Talk:Imagery analysis

This article is base on my training, open-sourced information and my experience with the technologies covered in the article. If there are retired IA's and technicians involved with the development of these technologies, feel free in adding dates and details in order to provide more exact information in this article. If you have questions or comments, feel free to join right in. Radical man 7 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned in the article, many details related to the development, use and analysis

have their origin in the history of military intelligence, and are pretty close to impossible to confirm. When an author publishes a book on a given subject, he has to back up his subject matter with open-source information and the insight provided by a specialist or eye-witness. The book is only as good as the research. My training, exposure and experience in the intelligence field, the imaging technologies and actual staffwork at different levels places me as such an expert. The few references mentioned in the article are readily verified in encyclopedia articles of the time. The importance, use and participation of eye-witnesses is both included and encouraged. Radical man 7 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for unpublished research. Please see my comment on your talk page. -sthomson06 (Talk) 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I moved the page from Imagery Analysis to Imagery analysis to comply with the convention on article names. -sthomson06 (Talk) 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer paragraph

Moved this from article to talk page.

Since imagery analysis has it's start in military intelligence, whose collection methods and analytical techniques for most of the last century has been classified, it is close to impossible to independently verify many details related to the development of imagery technology and analytical methods. On the basis of my own training as an Army Imagery Analyst, my access to very old imagery, pictures and anecdotes of collection and analysis of the time and open-source information of the time makes it possible to paint a well-informed portrait of basic techniques and technologies.

Keeping in mind that many of the pioneers are now dead, it's important to access testimonials of retired analysts and technicians in order to obtain more exact information, adding it as it becomes available.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sthomson06 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A software glitch keeps redirecting my responses in the village pump. The statement is directed towards wikipedia's spanish edition, one of the editors by the name of craton has been hounding me since I started to translate Imagery Analysis into spanish, he keeps ignoring my actions, he insulted me. I am in the process of deleting that article(analisis de imagenes). Please do not misinterpret my intentions, I am more than willing to help in any way to resolving any problems that are associated with my contributions. The only negative thing I can say is that its ironic that the input of a practitioner can't be used, authors need practitioners for their work, The standards dictate that there are exceptions to the rule, I would rather not have my contributions cause any problems. Being that the verifiability of my content is the most important issue, I am hopeful that a decision will be made soon, once a decision is made, I am more than willing to help improve the articles.Radical man 7 04:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Radical man 7 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Radical man 7 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome the input of practitioners! I myself edit many articles that I have professional knowledge about. However, it's most important to provide information that Wikipedia users can use to find out more information about the topic. Wikipedia strives to be a "tertiary" source - it doesn't provide content or commentary, it only aggregates information that is already available. Sort of like review articles, which are common in academia.

Also, it's not really my decision as to what to do with the article. You have a say in it too. Have you looked at Image analysis? I think you know more about this topic than I do - what's the difference between these two topics? If they're the same, the two articles should be merged. -sthomson06 (Talk) 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems very disorganized, and very unscientific in nature. Image processing and analysis is a solid field that deals with a variety of application. However, this pages seems to mix between what is scientific, what is biblical, and what is original research that is not cited or backed up. Although I think some parts of this article can be salvaged and moved to other articles, I do believe that this article should be deleted. Aboosh (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title is in use since the 80's. Photo interpretation was the title used until other parts of the spectrum became available, needing a new title that reflected the analytical techniques neede to extract useful information from the new media. To use this title is to explain the development of this media and the associated analytical techniques. Its a manual process that can be enhanced by digital manipulation. Terms used in this article have been reinvented in other fields, aerial collection is now known in other fields as remote sensing. What is now in use in open-sourced fields(non-intelligence, classified information), doesn't begin to compare with the body of knowledge of analytical techniques in use for almost 100 years. The civilian community has no real idea of the amount of information that imagery can provide, no real idea how to get the most information in a cost-effective manner, no real idea of what they really need to get the information needed. The article Archeological Imagery describes in detail how the introduction of aerial intelligence forced a change in how units and staff elements had to be oriented towards the most economical collection possible. If you look at current imagery applications used by archeologists on the web, you will see that they are clueless as far as what is need and how to get it. The fascination with exotic imaging technologies has made current imagery collection to be an example of how to waste the most amount of money and get the least amount of information possible. The reason that operational details are provided is to give a detailed example of how to get the most information at the lowes cost. Image analysis is another world, its automation, it involves software that can identify features to include biometrics, but the article does not do a good job of describing what they are trying to identify.Radical man 7 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compbine with image analysis

Should this page be combined with Image analysis ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.14.98 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]