Talk:Johannes Gutenberg

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johannes Gutenberg article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Biography: Science and Academia / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Metalworking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany: Mainz Top‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mainz task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Typography Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 23, 2005 and February 23, 2006.

Name is probably wrong

One of the long names of Gutenberg is "Gensfleisch zur Laden gen. Gutenberg, Johannes" (source: https://www.lagis-hessen.de/pnd/118543768 - also check the article on dewiki: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg). This "gen." is short for "genannt", which states that he was known as "Johannes Gutenberg". I suspect someone read this "gen." as "gen", which is an archaic form of "gegen", which is itself an archaic way of saying "zu/zur/zum". The article was created with the "zum Gutenberg" title and suspect this style has sufficiently polluted academic sources. I thus cannot, at this marcus, rule out that the english academic literature calls him so.

I am, however confident that his german name is not "... zum Gutenberg". --83.64.142.10 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine. Even German sources called him "zum Gutenberg" before Wikipedia: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11710202?page=,1 - still strange, he does not seem like nobility. --128.130.239.36 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg“ would most literally translate from modern German to modern English as “gene meat of the stores/magazine of Gutenberg (“good mountain” - but let’s not go overboard with literal translation).” Interpreting the meaning that this would likely have had in the language of the day, one might render it “Johannes, Issue of the Bounty of Gutenberg,” with Gutenberg referring to the family estate. 205.178.98.205 (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal translations like the above, or personal analysis of reliable sources doesn't really help us here. We need other reliable sources to back up what you're saying, otherwise there's nothing we can do; tis the limitations of Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

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

“Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg“ would most literally translate from modern German to modern English as “gene meat of the stores/magazine of Gutenberg (“good mountain” - but let’s not go overboard with literal translation).” Interpreting the meaning that this would likely have had in the language of the day, one might render it “Johannes, Issue of the Bounty of Gutenberg,” with Gutenberg referring to the family estate. 205.178.98.205 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rehsarb (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this comment is picking up on an earlier thread on the same issue. Please do not rely on your personal translations skills! We need modern reliable sources. At the moment, they agree his name is "Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg"–Kapr (p.27) says ""The mainz patricians called themselves after the houses they possessed, and so we find zur Laden [...] zum Genlesich or zum Gutenberg". Gensfleisch is the family name; Laden and Gutenberg are both known residences (cited in the article). If you interpret "the language of the day" (15th-century German) to modern-day English you are always going to get inconstancies; these are two different (albeit similar) languages many centuries apart. Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

""What was written to me about that marvelous man [Gutenberg] seen at Frankfurt [sic] entirely true. Quote from the Enea Silvio Piccolominis letter, dated 12 March 1455 to cardinal Juan Carvajal +++ Now: there is no reason to put a "sic" after Frankfurt. Piccolomini did not mix up the two cities of Mainz and Frankfurt. In fact, Piccolomini was himself at the Frankfurt fair, where pages of the Gutenberg bible were shown at the printers/publishers booth. His letter is reporting this fact plus the probable consequences in comparison to handwritten bibles. Summary: just remove the erroneous "sic" and perhaps include: Frankfurt (at the trade fair). 2003:C2:F30:4B00:DC55:346C:793:BDA0 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2025

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

change Münzerhausgenossenschaft to Münzer Hausgenossenschaft Amos Wortman (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No reason given for the proposed change. Day Creature (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2025

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

Change “invented the movable-type printing press” to “invented one form of the movable-type printing press.” Bi Sheng in China had invented another press several centuries before. 2603:8000:5D40:C7E7:125:DF31:8578:8D03 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That is incorrect. The Chinese already had movable type, yes, but they did not have a printing press, and they did their printing manually. To quote from the printing press article, "Chinese paper was suitable only for calligraphy or block-printing; there were no screw-based presses in the east, because they were not wine-drinkers, didn't have olives, and used other means to dry their paper." Another one: "The second necessary element was the concept of the printing press itself, an idea that had never been conceived in the Far East." Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of Gutenberg

- Illustration would be better in the infobox similar to the illustrations of other historical figures. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, but why would this image be better than the current one? The infoboxes of other historical figures, such as Da Vinci and Newton to name two, include contemporary images. There is no contemporary image of Gutenberg as far as we know, and it can be misleading to include this portrait of him, especially when the caption is "Illustration of Gutenberg". Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is no contemporary image of Gutenberg. The original caption I added did include this, with a citation: "Posthumous portrait of Gutenberg. No contemporary depictions survive". This, has of course, been continuously removed (and minimized into a note?) in the slow edit war of the lead image, even though this information is probably more important than any image there!

Typically, the deciding factor for such images is which one reliable sources use the most (i.e. an image that is recognizable). I have see the engraving in only very few academic sources on Gutenberg, and the sculpture I have never seen in such sources. Honestly, it does not seem obvious either way. I believe the sculpture is perhaps less misleading as an exact likeness, and it at least has a cultural importance in Gutenberg's birthplace and such. – Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]