|Factory has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject History of Science||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated Start-class)|
I'm well aware that The English and U.S. Industrial Revolutions are commonly cited as forerunners to the global Industrial Revolution, so it makes sense that this article talks a lot about the United States and England. I do find it odd that the article doesn't seem to be interested in German, French or Dutch factories, but my knowledge on this subject is spotty, so I can't argue against it.
The 'Historically Significant Factories' section, though, is 100% U.S. and British factories. That can't be right. No German factories are historically significant compared to the 10 U.S. and British Factories mentioned? No Japanese, Korean or Chinese factories either? Does Mitsubishi not count because it didn't begin a shipbuilding factory until 1890? Is Foxconn considered not historically significant because it wasn't established until 1974?
Like I said, I'm no expert in the subject of Factories, so I don't want to task myself with coming up with a good 'top ten' list. I'd probably do a poor job. I'm pretty sure, though, that it would be in poor taste for me to try to jam ten extra companies onto the article page just to spice things up. Could someone who has a better background in this subject look over that list, remove a few irrelevant factories, and replace them with important factories from non-English speaking countries? Or, alternatively, maybe just a quick explanation here as to why those factories on that page are more culturally significant than, say, the Volkswagon Factory, who's picture graces the top of this article.
Typical British Revisionist History
Is factory a noun or no and if it is what is the plural form of it can you write a article on it pleaze.Every day Wiki becomes more and more useless for a soucre of factual information because of entries like the following -
Many historians regard Matthew Boulton's Soho Manufactory (established in 1761 in Birmingham) as the first modern factory. (Other claims might be made for John Lombe's silk mill in Derby (1721), or Richard Arkwright's Cromford Mill (1771)—purpose built to fit the equipment it held and taking the material through the various manufacturing processes.) One historian, Jack Weatherford, contends that the first factory was in Potosí, for processing silver ingot slugs into coins, because there was so much silver being mined close by. 
British colonies in the late 18th century built factories simply as buildings where a large number of workers gathered to perform hand labor, usually in textile production
What a complete load of nonsense. Factories of those sorts were being built all over Europe and in fact the world. In truth there was purpose built factories built hundreds of years before 1761 and ANY objective and educated "historian" would be fully aware of that. To claim any historian regard something in the Soho Manufactory as the first factory would be laughable except the fact that many BRITISH "historians" probably would. That is a sad but true fact. The more I learn about history and Britian's part in it, the more I learn that this intentional revisionist history is common and makes me question anything historical related to Britian. In no other country have I seen this so wide scale.
And you know the worst part? No where does this article mention the true meaning or history of the word, that factories were groups of people outside of a country working for production, ect for their home country. That is not just the history of the word but fundamental to understanding the use of the word. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 30 May 2008
- The modern factory as we know it today came about in England because of the Industrial Revolution. 'Factories' in a limited form using hand labour had existed for centuries, but the industrial factory that has since spread around the world originated in the UK with the invention of the various machine tools and specialised manufacturing equipment that enabled the large-scale production of goods such as textiles and cutlery, and heavy machinery such as the Locomotive and marine steam engines.
- Without the Industrial Revolution (and the corresponding Agricultural Revolution) then the odds are that anyone reading this anywhere in the world today would still be a peasant - see image - although of course, being a peasant they wouldn't be able to afford the high technology that the modern PC represents to be able to read this in the first place.
- Whether you like it or not, Britain and the Industrial Revolution is why you are able to come on here and complain in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I actually came here to find information about the usage of the word "factory" in the colonial context, and I only wish that it was provided by the article, but it simply isn't the main meaning of the word factory anywhere. What you are referring to as the primary meaning of "factory" (an establishment for merchants doing business in a foreign country) is an obsolete usage. Wikipedia articles do not give primacy to obsolete usages. This article is about the industrial factory, because that is the primary meaning of the word in contemporary English, and has been for two or three centuries. It is also the primary meaning of the equivalent word in other contemporary languages. The matching articles in other languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Persian, Bahasa Indonesia, Hindi, Korean, and Japanese are about industrial factories. The Chinese article has some additional information about early Chinese factories, but it relates to industrial facilities, not "groups of people working outside their country", so there is no support for your contention there.
- In the first sentence you quote, you are ignoring the word "modern". Just as the first modern house was not the first house, and the first modern novel was not the first novel, the first modern factory was not the first factory, and the article doesn't say it was. Greg Grahame (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have now discovered that the article I originally wanted is at factory (trading post). I'm going to remove the tag, which is based on a point of view that is simply mistaken about the primary meaning of the word factory in 21st century English and all other contemporary languages. Greg Grahame (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may be mixing up my reply with the initial post, i.e., the moaning bit. For some reason the initial poster's username has been lost. I've indented the separate posts to make things a bit clearer anyway.
I reverted the move of this article because I believe that it was contrary to the guidelines on disambiguation and naming conventions. Most importantly, if there is a meaning that is by far the most common, that meaning gets the undisambiguated name and a link to a disambiguation page, or the other article, if there is only one, is put at the top of the article. The manufacturing meaning is by far the most common. Second, the undisambiguated name should never be a redirect. It should either be an article about the most common meaning or a disambiguation page. If you want there to be a way to tell whether links to a disambiguation page are intentional, the proper way to do it is to make a disambiguated redirect. In this case, factory would be the disambiguation page and factory (manufacturing) would redirect to it. When people intentionally link to the disambiguation page, they would link to factory (manufacturing) and let it redirect to factory. You can put a pipe link in the link so that the "(manufacturing)" part is not seen. Here is what it looks like, [[factory (manufacturing)|factory]]. For these reasons, I reverted the move. If you disagree, please make a move request. Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Most moves are uncontroversial and can be done without going through the requested move process, but if the move is controversial it should be done. It is also necessary to do it if the page that the article is to be moved to already exists because the other page must be deleted by an administrator before the article can be moved. Thanks, Kjkolb 10:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- oppose - encyclopedia Britannica has a much more extensive article on the Factory system than it does factory. Factory system is an evolution from the older Domestic system and you can set up a factory system in your basement if you have the tools and workers. Factory is the building, location, power source, etc and the system is the theory and method. Alatari (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)