  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.