[WikiEN-l] Images and original research (was: [[New anti-Semitism]] and...)

[jkelly at fas.harvard.edu]

  Gregory,

> > As Jkelly has explained, we don't need a secondary source claiming
> > that a picture of a tree is a picture of tree before we can insert it
> > in an article.
Quoting Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> and we would likely not need a secondary source to place this image on
> an article about protest posters.

  I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I
failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make.  If I state that
my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that?  What
level of interpretation are we comfortable with?

             Jkelly