Talk:Industrial Revolution

False information contained in this article

The Bridgewater Canal was NOT the first successful canal, not even the first successful canal constructed during the Industrial Revolution. That title goes to the Sankey Canal, as already articled by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.205.195 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Industrial Age

The term Industrial Age is becoming more prominant to cover the period from the Industrial Revolution to near modern times. The Industrial Age disamg page seems inappropriate. Let's discuss the creation of an Industrial Age article, keeping in mind that it does not supplant the Industrial Revolution, which is a historially established term. As far as creditability to the use of the term Industrial Age, even the NIST website now uses the term. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:53, 29 September 2010, Wednesday (2 years, 3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+1)

Edit Request: Contradictory statements.

Under section 9 "Causes" / "Causes in Britain" there is the following statement: "These values were self-interest and an entrepreneurial spirit. Because of these interests, many industrial advances were made that resulted in a huge increase in personal wealth. These advancements also greatly benefitted the British society as a whole."

- Apart from being, at best arguable or, in my view, patently untrue, this statement contradicts earlier text, particularly under 3 Social Effects / Standard of Living, "The history of the change of living conditions during the industrial revolution has been very controversial, and was the topic that from the 1950s to the 1980s caused most heated debate among economic and social historians.[53] A series of 1950s essays by Henry Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins later set the academic consensus that the bulk of the population, that was at the bottom of the social ladder, suffered severe reductions in their living standards.[53]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivanova (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I found that para very POV as well. 1Z (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request from Cgarns3941 (7, February. 2013)

If you could please add these citations to the bibliography.

(Corrick, James). The Industrial Revolution. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1998. Text. (Connolly, Sean). Witness to History: The Industrial Revolution. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003. Text. (Collins, Mary). Cornerstones of Freedom: The Industrial Revolution. Canada: Children’s Press, 2000. Text. (Wilkinson, Philip and Michael Pollard). Ideas that changed the world: The Industrial Revolution. United States: Chelsea House Publishers, 1995. Text.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgarns3941 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Crime aspect

You guys need to talk about the crime related aspects of the I.R. Sorry I can't do this... Perhaps a paid WP employee?...

In what part of the title "Industrial Revolution" do you see any reference to crime? It's bad enough that we talk so much about social conditions, especially the negative ones at the expense of the positive, like the beginning of the end of starvation, extreme poverty and back breaking physical labor.Phmoreno (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Country

An article on the industrial revolution that does not mention the Black Country or Birmingham in the 17th century is not covering the history of the revolution in much detail. For example where is the mention of Dud Dudley and Metallum Martis: "In 1620 Dud Dudley estimated that 20,000 smiths were at work within 20 miles of Dudley." (Archaeology in Worcestershire 1500 – 1750). Where is there mention of the 30 foot seam? (You may be asking or wonderingWHAT ... or WHERE ... IS "THE BLACK COUNTRY" ?)

-- PBS (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

In the first paragraph, Robert E. Lucas, Jr. is misquoted. I have the source in front of me (2002 edition of Lectures on Economic Growth). The first part of the quote is okay: "For the first time in history, the living standards of masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth." However, the next part actually goes: "Nothing remotely like this economic behavior is mentioned by the classical economists, even as a theoretical possibility." Maybe a minor point, but hey, just checking the sources.

Proof: Pages of said text

 Done --ElHef (Meep?) 18:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Refs and arguments in lead

The lead section contains 12 refs and presents arguments (e.g. by Clapham) that aren't in the body of the article. It would be better to create a section for these and to have a (new) lead that summarizes the body rather than going off in new directions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

3rd, 4th, ... nth revolutions

Additional 'revolutions' have been added in two very short sections, which don't actually say what the "third" and "fourth" IRs actually are - nor whether they are at all widely accepted. I suspect that while the original one is very widely agreed, later ones are less and less widely acknowledged, and possibly partisan (one school of thought's point of view, perhaps). My feeling would be to group these things in a single section of the 'Later revolutions' type (no doubt people can think of a better title), and then to explain that 'Professor of industrial history Joe Bloggs has called xyz the n^th industrial revolution'. This would get over the impression that Wikipedia endorses such views but is simply reporting them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Reworking machine tools

I am going to do a little more reworking of machine tools based on my reference notes. This may take a few days so please be patient.Phmoreno (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Indians at it again

Yet another English article that has been interfered with by Indians, they keep editing English and British articles with the most inconsequential and reaching statements suggesting all achievements and inventions lead to India, next we'll probably see how it was India who first landed on the moon! For some reason Indian editors keep plastering Indian article content into any article they can find, most of it really reaching especially from so-called Indian communist 'experts'. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless there are specific examples of inadequately sourced content here, the above seems designed to read like an offensive rant. I'd suggest providing specific suggestions as to how the article can be improved. JNW (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

China - The 3rd Industrial Revolution (in the midst)

I have been travelling through the cities in China, from Beijing to Xiamen and I truly can see how they (approx.1.26 billion people) are in the midst of causing what I believe will be considered the 3rd "global scale" industrial revolution. With first access to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, and access to the European Union and markets in North and South America, they are revolutionizing the world's "free" markets with products. It is getting harder and harder to find any industrially made product that does not have "Made in China" on it. I hope someone with in-depth business analytic experience (and Wikipedia editing expertise) updates the topic on "Industrial Revolution". Billgdiaz (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)