text:
Talk:Industrial Revolution/Archive 1

important
what does religon have to do with the revolution??? 74.184.3.10 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More anti-American drivel
If you look at the "World GDP" map for AD 1 to 2003, you will note that the largest GDP in 2003 is "Western offshoots." How much of this "Western offshoot" is the United States? The maker of the graph could easily have made a category for Australian/Oceania and either had Canada and the United States separated into two, or merged as "northern America." And how about a Causes for the Industrial Revolution in the United States? The United States was about the second country to industrialize after the UK, roughly paralleling Germany in both railroads and manufacturing (textile and other). Be anti-American all you want, but at least TRY to make objective contributions.  Chiss Boy  17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * U.S. and Germany are listed in the second industrial revolution.

-G

Italic textjenjdbxb x xsb xhs xshbc chdbcd

Old messages
The concept of industrial revolution is so central to our conception of what it is to be modern and what it is for a society to 'develop' (tricky concepts, I know) that this ideally needs to be broadened beyond an account of industrial revolution in 18th century onwards Europe. How is industrial revolution essential in producing a modern society, or how has it been at least? What have the essential processes been, in what cultural circumstances? Generalisations from Europe often fail in analysing other countries, even in successful revolutions like Japan's. --Rich Shore 13:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- Historians who cover the 17th and 18th centuries consider that the modern period starts before the industrial revolution. Things like the Scientific revolution of the 17th century come into play, and so does the phenomenon of the The Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century. The industrial revolution in Japan is an interesting phenomenon, comparable to the industrial revolution in Russia in more ways than one. In both cases a new interest in Natural Philosophy (later to be known as Science) predated the top-down industrialisation, so many sections of the elites and the merchants were ready, mentally, for the industrial change. --AlainV 03:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- what about oxen and wind power? They were used to power grist mills and pumps, were they never used to drive machinery?

Oxen and wind were used, but wind is sporatic, and oxen do not provide the horsepower or force that steam power can provide, nor in such a controlled fashion.

my opinion, Mike Dill

Wasn't the revolution more in the 19th century than the 18th? -rmhermen

The Industrial Revolution was definitely underway in Britain by 1750, and had started to spread to the Low Countries by 1800. Much of the rest of the world joined up in the 1800s, but that's rather like the spread of the Renaissance (1400s in Italy, 1600s in Britain). Like ripples of water spreading from a point source.-- PaulDrye

Didn't the transition cause a wave of rural poverty (and consequently an increase in crime) and a drift to the cities? I thought one of the major reasons for the growth in crime in the 18th century (and thus the impetus for transportation to Australia) was the unemployment the transition caused. --Robert Merkel

 * In a word, yes. Standards of living dropped enormously, and did not recover until (from memory) the late 19th Century. More generally, the article needs a comprehensive re-write. As it stands, it follows a very shallow technocratic  line which belongs to the "Kings and Queens of England" school of history popular in the 1940s. The rise of the factory, for example, preceeded industrial machinery and was a major reason for its development. Factories came first, steam power followed. (And then the fsctories got bigger, and so on.) Indeed, the very word "factory" itself is significant: it is a contraction of "manufactory" from the Latin "manus" = "hand". "Manufacture" = "hand" + "make". Steam power (and even, to a lesser extent, water power) was pointless when production was dispersed in thousands of tiny centres (mostly individual homes): only after labour had been concentrated into centralised locations did the need for it become apparent. Mother of invention and all that. Tannin

Because industry required energy source (coal), transportation (sea port), and workers (new industrial cities), there was a mass migration out of villages into anonymous cities. This dislocation separated people from their traditional supports (social, cultural, spiritual). The answer to these losses was found in the industrial mentality of centralization, standardization, and co-operation (conformity). This shift found expression in the rise of professionalism (medicine, nursing, teaching, accounting, etc.), science (Darwin, etc.), classical music (Mozart then Beethoven), and mass political movements (Paris commune, oligarchy then democracy). This unprecedented change in human life is reflected in many, many statistics: world population, carbon dioxide content of Greenland ice-cap, population of mental hospitals (peaked in 1949).-- Robin Routledge

"The Industrial Revolution" should be a seperate topic than "industrial revolution". I'm sure 172 will agree. Dietary Fiber

Is there a reason for the unexplained deletion of so much text? Failing an explanation, I'll revert shortly. (Or, if there is a good reason, say so and I'll hold off.) Tannin 12:29 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

- Actually, I do agree with Lir/Vera, aka Dietary Fiber this once! I'd call what contemporary China's going through an "industrial revolution". It's like the capitalized "Civil War" referring to the civil war in the United States in the 1860s (in my country at least!) and lower case "civil war" referring to any civil war.

This article also needs a much more complex analytic framework for dealing with what led up to the Industrial Revolution and its impact on economic structures, political structures, class structures, and culture. I'm definitely adding this article to my list of long-term projects. Anyone willing to join me? Three excellent contributors come to mind very capable of doing this: Tannin, Sluberstein, and Jtdrl. 172

It's been on my list for some time, AS. Currently, it is very shallow. I have a part-finished major re-write of it somewhere on my hard drive (or is it still in rough notes?), probably sitting right next to the dozens of other forgotten, half-finished contributions to other things. I'm rusty, but it's one of the two or three areas of history that I know best ... er ... "knew" best. Use it or lose it - memory is a harsh taskmaster. Tannin

Note: everybody else is not welcome. (User signing as 172.172.13.108 - not to be confused with User:172 - disambiguation added by me, Tannin)

Thanks for the distinction, Tannin.

It would be great if some engineers and natural scientists, and especially historians of science, jumped into this article as well. I am completely illiterate in this area, merely knowing what was invented and whether the social structure would have been to the innovation.

Jared Diamond's assessment of the industrial revolution in Guns, Germs, and Steel is also very interesting. The users who participated in the article on this book would probably be interested in upgrading this article as well. 172

The city of Zaandam in the Netherlands claims to be the first industrial city in Europe. (http://www.zaanstad.nl/functies/pagfunctie.cfm?parameter=1807) Opa 12:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]

I could not read the pages in Dutch but I read the page in English, and it is a bit overly generous in its definition of what is "industrial". There is no mention of steam power or of the other traits of countries which are undergoing their first industrial revolution. On the other hand, there seems to have been, sometime around 1600, what is usually described as a very intensive pre-take-off economy, similar to that found in the most developed parts of China at a similar time or a wee bit earlier. AlainV 23:34, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

History section
The sentence beginning "In 1771, Richard Arkwright..." has lost its ending, and the links section for the "Transportation" section appears slightly confusing/items run together.

I could add a bit to the Textile Industry section (and the link should be to something of this nature, rather than textiles as such), if requested.

Jackiespeel 15:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have now taken the section out and put it in "Industrial Revolution/history" (now being deleted - Noisy | Talk 11:24, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)) so that it can be developed before being put into the main article. Please feel free to hop in there and mess about, because I think it will take me a few weeks to get enough content in there to put it back on the main page.  Noisy 11:07, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've moved this back, because it was listed on Wikipedia cleanup/leftovers, and you didn't make it obvious that this was a temporary thing. Please do so in the future. JesseW 23:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History section talk
Don't forget to add something about the importance of mechanical engineering, mining and metallurgy in this.

 * In mechanical engineering, the millwright, machinery and machine tool maker made the machines which went into the factories. See, for example Richard Roberts, Henry Maudslay and his pupils, Portsmouth Block Mills.

 * In mining both coal,and metal mining had an important impact.

 * In metallurgy, as well as iron there were the non ferrous metals,like copper and alloys like brass.

From the start of the industrial revolution, publications like encyclopaedias, technical periodicals and patents were vital for the dissemination of information about machines and processes.

I hope to be adding to this work in due course Apwoolrich 07:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard it mentioned a number of times that the start of the industrial revolution is marked by the invention of the seed drill by Jethro Tull early in the eighteenth century. Does anyone know if this statement is supportable, because if so maybe it should be mentioned. It did bring about the mechanisation of crop planting, part of the increased efficiency in agriculture mentioned in the article as leading on to the industrial revolution. I wasn't sure whether people would agree with this as being the start of industrialisation, so didn't want to alter the article myself.DJ 2 Sept 2006

 * This was only part of what is called the British Agricultural Revolution which played a part in starting the industrial revolution. This is already mentioned in the Causes for occurrence in Britain section. Lumos3 09:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of "phase" to describe the Industrial Revolution
Alain V.: I have reverted your addition of the term 'first phase' because I have never come across it in any of the research I've done, and because most references that do cite an 'end' to the Industrial Revolution say that it's something like 1830 or 1840. (1840 is, I think, Toynbee's view, writing in the 1870s.) My personal view is that the IR extends from ca. 1700 to 1830, but that's all it is — a view. If you can document this use of 'phase', then I'll be happy to reconsider. Meanwhile, I'll do a search of the internet resources listed on my user page, and see if any of them mention it. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 14:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use any term you wish instead of phase, as there is no consensus amongst economic historians or historians of technology on what to call these different steps or periods in the continuing phenomenon of rapid technological and economic change which starts in the United Kingdom sometime in the 18th century. Some call it the first and the second industrial revolution instead of the first and second phases of the changes. And there is no way any serious historian can give a precise end to the first phase/industrial revolution. Too many technologies of the first and second overlap. Toynbee by the way is not considered a serious scholar, but an out-of date populariser by modern professional historians. For the sake of convenience some good historians will pick a date when giving a lecture or writing an elementary textbook, but it is just a convenience. The classic, scholarly source for the history of technology is the multi volume (4 or 5 or 6 volumes depending on the edition you can get) history of technology edited by Derry and Wiliamn, and later by Charles Singer. I have put its abridged version in the references at the bottom of the article. It covers the Industrial revolution(s) quite well. By the way, I just did a Google search with the term "phases of the industrial revolution" and I immediatley got relevant hits. AlainV 03:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US Influence and the 2nd Industrial Revolution
I've removed this line from the end of the final paragraph on 'Causes' -- "The restructuring of the American domestic market would trigger the second Industrial Revolution over 100 years later."

