Talk:Cambridge Analytica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bannon

"Steve Bannon, founder of Breitbart News and the newly appointed chief strategist to Trump, is on Cambridge Analytica’s board"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.39.122.125 (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Research dossier

For those who might be interested in expanding this page, here is a link to a research dossier on Cambridge Analytica. Obviously not everything would be suitable for a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.52.6 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Founder

I've deleted incorrect founder information, as it named the founder of another company - reistered in the UK - with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.165.49 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You haven't, at least not at the time of writing. If you are going to do that, please provide suitable evidence to justify your edit. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Compare this and that, they are not the same companies, although Alastair MacWillson indeed has an interesting background too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.52.6 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detective work. Strangely, though, Cambridge Analytica(UK) Limited is listed as a dormant company. zazpot (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump 2016 campaign

Their website states "Cambridge Analytica provided the Donald J. Trump for President campaign with the expertise and intelligence that helped win the White House, causing the most remarkable victory in modern U.S. political history. " Yet the article states "In 2016, the company said that it had not used psychographics in the Trump presidential campaign." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fishy, isn't it? ;) zazpot (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism:FBI Investigation

It seems that this section title is not in line with the articles cited, or with other news articles on the subject. There are references to a Congressional Investigation, but none to anything by the FBI. I would propose to at a minimum change the title to "Congressional Investigation".

In addition, it should be titled something like "Alleged Congressional Investigation" and should include that a spokesman for the company is quoted in the Time article as saying they were unaware of the probe, and the company has no ties to Russia - "A spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica says the company has no ties to Russia or individuals acting as fronts for Moscow and that it is unaware of the probe."

It also probably is more WP:NPOV to include something about the doubts regarding the companies involvement - "There are plenty of people who are skeptical of such a conspiracy, if one existed." and "Nobody can prove it yet".

It certainly is relevant and NPOV to include information about any alleged ties, or alleged investigations, but there should be context provided including the companies denial and questions as to the veracity of the allegations raised- particularly in the same source cited. I would prefer that to be in some short format so that this one section doesn't grow.

In the meantime, if there isn't good reason to keep the title "FBI Investigation" I'll change it tomorrow.

Thanks! Fullyladenswallow (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Brixit Russian interests

Brexit and weakening or destroying the European Union is probably first over American tinkering, and that is when Cambridge Analytica first came to notoriety. It was later after the brexit success that it's targeting was used the the US elections to promote and benefit the Trump Campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymes (talk • contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Importance assessment of article should be increased

I suggest raising the article's importance to a high level in regards to the WikiProject Politics. Recent articles suggest Cambridge Analytica has been involved in political "psychographic analysis" targeting of elections in the US, Europe, South America, and Africa[1] Additonally, even though they deny it, they appear to have been collaborating or marketing their services to Russia.[2] These campaigns have had high success over expectations that were much lower. The political ramifications of this work is staggering. The page count of the article has tripled recently. Ward20 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was increased by Volunteer Marek. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Now under WP:1RR. I (or another admin) will add the "consensus required" restriction if it becomes necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica and Project Alamo

Before you study this subject, you MUST see this short BBC video (4:41 min.). Prepare to have your mind blown. This is not a conspiracy theory. At the end of the sources is a search on the subject.

Project Alamo was the digital team behind the Trump campaign. Kushner was in charge of digital operations:

• BBC Video. Tweeted Aug. 13, 2017. Project Alamo: Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Google, and YouTube worked hand-in-hand with the Trump campaign.

Then read this:

• Why the Trump Machine Is Built to Last Beyond the Election. October 27, 2016

They started with bragging at their efficiency, success, and collaboration with Facebook, et al. The Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica (CA), Facebook, Google, and YouTube were working very closely together all along. I was dumbfounded at the time with how open they were about it, and wondered how that could be legal.

According to recent sources (below), their tune has changed to denials and a cover-up, but those historical sources show they knew and colluded together, and CA is now under criminal investigation. Both CA and FB are pointing fingers at each other, and this paints a pretty clear picture of damage control and cover-up (using a false "data breach" story).

