From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

/Archive 1

Contents 1 OPEN DISCUSSION ARCHIVED!!! 2 False Citations 2.1 9: computer has merged skills 2.2 10: over-specifying 2.3 11: distinguish the process 3 Third opinion 4 False References 4.1 ArtsSmarts 4.2 Visual Representations and Interpretations 4.3 Photoshop CS2 For Dummies 4.4 CIW Site Designer Certification Bible 4.5 Working With Agencies: An Insider's Guide 4.6 Design Studies 5 Comment on recent controversy 5.1 To keep as is with little change 5.2 To change it considerably 5.3 Rewrite considerations 5.3.1 First Line / Definition 5.3.2 Second line "Since the computer..." 5.3.3 Third opinion

[edit] OPEN DISCUSSION ARCHIVED!!!

Please read archived discussion first. Oicumayberight 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Citations

The statements made in this article do not reflect the 'sources' claimed for them. Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The citations are for usage, not quotations. You are only making the case that there is no word-for-word translation. Oicumayberight 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The case being made is that the level of interpretation required from reading the citation to advancing the positions being made in the article constitutes WP:OR. The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say - not word-for-word, but not synthesising new meaning out of them either. --Davémon 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not "new" meaning. The meaning is defined by the context. You are only making a case that the term is not defined by the context, in effect meaningless. If the term were meaningless, nobody would use it and there would be nothing to reference. This article does not define the context. The usage in the references do. The only POV in the article is the scope, which can only be defined or disputed by more citations. Oicumayberight 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9: computer has merged skills

Natanya Pitts, Chelsea Valentine, and Ed Tittel, CIW Site Designer Certification Bible, Dec 2001 pp:85,109 does not claim that the "computer has merged skills" as this article claims it does:

Page 85: "... graphics, and how to optimize graphics for use on the Web. In addition, you learn how to use a common image development application - Paint Shop Pro 6..."

Page 109: "... Basic image development: The basics of Paint Shop Pro activities include creating and saving images, and creating transparent images. We discuss these techniques ..." Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation does not claim that the author states the computer has merged skills. That would be a quotation, which is more than a citation. The article is a citation of how image development is used in the context of a book where image development skills are merged on the computer. There are hundreds of books that demonstrate how the computer has merged skills. Oicumayberight 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The citation does not claim that the author states the computer has merged skills." Which is exactly why it should be deleted. It doesn't need to be a quotation, but the statment does need to adhere to what those sources say. That source says nothing at all about the position being advanced here. --Davémon 10:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Repetition doesn't make your point any more valid. Oicumayberight 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10: over-specifying

Michael Sims, Working With Agencies: An Insider's Guide, Dec 2005 pp:165 does not claim that "creative professionals may find "image development" a more flexible umbrella term to avoid over-specifying." as this article says it does

P165: "... The other types of amendments are those at copy stage and in the visual image development. Of these, 80% are totally justified and should be effected effortlessly by the agency, but I would say there are 20% that do not add to the creative product and are not really necessary..." Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here the author could have said, "at the copy stage and the illustration stage", or "at the copy and the photography stage". In either case, it would have been over-specifying. That's why the umbrella term "image development" was used, to avoid over-specifying. Oicumayberight 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your interpretation, based on assumptions on what the author 'could have said' rather than what the author actually wrote. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Yes it is a citation that image development has been used, no, it is not a citation that image development is used to specifically to avoid over-specification. --Davémon 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is disputing my interpretation. I would say it's my interpretation versus yours, but you are not even attempting to interpret. You think that unless it's word-for-word, then it's synthesis or original research. You don't leave any room for POV. So basically, it's my interpretation versus your opinion that there should be nothing left to interpretation on the wikipedia. That's taking advantages of wikipedia weakness. It's called trolling. Oicumayberight 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 11: distinguish the process

Audrey Bennett and Steven Heller, Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design, Aug 2006 pp:343 does not claim that 'image development' is used to "distinguish the process of preparing elements for use in media from the process of composing elements" as this article claims it does.

Page 343: "While the first part of the course requires the drawing out of a moment in time to investigate its importance, this section requires the collapsing of time into a single image construction. For this reason, students are required to use a single large format, the poster, for each subject. The large format allows focus on the image development and also necessitates a distillation of text and concept. Students must construct the image themselves (whether photographic, illustrative, or typographic), because there is no other way to represent the content ..." Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Any reasonable visual communicator knows that the concept is solidified in the composition of the final (media) piece. The "focus on image development" (graphics) is an obvious distinction from the full composition. The "distillation" (separation) "of text from concept" makes distinction of typographic (visual image) usage from concept (meaning of words) usage of the text. The author shows how text (as an image) is the subject of image development and how it's distinguished from the concept, which is solidified by the full composition and the medium. Oicumayberight 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't actually address the citation issue. --Davémon 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You don't see that words and terms are defined by context? If words and terms were not defined by context, you would have to read every word of a sentence in a dictionary before you could understand the sentence. Oicumayberight 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear case of synthesising published material and advancing a position through mis-citation. Unless anyone has a good reason, these 'citations' and the statements they are supposedly supporting will be deleted. --Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

False Citations? Is this a new wikipedia policy? Citations don't have to be word-for-word. They just have to show that the term was used in the way the statement shows. Unless you can find contrary usage in the same source, like I did in the Edward Tufte article, it's a judgement call. Just because you can't see that the term is being used that way, doesn't mean other people can't. Often the whole paragraph, or even the whole chapter must be read to make that call.

