Talk:Thomas Edison/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Please Delete Advertising

"His history with Nikola Tesla has also provided dramatic tension and is a theme returned to numerous times, such as in the latest episode of Epic Rap Battles of History." Remove this. This is very obviously advertising for some Youtube channel and certainly lacks the importance to be featured on this page. Requesting a deletion or at least moving it to the Edison in popular culture article 108.239.37.192 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)  Done - It was pretty WP:UNDUE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

inventor and businessman

In every context these two are used they should be switched. He invented much less than he sold and patented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carocrazy132 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Shouldn't we change 'prolific inventor' to something like 'prolific patenter'? 94.169.211.153 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013 - Thomas Edison entry, English wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Views_on_money

Footnote 80 now reads: 80. ^ Hammes, David L., Willis, Douglas T. Thomas Edison's Monetary Option, World Scientific Publishing Company, Sep 2011

But, this does not exist, nor will it exist.

The entry for footnote 80 should read:

2006, Hammes, D.L. and Wills, D.T.,“Thomas Edison’s Monetary Option”, The Journal of the History of Economic Thought. (Vol. 28, No. 3, September 2006). ISSN 1042-7716., pps. 295-308; and 2012, Hammes, David L., Harvesting Gold: Thomas Edison’s Experiment to Re-Invent American Money, Mahler Publishing.

Rmmahler (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Done I changed cite note 80 and added a cite note 81 per your request. I'm uncertain whether I did it right; if I did it wrong, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

13.1 Places and people named for Edison

under "Places and people named for Edison" there's no mention of places outside the USA. Please insert this text:

The city of Puebla, Mexico, has a "Universidad Alva Edison" ("University Alva Edison") and Mexico City has a "Calle Thomas Alva Edison" ("Thomas Alva Edison Street").

Sources: I've seen them both! also: http://www.unialvaedison.edu.mx/ (in spanish) https://maps.google.com/maps?q=thomas+alva+edison+mexico&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=19.438914,-99.158129&spn=0.002079,0.003449&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=28.667509,56.513672&hnear=Thomas+Alva+Edison,+Cuauht%C3%A9moc,+06470+Ciudad+de+M%C3%A9xico,+Distrito+Federal,+Mexico&t=m&z=18

The second paragraph of the "Thomas Edison" page gives him credit for inventing electrical power. The sentences read:

"He is credited with numerous inventions that contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. These included a stock ticker, a mechanical vote recorder, a battery for an electric car, electrical power, recorded music and motion pictures."

Electrical power is a force of nature, is it not. It exists. Edison may have harnessed it in many ways, but do you really think it should read that he "invented" it?

I now mean to sign this post:00:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)00:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)~~ kala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.78.246 (talk)

Popular Culture

In pop culture, Edison is viewed as a sort of villain, a guy who liked to electrocute animals for fun, a thief, the sort of guy who went out of his way to make sure his rivals lived in poverty, & as a model with everything that's wrong with rich businessmen today. Notable examples are comics from the popular The Oatmeal & dozenz of articles from popular web site Cracked over the course of many years. There's also lots of "Tesla > Edison" memes & T-shits. Even "Family Guy" has taken pot shots at him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Telegrapher

There is not, nor has there ever been, a place called Stratford Junction. Although it was once a railway junction it's never been called anything but Stratford. The Wikipedia link to the place is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratford,_Ontario

Please correct. Thank you.

