurred to him de novo. At least one other person we know whom I greatly respect, Christensen, disagrees. This is the classic case for WP POV--there is one set of facts, and the interpretations vary--depending on what, I do not know--it is not just national pride--either of the Germans or the Koreans.
I've had too many disagreements about wording to be sure that Ma would agree with everything I've said here. I can not find a better word than "commonly" -- I consider "generally" an acceptable near-synonym. "Undoubtedly" requires a consensus that does not exist, "possibly" is much too weak--neither I nor Ma would accept that. I think we agree that "probably" is also much to weak. its not the custom to use numericaldegrees of probability here. If we did, I would say 90% sure and Ma would probably say 99%. This is often a problem with the first sentence of an article, which has to summarize the whole multi-page argument in a single word. If you have suggestions, we certainly need them. (Ma, if you like the way Ive written this out, maybe we can substitute it for part of the current wording) DGG 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) DGG 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know when this passage came in:
"The technique of imprinting multiple copies of symbols or glyphs with a master type punch made of hard metal first developed in coining around 3000 BC in ancient Sumer. Bars or ingots of precious metal were imprinted with a distinctive stamped design; the act of stamping the ingots certified them as currency by the power of the authority symbolized by the type image. These metal punch types can be seen as precursors of the letter punches adapted in later millenia to printing with movable metal type."
- but I think it is wrong. Sumer & the other Early Mesopotamian cultures made much use of "cylinder seals" - round things you rolled along a clay tablet. These were cut from stone, & go right back to the "Proto-Literate Period" -in fact 2,500-3,000 BCE(Frankenthaler, that vol of pelican/yale History of Art). Certainly cannot be called coining - was for personal ID. Pre-writing so just images - very beautiful & sophisticated.
Ingot stamping came much later (2,500 odd years) in Lydia in Anatolia. I can make the changes if you like - I don't want to intrude on the beautiful thing Ma & Dgg have going... Johnbod 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Sumer & the other Early Mesopotamian cultures made much use of "cylinder seals" - round things you rolled along a clay tablet."
"Certainly cannot be called coining - was for personal ID."
"Ingot stamping came much later (2,500 odd years) in Lydia in Anatolia."
A small point, but there's a bit in the article that says JG used the same mix of metals "still used today". should that not be "used until very recently" or "until the end of movable type printing" or something. I have handset metal type myself, but I am the last of the Mohicans (It was very difficult - I think carving a woodblock might have been easier....) Johnbod 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As with most aspects of early Asian movable type printing, we find with the supposed introduction of wooden movable type by Wang Cheng a great deal of uncertainties involved. The question is whether the supposed invention of movable type by Wang Cheng does not in fact constitute a much later interpolation:
In discussing the history of movable type in China, Professor Carter translates a text said to have been written in 1314 the Mongol dynasty by Wang Cheng; this text, however, is preserved only in an appendix to a work on agriculture by this author edited in the K'ien-lung period (1736-95). Carter reproduces from this book the illustration of a revolving wheel alleged to have been contrived by Wang Cheng as a type-setting device in 1314, but here he remarks cautiously, "Whether this illustration goes back to the original edition of 1314 or whether it is a reconstructiou by K'ien-lung's editors, is uncertain." But this suspicion is ripe for the whole text: the wooden movable types ascribed to Wang Cheng are strikingly similar to a font of wooden types made under K'ienlung in 1773 for printing the catalogue of his library (not mentioned by Carter), and there is a well-illustrated Chinese book extant which describes the various stages in the manufacture of this type. There are striking coincidences between the descriptions of this book and those of Wang Cheng, and a critical comparison of the two texts would probably clear up the problem in part. (The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, Review Author: B. Laufer, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 47. (1927), p. 72f.)
What has more recent scholarship found out about this? Gun Powder Ma 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No idea? Gun Powder Ma 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From Gun Powder's edit summary: [3] AFAIK wooden movable type appeared only in the early 14th century; "movable wooden blocks" is nonsense.
I agree. Movable wooden blocks is nonsense. That's why I took the scenario out of the text in my recent edit. It was the result of an honest mistake. Now you've put it back in with a citation request.
Can you help us understand why you've restored information which you, myself and other editors are skeptical of—and then asked for a reference for it? [4]
This seems like irrational and disruptive behaviour, a breach of WP's code of civility, so please desist.
Arbo
talk
01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I'm worked-up. Nah, you won't jump to that conclusion so readily in future. When I see suspicious edits made by an editor (GPM) with a history of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, using WP as a soapbox, attempting to contribute original research, and editing with wanton disregard and disrespect for readers, WP policies, principals and guidelines, and the efforts of other editors—I naturally question the nature of it with vigor.
Regardless of the intention and motivation behind your edits, the effect is one of disruption. Here's a demonstration of how it works:
Wikipedia:Civility#When and why does it happen?: "Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.
"In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.
"Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact."
Since I did not contribute the above source on movable wooden type, and have no knowledge of its providence or its reliability, it is inappropriate and contraindicated for me to add the reference. That task is your responsibility, as you're the editor who wants the information on movable wooden type in the article.
Or do you? Make a decision and stick with it. Think of the readers. As a Wikipedian you are not here to play with article text(s) to please yourself—as you have done and continue to do wantonly—the texts you edit are for the benefit of readers, a benefit you have compromised more than any other Wikipedian I've met—by a very long margin.
If you do not commit the reference to the passage, the passage must be removed.
Oh please, you'll have to try harder than that to put the onus on me, (I'm not intimidated but amused by such a weak, cheap shot) considering I provided the bulk of the article text and structure in the first place, complete with refs and pics. This isn't about me. It's about your recent edits and responsibility to reference them, and your obligation to cease disrupting the wiki.
Thanks for providing the ref for the unsuitability of ceramic types.
Best regards,
Arbo
talk
20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Gun Powder your edit summary "Reverted unauthorized manipulation of past talk by user Arboghast" here: [7]. What does an "unauthorized" edit mean?
I am allowed to edit my own uncivil comments and poor etiquette, which I did here [8], and you reverted using what reads as ad absurdum argument. Wikipedians are also encouraged to refactor the uncivil behaviour of others (yours and mine, and anyone else's on this page), and in extreme cases to remove it. Please read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.
This is a wiki, with complete openness and freedom to edit—within reason, in good faith. It is widely-established practice that Wikipedians are allowed to refactor their own comments on talk pages and remove uncivil behaviour and personal attacks by others, as a way of taking back things said in the heat of a moment of dispute. All top admins and Wikipedians refactor, including Mongo and Jimbo Wales. Please make an effort to be civil. Forgive and forget past disputes, and cease repeatedly inciting incivility on this project as you have done. Thanks!
Have a great day!
Arbo
talk
08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The way to apologize for uncivil behavior on an article talk page is to use strikethrough, not delete.
It is perfectly in order for one editor to ask another for help in adding sources. We are not debating the issue itself--that would be OR & if we want to do that I can find a wiki where we can all enjoy ourselves without disrupting WP. I am continuing to assume that we want to add all the relevant verifiable fact we can find, and all the relevant opinion from reputable sources, and we should be helping each other do this. If we disagree with our authorities, we help each other to find other authorities on the opposite view. Let's get back to this.
All. Just a note each time: for similar discoveries/work in EA, see or for possible connections, see: and then in EA every last single view we can find and summarize goes in. If the facts are contradictory, we let them all stand. It is not we who have the responsibility of preparing s synthesis--just of preparing a report. I don't want to edit so as to disrupt a consensus, but if there is no consensus...
Arbo, please spell out what this consists of. Thank you Johnbod 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion about possible inaccuracy of captioning of the s/i ligature picture at Image talk:Fi garamond sort 001.png
Notthe9 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The material in the entire punchcutting section has no sources give. Further, the first two paragraphs of the woodblock section have no sources. It is possible they became lost due to earlier rapid changes back and forth. Can anyone help? DGG 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand, ALL the interwiki links here are wrong because they all link to foreign versions of Typography article. This can be mechanically checked by the way. I'll remove Russian link, as this is the only text I can fully understand and I am sure that it's "off topic". Alex Kapranoff 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
On the picture next to the Movable Type heading, there are words that say,
"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogs and feels if he were in the seventh heaven of typography together with Hermann Zapf, the most famous artist to the..."
