Talk:Thomas Edison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Thomas Edison has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Edison article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Thomas Edison is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Thomas Edison as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article was featured in FoxTrot on 7 September 2006
This article was written by Peter.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to sign languages, Deaf culture, deafness etc. For guidelines see the project page or talk page
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. 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.
This article is part of WikiProject Technology, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to technology. 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.

This article is part of WikiProject Ohio, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Ohio.
Flag of New Jersey
Portal:NJ
 NJ Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Thomas Edison is (or a previous version of it was) a selected article or selected biography on the Energy Portal, which means that it has been identified as being a good quality article by Energy Portal standards.

Editors are encouraged to browse the archive sections ...

  • talk page archive 0 : 1 Light Bulb credit is misplaced? - 2 invention complexity - 3 first inventors to apply the principles of mass production? - 4 Re: Light bulb - 5 contradiction - 6 Rudolph Hunter - 7 Reverted to last edit by Reddi - 8 Infobox on main article (please comment) - 9 vandalism - 10 Goebel - 11 Lewis Latimer - 12 West Orange Research

Contents

[edit] Tomas Edison by Kate

I think he was great because he invented the light bulb and loads of other things.

This massive article says NOTHING about his later years and death. That needs to be changed. Weatherman90 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any truth to the idea that Edison was very anti semetic? Wasn't this a major factor in why he refused to sell patents to the future movers and shakers in Hollywood (and forced them to go to Hollywood as well?) Flyerhell 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I also heard that he was very racist. Would that be something to apply to the article? Link9er 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was Henry Ford who was widely rumored as having been Anti-Semitic, not Edison. Perhaps both of them have been accused of it, however... DarthCat 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read a remark made by Paul Auster in his novel "The Invention of Solitude," that would make you think so. It says that the narrator´s father was hired "for a brief moment" as an assistant in Edison's library "only to have the job taken away from him the next day because Edison learned he was a Jew." (By the way, the novel is, at least, partially autobiographical, so I don´t know if Paul Auster´s father was really thrown away by Edison)4 February 2006

There is nothing in his life history or writings to indicate that Edison was a racist, no.

He was a creature of his times and his background, so he likely shared widespread prejudices. I have seen phonograph records which today only the KuKluxKlan would like: there were "humor" records in which white comedians would make jokes in dialect, with stereotypical imagined actions and words of minorities. I can think of whole series of such records reinforcing the attitudes of whites in the US and elsewhere towards Blacks and Jews. He certainly was not outside the 19th and early 20th century mainstream in maintaining such stereotypes, as they were common in newspapers, novels, and plays. Edison 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Work

Knowing Thomas Edison as he is there should be a section on his (largely unsuccessful) work on military technology for WWI. It was sort of an early transitional step into the era of Big Science, as collaborative, scientifically-based labs were more successful in creating useful military inventions than Edison and his helprs with his tinkering approach of many independent minds. --ragesoss 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was called the Naval Consulting Board. --RedJ 17 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in the Introduction

I don't know if it is a typo or vandalism. In the introductory section it states "In 1995, three generations of Edisons took up farming ..." I'm assuming it should be 1795? I've changed it, if not, change it back. --Davril2020 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise for the statement "Thomas had a Grandma that is still alive! She was born in 7009. She is not 1 years old yet! Her name is Lookie Edison... i think!" in "Family background".

If Samuel Ogden Edison Jr. was born i 1804, how could he be one of the three generations who took up farming near Vienna, Ontario in 1795? Theo06 08:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most patents ever issued to one individual

I think that it is really a shame that, on the third topmost line of a supposedly "good article", lies a baffling factual error: Nevertheless, Edison is considered one of the most prolific (in terms of patents) inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name (the most ever issued to one individual),[...]. You may want to check more thoroughly into this problem [1]. Wikipedia isn't the place for legends, and especially not the heading lines of such an important article. Just to remind you, Wikipedia:Good_articles reads be factually accurate and be referenced. False assertions of this kind inevitably will happen, and that's fine, but it is the raison d'être of good articles to avoid them.

I just noticed that too and I remembered reading the Slashdot article[2]. But that's the great thing about Wikipedia, if you see something that is blatantly wrong, you can easily correct it.Shadow demon 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the error? Edison was issued 1,093 patents, and you can see every one of them at the Patent Office site. -dennyK

The error is that he doesn't hold the most patents anymore. Clarityfiend 09:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of patents held by Edison is clearly exceptional for one person. Whether or not someone else now holds more is of somewhat marginal significance. Edison was dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" by the New York Daily Graphic in April 1878 when he held only 131 patents so his folk hero status rests on far more than merely the number of patents he held or whether or not he had more than anyone else. I would be interested, in the interests of accuracy, in knowing the individual (not corporation) who exceeded Edison's tally and when. The information could be used to amend the article.IanWills 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)IanWills

I had previously had no success with the U.S. patent office but a bit more research has yielded the name of Dr Yoshiro NakaMats who is claimed to have been awarded 3,200 patents (the number is not verified). I now see how the confusion has arisen concerning Edison since the statement quoted above can be interpreted as meaning "Edison held the most patents issued to an individual" (apparently incorrect in the light of Dr NakaMats). However, when literally interpreted it is equivalent to "Edison held the most U.S. patents issued to an individual", which is apparently true. A less contentious sentence would read: "Edison is considered one of the most prolific (in terms of patents) inventors in history, holding the most U.S patents issued to an individual (1,093)." Am I correct in this or does someone else hold more than 1,093 U.S. patents? IanWills 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)IanWills

According to USA Today (12/6/05), Donald Weder is apparently the current US recordholder, with 1321, though they are not terribly important. He's a florist and his patents have to do with things like covering a flowerpot, or a sleeve for holding flowers. Clarityfiend 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate Paragraphs Deleted

I was reading this for the first time tonight. I found that ALL the discriptive headers staring with "Inventor" and going through "Media Inventions" repeated, right up to the header "Homes." I deleted all the dupes. I did NOT mark this as a minor edit, but I did leave a marker with text at the point of deletion. Is it more correct to simply delete the duplicates and post HERE, or leave a mark as I did, for large text deletions? Cpswarrior 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)cpswarrior

[edit] picture of Thomas Edison

[edit] science

[edit] Marriages and later life

Somebody did a poor job of repairing the vandalism of 3/1/06. I have pasted the overwritten text back (the sections Inventor and Menlo Park). Clarityfiend 09:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Pirate

I think it should be noted (maybe in the Trivia section) that Edison was one of the first movie pirates, making copies and profiting from "From the Earth to the Moon". 69.161.146.61 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This assertion was made in a TV movie about the creator of "From the Earth to the Moon", but some verifiable source is needed before it is put in the article.Edison 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep Myth + minor quibble

I remember reading somewhere that it was a myth that Edison only needed a few hours sleep. Apparently he took frequent naps during the day. Can anybody confirm this and add it to the article if true?

