Wikipedia

Talk:Industrial Revolution/Archive 4

< Talk:Industrial Revolution
Latest comment: 2 years ago by ScottishFinnishRadish in topic Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Industrial Age

The term Industrial Age is becoming more prominant to cover the period from the Industrial Revolution to near modern times. The Industrial Age disamg page seems inappropriate. Let's discuss the creation of an Industrial Age article, keeping in mind that it does not supplant the Industrial Revolution, which is a historially established term. As far as creditability to the use of the term Industrial Age, even the NIST website now uses the term. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:53, 29 September 2010, Wednesday (2 years, 3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+1)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

105.230.227.131 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


nuanced

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The racism inherent in the article is obvious. There is no mention that the plunder of India, Africa, the New World (Mexico, Caribbean, Brazil, American Indian lands and lives) not only helped fund the European Industrial revolution via the good and services that were sold, but the hard labor was typically done for free by black and native slaves. Imagine an article discussing Hitler's Germany that does not mention the execution of Jews, nor the concentration camps. Black Americans, and people in the America's had their homes and lands turned into concentration camps, said camps funded the businesses and governments of America and Europe.

"The Industrial Revolution began in the United Kingdom, and spread to Western Europe and North America within a few decades. "

IR took place in some countries almost a century after it had begun in Great Britain around 1760-1780. It was a 'few decades' later for maybe a few countries (e.g. Belgium's was in 1820, France, 1825, Germany 1860).

See The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (2000) (eds:) Anthony Carew, Michel Dreyfus, Geert Van Goethem UGent, Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick and Marcel van der Linden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Books on the Industrial Revolution characterize it by the events that took place mostly in Britain and mostly between about 1750 and 1840. After that time and elsewhere is simply becomes industrialization. The Industrial Revolution is about about the development of the steam engine, textile machinery, machine tools, the puddling process, the first steamboats and locomotives and the factory system. What happened elsewhere and at other times is not part of the story.Phmoreno (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Phmoreno I'm not sure your reply addresses the request by the above editor. They are contending that the sentence "The Industrial Revolution began in the United Kingdom, and spread to Western Europe and North America within a few decades" is inaccurate. With the point that you made, perhaps the sentence could be reworded to "The Industrial Revolution began in the United Kingdom, and spread to Belgium, France, and Germany within a few decades."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Did the Industrial Revolution help the spread of Capitalism throughout the world?

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Snowded had deliberately reverted my edit [1] here with no concrete explanation. Let me just say this. If this happens to be one of the "take it to talk and get consensus", then I'll do it as soon as someone disagrees to proceed to a conversation. Not to mention, The industrial revolution's contribution to the spread of Capitalism. (N0n3up (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Is that phrase in the source? ----Snowded TALK 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Hold on, not done yet. I will provide sources eventually until further notice, you'll just have to wait. (N0n3up (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
When you are ready with a case let us all know. Its normal to assume that once a comment has been made responses are welcome. Its not just a case of finding a source, its also an issue of relevance in the context of this section of the article. Hope that helps. If other editors get involved I'll happily leave it to them to resolve with you ----Snowded TALK 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Like I said, as soon as I find the sources I'll let you know, but for the meantime that might have to wait. As soon as I get them, I'll make sure it goes in accordance to the other source in the phrase to go along with WP:WEIGHT. Btw others might get involved either with or without me, if that's the case, I might as well leave it to them. (N0n3up (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

Before any further discussions, I would also like to point out that the sources in which my edit was made does no longer exist. (N0n3up (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

In the main sources I do not recall seeing any mention of the Industrial Revolution spreading capitalism, but capitalism was mentioned as one of the causes. The former Soviet Union was industrialized, but economically weak because the economy was inefficient.Phmoreno (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
N0n3up "the Industrial Revolution began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist economies, contributing to the spread of Capitalism."  ? From cites I see this seems not so clear a causal or mutual relationship. The Industrial Revolution period as stated in the article of 1760 to 1840 coincides with Capitalism switching from the Mercantile trading form of capitalism to the Industrial form of Capitalism. But it might be also said the other way around. The chronology of Capitalism seems to have earlier incidents with East India Company (1600), Bank of England (1694), London Stock Exchange and Lloyd's coming before the Wealth of Nations (1776) that lays out the factory and trade as recognized trends that England was leading in. Or one can tie it to the social differences from the Dissenters to US politics and UK business conduct, and the legal system evolving to have patents and corporations. Or one could go even further to say 1600s capitalism depending on middle ages industrial work in water and windmills and agriculture evolving the plow and crop rotation, plus road systems and reliable shipping -- or start looking at the causality proposed in Guns, Germs, and Steel or Connections (TV series). Just saying we can see the history but it's not a matter of direct cause and effect. Markbassett (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course,... the 'Ironbridge Gorge' from mother England is the birthplace of the industrial revolution on planet Earth! Mjones95 (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Industrial Revolution. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)



Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Industrial Revolution. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Add cross-references to "Second Industrial Revolution" and to "Third... 28 March 2016. PatrickDShannon@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.121.42 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Section 3.5 Other Effects contains the following sentence:

"The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829."[84]

The source cited for this statement was misinterpreted. It is not the case that 74.5% of children died before the age of five in London in 1730-1749. The author was stating that, of those children who died before the age of ten, 74.5% of those deaths were before the age of five (the remainder after the age of 5 but before age 10).

70.114.185.82 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Adam

Excessive images

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article was tagged for having excessive images in the good article review during which it lost the GA rating. I removed images that were redundant, post period or did not convey enough visual information to merit inclusion.Phmoreno (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I will leave the excessive images tag in place long enough for comments.Phmoreno (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Environmental effects

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does this article seriously have nothing about the environmental legacy of the IR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.98.146 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

good point. I added a bit. Rjensen (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support of the facts

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Phmoreno. My facts are that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed by the union of the Kingdom of Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland about 40 years after the beginning of the IR, and that iron is made by stellar nucleosynthesis, i.e. inside stars, rather than Belgium. What are yours? Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Industrial Revolution did not take place to any great extent in Ireland. Also, there are important differences between iron and steel. Phmoreno (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, that went pretty easily. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You will need to provide sources to support your claim.Phmoreno (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
What claim? Are we not agreed? Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The Industrial Revolution did not take place in the entire U.K. Most of the important developments were on Great Britain and concentrated in a few areas. There were concentrations of industry in the vicinity of Manchester, around Coalbrookdale and a few other places. Boulton and Watt made components for steam engines around Birmingham. There is little if any mention of Ireland in the sources. The iron industry refers to pig iron and wrought iron and to puddled iron in particular. Large scale steel making processes were not part of the Industrial Revolution but occurred in the Second Industrial Revolution.Phmoreno (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
About the UK part. I concede about the iron. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

typo: "priotiry" to "priority".


99.253.251.101 (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2016-09-03

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The "Causes" section includes the spurious assertion "As national border controls became more effective, the spread of disease was lessened, thereby preventing the epidemics common in previous times." with a link to a BBC article which doesn't mention national border controls at all. It does mention municipal disease control measures, which would be a better fit for the sentence, but it seems like original research to claim that the demographic change at that time was entirely due to one particular policy aimed at reducing one specific cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.190.231 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Those statements were removed as they are clearly untrue and not causes listed by the leading sources. Epidemics like the plague and cholera were often spread by sailors who were not excluded by national borders. Epidemics like smallpox and the black death actually improved living standards in those days because there was a shortage of farm land. A vaccination method for smallpox was discovered before the Industrial Revolution and presented to the Royal Society in the early 1700s.Phmoreno (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Industrial Revolution. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Many of the listed sources are behind paywalls. This needs to be addressed - and not just here. With book sources there is an option of consulting a library. With on-line sources, the often aggressive pricing policies of the gatekeepers (one hesitates to call them providers) are primary a toll charge on information. WP should not, on principle, refer to non-open sources. 83.249.179.117 (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If there are listed sources that are only available from behind a paywall that is a problem, but in my experience that is rarely, if ever, the case. In most cases the source is a journal article and the advantage of linking to the paywall is that an abstract may be available. Also, many of the paywalls can be accessed by libraries, academic institutions, etc. who are subscribers. Check with your college or library to see how you can get to these articles without charge. There is no requirement that sources be free of charge, only that they are published and reliable. Phmoreno (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Headline Picture (Not That Kind of Revolution)