Pretty Neat
I just added Wang Zhen's (or Wang Chen) link to wooden movable type in China. His info can be found in his article. So there will be no more dispute. Period.-- PericlesofAthens 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the point of duplication of quotes here with HTEA. In fact, I do not see the point of having the same sections here as in HTEA-- but if keeping it here will keep the peace, OK with me. DGG 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Aren't all other languages articles linking to typography? -- Absinthe88 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the article on woodblock printing. this is the article on movable type. It includes material on wood or ceramic or metal, wester or asian. But not about thins that are not the use of movable type. do not insert irrelevant material. We've discussd it before. Woodblock printing is a subject of the greatest relevance., But it has its own article. DGG ( talk) 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am currently proofreading "Paul and the printing press" by Sara Ware Bassett for Distributed Proofreaders.
It includes the following intriguing paragraphs:
"I read to-day," he announced to his father one evening, "that the printing press was invented by Lawrence Coster (or Lorenz Koster) of Haarlem. The book said that he went on a picnic with his family, and while idly carving his name on the trunk of a beech tree he conceived the idea that he might in the same way make individual letters of the alphabet on wooden blocks, ink them over, and thus print words."
Mr. Cameron listened attentively.
"Such is the old legend," he replied. "It is an interesting one and many persons believe it to this day. History, however, fails to bear out the tale. Instead, as nearly as we can find out, what Coster is really conceded to have done was not to invent printing but to be the first to make movable type, which was one of the greatest factors in the perfecting of the industry. Holland has done honor, and rightly, to the inventor by placing a statue of him at Haarlem; but the real inventor of printing was probably John Gutenburg, a native of Strasburg, who made a printing press which, although not so elaborate as that in present use, was nevertheless a properly constructed one. Simple as it was the principle of it is identical with that used to-day."
"That is curious, isn't it?" observed Paul.
"Yes. Think how long ago it was; from1440 to 1460 he toiled at his invention....
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimon Avaro ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What is up with the total western bias in this article? I have not been back here for a few months and I can not believe that although the Chinese invented movable type 400 years before Gutenberg, it is not even mentioned once until about the 11th paragraph. I thought when I had left editing about this info, it was in good hands, people that were rational, smart and playing fair.
Please be honest with yourselves. Can you honestly tell me that if some white guy had invented something, even if it was less effective, 400 years before the Chinese "invent" it, that white guy's name would not be mentioned first in an article like this? and not buried way down in the 11th paragraph?
Even the article on the Printing Press is less bias than this article and it seems pretty clear that while the Chinese invented movable type 400 years before Gutenburg, they did not invent the printing press. This makes NO sense!
By the time Gutenburg "invented" movable type, the Chinese and Koreans had printed hundreds and hundreds of items using movable type. While I completely agree that Gutenburg's printing press surpassed these earlier inventions, the Chinese and Korean use was not some limited one off invention. Please read the good article on Wang Zhen. It talks about wooden and bronze movable type being commonly used in China into the 19th c. (clearly not related to Gutenburg's "invention"). It was used by local academies, local government offices, by wealthy local patrons of printing, and the large Chinese commercial printers located in the cities of Nanjing, Suzhou, Changzhou, Hangzhou, Wenzhou, and Fuzhou. It was used for novels, art, science and technology, family registers, and local gazettes. The article on Wang Zhen even mentions wooden movable type receiving officially sponsored by the imperial court at Beijing, and being widespread amongst private printing companies.
White Krane (
talk)
18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that neither Chinese nor Western wooden type (movable) were direct, connected precursors to Gutenberg's invention, they are nonetheless part of the story of movable type, part of the history of developments that led eventually to the advent of movable type in Europe. That they are not directly connected to Gutenberg, that's the way history unfolds in some instances. The ancient peoples who invented the letterpunch in all likelihood did not forsee its later use as the key unit in a movable type system. Many separate inventions constitute the prehistory of movable type, and it should not be surprizing they were an unconnected series of events. In other words, So what if they were independent traditions? This isn't a narrative about connected traditions. It's a history, preferably with a neutral view of its subject.
Your personal bias in favour of Gutenberg and bias against Eastern movable type inventions is blatant and plain for all to see — Arbo talk 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Arboghast, this article is very far from NPOV. This is now an article that very clearly advocates for an Asian-centric view of the history of type, even though the use of movable type in Asia was far less common than other forms of printing for centuries after movable type became the primary form of printing in Europe (because the size of typesets for Asian languages is so much greater). A balanced article would have an introduction mentioning both Asian and European inventions, and a body that would begin with the Asian innovations, then explain why movable type did not catch on as quickly in China and Korea, and then finish with a discussion of the development of movable type in Europe and why it did catch on quickly - a discussion that is as long at least as the discussion of Asia. The reality is that movable type had far greater influence on European history than it did on Asian history, while the "balance" of your article suggests otherwise. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.112.139.140 (
talk)
11:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that as the article now stands it is as far from NPOV as the moon. Movable type was in fact scarcely used in the Far East, were there more than 1.000 titles ever printed from movable type? I hardly count more than a few dozen before Gutenberg. By comparison, there are 30.000 extant titles from 15th century Europe alone and this was really only the beginning. Estimations of the European output reach from 10-20 million volumes (=copies) in the 15th century to 150-200 million in the 16th century. Out of European movable type printing modern phenomenon like the newspaper and public opinion evolved in Europe. By contrast, there was no typographic media revolution, no printing revolution in the East and when the printing press was finally introduced in the 19th century, movable type printing was viewed as a completely new invention by the Chinese so little had it actually been used. If the article aspires to only approach NPOV, its contents need to be balanced to reflect the diverging paths of movable type technology in West and East. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In 2008 while attending WMSTR in Rollag, MN, and touring their printing press historical building with operating linotypes and a whole lineup of early hand presses, the person discussing the history of the equipment was telling me that J and U appear at the end of the alphabet in the job case, because those letters either didn't exist or weren't commonly used when Johannes Gutenberg first invented his movable type system.
And what with legacy system designs often living far beyond their original usefulness, nobody ever had the willingness to reorder Gutenberg's original typeface positions in the job case since that would mess up the system that typesetters have been memorizing for some 400+ years hence.
The reason the letters appear at the end of the alphabet is because the slots around the perimeter of the job case were apparently reserved for "miscellaneous" type symbols that were useful to the typesetter, and over time the new letters took over these misc slots.
This explanation makes much more sense than the current text which suggests they are there to prevent confusion of shape with I and V, since they are clearly different and not mirror images and inversions like the lowercase d b q.
I have been wanting to add this to this page for a long time but I am not a historian of typesetting so I don't have any reliable sources other than what this person told me. However, doing research within Wikipedia does seem to bear this out:
Searching Google for possible sources isn't turning up anything relevant to typesetting job cases at all. DMahalko ( talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
From the intro: 'The earliest known movable type system for printing invented in Korea during the Goryeo Dynasty (around 1230).' Later in the article: 'The first known movable type system for printing was created in China around 1040 AD by Bi Sheng (990–1051).'
Clearly, someone has missed something (or added something that shouldn't have been there). Since 1040 is a smaller number than 1230, I'm inclined to think that the first sentence must be wrong... Can someone please change it? dawhipsta ( talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what the problem is now... never mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This word appears in the second paragraph. It doesn't exist. I expect the author meant 'extant'.
81.111.91.183 ( talk) 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If this article mentions precursors as far removed as the Phaistos Disc, shouldn't it also mention medieval European precursors as evidenced by the Prüfening dedicatory inscription? See also Typography#History, which, even as a summary, is more complete. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The Wiki article shows that 1377 is the date of the Jikjisim Sutra, published by the Heungdeoksa Temple in Cheongju, under the long title of Baegunhwasang Chorok-buljo Jikjisimche Yojeol. However, on p. 56 of Science and Technology in Korean History: Excursions, Innovations, and Issues by Park Seong-rae, the first mention of Korea's movable metal type printing is found by Yi Gyubo (1168-1241) to the effect that fifty volumes of Detailed Rituals of the Old and New were published in 1234 with metal types for distribution among government offices. Does this not lead us to suspect that 1234 predates 1377 as the first text via movable type? Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"or in the case of Korea, metal tablets, required for scripts based on the Chinese writing system, which have thousands of characters."