That is the background one must understand before reading sources. Then it all makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

General sources about Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, and the Trump campaign
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
January 28, 2017. The Data That Turned the World Upside Down March 30 2017. Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate July 14, 2017. Trump campaign's digital director agrees to meet with House Intel Committee October 16, 2017. Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of unsuspecting Facebook users March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica pushes back on Facebook's allegations as top Senate Democrat blasts 'Wild West' March 17, 2018. Facebook knew of illicit user profile harvesting for 2 years, never acted March 17, 2018. Facebook suspends Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Trump campaign March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica and the Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica: links to Moscow oil firm and St Petersburg university March 17, 2018. Staff claim Cambridge Analytica ignored US ban on foreigners working on elections March 17, 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvest more than 50 million Facebook profiles in 2014, but don't call it a data breach March 18, 2018. Mass. AG to investigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica March 18, 2018. Self-described whistleblower suspended by Facebook after Cambridge Analytica reports March 18, 2018. 'I made Steve Bannon's psychological warfare tool': meet the data war whistleblower March 18, 2018. Facebook employs psychologist whose firm sold data to Cambridge Analytica March 18, 2018. Breach leaves Facebook users wondering: how safe is my data? March 18, 2018. What is Cambridge Analytica? The firm at the centre of Facebook's data breach March 18, 2018. Data scandal is huge blow for Facebook – and efforts to study its impact on society March 18, 2018. Democrats call on Cambridge Analytica head to testify again before Congress March 18, 2018. Pressure mounts on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook over data scandal Search: "cambridge analytica" facebook trump (Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2017) Project Alamo References

I can't say that I'm surprised, but this is definitely a huge revelation. We have some work cut out for us here.- MrX 🖋 12:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC

Is this actually scandalous, or even unusual?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I understand so far is that in 2014, Cambridge Analytica hired someone to conduct research via Facebook, and maybe the manner in which this was done, went against Facebook's terms of service. And now four years later, Facebook has banned Cambridge Analytica from advertising there, and meanwhile the media is beside itself with delighted horror, because CA played a role in the Trump campaign. What I would primarily like to know is whether any of what happened is exceptional for the world of political big data and analytics. It is apparent, after all, that from the media's perspective, this story is just part of the extensive campaign to discredit every person and organization which had anything to do with getting Trump elected, and to erect a narrative according to which Trump's victory, and even Brexit, were the result of misinformation. There is no attempt to put the facts in perspective - and yet we were also told that unprecedented big data was instrumental in Obama's 2012 victory. So could it be that there is an element of hypocrisy here? I don't even know where to turn in order to find out. Mporter (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Not here. This isn't a forum where we can discuss whether this is a scandal or whatever. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Eitan Hersh is an authoritative expert on the subject

One editor removed an attributed POV from an authoritative expert on the precise topic of microtargeting voters (e.g. he has published on the topic in the top journals[3][4] and academic presses[5] in political science). It was sourced to a blog post on Reason.com. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I can see the credibility of Hersh. Ideally we'd represent his views with a source better than a blog citing a tweet, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we generally give leeway with authoritative experts though (self-published blogs etc.), and this is unfortunately a take that the Wikipedia article doesn't sufficiently cover. I don't really have the time at the moment to search, but I'm sure you could find similar statements by political scientists in high-quality RS (e.g. NYT, WaPo) disputing CA's alleged effectiveness going back 18 months. Political scientists are extremely skeptical that CA can do what the company claims it does. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

new press

Too lazy to log in, if someone could please add a version of this: 67.254.79.152 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

On March 16, the New York Times and London’s Observer reported that Cambridge Analytics had "harvested private information from more than 50 million Facebook users in developing techniques to support President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign." This number represented about a third of active North American Facebook users, and a quarter of potential Americans voters.

References

Dirty tricks

Nice new source: Guardian article. If I get time later... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Should something be added regarding what Channel 4 just published regarding the "election tricks" that Cambridge Analytica's people admitted to doing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ 01:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaBaron (talk • contribs)

to many "that"s?

Under Criticism, the text says:

On 25 October 2017, Julian Assange said that on Twitter[49] that he had been approached by Cambridge Analytica, but said he had rejected its proposal.

I guess it's the first "that" which should be removed, as he said the quoted on Twitter?

Stonefrog (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Stonefrog: That sounds about right. Feel free to WP:Bold, especially for non-controversial copy editing. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Aleksandr Kogan and Global Science Research

Given the relevance of their collaboration per https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election , I'd expect those names to be mentioned in a section here, and the titles perhaps to be redirected. --y Nemo 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tweets

I have been severely and aggressively castigated for even the slightest mention of the existence of a tweet or of Twitter on Wikipedia, let alone the quote of a tweet. Does this page have special dispensation or were my pursuers wrong? Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

MarketWatch: Cambridge Analytica CEO suspended after taking credit for Trump campaign on video

