This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Guardian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The Guardian was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh Festival Fringe, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Edinburgh Festival FringeWikipedia:WikiProject Edinburgh Festival FringeTemplate:WikiProject Edinburgh Festival FringeEdinburgh Festival Fringe
Today in FocusToday in Focus was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 17 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can't believe that the Guardian was/is a publication which never had erred in its whole history, with the latest blunder being the introduction of the anti-anti-ad blocker. ~2025-41606-00 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Clarification: scope and framing of “50 photographs that reshaped sport” (2023)
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I am proposing a clarification regarding the editorial framing of The Guardian’s 2023 feature “50 photographs that reshaped sport.”
The article is structured as a retrospective canon spanning multiple eras of sport, presenting selected images as historically formative moments rather than contemporaneous news photography. The feature places photographs from different decades within a single curated framework, including images associated with figures such as Muhammad Ali and other historically definitive athletes.
This clarification is offered to ensure accurate understanding of the article’s scope and intent, as the feature functions as a historical retrospective rather than a routine gallery or event recap. No changes to article content are proposed at this time. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea what you (or the LLM you're using) want clarified, or what this clarification might be. (The article didn't on 25 December, and doesn't now, mention or refer to the Guardian article "50 photographs that reshaped sport".) But I note the last sentence: "No changes to article content are proposed at this time." -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Happy New Year, and thank you for the clarification.
Understood no changes to article content were being proposed in that comment. My intent there was simply to note the broader context for why I had sought third-party input, given some back-and-forth with other editors regarding the interpretation of factual, independent sources elsewhere.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond and to help keep the discussion focused and properly scoped. I’ll keep any future requests concise and limited to specific, actionable edit proposals, as you outlined earlier. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@VisualArchiveEditor, please do not use LLMs or AI tools to write your messages to other people - it is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and it makes it very hard for us to understand what you are actually wanting. You will find it a lot easier if you just write your own comments and stick to the key points you are asking about. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Source 22 states that Edward Snowden was working for Booz Allen Hamilton then divulged his slowly but continuous pack ratting to the Guardian. The way this reads now leaving it as just “contractor” leads the reader to believe that he was working for the NSA rather on behalf of. Also this is seemingly scrubbed from the internet and thats not good. A-Lone-Truck (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not done: Your proposed change introduces unnecessary and confusing detail. Identifying Snowden as a "Booz Allen Hamilton whistleblower" makes it sound like he leaked information from or about Booz Allen Hamilton. Day Creature (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are correct but without mentioning this it seems like he was in a position to blow the whistle on this but Booz Allen Hamilton was contracted and he abused the permissions given to Booz Allen Hamilton A-Lone-Truck (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: Your proposed change introduces unnecessary and confusing detail. Identifying Snowden as a "Booz Allen Hamilton whistleblower" makes it sound like he leaked information from or about Booz Allen Hamilton. Day Creature (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