This is clearly a case of interpreting or synthesising an argument, rather than citating. The article is claiming sources which do not, without interpretation, back up the statements, otherwise there would be no need to "make that call', the citation either says something, or it doesn't. This is clearly WP:OR. --Davémon 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "argument" in the article content. The only arguments are over the legalities, all made by you. An argument over the content would be an alternate interpretation of the statements or the sources backing the statements. But you are doing neither. You are basically saying "I don't see it, so there for, it doesn't exist". Well guess what. Other people see it. That's why you were the only person who voted to delete in the AfD. You know better than to offer alternate interpretation, because you would be obviously defying common sense. Oicumayberight 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have any more authority to judge the wikipedia than I do. Unless you want to drag both of us through the mud in an edit war, I suggest you accept community input. Your complaints are well noted. I even included a tag that reflects your concerns. There is a disambiguation page for the term. Unless you find something contrary to the statements, under-referenced is no reason to delete. POV is allowed on the wikipedia. "The policy does not mean that all the POV of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented." Oicumayberight 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not having verifiable sources for the statements being made is every reason to delete. This isn't an authority or WP:NPOV issue so much as it is obviously Wikipedia:Attribution. --Davémon 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC

I've requested further community input by posting for a third opinion, which will hopefully clarify. --Davémon 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaking POV for original research; and you are doing it on an article that isn't even controversial, as if there is some grave danger in how the meaning is interpreted. Nice of you to archive all your other failed attempts before requesting that third opinion. Oicumayberight 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

This is a response to a third opinion request. Given the arguments above on both sides, it seems that the three citations at issue are misleading, and do not actually support the statements being made, which they supposedly justify. Arguments about what an author could have said, or trying to implicitly decide the meaning of the term from context are examples of the kind of synthesis that is original research and therefore forbidden. Grouse 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was rather crafty for the original disputer to archive the other numerous failed arguments before requesting a third opinion. The difference between unsourced material and original research: Under sourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. I am still looking for sources that stand up to the level of unfair scrutiny that this article is facing.

This isn't nuclear physics here. Nothing will explode if someone misunderstands this article. This is an art-related article. I even put the disambiguation page first so there is little chance anyone will encounter this article unless they are looking for the term in the context explained by the article an the sources. Most people understand that the value of art relies on POV and interpretation. I dare Davemon to scrutinize the visual arts or the art article at this level. Davemon knows that he would be blocked so fast his head would spin. I can't help but wonder why he doesn't scrutinize any other article with less references at this level. It's hard to assume good faith when he is using double standards like he did with that softer tag on the corporate image article. Oicumayberight 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material is sometimes left in Wikipedia for a period of time. The problem with this case is that the inline citations mislead a reader into thinking that the material in question is sourced. I see that you have removed the citations being discussed, pending a better source for these statements. I think this is a good idea.

It is not up to you to decide how other Wikipedians spend their time on the project. If you feel that other articles do not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are free to pursue them yourself. If you come to an impasse, you may even request a third opinion, and someone like me will join in there as well. Grouse 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's not my intent to scrutinize other articles. If every article were scrutinized at the same level Davemon is scrutinizing this one, there would be no POV on the wikipedia. Wikipedia would just be a bibliography.

The references were originally general, not specific to any statements. It's hard too assume good faith in this case. If you read the archived talk, you will see that Davemon demanded that all the references be put inline so he could then scrutinize them at a stricter level and then accuse them of being false. Oicumayberight 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read the section you linked to. I see that Davemon demanded that inline citations be provided, but if you do so, it is your responsibility to make sure they are appropriately placed. Grouse 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issues raised. I understood that inline citations are required by WP:Attribution in order to establish that specific claims are verifiable. --Davémon 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For any other third observer here, consider the facts in this case:

1. The person who called for a third opinion did so within 15 minutes after archiving the whole talk page, including the note about the AfD discussion and the note to "keep", leaving only the section about the inline references. So at a glance, it appeared that it was the only discussion on the page and appeared to be between two users.
2. The person requested the 3rd opinion exactly 1 minute after posting his reply to my argument, giving me no time to reply, so it appeared that I had no response.
3. The person got a 3rd opinion from a person with no sign of knowledge in either art, graphics, or advertising in his/her 1500 edit history since the beginning.
4. Had Davemon requested comments from a related wiki-project (like I did) rather than a random third opinion, he may have got someone willing to read the references rather than look for key words or word-for-word quotes. Davemon would have gotten a profession-related 3rd opinion, like I did.
5. At a glance, the references are not word-for-word quotes of anything in the article, but if someone knowledgeable of the subject actually reads the references and maybe more than what Davemon posted, and asks what else could have been meant by the word in context, the support is clearer.
6. Notice Davemon never offered an alternative meaning of the word "image development" in context from the references. He only disputes my POV of the meaning with no alternative.
7. Notice Davemon only got a 3rd opinion on one argument of the numerous other arguments Davemon could have gotten a 3rd opinion on. This is only after Davemon rejected community input from the AfD Davemon submitted, as if those opinions were not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th opinions.