That's wrong. Korean script is called hangeul. It was invented in 1443 by King Sejong. /info/en/?search=Hangul. While some of the characters certainly used Chinese characters, by the time of Gutenberg (1398 – February 3, 1468), hangeul was possible and is quite easy to typeset... though it may have come after Gutenberg in Europe, should be mentioned.-- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Movable type. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The article contains a mixture of British (Canadian/Australian/NZ) spelling, 'mould', and American spelling, 'movable'. This needs to be regulated in favour of British throughout as this is essentially a European topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.38 ( talk) 14:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Movable type. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
http://www.idea-soft.ir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh36999 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
??
Some updates to the article. Since it there is no direct evidence that Gutenberg was influenced or aware of Asian printing methods, wording was changed to reflect that it was merely a possibility and not an actuality that the article previously had stated in the opening paragraphs. Also, the Chinese printing method did not use a press, so the word "press" was deleted to reflect this when mention printing technology of using porcelain type.
Information was also added to show some of the advantages that Gutenberg's choice of alloy, and his used of permanent metal molds over one time sand cast molds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sand molds are by their nature expendable, single use molds, and need to be recreated. The mention of sand molds in the table for Korean shows them to be temporary molds, and the discussion in the referenced article shows that the molds used by Koreans for casting type were temporary, one time use. While the article originally stressed the similarities, the differences must also be pointed out as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You did not ask a question before deleting changes. If you need a reference, then please just state "need citation", before deleting change, which is common courtesy. It is implicit in the use of metal molds that they are permanent, and it is implicit in the use of sand casting that they are temporary time use. You don't really need to explain the process, any one who is ignorant of sand casting and lost wax casting methods should look them up. However, I have added references as requested.
Also, the source quoted by Qiushufang (which was my source,I might point out, that was appropriated) stated Western printing used brass punches and lead matrix. Since the typical Western process was to use steel punches to make molds in copper or brass matrices, and the quote did not refer specifically to Gutenberg, but Western printing in general, I deleted the part of the quote mentioning the use of brass punches and lead matrices, and added a couple references to Western practices of using steel punches and lead matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 00:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is not that there was no citation, but that the citation is wrong. You failed to provide the quote requested and willfully ignored what I mentioned to be false interpretation of the source text. Furthermore your addition now adds non-academic sources without any context for the subject as well as a several decades old outdated text. Please stop trying to justify your changes through google and other sites. Stringing together unrelated sources does not actually make the source any better. Qiushufang ( talk) 02:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, again what you say is not true. I gave sources that showed a butt is half a ton. Here is another one https://gizmodo.com/butt-is-an-actual-unit-of-measurement-1622427091, and another https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Butt_(unit).html, and another https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Butt_(unit).html, and another http://www.kylesconverter.com/volume/butts-to-tuns, I did not give a reference originally, anymore than the definition of a ton is given in an article, or a kiligram or a pound. The definition of a butt is not in doubt, and anyone can look it up if they don't know what it is. My explanation was for the convenience of the reader. If you don't know what a butt is, just ask me to put a reference before deleting something, but I really shouldn't have to, anymore than one would need to put a reference explaining what a ton is.
In this article, you have objected to the following:
1. Deletion of the word "press" in associated with Chinese printing. It is not a matter of debate that the Chinese did not use a press or other mechanical device in their printing, no scholar disputes that fact.
Every source describes native East Asian printing as hand rubbing or press the paper, none describe using any mechanical device, and I have provided sources that specifically state that fact. [1]. In "Science and Civilization in China" Volume 5-2 page it says "But otherwise printing developed in different directions using different procedures. In the West, the printing press underwent a gradual mechanisation and sophistication, eventually growing into a powerful publishing industry with mass production and distribution; in China, on the other hand, printing was continuously carned on as a handicraft, without significant changes in technology until modern times".
2. You also objected to the claim that the Korea casting method used expendable molds. Again, this not a matter of debate of by anyone but you. The use of the term "sand casting" and mention of "sand molds" automatically implies the use of temporary molds, and the descriptions of the Korean type casting process makes it clear without having to spelled out. If you can show me a mold made of sand that is permanent, then show it. And the use of metal molds implies they are reusable. A person can always look up "sand casting", and verify the process, just as they can look up "casting" itself if they don't know what the word means. But I did provide references to address each of your objections, and that wasn't enough for you, you get coming up with new complaints.
The only who is grinding an axe is you, you object to anything that does not have a strong pro Chinese slant, as witness your bringing up issues from completely unrelated articles here, and not discussing the objections on this article. You make new objections that have no validity. There is no cutoff date for references, and a reference from the 19th century is likely a better reference when discussing letterpress printing and hand typesetting than a modern writer, since they would have first hand experience the modern writer would lack. You have repeated made claims that were false, like I was using original research (I was not), or that wikipedia does not allow the use of non academic sources (it does, which you admitted only after I pointed it out.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.111.162.10 (
talk)
21:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
1. Why did you use the source 'The Book Worlds of East Asia and Europe 1450 -1850: Connections and Comparisons, saying that "*Although the Chinese were the first to use movable type, Gutenberg was the first to use a press in printing", when the source did not claim such a thing? Is this not original research and misrepresentation of the source?
2. Why did you misrepresent Korean Typography in 15th Century by saying that Korean molds were "expendable" or that Gutenberg's molds were "permanent" when the source did not claim such a thing? Neither of these words or their equivalent exist in the entire text. Do you deny that this is original research?
3. When I provided a direct quote from the book Korean Typography in 15th Century disproving your claim that the source did not in fact contain the material you contributed, why did you revert my edit? Also as you said, everything you have contributed can be inferred from the source material, so why did you go out of your way to alter the source? Shouldn't the reader simply be able to see that the sand molds are expendable whereas other molds are not just by reading the quote? I would still like to see the part in this source that supports your original claims.
4. When I provided the direct quote, why did you alter it, cutting off the beginning, which directly contradicts another source you used: From Gutenberg to the Internet: A Sourcebook on the History of Information Technology, and keep everything else? Do you only keep parts of the quote you agree with and not the ones that you don't?
5. Is the only source you can come up with to support your contributions really going to be a 140 year old text?
6. Why do you use wikipedia or wikipedia relinks such as ipfs.io when you know that this is not what you are supposed to do on wikipedia? Qiushufang ( talk) 04:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
Please at least familiarize yourself with the general guidelines of wikipedia. Even someone who has never done any editing here could have guessed using the same encyclopedia source as reference is bad practice.