Since the article has no prior statements of what date the "100 years later" starts from, nor does it have any explanation or amplification of how changes in the US domestic market might have triggered a second industrial revolution -- I don't see the relevance or reason behind including the line I removed from the article.

Your comments are welcome and invited. Cheers, Madmagic 09:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
moved comments from This week's improvement drive:--Fenice 19:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Reason : This article was actually posted on Cleanup as needing work, and I thought it could be a decent AID candidate. Here was the comment from User:Madmagic:
 * "This article needs work. There are sections which are well-written and documented, and other sections which are blank or under-written and under-documented. The relationships between the first, second (and perhaps third) Industrial Revolutions are not made clear nor easy to understand; the Talk page is equally confused and could use streamlining. Given the ongoing importance and the relevance of the subject to daily life, including the net and Wikipedia, this is a signifigant article which IMO should be strengthened to feature article status. Right now, it's a source of confusion and uncertainty to any new reader unfamiliar with the subject."

Better steam engine image, please
Can somebody change the image to one reflecting the Instrial Revolution.This is a portable engine of I guess late 19th - early 20th century, and not a steam engine used for driving a factory There are more apt imagines on the German Wiki article Damphsmaschine Apwoolrich 18:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Good idea. Done.--Fenice 18:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to carp, but can the Cameron image be changed for the Newcomen engine on the German page. Its the wrong date for the article and Cameron's ideas did not get used in main steam engine technology. Thanks Apwoolrich 19:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This here looks like an even earlier model than the current one in the intro:--Fenice 20:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is. Its a pity about the background though. Ideally it should be a line drawing for clarity. Many thanks for the Newcomen engine. I must get down to learning how to find images for myself:) Apwoolrich 20:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't be hard to photoshop out the background, but I think it gives a good sense of scale.--kop 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Espionage
Added, as requested Apwoolrich 18:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hostility to industry
Should we have in here somewhere a section about the intellectual hostility to industry from about 1800 by the Romantic Movement - William Blake etc? Apwoolrich 19:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and more concrete reactions too, such as the Arts and Crafts movement more or less led by William Morris. --AlainV 04:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a section on that. How about a section "Criticism" towards the end of the article, after "Intellecutal paradigm" and before "second industrial revolution". Marxism should probably also go under "Criticism" rather than "intellectual paradigm".--Fenice 05:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arts and crafts movement was divided over its attotude towards technology. Some in it were totally against technology and new industry while others rejected only the inhumane division of labour which cheapened products and made the worker,s life meaningless. It was criticism on a certain level and reactionary impulse on another. On the other hand Marxism embraced technology completely and saw the industrial revolution as a necessary stage towards the seizire of power by the proletariat, so it was an intellectual paradigm as well as criticism. --AlainV 15:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, on a political level Marx sees it as a necessary stage. He was critical on the theoretical level however. Marx and Marxian Economists criticize classical/neoclassical economics as being incomplete at best.--Fenice 14:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

British Industrial Revolution
Why is this a red link? It would be logical to have a separate article on this. But looking closer at this article: it is geographically imbalanced anyway and maybe we should move it to British Industrial Revolution. But we need an overview-article Industrial Revolution as well.--Fenice 14:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think its a good idea to split away British Industrial Revolution as a distinct article. This is because all other industrial revolutions came after it. As we have a section about the Second Industrial Revolution it would be better to add another section describing how the first one spread into Europe and America during the first half of the nineteenth century. The red link to the BIR should, be removed from the list of links at the bottom. Apwoolrich 08:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Alright, lets not move it. The red link could be filled by a redirect, or we could just leave it, I don't know. I will adjust the box at the bottom and create new sections for other countries.--Fenice 10:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Social Problems > Strikes
Hmmm...i learn about this in history class. If i remember corectly people weare sick of working so much...and they start Strikes agains machines. They sayd that the machines are evil...they even made some sort of "Machine destroyers group". I'm to tired now to look after the notebook. Can someone comfirm what i sayd ? Atleast if you understand... :) --PET 01:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Luddites? J Milburn 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Does anyone have any thoughts on why we have been having so much vandalism on this page in recent weeks? Apwoolrich 15:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * New school year - fresh subject? Noisy | Talk 17:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It was the same question I had. My guess is the same; must be assigned reading at one or more schools.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, the luddites. They were specially popular among handloom weavers, who hated being displaced by textile mills.

Protestant Ethic
Bertrand Russell's offhand comments in praise of a 4 day workweek are irrelevant and don't belong in an analytical history.

Rubbish
Dunno if this is intentional, but on Macs the text is full of rubbish "mouse over" and stuff like this. 192.115.133.141 01:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it was vandalism, and it has been corrected. Tito xd (?!?) 01:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What was the Industrial Revolution?
One problem I think is that this article really doesn't give a strong defintion beyond the usual and very general "socioeconomic changes" sort of explanation. Maybe we're all comming to this article with different conceptions of what the IR exactly was, and so it never occurs to any of us to offer more solid definitions. If an alien from Mars read this article, I don't think he'd really know what the IR was, other than that it involved some very big changes. Which changes? The best and most consice definition I've heard is that the IR was "a massive and unprecedented increase in the rate of change of technological innovation." Though possibly implied, this point isn't explicitly expressed in the article.

It's my understanding that people like Karl Marx and Adam Smith, though they lived during or immediatly after the IR, neither wrote of an "Idustrial Revolution." This doesn't seem strange when you consider that people in the "neolithic revolution" mentioned in these talkbacks probably didn't realize that they were part of any agricultural revolution. This kind of contemporary ignorance seems to hold true during many historical changes. Does anyone know when and where the realization of the IR as a historical even actually arose?

To all who read this, please sign your name on your articles. The American industrial revolution is an excellent example of economic upheaval in a now industrialized nation. History tells 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * For Wolf in Europe and the People Without History it's primarily a movement from mercantile to capitalist modes of production. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.236.25 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Tea
On the tea article it mentions, as I have heard from a documentary myself, that some historians believe that tea was an important factor in allowing the industrial revolution to take place in Britain at the time it did - the boiling of the water and natural antibiotics in tea (if I remember it correctly) apparently helped improve people's health and work rate. Is this worth mentioning? --El Pollo Diablo Talk

 * You're joking. You are.--62.136.136.85 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Historiography
Would it be worth adding 'Slow Growth' criticisms of the idea of an Industrial Revolution? (Crafts and Harley spring to mind). If so, I've recently completed an essay on the subject (Entitled 'Despite slow growth from 1780-1830, had there been an industrial revolution by 1870?') which could be editted and put in, along with a more detailed historiography ranging from Toynbee to Hudson. (From )

Origins of 'Industrial Revolution'
I believe this term surfaced in the early 20th Century and was popularised by Toynbee. It is used for a number of purposes (hence the above post)and even it's use as a phrase is disputed. Clapham made a point of boycotting the phrase. (From

 * I also had doubts about dating this term. However, Raymond Williams in Culture and Scociety does say that Industrial Revolution was coined by French authors, but in the 20s, not in the thirties or forties. --Wikipedius 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm fairly sure it was Arnold Toynbee first. Sanf

 * It may be that the French coined the term, but it became fixed as a hisotrical concept as a result of Arnold Toynbee's 1884 lectures - according to P. Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (1992), 11. Peterkingiron 20:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The black country
how about someone write a little about netherton in the black county and all the chain and anchor making, nail making iron forging that went on there

[ttianics anchor]

I still dont quite undersatnd this whole concept!
§I have to do a paper on this for AP World History and I am CONFUSED! 24.209.118.111 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Read the article and also spell understand correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicities (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Housing situation
I don't believe that this section is appropriate to the article. What in the world is it doing plumped down here? It features only a couple of quotes, both of which say the same thing. This is an article on the industrial revolution, after all! It has this long paragraph of dubious relevance, but nary a word, for example, of the development of the chemical industry during the industrial revolution. It adds to the length of the article, which is too long already. I am deleting the whole section for these reasons. DonSiano 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lunar Society
The Lunar Society was significant, but I think that some one's addition about it has given this a prominence that it does not deserve. One sentence on it (with a link) ought to be sufficient, not a whole section.