Oicumayberight 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice all the above appear to be ad=hominem arguments, and do not address the substance of the debate. --Davémon 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguments do address the substance and the circumstances surrounding the substance. The "3rd" (or should I call it the 8th) opinion may have been swayed by your tactics. All you have proven is that, to a casual (perhaps unskilled in the subject matter) observer, reading only arguments to just 3 of the 11 references inline (before I had a chance to respond), using general references inline may require more than reading a few sentences from those references to understand if the references support the POV. Which is why I returned to the general status.

You have yet to find anything contrary to the POV or even offer an alternate POV to what the term meant in the context of those references. This section says nothing of the 8 other commenting wikipedians (including 1 admin) who don't agree with your numerous other arguments. Oicumayberight 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about supporting or providing an alternative POV - none of the statements in the article is attributable to a reliable source and the sources which were attributed to the comments did not actually support them. The third opinion helpfully clarified that.

Neither WP:CITE nor WP:Attribution state that there is a "general status" for references. The correct way to provide verifiable sources for content is described in WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. --Davémon 08:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False References

None of the sources given in the article explicitly bare out the statements being made. The only relationship between the sources and the article is that they may have been used to create an unpublished synthesis of published material. --Davémon 08:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArtsSmarts

Melanie Scott, ArtsSmarts: A handbook for artists and educators Using the power of the arts to release the creative potential of young people, Canadian Conference of the Arts 2003 pp:66-70 does not support any of the statements made in the article.

P66: distortion: An image-development strategy used to misrepresent and pull out of shape all or part of the components of an artwork.

elaboration: An image-development strategy used to add detail or decoration to some or all of the components in an artwork.

exaggeration: An image-development strategy used to magnify, intensify, and make abnormal some or all of the components in an image.

P67: fragmentation: An image-development strategy used to detach, isolate, or break up some or all of the components in an image.

juxtaposition: An image-development strategy used to place, side by side, two or more images or elements in a way that changes the meaning or affect of each.

point of view: An image-development strategy used to position the viewer relative to the created image (worm’s-eye view, bird’s-eye view).

rotation: An image-development strategy used to revolve, move, or rearrange an image or parts of an image.

P70 simplification: An image-development strategy in which an image is made less complex by the elimination of details. sketch: An image-development strategy; a preliminary drawing for an image.

The full document can be read www.artssmarts.ca/media/en/handbook.pdf

--Davémon 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Representations and Interpretations

Ray Paton and Irene Neilsen, Visual Representations and Interpretations, Mar 1999 pp:119 does notsupport any of the statements made in the article.

Page 119: "In summary, visual representations offer a means to consider how problem-finding, problem-solving, iconography, and image development differ and interpenetrate. As I have demonstrated, scientists are using some measure of artistry to evolve digital image formation, interpretation, and clarity"

--Davémon 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photoshop CS2 For Dummies

Peter Bauer, Photoshop CS2 For Dummies, Jun 2005 pp:18 does not support any of the statements made in the article.

Page 18: "...You select the History Brush, choose a history state (a stage in the image development) to which you want to revert, and then paint over areas of the image that you want to change back ..."

--Davémon 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIW Site Designer Certification Bible

Natanya Pitts, Chelsea Valentine, and Ed Tittel, CIW Site Designer Certification Bible, Dec 2001 pp:85,109 does not support any of the statements made in this article.

Page 85: "... graphics, and how to optimize graphics for use on the Web. In addition, you learn how to use a common image development application - Paint Shop Pro 6..."

Page 109: "... Basic image development: The basics of Paint Shop Pro activities include creating and saving images, and creating transparent images. We discuss these techniques ..." Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working With Agencies: An Insider's Guide

Michael Sims, Working With Agencies: An Insider's Guide, Dec 2005 pp:165 does not support any of the statements made in this article

P165: "... The other types of amendments are those at copy stage and in the visual image development. Of these, 80% are totally justified and should be effected effortlessly by the agency, but I would say there are 20% that do not add to the creative product and are not really necessary..." Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design Studies

Audrey Bennett and Steven Heller, Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design, Aug 2006 pp:343 does not expressly support any of the statements made in the article.

Page 343: "While the first part of the course requires the drawing out of a moment in time to investigate its importance, this section requires the collapsing of time into a single image construction. For this reason, students are required to use a single large format, the poster, for each subject. The large format allows focus on the image development and also necessitates a distillation of text and concept. Students must construct the image themselves (whether photographic, illustrative, or typographic), because there is no other way to represent the content ..." Davémon 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on recent controversy

[edit] To keep as is with little change

At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts page User:Oicumayberight asked that project participants comment on this article. So, I comment...

