` ::::Can you make an effort to use standard text and formatting?  I don't need the ``re``, I know you are referring to my comments.  And I don't need the bold, italics, and bullets, I'm perfectly comfortable reading plain text in a small paragraph.  Now, looking at your reply (squinting actually, as it is mostly unreadable in its current form) I see that you are quoting policy at me.  Let's take a look, shall we?  First, you quote the NPOV policy in regards to undue weight from viewpoints, which doesn't apply to the material in question, and if you think it does, you need to describe how it does because you haven't done that.  Second, you quote the part about giving undue weight any aspect of the subject.  In both cases, you ignore the subtle distinctions between viewpoints and aspects.  So, there we are.  But now, you argue that the storm itself is insignificant and the amount of material in the article given to it was out of proportion to other sections. I'm curious how you have reached these conclusions about significance and proportion without actually analyzing or discussing the human rights issues related to Katrina.  Most sources list Katrina as one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history.  If true, would it also follow that it is also one of the worst human rights disasters as well, and considering its coverage in the human rights literature, would this not merit one large paragraph (212 out of 8400 words)?   `