This is a good (though brief) discussion of an important subject, and I would suggest that it should not be altered save by those who really know what they are talking out. Peterkingiron 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Metallurgy
I have substantially rewritten this section based, which was of much lower quality than the rest of the article. In doing so, I have eliminated the following text: In the early 18th century, small-scale iron working and extraction and processing of other metals were carried out where local resources permitted. Fuel was primarily wood in the form of charcoal, but consumption was starting to be constrained by lack of available timber. At the same time, demand for high-quality iron was dramatically increasing to keep pace with the improvements in military technology and the involvement of Britain in numerous European wars.

To fuel the iron smelting process, people moved from wood to coal and coke. Production of pig iron, cast iron and wrought iron improved through the exchange of ideas (although this was by no means a fast process), with the most well-known name being Abraham Darby, although this was principally due to the nature of the coke he was using, and the scientific reasons for the improvement were only discovered later. His family followed in his footsteps, and iron became a major construction material. Peterkingiron 15:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Causes of the British Industrial Revolution
This is a subject about which historians have been arguing for many years. The section here on this fails to reflect the most recent debates on this subject, and merely gives a few of the ideas that were current several decades ago, some of which are now discredited. Peterkingiron 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The industrial revolution was good.

- Industrialization brought expansion either privately, or as a nation, in searching new sites for the gain of materials/resources overseas, and under such goal as exploring new/remote markets for domestic needs of those industralized powers later.

Industrial Revolution "abusive"
If you want to make the stock claims that the industrial revolution led to all kinds of horrible social ills such as increased child labor, poverty, pollution, cats and dogs living together, dissolution of the family, etc, you are going to have to cite actual evidence of this. Please try and refrain from regurgitating the "accepted" commonly believed liberal/socialist POV description of the industrial revolution. You need to actually compare the conditions during this period to those of previous periods, which were often already, very, very bad for most people.Segelflugzeugwettbewerber 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if you actually researched before writing this statement, because it is kind of inconsistent, and in a way, contradicts itself. First of all, the only reason it would be called a "liberal/socialist POV", would be because capitalists would not care to openly disclude that most of the Industrial Revolution (which profited the big capitalists) was based upon child labor. It would create strong dislike for the classes of people who had to give up their children to the Industrial Revolution. Also, if you google, "industrial revolution child labor" and you get plenty of non-liberal results. Poverty existed throughout the ages, ever since there were classes, but was made more evident when the Revolution forced families to live in conditions where survival was based upon commerce, and not self-sufficiency. Factories, coal-burning, masses of people packed into a small space = pollution. You can't deny this. For example, look at L.A. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by cats and dogs living together, so I'll skip that. For the dissolution of the family, just google "industrial revolution dissolution of family". It gives you plenty of results; I especially like number three. So check it all out, then reply. --Anarkial 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize that child labour started being heavily documented during the industrial revolution because of the massive increase in literacy? Do you think that in rural, non-industrial areas children didn't start pulling plows from age 9? The fact that infant mortality decreased five-fold might have something to do with people not worrying about children dying and starting to worry about tough working conditions. I suggest you stop sprouting cliched marxist propaganda and do some research yourself, and not just in history books: go to Thailand or Cambodia and see what child labour is like there and why.

 * Have you been to Cambodia or Thailand? If you have, I must concede. But if you haven't, you can stop insulting me now. You have only refuted one argument of mine, and for the other, made it seem like infant mortality is just a small factor of society. As for me "sprouting marxist propaganda," I can say the same for you sprouting capitalist ones. -Anarkial 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Child labour exists when average labour productivity is so small that a large proportion of the population works to be able to make a living, with the industrial revolution and the subsequent increases of labour productivity child labour gradualy disapeared in the industrial countries. Say that the industrial revolution was based on child labour is pure ignorance of our part since the industrial revolution was what eradicated child labour in the first place.--RafaelG 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How's about we don't put pseudohistory in, Eh?

 * Rafael, thank you for being a bit more explanatory. I accept your explanation on that point. --Anarkial 22:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the opinion that the industrial revolution was greatly beneficial to the workers. Compared to modern standards, the conditions must have been abominable but before the revolution it was a lot worse. I have just added the comment (with reference) the mortality among children under the age of five decreased from around 75 to around 30%.

There is one paragraph in 'other effects' which doesn't cite it's resouces at all. I'm intending to do research on it and either find solid references or alter the paragraph with a reference of every fact. --Ekpyrosis 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This has to be the worst paragraph I've ever seen in Wikipedia: "The mass migration of rural families into urban areas saw the growth of bad living conditions in cities[citation needed], long work hours without the traditional agricultural breaks (such as after harvest or in mid winter)[citation needed], a rise in child labour (the children received less pay and benefits than adults)[citation needed] and the rise of nationalism in most of Europe[citation needed]The increase in coal usage saw a massive increase in atmospheric pollution[citation needed]."

 * This an astounding amount of sheer mythology for just one paragraph. Bad living conditions, long work hours, and child labor were (and often still are) far more common on the family farm than in even early industry.  These practices (and other cited ills) were simply far more visible to the elites in the city than in the country, and thus caused much greater concern.  Nationalism was the result of cheap printing and mass government schooling, not of industrial practices.  In a world full of disease air pollution was the least of their worries at the time -- concentrating so many workers into so small a space was far more deadly. 63.194.89.150 23:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I have removed that paragraph. Some parts are inconsistent with the paragraph which follows it (which I wrote myself) and because for weeks nobody has added the required citations I think it's best to remove the paragraph completely. I have looked for citations, but I have not found any, probably because the facts in the paragraph simply lack a solid foundation. --Ekpyrosis 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, Segelflugzeugwettbewerber, here's a website for you to check out that has excerpts from the testimony given before the Sadler Committee, the parliament debate over the benefit of factory legislation, the testimony gathered by Lord Ashley's Mines Commission, and Edwin Chadwick's report on sanitary conditions. It's at www.victorianweb.org/history/workers1.html. It has sources for you to check if you think it's "liberal" propaganda. And, by the way, Segelflugzeugwettbewerber, just because such conditions existed before the Industrial Revolution doesn't mean we should ignore their presence in that time. We can't assume that the readers will take it for granted that there were horrible conditions. I mean, we still need to write about it. Even though it existed before, it still existed during the IR, which means it's a part of the IR and should be included.Phoenix Song 20:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * By the way, I just read through the article and it hardly mentions negative effects on children, and doesn't even have a sentence about the physical deformations and deteriorating health of child workers. This seems to be a very large oversight to me, but if anyone has a valid reason for the lack of detail about child labor, then I'd be glad to hear it. I understand that we need to keep things as concise as possible, but not at the expense of information. Could we at least put a link to an article about child labor in the IR (if there is one)? I'll reread the article in the meantime just to make sure I didn't miss anything.Phoenix Song 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rising wages
I think it is an important omission not mentioning the income statistics, specially since there is a lot of academic work on the subject. It is not insignificant that from 1700 to 1830 incomes rose by more than half and then almost doubled between 1830 and 1860. Also per person calorie intakes, mortality rates, population growth...

I have added a referenced remark about the increase income, still doing more research.--Ekpyrosis 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
The Manual of Style coveres proper introductions here:
 * The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

The Industrial Revolution might have began in the U.K., but the introduction should reflect what it eventually turned into. It really limits the scope to say it was an English thing, and then mention that it happen to have significant impacts throughout the world in the third paragraph. Cacophony 06:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You seem to have your facts mixed up because the UK didn't exist at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and Wales and Scotland were intimately involved - so it was by no means just an 'English thing': it is better to use Great Britain.

 * It would be useful to indicate the move of the centre of European industrial output to the Ruhr valley, but Wikipedia seems to be totally lacking in any coverage of the history of technology and industry in Germany and its preceeding states. (Perhaps better to state that I couldn't find any, rather than that there isn't any.)  Noisy | Talk 08:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The importance of Germany in the second phase of the industrial revolution is mentioned briefly in the Second Industrial Revolution article. There is ample room for expansion.  In fact there could be a whole article devoted to the industrial revolution in Germany.  There are already some articles for companies which were at the center of it like Siemens and BASF. --AlainV 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Child Labour
Really the first law against child labour was the Factory Act of 1819. Although it was ineffective because it included no means of enforcement, it was still the first child labour law. The Factory Act of 1833 merely allowed for the investigation and enforcement of the Factory Act of 1819. Under this law, textile mill operators were prohibited from employing children under the age of nine. Children between 9 and 13 could not work more than 8 hours a day, and children between 13 and 18 could work no longer than 12 hours a day. Nine years later another law was passed that prohibited the employment of all women and children under 10 in coal mines. In 1847, the Ten Hours Act was passed. This law established a 10 hour working day for children under 18 and women. This eventually led to a ten hour workday for all workers because it wasn't profitable to keep the factories running after all the women and children were gone.

I'd add this, but I'm afraid I might mess something up seeing as I'm not totally used to editing as of yet. I'll just stick to learning with the talk pages and leave this to someone more experienced...--Gotmesomepants 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Industry-based economy"
Please, i want to know how this works. what is really industry-based economy, and please give me an example where this has worked most. I will be so grateful if you could render me the assistance as soon as possible. If possible now. Thank you so very much.

