Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A story with more recent news coverage

The story about Brown's reactions to the coverage in "The Sun" newspaper about coverage of how his son had cystic fibrosis has been in the news again this month (June 2012). This article has not been published since last May, so if the more recent coverage of this story were introduced to the article it would update the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to require updating here - perhaps elsewhere - its just additional personal intrusion about his childs medical condition - WP:BLP suggests we should take great care unduly reporting about such personal issues - Youreallycan 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

As an uninvolved editor, I'd note that archiving old Talk page discussions is perfectly acceptable, per WP:ARCHIVE. The only issue would be if one or more of the discussion threads were still active. This doesn't seem to have been the case. The text does seem to have been copied to Talk:Gordon_Brown/Archive_5. What is the reason for reverting the archive of this text? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I understand the ownership issues here, but that should be taken to dispute resolution. If the thread is dead, there is no reason to keep it here to warn other editors of someone's perceived behavior.--v/r - TP 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Maybe we should institute bot archiving to avoid this. Leaving the discussion up indefinitely is not going to be terribly effective as a means of dealing with WP:OWN issues. If those still need to be dealt with, another way has to be found. Either way, keeping stale discussions here just doesn't doesn't make sense. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Hi Rrius long time no see - best regards to you and thanks for contributing here - we did use to have bot archiving here - it appears to have been removed - I support its replacement also - regards - Youreallycan 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You archive article talk for the same reason you archive user talk, to keep only the relevant discussion on the page. I'm pretty sure 8 months is a reasonable time to archive. Likely 3 to 6 months is fine. I would just set the page up for the bot to automatically do this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of re-enacting the archive. As an outside source, who saw this on ANI, I've glanced through these discussions and see nothing wrong with archiving months-old discussions. They're still there, and available to be read. A bot could be set up, but this page doesn't really see enough traffic to warrant it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

the health of the people and the corruption cover up on fluoride in your water and aspartame and fructose in your fruit juice these are real problems but they put the retirement age up and tax you went your mum dad dies and leaves you with there house

The Fluoride Deception - Full Length Documentary www.youtube.com I am not the owner of this video, just sharing it to help spread the message. Now a new book, titled "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson examines ... Like · · Share · 37 minutes ago · — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.100.135.151 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)