"The chief executive of political data company Cambridge Analytica took credit for running key elements of Donald Trump’s winning presidential campaign in hidden video broadcast Tuesday by the U.K.’s Channel 4 News."[6] Ward20 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We can try to be savvy about this. Per Carol Cadwalladr, there are multiple/shell companies here; CA has no actual employees. Nix has been suspended by CA, but he remains in place for other entities controlled by SCL. In other words, nothing has changed. See [7], [8], and [9]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Nomoskedasticity (talk) - you are right. I checked out the company house official records for CA and Nix - the latter is the director , ceo or just holds the designation 'communication' for at least ten companies of CA. Their names sound straight out of a bad spy novel - SCL elections ltd, Firecrest technologies, Emerdata ltd, SCL digital, SCL analytics (some have exited for an year and then been dissolved - kind of what CA themselves said in the channel 4 undercovers). All one staff companies, all registered in the same two addresses - either St. James or Westferry circus - Canary wharf. A pity I am not currently in London, else out of sheer curiosity I would like to see what actually exists at "Pkf Littlejohn, Level 2, 1 Westferry Circus, London, England, E14 4HD" (their official registered address)! Notthebestusername (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Pkf Littlejohn are their accountants in Canary wharf! See here Notthebestusername (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

A fairly detailed article about Cambridge Analytica and the Cruz campaign [10]

This fills in some more specifics about the problems Cruz had with Cambridge Analytica's services.

It would appear that Cambridge Analytica may have had a more developed data set during Trump's campaign than Cruz's campaign. Need an article comparing the two. Ward20 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Weren't they already working for Trump, long before the official campaign, IOW, were they sabotaging all opponents? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm starting to get a bit confused as to the activities that supposedly went on with this company. I've seen a lot of contradictory details reported as 'he said, she said'. It seems to me some news organizations are publishing rushed articles without much fact checking so they can cash in on the publicity. It's a bit overwhelming Ward20 (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Headquarters

(Personal attack removed) -> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43476594 "CA, which is based in London, denies any wrongdoing." -> also Nix and Wylie are Londoners, correct it already instead of locking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.119.207 (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This page is really only on my watchlist so I can see how the story develops, but I will note, the BBC source appears reliable, and the sources cited in the infobox (Buzzfile, Bloomberg) probably are not. Those sites are just clearinghouses and publish information provided by the companies themselves, with little or no verification. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica is indeed headquartered in NYC. The BBC is just taking into account the parent/controlling company SCL which is based in London. Buzzfile and Bloomberg's data is from D&B and S&P respectively which are both very reliable. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To add to the above, CA (NYC) is like a brand for the SCL Group (London) which is the one carrying out the main operations. This probably is the reason why CA is being referred to as a London based organisation by media outlets even though it isn't. I think it would be better if the two articles (SCL and CA) were merged, there is not a lot of clarity currently. Gotitbro (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I would expect the NYC detail is more probable because foreign nationals can not manage or participate in any campaign committee’s decision-making processes.[11] Ward20 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sources this is really all just speculation. Digging through Google News I'm seeing a bunch of independent reliable sources echoing BBC and saying CA's headquarters is in London, while I'm finding none saying it's in New York. If someone finds one, please post it. The Buzzfile and Bloomberg listings are not independent as the data was submitted by CA itself, and they may just reflect paperwork designed to satisfy US election laws. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Emerdata

“ "The power players behind Cambridge Analytica have set up a new company — and the daughters of Donald Trump-supporting billionaire Robert Mercer have just joined as directors."[12] ”

This certain deserves a mention.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And, Nix is the CEO, [13]. The idea that he has been "suspended" is pretty dubious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.- MrX 🖋 14:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

He may have been suspended from Cambridge Analytica but he's still a director of its parent company, SCL Group Limited. Besides the Mercer sisters and Nix, guess who else is a director of Emerdata Limited? Mr Johnson Chun Shun Ko, of Frontier Services Group (remember Eric Prince, the would-be vice-roy of Afghanistan?) and a guy from the Seychelles, but that's purely coincidence, I'm sure. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Oakes and Behavioural Dynamics

Per The Observer, this is where the company originated from. On BD's website they claim to have worked on elections since 1993. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Brexit

According to Reuters, Leave.EU and CA have both boasted in the past about CA's work for the Leave campaign, something they now seem to be denying. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-facebook-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu/explainer-what-are-the-links-between-cambridge-analytica-and-a-brexit-campaign-group-idUKKBN1GX2IQ I've seen screencaps of the Leave.EU webpage where they used to make this boast.

