It is a common practice to consider the voltage divider as a voltage source, e.g. to say, "the circuit is supplied with a constant voltage by a voltage divider". Also widespread is the resistor to be considered as a current source, e.g. to say "the circuit is supplied with a constant current through a resistor".
IMO it is obvious that the voltage divider and the resistor are not sources; they are only components of composed sources containing additional voltage sources. Thus the composed voltage source consists of a voltage source and a voltage divider and the composed current source - of a voltage source and a resistor. In these arrangements, the voltage divider acts as a voltage-to-voltage converter and the resistor - as a voltage-to-current converter.
The explanation of this simplification is that when we say that the circuit is supplied "with a constant voltage by a voltage divider" or "with a constant current through a resistor", we implicitly assume the existence of an exciting voltage source.
What do you think about this simplification? Is it affordable? Is it misleading?