You have not been at all constructive You don t use the notion of primary sources as indicated in the material I ve already quoted All you ve done is to opine that it is OR which it plainly isn t You don t give constructive indications as to how to improve the material As to primary sources again this is what Wiki says Primary sources that have been reliably published for example by a university press or mainstream newspaper may be used in Wikipedia but only with care because it is easy to misuse them Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation Without a secondary source a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable educated person without specialist knowledge For example an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source I make no conclusions about the material I don t make any interpretations of the material You seem to me to simply be wrong in your interpretation of the rules control