Emeka..........

Vandalism
Keep an eye on this page. It's been the target of recent school IP vandalism. I can't revert it anymore, as I have already reverted thrice. --Gray Porpoise 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is actually somewhat funny to me, as the 'recent school IP vandalism' is from Catherine M. McGee Middle, which is the school I go to. We have to do this eighth grade project that is comprised of summaries of certain historical events from the Contitution to the Civil War. The following is a list of subjects we must research: Lousiana Purchase, Mexican War, George Washington's Farewell Address, Industrial Revolution (US), Underground Railroad, Trail of Tears, Cotton Gin (invention of), Oregon Trail, Texas Annexation, Seneca Falls Convention, Bleeding Kansas, Compromise of 1850, Spoils System, Transcontinental Railroad (US), Manifest Destiny, California Gold Rush, Missouri Compromise, War of 1812, Monroe Doctrine, Erie Canal. We might want to disable all unregistered user editing for these pages during the month of October. Another solution, if possible, is that I can get a list of all IP adresses for my school, and we can disable editing for those IP's. -Sluggy42
 * I find that students working on a project and vandalizing wiki articles to generally be a bad thing being that student from my school have in the past vandalized pages immediately before a teacher looks at it contributing to the view of some teachers that wikipedia and other wiki sites are unreliable as sources when in fact wikipedia is frequently more accurate than some other sources. 216.133.186.66 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spread of Industrialization
Can anyone find some sort of chart or something showing the spread of industrialization? I'd greatly appreciate it. And also, would this include the spread of this type of economy to areas such as China and other parts of East Asia, where many factories have sprung up in the last century? P.S. Pardon the fact that that last statement wasn't well researched. I don't really want to get sucked into any arguments.

POV
This article seems to be POV because it neglects recent historic studies, like that of Clark, that argue that these Industrial Revolutions are a myth, concocted by mostly Marxist historians. Intangible 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uneditable vandalism in References section
There is some uneditable vandalism in the "References" section. Can someone who knows more fix it?

Vandalism?
I do not know much about script writing and the technical aspects of the Internet. However, I have noticed something wrong as this page, when accessed from a google search or a hyperspace link, is redirected to a page that is called "Industrial Revolution" but instead gives "a list of nominees and winners of the 2002 Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards." I think that this is likely a vandalism problem, as this page seems to have experienced it before, and the edit page, when clicked on, brings up the former, solid page about the industrial revolution. I just thought that someone should note this.

Malikar 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"your mother is a problem with wikipedia." "YOUR MOTHER IS A GOOD CONTRIBUTER TO GLOBAL WARMING. and so are monkeys."

I found these sentences in the middle of the article. I tried to edit these sentences out of the article on the "edit" page, but they are somehow hidden. Can anyone fix this? 71.77.79.118 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Christine Jones

Comments added to Article moved here.
Comments Moved here from the article by me. Lumos3 12:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Referring to the comment on Renaissance and Reformation; Quote Western peoples have experienced the Renaissance and Reformation; other parts of the world had not had similar intellectual breakout, a condition that holds true even into the 21st centuary. Unquote

I think this is not appropriate. I suggest removal of the comment on Renaissance and Reformation. Both Renaissance and Reformation are, I understand, deeply or directly connected to the misguidance by the Christian authority. Italian Renaissance eventually occurred after centuries long prohibition of classic studies as heresy by the powerful church (perhaps 700-800 years of intellectual vacuum?), in addition to the contribution from the economic surge from trade and finance and belated literacy improvement for reading the Greek and Roman classics, which didn't come from the libraries in Vatican or churches but from the Islamic world and Byzantine. We cannot also neglect technology transfer from islamic world, India and China, if we talk about scientific and industrial activities at the time of Renaissance. We cannot imagine Galileo without a telescope or discuss his academic achievement without mentioning ealier similar theory published by Abu Ibn Ahmad Al-Biruni, an Islamic astronomer in the 11th century. The early industrial activities in the Northern Italy such as silk textile, glass work, sugar making and even shipbuilding and navigation were mainly so-called adaptation of the technology from the East. (The World Economy by Angus Maddison). Reformation occurred, I understand, after the centuries long abuses of power by the Catholic authority. If we study about the reformation activities in various religions, we will certainly find such reformation as every religion has corrupted abusers and zealous reformers. If we talk about Max Weber style of protestant work ethic, which has a hint of prejudice, we can also find similar quality in confucian work ethic (Trust by Francis Fukushima). If we talk about intellectual breakout, there must be similar other human activities outside of the Western Europe. For example, I would like to point out the Zen movement in the middle age in Japan. It had the Reformation impact to the orthodox sects of Buddhism that were introduced to Japan earlier than Zen. Dogen (1200-1253) established the largest Zen sect. In the following three centuries after Dogen and Eisai, another major evangelist of Zen, coincidentally around the same time of Renaissance in Italy, the cultural revolution of Zen movement in Japan had a deep impact on the Japanese culture in changing almost all aspects, I humbly call this the intellectual breakout in Japan, including not only religious belief but also, philosophy, architecture such as teahouse, painting and other arts such as Noh or Kyogen (comedy), literature and calligraphy, garden designing (rock garden), education, marshal art, swordsmanship (Miyamoto Musashi),way of the warrior (Bushido or Hagakure), military strategy, tea ceremony, Ikebana flower arrangement and even food (shojin ryori). The large portion of this Japanese culture is visible and true even in the 21st century.( One of the source- "History of Japan" by R.H.P. Mason and J. G. Gaigner) Incidentally if you visit the new MoMA, The Museum of Modern Art in New York, you will understand what I mean as the new building is the Zen-influenced " minimalism" design by Yoshio Taniguchi, a Japanese architect. I should point out that the Zen cultural revolution occured during the cruelest and the worst civil war time (sengoku era) in Japan. Ikkyu(1394-1481), a famous Zen buddhist, poet and 'the master of tea ceremony' thrived while living in the free Sakai,a Venice like autonomous city of merchants, where Nayashu instead of warlord ruled the city, a glimmer of early democracy (oligarchy) in Japan. Sakai was also famous for the industrial activities such as mass production center of quality firearms that were developed after the Japanese learned firearms from Fernao Mendes Pinto, an explorer from Portugal in 1543. William Adams(1564-1620) from England and Engelbert Kaempfer from Westphalia (1651-1716) glimpsed the Japanese world after the unification of Japan and near completion of Zen and Confucian reformation of the Japanese society. Particularly Kaempfer, who witnessed arbitrary execution decided by the Protestant city fathers of his own uncle who condemned senseless burning of innocent women in witch-hunts after the saddest Thirty Years War which reduced population of German states by 40%, saw peaceful and prosperous Japan under the rule of autocratic but unique philosopher Shogun Tsunayoshi, who was a patron of learning, emphasized compassion to all animate creation, banned children abandonment in any condition but was disgraced later as a retard by the indigenous historians under the strong warrior (samurai) culture since the 12th century. (As he was such an unique shogun, this is almost similar ostracised situation that most of the Egyptian historians treat the unique Akhenaten in the 18th dynasty who preached 'one god'.) The Western people couldn't believe existence of such a pious*, stoic, law-abiding and prosperous (Genroku era) civil yet heathen country outside of their own Christiant world. As matter of a fact, similar to the original and second translators of the Confucian work ( supeority complexed Christian biased James Legge's original translation and subsequent second translation by Rev. Jennings at the time of Max Weber)*, the original and the second translators/editors of Kaempfer's diary in the early and the late 18th (at the time of Max Weber) centuary toned down, intentionally changed or added deragratory judgement to Kaempfer's scholastic historical record in order to appeal (sell) to the prospective readers who wanted to read about the barbarian country in the East under the superiority feeling of the Protestant society. For Kaempfer, the prosperous Edo (old Tokyo) was more populous yet looked cleaner and safer than the major cities in the Western Europe at that time. Thanks to the higher literacy and more availability of paper than the Western Europe, it had more book stores that sold not only books of bilief systems but also best sellers (Ihara Saikaku) for the commoners. (Kaempfer's Japan by Beatrice M. Bodart-Bailey) Commoners enjoyed not only novels written by popular writers like Ihara Saikaku but also joruri and kabuki theaters that played popular stories written by Chikamatsu Monzaemon and others. This is around the same time of Shakespeare. Concerning the paper technology, there is an interesting observation made by the French. Before the self-imposed isolation (sakoku), one of the daimyo (Date Masamune) instead of shogun sent his emissary (Hasekura Tsunenaga) to the Pope and the king of Spain by the 500 ton ship (San Juan Bautista) made in Japan (1613-1620). The emissary dropped by St.Troppez due to the bad weather. The St. Troppez city chronical observed, "They (the Japanese) blow their noses in soft silky papers, the size of a hand, which they never use twice, so that they threw on the ground after usage and our people there precipitated themselves to pick them up."

 * (Beatrice M. Boghart-Bailey}, Historian and the latest translator of "Kaempfer's Japan" wrote "He (Kaempfer) declared that the Japanese were not atheists but only worshipped the Divine Majesty in a different fashion and provocatively added that they are frequently more pious than their Christian brothers and sisters."