198.111.162.10 also seems to think anything that he thinks is "implied" can be added regardless of what the actual source says. Only after challenged by reversions does he actually respond, usually with inferior sources. He also seems to think a 140 year old text is appropriate to comment on Chinese printing techniques, but somehow a Korean author is unfamiliar with European printing techniques, choosing and picking whichever part of the text fits his agenda. Qiushufang ( talk) 22:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"
The current statement in the 3rd paragraph on the diffusion of movable type refers to the records in several European archives, giving the highly misleading impression that these medieval accounts mention movable type printing, and suggest it. but the European accounts before the 16th century don't . Add the statement to clarify the fact that these European accounts do not, in fact, refer to movable type or imply. Previous statement to that fact was deleted, on the grounds it should relocated to later in the article yet the suggestion and misleading impression there was fact supporting the speculation was not deleted or moved. To provide balanee, it needs to be made clear there is no actual supporting fact, no pre-Gutenberg European document discusses printing, let alone movable type printing, and any claim of diffusion is currently speculation. If we wish to move all such speculation to another section, then both sides, not just one needs to be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 21:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I never delete the source of Joseph P. McDermott. I never delete any source of this article. I just move this source to the debate part of this article in may previous edition. I keep the citation from Joseph P. McDermott word-for-word what Joseph P. McDermott says. See the part about debate, my edition here is " Joseph P.McDermott claimed that "No text indicates the presence or knowledge of any kind of Asian movable type or movable type imprint in Europe before 1450. The material evidence is even more conclusive." " Beside that, I also added the source of famous historians Frances and Joseph Gies. I cited the source from the opposite side for diffusion (Joseph P.McDermott) and support side for diffusion theory ( Frances and Joseph Gies, von Polenz) I cited both sides' claim to make this part more neutral. All of my edition is a word-for-word citation from these sources. I did not do any original research. The lead part used the word "may have been" which means it still has controversy for this problem. The word "may" in leading is a kind of neutral claim which is based on both sides' source. Hence, what I did before is neutral and no original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.42.110.233 ( talk) 02:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
A statement like "extremely similar" with regard to Korean and Gutenberg printing suggest greater similarities than there are. As balance, listed some of the differences between the Korea and European printing, and reference, and let the reader decide if the 2 are "extremely similar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 21:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Reference is needed to support the claim that carving a page of text was faster than composing it by hand. Cited reference does not have that statement. Evidence from Western printing indicates that setting a page of type was much faster than carving a wooden page of text. An European typesetting could set an average of 700 ems an hour, and a typical hardcover book page had a 1000 ems ( https://medium.com/s/letter-rip/hot-metal-transforms-the-speed-of-information-bc54f9bf4e38), while a Chinese worker could only typically carve 100 to 150 characters a day (see page 195 http://library.princeton.edu/eastasian/EALJ/ejPDF.php?aKey=dennis_joseph.ealj.v14.n01.p158.pdf). Even if Chinese typesetting was only 1/20 as fast as European, it would still be faster than carving a block of text. So some reference is needed to demonstrated that Chinese typesetting was less than 1/20 as fast as European.
Also, cited reference does not support the claim that type setting was relatively quicker, only that it was "quick". There is no evidence that that movable type printing was faster than wood block printing, and the source cited, Science and Civilization, Volume 5-1 pages 220-221, said it was only with larger production runs that movable type printing became financially viable, not that it was necessarily faster than wood block printing, or even relatively faster. The source cited did say movable type printing for large runs would be quick, but didn't say it would be quicker than wood block, which is an inference not stated in the actual source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC) @ User:Lawrencekhoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.42.110.8 ( talk) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this comment. I'm not too experienced with this. The Korea section says that Hangul was created "a generation before Gutenberg would begin working on his own movable type invention in Europe". In the Wikipedia article on Hangul, it says it was devised in 1443, but the Wikipedia article on Gutenberg says he started doing movable type printing in Europe in 1439, and developed it over the next couple years. So according to those two articles they happened at almost the exact same time, not a generation apart. I'm not going to edit any of these articles because I'm not in this field and I don't know the source of the discrepancy.
Amulekii ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Korea used Chinese writing system before the invention of Hangeul.Official documents and government census data etc.as old as a century are all stored in multiple layer guarded document storage facilities(문서고) unlike Europe which has only vague history documentation without synchronized timestamping.
I've added to the excellent copyedits and rearrangements of Mukerjee, who has much improved what I edited very late last night. I've changed a few words to better indicate the degree of certainty of some of the theories, as specified in their main articles, and to further identify the East Asian and European developments (for example, Gutenberg invented many things, but not paper). I'd be grateful for identification (and translation into English, if necessary,) of the key part of the reference on Uighur printing. DGG 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Since movable type is the alternative technique to block printing, discussions of the detailed technique of block printing do not belong here. They should be moved to the more appropriate article, and replaced by a few words with a link. Material relevant to the spread of printing techniques, however important historically, that are not specifically movable type, do not belong here either, and should be moved to a more appropriate place. If there is no more appropriate place, perhaps a new page is needed, "Diffusion of printing technology", distinguished from the spread of the European techniques deriving from Gutenberg, but possibly most of this would fit into a section on the History of typography in East Asia "Diffusion of typography from East Asia". I requested documentation on the Uighur use of movable type, and none was forthcoming, except a statement that if use in that area took place, the Uighurs were there, reputed to be literate, and might have done it. Perhaps those who know more about this could select the appropriate places, do the moving, and leave the links. I do not remove other editors' material without prior discussions, as I am now doing. Alternatively, what do other editors working on this think about an additional page, as I just mentioned? DGG 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
While the recent edits were being done, the entire question was reopened three days ago on the Village Pump, though not seen till now. Ive commented, though it is not the right place. I ask again whether block printing is movable type? sounds ridiculous, but it's still in here. spread of printing is a more subtle question, as mention above. But block printing--that makes no sense. If anyone wants it in here, would they please defend it. I altered the wording so it looks a little less absurd. DGG 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please look a the preview when tinkering with the headings, and please defend edits here, not on the edit summary. so we have a concise summary with all these many edits. DGG 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I put block printing into the original narrative as an example of a precursor to movable type, a kind of transitional, intermediate step.
Why is "movable type" so-named? Because the metal type pieces are movable, positionable, can be arranged in almost any combination to form a page image. Block printing with an individual woodblock for each glyph is quite similar to movable metal type: the blocks can be arranged and a page image composed from them, but the technique is nonetheless called "block printing".
The text says as much, in explanatory fashion:
Key words: movable wooden blocks, wooden movable type.
The labels "Woodblock printing" and "Movable type" bear linguistic bias and lead people to think of block printing and Movable type as different schemes. The only major difference (aside from using a printing press or taking rubbings) is the material used for the types and the method of producing or reproducing them.
Wang Zhen's movable wooden type system did not succeed. Pi Sheng's movable metal type system almost took off but the classical Chinese syllabary stalled it. Gutenberg's movable metal type system succeeded, and won for itself the title of Movable Type.
Movable woodblock type printing is not recognized as movable type because history gave it a crumby innacurate name.
Arbo
talk
05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The original manuscript I donated [ [1]] contained a translation error. I made a mistake. From The Gutenberg Revolution; the wooden blocks that succeeded Pi Sheng's clay types were only used to make sand moulds to cast the thin metal stamp types.
I've changed the errant passage and given it citations. Thanks for pointing it out Johnbod. I like to be corrected.
Sorry about that, people. Please have this nice cup of coffee and a sit-down :)
A piece of type made from wood --- the object ought to be called a wooden type or in typophile nomenclature, a wooden sort.
Arbo
talk
16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a myth. It was no more compact than the roman type Griffo and Aldus were using to print Latin texts. Please refer to User talk:Tphinney#Griffo italic not so compact afterall. The myth was removed from the History of western typography, and should be removed from every otehr article it appears in, eg: Aldus Manutius, Aldine Press, et al.
That Manutius did in fact produce compact editions of the Latin classics speaks for itself—the evidence is incontrovertable. The italic face used in them offered no space saving advantage however, so exactly how the editions were made more compact is a matter to be researched.
Arbo
talk
08:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the statement that Gutenberg was first to do this. The Koreans and Chinese did it first. Please avoid putting speculative statements into the text. Stick to the facts available in print sources.
Arbo
talk
09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Gutenberg and the Korean type casting system were a world apart:
- Additionally, there were a few centuries between them -
All in all, JG's invention was technologically a world ahead, being one of the main reasons why printing spread like wildfire from Mainz throughout Europe.
- and centuries before, it spreaded throughout Asia from Korea -
So could someone please stop the East Asian centrist gang from constantly insinuating how similar Korean printing was to Gutenberg printing? It was not. We have had a tough time keeping their totally unfounded claims of invention from the printing press article, it seems certain users try their business now at others related topics. Regards Gun Powder Ma 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- and germans on their german page don't even mention Korea. Life goes on... even if Korea invented book-printing!
"JG or his immediate successor Schoeffer developed a steel matrize as mould. The Koreans used impressions in the sand."
- At that time, Europeans lived together with their pigs and chickens in one room -
"JG invented a type case. I am not aware the Koreans had one...JG invented a steel composing stick. The Koreans used first little bamboo rods, then wax to keep the letters together."
- so Gutenberg redesigned Korean printing system -
"The Koreans used wooden or copper letters."