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The headline photo used to be a steam engine, it has been changed to a painting that 'commemorates the French Revolution of 1830' with a checkin comment of "Added series sidebar, article is part of series". This is taking the name of the article far too literally . Mtpaley (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC) 'Category:Revolutions' explicitly includes "Industrial Revolution" as a example but surely a painting of the French Revolution is far less appropriate for this page than a picture of a steam engine. Mtpaley (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is a constant attempt to insert social content into what a technical and business subject. The Industrial Revolution is not in the same category as revolutions that overthrew monarchs or other political leaders and the image in the lede is inappropriate and any relationship to the series Revolutions is questionable. That sidebar would be more appropriate on the talk page.Phmoreno (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree as well. The Industrial Revolution was not that kind of revolution. I don't think this article should be "part of a Series on Revolution" or associated (except perhaps as a "See Also" item) with those topics. There is more than one definition of the word "revolution," and it is not used in the same sense in "Industrial Revolution" as it is used in "French Revolution." Here are the six definitions of the noun "revolution" from our friends at Wiktionary:
   1. A political upheaval in a government or nation state characterized by great change.
   2. The removal and replacement of a government.
   3. Rotation: the turning of an object around an axis.
   4. A rotation: one complete turn of an object during rotation.
   5. In the case of celestial bodies - the traversal of one body through an orbit around another body.
   6. A sudden, vast change in a situation, a discipline, or the way of thinking and behaving.
The Industrial Revolution was too long, gradual, and generalized to meet any of the above definitions, at least in a strict sense. I think it would be better to let this article, and its subarticles like Second Industrial Revolution, stand on their own. Darkest Tree Talk 21:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree also, so I have just removed it since already we have a couple of folks saying the same thing. If someone feels strongly then some sort of horizontal bar at the bottom of the article will suffice, but the reasons I gave in the edit summary suitably sum up my thoughts. SFC9394 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Per consensus, I removed the Revolution sidebar for the second time.Phmoreno (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Industrial Revolution. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial Revolution. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Industrial Revolution

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Industrial Revolution's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DNB":

  • From Humphry Davy: Hunt, Robert (1888). "Davy, Humphry" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
  • From Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution: Roberts, Richard (DNB00)  – via Wikisource.
  • From Scientific revolution: "Napier, John" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial Revolution. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ramble

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There is a lot of rambling talk in the article about "the Glorious Revolution of 1688". We are told about "absolutism" in "most parts of Europe". Absolutism outside Europe is not mentioned. See the Mongol and Manchu dynasties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.203.31 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We will be getting the warming-pan story next. I suppose that the idea is to credit popular industrialisation to the ideas of the men of 1688. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.203.31 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The Glorious Revolution was a significant development in the story, leading to greater social and economic freedom and to stronger property rights and laws governing business, but that isn't explained very well here. I have a copy of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, which I believe will be a relevant source, but it will be a few months before I can get to it.Phmoreno (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Coal is already mentioned under "Causes in Britain". The coal deposits were made millions of years before 1688. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.19.23 (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Oil deposits were made before 1688. Oil consumption in 2011 was 87.421 million barrels a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.19.23 (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Iron ore production in the world in 2015 was 3,320,000,000 tonnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.19.23 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system. Textiles were the dominant industry of the Industrial Revolution in terms of employment, value of output and capital invested; the textile industry was also the first to use modern production methods.[1]

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and most of the important technological innovations were British. Laws also shaped the revolution, such as courts ruling in favor of property rights. An entrepreneurial spirit and consumer revolution helped drive industrialisation in Britain which after 1800 was emulated in Belgium, the United States, and France.[2]

The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history; almost every aspect of daily life was influenced in some way. In particular, average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. Some economists say that the major impact of the Industrial Revolution was that the standard of living for the general population began to increase consistently for the first time in history, although others have said that it did not begin to meaningfully improve until the late 19th and 20th centuries.[3][4][5] About the same time the Industrial Revolution was occurring, Britain was undergoing an agricultural revolution, which also helped to improve living standards and provided surplus labour available for industry.

