Di seguito è disponibile lo snapshot della pagina Web alla data 15/06/2023 (l'ultima volta che è stata visitata dal nostro crawler). Questa è la versione della pagina utilizzata per la classificazione dei risultati della ricerca. La pagina potrebbe essere stata modificata dall'ultima molta che è stata memorizzata nella cache. Per verificare le eventuali modifiche (senza evidenziazioni), go vai alla pagina corrente.
Bing non è responsabile del contenuto di questa pagina.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article should probably be merged into Cambridge Analytica. The difference between these two entities appears to be nothing more than legal maneuvering, and Cambridge Analytica has already been edited to reflect its new legal name. We shouldn't have two articles that purport to be about the same business. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to suggest the same. There are several sources saying that it' basically just a rebranding exercise so merging is a sensible option (on mobile so a pain to link). SmartSE (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and did it, but since this is the new name, I merged it here. The talk pages need to be merged and some cleanup is needed. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Distrait cognizance: That was a little too bold. a) see WP:MOVE and b) I think we should wait for this to continue a while longer. There should be a template added at the top of the CA article for example. SmartSE (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the sources available it's not very bold at all. It might be drastic and quick, but frankly it's going to happen. Smartse; I find it's better to try and capture the momentum and get the article polished while the iron is hot and many editors can get involved. In a year no one will care, and it won't be updated properly. I however messed up the merge, thanks for fixing some of the issues. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fucking up elections, blamin´russia.. criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.12.218.135 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The companies are different legal entities, they are in large part run by the same people but at least some are different. There are appears to be a strong argument for saying this is a rebranding + some legal magic but given the high traffic of these articles and the lack of clarity about their similarities I suggest they are unmerged for now. John Cummings (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly oppose merge at present. These are legally two separate companies. Though it is appropriate to discuss reliably sourced opinions on the nature of the links between the two companies, it should not be portrayed as fact that the two companies are the same. --Boson (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boson If you look at the financial times source that is something the British government denies. It sees them as one and the same, with the investigation continuing into what is currently Emerdata. Rebranding doesn't change what it is, and shifting operations from one shell to another similarly does nothing. So it's both dubious that they are different legal entities, and it is also dubious that it would matter for WP:NOTE. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Well it's not a straightforward rebranding considering that CA announced they were closing, not just rebranding themselves as Emerdata. If it is merged, first we need to discuss what the title should be. If the CA content is merged into this, then the CA should be moved to this title and the revisions from this can be merged, and then the content merged too. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I've been quick, but the sourcing holds that these are one and the same and that operations are continuing under the new name. I'm sorry if I was too WP:BOLD, but the sourcing is just so strong. We'll see where this goes, and I am happy to help fix any issues, it just seems inevitable. But we could of course have had the article under the name Cambridge Analytica, but that goes against the standard and precedent set at Academi and Blackwater/XE Services to always use the newest name. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose merge. Emerdata was founded in 2017, Cambridge Analytica was founded in 2013 and disestablished in 2018. They are two separate companies, which some sources say appear to have similar operations. FallingGravity 15:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view the oppose !voters are excessively focused on the legal technicalities. We move corporate articles all the time without controversy when their subjects merge into other legal entities. For example, Blackwater USA merged into Xe Services, which then merged into Academi, each with a different incorporation date and each merger in an effort to distance the enterprise from bad PR. Yet we have only one article for all three, because the independent secondary sources have treated them as the same business. That appears to be exactly what's happening here.
I didn't propose this as a formal merge because I think it's just a touch premature. I'm inclined to wait a few days and see how the news coverage settles down before doing away with this page. However it seems extremely likely this page will end up being merged and I discourage contributors from building it out in an effort to capture the latest news. Your efforts would be better spent working on Cambridge Analytica. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't even know the real purpose of Emerdata, other than it's something data related. I !opposed because it's too early to know if it's truly a rebranding, or if that's just press speculation. FallingGravity 01:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment, I don't think the sources justify treating the two (or three) companies as the same, in an encyclopedic sense. It is one thing for a newspaper to comment that A is really B under a new name. That sort of comment is not intended as an encyclopedic fact, which has all sorts of different implications.I could imagine a merge at a later date (possibly in several months, when the dust has settled and it is less a matter of opinion and speculation, but it would in my opinion still be better to keep the Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group articles, even if there is later one main article with sections that summarize the other articles and includes a statement to the general effect that Emerdata is (or is generally considered to be) a de facto reincarnation of Cambridge Analytica and/or SCL Group Limited. In my opinion, the current introduction to this article (particularly "Emerdata Ltd, formerly known as Cambridge Analytica Ltd (CA) ") is misleading, given that Cambridge Analytica Limited and SCL Group Limited still exist (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09154503 and https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05514098). SCL Group, of course, really was renamed (rather than "reincarnated"), from Strategic Communication Laboratories Limited. If indeed Emerdata does become widely established as a de facto successor of Cambridge Analytica, in my view, it would still be better to deal with it more like, say, Germany, where the main article includes (or summarizes) the whole history but there are still articles on West Germany, East Germany, and Nazi Germany. Or perhaps the situation should be compared to Kraft Heinz, Kraft Foods, Kraft Foods Inc., etc.
The comparison to Kraft is helpful, one thing I'm aware of is that as the article says there are 8 other companies registered from the same address so this could be quite complex, other examples of companies with complex relationships would be helpful. If the articles are unmerged I suggest additional information is added to the Emerdata article to make clear how closely the companies are linked (although I did quite a lot of this when I started the article). John Cummings (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: Keep the articles separate, we can just state that Emerdata is the successor corporation of Cambridge Analytica in the company infobox of the latter article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly agree to merge - I have been through the filing papers of Emerdata as well as its promotional material (we were handed it over at our company's advertising department). The two companies are exactly the same. I agree - this is a routine maneuver with just a new company formed and the same business / business model continues. Hence the information that has so far been compiled by wikipedans is completely relevant to emerdata too. I strongly agree that the emerdata and Cambridge analytica wikis should be merged. (PS - I do apologise if I have not complied with some etiquette of such discussions - I am new to such discussions and would be happy to correct any unintentional error that I might have made,) Notthebestusername (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support merge The evidence produced by Notthebestusername (love that by the way) shows they are essentially the same company. A merge seems a good idea, otherwise we give the misleading impression that Cambridge Analytica is defunct, when it is not. WCMemail 16:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentNotthebestusername has only produced anecdotal evidence that the two companies are essentially the same, which can't be used on Wikipedia per WP:OR. FallingGravity 18:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.svg){kind=small}