:::::Why now?  Because the new information, revealed since Bert Schneider's death, is highly relevant to the topic of this article.  In a recent edit note you wrote "discuss on talk page rather than simply reverting please."  YOU are the one who has instigated a wholesale revert of sourced information, not me!  I note this is a habit of yours, on this and other articles.  And no amount of reason ever persuades you 1./ a source is good enough  or 2./ the emphasis is not undue, if you don't want the information included in the article.  Much of the information in the paragraph you eliminate, by the way, has existed in the article for months.  You asked me "Why now?" so I will ask the same question.  "Why now do you seek to eliminate anything and everything Kate Coleman writes about in the Salon piece?"  "Why does it seem so incredible to you that Schneider bought Newton a house and a car and paid more than $1 million in his legal fees (delaying, or preventing, Newton's being held accountable for his crimes I might add) when other sources say the same thing?  Why do you eliminate the highly probable claim (not "exceptional" at all) that Schneider paid for Newton's funeral?  All this is nonsense, just as your blinding stubborness on other articles (e.g. "White privilege") has been nonsense.