I'm removing the qualifier "(in terms of patents)". He was one the most prolific, period. Clarityfiend 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Books say he and his crew would work around the clock on an invention, maybe 48 hours, then sleep in when the thing was finally made to work. Edison had a niche under the stair in the lab where he could catnap. Edison 05:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla

The bit about Tesla under Improvements should either be deleted or rewritten, as it implies that Tesla did his work in alternating current when working for Edison, when it had been done years earlier. He worked for him briefly, and little contact with him after that, so it's inaccurate to say "it was related as were the two men."


  • Tesla's most important AC work, such as the brushless induction motor and the polyphase AC transmission system was actually done after his time working for Edison, not before.The Tesla article says he worked for Edison for a year, so it was not all that brief.Edison 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • please note that Edison was completely anti-AC and there was no way he would have encouraged Tesla or supported his work in this area except to prove it unsuitable for anything but killing people

[edit] thomas edison" invents

thomas edison"s inventions

[edit] War of currents

Deleted the word "inexpensive" before "transformers." Transformers were and are a major expense item for utilities. The step up and step down transformers at generating stations and substations may cost several million dollars each, and the distribution transformers on the poles in residential neighborhoods may cost thousands of dollars. So what are they "inexpensive" in comparison with? Edison 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Noted inclusion of "Topsy the Elephant" execution as part of the "war of currents" section. Since Westinghouse (et. al) had "harnessed Niagara" and the World's Columbian Exposition were both over before the turn of the twentieth century, wasn't this elephant killed after the "war" was over (1903)?

BFDhD 21:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your observation is a good one: when General Electric was formed in the eatly 1890's Thomas Edison dropped out of the electricity business and moved on to other areas such as motion pictires, the phonograph,the iron ore separator, and concrete. He had little or no inolvement in electrical research or promotion of direct current by 1903. The elephant electrocution was just a weak echo of the "war of the currents." Edison

[edit] Iron ore separator

Yes, yes, sofixit (and I will, eventually), but this article is currently quite deficient in failing to discuss his experiments in magnetic ore beneficiation. He invested a great deal of his personal fortune in the process, only to be wiped out by the availability of cheap, rich Mesabi Range ores by the time he had sufficiently perfected it. Choess 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Inventions

There is an entry for two way telegraph in 1892. I do not see why this is worthy of listing, and if there is no comment in support, will modify it. This refers to a patent 480,567 for a duplex telegraph, which actually allowed 2 messages to be sent in the same direction at the same time. The original Morse telegraph in the 1840's was of course a two way instrument in that messages could be sent in eithr direction, although one at a time (simplex). Inventors wished to make better use of the expensive telegraph wires by using polarity or frequency division to send multiplt messages at the same time, and this work led to the development of the telephone. But Edison patented 10 Duplex telegraphs in the 1870's, and had patented a "sextuple" telegraph before the one cited in the article. Did the 1892 patent have a big effect on the industry somehow? I propose to change the listing to "Duplex Telegraph, 1874." This would refer to patent 147917, which was his first such patent.Edison 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you explain this please a bit more. Patent 480,567 may have been granted on August 9, 1892 but the application was dated September 1, 1874, pretty much at the peak of Edison's telegraph patent output. Is the problem that it is less significant than the quadruplex telgraph or perhaps that it is not related to media?IanWills 12:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

I will have to research how important his various multiplex telegraph patents were, but by 1892 he and the industry had moved way beyond duplex, so the listing seems like an anachronism, unless it led to something big. I don't see why it belongs in the same selective listing as sound recording and motion pictures. It is a good catch that he applied for the 1892 patent back in 1874. As for media inventions, the article has noted his development of sound recording, and motion picture photography and projection. He also exhibited films with accompanying voice recordings. Kinetophone cylinders still exist, but it was crude and not a commercial success. I plan to research the details and add a note. Also there should be a note on his invention of the carbon microphone, used in early broadcasting and in telephones until the present. Edison 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)pop. I have looked further into this and the delay in awarding the patent seems to have been due to a dispute with Harold C. Nicholson, who had got Edison's 1865 sketches of the duplex from Ezra Gilliland. There may also have been litigation over the use of the duplex since some company's (including Western Union I think) were using it without paying Edison fees. Edison had developed dozens of duplex designs in the 1860s and 70s. I agree that by the 1890s the duplex was old technology. On this basis the 1892 patent is an anachronism as you note.

