here once again is the wiki position on primary sources 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 do you believe that the primary sources have been reliably published if so they may be used in wikipedia do you believe that i have interpreted the primary source or misrepresented what that source says in a summary if so can you supply an example are you able to verify the accuracy of the contents of each of the cells do you believe that there is any actual interpretation in the table if so where