Talk:1984 Libyan hostage incident

A - too few opinions - tag has been placed upon this article which is a reporting of the available facts. Every point refers back to a news item by BBC, ITN, The Times, and numerous other journalistic sources. Gaddafi is dead, his government in disarray... How do you report unavailable counter opinions? Seriously - how is that information from a collapsed government and burnt and destroyed records to be represented?

An interpretation of Condition 4 of the hostage release agreement (British Government to stop anti-Libyan propaganda channeled through British media)could include a complete absence in any British controlled media of any reference to the Libyan Hostage Situation for fear that any such reference might be construed by the Libyan authorities as a breach of Condition 4. This agreement may also have applied to Gaddafi's government, but as it no longer exists - how can we solicit it for their version? Gailsedotes (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply I removed the tag, as reading the ref's that were online at least had some reference to comments from the former government, although I believe there is still at least a minor concern. I have greater concerns about the news references, most being from Noton Chronicle which I can't even find online.  (Perhaps you meant Norton Chronicle?)  Neither names are pulling up anything, or have an article here, which makes it hard to verify if they are reliable sources or not.  References from television broadcasts are always difficult to verify as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this was 1984 before the internet - we are scrambling for online resources as they are released. But it's only been a few weeks since the restrictions have been lifted... Thank you! (and I'll check your suggestions!) Gailsedotes (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply No problem. I'm certainly not suggesting a deletion or removal of information, just a strong concern about the state of the references and wanting to be sure the article wasn't a one sided "essay" on the subject matter.  The subject matter is certainly noteworthy, we just want anyone who reads it to have a "warm and fuzzy" feeling about the reliability of the information.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

removing a tag
An unidentified used placed a needs to be rewritten into prose tag on the article. As this is a question of style I will wait a further 7 days before I remove it. My reasons being that I wanted to present this subject matter in the most stripped down way possible and deliberately avoided a prose style to minimize the the opportunity for perceived bias. Also, as new resources are made available it will be easier for anyone to add them into the timeline.

Any comments or suggestions are welcome.Gailsedotes (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Tag removed Gailsedotes (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should refer to WP:Manual of style for the formatting. Our personal opinions as to format and style are not relevant here, being consistent with other articles on Wikipedia is all that matters when it comes to articles.  Making an article a bullet style is not considered acceptable, and working the information into prose is considered the proper way.  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have refered. Each paragraph leads with a date and each paragraph is minimal to restrict bias. It is actually NOT bullet styled, but simply headed. will change to show it's header rather than bullet. One day hope to be able to fill these sections out with narrative but am taking very cautious steps... Gailsedotes (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)