"All in all, JG's invention was technologically a world ahead, being one of the main reasons why printing spread like wildfire from Mainz throughout Europe."
- IN EUROPE! -
- EUROPE! -
- NOT IN ASIA! -
- SOURCES PLEASE! -
-SOURCES PLEASE! -
"So could someone please stop the East Asian centrist gang from constantly insinuating how similar Korean printing was to Gutenberg printing? It was not." - so could you please accept that book-printing in its pure form originated from korea???-
There is this paragraph at the bottom of the section (just above metal movable type in Korea):
This belies the whole point of this section - it simply cannot be that bronze or copper were also being cast. Around 1300, tin was being cast in China - the type may have been wafer-thin - it surely failed with the inks they were using then. This sentence is too vague and sweeping... Anyone to throw some light on this? mukerjee ( talk) 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In the last week or two, partially as a fruit of our arguments, I have learned things that I had not known before and have caused me to revise my view on some of these matters, which I oversimplified. I list them below & will insert them with sources & 'and each is something I did not know a week ago. I Perhaps we should all do some more reading and only after that, some more writing. What I put into articles from now will have a source, since I now have read some sources.
Do any of us know enough metallurgy to say what could and couldn't have been cast?
I mention once more that POV is not at issue. Not one of those here knows whether G was influenced by EA or, if he was, what form the influence may have taken--a stray artifact, "how could this have been made" or a story from a merchant, "I heard thus and so, but I don't know any details." Nobody else in the world knows either, of we wouldn't be having these discussions. It's all opinion, & none of us is necessarily more expert than the others--if any of us is expert at all. All we can do is reason from known cases of cultural transmission. Fortunately there is a closely relevant one, known in detail: paper. If this knowledge could get transmitted, anything could have been. But the transmission of paper making left abundant evidence--why didn't the others? I do not detect any true POV, though I do detect different attitudes to the word "could" and its synonyms.
Interesting word, could. The knowledge of movable type could have passed to Mozambique, where the Chinese traded. An escaped slave could have brought the knowledge to Ethiopia or Yemen. An Italian merchant might have acquired the servant. The servant may have told a child, who, in his old age, told some goldsmith. The possibility of transmission does not prove transmission. Consider all the Chinese inventions which were not transmitted. I could extend the above sequence to show it was transmitted to the Greenland Eskimo. -- But I made similar fun earlier of the Uighur, and it turns out Christensen has a photo of the printing & perhaps the type.
Interesting word: similar. What counts as similar enough? Two qys--similar enough to make it conceivable, and similar enough to prove it. Remember, we cannot even prove G's method of making matrices, or of using them.
What we can do is what good WP articles do: give the evidence, gve a quote or two for the opinions, and let the reader decide.
I am heartily disgusted with not only having to do this again every day or do, but having to do this again every day or two in 3 or 4 different places. I continue with my principle that he who says the first sarcastic or derogatory word is wrong, and he who says the second is equally wrong. And if anyone thinks I've overdone it myself, let me apologize here and now.
If there is any among us who claims such professional competence that his opinion is the one that matters, let him give the evidence. More to the point, since this is WP, is there any among us who claims to have read all the sources? (I intend to before I'm finished-I'm about 10% of the way.{please the others of you, keep up with me. Start by reading the whole of Christensens essay.) Ma, in this connection I would be much more comfortable working with you if you had a meaningful user page. In the future I intend to respond only to those edits that insert new data, not merely new arguments. DGG 06:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ma, I don't think we basically disagree--the difference is that I leave the subject a little more open, but not as far as those who are certain the invention in Europe was a case of diffusion. Christensen is sufficient authority that the possibility of diffusion must be taken seriously.
DGG 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Positive counterevidence:
These four lines of reasoning could be greatly expanded to make a convincing counter-case. I found out the more you go into details, the more unlikely is a transmission. Other than the mere concept, Gutenberg printing shared little similarities with East Asian printing. Gun Powder Ma 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
':I agree that we should concentrate on adding substance to the text, rather than going endlessly over formulations. However, as I am sure that you are acquainted with Popper's verification criteria, you know it is impossible to prove the absence of a thing, in our case the absence of a Eastern transmission. By the same line of reasoning, we cannot prove the absence of star ships among the Mayas or power plants with the Aborigines either. So, this means little next to nothing. The counterevidence I posted above is as good as any as long as we don't stop to trust common sense. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Many technologies were passed along the silk road, from paper making to gunpowder. Even if it was an independent invention, does it really matter if it was "independently invented" hundreds of years after it was first invented? Afterall, given enough time, any culture can independently invent anything. We are credited with inventing the atomic bomb, but given enough time, the Russians, British, and French would have invented it themselves without help.
-intranetusa
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Intranetusa (
talk •
contribs)
02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
@what is commonly regarded as an independent invention: Are there any clues that Gutenberg had copied the Koreans? Otherwise this sentence needs rewriting. Shinobu 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A five-century long search for critical evidence that would show diffusion is lacking, while the evidence for it being independent has gaps as well--the key invention, the development of the mould, is undocumented & the physical evidence uncertain; we do not know the steps of the invention the way we know the steps by which Edison invented the incandescent lamp. Whatever term we use, there are complaints.
Some of the parts of Gutenberg's invention were certainly novel to him. The use of a press, the use of oil-based ink to provide permanence, the discovery of a useful alloy for casting--all of these are certainly due to him. One key component, the use of paper, obviously was diffusion. Another, the use of engraving to produce the master, was common practice in Europe & the history goes too far back to help. The mould is a mystery & recent technical analysis has made it yet more so. The concept of movable type--rather than a specific implementation of it--is hard to pin down.
As it happens, both Ma and I agree that the great likelihood is that movable type occurred to him de novo. At least one other person we know whom I greatly respect, Christensen, disagrees. This is the classic case for WP POV--there is one set of facts, and the interpretations vary--depending on what, I do not know--it is not just national pride--either of the Germans or the Koreans.
I've had too many disagreements about wording to be sure that Ma would agree with everything I've said here. I can not find a better word than "commonly" -- I consider "generally" an acceptable near-synonym. "Undoubtedly" requires a consensus that does not exist, "possibly" is much too weak--neither I nor Ma would accept that. I think we agree that "probably" is also much to weak. its not the custom to use numericaldegrees of probability here. If we did, I would say 90% sure and Ma would probably say 99%. This is often a problem with the first sentence of an article, which has to summarize the whole multi-page argument in a single word. If you have suggestions, we certainly need them. (Ma, if you like the way Ive written this out, maybe we can substitute it for part of the current wording) DGG 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) DGG 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know when this passage came in:
"The technique of imprinting multiple copies of symbols or glyphs with a master type punch made of hard metal first developed in coining around 3000 BC in ancient Sumer. Bars or ingots of precious metal were imprinted with a distinctive stamped design; the act of stamping the ingots certified them as currency by the power of the authority symbolized by the type image. These metal punch types can be seen as precursors of the letter punches adapted in later millenia to printing with movable metal type."
- but I think it is wrong. Sumer & the other Early Mesopotamian cultures made much use of "cylinder seals" - round things you rolled along a clay tablet. These were cut from stone, & go right back to the "Proto-Literate Period" -in fact 2,500-3,000 BCE(Frankenthaler, that vol of pelican/yale History of Art). Certainly cannot be called coining - was for personal ID. Pre-writing so just images - very beautiful & sophisticated.
Ingot stamping came much later (2,500 odd years) in Lydia in Anatolia. I can make the changes if you like - I don't want to intrude on the beautiful thing Ma & Dgg have going... Johnbod 21:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Sumer & the other Early Mesopotamian cultures made much use of "cylinder seals" - round things you rolled along a clay tablet."
"Certainly cannot be called coining - was for personal ID."
"Ingot stamping came much later (2,500 odd years) in Lydia in Anatolia."
