Talk:Johannes Gutenberg/Archive 1

Untitled
This page archives discussions upto the end of Oct 2006. mukerjee (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Articles
Does anyone else know that there are two articles about Johann Gutenberg? Wouldn't it be helpful if they were compiled? --Allecta

Early comments
removed from main article

"the "punch matrix" method of making type from metal molds, but recent analysis of older printed texts suggest that this method was discovered by someone else."

Can someone attribute this statement? Who claims that Gutenburg didn't invent moveable type in the West? What older printed texts? Anyone know about the state of printing pre-Gutenburg? Were there block printed books in the West or block printing presses? --rmhermen

There was a television programme in the UK, produced by the Open University with the BBC, which showed that the letters in the Gutenberg Bible were, on any given page, not cast from the same matrix. The letters were used again on different pages. The suggestion was that each Gutenberg letter was cast in a mould which was destroyed in the casting process and that the reusable mould was a later invention.

There is a web page.

http://www.open2.net/renaissance2/doing/gutenberg.html


 * Songwriter

--- So who's the joker who's added long sidelocks and mustache to this engraving? Wetman 23:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the origin of February 23 1455 please. Steinberg in "Five Hundred Years of Printing" gives a date in 1456 as the earliest known date from a note made about the binding of a copy. Yet that was written in the 1950s or early 1960s. Is there later evidence?


 * Songwriter

I heard that one copy of "Jikji", printed in 1377, Korea, with metal type, is at the National Library of France. There are evidences indicating that metal type was even used in 13th century in Korea.


 * Korea is not in the "west". Moveable type was known prior to Gutenberg in the east, this is a known fact. JeLuF

About my edit
I have removed the following about Chinese and Korean printing:


 * , but they did not extensively employ them. (For the Chinese writing system, moveable type would be markedly less efficient than for European alphabets.)

I have removed this because I consider it (a) inaccurate, and (b) a POV statement. This statement implies that the use of logographic scripts is less efficient than the use of alphabets. Although it is true that there are thousands of Chinese characters, it is only a significantly smaller number that is used most. You probably know this... Also, if the statement was simply true, there'd be no need for a justification added in brackets (this is where you defend your POV). I think what I don't like about this snipped is the choice of extensively. The range of printed products, for example, was more extensive than in European until much later.

Also, maybe you'd enjoy reading the contribution about Gutenberg's using different letters above on this page... Now how's that for efficiency?

I'm sorry, but Gutenberg probably doesn't deserve the big name he has... We can choose to claim to our old assertions, based on a view that Europe is the culmination of civilization, or alternatively, we can choose a more enlightened – arguably more complex – view of the world. Greetings! Koko1133 19:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ... I still think the argument here is a little shaky. Everything I've read suggests that although printing was in use in East Asia before Europe, European printing methods worked better. Maybe there are different reasons for this; but I always thought alphabets were a factor. Even if the Chinese system was less complex than at first sight, it still must require several hundred characters at least, based on my knowledge of kanji. Roman alphabet has about 26 characters, and I'll say maybe up to 50 or more (100?) granted for accented characters and the different letters used. So it still seems like the European system works better than the Chinese. (No clue about the Korean alphabet, but I read somewhere they used the Chinese characters in printing...)


 * Of course, I could be wrong, but do you have any sources in mind for your claims? I dislike Eurocentrism as much as the next guy, but this seems fishy... Brutannica 01:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made a few changes to help separate Gutenberg's invention from similar inventions in Asia. Other than the entire problem of tracking ideas in the absents of written or archeological evidence, the Gutenberg press is substantially different from any similar invention in Asia, in terms of typography, method, construction, etc. The Silk-Road link seems to be the only cited source for this connection and that website makes a few rather dubious claims. If possible, please cite an academic source directly (rather than cite a website that cites sources). Even if we assume Gutenberg stole the idea from the East, the implementation of the printing press in Europe is vastly different than the implementation in Asia, meriting its own discussion. 132.241.90.103 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Johann or Johannes
I was just wondering, I see Johann everywhere, except here it is written Johannes, is that as correct?
 * His given name was Johannes, which was then shortened to Johann. Johannes is the Biblical form and Johann the German form. It's the same as Bill Clinton being born a William. This isn't worth mentioning in the article, though, as Johannes can be shortened in various ways (Hans, Hannes etc) and it didn't only happen in this case. Saintswithin 20:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-I've always heard and seen it as Johannes. Also, wouldn't one use his given name in an encyclopedia article? Just wondering. -Jen, a newbie

Johannes!
Johan is a german name, but he was Johannes Gutenberg! -a german visitor :)-

I totally agree. I've never heard anybody calling him Johann, it's always Johannes. The university in Mainz, which is named after him is also called Johannes Gutenberg Universität. Johann is simply wrong.

