I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why my careful and accurate sourcing of statements in this article was vandalized while I was away during the past three weeks.  When I added the archival sources many months ago, they were approved by a Wikipedia editor.  Moreover not only were the archival references recently vandalized, but also the reference to my published article in Brief Chronicles, a peer-reviewed academic journal, was deleted.  These archival sources cannot be characterized as 'original research'.  As noted earlier on this page, Alan Nelson's book is merely a series of quotations from these same archival sources stitched together with a bit of commentary.  If my transcripts of these archival sources (readily available to everyone on my webpage) are 'original research' and thus to be banned under Wikipedia's policy, then so is Alan's book, for the same reason, namely that it's largely a series of quotations from archival sources.  And as stated earlier, Alan misinterprets these sources, thus generating factual errors.  For example, re the Brincknell incident, Alan deliberately conflates William Waters, one of the jurors in the coroner's inquest into the death of Thomas Brincknell, and Oxford's servant, William Walter.  On p. 48, Alan writes of the coroner's inquest that:

>The 17 jurymen were, however, as compliant as the jury was packed: one juryman, William Waters, was Oxford's own servant.<

Alan clearly knew this statement to be false since he himself transcribed the testimony of Oxford's servant, William Walter, in a 1599 lawsuit in which William Walter described himself as being 50 years of age on 8 May 1599.  See Alan's transcript at:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/RUSWEL/ruswel07.html

Oxford's servant, William Walter, was thus almost the same age as the 17-year-old Oxford at the time of Thomas Brincknell's death, and could not possibly have served on a jury at that age.  The juryman William Waters was obviously an entirely different person from Oxford's servant, William Walter.  Because he did not like the jury's finding that the death was the result of Brincknell's own actions, Alan deliberately made a false statement about one of the jurors to impugn the jury's finding.  This is merely one among dozens of examples I could cite which demonstrate that no 'fact' stated in Alan's book can be accepted without checking it against archival documents. Nina Green