 * Lionel Giles, Keeper of Oriental Books and Manuscripts in the British Museum wrote that "Legge's whole attitude to Confucianism bespoke one comprehensive and fatal foregone conclusion-the conviction that it must at every point prove inferior to Christianity." The Easton Press, Norwalk, Connecticut, 'The Analects of Confucious'

By User:Hiromiando

Secondly this is concerning the argument why Industrial Revolution did not occur in India or China. Quote Some historians credit the different belief systems in China and Europe with dictating where the revolution occurred. The religion and beliefs of Europe were largely products of Judaeo-Christianity, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Conversely, Chinese society was founded on men like Confucius, Mencius, Han Feizi (Legalism), Lao Tzu (Taoism), and Buddha (Buddhism). The key difference between these belief systems was that those from Europe focused on the individual, while Chinese beliefs centered around relationships between people. The family unit was more important than the individual for the large majority of Chinese history, and this may have played a role in why the Industrial Revolution took much longer to occur in China. There was the additional difference as to whether people looked backwards to a reputedly glorious past for answers to their questions or looked hopefully to the future. Unquote

Bringing the belief systems into the cause of the Industrial Revolution is a little strange to me. If we compare various religions even including Confucianism, though each religion has its some unique teachings, surprisingly we find a large common ground in the teachings by Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Moses and Confucius such as human equality, compassion or Golden Rule. Plato's (or Socrates') philosophy was not well known to Great Britain until Benjamin Jowett published an English translation in 1871, quite after the first Industrial Revolution. Even if we compare The Republic of Plato (427-347BC) (or Socrates?) with The Analects of Confucius (551-479BC), we find again surprisingly some major similar (not all) human quality that these philosophers demanded from the ideal leader for the state, though Confucian requirement of 'compassion' was noticeably missing from the concept of Plato(or Socrates?). Both Plato (Socrates?} and Confucius wanted philosophers like themselves to be the leader. It is true that Confucius mentioned 'family' as the basic unit of the state.  This is not similar to Aristotle's basic unit, namely 'household' which is composed of men, slave, property,children and  lastly wives. There was no economic concept in The Republic by Plato in comparison with Confucius'. It was Aristotle(384-322BC) who introduced economic concept in his Politics. But he pointed out that it was 'household', namely family, slave and property, instead of 'individual' as the basic economic unit of the state. In this sense, Aristotle's household concept is closer to Confucious' family concept than Plato's individual concept. Confucius' China was not structured as slave based economy as in the degree of Greek or Roman. Incidentally, Confucius looked backwards to a reputedly glorious past of Chou dynasty. However it is not only China but also Southern Europe like France or Italy that exibited strong family emphasis in relation to the industrialization according to Trust by Francis Fukushima. Above all, argument by the individualistic Plato that women should belong to the community would surprise family oriented Confucious.

Instead of belief systems, I rather would like to emphasize historical background of China, India or Japan in comparison with the Western countries such as Great Britain, where Industrial Revolution originally occurred as a result of the heavy competition among the countries in the Western Europe with some particular background why it had to be in Great Britain. In spite of the inferior knowledge/technology of nutrition (to Chinese), navigation and shipbuilding (to Arabs and Chinese), when Vasco da Gama made a nearly suicidal voyage to India in 1498, Indian rulers were not impressed by the Portuguese products for the trade exchange. Even in 1793 China demanded Europeans silver (gold) for the payment as almost nothing from the Western Europe impressed them. We have to realize that all these Asian countries had for a long time self-sufficient prosperous economies, nearly independent each other, though they enjoyed peaceful centuries old trade each other, not like 'Beggar-Your-Neighbor' country to country relationship then prevalent in the Western Europe. In addition, they didn't need the voyage to the West, in spite of the superior navigation technology at the time, for example evidenced by Zheng He's seven naval expedition (1405-1433) or research results by Sanjay Subrahmanyam, as they didn't need to sacrifice such a large magnitude of 9.5-18 million slaves shipped from Africa to Americas and the Caribean Islands over 300 years ('The World Economy' by Angus Maddison) because of their own rich population and secondly didn't have any zeal to propergate their own belief systems to the Western Europe. On the other hand, starting from the lower economic standard than the Islamic World or China, the Western Europe had never-ending hunger for spices, tea or sophisticated /luxuarious products such as silk, silk textile, chinaware or other artistic objects from the East in exchange for silver, gold and even slave (to Islamic countries) and dreadful opium ( to China). In the long human history, it is not the first time that people in lower economic standard but higher in military power conquered the people in the higher standard, evidenced for an example by the fall of the Roman Empire due to the barbarian attack. Western colonization of Asia unfortunately happened by such superior military power of the Western Europe. China itself was conquered by Manchus, economically less prosperous but superior in military power, in 1644 and was occupied during the most important time of modernization including Industrial Revolution until Qing dynasty ended in 1911. The human, economic and social damage must have been enormous for a long time. When economies of the Western Europe and U.S. started to take off around 1820, China's or India's economy in terms of GDP was still by far larger than the Great Britain's. Even Japan's GDP was still larger than that of the U.S.  ( The World Economy by Angus Maddison} By the time when China and India realized that they needed Industrial Revolution, it was too late for them as they found themselves under the heavy net of the Western Europe, by then superior economic and military power, evidenced by the two Opium Wars in China (1834-1843 and 1856-1860) and Indian Rebellion War (1857).  The Tokugawa shogunate of Japan decided to close Japan (sakoku) by 1639 for its own survival against potential rebellions by Daimyo, which would naturally use influence or military technology of the Western Europe. Japan discarded its excellent shipbuilding capability and precious navigation knowledge to Mexico and perhaps to the Western Europe (Hasekura Tsunenaga) and above all, its military technology for the mass production of firearms and mass utilization of firearms, in which it exceeded any European nation in quanity and quality, according to Jack A. Goldstone (Univ. of California, Davis). Even after the self-isolation (sakoku), Japan knew about the Western colonization situation in India, China and other Asian countries, as it had annual global presentation made by Dutch envoy.  At least once a year, the Dutch envoy explained to the Japanese government what happened in the world over the past year.  Japan started learning extensively some of the Western medicine and science from around 1720 (Rangaku- technology transfer from the Dutch to the Japanese).   Then one day the Japanese saw the black ships of American navy in the Tokyo Bay in 1854.*  In spite of the incredible difficulty and sacrifice, Japan rushed to change the government (Meiji Restoration) in 1868 and pursued government-led Industrial Revolution like France and Sweden. The Japan’s Industrial Revolution was approximately 30-40 years behind from the German’s. However, Japan's war with China (1884-1885) and subsequent invasion further delayed China's Industrial Revolution.

 * Quote from Rangaku..."These developments led to the Satsuma fief building Japan's first steam ship, the Unkoumaru (雲行丸) in 1855, barely two years after Japan's encounter with such ships in 1853 during Perry's visit. In 1858, the Dutch officer Kattendijke would comment:
 * "There are some imperfections in the details, but I take my hat off to the genius of the people who were able to build these without seeing an actual machine, but only relied on simple drawings". (Cattendike, 1858, "Technology of Edo", p37)

By Hiromiando 00:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hiromiando, instead of continually editing your comments above, why don't you draft out another section that presents this point of view to go along with the three plus points of view currently expressed in that section? It would be great if you could break the current mold and present references that show this is a significant point of view held by historians.  -- Siobhan Hansa 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the first time for me to participate, and it will take time for me to understand the format of Wikipedia that is immensely informative. The other day I saw the C-SPAN show that Gingrich talked about Wikipedia when Alvin Toffler talked about Linux as an example of the expanding non-economic activity to change the future. By the way, I want to see some constructive discussions before draft out another section. ( By Hiromiando 17:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

I noticed the writer of the section added the names of historians, namely David Landes and Max Weber. I have never heard that Max Weber could read Chinese. He must have used reference material being translated by Christian biased scholars at the time like James Legge. Using possibly corrupted (biased) second source materal and argue about the difference of the two cultures is nowadays unthinkable. If I am wrong, please correct me. Secondly, I noticed that academic work by David Landes has encountered many critical arguments, just looking through the information available from Wikipedia. I have a feeling that author of this section knows about these critical reviews by other scholars. I rather suggest the author to add some these critical view to the original comment. by Hiromiando 15:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It's difficult to respond to a section that keeps changing. Think of the talk page as more like a bulletin board or forum - you're talking to people.  If you want comments, ask for them.  Be specific bout what you're referring to and what sort of comments or suggestions you want.
 * On the Weber issue - I'm no historian so I really have no idea - I only stepped in because I saw you editing away but no dialog, which didn't seem like what you were looking for.
 * Some of your points above sound more like you want a scholarly discussion to interpret history rather than report on the current opinion of experts in the field. If that's the case, Wikipedia isn't the place, may be the Wikiversity, or a history forum somewhere.  If you actually mean to point out that some of the views presented aren't significant, current views held by historians it would be helpful if you would be more specific (which view, when did it fall out of favor, what, if anything, was it replaced by etc.).  If you want to see another view represented alongside the ones on the page then perhaps a general outline and a few links to proponents of the view would help facilitate collaboration.  -- Siobhan Hansa 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not a historian either, but was amazed by the blatant proclamation of superior Western Europe even nowadays in Wikipedia. I didn't even know that Max Weber turned into an expert on Chinese culture. Just to give some global perspective, according to IMF's 2005 GDP(PPP-Purchasing Power Parity basis) data, Asia's (not including the Middle East) aggregated GDP was approximately $23.0 trillion against EU's $12.4 trillion or U.S. $12.3 trillion. Aggregated Confucious countries' GDP was approximately $15.5 trillion. This will hint that other factors than belief systems caused the delay of the Industrial Revolution in Asia or Confucious countries. By Hiromiando 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * This is quite a long comment, and I haven't time to discuss many of the points in detail, but on this last point about GDP, it's always important when using figures to ensure that they're relevant to the point you're trying to make. Current GDP, particularly when measured in PPP terms, has very little to do with the origins of the industrial revolution. Asia's population is enormous, and consequently so is an aggregate of the GDP of Asia (as was the case long before the industrial revolution, for the same reason). In per-capita terms, which is what matters here, only Japan and some former-colony microstates have reached levels of per-capita GDP similar to the leading Western countries (and a few others, e.g. Taiwan and South Korea, are close enough to perhaps be considered as well).