• The process of image development is very real in graphics and visual arts. It's part of the "concept to completion" thing.
• Use the word "process" in the lead

Image development is the process of developing graphics (mainly but not exclusively computer graphics) for use in media.

• About references, a few should suffice. (Seems to me I've seen the term most in help-wanted ads, and not just to describe the brand/image development aspect.)

--sparkit^TALK 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To change it considerably

• Re: image development, also synonym for photographic process (paper development) for two hundred years now. Maybe there should be a disambiguation Alf^Photoman 19:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a disambiguation. "Image development" now links to the disambiguation first. If there is any controversy over this article, it may have been originally due to the fact that this was the first article titled "image development". The general term is now the disambiguation page. There is no longer competition over term usage on the wikipedia. The only arguments left seem to be for the purpose of testing wikipedia rules or arguing for the sake of arguing. Oicumayberight 19:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate is because none of the statements in this article are attributable to reliable sources and it subsequently advances a host of dubious opinions. Besides, in this light, the title implies photography is not a "visual art" --Davémon 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

you've got something there... Alf^Photoman 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this the reason why you have a problem with the article? Davemon, what statements are you assuming imply that photography is not a visual art? Oicumayberight 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reworded the disambiguation page, if that's where the implication Davemon was referring to was coming from. Oicumayberight 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The implication comes from the fit between the broad, generalistic title of the article "..(visual arts)" and the narrow ("preperation of graphics for media") content. --Davémon 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut, and this is evidently one of those cases because I am considered by one of the parties as expert in the field, which naturally could lead to even more controversy.

Before getting into the merits of the article by itself let us go into the terminology, where I suspect that “Image“ is not disputed.

If we take a dictionary we find under develop:

1. . To set forth or make clear by degrees or in detail.
2. . To make visible.
3. . To treat with an agent to cause the appearance of color.
4. . To subject to chemicals to make images on photographic film (paper) visible.

(Webster‘s)

As far as the term is related to images.

Thus we can conclude that any of the terms used in the article is applicable.

In practice, as far as I am aware the term is generally used, besides in Photography, in the creation of computer images and coloring of advertising images.

The only part of this article that may be cause of debate is: (quote) Because the word "image" can have more than one shade of meaning, the term "image development" may be confused with the development process for the corporate image called branding or positioning. Ironically, both uses of the term may apply in the same profession such as the advertising agency using graphic image development in the process of developing the corporate image of a client. The term is also in contrast to "image editing" which excludes the capturing of images and creation of images from scratch by sculpting or rendering. The term "image development" may have emerged due to the lack of an alternative umbrella term with as broad of a scope. Some may find the scope of the term debatable, depending on its usage in context. (unquote)

In my opinion it should only be used if there are solid references available in literature, and if available, every quotation should be clearly marked and attributed, which as of now it is not.

Alf^Photoman 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the term should only be used if it's attributable, or that the article (or this section of the article) should only use attributable POV? Oicumayberight 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Both, it should not be our POV because we are a tertiary source, therefore we don't have an opinion. But there is nothing wrong with showing someone else's opinion as long as it clearly attributable and, if there is a dissenting opinion, to include it Alf^Photoman 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf, I'm not sure I agree with your breakdown of what term is being applied to what, and the conculsions you have drawn. What I think what you're saying is that the term "development" is being applied to "image", so therefore the meanings in the article are allowable. With this definition a nearly infinite number of additional meanings would be required to make the article comprehensive.

However, what I see in the article is that a term "image development" is being applied to "developing graphics for use in media", which is a much narrower definition, and one which is not supported by literature. --Davémon 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember the term being used once by Linotype/Hell referring to the development of their image print plates. I am not sure if it was because something was lost in translation from German to English. In any case if there is literature showing this term we can use it without a problem. Our problem starts when we cannot attribute it. As for the infinite number of meanings ... yes could be, and if you have a non-trivial source for any meaning you can include that definition (and we don't have to like it) Alf^Photoman 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. So what do you think should happen to the current set of meanings which are not attributed to non-trivial sources? --Davémon 08:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Find a source or remove them until you have source Alf^Photoman 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite considerations

[edit] First Line / Definition

Davemon I'm surprised. All this time I thought you wanted the article deleted because you thought the term was too broad. It appears now that you think the term is too narrow. Why didn't you just edit the opening when you initially had that problem with it? Oicumayberight 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I suggest we ammend the first line to "Image Development is the process of developing images." That would seem to accurately reflect its scope. Then all we need is some citations to back up all the other statements in the article. --Davémon 08:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Be serious. Now that I know your real interest in this, I'm trying to work with you here.

The disambiguation page does more than what a one short sentence article would do. The specific use of the term is relevant to visual arts. I amended that sentence in the disambiguation page. I'm guessing you probably don't think anything more than a disambiguation page is needed, but the AfD vote to keep validates the need for an article even if the article needs work to be encyclopedic. I would settle for a disambiguation page, but I'm afraid that it would be an endlessly growing list of individual image development skills and combinations of skills. People often read the disambiguation links as mutually exclusive, which is not the case with an umbrella term.