Mechanised textile production spread from Great Britain to continental Europe in the early 19th century, with important centres of textiles, iron and coal emerging in Belgium, and later in France. Since then industrialisation has spread throughout much of the world.[1] The precise start and end of the Industrial Revolution is still debated among historians, as is the pace of economic and social changes.[6][7][8][9] GDP per capita was broadly stable before the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the modern capitalist economy,[10] while the Industrial Revolution began an era of per-capita economic growth in capitalist economies.[11] Economic historians are in agreement that the onset of the Industrial Revolution is the most important event in the history of humanity since the domestication of animals and plants.[12]

The First Industrial Revolution evolved into the Second Industrial Revolution in the transition years between 1840 and 1870, when technological and economic progress continued with the increasing adoption of steam transport (steam-powered railways, boats and ships), the large-scale manufacture of machine tools and the increasing use of machinery in steam-powered factories.[13][14][15] 139.255.85.146 (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  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. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In this flight of fancy the following sentence appears: "The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and most of the important technological innovations were British." Going to need some citations on that.

The absurdity of appropriating American industrialism is furthered by the subsequent entirely nonsensical sentence: "Whereas absolutism stayed the normal form of power execution through most parts of Europe, institutions ensured property rights and political safety to the people in the UK after the Glorious Revolution of 1688." If you're going to brag that you're #1 for inventions sans citation, your subsequent argument for this 'natural' superiority should probably not be the claim that it was because the UK was economically and socially more free than everywhere else, when the United States came into existence precisely because the UK was neither of those things, and the US was the eminent socially and economically liberal state. The US was populated by people seeking social freedom and it became independent to break away from draconian centralized economic forces. I call it the Even More Glorious Revolution of 1776. You might not like the name, but it was America pioneering individual enterprise. Capitalism was the name of the game. East India Company ring any authoritarian bells? A state backed monopoly that had its own military controlling millions of people, deep into the 1800s. There was plenty of UK influence on industrialization, from John Locke to Adam Smith, just not such exclusive UK involvement. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The first passage is solidly based on history and back up citations are available throughout the article. I refer you to David Landes The Unbound Prometheus for what happened, when and where. As for the role of Glorious Revolution you might see Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations . You might also read Economic history of the United States and see some citations for economic development. From the time of the American Revolution until the end of the first third of the 19th century, the U.S. was relatively un-populated and it's most important economic sector was agriculture. The U.S. was about the only region of the world with large agricultural surpluses that was reasonably close (unlike Argentina) to world markets. Agricultural products were scarce world-wide and it was more profitable for the U.S. to export agricultural products than to manufacture. I also recommend you look at American system of manufacturing and Interchangeable parts to see how and when the U.S. developed industrially.Phmoreno (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Also note that citations in the lede are not necessary if they are provided elsewhere in the article.
And this book - Bicheno, Hugh (2003). Rebels and Redcoats. London: Harper Collins. ISBN 0 00 715625 1. - suggests the American Revolution had a lot less to do with freedom than you might imagine. You definitely won't like it!--Ykraps (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversial changes need to be discussed in the Talk section

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

A lot of material has been recently added (and removed) that showed little understanding of the subject matter and was in the wrong section. Any claims contrary to mainstream need to be discussed in Talk and a consensus reached before making such edits.Phmoreno (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're being fair to the user. Like many contributions to Wikipedia, this user's edits is a mixed bag. Some of the edits can be removed, other text can be tweaked, and much of the text kept in my view. Reliable sources, for instance, bear out that there is an academic debate over the timing of the Great Divergence (whether it predates the Industrial Revolution or not). See the changes that we've made over at the Great Divergence. I think Maestro's edits and the back-and-forths between me and him/her ended up definitely improving the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
When a bunch of edits are made in a short period of time and some of them are questionable, the only practical method is to revert them all and then put back the valid ones. Otherwise the editing out the bad material is too tedious. Then we can go forward with "back-and-forths" to determine the correctness and best wording.Phmoreno (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Also need to keep in mind that this article is about what caused Industrial Revolution and not to argue stray details about the rest of the world at different times, especially if they are not mainstream ideas.Phmoreno (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. My comments are mostly about his/her edits on Great Divergence. I haven't edited the Ind Rev article, do not know the state the article was in, and I'm not an expert in the slightest on the subject. I just wanted to make clear that I don't think this editor is a vandal or that he/she only adds dubious content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and many of the technological innovations were British; however, the British also used knowledge of technologies from India, China and other parts of Europe"

"Albert Einstein may have been good but he would never have got far without the number zero which was an Indian invention by the way"

See how silly that sounds? The industrial revolution had very little to do with India, China or indeed anyone else around the world. It began in Britain and manifested mainly in Britain due to:

- Britain having an abundance of resources, a booming population and preexisting social conditions - laws governing business in Britain that encouraged innovation - the incentive of businesses to manufacture more with less costs

Just throwing my two cents in.

