Thank you so much Dudley you obviously put a lot of time and thought into that response and Im extremely grateful I think I did try to allude to WPPRIMARY in the FAC but all too indirectly  for example when I wrote As regards using these sources for historical analysis Im quite sure Ive not done this instead just stating whats there comparable Id have thought to reading a map I was aware of WPPRIMARY 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 WPPRIMARY better than I I was also surprised the FAC was archived when it was and Im sorry you didnt get a chance to get involved in that discussion  Your view of note  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  database can be regarded as a secondary source is precisely because its 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 timeconsuming historical analysis and not merely the work of datainputters 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 werent buying it Perhaps I should have been more insistent but even now Im not sure how I might have done that without angering people who after all are volunteers Anyway youre quite right that an FAC isnt 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 wasnt sure how and was afraid I might be accused of forumshopping You mention Primary sources talk but Im not sure where you have in mind  do you mean WikipediaNo original researchNoticeboard  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 eg 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 havent forgotten that you also previously suggested getting something in print Im pretty confident that can be done but it still hasnt risen to the top of my todo list That may change Thanks again