I can change the part that says "for use in media" to "using visual art skills for any use". This would be a narrower scope than the disambiguation page but a broader scope than "media". I know you have a problem with the "mainly" computer graphics" part. We could move that to another sentence that says. "Although visual art skills include traditional media and analog photography, the term is mainly (but not exclusively) used to describe computer-aided visual arts." The reason for the statement is that there is more sources showing that. This also answers the question as to why the term is seldom heard outside of that application to describe the skills. Oicumayberight 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree "Image development is the process of developing images using visual art skills for any use." seems reasonable. The "mainly computer-aided visual arts" thing would need to be cited - as I've said before the big players in this arena Adobe, Corel don't use this term, if it is used in this way, then it should be easy to provide sources. --Davémon 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to wait for Adobe and Corel to approve of or bless the language. Adobe and Corel make tools. We are talking about skills here, not the tools used in the skills. Adobe and Corel may be able to monopolize software, but they can't monopolize visual arts. If they had their way, they would probably redefine the skill names to match the title of their software packages. Nobody would be photo editing, but instead photoshopping. Oicumayberight 19:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not used by any of the major Art Schools of the world either. Unless you have sources which say otherwise. As for monopolies, The Gimp doesn't use the phrase either. If you have sources, supply them, and the "mainly computer-aided visual arts" idea can stay, otherwise it's just another unpublished synthesis of published material. --Davémon 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about who gets to decide what language is proper. It's about citing the meaning and scope of the term. The reason why the term is emerging is simple. For lack of a better umbrella term. That means that the term will continue to grow as the lines between image development techniques continue to blur, unless someone comes up with a better term that catches on. It's not going to stop emerging just because a big player doesn't acknowledge it.

BTW, here's 2500 links with "GIMP"+"image development", 14,000 with "Adobe"+"image development", and 1600 with "Corel"+"image development". I know there is some usage of the corporate image mixed in, but those are the exception. I don't know what you consider major schools, but here are some that use the term.

• [1]

This document uses the term in relation to painting, not "mainly computer-aided visual arts". --Davémon 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• [2] *[3]
• [4]
• [5] *[6] *[7] *[8]
• [9].

This document uses the term in relation to print-making, not "mainly computer-aided visual arts".

This is just scratching the surface.

It's not synthesis to collect useful information in an article. Synthesis would be advancing a new position based on various authors published positions. Citing term usage in context is showing what the term means, in that publication, not adding new meaning.

That's exactly what synthesis is. The precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. i.e. someone, somewhere must have actually said that "image development is mainly computer-aided visual arts", otherwise it's just your analysis, based on your own research. --Davémon 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't consider "mainly but not exclusively" a precise analysis. I figured the number of sources pointing that way was evidence enough and people would get confused if they didn't see sources pointing to traditional media usage. But if you think that POV is problematic, we can delete it. It's not that important. Oicumayberight 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets remove that then. Whether the analysis in itself is precise or vague isn't really in question, it's whether the analysis is precisely what has been published elsewhere. --Davémon 13:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second line "Since the computer..."

The next sentance is also problematic for similar reasons:

" Since the computer has merged skills such as illustrating, photography, photo editing, 3-D modeling, and handicraft, creative professionals may find "image development" a more flexible umbrella term to avoid over-specifying or limiting options in the design process." Specifically, we need a single source which puts forward the analysis that the phrase image development is used:

• by creative professionals
• because, due to, or subsequent to the widespread use of computers
• in order to avoid over-specifying or limiting options

