-based mass estimates by using  rather than FWHM (these latter two are essentially the same argument). In the case of NGC 5548, for which there are multiple reverberation-based mass measures, a possible correlation with luminosity is stronger for FWHM-based masses than for -based masses, suggesting that the former are biased as the same mass should be recovered regardless of the luminosity state of the AGN [@Collin06; @ShenKelly12]. A possibly more compelling argument for using  instead of FWHM is bias in the mass scale that is introduced by using FWHM as the line width. [@Steinhardt10] used single-epoch masses for more than 60,000 SDSS quasars [@Shen08b] with masses computed using FWHM. They found that, in any redshift bin, if one plots the distribution of mass versus luminosity, the higher mass objects lie increasingly below the Eddington limit; they refer to this as the “sub-Eddington boundary.” There is no physical basis for this. [@Rafiee11] point out, however, that if the quasar masses are computed using  instead of FWHM, the sub-Eddington boundary disappears: the distribution of quasar black hole masses approaches the Eddington limit at all masses. Referring to Figure 1 of [@Rafiee11], the distribution of quasars in the mass vs. luminosity diagram is 