Talk:Second Industrial Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

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

Contents

[edit] comma usage

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)

Lir says he won't blank it again so I unprotected it. Don't forget to list pages on Wikipedia:Protected page if you protect or unprotect them. Angela 04:46, 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)

[edit] Clean up in progress

As requested, I have made a start at this. All comments welcome Apwoolrich 19:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Task force clean up started

So far, so good. Any comments, please? Apwoolrich 19:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up completed

Finished Apwoolrich 07:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

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.

[edit] 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. 12.220.94.199 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 88.108.96.10 (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 82.83.41.54 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let us discuss the THIRD Industrial Revolution -- the one thru the foothills of which we are at this time inattentively traveling.

[edit] "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)