Misleading recent edits

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Some recent edits claiming that China and India had per-capita GDP as high as Britain are flat out wrong according to an abundance of literature, especially prominent scholars of the Industrial Revolution and the Great Divergence. India was still essentially a feudal society. The British 18th century colonizers recognized the economic inferiority of India. China collapsed into civil war due to economic misfortune, costing the lives of 40 million.Phmoreno (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC

I suspect editor bias because some of the content in question is revisionist history and is definitely not mainstream. Some of the dubious claims are going to take quite a bit of sourcing to totally refute, so for now they will just be tagged.Phmoreno (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the edits could be removed on the grounds that this article is not about where the industrial revolution didn't happen. Also this is not the only article where the editor in question has pushed POV fringe theories.--Ykraps (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm removing all of this user's edits. Even if they were they are correct some are still in the wrong section.

Phmoreno (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Also noticed some of his sources directly contradicted this user's edits.Phmoreno (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Your claims are based on outdated scholarship. Recent scholarship points to per-capita income in China and India being roughly on-par with Europe prior to the Industrial Revolution. Also, the current text you reverted to on India is completely unsourced. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Likewise, there are numerous modern sources on the subject by experts in the field claiming the opposite, that China and India had real wages and living standards comparable to Europe prior to the Industrial Revolution. For example, economic historians such as Pomeranz, Parthasarathi, Bairoch, etc. Many of the older sources up until the '90s fail to address the more recent evidence since the '90s that show real wages and living standards in China or India being comparable to Europe (such as Pomeranz's evidence on China, or Parthasarathi's evidence on India, for example). The older "traditionalist" position is that Europe had a higher income pre-industrialization, whereas the recent "revisionist" position is that Europe/China/India were on-par pre-industrialization. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
There are numerous modern sources on the subject by experts in the field and they claim that the per-capita GDP of Britain was far higher than in India or China on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. This is also stated in one of your sources which you incorrectly cited. There were times and places where per-capita GDP in India or China may have been equal or higher than in Britain, and sources such as Landes (1969) and Landes (1998) this. The latter reference addresses this in extensive detail. Less well known but more recent is Empire of Cotton (2014) which explains the economies of the period. There are first hand accounts about the undeveloped economies of India and to a lesser extent China during the colonial period. How do you think India got to be a colony if they were so economically advanced? China was more advance prior to ca. 1400 AD, but China started severely restricting trade about that time. By the end of the 16th century the Portuguese were taking over trading in the Indian Ocean. They were displaced by the Dutch, who in turn were displaced by the British, who by the 18th century had a vast empire.
I suspect that in some cases you are not paying attention to time periods in the sources you are citing as well as not reading them carefully.Phmoreno (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
All your edits were a collection of single statements with no explanation as to how or why these things contributed to the industrial revolution in Britain or elsewhere. For example:
"The capital to finance the Industrial Revolution in India instead went into financing the Industrial Revolution in Britain" - Aside from the fact that Britain already had its own capital, having grown extremely rich from the wool trade, how did this wealth from India flow into Britain?
You then stated:
"In the mid-18th century, India and China were the most important manufacturing centers in world trade, with India alone producing about 25% of global industrial output, dominant in industries such as textiles, cotton, silk and shipbuilding. Indian manufactured goods such as textiles were exported worldwide in the mid-18th century, with high demand in Europe, while real wages and living standards in Bengal and Mysore were also higher than Britain". - Even if all that was true, so what? How did the so claimed industrial powerhouses of India and China get overtaken taken by Britain? Also, like Phmoreno, I think you are mixing up your time periods: By the time the Marathas invaded in 1758, the Kingdom of Mysore was all but bankrupt.
Then you said:
"Following British colonization starting in the mid-18th century, India began experiencing deindustrialization, with local industries suppressed at the expense of British industries...." -Really? How were they suppressed?
Followed by:
"There is considerable debate about whether British colonialism prevented India's industrialization, and the role that India's colonization played in Britain's Industrial Revolution". - Is there? What is it?
If the purpose of the last two statements is to suggest Britain prevented India's industrialisation, that needs to be demonstrated, not just stated as a fact otherwise it's akin to saying, "After Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, The Beatles broke up". The statement may be true but it doesn't mean the two things are connected and without an explanation as to how one thing caused another, it is meaningless.
As I said above, this article is about how the industrial revolution happened, not how it didn't happen in India and China. So my biggest question is; how is it all relevant anyway?--Ykraps (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
1. That statement was not added by myself, but was already there from before.
2. Mysore was not bankrupt. Recent evidence from historians Prasannan Parthasarathi and Sashi Sivramkrishna show that Mysore had real wages and living standards comparable to Britain in the late 18th century.
3. It's been explained in the main Great Divergence article. The paragraph here was supposed to be a brief summary. Probably a bit too brief, which may have ended up making it sound vague.
Maestro2016 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
1. Okay, but you seem to be in agreement with it, given your later statements.
2. That's what your books say, mine say something different. Here's an online source.[[2]]
3. The Great Divergence article seems to be exclusively about economies. You don't measure how advanced a civilisation is by how rich it is or per capita income, you measure it by how enlightenened its people are and what they know about technology, science, medicine, philosophy etc. Without these things, the industrial revolution would never have happened. So what if India and China were rich, were they industrialised? If not, why is all this relevant to an article on the industrial revolution?!--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and recent opinion is not the same as recent evidence!--Ykraps (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Proper ordering for Causes section