The carbon microphone is worth adding in. Edison worked on a wide range of microphone designs, mostly resistance based but in February 1877 built one that used capacitance. He never patented it. IanWills 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

In researching this I ran across a funny newspaper article from 1875, when Edison had announced his discovery of what was later called Hertzian Waves, but which he called "Etheric Force." An expensive telegraph line which could carry 4 messages at the same time as it ordinarily carried 1 was 4 times as valuable. The reporter said "Edison is not only duplicitous; he is quadriplicitous." Edison 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later years

The "Edison's last breath" section could be removed to the improvement of the article. It is doubtful and of little importance. A citation is needed. Edison 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I found a link to show that the Greenfield Village (Henry Ford) Museum does indeed have a test tube of air from the room where Edison died, kept as a memento like a plaster death mask or a lock of hair might be. Will try and put the factoid back into the article. Edison 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oriental telephone company

This section is of less importance than other sections, and could be removed. Lacks citation as well.Edison 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a note, I recently reformatted this article, so the prose is pretty disorganized; if I find time I will probably patch up the prose. Andy t 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Menlo Park

This sentence is awkward and misleading. As is, it literally says Edison bought one patent from all the men named, which is clearly not the case: "Several designs had already been developed by earlier inventors includi-HI-ng the patent he purchased from Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans, Moses G. Farmer,[4] Joseph Swan, James Bowman Lindsay, William Sawyer, Humphry Davy, and Heinrich Göbel." Whose patent did he supposedly buy? Humphrey Davy certainly lived long before Edison and had no patent to sell. From reading several histories of the electric light, it is more likely the General Electric conglomerate bought a patent or patents. The Sawyer patent, perhaps? The Swan patent? None of their bulbs worked to any practical extent before Edison's work. Edison 04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The most recent things I've read indicate Swan was about at the same level of development as Edison in the home stretch of bring out a light bulb with commercially useful charactristics. But he did not announce public demonstrations and go full speed ahead with illuminating cities and devising the generators and distribution system as Edison did. The really funny thing is how the leading men of electrical science (Tyndall) insisted that it was folly to try to make electric lights small enough to illuminate one room of a house, the so called "subdividing of the electric light." All they could picture were small arc lights, which wouldn't work. It's all easy and obvious in retrospect, but it was folly to the scientific world in prospect.Edison 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There were indeed public demonstrations and installations of Swan's patent in the UK (see Joseph Swan). No industrial production until 1881 however. Hakluyt bean 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Incandescent era paragraph 2 includes a link to one "William Sawyer", who it would seem patented a design for a lightbulb before Edison. However, the included link directs to a cricket player. Is Sawyer misspelled/the wrong name or is this correct and just no link exists?

I think it's the American William S. Sawyer and there doesn't appear to be an article. Hakluyt bean 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1878, Edison applied the term filament to the element of glowing wire carrying the current, although English inventor Joseph Swan had used the term prior to this. I'm not clear about this sentence. Is Edison credited here with inventing terminology that was invented previously? (No laughing at the back). I presume this was original use of an older term, but it'd be nice to see what Swan meant by filament, & why Edison changed that meaning. Hakluyt bean 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla bulb history?

This article is about Edison, yet there is a long section about Tesla including: "Other designs for a light bulb included Serbian inventor Nikola Tesla's idea of utilizing radio frequency waves emitted (in the Tesla effect) from the side electrode plates to light a wireless bulb. He also developed plans to light a bulb with only one wire with the energy refocused back into the center of the bulb by the glass envelope with a center "button" to emit an incandescent glow." Did this bear on Edison's incandescent light bulb development? What year was the Tesla incandescent light bulb developed? If it were in the timespan of Edison's development work, then it has a place in this article. If it was after even the patent litigation was concluded and the patent expired, then it is relevant only in the Tesla article, where I did not see it described, unless in the bare mention of an 1893 "single node bulb." The material would be more at home in the Tesla article. In about a week I will delete it from this article unless good reasons are furnished otherwise.Edison 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Edison info belongs in the Edison article and Tesla info in the Tesla article. Tesla got too little recognition of his acomplishments for much of the 20th century, but the solution to this is to improve our information on Tesla rather than trying to turn discussion of other inventors into a discussion of Tesla, as some folks have seemed to do. The contributions of various inventors who all made contributions to various aspects of technology are best listed in articles about those specific technology. -- Infrogmation

[edit] Alexander Crawford redirect?

Why was the "Alexander Crawford" article set up to redirect to Edison? I couldn't see any reason for it, so I have removed the redirect. Jwillbur 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism: he hired people to work on his inventions

The article had a criticism section that said his employees really invented his inventions. One problem: most of them never invented anything until they came to work for him, and started carrying out the tasks he assigned them. And most of them never invented anything of consequence after they left his lab. In the beginning, he was the classis lone inventor, slaving away on the Gold and Stock ticker and the quadruplex telegraph. He had several noteworthy inventions on his own. Then he hired machineists, mathematicians, chemists, glassblowers and other hired guns to enable him to draw up a plan for a phonograph, write on it "Kreusi: make this" and get back a nicely machined little device that would for the first time in the world record and play back speech. Francis Jehl was there when the light bulb was invented, and in "Menlo Park Reminiscences" he detailed the complete involvement of Edison in the project. Upton wrote that Edison was the most skilled worked at carbonizing the filaments. He was in the lab all hours, going from one worker to another with assignments and suggestions for improvements. A thousand lines would be followed for each grand success. Alexander Graham Bell did not build the first telephone: Thomas Watson, his employee, did. Morse did not invent the telegraph; Vail and others had the electrical and mechanical knowhow. In contrast, Edison was very knowledgable of all aspects of electricity and pretty good with chemistry, and surprisingly good with acoustics for one who was nearly deaf. A verifiable source is needed for the claim that Edison "stole" the Melies film. Then consider how every company in the US and abroad "stole" the successful lightbulb, just as the Bell company "stole" the carbon telephone transmitter.Edison 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To quibble a bit Edison your post could stand a tiny bit of cleaning up. I cannot tell where the quotation ends, also you need to source it. I didn't know much about Edison when I read this (although I grew up in Edison, NJ) but I removed a sentence saying his "reputation was ruined" because generally now he is thought of very highly (I lived in Florida since I was 12 so not just in Edison, NJ). It may have been ruined at the time but saying "his reputation was ruined" implies permanence. I changed it to his "reputation was hurt" "ruined at the time" would be fine too if indeed that is the case.Quadzilla99 07:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I put in the other quote sign around the book "Menlo Park Reminiscences." I don't see another ambiguous quote.Do you refer to a quote in the article or on this talk page? I also deleted some material which recently appeared in the article which made unsupported POV claims and which duplicated material in other sections of the article. Besides the duplication, the new material made several untrue and unsupported criticisms. One criticism said Edison was in charge of the Kemler execution, which was certainly not true, and it said that his powerlines hung too low and electricuted people, whereas in fact he emphasized putting the conductors underground for safety. His conductors were 120volt-240volt DC in the Edison 3 wire system later used for single phase residential AC wiring in the 20th century. It was the 4,000 volt AC lines which were overhead and which electricuted many people. Tests also showed that at a given voltage, DC was less likely to produce electricution than AC. The new material also said Edison was "fired" from his company, and they took his name off it. Misleading at best. Check out Consolidated Edison in New York, Detroit Edison, Commonwealth Edison, and many other electric utilities which bear his name today. His main company, Edison General Electric, was merged in 1892 with Thompson-Houston Electric. see http://www.ge.com/en/company/companyinfo/at_a_glance/history_story.htm Thompson and Houston were not "fired" either. But financier J.P. Morgan was not going to have just Edison's name on the merged company. when his stock dealings gave him control, and Edison-Thompson-Houston General Electric would have been more than a mouthful.Edison 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt any of you have patented anything either. When IBM, for example, has an engineer that patents something they do not patent it under the name of the CEO or founder of the company. The name of the actual inventor is listed. It does not matter if that was the person's first or last invention, they still get their name on it. IBM owns the royalties of course, but hopefully you can see the difference between this and Edison's scandalous and selfish method. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.204.181.144 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
In the 19th century electrical inventions were often patented under tha name of the inventor who was head of the company. Vail invented the telegraph and Mors's name was on the patents. Watson built the telephone and Bell's name was on the patent. Morse and Bell knew nothing about electricity. Edison was per the references highly knowledgable about electrical gadgets and he was in the lad 18 hours a day at Menlo Paer fronm about 1876 to 1882, drawing the sketches which guided the myriad development efforts of Bachelor, Upton, Kruesi, Jehl, and the others. The references also note that having the famous inventor's name on the patent was an asset in gaining financial backing: "Edison's new generator regulator" would get more investors than "Upton's new regulator." Upton in court documents gave all the credit to Edison. Jehl was basically a pair of hands. "scandalous and selfish" type comments just display POV which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Edison 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More criticism