A small point, but there's a bit in the article that says JG used the same mix of metals "still used today". should that not be "used until very recently" or "until the end of movable type printing" or something. I have handset metal type myself, but I am the last of the Mohicans (It was very difficult - I think carving a woodblock might have been easier....) Johnbod 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As with most aspects of early Asian movable type printing, we find with the supposed introduction of wooden movable type by Wang Cheng a great deal of uncertainties involved. The question is whether the supposed invention of movable type by Wang Cheng does not in fact constitute a much later interpolation:
In discussing the history of movable type in China, Professor Carter translates a text said to have been written in 1314 the Mongol dynasty by Wang Cheng; this text, however, is preserved only in an appendix to a work on agriculture by this author edited in the K'ien-lung period (1736-95). Carter reproduces from this book the illustration of a revolving wheel alleged to have been contrived by Wang Cheng as a type-setting device in 1314, but here he remarks cautiously, "Whether this illustration goes back to the original edition of 1314 or whether it is a reconstructiou by K'ien-lung's editors, is uncertain." But this suspicion is ripe for the whole text: the wooden movable types ascribed to Wang Cheng are strikingly similar to a font of wooden types made under K'ienlung in 1773 for printing the catalogue of his library (not mentioned by Carter), and there is a well-illustrated Chinese book extant which describes the various stages in the manufacture of this type. There are striking coincidences between the descriptions of this book and those of Wang Cheng, and a critical comparison of the two texts would probably clear up the problem in part. (The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, Review Author: B. Laufer, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 47. (1927), p. 72f.)
What has more recent scholarship found out about this? Gun Powder Ma 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No idea? Gun Powder Ma 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From Gun Powder's edit summary: [3] AFAIK wooden movable type appeared only in the early 14th century; "movable wooden blocks" is nonsense.
I agree. Movable wooden blocks is nonsense. That's why I took the scenario out of the text in my recent edit. It was the result of an honest mistake. Now you've put it back in with a citation request.
Can you help us understand why you've restored information which you, myself and other editors are skeptical of—and then asked for a reference for it? [4]
This seems like irrational and disruptive behaviour, a breach of WP's code of civility, so please desist.
Arbo
talk
01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I'm worked-up. Nah, you won't jump to that conclusion so readily in future. When I see suspicious edits made by an editor (GPM) with a history of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, using WP as a soapbox, attempting to contribute original research, and editing with wanton disregard and disrespect for readers, WP policies, principals and guidelines, and the efforts of other editors—I naturally question the nature of it with vigor.
Regardless of the intention and motivation behind your edits, the effect is one of disruption. Here's a demonstration of how it works:
Wikipedia:Civility#When and why does it happen?: "Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.
"In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.
"Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact."
Since I did not contribute the above source on movable wooden type, and have no knowledge of its providence or its reliability, it is inappropriate and contraindicated for me to add the reference. That task is your responsibility, as you're the editor who wants the information on movable wooden type in the article.
Or do you? Make a decision and stick with it. Think of the readers. As a Wikipedian you are not here to play with article text(s) to please yourself—as you have done and continue to do wantonly—the texts you edit are for the benefit of readers, a benefit you have compromised more than any other Wikipedian I've met—by a very long margin.
If you do not commit the reference to the passage, the passage must be removed.
Oh please, you'll have to try harder than that to put the onus on me, (I'm not intimidated but amused by such a weak, cheap shot) considering I provided the bulk of the article text and structure in the first place, complete with refs and pics. This isn't about me. It's about your recent edits and responsibility to reference them, and your obligation to cease disrupting the wiki.
Thanks for providing the ref for the unsuitability of ceramic types.
Best regards,
Arbo
talk
20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Gun Powder your edit summary "Reverted unauthorized manipulation of past talk by user Arboghast" here: [7]. What does an "unauthorized" edit mean?
I am allowed to edit my own uncivil comments and poor etiquette, which I did here [8], and you reverted using what reads as ad absurdum argument. Wikipedians are also encouraged to refactor the uncivil behaviour of others (yours and mine, and anyone else's on this page), and in extreme cases to remove it. Please read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.
This is a wiki, with complete openness and freedom to edit—within reason, in good faith. It is widely-established practice that Wikipedians are allowed to refactor their own comments on talk pages and remove uncivil behaviour and personal attacks by others, as a way of taking back things said in the heat of a moment of dispute. All top admins and Wikipedians refactor, including Mongo and Jimbo Wales. Please make an effort to be civil. Forgive and forget past disputes, and cease repeatedly inciting incivility on this project as you have done. Thanks!
Have a great day!
Arbo
talk
08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The way to apologize for uncivil behavior on an article talk page is to use strikethrough, not delete.
It is perfectly in order for one editor to ask another for help in adding sources. We are not debating the issue itself--that would be OR & if we want to do that I can find a wiki where we can all enjoy ourselves without disrupting WP. I am continuing to assume that we want to add all the relevant verifiable fact we can find, and all the relevant opinion from reputable sources, and we should be helping each other do this. If we disagree with our authorities, we help each other to find other authorities on the opposite view. Let's get back to this.
All. Just a note each time: for similar discoveries/work in EA, see or for possible connections, see: and then in EA every last single view we can find and summarize goes in. If the facts are contradictory, we let them all stand. It is not we who have the responsibility of preparing s synthesis--just of preparing a report. I don't want to edit so as to disrupt a consensus, but if there is no consensus...
Arbo, please spell out what this consists of. Thank you Johnbod 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion about possible inaccuracy of captioning of the s/i ligature picture at Image talk:Fi garamond sort 001.png
Notthe9 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The material in the entire punchcutting section has no sources give. Further, the first two paragraphs of the woodblock section have no sources. It is possible they became lost due to earlier rapid changes back and forth. Can anyone help? DGG 05:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand, ALL the interwiki links here are wrong because they all link to foreign versions of Typography article. This can be mechanically checked by the way. I'll remove Russian link, as this is the only text I can fully understand and I am sure that it's "off topic". Alex Kapranoff 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
On the picture next to the Movable Type heading, there are words that say,
"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogs and feels if he were in the seventh heaven of typography together with Hermann Zapf, the most famous artist to the..."
Pretty Neat
I just added Wang Zhen's (or Wang Chen) link to wooden movable type in China. His info can be found in his article. So there will be no more dispute. Period.-- PericlesofAthens 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the point of duplication of quotes here with HTEA. In fact, I do not see the point of having the same sections here as in HTEA-- but if keeping it here will keep the peace, OK with me. DGG 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Aren't all other languages articles linking to typography? -- Absinthe88 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the article on woodblock printing. this is the article on movable type. It includes material on wood or ceramic or metal, wester or asian. But not about thins that are not the use of movable type. do not insert irrelevant material. We've discussd it before. Woodblock printing is a subject of the greatest relevance., But it has its own article. DGG ( talk) 09:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I am currently proofreading "Paul and the printing press" by Sara Ware Bassett for Distributed Proofreaders.
It includes the following intriguing paragraphs:
"I read to-day," he announced to his father one evening, "that the printing press was invented by Lawrence Coster (or Lorenz Koster) of Haarlem. The book said that he went on a picnic with his family, and while idly carving his name on the trunk of a beech tree he conceived the idea that he might in the same way make individual letters of the alphabet on wooden blocks, ink them over, and thus print words."
Mr. Cameron listened attentively.
"Such is the old legend," he replied. "It is an interesting one and many persons believe it to this day. History, however, fails to bear out the tale. Instead, as nearly as we can find out, what Coster is really conceded to have done was not to invent printing but to be the first to make movable type, which was one of the greatest factors in the perfecting of the industry. Holland has done honor, and rightly, to the inventor by placing a statue of him at Haarlem; but the real inventor of printing was probably John Gutenburg, a native of Strasburg, who made a printing press which, although not so elaborate as that in present use, was nevertheless a properly constructed one. Simple as it was the principle of it is identical with that used to-day."
"That is curious, isn't it?" observed Paul.
"Yes. Think how long ago it was; from1440 to 1460 he toiled at his invention....
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimon Avaro ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What is up with the total western bias in this article? I have not been back here for a few months and I can not believe that although the Chinese invented movable type 400 years before Gutenberg, it is not even mentioned once until about the 11th paragraph. I thought when I had left editing about this info, it was in good hands, people that were rational, smart and playing fair.