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A case can be made for putting the Causes section before the main body of what the Industrial Revolution was about. A problem with having Causes before What Happened (technologies) is that Causes are not straightforward and are a subject of much scholarly debate. What Happened is much more factual.Phmoreno (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. 'Causes' should at the very least be ahead of 'social effects'. I'm not experienced with editing this page or an expert on the topic, but I also think that 'social effects' should just be re-named "Effects", with subsections that focus on the economic, political, environmental etc. changes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change "such as the increasing adoption of locomotives, steamboats and steamships, hot blast iron smelting and new technologies technologies," to "such as the increasing adoption of locomotives, steamboats and steamships, hot blast iron smelting and new technologies," because "technologies technologies" appears to be a typo. Dbittner (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done –72 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing info

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Under the topic of "Important technological developments" it is stated that the invention of machine tools happened during the industrial revolution with no source cited. The machine tools page shows evidence of machine tools existing long before the industrial revolution.

In the topic of "Mining" there are no sources listed

Under "Impact On Environment" the page states "The industry reached the US around 1850 causing pollution and lawsuits." I think this could be expanded and clarified to explain what the lawsuits were trying to accomplish.

The link for the source "Ashton, Thomas S. (1948). "The Industrial Revolution (1760–1830)". Oxford University Press." doesn't work

The "causes" section doesn't include any information about the causes of the revolution outside of Europe or Britain, could include some information on the revolution in America. Steaka (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References added for machine tools. No, they did not exist long before the Industrial Revolution. Check any leading source.Phmoreno (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Causes for America are not usually cited in the literature because the United States was primarily an agricultural nation due to having high labor costs and abundant land. Also, there were very few technological innovations in the U.S. during the period.Phmoreno (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial Revolution. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Misinformed and oversimplified section on changes in social structures.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"In terms of social structure, the Industrial Revolution witnessed the triumph of a middle class of industrialists and businessmen over a landed class of nobility and gentry." This sentence in the Social structure and working conditions section is a grave generalization that needs to be vastly expanded upon and rewritten. This current section ignores both the continuing political and social influences the traditional landowning class continued to have well into the 20th century, and the merger of interests between the traditional landowning class and industrialists. Apart from brief exceptions in the liberal ministries of 1892-95, every single British cabinet up to 1905 was dominated by the traditional landowning elite(1). In such a context it seems wrong to state that the third estate "triumphed" over the traditional aristocracy in the industrial revolution when the latter still had vast political influence into the 20th century, even in the U.K. which is considered to have had a strong middle class compared to the rest of the continent. Modern analysis tends to favor a merging between the Traditional elite and the wealthy industrialists. Using the U.K. as an example again, after the Corn Laws were repealed, these two groups have been viewed as having similar outlooks and objectives towards state policy and social formations. "Landlords and industrial capitalists became fractions of a single class as a result of the revolutions that swept through Europe in 1848. During the revolutions, the willingness of the industrial bourgeoisie to press their demands through mobilizing the masses and the emergence of socialism as a mass movement brought about the unity and fusion of landed and industrial elites through class compromise. As a result of the compromise, between 1850 and 1870 , the upper middle class was accepted into ruling coalitions and, in exchange, supported a system of imperialist expansion and restricted domestic development that preserved the basic contours of the traditional order"(2).