Owen214: please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. An article can be edited collaboratively without namecalling. You added some material from the Nikola Tesla article in a "Criticism" section which was already covered in the "Work relations" section (Tesla) or in the "War of the currents" section (Edison's campaign against high voltage AC distribution, "Westinghousing"). This is properly covered in more depth in the article War of the currents. It is not necessary to go into calculations in this article. Please note that when voltage is stepped up, and power losses are decreased because of smaller I2R losses, the conductor is also made smaller, which is the whole point. To calculate the power loss at the high versus low voltage, you need to know the relatve sizes of the conductors. Utilities deliberately allow some I2R losses in transmission, with a goal of balancing off power loss versus the cost of installing and maintaining large conductors. This discussion belongs in War of the currents or Electric power transmission. Your section about Edison installing low hanging power lines which electrocuted people and animals is pretty unlikely at least for the Pearl Street system in New York, since the conductors were installed underground at enormous expense for safety. So I consider your claim to be original research, and very doubtful, unless you have a reliable published source. The same goes for your assertion that Edison did not understand how DC worked. Tesla's redesign of Edison's generators was not mentioned in any source I have seen before his 1919 autobiographical magazine articles, but I don't doubt he did some design work. There are some non-sequitors in your text. Edison never said long distance transmission of electricity should be by low voltage DC, and his systems were designed to supply electricity for about 1 1/2 miles around the generating station. The DC generating station in Chicago at Harrison Street, built in the 1890's, operated for many years into the 20th century and supplied the downtown very nicely with DC, with AC transmission from newer stations to more remote areas. Through interconnections, DC could be stored in battery banks for reliability. It could be changed to AC and vice versa with rotary convertors. There was no sudden abandonment of DC distribution in large downtown areas as you assume. Edison may have been "unscroupulous" with "few moral values" but it violates WO:NOR for you to make the claim without a good reference which substantiates it. It should also be put into perspective compared to Westinghouse getting control of Tesla's patents for next to nothing, Tesla defrauding hotelkeepers, Bell likely stealing credit for Gray's invention, and the exploits of Jay Gould, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie. The article should also have a "neutral point of view," per WP:NPOV , and should not sound like an angry attack. Let's discuss revisions here on the talk page. I'm sure there's a lot of special insights you can provide to improve the article. But claims should have references to support them, and things covered in the article should not be duplicated. Regards. Edison 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I duplicated the thing on Edison because if someone just wanted to see the criticisms, they would know all the necessary information. I didn't bother covering those other people you mentioned because this is irrelevant. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I found that out about the low power lines but I'm pretty sure it's true and I have a feeling it wasn't in New York. Hopefully someone else has seen the information and can list a source. I never said that AC totally replaced DC quickly, so I'm sorry if it seemed I implied that. Also, since it's a criticism section, how can you have a neutral point of view? I don't believe that I need to source the view that Edison didn't understand DC because I have listed all the evidence that led to this conclusion. I was criticising DC because at the time it was innappropriate and I wanted to explain why. Besides the reasons listed, AC is used for many devices that need accuracy because they can base their timing on the phase difference. Anyway, I thought because it was the discussion section and not the article itself, I could say what I wanted, but obviously not. Sorry about that. Owen214 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The wires hanging down and electricuting people sounds more like AC. There were lots of violent public accidental electricutions of workmen on the poles that carried 4 kv ac. The 120/240 dc was on conductors an inch or more thick under the streets. Someone could have gotten electricuted in a manhole. "Criticism" sections are less desirable than having the info in the relevant section. Otherwise we talk about Tesla under work relations (in this article) and then under Criticism, and electricution under "War of the currents" and again under criticism. There might be a need for a section on "Business practices" but it should be neutral tone and put his sharp dealings in perspective with 19th century robber baron business men like I mentioned above. I could come up with examples where he gipped business partners which are documented. There was a Jesse Lippincott who invested a fortune in the phonograph business and lost it all, and his widow was on charity, but Edison eventually gave her a small pension. The Tesla claim is in the article, but there is some doubt about the $50,000, which is documented only in Tesla's recollections 30 years later. Another area of criticism not in the article is that when he got extremely old, he still wanted to run the business, and he did not move aggressinvely into new technology like radio in the 1920's, so the company shut down making phonographs and movies when the stock market crashed in 1929. If he had turned things over to his sons they might have kept the pioneering movie and phonograph businesses going. But he was close to 80 by then. Henry Ford had the same problem: got old and cantankerous and ran Ford Motors inefficiently, rather than turning it over to the next generation. But is is wrong to make him out as worse than all the other famous 19th century entrepreneurs. And he knew far more about electricity and electromagnets than Morse or Bell.Edison 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandusky?

