Talk:Industrial Revolution/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old messages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History section talk

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of "phase" to describe the Industrial Revolution 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Better steam engine image, please 

message: We need a lot more footnotes in this article.--Fenice 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hostility to industry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[British Industrial Revolution]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Luddites? J Milburn 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Problems > Strikes 

message: 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)
replies: text: New school year - fresh subject?  Noisy | Talk 17:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it was vandalism, and it has been corrected. Titoxd(?!?) 01:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What was the Industrial Revolution? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tea 

message: §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)
thread_title:  I still dont quite undersatnd this whole concept! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Housing situation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lunar Society 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Metallurgy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes of the British Industrial Revolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rising wages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Child Labour 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: As you can see, already gone. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?i! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Organization spelled wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  relationship between industrail revolution, mass production, rail roads and samuel slater? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent revision 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Knowledge Transfer etc. 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Globalize designation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  this page rox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Continental Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you.  The article is tagged as using British orthography, so "sulphur" is correct.  Peterkingiron 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with a few other examples. Will it stick?--Old Moonraker 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sulfur#Spelling|Sulfur or Sulphur]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bond image & "caption text" -- delete it? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lowell as "Cradle of American Industrial Revolution"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section: Effects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section: Steam Power 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meta: Long Article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad Sentence Fragment 

message: Sulphide should be sulphate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.49.36 (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chemical 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  GA Delisting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article: life expectancy of children 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vibrating Dildos... No im serious! 

message: 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)
replies: text: They've gone. Thanks (belated) to User:Lumos3. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography: works by Yannis Veneris 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction on child labor