Wwoolrich (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2013

Delete statement: "He later died of injuries related to the exposure." As further stated on the site and noted on the History Channel site: Edison died of complications from diabetes at the age of 84. Radiation exposure cannot cause diabetes. Even if it did, to live to be 84 years old in the early 20th Century, is quite an amazing feat and he did not die until some 40 years after he stopped his experiments with fluoroscopes. Redwood68 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the paragraph is about Clarence Dally's death, not Edison's. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

13.5 Other items named after Edison

I hope I'm doing this right, I'm not very good at all this wikipedia lark but there is a Dahlia called Thomas A Edison, can someone put that in? It's very pretty http://www.dahlias.com/thomasedison-item009.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolineholding (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison

Please! This is one of the worst pages on wikipedia! At least tell the truth! It is historical fact Edison DID NOT invent the lightbulb. Along with being an crook without a conscience, he was a selfish low-life in general: Read what he did to one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century: NOTE: This is even referenced from a wikipedia source! ! ! (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla )

United States

On 6 June 1884, Tesla first arrived in the US in New York City[28] with little besides a letter of recommendation from Charles Batchelor, a former employer. In the letter of recommendation to Thomas Edison, Batchelor wrote, "I know two great men and you are one of them; the other is this young man." Edison hired Tesla to work for his Edison Machine Works. Tesla's work for Edison began with simple electrical engineering and quickly progressed to solving some of the company's most difficult problems. Tesla was even offered the task of completely redesigning the Edison company's direct current generators.[29] guns Tesla claims he was offered US$50,000 (~ US$1.1 million in 2007, adjusted for inflation)[30] if he redesigned Edison's inefficient motor and generators, making an improvement in both service and economy.[24]:54-57 Tesla said he worked night and day on the project and gave the Edison Company several profitable new patents in the process. In 1885 when Tesla inquired about the payment for his work, Edison replied, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor," thus breaking his word.[31][32] Earning a mere US$18 per week, Tesla would have had to work for 53 years to earn the amount he was promised. The offer was equal to the initial capital of the company. Tesla resigned when he was refused a raise to US$25 per week.[33]

Tesla eventually found himself digging ditches for a short period of time – coincidentally for the Edison company. Tesla even used this time to focus on his AC polyphase system,[24;;;];] which Edison (believing DC electricity was the future) had never wanted to hear about.[c]

the truth from WIKIPEDIA readers?!?!?!? Shame on you. you are dumb jerks. We will NO LONGER DONATE to WIKIPEDIA as long as you hide the truth from the public / wikipedia readers / users.

---

Edit suggestion--change $10,000 to $40,000: Edison LLAMA was not sure that his original plan to sell it for $4,000 to $5,000 was right, so he asked Western Union to make a bid. He was surprised to receive an offer of $40,000, [Frank Lewis Dyer and Thomas Commerford, "Edison, His Life and Inventions"] which he gratefully accepted.

---

Suggestion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPnGvjmIgZA talks a bit about how Telsa was ripped off as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCAC:E5F0:50:9780:3BA6:F8AB (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC) guns

The vitriolic "Tesla fan" version of history re: "Edison ripped off Tesla" has been long gone from the Nikola Tesla article, for good reasons, not the least of which is WP:V. Youtube videos are not a reliable source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see this wrapped. Well said and well done, FoBM. 50.54.224.72 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014

change He was surprised to hear them offer $10,000 ($208400 in today's dollars.[36]), which he gratefully accepted.[37] He was surprised to hear them offer $10,000 ($208,400 in today's dollars.[36]), which he gratefully accepted.[37]

24.57.226.41 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done I assume you wanted a comma? If there was something else, request again. CTF83! 02:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

The following or the information contained therein would be a suitable addition to section 13.2 Museums and memorials:

In Fort Myers, Florida, the Edison and Ford Winter Estates, includes a large property, their houses, botanical gardens, research buildings, and a large museum.

"Edison and Ford Winter Estates" should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Lodge_(Thomas_Edison) .

Additionally, a link to http://www.edisonfordwinterestates.org/ should be included in the External Links, Location section.