At (13:56, 1 August 2006) editor Badbilltucker added the category that Edison was from Sandusky, Ohio. I am deleting that, because Edison was born in Milan, Ohio. Google Maps shows about 12 miles from Milan to Sandusky. How was Edison "from Sandusky?"Edison 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] quotations

I fear this article is missing one of Edison's greatest contributions, his words. I am working on an edit of the article to include some of this work. Any suggestions would be helpful.--Cciborek 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Montessori trivia?

Edison was often interviewed about his philosophy, his ideas on education, or religion, and many other factors. If he supported Montessori schools, perhaps that should be part of a section on Edison's philosophy rather than 'trivia.' Wikipedia articles rarely benefit when a lot of unsupported statenments are added in a "Trivia" section. Please provide a verifiable source for this. Edison 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edison as Hitman?

Removed an accusation of assassination which just cites another Wikipedia article as evidence, as well as a website that says some guy disappeared in the 1890's, not even that he was murdered, and that some photo was found of "a drown man ressembling to the odd disappeared." No credible evidence the guy was murdered or that Edison had any role in his disappearance. Edison is accused of stealing the work of every other 19th century inventor without killing any of them, why would he have made an exception for this guy? Lacks a credible and verifiable source. No conviction, no indictment, no contemporary accusation. Random odd conspiracy theories are not encyclopedic. Edison 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vegetarian?

Why is he under category: amrican vegitarians. I could not find a source that says he is a vegetarian. Thanks.nids(♂) 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/edison.html Q0 01:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So he appears to have been a vegetarian for some span of time starting in 1908, if this is a reputable website. I have checked several books about Edison, and find nothing about his being a vegetarian. I do find in several books that he did experiments in preserving steaks, chops and grouse in vacuum sealed glass jars, which is something no vegetarian I know would consider doing. Thus the category is suspect at best, and it is incumbent on its proponents to come up with a more convincing reference in a verifiable source. Edison 03:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange logic. I am a vegetarian and would have no problem handling meat. Indeed I have performed dissections for classes in the past without any problems. The quote in the ref above seems like a reasonably verifiable one I would think. --Guinnog 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It would not be shocking in any way if he were, but I'm surprised not to have seen it mentioned in several biographies. Vegetarians I know will not even feed meat to a cat, or put a goldfish in an aquarium for a turtle to enjoy. They leave that chore to me. Do vegetarians work as butchers? Do they cook or serve meat to others?Edison 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong if you say that vegetarians do not even feed meat to a cat or put a goldfish in an aquarium. Vegetarianism just means refraining from meat products. You will find many Jains in India, who never even touch eggs, but would have performed dissections in their biology classes. These things do not affect their vegetarian status under any circumstances.nids(♂) 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
An archived version of the reference [3] adds another quote from 1891 stating that Edison is a vegetarian. Though it seems a bit confusing since the quote from 1908 said he 'recently' became a vegetarian, unless he became a vegetarian sometime before 1891, started eating meat again between 1891 and 1908, and then became a vegetarian again by 1908. Q0 04:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In regard to the assertions that Edison did experiments in meat preservation: is there any information about what time period Edison did those experiments? It might make sense if he did those experiments at a time when he was eating meat. Q0 04:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why no introductory sentence?

Why is there no introductory sentence (or paragraph) before the TOC stating, for example, that he was an American inventor and giving his dates? The article goes straight into his early life. Coughinink 07:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I went back in the history and got the last version of the intro before it was mysteriously deleted (seemingly by a bot, but I'm not very good at interpreting article histories). It's not perfect, but far less jarring than launching right into the Table of Contents block. 138.69.160.1 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Thomas Edison

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just popping in to see if there is anything like this as he has appeared n things like The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace. I have just sorted out Nikola Tesla in popular culture and Mark Twain in popular culture so Thomas Edison in popular culture would seem like the best first move which works better with the general naming conventions of the category they go in. (Emperor 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC))
The reason behind the more general title Cultural depictions of... is because important figures in history often get depicted in high culture as well as popular culture, so ...in popular culture tends to exclude public statues, stage plays, murals, and other high art. I've done a survey of Core Biography figures and am keeping a worksheet at User:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. I don't want to step on any toes so I'm deferring to active editors at particular articles. Regards, Durova 19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from and perhaps the "in popular culture" entries may be a stepping stone to an eventual "Cultural depictions of" entry but they arise from a specific need. Editors were removing pop cultural references from entries. Statues dedicated to people as well as streets named after them, etc. see to be deemed OK and are usually put in a tribute section. So the "in popular culture" entry are there for the material that needs to be included but have been deemed unworthy of actually going in the main entry (it stops editting wars and back and forth). If there was ever a need to split up a main entry the sensible approach would be to take the "tribute" section and merge it into the pop culture and move the lot to a cultural depictions entry. This seems a longer term thing and the pop culture entry is really in response to an immediate need. Also Joan of Arc and Alexander the Great have been around a long time and have accumulated cities named after them and the like and these more recent figured haven't accreted such a large number of such things so the "tribute" sections aren't that overwhelming at the moment. I'll leave the final call to more dedicated Edison-editors as they'll have a full grasp of the amount of information that needs to be dealt with. (Emperor 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

Whatever we do we'll need things to go in it whatever it is called. So examples include:

Anyone know of any other examples? I can probably get things rolling with those but want to make sure it is fleshed out. (Emperor 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Righto I've stuck with what I know and started Thomas Edison in popular culture feel free to expand it. (Emperor 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Criticism

Edison received the credit for the inventions of the people who worked for him at Menlo Park. Sure, they didn't invent much before they worked for him, but maybe they were too busy doing their jobs. When they worked for Edison, it was their job to just think and invent all day and they had the right equipment to do it.