"had moved from his native Germany to France"
As far as I know Gutenberg made his invention while he was living in Strasbourg. If that is correct then he probably never moved from Germany (whatever that would be in 1430) to France, but just some 100 miles south along the river Rhine from one city of the Holy Roman Empire to another one. 129.101.86.246 07:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"It is very clear that Gutenberg knew of these techniques or invented them independently." - So it is "very clear" that he either knew of the Chinese techniques or did not know of the Chinese techniques? What is this trying to say? -Branddobbe 01:11, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gutenberg the only inventor
What bothers me about the article: With the invention of printing more than one person seems to have been concerned. Why should it be Gutenberg himself, not one of his fellows, who invented printing? Perhaps they propelled him because history needs great men and heroes? Caesarion 2 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)


 * The title of this article, and its subject, is Johann Gutenberg. Other individuals "invented" printing too. For information about just who invented printing with moveable type, read Printing Press. "Why should it be Gutenberg himself, not one of his fellows...?" because this article is about Gutenburg.
 * Arbo 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is plagiarized
Although it's been edited somewhat, big chunks of this entry have been plagiarized from elsewhere. (For evidence, put in the phrase "Reproduction of Gutenberg-era Press on display at the Printing History Museum in Lyon, France" into Google and look at the 41 (!) entries that use the same words.) For god's sake, at least put in the illustration that phrase refers to!

I don't have time right now, but the entire entry needs to be truly researched and rewritten.


 * All are mirrors of this article. Rich Farmbrough 13:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Lingua
Don't know if it's worth mentioning (& can't source if it is...), but his Bible was written in Latin, N (as might expect) German. Trekphiler 08:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Indulgences
Removed this sentence:

"His initial efforts enabled him to mass-produce indulgences -- printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church to remit temporal punishments in purgatory for sins committed in this life, for those wealthy enough to afford indulgences. This, in part, led to Martin Luther's critical response to indulgences."

because:


 * I can find no authoritative source for this tale. If there is one, it should be cited.
 * More curiously, I can also find no authoritative reference to or pictures of these printed indulgence certificates.
 * Luther was set off partly by circumstances involving Johannes Tetzel in 1517. By that time, Gutenberg had been dead for nearly 50 years.
 * Indulgences are not slips of paper, they were never sold by the Catholic Church (although I have seen reports that fradulent "indulgences" were sold by grifters), and the definition of indulgence is not quite right anyway.

If a source or example is found, this can be replaced (with corrections please).

-- Mpa 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Word spacing?
I don't under the use of "word spacing" in the article:

"The Gutenberg Bible lacks many print features that modern readers are accustomed to, such as pagination, word spacing, indentations, and paragraph breaks."

However, both the text shown and the ones at the link above it show space between words. Is there some other meaning to the expression "word spacing"? Or, is this a reference to the way the Bible and other texts were hand written?

Monty 00:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sequitar?
I'm not sure that the reference below to Chinese characters necessarily follows:

"The Koreans and Chinese knew about movable metal types at the time, but because of the complexity of the Chinese writing system, movable type printing wasn’t as widely used as in Renaissance Europe."

First, it's not clear that there was less use of printing in China or in Korea at the time that moveable type became widespread in Europe, ie after 1460 CE. It's also important to remember that "China and Korea" together were much larger than all of Europe of the same period.

Second, even if it is so, "the complexity of the writing system" may not have been a "cause" of less use. Other factors would include demand, paper, and government regulation, to name just three.

The sentence above might be better re-written as follows:

"Although movable metal type was widely used in China and Korea before Gutenberg developed his printing press, it was his press, or versions thereof created in Europe, that caught on and became the model for later mass produced printing."

