"::::Thank you so much Dudley, you obviously put a lot of time and thought into that response, and I'm extremely grateful. I think I did try to allude to WP:PRIMARY in the FAC, but all too indirectly – for example when I wrote: ""As regards using these sources for historical analysis, I'm quite sure I've not done this, instead just stating what's there, comparable I'd have thought to reading a map?"" I was aware of WP:PRIMARY, but honestly felt shy of pushing it too hard, for many reasons, one of which was that I was genuinely surprised when the idea of OR was introduced: I had felt sure of my ground but was made to doubt, and, given what you say, perhaps wrongly assumed that everyone commenting there understood WP:PRIMARY better than I. I was also surprised the FAC was archived when it was, and I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to get involved in that discussion.

Your view of ""note 133"" is quite correct: of course I might say that, but I have direct, personal knowledge of the documents concerned, and have doubted the wisdom of saying so. I felt that explaining that in the FAC might seem arrogant and might anyway make no difference. It would certainly have compromised the degree of anonymity that my user name allows. But my argument that the E 179 database can be regarded as a secondary source is precisely because it's the product of several years' work by professional historians, who were paid by Cambridge University and provided with computing and practical support by the Public Record Office: what the database says is the result of extremely time-consuming historical analysis, and not merely the work of data-inputters. I felt that I did make the argument you suggest about allowable use of primary sources, as well as the argument about secondary, but that those with opposing views simply weren't buying it. Perhaps I should have been more insistent, but even now I'm not sure how I might have done that without angering people who after all are volunteers. Anyway, you're quite right that an FAC isn't the best place to explore a point of principle – nor is your talk page, apologies for going on a bit there! But again I think perhaps I was too shy: it did occur to me to get an uninvolved opinion, but wasn't sure how and was afraid I might be accused of forum-shopping. You mention ""Primary sources talk"", but I'm not sure where you have in mind – do you mean Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard?

Thanks also for the kind words about the Reculver article, I very much appreciated your support at the time and, on the whole, I think the article might even be in better shape now than it was then. That is, barring any minor updates that might be needed, e.g. under ""Governance"". I think I shall test the issue of the primary sources first, wherever you might suggest, and then, if need be, consider adapting the article to make it redundant. I haven't forgotten that you also previously suggested getting something in print: I'm pretty confident that can be done, but it still hasn't risen to the top of my to-do list. That may change...! Thanks again.   

"