Thanks for your comments.  To clarify, I don't endorse everything in the article as it currently stands.  There is much room for further revision (and since the lead, among many other things, was not written by me, I would have no objection to revision of it).  My comments were directed to the deliberate removal of all my references to primary source documents, and to the perception that Pearson and Nelson's books are reliable sources.  In some respects they are, but both books also contain egregious factual errors, and they cannot be cited without checking the 'facts' cited in them against the primary source documents.  Your comment that the transcripts and translations on my site are 'not considered a reliable source for information' puzzles me.  If you can demonstrate to me that anything in any one of my transcripts does not accurately reflect the content of the document in question, I'll be happy to change it.  I've striven to make the summaries as accurate as possible, and I think they are accurate.  Moreover my transcripts have the advantage of being in modern spelling, and are thus accessible to everyone, which the original documents certainly are not, being in Latin, and in various Elizabethan scripts.  As for what you term the 'glosses' and which I term 'summaries', their purpose is to summarize the sometimes very obscure content of the documents for readers, and to refer readers to other related documents on the same topic which they might not otherwise be aware of.  The 'glosses' (summaries) are thus a very valuable resource for readers.  But again, if you can find any instance in which one of my summaries misrepresents the content of a document, please let me know and I'll change it.  Re the Brinknell incident.  The coroner's inquest found the death accidental.  Your quarrel is with the Elizabethan jurors. -)  Nina Green