Thomas Edison deliberately electrocuted numerous animals with high voltage Alternating Current then said that it wasn't his fault; it was all because of Gearge Westinghouse and AC. It was Thomas Edison's idea to use electrocution for execution and he often said "Westinghoused" instead of "electrocuted" because he wanted to use AC to kill the victim. When the first criminal was executed by electrocution, blod was coming out of places all over his body, including his fingers and he was smouldering. The executioners assumed he was dead when they saw this about 10 seconds after the current was turned on, so they turned it off. He was actually alive and in extreme pain, so they turned it back on and he was finally dead after 17 seconds. Thomas Edison came up with the idea of electrocution and he designed the system that caused this disgusting torture.


== STOP REMOVING THE CRITICISM OF EDISON!!!!! Edison committed numerous disgraceful deeds, which deserve mention just as much as his useless inventions. ==(I don't mean to say that all his inventions were useless; just that the useless inventions are no more important than the lies and murder)


Edison never understood Alternating Current and many of his arguments against it were arguments ad hominem, rather than proper scientific discussion. He always insisted, right until the end, that DC was better than AC without ever properly understanding it.

Edison promised many investors that he would set up a Hydro Electricity plant at Niagra Falls and would power lights in thousands of houses with it. He never even started that power plant and he finally turned on the first lights, in New York, more than a year after his original promise and was still asking for more money. Those lights weren't powered by Hydro Electricity. He hadn't even finished his own lights when the deadline came.

Huey45 08:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take a chill pill and simmer down. Many of the criticisms you are stating have already in the article for a long time, so there is no point in repeating them in the "Criticism " section. Please read the article before you start adding statements that are already there. The idea of electrocution to replace hanging came largely from the horrible accidental electrocutions which were taking place on overhead high voltage ( 2.4kv and up) AC lines already in use for arc lights and AC lighting. Linemen or phone company workers or telegraph workers came in contact with the AC conductors on the poles and hung there burning. Edison did not invent electrocution. He did sponsor Brown who advocated its use for execution, and he did demonstrate the greater lethality of high voltage AC. AC was worse than DC at a given voltage, and high voltage was more dangerous than distribution voltage. Find a book which says Edison did not understand electricity, and that he promised investors he would build a power plant at Niagara Falls to light New York City, and cite it properly. The lighting of New York from the Pearl Street plant was by coal fired steam engines, as designed. It is nonsense to claim Edison promised to generate low voltage electricity at Niagara Falls and light New York city with it. I have never seen any reference that stated that. He knew low voltage DC was only economic for a mile or two of distribution lines. Please do not make up history and try to insert it in an article. Find a reference where he insisted to the end (1931?) that DC was better for all uses than AC. Terminology like "Disgraceful deeds" is POV. Come up with reliable sources for statements, make them in an encyclopedic, non- point of view tone, and go for it. Find references to any dishonesty and document it. Material will be removed from the article which is shrill and POV, or which lacks reliable and verifiable supporting references. Thanks for your participation.Edison 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Edison had recognized back in 1880 that high voltage was needed to transfer electricity a long distance. He recognized that small wires could be used with high voltage. He paid $5000 for an option on an AC system, but in 1886 tests showed it was not yet commercially practical. He still preferred DC, since before about 1888 motors could not be operated efficiently on AC, existing AC equipment was very inefficient due to primitive transformers, and the higher voltage was more dangerous. By the early 1890's the problems with AC had been ironed out and AC installations vastly outnumbered DC installations, since a few large power stations were cheaper to operate than small stations every 2 miles or so, but he was ego involved with DC. The industry moved on past him. In 1908 Edison admitted he was wrong about AC (Matthew Josephson, Edison, a biography, 1959 p349.)
That's interesting and should be added to the article. It shows that Edison was not ignorant of the state of the art; he simply did not forsee the improvements that would soon be made in AC technology. By the time those improvements were made, Westinghouse had the AC patents and Edison was confined to DC. Similar to what happened with Columbia and the wax disk phonograph. Greensburger 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Huey45: The "Criticism" section should net repeat what is already discussed in other sections. You added info about development of the light bulb in "Criticm" when it would fit better in the section "Incandescent era " Please read that section and see if you think it needs revision with any of the content you added. What is the source for your history of the electric light bulb development and introduction? A lot of the new material duplicates what is already there. Some more of your material in "Criticism" is about electrocution. That is already covered pretty much in the "War of the currents" section of this article, so please see if your material adds to that section instead of being a duplicate discussion in the Criticism section. Things in Wikipedia need to have reliable and verifiable sources to remain in the article. The article Topsy the Elephant says she had killed 3 men in 3 years, and the owners decided she had to be killed for safety. The ASPCA approved of electricution, as opposed to hanging, poisoning or other methods of killing an elephant (I wonder what was wrong with shooting?) and it worked pretty quickly, as shown by the movie. The "War of the currents" had been over for more than 10 years, and General Electric had moved on to AC years before. Edison was working on other areas, such as movies and phonographs, and not electric lights. The sentence about Thomas Edison "distributing videos gladly" is pushing a point of view and needs to be toned down. Maybe he did it gladly, maybe he did it matter-of-factly or even sadly and reluctantly. Find a reference which says what his frame of mind was, or don't make a claim about it. He did not distribute "Videos" because videos did not exist until many decades later. Edison 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please keep edits neutral point of view and provide reliable and verifiable sources. Unsourced POV statements may be deleted. Note that the 6600 volt AC came from the "Edison Lighting Plant" per the newspaper reference from 1903 at Topsy (elephant) which demonstrates that in 1903 he was not still fighting the War of the Currents. That company was the predecessor of today's Consolidated Edison, and was not his company per se. No source has said that he personally was even there. The electrocution was done by 3 named employees either of the power company or his company; the article is not clear on that. The motion picture was a 2 minute film which was sold along with many others; I have not seen a source which says Edison made any particular effort to exhibit the film as opposed to it being one of many subjects his company made available to exhibitors, just like the many films of jugglers, prizefighters, dancers, re-enactments of battles, etc. Edison 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You idiot, the fact that the electricity for electrocuting Topsy came from an AC power plant shows that he was still fighting the War of the Currents. It is common knowledge that he only electrocuted the elephant to show how dangerous AC power was. If he wanted to show that AC power is dangerous, it would be logical to use AC power to cause harm, which is exactly what he did. Why don't u stop worshipping Edison and pay attention to the facts for once; he was a dickhead and an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
As far as AC versus DC goes, being a qualified EE guy I must say I too am undoubtably fascinated with DC, specifically HVDC. The pros are simple and elementry to anyone well versed with designing high voltage applications. Now industrys come and go, it is not for anyone to comment eitherways. I still have not seen Edison ever say "I give up to AC" anywhere so please check on that.
Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. I saw a quote from circa 1904 from Edison to the son of Stanley, who invented/improved the AC power transformer, to the effect that he (Edison) had been wrong about AC power. Of course the War of the currents article says the Edison General Electric Company made AC systems, and the Edison Lighting Company in New York generated AC asa did the other Edison Companies around the company, which bore his name but he did not own. He moved on after the War of the currents was lost in the early 1890's. Edison 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed doubious claims in the criticism section that have no backing or citation whatsoever.68.40.165.17 08:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Wasn't his business moral pretty low too? Rumors has it he stole the film A trip to the Moon, showed it in USA as his own and earned money on a movie made by George Melies? 193.217.193.148 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Melies film has been addressed previously in the talk page, I believe. His moral stature was probably no better or worse than that of his competitors, who routinely copied his movies and exhibited them without paying any royalties. Did Melies buy film rights from Jules Verne? I didn't think so. The trick was to make money when a new movie was first introduced, by selling copies of it to exhibitors before the thieves managed to start distributing pirated copies. There was a constant demand for new material with novelty value. A given film had a short shelf life in terms of appeal to viewers. The copyright status on movies was not clear in the beginning, since laws had not been enacted making them copyrightable like books, which led Edison to submit a complete paper print of some of his movies to the copyright office and copyright it as a photograph. These have been the source for presently available copies of his turn of the century movies at the Library of Congress, since the celluloid negatives and films mostly turned to powder over the years. The piracy was much like the woes of the music companies whose CD sales have dropped recently due to piracy by third world copiers, file sharing and home copying of CDs. Edison 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation"