Monty 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There probably wasn't 'less use of printing' in China or Korea at the time; the start of the paragraph distinguishes between block printing and movable type as methods for printing Chinese, and is simply stating that block printing was better at the time for representing Chinese characters. It's not saying that printing in general was a scarce method in China, just movable type. It's probably wrong to say metal type was 'widely used' unless you have a source. I'm not in doubt that it was used, though. Also, you probably shouldn't oppose Chinese metal type tech with European in the same sentence in reference to what caught on, as it suggests they were somehow competing, which is impossible as they were invented and continued to develop in isolation from each other. - Moogsi 19:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

iron press?
i started out by correcting the romanization for 채윤의, then couldn't find any google results for that name, then found references to Chae Yun, a chinese, & i got really confused & returned to the existing version (with romanization corrected), even though it looks obviously wrong.

from quick googling, i gather the following: wood-block printing was used in Korea and China during Three Kingdoms of Korea and Tang Dynasty respectively. the oldest extant printed material is Korea's 무구정광대다라니경(無垢淨光大陀羅尼經), printed sometime before 751. china's diamond sutra of 868 is the oldest extant self-dated printed book. in 1234, Korea's Goryeo dynasty records say a bronze printing press was used to print 고금상정예문(古今詳定禮文). Jikji is the oldest extant metal-type printed book.

the previous version may have been a confused reference to Chae Yun (not sure of chinese romanization) (蔡倫), a chinese, invented the paper in 105.

so somebody, please update with reliable references. thanks. Appleby 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Korean
The Korean information does not match with the rest of the article. The top of the article states 1447. The Chae Yun-eui information states 1450. I deleted the 1450 date for intneral consistency reasons.

