Talk:Thomas Edison in popular culture

a song that references edison
lyrics at the link below

http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/One-Beat-lyrics-Sleater-Kinney/823F25C796D074A848256C24000C52FA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.125.28 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The5fists.gif
The image Image:The5fists.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

POV edits
Re: these edits .... not sure what is trying to be said here (and that's the problem). There has to be some obvious "common sense" reason as to why any of these people are "relevant" to each other. With no referenced article text explaining why these specific people (out of the hundreds we could chose from on Wikipedia to put in a "See also"), this is a WP:NPOV edit. Simply making a statement that "these are all important scientific icons of great stature" is definitely WP:NPOV. If it is a specific claim that Edison and/or Tesla were the scientific equivalent of Albert Einstein, that is a WP:FRINGE claim. This same edit has been propagated over several articles but the contributing editor refuses to discuss it so brought it here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and removed non-obvious links. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored, these links are damn obviously topical (see WP:SEEALSO for what is suitable in a See also section, these links obviously "enable readers to explore tangentially related topics"), and nowhere near WP:NPOV violations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide the source showing those four individuals (two physicist, an inventor, and an engineer/inventor) are "tangentially related" (showing this relationship is not just made up), something beyond the POV statement "these are all important scientific icons of great stature". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See plain old common sense. Those are all great scientific icons which overlap either in era or by field of research. Seek consensus/Get a third opinion if you want to remove those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is the opposite - If you think these are the four "great scientific icons", you need to prove that in some way (and explain why you are skipping the pop-culture content of Stephen Hawking and Leonardo da Vinci for starters). Instead of expanding the laundry lists I have linked the Category. Could (maybe) also be added as a Category per WP:DUPCAT. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with including the Hawking and da Vinci articles too, but the category link is also fine by me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)