Talk:Oil falls $1.19 on news of al-Zarqawi death

POV
Ok...im going to show all the POV:

The death of the man the United States wanted as an international terrorist seems to have been interpreted by the market as good news for the future supply of oil from the region.

Oil markets had been jittery over disruptions in supply from Iraq.

''Iraq's exports are vital to its economy and make up a significant proportion of world supply. Investors were said to have been worried about developing in the country citing lack of security and legal protection. Together with question marks over the supply of oil from Iran, were tensions over Iran's nuclear program to result in sanctions, the line on a graph that plotted oil price had done a steady incline over recent years.''
 * POV and what investor said??

It is thought the death of Osama bin Laden's operative can bring a renewed stability in the US-backed Shiite-led state and the wider-region.
 * Maybe true, but its a POV IMO.

The analyst at Man Financial believes the threat to the Iraqi oil industry are political as well as physical.

''"Yes, al Qaeda attacked oil installations but they were not the only actors and they were not the main actors," he said. "There is also a new factor -- political parties that are using threats against oil to gain leverage."''
 * Who said...anyone can be a "financial man."

All of that is POV very POV. Jason Safoutin 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will edit in light of your comments. However I do believe I gave both sides of the argument. Ealturner 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is hoped in some quarters the death of Osama bin Laden's operative might bring a renewed stability in the US-backed Shiite-led state and the wider-region.
 * This is still speculation in highly POV imo. Jason Safoutin 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll work on that phrase again. The quote at the end is a quote and quotes are always POV. I believe this quote balances other quotes and therefore contributes to the neutrality of the article. Ealturner 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * how is that phrase now? Thanks for your contributions to improving this article so far. Ealturner 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take that as a yes? Republishing. Ealturner 13:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)