Also what is this stuff about Chinese wine making equipment? Are we talking crushed grapes? Chinese wine? really? Naerhu 08:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gutenberg
Was Gutenberg Jewish? Gutenberg sounds like a Jewish-German surname. 71.76.135.102 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. This page says yes: .  This book Understanding Jewish History suggests not, saying after introducing "German printer Johann Gutenberg": "Jews, too, enthusiastically took up the craft of printing":  I can not find any book that says he was Jewish, but many say that not a lot is known about him. Anybody know more? Dicklyon 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He was born to a Jewish family, although I am not certain that he was a practicing Jew. No that that matters, see Judaism. I will look to see if I find a reliable source for the fact that he was indeed born to a Jewish family. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the one I cited already. Dicklyon 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gutenberg is not known to have been Jewish. A single website that makes an unqualified assertion is not reliable evidence to the contrary. This claim appears to be unfounded revisionism. --Jugbo 02:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The family's name was Gensfleisch, and they moved at some point to Hof zum Gutenberg. They were patricians (wealthy) and Johann's father worked for, or was associated with, the local Mainz mint.  One source I saw said the "ecclesiastical mint"; another says "archepiscopal mint"; these sound to me like Christian institutions, but I don't really know.  But I haven't found anything that says what their religion was.  The so-called "unfounded revisionism" may be been a simple guess or leap based on an assumption about the sound of the name; or there may be something behind it.  It's a valid question, no need to dismiss it without an answer. Dicklyon 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I could not find a source that describes Gutenberg's religion so far, although I would not give up too quickly. I have sent a request to the Gutenberg's museum to see of they know a verifiable source that does. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a "valid question" that's been answered with the fact that Gutenberg isn't known to have been Jewish. In the absence of convincing evidence, dismissal of the claim is an appropriate response until something conclusive is presented. Good luck with your sleuthing. --Jugbo 04:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody here has made any claim. Why are you venting here about a random web page that may have an error? Dicklyon 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This, Dicklyon, is a claim:
 * "He was born to a (wealthy) Jewish family"
 * -Just my observations. --Jugbo 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took that to be just a quote of the cited article (which it is), not Jossi's opinion. In an article, one would not want to do it that way, but in the talk page it was clear enough.  So if you have a problem with it, take it up with the page author, or do some research and tell us what you find. Dicklyon 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On review, I'd say that perhaps that was Jossi trying to clarify or qualify what I had reported from that page. I guess we need to be more explicit lest someone like you feel we are making claims about something. Perhaps he could have italicized born to if that's the contrast he intended to make.  Jossi, care to clarify? Dicklyon 03:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear enough that it was an explicit claim, Dicklyon. Jossi otherwise should have been able to explain that he was simply reporting the position of a third party. Such is the expectation of people like me who give others the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're able to communicate competently. I'm content with the common knowledge that Gutenberg was German (i.e. not Jewish), so you can do the research. It would be interesting if you were to sniff out some proof that he was an ethnic Jew, but I don't think you'll be able to. --Jugbo 03:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm content not knowing. By the way the original questioner's note that "Gutenberg sounds like a Jewish-German surname" seems silly in retrospect, since the name means "good mountain" and since it wasn't his family name anyway.  And as to Jossi's intent, I don't know, but I've worked with (and against) him enough to know that he tends to write things in the referenced document, and give the attribution, rather that explicitly state "this is what X says."  He can explain or not as he chooses. Dicklyon 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give me some slack in talk pages, OK? I would not dare to add a claim to an article without a source. But in talk pages we can discuss things without that kind of burden. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is old now. Have you people found anything that contradicts established knowledge that Gutenberg was ethnically German or haven't you? --Jugbo 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not looking to find "anything that contradicts established knowledge". As I said above, I have sent an inquiry to the Gutenberg museum. When and if I get a response, and if that response provides a reliable source for Gutenberg's religion (not ethnicity, but religion) the we can add that to the article. Otherwise, we do nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't think it would be so hard to find someone commenting on his religion, would you? The Mainz article mentions him, and has interesting sections on Christian and Jewish Mainz.  It seems the culture and politics was all tied up with religion and church, as so often happens, and that Johann was driven out of town in 1462 by a new Christian ruler; the Jews were driven out in the same year, and invited back and expelled again in 1474.  Gutenberg was back living there by 1465, so one might infer therefore that he was not a Jew.  But this is circumstantial at best.  I'm not sure what "established knowledge" Jugbo refers to, since I don't see anyone making statements about either ethnicity or religion of that family. The Holy Roman Empire that they were part of had many ethnicities; based on the name, one would presume that German was at least one of their main languages; maybe that's what he means by ethnically German. Dicklyon 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean ethnically German as in of the German people, having the earliest meaningful extent of one's ancestry in what's now Germany rather than Palestine or elsewhere. I use the term "established knowledge" because it's established fact that Gutenberg was German, as in from a German state, part of the German homeland. However, no part of his family is known to derive from any people other than the natives. Therefore, it's a given that he was ethnically German in the absence of any intelligent reason to believe otherwise, which is obviously the case here. If he had been Jewish, ethnically or religiously, then that knowledge wouldn't be squirrelled away somewhere and it wouldn't be necessary to drag the fact out of a scholarly institution. --Jugbo 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You really feel threatened by the possibility that a German could be Jewish, don't you? Actually, there were a lot of people from Mainz, of German ancestry, who were Jewish.  I don't think Gutenberg was, but why does it get you so upset to consider the possibility? What are these "natives" you refer to?  German aboriginals? I thought Europe had a long history of mixing and migration. Not so great a record on tolerance of ethnic and religious differences, though. Dicklyon 06:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "You really feel threatened by the possibility that a German could be Jewish, don't you?"
 * No. I'm offended by one of the most influential human beings in the history of the world being reattributed to another group of people that didn't produce him, as a person of Chinese descent would likely be offended by the reattribution of Confucius to Persia, for example, when there's no sound reason for it.