Someone filled the criticism section with "Citation needed". Just because something doesn't have a citation doesn't mean it's not true. I didn't include citations in the parts that I wrote because I can't remember how I found out the information. I saw a documentary about him with all of that information in it but I don't remember the name of it.

Edison: I didn't write anything about Topsy the elephant. I think that maybe someone used my account to write that because I was using a shared computer. I wrote about the execution but nothing else. I agree that the encyclopaedia should be neutral, so it should not say he "gladly" distriibuted the film and it definitely shouldn't say "video" because they weren't videos. However Thomas Edison really did kill Topsy, so don't remove that.

Huey45 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If a fact about a notable historical person is true, a little research will often disclose a reference. "I saw it in a documentary or read it somewhere" falls somewhat short. Who killed the elephant as punishment for killing several men? Her owners. They had a doctor feed a lethal dose of cyanide to her before the electrocution. Before electrocution was proposed, her owners were planning to hang her, for the killings, and perhaps to attract an audience and get publilcity. Electrocution was proposed (probably by Edison) as a less gruesome and horrible execution method than hanging. There had been uneventful executions of humans by electrocution between the botched job on Kemmler and the Topsy electrocution. It was all over in seconds, probably quicker than with shooting. There is no indication Edison was there, or that he had anything against elephants, or that he was still trying to displace AC with DC electricity. Edison 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edison

Edison is inventor of America. He invented the machine of 1980 kinds. It are record player, projector and automobile. The best invention was bulb in 1879. The world of lighting changed from the oil and gase lamp to the light. He build the first power house in New York. The world of electric power began to receive alternating current of an age. Thorough he particulared direct current, he defeated power company of alternating current. 04:40, 9 November 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kanako yagasaki (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts with 4 ~tildes. Edison 14:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7th child

The article has said Thomas Edison was the 9th child, then the 7th of 9. The children of Samuel and Nancy Edison were:

    1. Marion 1829
    2. William 1832
    3. Harriet 1833
    4. Carlile 1836
    5. Samuel III 1840
    6. Eliza 1844
    7. Thomas 1847. He is described as the last. These are in the biographies of Edison. If someone has evidence of later children, discuss it here.Eddy Kurentz 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My source for child 8 (Richard Tildon Edison, born abt 1852) and child 9 (Edith Clarissa Edison, born abt 1854) was this genealogy page: http://www.fletcher-genealogy.net/familygroup.php?familyID=F0416&tree=tree1 These extra children also appear in Ancestry.com which has bugs in the database structure (X can be a child of Y, while Y is not a parent of X). Only the year of birth is given for Richard and Edith, not a birthdate in Ancestry.com which suggests they died young or were still born. Another problem is their mother Nancy Elliot would be 42 and 44 at the time of the births of Richard and Edith, respectively. Women tend to become infertile and have miscarriages after age 40. I accept the reversal. Greensburger 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power nap

I removed the following from the main page pending a citation:"Edison also took what we today call "power naps." He used to sit in a chair holding a weight in each hand. Just before he would go into REM sleep his muscles would relax and he would drop the weights and the resulting noise would wake him up. He thought that these shorter naps re-energized his body without him being groggy during the day." All his bios say he took naps, but I have not seen this particular claim about holding weights in his hands. He typically nappedlying down in a little alcove under the lab stairs at Menlo Park, so this would not have worked. Provide a reliable cite and it can go back in. The article is not for conjecture, and this may be a fine way of taking power naps, but it should not go into the article unsourced. Eddy Kurentz 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is vandalism today. See "Jason is awesome" at the end of Early Life section. I tried to edit it out but it isn't showing up on the edit page. I suggest a correction and some protection for this article. 218.103.2.246 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Continual vandalism