I've hunted around and can't seem to find any. That "image development" is used by US educational establishments in the visual arts fields certainly seems a reasonably factual statement to make, but any indication of historical determinants or intentionality of use in that situation would need to be attributed. --Davémon 13:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You've already made it clear that you want everything sourced, including POV. That's just not realistic on the wikipedia, especially with art-related topics. Do you disagree with the POV of any of those points? Oicumayberight 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a "point of view" here because that would require someone to actually hold the position being advanced and there is no evidence of it. Some people might agree with this original analysis, some might disagree, but that's totally irrelevant if the only document advancing the position is this one. --Davémon 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if this is the only document "advancing the position" as you put it, the POV is in the document. All wikipedia legalities aside, it's a question of if you agree or disagree. If you agree with the position, then it's just an unsourced or under-sourced position according to you. Then it's just a matter of finding sources that stand up to your level of scrutiny, which may take many months. If you don't agree with the position, then a contrary position is warranted. Unsourced or under-sourced alone is not enough of a reason to delete. You'd have to delete 80% of all wikipedia content if that were the case. Oicumayberight 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objections to my suggested edit. As far as I can see there is a statement being made about a theoretical origin and motivation for use of a term - whether I agree or disagree with this theory is not important. By way of an example: it doesn't matter if I agree with the theory of evolution or with creationism - it is easily proven that they do reflect the POV of some people in the world - some of whom have had their POV published in reliable sources. Nobody at all holds the theory stated in this article ("Since computers etc..") to be true. The content should be removed until such a time as it can be attributed, if that takes months then what does that matter? at least in the meantime the article will accurately reflect the current state of research on the subject. Oic, I fear we may have reached a stale-mate position again, shall we seek a third opinion on this specific issue in order to move the article forward? --Davémon 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What matters is that POV (including under-sourced POV) is the glue that holds wikipedia articles together. It's what sets wikipedia apart from other online refernces. If you need a third opinion, look no further than the WP:POV essay. Perhaps you need a third opinion on this statement from the essay: "The policy does not mean that all the POV of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented." If every POV on wikipedia had to be represented, then the wikipedia would be rather empty compared to other online references. Articles start off mostly under-sourced POV. Eventually, they improve over time with reference checking and research. If there were no under-sourced POV, there would be nothing to research or improve on. Oicumayberight 19:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that wikipedia is a place for original research to be published, then discussed and researched as long as the analysis of that research gets called "POV". Personally I'd rather find a source then write an article about it, including proper attribution, than trying to advance my own theories or "POV". I'll request a 3O on the statement. --Davémon 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the difference between unsourced material and original research: Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. POV may eventually get attributed. Again unsourced or under-sourced alone is no reason to delete unless it's controversial, offensive, or just plain inaccurate. Give it some time. Maybe someone will find a source. Oicumayberight 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It can stay on the talk page, there's no need to delete it entirely, and if someone can attribute the opinion it should go into the article. --Davémon 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's showing existing meaning in the same way that a glossary would. A new position would be something to the effect of saying "Image development requires more skill than page layout" or "Image development can only mean visual arts". A collection of information is not synthesis unless it's equated to new information. The meaning of image development is not new. If it were new it would be meaningless in those publications.

The policy does not state that all the POV of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Almost every article on the wikipedia has some published POV and some wikipedia editor WP:POV. This is one of those articles that needs POV as much as it needs sources. As long as nobody disputes the POV, it's not a problem.

This article has plenty of disambiguation surrounding it, so that nobody would accidently find the wrong context of the term. The article has a tag showing that the references are not perfect. The article has plenty of POV as any art-related article would have. The POV is neutral. No real artist expects a citation for every POV statement of an art-related article. No reasonable artist would look further than a dictionary if they doubted the scope of the term.

The only thing the references show is the word used in context. There probably isn't any reference that defines the term because the meaning is obvious when used in context. Like most words and terms, the meaning is defined by the context. But some times one has to read the whole paragraph, chapter, or book to get the full context. Sometimes you have to be an image developer or at least familiar with it to understand the context. The only time the meaning is not totally obvious is when it's just listed with other skills in a small document like a job description. That's why this article is useful. This article points users to references so they can make their own judgment about the scope of the term if they don't trust the article.

There are hundreds of books on the subject of image development that don't call it that. Most of the time, a specific subset of image development will be used. But every now and then, someone will use the umbrella term, as shown by the references. I will reword some of the statements so they match the references a little closer and stand up to the level of scrutiny which most users would consider trolling. You have to give this article time to develop. Oicumayberight 12:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion. It seems as though two writers on this article have had quite a few disputes. Maybe it is best if both of you leave the article alone awhile so that you can cool off? The article has already been protected as a result of disputes. Personally I think there's nothing wrong with the sentence. It's informative.

Seraphim Whipp 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'd agree it would be an informative sentence if it reflected established knowledge rather than the authors original opinion. --Davémon 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

WP:A provides: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material..

The claim that computers resulted in term "image development" has been challenged and thus should be supported. It is the responsibility of the editor who want the article to make that claim to substantiate it before it is included in the article. If no reliable source for that claim can be found, it should be removed. -- Selket ^Talk 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly what's stated in the article. But I appreciate your feedback. If that's what you get from reading the statement, then maybe it should be reworded. The reference to computer usage seems to be a stumbling block for Davemon and now you. There is evidence of the term being used with traditional art media. The only reason computers are mentioned is because that seems to be when the term is most often applied. I have no idea if it was used before the computer merged skills. There is no doubt that the term is useful when describing merged skills and computer-related image development techniques that don't fall neatly into one of those traditional visual arts categories, which may explain the why it appears to be used more frequently in computer-relate visual arts. Oicumayberight 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think I understand the argument about POV being made. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. If the statement is POV that is another reason to delete it, not a justification for a lack of reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should never be used for, "advancing [a] position." The best understanding I can find for the POV argument is that the claim being made is the editor's POV, and thus, no sources exist. If this is the case, the statement is original research and should be removed. -- Selket ^Talk 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I hope this helps clarify matters and we can now move the article forward. --Davémon 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a wikipedia policy against, POV. Wikipedia is full of POV. This issue here is one of judging the difference between POV and OR. It seems that it's only considered OR when it's challenged. But what's the point of challenging statements that are both harmless and common sense. If that is the case, anyone can challenge 80% of the material on the wikipedia. There wouldn't be much wikipedia left if we did. It's one thing to request sources for debatable statements. It's another thing to expect every statement in every article to be sourced. It's yet another thing to reject sources provided based on a few sentences read from the sources.

