 :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?