There is continual vandalism on this page some days. Do all of you think that we should request semi-protection for the page?AbelinCAusesobad 08:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

7 instances in a typical day (yesterday) doesn't seem all that excessive to me. As long as the edits are being reverted reasonably timeously I would say it isn't necessary to semi-protect. --Guinnog 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For accuracy there're 10 even vandals particularly in 1/11 (yesterday). Don't you think it is too many for a page?AbelinCAusesobad 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it needs semi-protection. — Wackymacs 07:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Thomas Edison page needs some protection, at least limited to registered editors. Greensburger 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is free to request protection at Requests for Page Protection - be bold! The page has been semi-protected a number of times in the past during periods of heavier vandalism. It is generally not Wikipedia's policy to maintain protection for long periods of time unless absolutely necessary. This page seems to be pretty widely watchlisted, and in most cases, the vandalism has been cleaned up quickly, so I doubt an administrator is going to want to issue long-term protection. I could be wrong, though, so, by all means, list it at RFPP if you like. —Krellis 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is maybe one edit intended to improve the article for every 10 which are unallayed vandalism. To avoid throwing out the occasional good edit, and to avoid reverting to a vandalized version. please be sure to identify the version you revert to. Edison 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lackawanna Railroad, lackasource addition

The section about the railroad in th Later Years section is 136 words, far too long for the slight importance on that effort in relation to his entire career, and lacks any source. I will remove it if no one finds a source in the next week. This article has been fleshed out pretty well, and claims such as this should not go in if the contributor cannot provide an inline reference. Or propose the addition here and say where you found it and others can format the reference for you. There are many scholarly biographies and many volumes of original papers, so there should not be speculative or unsourced material added. Edison 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edison and Mackenzie

This article is in a mature enough state that we should only add well referenced material. I reverted an edit which said that Mr. Mackenzie gave Edison a job and taught him telegraphy, since the sources I checked indicate he just gave him lessons to improve his telegraphic speed, without it being an actual job. "Edison: A Biography" by Josephson just says that Edison lived with Mackenzie and paid for his own food, and that Mackenzie taught him telegraphy. It does not say the railroad or Mackenzie paid Edison, and absent that, it is mesleading to say he "gave him a job." If anything it was an unpaid apprenticeship. Neil Baldwin in "Edison: Inventing the century" says that "in gratitude Mackenzie offered to teach Tom telegraphy...In three months of intensive lessons he had mastered the skill.." and only then got a job somewhere else as a telegrapher. Edison 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what was his religeon?

It seems he was athiest, but I need to know for certain.

[edit] "newsbutcher"??

What the heck is a "newsbutcher"? The article in the Tributes section says:

"The Port Huron Museums, in Port Huron, Michigan, restored the original depot that Thomas Edison worked out of as a young newsbutcher."

I can't find any such word in any dictionary or the Britianica. I think this must be completely bogus. Does anybody know about this?

Clemwang 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives as one definition of the noun "butcher:" a vendor, especially on trains or in theaters. In one of the works referenced in the main article, Matthew Josephson says on page 26 that Edison obtained a job as "candy butcher" on the train at age 12, selling food, sweets and newspapers.Neail Baldwin on page 28 calls him a "news butch." The U.S National Parks Service [7] refers to him as a "news butcher." From the two surviving copies of the amateru newspaper he printed on the train, he certainly butchered spelling if not the news per se. Edison 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lightbulb II - Revenge of the Disgruntled Foreigner!

Hey, as this doesn't seem to have been mentioned for roughly 9 months, I thought I would bring it up again. I really do believe that this page needs a mention of the fact that Edison did not at all invent the lightbulb. Yes yes, been there done that, but if I had a dollar for everytime I have heard something along the lines of "Thomas Edison, inventor of the lightbulb" I would definitely be a few thousand dollars richer. Much like Benjamin Franklin "discovered" electricity, it is a common American misconception and as a foreigner it bugs the ever-lovin' bejeezus out of me. I don't at all mean to take away from Edison's accomplishments, without whom we surely wouldn't have enjoyed over a hundred years of electric light, but it still needs to be addressed. Love, WookMuff 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, a couple of dozen experimenters tried to make incandescent lights, from Humphrey Davy around 1806 on through 1878, and none of them worked. They either gave off a dim useless glow, or they gave a bright glow for a few minutes then burned out. All they while they drew a large current due to their low resistance, and could not have been powered by a central power station without unreasonable huge copper conductors. Thomas Edison in late 1879 developed the carbon filament light bulb, with high resistance, a small radiating surface, a high vacuum, and a type of carbon which was homogeneous and did not quickly burn out. It was brighter than gas lights and cost a fraction as much per hour of operation. He was able to light Menlo Park New Jersey with hundreds of such bulbs, powered by an efficient dynamo of his own design. The bulbs lasted about 600 hours on average. No one before that had done anything remotely like that. Swan in Britain had come closest,in 1879, but his bulbs had low resistance and had to be powered by a local battery, making them impractical. They also had a very short life. Thomas Edison lit the Holburn Viaduct area of London and later lit downtown New York from Pearl Street generating station, providing light and power for businesses, and soon had tens of thousands of hil bulbs in service around the world, with other manufacturers selling illegal copies. Practicality and functionality are important aspects of invention. Tinkering with something or having a notion are not the be-all and end-all. Edison 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
None of which means that Edison invented the lightbulb. He didn't come up with even the basic concept, all he did was refine it. By your standards, Henry Ford invented the automobile. WookMuff 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Many sources qualify the invention as the "practical light bulb." Nothing before his development was ready for general use by the public, and previous efforts were just replications or incremental improvements on what Humphrey Davy demonstrated publicly before 1810, that a piece of conductor (usually platinum wire or carbon in a partial vacuum or inert gas) could be made to glow for a short time before it burned out, powered by huge current from a nearby battery. Edison 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alva

hey, hey, hey fat alva wants to play!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/o/Talk%7EThomas_Edison_e316.html"