 * Apart from the inappropriateness of looking at total GDP (especially in PPP terms), industrial developments outside of the originating countries are largely the result of diffusion of the respective technologies. The fact that the industrial revolution started in the United Kingdom rather than Germany, for instance, is an interesting topic of discussion, but whatever the reasons, the diffusion of technology from the United Kingdom to Germany (amongst many other countries) in the 19th century led to a similar level of industrial development, and Germany became a source of many new industrial developments which then diffused to the UK (and other countries). This does not, however, in any way imply that an industrial revolution was sparked in Germany, in the same way as in the UK. Rather, one can say that the industrial revolution spread from the UK to Germany.

 * Germany, the USA, Japan and many other countries make interesting studies of the way in which industrialisation can spread across countries, by technological diffusion. The question of why the initial industrial revolution happened in the first place, however, is a completely different one. When the United Kingdom industrialised, there was no existing industrial society from which this process spread -- it was the first one, and hence industrialisation was endogenous (which isn't to say there weren't external factors), which makes it a very special case. It is thus entirely reasonable to hypothesise that characteristics particular to 18th century British society played a role in sparking the industrial revolution; the subsequent spread of industrialisation through the diffusion of technology is entirely beside the point.

 * Briefly regarding one of your other points, if the GDP per capita figure in the article (World GDP Capita 1-2003 A.D.png) is correct (I haven't got any data to hand), Western European output per capita was already ahead of Asia (and everywhere else) by ca. 1500, and moreover was higher in 1st century as well, with the 11th century (when the output of Western Europe was below that of Asia) being the sole abberation. This leaves the notion that a 'poor Europe' was forced to go out and trade with a 'rich Asia' rather wanting. A much more plausible reason for European interest in trading with Asia is that the European climate was simply too cold for cultivation of many agricultural products to be practicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.195.2 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a historian. The Industrial Revolution is generally understood as a period in British history when the country quite suddenly industrialised.  From Britian industrialisation spread inot Europe and America.  The material copied above may well be a legitimate subject, but it is not relevant to the subject of this article.  It might make a valid article on Oriental influence on European thought in the early modern period.
 * What the Industrial Revolution was and why it happened remain controversial issues among economic historians today. It needs an academic expert in the whole subject to straighten out this article, and provide it with a reasonable balance.  Unfortunately, since any one can edit, it is difficult for any one person to take "ownership" of it to provide a good balance NPOV article.  I was trying to improve it at one point, but have given up.  There has in recent months been (for example) some valid material in the article that is too detailed and needs to be forked out of it into separate articles

Per capita incomes and interest rate section needs citation
The reference has a reference to per capita incomes in Europe, but there is no citation for China or for the interest rates. Someome might just go into Pommeranz and see what they can make of it.

England/Great Britian
I cited a source (a reliable one too), why was this reverted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uisce (talk • contribs).

 * Because it isn't correct. A citation isn't all that is required, for example I can happily (and very quickly) cite two respected, reliable sources which disagree with your one.  "Citing a source" contest isn't where it ends though - simple facts, not least the involvement of Wales and Scotland in the IR, state that GB not England should the usage. SFC9394 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thing is, England is mentioned specifically at some level in both those sources. But fair enough, I won't be losing any sleep. Want to give false information? So be it. Uisce

 * Please Assume Good Faith when in discourse with other editors, Thanks. SFC9394 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * But you seem to be under the impression that I am doubting any Scottish or Welsh involvment whatsoever, which of course I am not. I am merely trying to correct the opening sentence, which claims that "Britain" was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Was there Scottish and Welsh involvement as it spread? Yes. However, it began in England. Uisce

 * I don't think you can state that - there is a great deal of contention as to what even defines the IR or when it began, let alone where. Was it Watt and his advance, or was that merely a symptom of the free thinking time?  If so then there are many other characters, from numerous locations inside and outside England, that contributed.  Was it the Darby method that made cast iron a readily producible material - if so was that the most important factor or was it the great co-location of Coal and Iron ore in south wales, the midlands and the scottish lowlands the key?  Was the wider political environment key - the growth of the middle class due to the excess generated by colonial trading - the agricultural revolution - were these keys - they were most certainly aspects which were common to all that was ruled from London, not just England.  All I am doing here is compressing the content of the IR article into a few sentences.  Our article itself details, in numerous locations the varying views - what was the IR, where did it begin - does it even exist as a definable event?  If a definite date, or a definite event can not be assigned to it there is very little evidence that a definite country can be - especially when so many contributing factors were common to both Wales and Scotland - indeed there is a good case that the movement was a European wide movement.  The UK compared to other European powers - with its relatively small physical size, relatively small distance between key resources, and relative abundance of those resources - simply got up to speed a great deal quicker.  I'm afraid that is the real problem here - there is no right answer to where it began, because such a definite statement simply cannot be defended.  People can, and have, written whole books on the subject. SFC9394 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While the birthplace of most of the important innovations was England, James Watt was a Scot, and Henry Cort's puddling process, though invented in England, was perfected in south Wales. I think general referneces should be to Britain.  I have amended the article today, (amongst other things) seeking to pick out a few key innovations.  Peterkingiron 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

?i!
What's up with the "YOU GUYS SUCK" phrase randomly inserted in the middle of the first paragraph in the intro?

Who sucks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.232.15 (talk) 00:02, February 9, 2007

 * That is what we call vandalism. It's not supposed to be there, and someone should remove it shortly. Don't forget to sign your posts! Pyrospirit  Talk  Contribs 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As you can see, already gone. Pyrospirit  Talk  Contribs 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization spelled wrong
The topic title organization is spelled wrong. Unlogged accounts are disabled from changing it and I don't want to create an account. Someone else change it.

69.138.180.182 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Jonathan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.180.182 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

The article is written in British English, as pointed out in a comment at the start of this article, and as per WP:ENGVAR. Greg 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

relationship between industrail revolution, mass production, rail roads and samuel slater?
The new paragraph on Sam Slater is quite overblown. Slater is not even mentioned in Asimov's "Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology" nor in several other refs examined. The industrial espionage idea is adequately covered in para about Lowell. I am therefore removing the whole paragraph.DonSiano 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given it a citation and put part of it back. The "industrial espionage" allegation was a bit strong and not justified by the evidence. Old Moonraker 15:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is still much overblown. My Encyclopedia Brittanica does not cite Slater as the founder of the American industrial revolution but rather the founder of the American cotton industry, so the "citation" does not back up this paragraph.  I'm  revising it accordingly to the more  modest claim.DonSiano 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Romantic Movement - Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a novel, it's certainly not a short story and Blake's lines are known as 'Jerusalem' by the vast majority of people. They're not actually a self contained poem but are taken from his preface to "Milton" 124.184.31.179 13:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC) joanne mullen 27th feb 2007

Recent revision
As some one who had criticised the content of this article previously, I am glad to find that others have improved it since I last looked. The article is mainly about Great Britain; I have therefore added this word to the title of certain sections. I have also restructured the article, promoting certain sections to a higher level of heading. I have also moved two paragraphs on America into a section of their own. However there is a need for a short section (which I am not qualified to provide) in industrialisation in Contental Europe, and perhpas Japan.

A section on the Lunar Society used to stand out incongrously, I have tried to add more in one place and omit a longer passage which read as follows:
 * The work ethic argument has, on the whole, tended to neglect the fact that several inventors and entrepreneurs were rational free thinkers or "Philosophers" typical of a specific class of British intellectuals in the late 18th century, and were by no means normal church goers or members of religious sects. Examples of these free thinkers were the Lunar Society of Birmingham.  Its members were exceptional in that they were among the very few who were conscious that an industrial revolution was then taking place in Britain.  They actively worked as a group to encourage it, not least by investing in it and conducting scientific experiments which led to innovative products such as the invention of commercial gas lighting and turning the steam engine into the powerplant of the Industrial era.

I suspect this was written as a comment on the Protestant work ethic. Some of them were certainly Unitarians, but I am not sure that 'free thinker' in its recent sense is appropriate.

I was expecting to have to deal with the issue of slavery and the industrial revolution, but am glad to find that some one else has done so, adding a useful authorative external source. Peterkingiron 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge Transfer etc.

 * The article has a long section on this. However, I am not convinced of its importance.  Few important innovations of this period came from abroad; the jacquard loom is a notable exception.  The attempt to attribute the achievements of the First Industrial Revolution to science is essentially unwarranted.  Most of the important innovations were the work of relatively uneducated peopel, not of those we would readily identify as a scientist.  There are of course a few exceptions (notably the Lunar Society), but I wonder whether this section does not need toning down or converting into a separate article.
 * Similarly, the early section on 'why not in Asia?' do not sit comfortably in an article that is mainly about Britain. The causes of the industrial revolution in Britain reamin an issue of debate among economic historians.  Peterkingiron 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

vocabulary
technicological is not a word. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.184.237.243 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Globalize designation
Perhaps this article has been tagged with "globalize" before, but I am tagging it again because of the undue emphasis placed on industrialization in Britain to the detriment of any coverage of other countries. Many parts of this article should be split off into another article resembling "Industrial Revolution in Great Britain" or "Technological and industrial history of Great Britain." By no means do I mean to discredit or demean the role Britain had in fomenting the "first" industrial revolution, and certainly the many structural socio-economic characteristics that permitted it to industrialize so early should be elaborated, but that (1) more than half the article is under a "in Britain" and (2) the "Industrial Revolution elsewhere" is a stub of 3 paragraphs, ignores a huge body of history about developments and changes elsewhere. I am currently editing the United States technological and industrial history and I would welcome your comments there and would likewise be glad to assist in globalizing the views presented herein. Madcoverboy 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason it appears GB centric is because Britain was decades ahead of the rest of the world during the period in question. To give a watered down "global" view would be to distort this truth. If there are citable sources which support a more globlised view then please introduce them to the article.   Lumos3 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The UK was first, but the Industrial Revolution lasted for at least a century. By some definitions, it is still going on in some parts of the world.  And while the originator of the Industrial Revolution, the UK is FAR FROM the only country to have made huge contributions to the Industrial Revolution.  This article IS way too Britanno-centric.  And a little leaning toward anti-American (chiefly the World GDP picture, and no mention of the United States and chiefly Europe in the causes section, though the United States industrialized only little after the UK and before most European countries (around the American Revolution and because of the War of 1812 during trade embargoes with the UK.   Chiss Boy   17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia doesn't do Undue Weight. The article isn't about industrial revolutions, it is about the industrial revolution, i.e. the one that is widely understood to have taken place in the western world in the 18th and 19th centuries and represented a shift from an agrarian, rural small scale society to an industrial, urban heavy industry society.  Facts are GB tended to be ahead of the pace on this, and hence the majority of the advances and "firsts" occurred in GB.  Just in the same way an article on the electronics revolution would (and should) contain generally American-centric content due to the major leaps and advances which tended to occur in the US.  That being said, if the process of the IR in other parts of the world is not fully explained then they can certainly be expanded, but I don't support the view that this article should become a watered down effective portal page for technological development in tens of countries - that is not what the phrase "industrial revolution" is widely held to mean - and to do so would be effective OR. SFC9394 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

this page rox
I am 13 and I had a history assignment and this page gave me all the answers thanks wikipedia

 * Not exactly the image Wikipedia is trying to promote, but there you go! Lh'owon 07:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Use the sources that Wikipedia cites as the citations in your assignment rather than Wikipedia itself. Most teachers accept Wikipedia as a jumping off point but want you to cite sources that are not from an encyclopedia (and that means any encyclopedia). Wikipedia is trying to provide high quality source links and paper references for every article. Lumos3 10:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Continental Europe
I have noticed that there is no information under the subtitle "Continental Europe." If someone vandalized and deleted it, would someone please revert the change. If not, than will someone please fill in the missing information, because it can be confusing to readers, when there is a section with nothing under it. Udora
 * I think I added the title in the hope that some one else would find the time to write this (needed) section. Perhaps, I should have written a sentence and marked it as a section stub.  I will now do so.  Peterkingiron 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sulfur or Sulphur
As this article concerns to some extent British history, and as editors are recommended to use British english throughout (see note in first line), I am considering changing all instances of "sulfur" to the historically and geographically (if not etymologically) correct "sulphur". Other editors please respond if you think this is wrong. Some background here. --Old Moonraker 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The article is tagged as using British orthography, so "sulphur" is correct.  Peterkingiron 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, with a few other examples. Will it stick?--Old Moonraker 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bond image & "caption text" -- delete it?
The bond image caption was recently moved into the article body. I don't think that the image caption text works well in the article body, as written now. The chartered companies did not themselves create the legal and financial circumstances, and it's not relavent to the article, although it is to the image, that the Dutch East India Company issued the first stock ever. I just put it there to explain what the image was doing in the article. Rather than expand the article's scope to cover chartered companies I think it'd be better to just get rid of the image. The now-article-text also repeats, more or less, the sentence in the causes section where I originally put the image. Delete the whole paragraph and the image too? --kop 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The industrial revolution started in France
Like anything related to history, there is a lot of interpretations and politics related to the way things are said. This is why it is not frozen and will evolve with the facts which can be brought to light.

I do have a problem with the idea that prevails in the English speaking countries that the Industrial Revolution commenced in the UK and the major contributions where mainly from USA. In the proposed description, there is not enough facts about other countries, especially in Europe. Things were much more subtle than that and the IR did not start with Watt.

During the XVIII century, in Lyon started already an activity worthy of the name "industry" which was certainly a revolution. This activity extended to several cities in Europe, I have enough information about Lancaster to see that there was a textile industry blooming in the XVIII century. The textile industry started to develop very important technologies which led to the famous Jacqard's loom which is renowed not only for being the modern textile machine but which also introduced programming techniques as it would be used in computers and NC machine tools using punch cards and bands up until recently. Here is a authoritative source for those who can read french which proves all the work that: http://www.cvmt.com/index.htm

I have visited a watch making factory near Sarrebrucken in Germany which shows that there was several machine tools built very early on but there is still a lot of work to gather proper documentation. The milling machines were powered by belts driven by a water mill which was suitable for such miniature industry.

I will contact some french academics who have recently written about the IR and bring these sources here.

For example, in the harness of energy, the steam machine was commenced by Papin in France during the XVIII century and then it was often used into mines of the Lorraine region (North East).

It si now time to recognize that the industrial revolution also happened in France in a very significant manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurentien
 * This is not a particularly helpful contribution. There was of course industry in many places (including Lyon) long before the Industrial Revolution.  This was "industry" but not "revolution".  It is my understanding tha Papin never applied his steam engine to do work, and it was a mere curiosity.  However, the British Industrial Revolution was a unique period of very sudden industrial expansion, with iron and cotton as leading sectors where output expanded very rapidly.  This expansion was on a scale differnet from anything until German industrialisation in the late 19th century, followed by Japan after WWII and China and India currently.
 * By all means expand section 4.2 of the article, but please ensure that you cite your sources, However this should be able the spread of British industrial techniques to Continential Europe.  I fear that if you try to add your suggested topics to this article, you will merely upset its balacne and your work will be destroyed by others reverting from it.  You will probably do better to add material to articles on more specific subject than to this one.  Otherwise it will be a case of "fools rush in where angles fear to tread".  Please make sure you log in before editing.  Peterkingiron 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Your judgement about my contribution might be somewhat rude and I do disagree with your point of view. In France, there were steam machines around long before Watt's and they were based on Papin's or Newcomen's designs. It is have a record that explains that the first vehicle was made by Cugnot in 1770 using Papin's design. Also the first steam engine to be fitted on a boat was also french and based on Papin. The textile industry was the first one to go through a revolution during the XVIII century. Thus, there was a sudden expansion in industry with substantial growth. The question is where do you put the line and it needs to be adjusted according to a better understandung of facts. Truly, the IR commenced earlier than is always advocated in certain countries. In my own research (I am doing some since I am working a Uni), I have come to realize that things are not always that sudden and they usually build up upon other advances. It is politics that wants to prove quantum leaps for themselves and refuse it to others. I would propose that there was a textile industry revolution in the XVIII which was substantial and was centered in France and did spread. Then, came the steel industry that blossomed in the XIX century at first not only in England but in the British Empire (do not forget that in 1850, the second and the third most industrialized cities were Belfast in Ireland and Montreal in Canada). Then, France followed a little bit later and finally at the end of the century it had reached the US and Germany. I do not know about Italy and the Tcheck (?Czech) republic. Laurentien
 * Just to pull out a comment here: "In my own research (I am doing some since I am working a Uni)". WP:OR pretty much ends this discussion.  Our job is not to rewrite history based upon OR and minority viewpoints - but to represent what is widely accepted. SFC9394 10:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was certainly not my intention to be rude. The normal definition for the British Industrial Revolution concerns a period 1780-1830.  Some authors make it start slightly earlier or end a little, but the introduction of cheap steel after 1858 is by any definition outside that period.  However good (or important) your academic research, in terms of WP, it is WP:OR, and will be removed as such until you can cite a peer-reviewed book or article.  With a subject as major as this one, it will need to be a VERY substantial publication to overturn fundamentally what has been the accepted view for over a century.  I am certainly not denying that there were important French inventions in the period.  However, the first of anything is often a mere curiosity, not the beginning of its mass application.  Your information on Cugnot will fit very well in an article on steam road vehicles.  Some of the other stuff may similarly go into other articles on specific subjects, but please ensure that you cite your sources (published English language ones, if possible).  WP needs as many well-researched contributions as possible, but you need to be very wary of putting forward a minority WP:POV.  I ran into a similar problem concerning the river Teme.  Before I was able to remove completely some rubbish, which some one else had put into the article, I had to publish my case in a journal and only then could I summarise that in the article.  You will find details of this on my talk page.  Peterkingiron 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lowell as "Cradle of American Industrial Revolution"?
Can we get a citation for this quote? I can't find it verified anywhere (Google search for "lowell 'cradle of american industrial revolution'" returned zero pages); meanwhile, this page claims Windsor, VT owns the title – and this page claims that Blackstone Valley, RI is the True Cradle. — Scartol  ·  Talk  21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Section: Effects
Why are there only social effects listed here. There are economical and political effects too. Here is a list of what they are, please try and include them and more:

Political: -Rise of capitalist class -need for factory reforms -creation of trade unions -Other parliamentary reforms

Economic: -Large-scale production -Expansion of trade, commerce -rise of towns and cities (+migration of rural people to cities) -rise of industrial capitalism -Emergence of colonial Economy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.144.227 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Section: Steam Power
I have just tried to clarify the paragraph on Savery and have also temporarily copied the edited text into the main Steam power during the Industrial Revolution article. Might I suggest that the paragraph here, and in fact the whole section, should be more in the nature of a very general resumé as the whole article (very high standard IMO) is very wide-ranging already and I see no need here of going into working principles.--John of Paris 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Have condensed the Savery paragraph here as promised and edited the the Newcomen and Trevithick ones. Still thinking about what to do with the latter as they are historically far more important than Savery's device.--John of Paris 12:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Meta: Long Article?
Compare the article for lightning, which has been tagged as potentially too-long at ~58 kilobytes, with this article, which is ~83 kilobytes. Suggesting split per WP:SIZE Tar7arus 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cement
The wikipedia article on the London sewerage system linked in the chemicals section of this article contains the sentence "Construction of the interceptor system required 318 million bricks, 880,000 cubic yards (670,000 m³) of concrete and mortar, and excavation of over 3.5 million tonnes of earth." so the fact request is not neccessary. This is hardly controversial, and I don't think we need to overburden the article with references to facts like this. I am therefore removing it. DonSiano 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Sentence Fragment
Hey, found a little typo on the second paragraph, middle part: Once started it spread. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and railways.

The "Once started it spread" is a pretty bad sentence, and I suggest you either change it to "Once started, it spread", "Once these ideas were introduced, they spread rapidly", or just completely get rid of it.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViralSmackers1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors in References
Please excuse my ignorance in asking this question. There appears to be some errors in the references in this article. The read it link in ref 2. Does not work because the author seems to have listed the wrong isbn number. The reference in 5 points to a book that refers to ashton rather than quoting him, unfortunately the reference does not appear to be a suitable source to provide authority to the point. Should I just edit the article or should I (as I am doing) raise the issues here for discussion? --Grahamdoel 11:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ISBN 0195115899 for Business and Economics. Leading Issues in Economic Development seems correct, although the link is now broken. Interestingly, the title returned if you search the number on some sites (presumably the one you used), Five Foundations of Human Development, ISBN 1420887955, is citing this Wikipedia article (surely a risky thing to do!) and the search engine finds the ISBN number from the text, rather than the title information.

 * The citation of Ashton (currently #5) is, as you say, an intermediate source and should, according to the guidelines, be replaced by a reference to the work itself. Good call! Old Moonraker 12:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Catasauqua?
It should be mentioned that Catasauqua, Pennsylvania was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution in America, since that's where the anthracite iron industry began. I was thinking about adding it in, but I didn't know where. Loof1 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hasve placed your statement in the article at a suitable point, but can you provide a source to cite for this statement. I have added it to the article because it is credible, not because I knoow it is right!  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On further examination, I see that the article Catasauqua, Pennsylvania gives the date for this as 1839. This is beyond (or at the very end of) the period usually regarded as being The Industrial Revolution.  I have thus removed this again, but I will put it in elsewhere.

Childrens Chance of Surviving the Industrial Revolution
The Child Labour section of the article claims that childrens' chances of survival did not improve with the Industrial Revolution. Then under "other effects" there is a statistic showing that their chances of survival improved considerably. I'm pretty sure it can't be both...!?

Chemical
Sulphide should be sulphate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.49.36 (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the Leblanc process, which is described in more detail in the article, dealing specifically with that. This gives a chemical equation, which shows the product to be the insoluble calcium sulphide, not the slightly soluble calcium sulphate.  You ahve missed the fact that carbon is a reagent, not merely a source of heat.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Delisting
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of December 23, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. The largest problem with this article is the extreme lack of in-line citations. It starts off well, but tapers off into almost nothing by the time the article is over. It is especially critical to in-line cite material from the references, as the article discusses the theories of different people and potentially contentious issues. Some of these theories, and this may just be my opinion after going through a 90kb article, raise concerns of focus as well. Overall, this article needs a significant increase in the amount of in-line citations, especially in the areas that discuss different theories on aspects of the Industrial Revolution that may be contentious/controversial, or statements such as ""What caused the Industrial Revolution?" remains one of the most important unanswered question in social science." (which is very correctly tagged as "citation needed." Cheers, CP 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Systematically restore British English spellings?
I suspect that User:Lumos3 may be going a bit over the top in his latest edit as the "American" spelling in question must have been used in the title of the source published in the USA and this IMO should be respected as it is not part of the body of the text. As a matter of interest I remember reading a treatise by the British engineer D.K. Clark published in 1855 where he systematically uses the "American" Z.--John of Paris (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also a little sceptical over these references to works published by -ize-using Oxford University Press:

 * Kranzberg, Melvin and Carroll W. Pursell, Jr. eds. Technology in Western civilisation, Oxford University Press, 1967.

 * Sidney Pollard; Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialisation of Europe, 1760-1970 Oxford University Press, 1981

Surely if they are published by OUP - unless they were published by a branch in somewhere like New Zealand, Australia or South Africa - they should use "civilization" and "Industrialization" respectively. Swedish fusilier (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lexicographers of the Oxford English Dictionary are, and always have been, in a bit of a closed world of their own: never more so than with ize and ise. Their strong holdout for "ize" is now a very definite aberration for the modern user of Br Eng.

 * The British Library only has "z" for the Kranzberg work. It was published by the OUP in New York, so not assisting the "UK English" debate, but Peaceful Conquest, also with a "z" is from Oxford, UK. It seems that "ize", although grating to the Br Eng user, is correct not incorrect. I can only end with a plea to support "ise" for this Br Eng article for no other reason than to avoid pain to its readers who happen to use Br Eng!

 * I have changed the book titles. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is on a British subject and thus properly has British spellings, and is tagged as such (or used to be). "s" remains the preferred British spelling; and OED is the standard by which we work.  It is time the American stopped trying to impose theri abberrant spellings here.  Yes, exceptions will be found.  I might add that I find the unsigned comments in the next two sections below highly offensive, and I hope some one will be kidn enough to remove them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-Issues
Have you folks nothing better to do with your minds and your time than to philsophize about the differences between British and American spelling practices ? Why not just declare EITHER practice acceptable anywhere and then go off for a spot of tea (or coffee) or grab a snooze ?

Contradiction in article: life expectancy of children
The article contains contradicting statements about chances of children to survive early childhood - reference 30 being opposed by reference 32. First states there was no improvement at all, the other says it had improved dramatically. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two different age ranges are involved: reference #30 (at time of writing) refers to "surviving [through] childhood" whereas #32 is referring to under-fives. I will try to make this plainer and then remove the tag. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vibrating Dildos... No im serious!
I swear people need to stop abusing Wikipedia. I found at the beginning of this topic some idiot put vibrating dildos the pleasure woman. Since I dont know what to put, can someone fix that. Thank you.206.110.213.223 (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Well I have requested semi-protection for this page several times as it is a favourite vandal target. Unless the protection is permanent we will never be rid of them, but try telling that to WP administration. I've given up.--John of Paris (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

adam smith
which group of people supported the free market ideas of adam smith

Bibliography: works by Yannis Veneris
I am not convinced that the two works by Yannis Veneris, unpublished in book form, are sufficiently notable, or accessible, for inclusion. Please correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I am inclined to delete. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They've gone. Thanks (belated) to User:Lumos3. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction on child labor
This article contradicts itself within a few paragraphs: "The Industrial Revolution led to a population increase, but the chance of surviving childhood did not improve throughout the industrial revolution"

"During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. 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." Both sentences have citations... so which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.82.31 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Industrial Revolution/Archive 1