:I believe the misapprehension is on your part. Editsespecially major edits on an article that is under discretionary sanctions as a result of the ArbCom rulingshould be discussed on the talk page before they're made, not after they're reverted. You have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that. 
 :Your points have been discussed on this talk page already, as you would know if you searched the talk page archives. It is unreasonable to expect that the editors of this page should continually produce the same explanations over and over for those who have not or will not search the archives. And if you follow the wiki link for argument, you will see that the word is the appropriate one to use. That point has also been discussed quite thoroughly. 
 :We don't edit to "the largest SAQ sentiment today", we edit to the academic consensus. In short, the first paragraph of the article does indeed convey to a Wiki reader an accurate view of the Shakespeare Authorship Question.   
 :The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt link goes to the appropriate Wikipedia page that links to the organization's Web page. "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." Have you read it? Nothing in it pertains to Shakespeare being a front or not being a front. And just FYI, there were no journalists in Elizabethan times who covered entertainment and playwrights, or anything else, for that matter, for the simple reason that there were no newspapers in that era.