From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

US/UK spelling[edit]

Quick search on google: There are 106 wikipedia article that use the american spelling "industrialization", but 46 with the british spelling "industrialisation", please consider moving this article.. (unsigned)

It doesn't really matter with a redirect yeah it doesn't.. do whatever you like, just mentioned most articles will link to "industrialization" (I will try to wikify them myself). And it seems like a much needed article (especially for history articles).. (unsigned)

BTW about half of the articles with the 's' are in french (le'industrialisation) and german (Industrialisation) etc. , so the numbers are much lower for the british spelling.. (unsigned)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) - all national standards of English spelling are acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia, both for titles and content. American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa; for example, either Aeroplane or Airplane is acceptable. (unsigned)

The article started out as Industrialisation, and this is where it should stay. SpNeo 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC) But at least make it consistant within the article. If it is spelt industrialisation in the title, it should be spelt that way in the article.

That might prove difficult. I suggest the word 'industrialization'. Vote? WinterSpw (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Nvm, the article's fine now. WinterSpw (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See WP:ENGVAR. If the article started with British spelling (as it did in the very first edit), and there is no strong tie to the U.S., then the spelling should be strictly British throughout the article. No straw polls, no appeals to how widely one or the other spelling is used in the world. Edison (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that this discussion occurred over 2 years ago, yet the article title and the opening two words are still spelled differently. Consistency is key and this article doesn't have it yet - make your minds up and fix it. (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the article was created in BE convention, it stays BE. Fixed all instances of AE conventions. Some may still be present. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

sustenance standards[edit]

Instead of just taking out that paragraph (which happens to be true for most pre-industrial societies most of the time) on the Hobbesian nature of pre-industrial society you could have added another one qualifying it and stating the nature of the exceptions or you could have done an amalgalm. Right now, you have just impoverished Wikipedia. If you do not have the time to explain why there are or were exceptional pre-industrial societies with regular food surpluses and how they manage (the ones I know about had extensive canal systems and ingenious manpowered equipment in addition to exceptional pre-industrial agricultural techniques) the right thing to do is to put back exactly what you took out. AlainV 06:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your being upset, and I shall briefly explain my reasoning for removing said paragraph from Industrialisation.
"Pre-industrial economies generally rely on sustenance standards of living, whereby the population focuses collective resources on producing only what can be consumed by the population, though there have also been quite a few pre-industrial economies with trade and commerce as a significant factor."
As far as I know it is entirely common for pre-industrial societies to produce far beyond sustenance standard, ie. Italy, Netherlands, Britain, Spain, China, India, +others all knew prosperous pre-industrial periods of great abundance. I did not feel like adding a caveat saying, that pre-industrial economies generally rely on sustenance standards of living, but quite often do not. It seems like we can't make up our mind if we say that. Which is it? Do they or don't they? Seems to me that some do, and some don't, just as some industrialized countries suffer from lack of food (N. Korea?). It doesn't seem to me that living at a sustenance standard is a mark of a pre-industrialized country, but maybe that depends on your definition of industrialisation? This is NOT the wright thing because they made it up:{
Peregrine981 06:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
There are many debatable issues around industrialisation and around the industrial revolution, which started in England in the 18th century and is still going on around us. But the question of chronic famine and scarcity in pre-indutrial societies is not one of those. Specialists in the History of Technology agree that pre-industrial societies (like the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries, and certain parts of China for certain centuries here and there, and a few others) who managed to beat the cycle of famines were rare exceptions. Like wise, they agree that industrialised economies who have regular famines like present-day North Korea (or Stalinist Russia and a few others) are extremely rare exceptions. If you know economic historians or historians of technology who hold the opposite view please put them in the references, and state their views in the body of the text. And while you are at it please put back the paragraph you have taken out (or rephrase a better one taking into account the nuances which, I agree, are missing from the original) because it represents the view of most (if not all) the specialists in this domain, such as Bernal, Derry, Hobsbawm, Kranzberg, Landes, Pursell (whose references you will find at the bottom of the artcile) and many others. AlainV 05:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

allright, I shall soon rewrite the paragraph to suit your concerns. Almost all of these societies faced famines periodically, I still do not think that constitutes living at a subsistance level. Perhaps some elements of the society did, but some of these societies as a whole were more than capable of producing more than they needed. Ronald Seavoy's book, Famine in Peasant Societies seems to argue, to me, that pre-industrial societies do not necessarily live at a subsistance, level, rather pre-commercialised societies do. However, his book is far from universally acclaimed, so perhaps we should not base an encyclopedia article on his theory. Still, I will, when I get a moment, soon rewrite the offending paragraph.
Peregrine981 23:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

unreferenced quotation[edit]

The quotation in the second paragraph needs a source or something attached. There's just a quotation with no source.


See the last paragraph. It has scare quotes and is not worded neutrally. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

government were (likely) to contribute greatly to industrial-commercial growth and prosperity. Amongst other things, relatively open trading systems with zero or low duties on goods imports tended to stimulate industrial cost-efficiency and innovation across the board. Free and flexible labour and other markets also helped raise general business-economic performance levels, as did rapid popular learning capabilities.

