- "Among his many contributions to printing are: the invention of a process for mass-producing movable type; the use of oil-based ink for printing books; adjustable molds; mechanical movable type; and the use of a wooden printing press similar to the agricultural screw presses of the period. His truly epochal invention was the combination of these elements into a practical system that allowed the mass production of printed books and was economically viable for printers and readers alike."
- It's unclear from this statement which are unique to Europe. Second statement isn't properly backed per the rules. Also, it deletes out mentions of China and Korea prior to his invention, which, granted can be in the main part of the article, but seem to be deliberately deleted from the article (probably by a white supremacist). I request that the second sentence be verified with a clear source, if not delete it, and that China and Korea be mentioned in the article fairly so it has a worldwide look at what he actually invented, which extensibly was the adjustable brackets. Over attribution is a problem with white cis straight men, so I kinda think that we need to play an even hand and make sure he was truly the first. Since paper with fibers suitable for printing is attributed to Chinese invention, movable type to Chinese invention, first printing press, Chinese invention and Korea had metal movable type first, it's worth a mention that it is often misthought he was the first to invent the printing press, when what he invented was... and list the inventions he actually are traceable worldwide to actually invent. They did this for Edison's article on the Lightbulb, so I don't see why we can't do it for this page and stop the stupid wars back and forth where some person gets super fragile that Gutenberg wasn't the first and this great man who somehow invented the paper, the ink, the movable type, the metal movable type in one go. Give him credit--yes, but only for the things he did invent. It's not dishonest to say it's often a misunderstanding he was the first. He was the first European, but that doesn't exclude mentioned who DID invent the things he's often attributed for. This isn't supposed to be a political thing, it's supposed to be factual, so if people want to know about metal movable type, they don't have a disconnect between this article and the other articles about printing. Deleting references which give attribution to the inventors before him is dirty. Eurocentric fragility shouldn't be on wikipedia. --KimYunmi (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Does he even deserve to be mentioned? Going from his Wikipedia article, there's no proof he ever did anything related to the printing press, he died in 1840 and the first press in his home city of Haarlem came in the 1480s. The story of his printing press, if I'm not mistaken, is based on a third part account from the 16th century in a book with a title that evokes some kind of proto-nationalism ("Batavia"). This sounds like a time honored tradition of trying to attribute a groundbreaking invention to someone from one's own country because that feels good to nationalists or something, practices of similar sorts are very prevalent in the Dutch internet community and that's probably how this ended up here. Am I wrong, or may I delete him from this article? Dapperedavid (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)