Talk:U.S. expels Venezuelan diplomat

I dont understand why this story is still in development. It was fine until some editor didn't read it and put it back into development. If any editos read it please put the article back into Publish state.
 * You put it back into publish, while there was (and still is) an issue with it. You can assert that it was done in retalliation to the Venezuelan's excharge of a US attache, but you cannot claim it is unless you attribute where you got it from.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. First, the retaliation is true:
 * Mr McCormack said the move was a direct response to the action taken against Capt Correa, and Ms Frias was "the most appropriate" choice. "We don't like to get into tit-for-tat games like this with the Venezuelan government, but they initiated this and the US chose to respond," Mr McCormack said.
 * Second, in the article title, shouldn't be "expells" instead of "expels"? --Julián Ortega - My talk 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all questioning whether or not it is true, I am stating that it needs to be referenced in the main article (and not by means of the sources section, either). In order to become more factual, we need to include more detail, especially when statements are made.  Adding that quote would be perfect in solving this issue.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Inline links
If the inline links are to articles cited in the sources, then I think they should be taken back out. It looks unsightly, and it encourages people to go read the story elsewhere before they've even finished our version. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Publish
Ok I think that this article is ready to be published again so will someone please do that, or is this article that alot of people have worked on, just gonna be kept in limbo

Published
I feel the article met NPOV standards at all time and was being constantly improved but, now it definately meets such requirments and I feel that it should be published and not kept in development.--The 13th 4postle 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been published. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

good work
☺ Bawolff ☺☻ 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)