Mfactor1 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why nothing on him stealing everything from Tesla

Edison is known for pretty much stealing all his stuff form Nikola Tesla, shamelessly defaming him, and failing to pay his $50,000 contract. ah well, never mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.119.14 (talk • contribs) 13:21, September 8, 2014‎

It probably has something to do with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Feel free to improve tha article, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Religion Reference

The reference to Edison's religion is not sufficient - the actual link only goes to an article about Steve Jobs, while the 'original' version does mention Edison but does not use the word Deism. I think we need a better reference for that. Babygrand1 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

PROBLEM IN SENTENCE (Incorrect time period & ambiguous): "After many experiments, first with carbon filaments in the early 1880s and then with platinum and other metals, in the end Edison returned to a carbon filament." 1880s is incorrect period. Correct period is early 1800s. Sentence perhaps should then read: After many experiments, first with carbon filaments in the early [1800s] and then with platinum and other metals, in the end Edison returned to a carbon filament.

STILL AMBIGUOUS: Sentence with '1880s' replaced by '1800s' is then ambiguous as to who exactly did the work with carbon filaments, since Edison was not yet born. Also, it's not clear from the article that Edison experimented with other materials, esp. after the edit '1800s' is inserted. I suggest in addition: Add 'by others' Replace 'returned to' with 'himself chose', or elaborate on Edison's experiments with other materials. Maybe better (for now): After many experiments [BY OTHERS], first with carbon filaments in the early [1800s] and then with platinum and other metals, in the end Edison [HIMSELF CHOSE] a carbon filament.

Mila kasdan (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 06:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of references is a Wikipedia criterion. A more serious objection to the way it was written is that it was nonsense; you don't do experiments in the "1880s" and then travel back in time to file a patent. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

In marriages and children section, The last line says "dying on August 24". I think it should be "died on August 24" Gops2323 (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's compare the two:

1. Mina outlived Thomas Edison, dying on August 24, 1947.
2. Mina outlived Thomas Edison, died on August 24, 1947.

The first is correct grammar and does not need to be changed. To use "died", we must change it to:

• Mina outlived Thomas Edison, having died on August 24, 1947.

Hope this helps. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

Thomas Edison perfected the light bulb, he did not invent it. 2601:5:C280:647:78D7:1A3E:D302:2CCC (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read the article and in particular this section where it comes right out and states, "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." So while he did not "invent the light bulb", Edison did indeed do what the article says he did. There is no need for any change to the article along this line. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 10:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

Edison was a patient of Edgar Cayce, could this be added to the article? This is stated in the January 2015 edition of Edgar Cayce's ARE's newsletter, Venture Inward, Venture Inward ARE January 2015 pages 19-22 Thomas Edison's Lost Reading: A Machine to Contact the Dead, and in William Birnes and Joel Martin The Haunting of Twentieth Century America Forge 2011 page 159. ECayce187 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Edison Did NOT invent...

Since the early days of harnessed electricity, Thomas Edison has been lauded and praised as the inventor of numerous electric devices. The truth is, Edison was a tenacious businessman and, unfortunately, a thief. Most notably, Nikola Tesla was victim to Edison's venal character. Tesla was the primary worker on the electric light project. Edison was not directly involved. But, when the end result garnered public attention and the promise of money, Edison jumped in to claim not only the glory but the money as well. Tesla went to him to remind him that their contract gave Tesla half of all earning from any invention he developed. Edison repeatedly denied the contention claiming there was never such a contract, although Tesla produced a copy.

Tesla was not the only one Edison cheated in such a manner, only the most notable. In the end, Tesla left the dubious employ of Mr. Edison and went out on his own. Edison, for his part just continued to steal ideas and, thus, money from people working for him.

Thomas Edison is NOT a person to be praised but he should be scorned for his less than dubious character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.30.138 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You should spend a bit of time reading the talk archives of this page. Really, it has been discussed to death (archive 9 has the most recent flare-ups.) It would be well if you could find a reliable source that came to the same conclusion, instead of half-informed internetchatterspout. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Swan electric light

