An editor should be careful and specific about which edits are thought to be not NPOV before reverting another editor's hard work wholesale.  For example, what is not NPOV about stating that Candace was killed at a home in Evergreen and not in Golden?  Because it happens to be the geographical location of a lot of leading attachment therapists?

The therapists (plural) were not clearly unlicensed, as a reliable source has stated otherwise.  It is POV to insist upon mistaken and misleading information be included, especially when the inclusion serves no good purpose.

It is a settled question that a reliable source about a topic can be listed in a reading section.  Besides, I didn't list it in the first place.

The reversion is to a version which is, in my opinion, hopelessly inaccurate, biased and POV. Reversions to that version should stop.