So let me get this straight.  The most recent piece of foreign policy news is placed next to the most forward-looking piece of news, his (obvious) intention to seek reelection.  When the most recent news had been unresolved and open for interpretation as to whether it was good or bad, it was fine to immediately precede the election announcement, but when a newer piece of news happened to be spectacularly successful, a couple of editors suddenly consider it POV?  That's the sort of thing I can understand raising an eyebrow when it comes the week before the election, but the only POV you're seeing is in your own minds.  Twain's comments are apt to the news more than the editing here, in that we're addressing what actually happens in foreign policy news.  Should that continue to be good, it will be the news that is conspiring to help Obama, not the  And the ultimate irony is that the stubborn revert of this move puts the reelection announcement next to one of the earliest details of his presidency, the spectacular honor of a Nobel Peace Prize.  Explain precisely how it is that passively winning a Nobel Peace Prize is appropriate to precede a campaign announcement but actively winning a military victory is not?  Silver Seren, I request that you revert your own edit to the way it existed prior to today's news, in an acknowledgement that yours was the third insistent revert in favor of this POV editor, as there is no convincing argument made here that what he saw as POV actually is, and no consensus to act like there has been.