Talk:Second Industrial Revolution
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Comments
- 2 France and the First Industrial Revolution
- 3 comma usage
- 4 Intro
- 5 other industrialising nations
- 6 Was there really a "Second Industrial Revolution"?
- 7 "First Industrial Revolution"?
- 8 New "Other eras' infobox needs repair
- 9 Agreed.
- 10 Citation in lead section
- 11 The graph
- 12 Overlaps between First and Second Industrial Revolutions
- 13 Monopolies
I believe Wik is correct in this instance about the need for commas. But will the two of you just knock it off? I think both of you can find better use for your energies than edit wars about placement of a comma. Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 02:32, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I see no evidence to indicate that I am wrong. The article on comma appears to include an example, of proper comma usage, which is akin to my usage here. I cannot "knock it off" because Wik follows me from article to article; trying to mess with my punctuation. This issue needs to be addressed. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Wik is definitely correct. What's more disturbing, though, is Lir reverting against the grammatical opinion expressed by every other user who has edited the document and commented on this page. Daniel Quinlan 02:36, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
Just because a horde of you say that Im wrong, doesn't mean I am. If you are so confident, why are you unable to explain why Im wrong? I am using the comma to mark off the sentence's seperate elements; what's the problem? Lirath Q. Pynnor
France and the First Industrial Revolution
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
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)
That is perhaps technically an okay sentence (although the sentences before and after your proposal are not grammatical), but the current version of the page is correct, less awkward, clearer, and more informative. Daniel Quinlan 05:09, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph should say what the Second Industrial Revolution actually was. Ben Finn 15:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Also needed are the reasons for the second industrial revolution and a comparison with the first industrial revolution.
other industrialising nations
Shouldn't Belgium be mentioned, as should France and the rest of Europe. Belgium was the first european country to indsustrialize after the UK. 184.108.40.206 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Not just Belgium should be mentioned, nor the other European nations, but the United States should also be mentioned, especially that her industrial might just before the first world war was comparable to the the European nations.
I would considere that one as a third industrial revolution.
- In the English speaking countries (USA, UK and Canada), it is wrongly advocated that the first industrial revolution is related to Watt and his machine and its impact afterwards. Not only the UK entered the IR but all the Breitish Empire since a city like Montreal was heavily industrialized by 1850 and much more than most US ones.
- At the begining of the XVIII century, the first steam machine has been made by Papin in France and was used on the Fardier of Cugnot (the first automobile in 1770). Papin's machine inspired Newcomen with his single stroke steam machine. Papin's design was used in mines of the Lorraine region during that period. In the XVIII century, the first real industrial revolution truly happened in Lyon with the the advent of the textile industry using successive inventions that led to the Jacquard's loom. I have recently discovered that there existed a textile industry in Lancaster during that period.
- The US entered into the IR very late: as a matter of fact at the end of the XIX century just like Germany.
- I even have reasons to beleive that the first industrial revolution happened in Italy but I am still gathering evidence and I am discussing the matter with University professors over there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:29, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
What is "Torre Moore" in the germany section suppose to mean? Never heart of it. No entry for that term in wiki and only 1 entry in google as something in a city in Illinois... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Was there really a "Second Industrial Revolution"?
This is one of those "categories of history" pages. What is really distinctive about a "second" industrial revolution? Does it make the original one less revolutionary? Have a significant number of major historians really labeled some period as the "second" one and do they agree on the dates at which it occurred? I would say not.
The dates 1871 and 1914 are very arbitrary, though they are of obvious political importance. That doesn't seem to be mentioned here though. It is clear that Industrial Revolution is a very major topic, and that many contemporaries living during the time or shortly thereafter used the term, or very similar terms in other languages, to desribe how the world was changing. I don't see any such agreement on a Second Industrial Revolution.
I don't suggest removing this page, but I believe it should be deprecated from "an era of history" to "a conceptual way of organizing and presenting the history of an era." I have read two of the four books that are "references" for this page (Hobsbawm and Landes), and I cannot recall that either of those authors used the term, Second Industrial Revolution. Who has read the other two. Does either of them use the term?
This page looks too much like a chapter from a high school textbook.
Would whoever champions the idea of this as an important era in history please tell us which historians, journalists, or well-known writers have used this term, or terms like it, to describe this era. --Metzenberg 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- At first, industry was mainly powered by falling water which limited the number and extent of industrial sites. Until electric generators were developed, power could only be distributed by belts over a distance of perhaps 100 meters so transportation networks could not be developed from it.
- Development of steam engines (initially to pump water out of coal mines) allowed industry to be located away from the finite number of sites with potential water power. It also led to the development of railroads, steamships and promoted understanding of carnot cycles leading to internal combustion engines that led to automobiles and airplanes. Understanding of connections between magnetism and electricity developed about the same time, making electricity into an industrial commodity that created additional options for industrial locations and transportation infrastructure. For example it is difficult to imagine subway systems powered by combustion in any form. LADave (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Vaclav Smill called the period 1867-1914 "The Age of Synergy" during which all of the great innovations were developed. Unlike the Fisrt Industrial Revolution, the inventions and innovations were science based. The U.S. had its highest growth during this period with growth three to five times greater than the First Inudstrial Revolution.Phmoreno (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Let us discuss the THIRD Industrial Revolution -- the one thru the foothills of which we are at this time inattentively traveling.
"First Industrial Revolution"?
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)
- 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)
Agree about the numbering. Even so, it would be interesting to start an aricle on Twelfth Century technology to counter the usual received ideas on the Middle Ages — when life was "short and brutish", as we all know!??--John of Paris 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
New "Other eras' infobox needs repair
What version are you using? I view it in firefox and it looks fine. J. D. Redding 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
Citation in lead section
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)
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Overlaps between First and Second Industrial Revolutions
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)
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)
- 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)
Yes i agree that the most important thing was how monopolies effected prices and standards of living. I elaborated more on the start of large corporations and explained why monopolies didn't start solely because of machinery. I didn't intend on this article to end up with any social commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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)