Talk:Second Industrial Revolution

message: Ti belkieve that anybody who uses wikipedia should just do the work themselves becuase anybody who relies on the internet that much isnt a real student.........o see that France was an 'industrial power' is simply erroneus. France's economy was still predominately agricultural unlike Britain it did not see mass migration on anywhere near the same scale and its industry relied on small scale Workshop factories also unlike Britain. So the sentence 'Since this period includes the rise of industrial powers other than France and Britain, such as Germany and the USA, it may be used by writers who want to stress the contribution of these countries or relativize the position of the UK.' is only correct in its latter half... France cannot be considered an industrial power at this point... it may have been a world power but not an industrialized nation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and the First Industrial Revolution

message: Well, could you prove that ! I can't put an exclamation point where I just did?  It's hard for me to describe as a non-grammarian, but commas definitely don't go where you're putting them.  I finally found a formal description in the "comma" section of The Elements of Style:
: Restrictive clauses, by contrast, are not parenthetic and are not set off by commas.  Thus,
:: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Note that is basically what I told you on IRC some minutes ago:
<quinlan> commas are used for parenthetical comments which can be removed, but not just any part of a sentence that may be removed
Daniel Quinlan 02:43, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
It should be: "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." In any case, I don't see how it applies here. Lirath Q. Pynnor
----
I believe I am supported by: http://www.stark.kent.edu/writing/commas.htm
* The writing-mobile, which has a 600 horse-power engine, is the fastest machine on the road today. Lirath Q. Pynnor
* Germany spent more money, which was spent on science, than England. Lirath Q. Pynnor
: No, those are a different case.  Specifically, they are non-restrictive clauses and therefore require the offsetting commas.  Daniel Quinlan 03:04, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
How is my sentence restrictive? Lirath Q. Pynnor
: Your sentence is "restrictive" because it defines or limits rather than merely adding something.  Let me add two quotes from The Elements of Style:
:: People sitting in the rear couldn't hear. (restrictive)
:: Uncle Bert, being slightly dead, moved forward.  (non-restrictive)
: Daniel Quinlan 03:11, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
Not the same at all! Lirath Q. Pynnor
----
I protected the page because User:Lir started blanking it.  I did not protect the page over the comma disagreement since I was involved in trying to convince Lir that his use of commas was ungrammatical, but blanking pages over a grammar dispute is unacceptable, so I protected the most recent unblanked version.  Daniel Quinlan 03:41, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
Lir says he won't blank it again so I unprotected it. Don't forget to list pages on Wikipedia:Protected page if you protect or unprotect them. Angela 04:46, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
: Okay.  (There isn't an automatic listing?  How annoying.    Daniel Quinlan 05:09, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
----
Ok, agreeing that two commas are unnecessary; how about,
*In science, the Germans invested more than the British. 
**It is necessary to mention science first because this section is already clearly discussing Germany; so, science should be singled out as the defining part of this sentence.
***Lirath Q. Pynnor
Pardon me for butting in, but I believe "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" is incorrect because "shouldn't throw stones" is not a clause of any sort, and it is lacking a subject if you put the comma in. "Those who live in glass houses" is similarily missing a verb (as it is not a clause on its own either). The comma strikes me as a hypercorrection. Adam Bishop 05:03, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  comma usage 

message: The introductory paragraph should say what the Second Industrial Revolution actually was. Ben Finn 15:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: In a very interesting book in French, Jean Gimpel discusses what he considers to be the "First Industrial Revolution that took place in the 12th Century when the large abbeys were developed as industrial centres using mostly water powered machinery for forging iron, fulling cloth etc.  This went on until the Black Death. (see: Gimpel Jean, "la Révolution Industrielle du Moyen Age". Editions Seuil, collection "Points Histoire" 1975 — still available, I believe.)  This would make the subject of the present article the "Third industrial Revolution"(!!?)--John of Paris 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Maxine Berg discusses an "industrious revolution" that also occurred before the first industrial revolution.  Numbering these things can become slippery.  I think Gimpel's revolution, though, is often referred to as the Medieval Industrial Revolution.  The book is published in English as The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston, 1976; I have a Penguin reprint).  Lynn White, Medieval Technology and Social Change, though might have something else to say about that.--RedJ 17 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "First Industrial Revolution"?

message: It overlaps (or is overlapped by) the text of the article when viewed using Firefox, if no easy fix, please revert these changes.  Thanks, CliffC (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3.0.1 - just installed it maybe three days ago when  it was offered at startup.  Guess that will teach me to be an early adopter. :( ... I have not noticed any other problems, though; and in fact had forgotten I had a new version.  Not a biggie if I'm the only one seeing it.  Best, CliffC (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Other eras' infobox needs repair 

message: This article on the Second Industrial Revolution, though better than it had been, is still somewhat problematic. The sections on the various innovations (which I cut down from a considerably larger number) are still confusing and too detailed in all the wrong places. The random information on Germany and the United States either needs to be augmented or deleted so that it could add to the article rather than seem out of place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WM2011 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed.