I am reinstating my Edison edit, but now with Swan article links to resolve [Fountains of Bryn Mawr] concerns about references. Your concern that the Swan light was impractical because the Swan article states that it had impractically low resistance is misplaced; you appear to have stopped reading at the part describing the last of his earlier work, from 1875 to late 1878. His early 1879 work was practical, and the only issue is whether his commercial sales were of that model. I believe my wording covers all that, since it acknowledges that Swan did do impractical work even though the new wording now acknowledges that he then succeeded (the problem would be wording leaving all his work looking impractical), and it leaves the issue of commercial priority as open as the model date question. PMLawrence (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The main thrust of removing the statement is not so we as editors can figure something out through our own WP:OR. This statement of fact needs to be backed up with (several) reliable sources that make this specific statement in some way. That WP:BURDEN has to be fulfilled before the statement is re-added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It begins to be clearer. The thing is, your original undo cited a reading of the Swan article that referenced Swan's earlier, failed experiments, so I thought your concerns would be addressed by citing that article with enough context to be clear that his later successes also existed. What would you suggest, a repetition of the references used within that article, only now within the Edison article? As it stands, you have been undoing to a point at which the Edison article is making false assertions about Swan (per the backing for the Swan article). It puzzles me why that article shouldn't be cited here - not as a source in its own right, but as a more convenient place to find the backing for its assertions; otherwise the Edison article could get full of tangential material. How would you suggest we support the Swan statements here, since we appear to be in agreement that the undo is in fact resetting to false descriptions of Swan's work? (If we aren't in agreement, please clarify what is wrong with my understanding rather than merely querying what material may be cited.) PMLawrence (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no backing for the assertions re:Edison vs Swan at Joseph Swan (in fact there are a series of unreferenced biased claims) and there is a very clear referenced statement at Incandescent light bulb and this article that Swans lamp was impractical due to high electric current drawn (the price of the oversize copper conductors needed to wire the thing would have bankrupted any company that tried to do it). That all seems very clear. Could it be better covered or is could there be more to it? Sure, but that needs to be something that shows up in reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

In the section titled "Other items named after Edison", these references are available: for USS Thomas A. Edison (SSBN-610) http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/t/thomas-a-edison.html and for USS Edison (DD-439) http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/edison.html. Jwspeicher (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Done And thanks for finding those Cannolis (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

please edit and add life about Mr Edison's dog alfred and ho sir Edison loved him plus there is nothing about sir Alva Edison practical life 39.47.81.173 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)please i would apreciate if you listened to my recuest

Why is this article semi-protected?

^Read title MDaxo (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Covering up Tesla isn't Helping At All

It needs to be known that Tesla was the inventor of Edison's good DC generators. For Ayn Rand libertarians, this is hard to accept.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not WP:SOAP and there is no reliable claim Tesla was a major influence on Edison's generators. Per this edit - Dubious self produced youtube videos are not a reliable source and there are reliable claims divergent to Cheney as to what Tesla was working on at Edison Machine Works - Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age - page 71 points to Tesla actually working on an arc lighting project. Adding this material to the "War of Currents" section is off topic, many engineers and inventors worked for Edison and Tesla working at the Machine Works had nothing to do with the "War": it was 4 years before those events and Edison famously ignored anything Tesla had to say at this point. Tesla is MIA in the article, added to "See also", but that points to problems, there are no articles on Edison's companies where you could talk about employee contributions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Top Documentary Films is not YouTube. The evidence is solid that Edison robbed from Tesla the same way Jobs robbed from Wozniak.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to fulfill the WP:BURDEN on the statements "Edison robbed from Tesla", "Edison asked Nikola Tesla... to come to New York", or show how singling out one engineer out of the (hundreds?) who worked for Edison is anything other than WP:UNDUE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits removed per WP:BURDEN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We do actually know for certain that Tesla was offered 50,000 dollars to improve Edison's generators, and then when he did it, Edison refused to pay him. We should create a separate article or a header on this article that covers Edison's abuse (orpossibility of abuse) of Tesla. But it shouldn't be ignored.

Clean up references

Reference #9 by Travis Naeger turns out to be Naeger's school homework consisting of only a couple of paragraphs. I suggest it be removed. 81.228.54.151 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)