Note: The aforementioned is of little relevance to nations without these traditional social structures, such as in the U.S, Australia, Canada, etc, and does not represent the shifts in social structure during their industrial revolution.

1)Thomas, J. 1939. The House of Commons: 1832-1901: A study of its economical and functional character.

2)Halperin, S. 2004. War and social change in modern Europe: the great transformation revisited.

Any views and suggestions on how to improve and expand this section would be greatly appreciated, feel free to use the above information in an edit if you feel it necessary. Anonally (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the following references: Komlos, John; Artzrouni, Marc (1985). "Population Growth through History and the Escape from the Malthusian Trap: A Homeostatic Simulation Model" (PDF). Genus 41. pp. 21-40. Komlos, John; Artzrouni, Marc (1990). "Mathematical Investigations of the Escape from the Malthusian Trap" [3] (PDF). Mathematical Population Studies 2. pp 269-287. JHKomlos (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  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. ToThAc (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

British colonies in Africa in the mid-18th century?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia lists Egypt as the oldest British interest in Africa -- from 1801 to 1803. The Cape Colony follows in 1806. I didn't find any British colonies in Africa in the mid-18th century, as the text suggests. What did I miss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.197.153.107 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

mid-18th century refers to 174X - 176X Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me • my contributions) 12:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thus spake mediocrity

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did a search for "enlightenment" in this article and found absolutely no occurrence even though there is a "causes" section for the Industrial Revolution. I saw that the article authors even referenced a Marxist to helplessly fail at explaining the causes of the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps the authors should get their heads out of the intellectual cesspits and find some reasonable sources.

Here. Let me help.

In the causes section there is speculation as to why things did not happen outside of Europe with the amazing explanation involving European domination of places such as India. Well the domination of India was possible only due to the Industrial Revolution and the power it provided to Britain. Now rather than hurt anyone's feelings by pointing out that India and China were backwards grimy crapholes that were centuries behind Europe in science, political philosophy, art, music. literature and capital development which might explain why not these areas, I will offer the following explanation. The Great Turtle farted in the general direction of the east causing this terrible unfairness.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:5848:B84F:3A38:4CCD (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The explanation of why the Industrial Revolution didn't happen outside Eastern Europe has been attempted by a few notable economic historians, but it is rather complicated and not easy to summarize for this article. The story also involves why other European nations, such as Spain, did not industrialize first. I am planning to add something to the article regarding this but at some time in the future.Phmoreno (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Gregory Clark

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gregory Clark has an interesting view of what led up to the industrial revolution. This is not discussed in the article, though the book Clark wrote on the subject "Farewell to Alms" is. I suggest active editors take a look at a short version of the book http://old.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf and add a section. Keith Henson (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the Standards of Living section at the end of the first paragraph please add: Lucas’s inference is incorrect. He thinks just because the economy was growing, living standards were improving. That does not follow because he disregards the the rise in inequality and very little trickled down to the masses. Wages did not improve for a very long time and certainly, there was a general decline in the physical stature of the population. This implies that their nutritional status and biological standard of living was declining during the Industrial Revolution. Heights did not rebound to their pre-industrial level for about a century.