message: The lead section cites "Atkenson and Kehoe". That would imply that these names appear in the sources section to specify the work, but they don't. What work is it? Hairy Dude (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in lead section 

message: What does that graph even mean? I see it says relative levels of industrialization but I can't decipher exactly what it's measuring or what it's supposed to show the reader. 68.237.231.35 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The graph 

message: A recent version separated the events taking place between the First and Second Industrial Revolutions by using a "Transition" section.  Now the transition period (1830s-1860s) is mixed in and some First Industrial Revolution material has been added.  In addition to making the article overly long with too much background detail, it is also confusing and misleading to the typical reader.Phmoreno (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlaps between First and Second Industrial Revolutions 

message: I read through the article and the broad topics that people have elaborated on. I've discovered that one of the main skill technique that many businesses used was not included. I researched more in depth information about monopolies and how they benefited people in the second industrial revolution. New technologies required larger amounts of money, so in order to get the needed capital many entrepreneurs created new ways to organize money. Many owners sold stock to investors, thus making each stockholder an owner of a company. As new directions for businesses flourished many corporations started to move towards monopolies. Many powerful business leaders started to developed monopolies and trusts in hopes to gain more income. Arrogant business leaders destroyed competing companies who stood in the way of their pursuit to profit. In this monopoly some businesses lowered prices to force other competitors out of business. With eliminating their competition they were able to raise their product prices to any level. Many times, a group of competitors formed a cartel, which is an association of fix prices, set production quotas etc. For example in Germany, a cartel fixed prices for 170 coal mines. It also explains how the rise of these businesses created many debates, some felt that businesses destroying each others market would hurt the free enterprise. Some felt that the government in the 1900s would soon move against monopolies and regulate the economy. I specifically went in depth about monopolies among  businesses and would be opened to anyone with a better understanding who would want to update this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganbhs (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that articles on technology and economics end up with social commentary?  Yes, its true that the Second Industrial Revolution saw the rise of major corporations spread over large geographical areas. This was due to the railroad and telegraph and machinery that gave rise to large scale factories.  The great deflation developed as a result of falling prices and many industries consolidated, creating monopolies.  However, the significant thing was that prices kept falling and standards of living rose at a faster rate than is happening at present.Phmoreno (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

text: An excellent reference on monopolies during this period is The Visible Hand by Chandler.  Monopolies had great economies of scale, allowing them to lower prices.  One of the biggest monopolies was AT&T, which owned Bell Labs, where the transistor and the laser were developed, two technologies that lowered the price of telecommunications to almost nothing, eventually undermining AT&T's business and starting the computer and internet industries..Phmoreno (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First minor point, these were half a century or more later. Second minor point, Laser is right to say, "The question of just how to assign credit for inventing the laser remains unresolved by historians." But still, yes. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopolies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Second Industrial Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080510152751/http://www.birrcastle.com/steamTurbineAndElectricity.asp to http://www.birrcastle.com/steamTurbineAndElectricity.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080110063209/http://www.universityscience.ie:80/pages/scientists/sci_charles_parsons.php to http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_charles_parsons.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Second Industrial Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110929004417/http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/biographies/faraday.cfm to http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/biographies/faraday.cfm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EKr7FUkw to http://www.connected-earth.com/journeys/Firstgenerationtechnologies/Thetelegraph/Thetelegraphicagedawns/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Second Industrial Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605011924/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Michael_Faraday to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Michael_Faraday
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201194910/http://www.engineering-timelines.com/how/electricity/electricity_07.asp to http://www.engineering-timelines.com/how/electricity/electricity_07.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403120845/http://www.thepedalclub.org/archives/goldenbook/u-z/WilliamHume.html to http://www.thepedalclub.org/archives/goldenbook/u-z/WilliamHume.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520151251/http://www.yara.com/en/about/history/stories/fisons_inter.html to http://www.yara.com/en/about/history/stories/fisons_inter.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114174009/http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/parsons/part1.html to http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/parsons/part1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.connected-earth.com/journeys/Firstgenerationtechnologies/Thetelegraph/Thetelegraphicagedawns/index.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/historyhunters/locations/pages/3_1_flatholm.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Second Industrial Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022224325/http://www.education.com/study-help/article/us-history-glided-age-technological-revolution/ to http://www.education.com/study-help/article/us-history-glided-age-technological-revolution/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510005841/http://home.frognet.net/~ejcov/jwswan.html to http://home.frognet.net/~ejcov/jwswan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030202902/http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/Portraits/PortraitsHH_Detail.asp?HH_LName=Perkin to http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/Portraits/PortraitsHH_Detail.asp?HH_LName=Perkin
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811200813/http://www.boatbuilding.com/article.php/designofpropellers1 to http://www.boatbuilding.com/article.php/designofpropellers1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205211758/http://www.sorby.org.uk/hcsorby.shtml to http://www.sorby.org.uk/hcsorby.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion