Most of the article, in its existing form, is fairly childish, mixing causes and results, important and trivial, etc. Is it worth rewriting, or should be simply dump this altogether to write it from scratch? Ori Redler 19:26, 25 November 2006 (CST)
Nominate for Approval
- The comment above, made nearly two years ago, has not been followed up with any details or revisions, and thus deserves to be ignored. Meanwhile, there have been several hundred changes by others.
- In my view, the "See Also..." comments near the bottom belong on the Related Articles page, so I've added them there (and left them on the Main Page also until the issue can be resolved.
Other than that, I think the article may be ready to be Approved, and so I am nominating it.
- Roger Lohmann 08:53, 29 June 2008 (CDT)
- Because of the July 4 holiday in the U.S. and (more importantly) the fact that this nomination isn't showing up on the History: To Approve page, I've extended the nomination period a few more days.
Roger Lohmann 19:40, 1 July 2008 (CDT)
APPROVED Version 1.0
Berg & The Industrious Revolution
There is no mention here of Jan de Vries' concept of the "Industrious Revolution" or Berg's use of the idea either. Both seem to argue against the idea of an male-oriented, male-motivated Industrial Revolution; indeed there would be no industrial revolution without women laborers nor women consumers. Nor is there any mention of the theory of the "Medieval Industrial Revolution." Just thoughts for later. maybe.... Russell D. Jones 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
What about the rule of law? Wasn't it an important precondition that investors could have reasonable confidence that any profits they might make would not be arbitrarily confiscated or whatever? Peter Jackson 11:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)