Please be honest with yourselves. Can you honestly tell me that if some white guy had invented something, even if it was less effective, 400 years before the Chinese "invent" it, that white guy's name would not be mentioned first in an article like this? and not buried way down in the 11th paragraph?
Even the article on the Printing Press is less bias than this article and it seems pretty clear that while the Chinese invented movable type 400 years before Gutenburg, they did not invent the printing press. This makes NO sense!
By the time Gutenburg "invented" movable type, the Chinese and Koreans had printed hundreds and hundreds of items using movable type. While I completely agree that Gutenburg's printing press surpassed these earlier inventions, the Chinese and Korean use was not some limited one off invention. Please read the good article on Wang Zhen. It talks about wooden and bronze movable type being commonly used in China into the 19th c. (clearly not related to Gutenburg's "invention"). It was used by local academies, local government offices, by wealthy local patrons of printing, and the large Chinese commercial printers located in the cities of Nanjing, Suzhou, Changzhou, Hangzhou, Wenzhou, and Fuzhou. It was used for novels, art, science and technology, family registers, and local gazettes. The article on Wang Zhen even mentions wooden movable type receiving officially sponsored by the imperial court at Beijing, and being widespread amongst private printing companies.
White Krane (
talk)
18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that neither Chinese nor Western wooden type (movable) were direct, connected precursors to Gutenberg's invention, they are nonetheless part of the story of movable type, part of the history of developments that led eventually to the advent of movable type in Europe. That they are not directly connected to Gutenberg, that's the way history unfolds in some instances. The ancient peoples who invented the letterpunch in all likelihood did not forsee its later use as the key unit in a movable type system. Many separate inventions constitute the prehistory of movable type, and it should not be surprizing they were an unconnected series of events. In other words, So what if they were independent traditions? This isn't a narrative about connected traditions. It's a history, preferably with a neutral view of its subject.
Your personal bias in favour of Gutenberg and bias against Eastern movable type inventions is blatant and plain for all to see — Arbo talk 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Arboghast, this article is very far from NPOV. This is now an article that very clearly advocates for an Asian-centric view of the history of type, even though the use of movable type in Asia was far less common than other forms of printing for centuries after movable type became the primary form of printing in Europe (because the size of typesets for Asian languages is so much greater). A balanced article would have an introduction mentioning both Asian and European inventions, and a body that would begin with the Asian innovations, then explain why movable type did not catch on as quickly in China and Korea, and then finish with a discussion of the development of movable type in Europe and why it did catch on quickly - a discussion that is as long at least as the discussion of Asia. The reality is that movable type had far greater influence on European history than it did on Asian history, while the "balance" of your article suggests otherwise. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.112.139.140 (
talk)
11:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that as the article now stands it is as far from NPOV as the moon. Movable type was in fact scarcely used in the Far East, were there more than 1.000 titles ever printed from movable type? I hardly count more than a few dozen before Gutenberg. By comparison, there are 30.000 extant titles from 15th century Europe alone and this was really only the beginning. Estimations of the European output reach from 10-20 million volumes (=copies) in the 15th century to 150-200 million in the 16th century. Out of European movable type printing modern phenomenon like the newspaper and public opinion evolved in Europe. By contrast, there was no typographic media revolution, no printing revolution in the East and when the printing press was finally introduced in the 19th century, movable type printing was viewed as a completely new invention by the Chinese so little had it actually been used. If the article aspires to only approach NPOV, its contents need to be balanced to reflect the diverging paths of movable type technology in West and East. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In 2008 while attending WMSTR in Rollag, MN, and touring their printing press historical building with operating linotypes and a whole lineup of early hand presses, the person discussing the history of the equipment was telling me that J and U appear at the end of the alphabet in the job case, because those letters either didn't exist or weren't commonly used when Johannes Gutenberg first invented his movable type system.
And what with legacy system designs often living far beyond their original usefulness, nobody ever had the willingness to reorder Gutenberg's original typeface positions in the job case since that would mess up the system that typesetters have been memorizing for some 400+ years hence.
The reason the letters appear at the end of the alphabet is because the slots around the perimeter of the job case were apparently reserved for "miscellaneous" type symbols that were useful to the typesetter, and over time the new letters took over these misc slots.
This explanation makes much more sense than the current text which suggests they are there to prevent confusion of shape with I and V, since they are clearly different and not mirror images and inversions like the lowercase d b q.
I have been wanting to add this to this page for a long time but I am not a historian of typesetting so I don't have any reliable sources other than what this person told me. However, doing research within Wikipedia does seem to bear this out:
Searching Google for possible sources isn't turning up anything relevant to typesetting job cases at all. DMahalko ( talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
From the intro: 'The earliest known movable type system for printing invented in Korea during the Goryeo Dynasty (around 1230).' Later in the article: 'The first known movable type system for printing was created in China around 1040 AD by Bi Sheng (990–1051).'
Clearly, someone has missed something (or added something that shouldn't have been there). Since 1040 is a smaller number than 1230, I'm inclined to think that the first sentence must be wrong... Can someone please change it? dawhipsta ( talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I see what the problem is now... never mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This word appears in the second paragraph. It doesn't exist. I expect the author meant 'extant'.
81.111.91.183 ( talk) 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If this article mentions precursors as far removed as the Phaistos Disc, shouldn't it also mention medieval European precursors as evidenced by the Prüfening dedicatory inscription? See also Typography#History, which, even as a summary, is more complete. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The Wiki article shows that 1377 is the date of the Jikjisim Sutra, published by the Heungdeoksa Temple in Cheongju, under the long title of Baegunhwasang Chorok-buljo Jikjisimche Yojeol. However, on p. 56 of Science and Technology in Korean History: Excursions, Innovations, and Issues by Park Seong-rae, the first mention of Korea's movable metal type printing is found by Yi Gyubo (1168-1241) to the effect that fifty volumes of Detailed Rituals of the Old and New were published in 1234 with metal types for distribution among government offices. Does this not lead us to suspect that 1234 predates 1377 as the first text via movable type? Snowfalcon cu ( talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"or in the case of Korea, metal tablets, required for scripts based on the Chinese writing system, which have thousands of characters."
That's wrong. Korean script is called hangeul. It was invented in 1443 by King Sejong. /info/en/?search=Hangul. While some of the characters certainly used Chinese characters, by the time of Gutenberg (1398 – February 3, 1468), hangeul was possible and is quite easy to typeset... though it may have come after Gutenberg in Europe, should be mentioned.-- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Movable type. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The article contains a mixture of British (Canadian/Australian/NZ) spelling, 'mould', and American spelling, 'movable'. This needs to be regulated in favour of British throughout as this is essentially a European topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.38 ( talk) 14:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Movable type. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
http://www.idea-soft.ir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh36999 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
??
Some updates to the article. Since it there is no direct evidence that Gutenberg was influenced or aware of Asian printing methods, wording was changed to reflect that it was merely a possibility and not an actuality that the article previously had stated in the opening paragraphs. Also, the Chinese printing method did not use a press, so the word "press" was deleted to reflect this when mention printing technology of using porcelain type.
Information was also added to show some of the advantages that Gutenberg's choice of alloy, and his used of permanent metal molds over one time sand cast molds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sand molds are by their nature expendable, single use molds, and need to be recreated. The mention of sand molds in the table for Korean shows them to be temporary molds, and the discussion in the referenced article shows that the molds used by Koreans for casting type were temporary, one time use. While the article originally stressed the similarities, the differences must also be pointed out as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You did not ask a question before deleting changes. If you need a reference, then please just state "need citation", before deleting change, which is common courtesy. It is implicit in the use of metal molds that they are permanent, and it is implicit in the use of sand casting that they are temporary time use. You don't really need to explain the process, any one who is ignorant of sand casting and lost wax casting methods should look them up. However, I have added references as requested.
