Talk:Printing press

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed:

The article's "Circulation of information and ideas" section currently has only one brief sentence about criticism: "On the other hand, the printing press was criticized for allowing the dissemination of information that may have been incorrect."

This should be expanded with the following content added after that sentence:

Several critics of the printing press around that time period raised concerns about possible societal effects. For instance, the Dominican friar Filippo de Strata around 1473-1474 characterized the printing press as a "whore" (meretrix) compared to the "virgin" pen. He said that most printers focused more on profits than accuracy and classical scholarship.^[1] Additionally, the Benedictine abbot Johannes Trithemius in his 1492 treatise De laude scriptorum manualium argued that printing would make monks intellectually lazy, that books on paper were less durable than parchment manuscripts, and that hand-copying sacred text was a spiritual activity that could not be replicated through technological imitation.^[2]

Additionally, the Florentine humanist Niccolò Perotti in 1470 argued that many books in circulation were very inaccurate, and should have never been printed. In 1481, Gerolamo Squarzafico also claimed that many printers were mostly illiterate, where Giorgio Merula also was concerned that printing could have negative effects on classical scholarship. Some critics were also concerned that religious heterodoxy could spread, as biblical texts could be accessed by anyone without proper training.^[1]

• Why it should be changed:

The article should present a balanced view of its subject according to WP:NPOV. The article extensively covers the benefits of the printing press, but only has one sentence that covers criticism. The printing press was controversial when introduced, and notable figures such as humanist scholars, monks, and clergy had concerns about its effects on accuracy and scholarship. These criticisms, overall, represent a significant historical perspective that deserves fuller treatment for neutrality.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

1. Lee, Alexander (August 1, 2022). "The war against printing". Engelsberg Ideas. Retrieved January 14, 2026.
2. Trithemius, Johannes; Behrendt, Roland (1974). In praise of scribes: De laude scriptorum. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press. ISBN 0872910660.

~2026-13532-4 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Not only is one of your citations incorrectly formatted for it not to appear as a citation, but the unnecessary bolding with bullet points and the hallucination (a Dominican friar before either of the Dominican countries were established/discovered c. 16th century) makes me think you used an LLM to generate this. Again as this seems to be the second time you've done this (the information may be okay) but please review this without using an LLM before I can accept this request. In the meantime, I'll use the template that was used above, because the information contains a hallucination that should be removed. Otherwise, please use your own rationale which you should write by yourself so that I have a real justification to accept this rather than decline. Theeverywhereperson talk here 13:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Theeverywhereperson: I decided to check for myself... Filippo de Strata was a Dominican friar (which has nothing to do with the country) 😆. See https://www.google.com/search?q=was+filippo+de+strata+a+%22dominican+friar%22

Anyway, I will look at the other issues you brought up. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this? "Not only is one of your citations incorrectly formatted for it not to appear as a citation". I will re-open this request since it seems that there are no real problems. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't give an ISBN for a book citation, so it will not load correctly, even though there is a {{cite book}} template. Theeverywhereperson talk here 17:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That was very simple to add. Also, I won't edit the top part of this discussion, as you requested. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Theeverywhereperson talk here 06:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thanks for the edit, but there are still some significant issues.

Number 1 For the sentence:

Some critics were also concerned that religious heterodoxy could spread, as biblical texts could be accessed by anyone without proper training.

<ref name="Lee2022"/> was forgotten at the end of the sentence.

Number 2 Also, there should be a space between these two sentences, or maybe even a linebreak. It's up to you to decide what is best.

"On the other hand, the printing press was criticized for allowing the dissemination of information that may have been incorrect.[65][66]Several critics of the printing press around that time period..."

Number 3 Finally, two sentences in a row start with additionally, which I noticed just now. This seems too repetitive. I think the second sentence should start with furthermore

"Additionally, the Benedictine abbot Johannes Trithemius in his 1492 treatise De laude scriptorum manualium argued that printing would make monks intellectually lazy, that books on paper were less durable than parchment manuscripts, and that hand-copying sacred text was a spiritual activity that could not be replicated through technological imitation.[68]

Additionally, the Florentine humanist Niccolò Perotti in 1470 argued that many books in circulation were very inaccurate, and should have never been printed."

Anyway, thanks again for the original edit, here are the more minor fixes though. ~2025-40641-16 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done GearsDatapack (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The 5th bibliography link, Elizabeth Einstein's the printing press as an agent of change, leads to the archive page for removed content and is therefore no longer accessible. Attempts from multiple IPs and devices make no difference Insomni-know (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The archive.org link for Eisenstein (1980) has been updated; the previous identifier was removed from the Internet Archive. Metalicat (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been tidying this article with a view to GA nomination. Citation consistency, lead trim, and some copy-editing are done. Three structural questions before going further:

1. "Function and approach" placement. This section (how a press physically works) sits between precursor technologies and Gutenberg's specific innovations, breaking the historical sequence. Would it read better after "Gutenberg's press", or folded into it as a subsection?

2. European vs global spread. "Mass production and spread of printed books" covers both the rapid fifteenth-century spread within Europe and the later colonial/missionary spread (Goa, Nagasaki, Ottoman Empire). These are different processes on different timelines. Worth splitting into two subsections? The global material could also be trimmed with a {{main}} link to Global spread of the printing press.

3. Post-industrial scope. Coverage stops at Hoe's 1843 rotary press. The title is simply "Printing press", so readers may expect at least a brief summary of later developments (offset, phototypesetting, digital). A short paragraph with {{main}} links to the relevant articles would fill the gap without bloating the article.

Views welcome. Metalicat (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)