Please add the following references for this section: John Komlos(1985). "Stature and Nutrition in the Habsburg Monarchy: The Standard of Living and Economic Development," American Historical Review 90 no. 5. pp. 1149-1161. John Komlos (1993). "The Secular Trend in the Biological Standard of Living in the United Kingdom, 1730-1860," Economic History Review 46, 1. pp. 115-44. John Komlos (1998). "Shrinking in a Growing Economy? The Mystery of Physical Stature during the Industrial Revolution," Journal of Economic History 58 3. pp. 779-802. John Komlos(2012) “A Three-Decade ‘Kuhnian’ History of the Antebellum Puzzle: Explaining the shrinking of the US population at the onset of modern economic growth,” The Journal of The Historical Society 12, 4. pp. 395-445. John Komlos; Küchenhoff,Helmut (2012). “The Diminution of Physical Stature of the British Male Population in the 18th-Century,” Cliometrica, 6, no 1. pp. 45-62. John Komlos (2007). “On British Pygmies and Giants: the Physical Stature of English Youth in the 18th and 19th Centuries,” Research in Economic History, 25. pp. 117-136. John Komlos; Snowdon, Brian (2005). “Measures of Progress and Other Tall Stories: From Income to Anthropometrics,” World Economics 6 no. 2. pp. 87-136. JHKomlos (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the most highly regarded works on the subject is Robert Fogel's The Escape From Hunger and Premature death, 1700-2100.[1]Phmoreno (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fogel, Robert W. (2004). The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100. London: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521808782.
  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.  Spintendo  18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

THE industrial revolution

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I think it is appropriate to name this article "The Industrial Revolution" and not just the nondescript title the article has now. Why? Because the article is clearly concerned with a particular Industrial Revolution and historical epoch, not just any industrial revolution. Many parts of the world were experiencing industrialization and industrial revolutions much later, some even today, and some places have never been industrialized. We already have several articles on Industrialization and History of industrialisation, both describing industrialization in much broader and abstract terms than is the focus of this article here. RhinoMind (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible typo in section 4.3?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the final paragraph of section 4.3 United States, right above section 5, a sentence reads "Precision manufacturing techniques made it possible to build machines that mechanized the shoe industry.[171] and the watch industry." with the period in the middle of the sentence. I thought it's probably a typo but I can't edit semi-protected articles yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENGCHEN LIU (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an error in linking in the term "Economic Processes"; only "process" is linked with the last two letters is in black. The section in question is in the introduction, probably in the third or fourth paragraph. IDeagle94 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you – Thjarkur (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Alejandromelendez19012 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)i need to change minor errors
  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. Dylsss (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Change the link in reference 195 (in Causes) from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture17a.html to http://historyguide.org/intellect/lecture17a.html. The former no longer works. Ondřej Holešovský (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Began specifically in Manchester 82.29.255.82 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"First" Industrial Revolution

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This term was mentioned, and the link redirects here but there is no exlpanation. There are articles on Second Industrial Revolution and Fourth Industrial Revolution. If these terms are generally accepted, when did they come in to use ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC) }

The term Second Industrial Revolution was widely introduced by David S. Landes in The Unbound Prometheus. Fourth Industrial Revolution is a relatively new term, but the term occasionally appears. There is a book titled The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the World Economic Forum; however, the book is not about about industrialization bur rather a globalist view. Schwab is considered a villain by some such as Alex Jones. AdvancedTechResearcher (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are two references that are no longer in use but still appear in the reflist, which is causing cite errors.

The following references should be commented out or removed from the reflist:
"The Industrial Revolution by Pat Hudson, pg. 198"
"Was slavery the engine of economic growth?"
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request to mention how the Revolution reached Russia and Japan in the 1860’s. 142.105.15.228 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kdepaula1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit requested: Bad hyphenation

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


"A horse-powered the first factory" -> "A horse powered the first factory" SweeperX (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What happened in the Industrial Revolution?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Industrial Revolution is a period where good and bad things happened. One good aspect of the Industrial Revolution is that it has helped us reach where we are today like the steam engine, guns, and many other great inventions. One bad aspect is many children were forced and treated very badly at the factories aka child labor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.226.163 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Children were also forced to do labor in agriculture, mining and other industries and were treated badly there too. Also, many people died of starvation, especially the landless. In short, life then was no picnic, but you can't blame industrialization for that. AdvancedTechResearcher it paved the way for modern technoligical development

(talk) 20:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

People who are unfamiliar with the industrial revolution may not realize that this article is about the First Industrial Revolution.

Current line: "For a more general overview, see Industrialisation."

Proposed Change: "For a more general overview, see Industrialisation. This article is about the First Industrial Revolution. See Second, Third, and Fourth Industrial Revolutions"

"Second, Third and Fourth" should be hyperlinked to the correct wiki pages TreeCaptcha (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: This is already covered at length in the lead, prose and infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Industrial_Revolution/Archive_4&oldid=1136817919"