Also, the source quoted by Qiushufang (which was my source,I might point out, that was appropriated) stated Western printing used brass punches and lead matrix. Since the typical Western process was to use steel punches to make molds in copper or brass matrices, and the quote did not refer specifically to Gutenberg, but Western printing in general, I deleted the part of the quote mentioning the use of brass punches and lead matrices, and added a couple references to Western practices of using steel punches and lead matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 00:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is not that there was no citation, but that the citation is wrong. You failed to provide the quote requested and willfully ignored what I mentioned to be false interpretation of the source text. Furthermore your addition now adds non-academic sources without any context for the subject as well as a several decades old outdated text. Please stop trying to justify your changes through google and other sites. Stringing together unrelated sources does not actually make the source any better. Qiushufang ( talk) 02:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, again what you say is not true. I gave sources that showed a butt is half a ton. Here is another one https://gizmodo.com/butt-is-an-actual-unit-of-measurement-1622427091, and another https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Butt_(unit).html, and another https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Butt_(unit).html, and another http://www.kylesconverter.com/volume/butts-to-tuns, I did not give a reference originally, anymore than the definition of a ton is given in an article, or a kiligram or a pound. The definition of a butt is not in doubt, and anyone can look it up if they don't know what it is. My explanation was for the convenience of the reader. If you don't know what a butt is, just ask me to put a reference before deleting something, but I really shouldn't have to, anymore than one would need to put a reference explaining what a ton is.
In this article, you have objected to the following:
1. Deletion of the word "press" in associated with Chinese printing. It is not a matter of debate that the Chinese did not use a press or other mechanical device in their printing, no scholar disputes that fact.
Every source describes native East Asian printing as hand rubbing or press the paper, none describe using any mechanical device, and I have provided sources that specifically state that fact. [1]. In "Science and Civilization in China" Volume 5-2 page it says "But otherwise printing developed in different directions using different procedures. In the West, the printing press underwent a gradual mechanisation and sophistication, eventually growing into a powerful publishing industry with mass production and distribution; in China, on the other hand, printing was continuously carned on as a handicraft, without significant changes in technology until modern times".
2. You also objected to the claim that the Korea casting method used expendable molds. Again, this not a matter of debate of by anyone but you. The use of the term "sand casting" and mention of "sand molds" automatically implies the use of temporary molds, and the descriptions of the Korean type casting process makes it clear without having to spelled out. If you can show me a mold made of sand that is permanent, then show it. And the use of metal molds implies they are reusable. A person can always look up "sand casting", and verify the process, just as they can look up "casting" itself if they don't know what the word means. But I did provide references to address each of your objections, and that wasn't enough for you, you get coming up with new complaints.
The only who is grinding an axe is you, you object to anything that does not have a strong pro Chinese slant, as witness your bringing up issues from completely unrelated articles here, and not discussing the objections on this article. You make new objections that have no validity. There is no cutoff date for references, and a reference from the 19th century is likely a better reference when discussing letterpress printing and hand typesetting than a modern writer, since they would have first hand experience the modern writer would lack. You have repeated made claims that were false, like I was using original research (I was not), or that wikipedia does not allow the use of non academic sources (it does, which you admitted only after I pointed it out.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.111.162.10 (
talk)
21:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
1. Why did you use the source 'The Book Worlds of East Asia and Europe 1450 -1850: Connections and Comparisons, saying that "*Although the Chinese were the first to use movable type, Gutenberg was the first to use a press in printing", when the source did not claim such a thing? Is this not original research and misrepresentation of the source?
2. Why did you misrepresent Korean Typography in 15th Century by saying that Korean molds were "expendable" or that Gutenberg's molds were "permanent" when the source did not claim such a thing? Neither of these words or their equivalent exist in the entire text. Do you deny that this is original research?
3. When I provided a direct quote from the book Korean Typography in 15th Century disproving your claim that the source did not in fact contain the material you contributed, why did you revert my edit? Also as you said, everything you have contributed can be inferred from the source material, so why did you go out of your way to alter the source? Shouldn't the reader simply be able to see that the sand molds are expendable whereas other molds are not just by reading the quote? I would still like to see the part in this source that supports your original claims.
4. When I provided the direct quote, why did you alter it, cutting off the beginning, which directly contradicts another source you used: From Gutenberg to the Internet: A Sourcebook on the History of Information Technology, and keep everything else? Do you only keep parts of the quote you agree with and not the ones that you don't?
5. Is the only source you can come up with to support your contributions really going to be a 140 year old text?
6. Why do you use wikipedia or wikipedia relinks such as ipfs.io when you know that this is not what you are supposed to do on wikipedia? Qiushufang ( talk) 04:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source
Please at least familiarize yourself with the general guidelines of wikipedia. Even someone who has never done any editing here could have guessed using the same encyclopedia source as reference is bad practice.
198.111.162.10 also seems to think anything that he thinks is "implied" can be added regardless of what the actual source says. Only after challenged by reversions does he actually respond, usually with inferior sources. He also seems to think a 140 year old text is appropriate to comment on Chinese printing techniques, but somehow a Korean author is unfamiliar with European printing techniques, choosing and picking whichever part of the text fits his agenda. Qiushufang ( talk) 22:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"
The current statement in the 3rd paragraph on the diffusion of movable type refers to the records in several European archives, giving the highly misleading impression that these medieval accounts mention movable type printing, and suggest it. but the European accounts before the 16th century don't . Add the statement to clarify the fact that these European accounts do not, in fact, refer to movable type or imply. Previous statement to that fact was deleted, on the grounds it should relocated to later in the article yet the suggestion and misleading impression there was fact supporting the speculation was not deleted or moved. To provide balanee, it needs to be made clear there is no actual supporting fact, no pre-Gutenberg European document discusses printing, let alone movable type printing, and any claim of diffusion is currently speculation. If we wish to move all such speculation to another section, then both sides, not just one needs to be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 21:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I never delete the source of Joseph P. McDermott. I never delete any source of this article. I just move this source to the debate part of this article in may previous edition. I keep the citation from Joseph P. McDermott word-for-word what Joseph P. McDermott says. See the part about debate, my edition here is " Joseph P.McDermott claimed that "No text indicates the presence or knowledge of any kind of Asian movable type or movable type imprint in Europe before 1450. The material evidence is even more conclusive." " Beside that, I also added the source of famous historians Frances and Joseph Gies. I cited the source from the opposite side for diffusion (Joseph P.McDermott) and support side for diffusion theory ( Frances and Joseph Gies, von Polenz) I cited both sides' claim to make this part more neutral. All of my edition is a word-for-word citation from these sources. I did not do any original research. The lead part used the word "may have been" which means it still has controversy for this problem. The word "may" in leading is a kind of neutral claim which is based on both sides' source. Hence, what I did before is neutral and no original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.42.110.233 ( talk) 02:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
A statement like "extremely similar" with regard to Korean and Gutenberg printing suggest greater similarities than there are. As balance, listed some of the differences between the Korea and European printing, and reference, and let the reader decide if the 2 are "extremely similar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 21:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Reference is needed to support the claim that carving a page of text was faster than composing it by hand. Cited reference does not have that statement. Evidence from Western printing indicates that setting a page of type was much faster than carving a wooden page of text. An European typesetting could set an average of 700 ems an hour, and a typical hardcover book page had a 1000 ems ( https://medium.com/s/letter-rip/hot-metal-transforms-the-speed-of-information-bc54f9bf4e38), while a Chinese worker could only typically carve 100 to 150 characters a day (see page 195 http://library.princeton.edu/eastasian/EALJ/ejPDF.php?aKey=dennis_joseph.ealj.v14.n01.p158.pdf). Even if Chinese typesetting was only 1/20 as fast as European, it would still be faster than carving a block of text. So some reference is needed to demonstrated that Chinese typesetting was less than 1/20 as fast as European.
Also, cited reference does not support the claim that type setting was relatively quicker, only that it was "quick". There is no evidence that that movable type printing was faster than wood block printing, and the source cited, Science and Civilization, Volume 5-1 pages 220-221, said it was only with larger production runs that movable type printing became financially viable, not that it was necessarily faster than wood block printing, or even relatively faster. The source cited did say movable type printing for large runs would be quick, but didn't say it would be quicker than wood block, which is an inference not stated in the actual source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.10 ( talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC) @ User:Lawrencekhoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.42.110.8 ( talk) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)