 * Despite a history of constant migration and mixing, the people of the world are still richly diverse, collected into distinct groups, each defined by a common identity based on a shared history, homeland, culture, and language, among other possible criteria such as religion. The term "natives" refers to those people whose affiliation partly based on belonging to a certain common homeland distinguishes them from other groups that are defined as belonging to other places. Ergo, Germans are natives of Germany, and Jews aren't. --Jugbo 00:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just note that your comments are bordering on anti-semitic. I would ask you to thread with caution in the way you express yoursedf in these pages. These pages are not provided so that you, or I, can discuss our views, rather, these are provided to discuss the article. Please stay on topic, unless you want your comments refactored from the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds merely confused to me. He somehow thinks that German implies not Jewish.  I'm pretty sure there are lots of ethnic Germans who are Jewish, so I'm not sure I get the point. Dicklyon 03:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Just note that your comments are bordering on anti-semitic."
 * No they aren't. If one is going to question the traditional and reasonable view of an historical person's cultural and social context, then they must validate their suspicion with something more than tenuous speculation. Gutenberg is a titan among historical icons, so engaging in such conjecture regarding him will be met with particular stringency. It's similar to the sentiment of many Germans and Poles who often squabble over Copernicus. That doesn't make either party "anti-" anything other than "anti-the-other-position".
 * "These pages are not provided so that you, or I, can discuss our views, rather, these are provided to discuss the article."
 * Which is what we've done here. Part of dicussing a subject, especially one regarding which little external material has been presented, that may be added to an article is sharing our views about it and related matters in order to substantiate our position on the issue of its validity and relevance.
 * "Please stay on topic, unless you want your comments refactored from the talk page."
 * I have stayed on topic, which is about whether or not Gutenberg was Jewish. I've explained why such a proposition is dubious.
 * "Sounds merely confused to me. He somehow thinks that German implies not Jewish."
 * Wrong again, Dicklyon. I've never said any such thing. You seem to be the one who believes such a notion:
 * "This book Understanding Jewish History suggests [that Gutenberg wasn't Jewish], saying after introducing 'German printer Johann Gutenberg': 'Jews, too, enthusiastically took up the craft of printing'."
 * It's obviously a distinction many people make, Ashkenazim (and Sephardim) from native Europeans. Any knowledgeable person knows that anyone can convert to Judaism. In that sense, a person may be of non-Jewish ethnicity, yet of Jewish religion, like Sammy Davis, Jr., Marilyn Monroe, or Elizabeth Taylor. Conversely, ethnic Jews can be secular, like Einstein or Freud. Jewish ethnicity and Jewish religion are separable, although they tend to go hand-in-hand. Throughout this discussion I've used the term "Jewish" in an ethnic sense rather than in a religious one, unless specified otherwise. If Gutenberg was an ethnic German, which is the simplest and most reasonable conclusion considering his place of origin and lack of evidence of connections to another place or people, then, provided he wasn't of mixed German and Jewish ancestry, of which there's no indication, he wasn't an ethnic Jew. He may have been Jewish by religion, as you suggest, but clearly there's no indication of this either. --Jugbo 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jugbo, that's all fine, subject to a few minor disagreements about who said or implied what. But please do keep in mind that nobody here has suggested that Gutenberg might have been Jewish; rather, that it's an interesting question, given that the only specific statement we find is that he was born to a Jewish family; we're not saying we believe that, only saying that it might be interesting to investigate what's behind it.  Furthermore, statements that he was from Mainz do not in themselves say German or non-Jewish.  Most books say he was from Mainz; some say he was German.  It would be nice to have a source for these statements, especially if that's what you think it takes to show he was not Jewish. Dicklyon 00:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Any sources that have any biographical material on Gutenberg say he was German, and most of those also say he was from Mainz. None say he was Jewish. Why are you excited about a claim on a single tendentious website? It doesn't merit any serious entertainment, so the subject isn't "interesting" because of it. The burden of evidence rests with those who question what's most likely. --Jugbo 20:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the only one who is excited is you. Dicklyon 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, then, go ahead and have it. --Jugbo 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