I personally don't even care that much about the article. I could just as easily link to the disambiguation page. The reason I bring up the POV issue here is because this article should be the least of any worries about OR on the wikipedia. The material isn't controversial and is sourced, even if those sources are not easily understood as supporting the article by the casual observer. Oicumayberight 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on having a neutral point of view is one of the two core content policies. The other one is attribution. Having unsourced POV statements in an article violates both of the core content policies. You cannot include POV in the article voice. Any POV needs to be attributed to a reliable source. Otherwise, it is just your POV, which is the same thing as original research. If you find the sourcing of articles elsewhere on Wikipedia questionable, I would encourage you to challenge them. But you would do better to focus on bringing this page in compliance with core Wikipedia policies. Grouse 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POV (even if it is just an essay) does say:

"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs."

It's not really a problem sentence to begin with; it's not like it absolutely needs a source. Not every statement on wikipedia needs a source. I don't think the sentence is a POV anyway.

Seraphim Whipp 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you point out, and as it says at the top, WP:POV "is not a policy or guideline," but WP:NPOV is. It cannot be used to justify violations of WP:NPOV, one of the two content policies of Wikipedia. I think that this statement does need a source. To be honest, I think it is dubious, and probably just original research. It is the burden of the editor who wants to add/keep the statement to provide a source for it, especially when it is being challenged by multiple editors.

You say the statement is not really POV. No, it is OR. The original author is the one who mystifyingly keeps claiming that it is POV and somehow exempt from the OR rules. Grouse 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody claims that POV is exempt from OR rules. POV isn't considered OR just because someone doesn't like the sources. It's also not a good wikipedia practice to remove POV just because it's under-sourced. Unless the statement is harmful, controversial, or just plain inaccurate, removing the accurate POV with questionable sources shouldn't be the priority over removing less accurate POV or OR from other articles with no sources. All it will do is slow the progress of wikipedia to the point of inferiority to other online sources. Oicumayberight 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that someone doesn't like the sources—it's that there are no sources. Oicumayberight (talk • contribs) has previously provided citations to book pages for some of these statements that did not actually support the statements they were supposed to. When Davemon (talk • contribs) actually went to the trouble of finding these books and revealing this, Oicumayberight's response was to attack Davemon and call him a "troll." This behavior makes it hard to believe when the user claims that there are sources for the conclusions being made, but he or she just hasn't found them yet.

It is very much Wikipedia policy to remove unsourced material. It is sensible to discuss it first, or add one of the Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes#For inline article placement for a while. If the editor wanting to retain the material cannot provide a source, then it must be removed.

If you feel the policy is detrimental to Wikipedia, you should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, rather than here. Here you should follow the policy and either provide sources for your statements or stop objecting when they are removed. Grouse 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did provide sources. I'm only objecting to over-use and what I call misuse of rules on this particular article. And it is just this article. If you look at the history of the one policing this article, you see the double standard.

Rules should be used as a guide, not as a weapon against harmless articles to illustrate a point. Enough has been said about this practice in the WP:TROLL policy. If the content is controversial, harmful or inaccurate, that should be dealt with first, and then apply rules for what cannot be resolved. Rules for the sake of rules is just plain counter-productive legalism. Oicumayberight 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not impossible to fix the inaccuracies of this article whilst also following the common sense guidelines of policy. It would seem that consensus has been reached to remove the "Since the computers..." statement and use of the term and to reword the first sentence to remove references computers and make it more generic. Shall we get the block lifted so we can do that? --Davémon 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you are willing to accept the POV in the article until there is evidence of inaccuracy? I thought we had only reached consensus on the first sentence. We agreed to drop the "mainly but not exclusively computers" and change "for use in media" to "using visual art skills for any use". Besides the issues with POV and references, what else did you feel was inaccurate? Maybe we should make a sandbox version of the article that we can agree on word-for-word. Oicumayberight 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you need to have veto on any changes made to this article, even when the proposed edits are in line with policy and have been supported by multiple editors? I've started a sandbox here, with the currently agreed content and a minor rewrite of one other statement, I think its a good description and opening. --Davémon 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove the damn thing then! Lol.

Seraphim Whipp 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't, the page has been protected because certain people have been removing and reverting rather than discussing. ;) Grouse 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah...*d'oh*.

Seraphim Whipp 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, first off, I don't edit/talk much in Wikipedia, so I'm not much used to posting. If I screw something up, my bad. Second off, I'm a 15-year-old kid that likes to somewhat pepper her speech with slang; sorry, but I'd appreciate it if my words weren't just brushed off because of that. Third off, remember that anonymous voter to 'keep' a while ago that was accused of possibly being a puppet, and therefore apparently being thoroguhly invalid? That was me too, thanks for the accusation. I also greatly appreciate being called some sort of misinformed victim to this article's information, that was just great.

Moving on.

