Talk:U.S. restores full diplomatic relations with Libya

Cleanup

I believe this article is in need of cleanup as it is a new article and seems to have been developed quickly. I'm sure the editors involved intend to present a fair an unbiased article which discusses all views as to the issues which lead to and maintained the break in diplomatic relations between the US and Libya, as well as how all other countries which were party to the debate restored diplomatic relations more than a year ago. (Wikinews, iirc, has articles related to this.)

Incidentally, news articles should be written in the active voice wherever possible, and answer the 5 Ws and H if possible as well. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Publish?

Publish? Jason Safoutin 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it an idea to use Libyas flag? And is it breaking news?international 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Breaking yes. First time in nearly 30 years these nations have said anything to eachother. Defiantely breaking. The flag is all green...the Coat of arms looks better IMO, but if you want the flag feel free to add it. Jason Safoutin 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"First time in nearly 30 years these nations have said anything to eachother"? Since you have been quite involved in writing this article, I would hope you would also spend some time reading it.... --vonbergm 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? I have read it. Before it looked like it does now and read it over and over previoualy. So what does your statement mean? Jason Safoutin 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How does "which led directly to diplomatic negotiations with the U.S. and the opening of a diplomatic liason office in Tripoli in 2004" square with your above statement? --vonbergm 02:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I did not add that statement at all. Amgine did. Jason Safoutin 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I was suggesting to you to also read the article that you are editorially involved in. --vonbergm 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would remove it but Amgine added it and I do not want to be accused of Biased. Removce it if its a problem. Lets get this published. Its important. Jason Safoutin 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you saying that your statement is factually correct and Amgine's insertion is factually wrong? In that case may I recommend that you also read the sources of articles that you are editorially involved in? How short-sighted of me not to include this suggestion from the beginning! --vonbergm 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying anything other than if there is a problem, fix it. I also am not understanding what the issue is here. Jason Safoutin 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In plain words, the argument you use to support that this should be breaking news is bogus. It apperas to be a result of your inability or unwillingness to read the article and the sources. Editing an article and its talk page without reading the article and the sources. This counterproductive and in itself a big obstacle to get an article published. Thus I took the liberty to gently sugest that you revise your strategy. Maybe that was a little too subtle for you, but hopefully this edit clears things up. --vonbergm 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course its not breaking anymore. I also made that statement hours ago. Again it brings me back to this: Why if you see a problem you do not fix it? And for the record: Its not bogus. At the time it WAS breaking. And instead of trotting aroud words why did you not state that in the begining? Jason Safoutin 02:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to publish it. Karen 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I returned the image of the National seal of Libya to the story, because the flag isn't much to see. Karen 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Libya.svg

Please replace and use Coat of arms of Libya.svg. Thanks, Siebrand - (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cirt - (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)