Are you saying that I have not bothered to edit anything Or that it is my responsibility to make changes Or are you even saying that you are unwilling to follow standard Wikipedia procedures to ask for a consensus on a reliable source at the notice board You ask questions and if you are unsatisfied with the answers why did you ask Many of your statements haven t been accurate but are quite misleading for Wikipedia verifiability If you have a complaint about a source you go to the proper place To remove any questions about the sources Ehrenpreis and Ferguson are two leading Swift scholars Ferguson s work dealt primarily with Swift s relationship with Ireland and Ehrenpreis s was a more complete biography They were contemporaries and wrote many articles as response to the other They are still highly regarded Between the two all of the sources pre 1900 are used by them Furthermore both base their work on the Drapier s Letters on Wood s Halfpence by Goodwin which was one of the first modern histories of the controversy Previous histories of the controversy come from Lecky s Leaders of Irish Public Opinions and Ireland in the Eighteenth Century Froude s English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century and Leslie Stephen s Swift These sources would also be added except that they deal more with the controversy as a whole and would be fitting only for a page on such Goodwin is dealing with Swift s involvement and relies on Monck Mason s History Craik s Swift Coxe s Walpole Ehrenpreis and Ferguson apply their own interpretation to the sources Goodwin choses More recent scholars such as Carl Daw follow primarily what has been stated by Ehrenpreis Ehrenpreis three volume work on the matter is by far the longest work New critics such as Richard Cook abandon the previous scholarly works for a close reading However all of them regard Scott s and Davis s editions as being complete And still Ehrenpreis s work is still seen as the main authority on the subject