`   Okay - however the information was clearly sourced - whilst most of the article is not sourced? I don't understand why you have deleted the section?   :You need to be more specific, what page are you talking about?    ::He meant this and this. Thing is Mosz1992, your edits seem to be aimed at one thing and one thing only: to insert that piece of information about those schools. Your account, to put it bluntly, seems to be a single purpose account with a conflict of interest. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is neutrality. Whether or not an information can be sourced, always be careful not to give undue weight to tangential information, especially to potentially damaging ones. Do not for example, state something as true unless the people involved have actually been convicted in a court of law. Even then state it neutrally. Use of certain adjectives, unnecessary focus, and using only 'one side of the argument', while remaining outwardly neutral, can still give information an inappropriate slant. When potentially damaging information is transient and does not promote further understanding of the actual subject of the article, they should not be included as well. When it involves living people who are named/identified, the rules are even stricter.  ::In short, really:  Wikipedia can not be used for scandal-mongering. I hope that was clear enough. Thank you. `