From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 False Citations 1.1 9: computer has merged skills 1.2 10: over-specifying 1.3 11: distinguish the process 2 Third opinion 3 False References 3.1 ArtsSmarts 3.2 Visual Representations and Interpretations 3.3 Photoshop CS2 For Dummies 3.4 CIW Site Designer Certification Bible 3.5 Working With Agencies: An Insider's Guide 3.6 Design Studies

[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)