From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animation (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To the person(s) adding reference to Professor Hoeflich[edit]

Hi. Thanks for trying to add to Wikipedia (WP) (e.g. here and here). Unfortunately, what you are adding does not belong in an encyclopedia:

  1. There is no supportable reference that Professor Hoeflich made the comment.
  2. Professor Hoeflich may not want his words made part of WP.
  3. Personal quotations made during lectures of Professor Hoeflich are not relevant to the topic of thaumatropes (in an encyclopedic sense).
  4. The quote itself ("This is real life, people! This is real life") is misleading, and demonstrateably wrong.
  5. If every person who said something about thaumatropes were quoted, the page would begin to grow with "facts" that merely dilute relevant information about the topic.

There are many areas where you can constructively contribute to WP. Why not give it a go?

Persistence of Vision[edit]

may not be the primary cause of this effect. I found the following quote at . " For nearly 150 years, persistence of vision was held responsible for optical illusions as simple as the one produced by the thaumatrope, and later, as complex as motion pictures. This influential theory was proven false in the 1970s; the thaumatrope actually relies on the brain's inability to correctly process the images, rather than the eye's inability to correctly perceive the images as distinct. However, the inventor of the thaumatrope certainly believed that his device exploited persistence of vision, and so this information is included as a matter of historical context."

I hope that this helps, this is my first Wikipedia activity. Best, Douglas.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting point. I don't mind if a new section is added to the article with the material, although it would be good to include the reference (or references) for material that is at odds with previous information in the article.  HWV258  23:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)