User talk:Ashkan3de

Early history of animation
You have already made some edits on this page. Do you know that your content has been deleted? Mitrayasna (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Try to resolve this dispute through dialogue. I will check it out. Ashkan3de (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop putting back the text "According to historian Richard Foltz, this animated vase, made in Iran, is perhaps the world's first example of animation.[11] .The animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery."?
 * Although you can read all this on Talk: Early history of animation and on Talk: Animation, I'll try to explain some of the problems of your contribution here.
 * Most people will at least notice the very awkward interpunction (including a mid-sentence full stop), and many will be troubled by larger linguistic problems (the last sentence doesn't really make much sense).
 * More importantly, the text is not factual. Some Iranian news articles indeed claimed that the images on the goblet are "animation" and other writers have repeated this wild claim, without ever explaining how the images could be viewed as animation. Instead, some bogus modern animations have been produced, for which the original images were heavily manipulated (see Talk: Early history of animation). Instead of those newspaper articles, you seem to have wanted to come up with more reliable academic sources.
 * Unfortunately, Foltz is one of several authors who clearly know nothing about the principles of animation and thus simply repeated claims that spinning the cup would result in the moving image of a hopping "gazelle". He seems to have found this information in earlier wikipedia texts; all he cites is a Wikimedia Commons picture. Since this would be either a circular reference WP:CIRCULAR or otherwise a wild claim without proper citation by someone who is not an expert on the topic, it should not be cited as a source for a claim like this.
 * In reality, spinning the cup would result in an unrecognizable blurry mess. Even with modern stroboscopic technology and corrections of the irregularty of the width of the "frames", the best results may show something like a hopping and shape-changing ibex, but the moving image of the jumping ibex will be flanked by trees that move around much more, while they are obscured by random flashes of other instances of parts of the ibex and trees.
 * Furthermore, the text in which you cite this claim previously mentions several much older (paleolithic) examples. In contrast to the claims about the Burnt City cup, there are even relatively plausible theories that explain how these images could be viewed with a stroboscopic effect. It only makes Foltz look like a fool if you then cite him as someone who thinks a much younger example –without any indication of stroboscopic means– is "perhaps the world's first animation".
 * The introduction of the relevant section on the wikipedia page also explains how examples like this shouldn't really be regarded as animation. It cites Bendazzi as a source for the statement that they are actually irrelevant to the history of animation.
 * Bendazzi didn't write anything like "prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery." He does quote an unspecified newspaper article that claims some of this, but he doesn't seem to agree. Only the idea about "forerunners" can be said to be truly derived from his book. However, this idea doesn't really add anything to what's already implied on the wikipedia page; all of the mentioned examples have been regarded as forerunners.
 * If you still think your text should stay after reading my comments, could you please explain why? What do they actually add to the information that was already there? If I understand what you're trying to convey, I might be able to suggest some text that does just that, but without the mentioned problems. Joortje1 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * hi
 * Please let other people comment on this. It is quite clear that you are wrong Ashkan3de (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Check Talk:Animation for very similar comments by three other editors about the very same information and sources, from when Mitrayasna kept coming up with identical text. And could you please clarify how I'm wrong? Just stating that without any argumentation is not very helpful. Joortje1 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi's writings should be included in the article as the most authoritative person who has said anything about this cup. This text is not confusing at all. It is quite clear. Ashkan3de (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Joortje1 (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)