OK, I can see the points that Davemon is making, and I can see why people may agree with him. But I also see the flip side much better, and no matter how I look at it, I find that this argument is a bit... ridiculous. Yes, the points made might be valid, POV this or sources that, Original research blah responsibility so therefore every article that doesn't have thoroughly reliable secondary and primary sources and yadda yadda yadda should immediately be deleted until the editors have the means to write something whose quality is publish-worthy, blah blah.

But let's take a moment and look at this both realistically and practically, especially compared to the bigger picture. First off, screw the details that keep being kicked at here and how unreliable and crappy and misleading this article apparently is, how bad is the article really, in practical terms, for the casual viewer? For the people who look at this article, how much is this article going to 'poison their minds' with this ridiculously badly sourced blasphemy? Please, please note the heavy sarcasm inlaid within my words. No, even though such-and-such big-hot company doesn't use the term, or such-and-such art universities or blah prestigious blah blah places don't have the term in their site, etc., the term is still used. It's used, it's recognizable, and really, is there anyway to disprove it's usage? Not really.

One other thing, how reliable is Wikipedia as a whole in the first place? There are a very small amount of articles that are good enough to follow every single one of Wikipedia's policies, and all of those few articles took effort, time, and usually more than one person. EVERYONE knows that information you find on Wikipedia is highly questionable and should be double-checked if it's something important. No sensible person would, say, write their English essay based on information from Wikipedia, or look to Wikipedia for anything of high importance. Most people, if they want to check for how reliable an article is, check the talk page and gauge it's reliability like that or in other ways (and anybody who looks at this talk page will surely find the article a question mark). While it's good to have standards, and Wikipedia's policies should try to be followed as best as possible, putting articles under such hard, merciless scrutiny is thoroughly counter-productive, hair-wrenching, and a waste of time on all parties. I spend lots of time looking at lots of slang words or words that are only used by small circles or communities on the internet, and most of those articles are highly undersourced, badly written, unprofessional, POV, etc.. But I don't attempt to delete them, nor do I think they should be deleted, because I don't expect that much more from Wikipedia; what I expect is improvement with time, and a true attempt to better the article, as well as at least the stuff that I come looking for. And the stuff I'm looking for is usually some sort of basic definition/explanation of what the term means, and hopefully some related external or internal links.

See, this is how making a good article usually works, from what I can see. Because this is how things usually work with lots of projects and the like. First you start the article out, write down what you know, what you think you might know, random things that you think helps with that, etc.. The article is going to be crappy, badly sourced, random, disorganized, POV, etc.. You put a tab on it, like a stub tab or a clean-up tab or whatever you feel it needs (or other people put up these tabs for you as they see the article themselves). Maybe more people come, and they add what they know, or they might take away what they know shouldn't be there, or they ask questions that aren't answered. Gradually, there might be a couple people that take actual active interest in this (now) semi-crappy article and set out to actively improve it rather than just add what they know and then leave. People think it's POV, they try and scrap the POV, people want more links, they add links, people question if the article is merged, they discuss it, someone comes up and says the article is crappy and should be scrapped and give reasons, they try to fix the reasons or add those reasons to a list of things to improve as they can, etc.. But if we worked the way you guys are trying to do with this article, those articles would be scrapped before anything good could be done to them, because their POV makes them unworthy of Wikipedia or they don't have sources, and that obviously shows that the term doesn't exist or whatever it might be.

Things shouldn't all just be deleted until they're 'good enough' for Wikipedia. I mean, frankly, right now Wikipedia can't exactly be choosy. Their biggest contributors are a bunch of stangers from all over the world that are trying to make informative, comprehensive articles on everything and anything, without professional help, pay, or regular hours. And Wikipedia is still rather young.

Davemon, while you seem to care very much about how this article should be deleted as soon as possible due to all of its apparently very many miscellaneous flaws, that effort and time could be much better spent on an article that actually truly matters. An umbrella term like this isn't that important and umbrella terms are usually more on the slangyish sort of side than the officially used term side. Not to mention that even if this article 'misinforms' people about the nature of the term, there really isn't exactly much damage or misinformation going on, especially since the article doesn't specifically state that image development is a term exclusive to computer graphics.

One more point, there's a lot of talk about 'Original Research' and 'POV' and all that, but... well... it's an article about an art-related umbrella term. How much controversy could there be about something so totally neutral and small? Original Research? Maybe if it were something that someone would be actively interested in posting their original research on, such as, say, some science-related article. But really, what sort of ulterior motive could be found in trying to write a relatively informative and accurate article on the definition of 'image development'? Why would someone actively try and make up their own new term with 'Original Research'? Etc.?

I imagine that this post will be torn to pieces next time I come to this page? This sort of thing usually comes to a stalemate from my experience, one side pushing the technical correctness and the like and the other side trying to point out the more practical and common-sensical (yes, sensical, my vocabulary is shot today), and both sides unable to come to any sort of agreement. But that's just my own personal experience. I signed my post this time, but I'm not logged in right now so I think it might just show my IP address or something (I don't think I remember my username on Wikipedia anymore). 71.176.140.104 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)