Talk:Textile manufacture during the British Industrial Revolution

message: ...is mentioned but I think it needs a lot more emphasis, and maybe a section on power. Steam power was pivotal, since it was the only constant source of a great enough amount of power to run large factories. Mass industrialisation could not have happened without it.
Timeline:
* hand power
* animal power - not enough power available
* waterwheel - an inconsistent unreliable power source
* steam engine
Tabby (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rosie- what do you want to do with your post? It seems to me to be more useful as a stand alone article than a critique of child labour in the mills of Lancashire and Yorkshire- and could easily be worked up into one. The problem we have is that it seems to be a piece of Original Research WP:OR and is devoid of essential references where each of these sentences can be checked. I have a talk page where you are most welcome to discuss this further. There are areas where I think you are wrong. Mills had to be humid in order to work the cotton- and there were considerable advantages for a child working with others in a mill over being out alone on the fell barefoot tending the sheep or handplanting crops in heavy peaty earth. Scavanging maybe took ten mins in an every hour and the rest of the time was free to play. Being in a mill town in the mid 19th Century also gave some opportunity to learn to read and write in a Satuurday school or Sunday School- it was incredibly lonely being the only child in a fell side hovel. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam 

message: The article mentions cotton from the colonies-- but it seems odd not to mention it was the product of slave labour?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.116.52 (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: Dear all, 
I think this page is quite European centred, some authors are making explicit that calling the industrial revolution the Industrial Revolution is a way to think about Western societies as an endogenous Western change that has nothing to do with the Global Economy of the time. 
I think, then, that the article should be rewritten in line with those arguments, at least make sure that the debate is mentioned. The first industrial revolution according to those authors is a fake one, it was just about taking and slightly improving some machines that already existed. Therefore the first sentence of the article "The industrial revolution changed the nature of work and society." is particularly subject to debates. Following the authors cited below, it is not the industrial revolution that changed the nature of work and society but a new economic system called capitalism. This era (17th, 18th century) is marked by the use of those inventions along with institutional changes such as the creation of capital and labour markets, the support of Western states for merchants (which brought lots of income to Western societies), colonisations of the Americas (cheap cotton), the slave trade. 
I know that it may sounds as a strong criticism, though I think it is accurate. I hope it is useful. 
Norel, Philippe. L’histoire Économique Globale. Seuil. 27, rue Jacob, Paris VIème: Editions du Seuil, 2009.
Durand, Cédric. Le Capitalisme Est-il Indépassable ? Textuel, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China
Temple, Robert K. G. The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery and Invention. Prion, 1998.
Hobson, John M. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Pomeranz, Kenneth. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Revised. Princeton University Press, 2001.
Jean-Baptiste Combes (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Very euro centric and I think rightly so in this case. When I started the article way back when- the motivation was to document solely the technology used from 10 July 1761 to 1850. Previously every section was swamped by folk history and pretty pictures of sheep. So split the article in three Textile manufacture  Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution Textile manufacturing by pre-industrial methods but have failed to leave sufficient links. I see that an article Textile manufacturing by pre-industrial China could be written to add Needhams work- I have bought the Pacey 0-262-66072-5 so I can help with cross references. In the main the article stands as a authorative documentation of the years 1761- 1850 which is all it is intended to be. I am now trying to improve the links- it is not surprising that you failed to find the first article.  --ClemRutter (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  European centred ? 

message: I'm pretty sure Thomas Savery at least presented his engine in 1698, rather than 1691. According to all sources I can find it was improved by Newcomen around 1712, rather than 1698. Are there any sources to the years stated in the article?
Araoro (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years