ty for the background. Harvest Productions roll in spreading a neologism would still need some solid references. It won't really matter how many trade groups it is claimed they founded, what is really needed is evidence that they had a big roll in a pop-culture phenomenon. That, and the POV of the original statement may be un-provable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to refer you to the following article published February 19th 2008. This article appeared in their printed publication and is still available on their website as an archived entry.
Some notable article entries include:
Maryann and John Doe, founders of Harvest Productions, had a lot to do with popularizing the name and the industry as a whole. Maryann Doe was another early buyer of the IRIS machine.
With a background in engineering and mathematics, she (Maryann) collaborated with Coons to create a digital translation of color that the printer could understand. Coons was a mastermind of early color management, first creating a color-management system for Disney in the early 1980s and later rewriting it to fit Nash Editions' needs in 1991. Color profiling with Harvest came later with the help of Maryann Doe.
"I give a tremendous amount of credit to John Doe and Harvest's advertising for getting the word out" Coons says. "He did a good job of promoting quality"
- Its interesting information but to really be of use it needs to be a "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCES). This seems to not fit any of those criteria since it is generated by the subjects we are trying to write about and is, therefor, probably pretty biased. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to present measured, consistent information, but I don't understand the push back on what seems to be a simple and obvious edit. I also do not understand why Art Business News, and independent industry magazine, is not "reliable, third-party with a reputation for fact-checking". On what information do you deem this not to be true? I've been interested in digital printing since I got into fine art publishing some ten years ago. I started digging around and working with many giclee printers. I did the research, read the books, and began to understand the relatively young history of the industry. The truth is, if nobody is talking about John Doe and Harvest Productions as part of the very story of Giclee, the article/entry on Wikipedia is absolutely falling short and you're stopping the proliferation of good, honest information.
If the information I've presented, and backed up with resources is not included in a revision/edit of this entry, I will escalate this to whatever powers may be. I have direct application knowledge of industry history with proven facts and as far as I can tell, you do not have the same authority i have on this particular subject.
- I'm not trying to hose any good additions to the article. And I am trying to avoid biting the newcomers. But the problem is you may be miss-understanding the project you are working on. Wikipedia articles are not created from "direct application knowledge", they are created by many editors working from (many) published reliable secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research). In other words you have to cite someone else, not yourself, and it has to be many sources supporting it, a large scholarly discourse. A single un-credited excerpt from an unknown article on a blog falls way below Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source (WP:RS). I am always willing to expand the article but here are some points as I see them:
- Giclee is not a printing technology, it is a made up trade name, i.e. a neologism, and as such is borderline for inclusion in Wikipedia as it is (see WP:NOTNEO).
- The stories behind "Giclee" are all poorly referenced, seem to be generated by commercial companies trying to hype a name, and are liable to be way up there on the "apocryphal" index.
- What is Harvest Productions et al's roll in all this? Were they early developers and major disseminators of a technology? If so that has to be well cites and belongs in the Inkjet printing article, not Giclee, Giclee is about a neologism, not a technology. If their roll was spreading the neologism "Giclee" then that has to be specifically cited with may independent sources.
- Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. If no reliable third-party sources can be found for content, Wikipedia's policy is not to include it.
- That being said, feel free to add stuff, no one holds authority on Wikipedia content, they just follow policy and guidelines. I, and other fellow editors, will read your multiple sources and say, "Yeah, that checks out", or say "I sure don't see anything supporting that content - lets put that sentence in TALK". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the archive entry on ArtBusinessNews.com is simply the online version of the printed article published that same month. It isn't a random "blog". Additionally, te Winter 2003 edition of Art Affairs magazine (I had to do some research to dig that one up) submits the same information I've been giving here this whole time. As far as I can tell, that's at least two "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that point to this same conclusion. I can provide scans of the printed material if that would suffice. I only became an editor recently, primarily to edit information on the "French Laundry" entry (as a former food writer and editor for a major food publication). As such, apparently I'm not privy to the rules, even though from what I can read, I'm following them closely enough and providing referential sources. In conclusion, I have the December 2008 issue of Art Business News, the October 2003 issue of Art Affairs, and the source that is most commonly referred to in this article, the book published by Harald Johnson. All three sources indicate what I've been saying. What else do I need to do to get this edit finalized so I can move on to my other areas of interest?
- I read through the source excerpt re:what can it support? There is almost nothing in the article about the word "Giclee", the article is about printing technology, so it can support very little about a words usage. And what is there seems to be anecdotal and un-referenced. And the article as a whole has many factual errors so I suspect the veracity of the writer involved. And two articles is not a large scholarly record you can hang blanket statements on. If this was "common knowledge" there would be allot more on it we could be reading. It sounds more like industry folklore. Because of that, adding "John & Maryann Doe of Harvest Productions" in the intro of Giclee falls into WP:UNDUE and may even get into WP:POVPUSH. I can see the reference being used as a source for expansion of Inkjet printing or as a maybe a new section like "Fine Art Digital printing" in the weak Digital printing article. If you can cite enough encyclopedic references you could put up an article like Harvest Productions and add them to "See also" at Giclee. You will probably get a quick opinion from other edotors as to how notable they are. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)