John Man's book has some partial answers. Gutenberg was the name of the house, which was originally known as Judenberg, the Jewish Hill. "In the 1282 pogrom, fifty-four Jewish properties were abandoned and were grabbed by the rich and powerful. It seems that the Gutenberg house fell to the archbishop's treasurers... It was later acquired by the great-great-grandfather of our inventor and stayed in the family." He goes on to speculate why the family of Gensfleisch (goose flesh) house kept that name instead of taking the Gutenberg name that would associate them with the Jewish history of the place, until much later. The implication of all this is that they were not Jewish, though Man never says so in so many words; he speculates that the figure in the family's coat of arms represents Saint Christopher. But he's clear on it being just speculation, and never really says in so many words that they were even Christian. On the other hand, he says that Johannes was trying to unify the church by publishing his Bible, and that wouldn't make much sense if he wasn't. Dicklyon 06:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden section
Jossi likes to quote Rosarivo's inference that Gutenberg used the golden ratio in his page layout, but doesn't like me to refer to that as a hypothesis. By saying that Rosarivo describes or discovered the use of the golden ratio, he implicity endorses the existence of the golden ratio in Gutenberg's works. This seems to me to be going too far, especially since it wasn't until 1509 that the Divine Proportion was published, popularizing this previously obscure number as something special; it is very unlikely that Gutenberg would have known of it. I have no trouble with crediting Rosarivo with this hypothesis, but I think we ought to call it that, not pretend that he proved the existence of the golden ratio in Gutenberg's works (the quoted dimensions that Jossi has published on other pages are not remotely consistent with it, by the way, being closer to 1.4:1). Jossi says that if I call it a hypothesis, that's a POV (presumably he means not NPOV), and that if I say why it's unlikely, that's original research and shouldn't be allowed to influence the article. Is that the way it should work here? Any opinions? Dicklyon 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rosarivo's work was assessed by the Guntenberg museum and published, as per the sources provided by them. His study of the Gutenberg bibles is unparalleled. We should not insert our own opinions such as Dicklyon's such as "it is very unlikely that Gutenberg would have known of it", unless there is a reputable source that describes it in that manner. Wikipedia contains many references to scholar's work, and there is not need to add judgments such as "theorized", "hypothesized", or other. The term "described" is useful and does not assert that he proved anything. Let the scholar's stand on its own value, and let readers draw their own conclusions about this or other scholar's assertions. Rosarivo's body of work (which I am now researching and actively editing) can be read at Raul Rosarivo. I will attempt a different wording, if the current wording could be construed as an assertion of fact (which it isn't) ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, thanks for your perspective. Note, however, that although I have an opinion as to the validity of Rosarivo's hypothesis, I am not proposing putting my opinion in the article.  It is a fine hypothesis, worthy of further investigation.  I encourage you to find another wording as you suggested you might, to avoid the connotation that the existence of the golden ratio in Gutenberg is accepted as true (this is not quite an assertion of fact, but rather an implication of acceptance; subtle POV error, but worth fixing). Dicklyon 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Hope it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, much better, thanks. Dicklyon 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, we could follow your quote from Rosarivo by a quote from Livio, stating that the golden ratio was obscure and known only to mathematicians before the 1509 book. That is, rather than just leave Rosarivo's hypothesis as such, we could present the opposing evidence, if you prefer that approach. Dicklyon 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Livio refers to Gutenberg's lack of knowledge of the golden ratio? If so, by all means, please add that. Otherwise don't. If it was obscure, as Livio claims, it still does not preclude that Gutenberg may have known about it. Fortunately we have the policy of WP:NOR which reads that "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position." ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I was not intending to try to support such a POV unless you insisted on supporting the other. Thanks for taking care of it the right way. Dicklyon 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

John Man is one source of Gutenberg using the golden ratio in his page proportions. He says "The half-folio page (30.7 x 44.5 centimetres) was made up of two rectangles – the whole page and its text area – based on the so-called 'golden section', which specifies a crucial relationship between short and long sides. The proportions are complicated to work out, and produce an irrational number, as pi is, but it is a ratio of about 5:8.  They are proportions which, as the Greeks knew when they built the Parthenon, are peculiarly easy on the eye, and were therefore common in both archtecture and art." Now, considering that the proportions he cites are 1:1.45, which is born out by measurements on this figures, and neglecting his unfounded opinions about what the Greeks might have known about the golden ratio, the most generous interpretation is that he is using "golden section" as representative of that broad class of ratios in the range 1.4 to 1.7 that have been shown to be "easy on the eye" and that are known to be commonplace in proportions of rectangular art and architecture. Given this wide discrepancy between the actual page proportions and Rosarivo's claim that Gutenberg used the golden ratio, what are we as wikipedia articles to make of this peculiar claim? And what conclusion did the "experts at the Gutenberg Museum" come to when they "analyzed" it? Perhaps Jossi has that volume and will let us know. Dicklyon 07:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)