Positive work ethics in populations at large combined with skills in quickly utilising new technologies and scientific discoveries were (likely) to boost production and income levels – and as the latter rose,

likely is a weasel word and needs to be cited if it is to be placed in wiki. See weasel words —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw6 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

capitalism a requisite for industrialization?[edit]

umm... "Industrialisation (also spelled Industrialization) or an Industrial Revolution is a process of social and economic change whereby a human group is transformed from a pre-industrial society (an economy where the amount of capital accumulated per capita is low) to an industrial one (a fully developed capitalist economy)"

It seems to me that this implies that a capitalist ecomomy is a requisite for a fully emerged industrial society, which I don't think that industrialization is limited to the capitalist economic system. e.g. communist industrialized societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalism is about whether a person owns capital, whereas industrialization means that the production of goods and services becomes increasingly separate from their consumption, distribution, etc. Related but still distinct concepts include mechanization and automation, both of which characterize the creation of tools, and free-market economy, in which trade involves the seller, the buyer, but no third parties, such as the government, unless it is a seller or a buyer. DXDanl (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Article needs dire cleanup[edit]

The majority of this article is either confusing in reason and logic or lacking references. I suggest the article be improved by these criteria. WinterSpw (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think either of these articles belong here. They dont identify with the main article.

The Third World Main article: Third World A similar state-led developing programme was pursued in virtually all the Third World countries during the Cold War, including the socialist ones, but especially in Sub-Saharan Africa after the decolonisation period.[citation needed] The primary scope of those projects was to achieve self-sufficiency through the local production of previously imported goods, the mechanisation of agriculture and the spread of education and health care. However, all those experiences failed bitterly due to a lack of realism: most countries didn't have a pre-industrial bourgeoisie able to carry on a capitalistic development or even a stable and peaceful state. Those aborted experiences left huge debts toward western countries and fuelled public corruption.

[edit] Petrol producing countries Oil-rich countries saw similar failures in their economic choices. An EIA report stated that OPEC member nations were projected to earn a net amount of $1.251 trillion in 2008 from their oil exports.[15] Because oil is both important and expensive, regions that had big reserves of oil had huge liquidity incomes. However, this was rarely followed by economic development. Experience shows that local elites were unable to re-invest the petrodollars obtained through oil export, and currency is wasted in luxury goods.[16]

This is particularly evident in the Persian Gulf states, where the per capita income is comparable to those of western nations, but where no industrialisation has started. Apart from two little countries (Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates), Arab states have not diversified their economies, and no replacement for the upcoming end of oil reserves is envisaged.[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw6 (talkcontribs) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Linked to Reindustrialization[edit]

I added a tag to link to the Reindustrialization article. That article isn't the best yet, but considering that reindustrialization is relevant to industrialization, it seems worth mentioning. Note any disagreements here. GreySun (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Myopic focus on economic aspects[edit]

The majority of this article sounds like it was written by a crazed Friedmanite. Industrialisation is not a purely economic issue. Also, it seems that someone or some people have suppressed all negative aspects of industrialisation - the extremely brief section on the environment, the complete hotlinking away for the exploitation section, and no section on sustainability / depletion of resources required for the process to continue.

I'd like the economic hotheads to stop biasing every goddamn page in wikipedia with their insidious, pro-capitalism lunacy. Please and thank you. Be realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Industrialisation is the process of social and economic change that transforms a human group from a pre-industrial society into an industrial one. It is a part of a wider modernisation process, where social change and economic development are closely related with technological innovation, particularly with the development of large-scale energy and metallurgy production. It is the extensive organisation of an economy for the purpose of manufacturing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

-world into rich and poor

-creates economic disturbances amoung countries


The rapid increase in the transportation of hazardous chemicals has enhanced the accident potential during transit. In transit, the goods would subject to impact, vibration, compression and other adverse effects and exposure to harmful environment. The other factors such as improper packing of the contents, poor storage may also lead to release of chemicals to the environment resulting in emergencies like fire, explosion, toxic release, etc. This module is for the following target groups:

Traffic Police Industries Transporters Emergency Managers Fire Fighters Drivers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Heading images[edit]

I have replaced the images at the top of the article. The watt steam image , although historically relevant gives the impression that industrialisation is a thing of the past. I hope the graphs give a better impression of its dynamic and continuing nature. The watt steam image is now in the history section where it is a better illustration. Lumos3 (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Information age[edit]

One is redirected to this article from Industrial age. The ages of human and societal evolution are less well defined than the ruling kings of England, say. Still, just as an article on a king would list the kings immediately preceeding and following that king, it would make sense to have some form of pointer to preceeding and following ages here. In particular, a reference to the information age would be natural -- including a brief paragraph mentioning reservations to a claim that industrialisation is over and replaced by information.-- (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

GDP is no measurement for industrialisation.[edit]

In the first chart you want to show "The effect of Industrialisation shown by rising income levels since 1500. The graph shows the gross domestic product (at purchasing power parity) per capita between 1500 and 1950 in 1990 International dollars for selected nations.[1]".

This is nonsense, because GDP per capita can be achieved by trade, services or agricultural production also, not necessarily by industrial production. I suggest the chart gets deleted and someone finds a similar chart with "industrial production per capita". (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensive Discussion[edit]

I believe that there could be a substantial amount of information added to improve how comprehensive the article is. For instance, there could be an outline of the progression of industrialization and the way that it has grown since the term was first created. The article currently does a good job of providing the basics, but as it is supposed to be an article in an encyclopedia which is meant to give the reader a comprehensive view into a subject, it would be off merit to be more thorough in the explanation of the topic. For instance, under the heading "social consequences" and the sub headings beneath that, each subject only has one or two sentences to describe it which is not sufficient to give a comprehensive view of industrialization. Furthermore, there is no section that describes the social benefits of the age. There should also be references made to the environmental and political effects of industrialization as well so that the article isn't seen to be leaning towards one side. Afaniran (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. There was an undiscussed split in March 2015 here to History of industrialisation. This could be reversed due to the lack of discussion and then the article developed as suggested above. Whizz40 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and recombine them. Whizz40 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)