Business Insider UK has a piece expanding on the issue. http://uk.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-has-contradicted-itself-on-its-work-for-leaveeu-2018-3 Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Former business development director of CA (up till a couple of weeks ago) says the firm did work for Leave.EU on the Brexit referendum. She says she lied by denying it. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/cambridge-analytica-misled-mps-over-work-for-leave-eu-says-ex-director-brittany-kaiser?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Channel 4 and the British state

Channel 4 News, the main source of the current international controversy surrounding the topic of this article, like the BBC are closely connected to the British state and intelligence agencies. Given that the British attempted to meddle in the US election through Christopher Steele cooking up the dodgy Trump-Russia dossier, this fact perhaps needs to be pointed out here. The British absolutely favoured the victory of Hillary Clinton in the US election. She has been lavished with awards from Chatham House and her husband Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar. If this was an "exposé" by Russia Today about a US organisation, we would be making extremely clear who the source of the claims were every other sentence throughout, same should apply to the British, their POV (or sour grapes that their horse didn't win as it were) and their claims about the US election. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Channel 4 News is broadcast on Channel 4 but is produced by ITN. Keeping that in mind what edit do you suggest to the article? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"The" British? You mean like Nigel Farage, FoxNews contributor and Trump compadre? A Chatham House award in 2013 for Hillary Clinton's work as Secretary of State, her husband's Rhodes scholarship back in the sixties? "... the British attempted to meddle in the US election through Christopher Steele cooking up the dodgy Trump-Russia dossier ...?" Oh my! Your bias is showing. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that the article is about a US-based organisation and primarily the US election, I propose that we mention in the introduction that the "exposé" which led to an international controversy about this organisation originated from British-media. Getting the word "British" in the introduction in regards to the controversy is essential, because that is exactly what we would do if it was from Russian-media or Chinese-media. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. Equitable treatment is not the same as identical treatment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So we can trust the British a priori and take their word for it because they are members of the glorious Anglo-Saxon master race, but we need to be careful with those shifty Slavs and their mind control bots? How does that work? Given that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy to uphold, surely we should not be favouring certain nations and disfavouring others, but rather holding a neutral position on international affairs. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV before quoting it and stop with your original research. If you have sources about British bias in relation to CA, then please present them, else remember that this is not a forum. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The Press Freedom Index's 2017 ratings rank the United Kingdom at #40, a better ranking than the United States (#43), and way ahead of Russia (#148). ^Falling_Gravity 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• The OP's reasoning is a non-starter, but if the proposal is merely to identify Channel 4 as a British public service broadcaster then I'm for it. Not because of any sort of UK-Clinton conspiracy, but because many non-Brits (including Americans) have never heard of Channel 4 and might think we're talking about their local station. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Or even worse 4chan. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Vox reference in Infobox

Is there a reason for an archived 17 March version of an article Vox keeps updating and expanding (Infobox ref. for Steve Bannon)? The latest version is this, March 21. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A very useful resource. Given that it's being actively updated I think we shouldn't shouldn't link to the archived version, as it leads readers to less than up-to-date information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Founding date

We need to stop relying on primary sources such as corporate filings to say when the organization was founded or established. Too much is being read into these, and they aren't reliable, at least for this organization. Corporations reorganize all the time. The article subject is confusing enough as it is. Please focus on the reliable independent secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Two more good Vox sources

• Cambridge Analytica and its many scandals, explained. The firm has close ties to Steve Bannon, worked for the Trump campaign — and is now in some hot water. By Andrew Prokop

• The Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal, explained with a simple diagram. A visual of how it all fits together. By Alvin Chang

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Spin off of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach

See Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach.

There is Category:Data breaches which contains stand alone Wikipedia articles about data breaches. We have to have a way to separate this big event, which includes many organizations, individuals, governments, and popular discussions, from the stand alone concept of Cambridge Analytica.

I appreciate anyone who can jump in to make the article about the breach sync better with the information here about the organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

ELI5

A report indicated that Cambridge Analytica is staffed with former MI5 personnel, which seems to be missing from the article. -Inowen (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

Just to explain my recent refactoring: I didn't add or remove any text. The purpose of this refactor is to avoid development of a criticism ghetto before it starts. Critical material should be factored into a broader discussion of the relevant subject matter. For instance, we should describe CA's methods, the criticisms of those methods, and the rebuttals of those criticisms all in the same section, rather than segregating the article into two separate positive/neutral and negative sections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Hello! The link for citation reference number 50 is broken. The correct URL is; https://fountainink.in/reportage/aadhaar-in-the-hand-of-spies- Can you please fix this link? Thanks. 220.245.39.237 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

Affected Facebook users should be updated from 50 million to 87 million.

This: The data about the 50 million Facebook users were acquired from 270,000 Facebook users who shared the data with the app "thisisyourdigitallife". By giving this third-party app permission to acquire their data, back in 2015, this also gave the app information about the friend network of those people, which resulted in information about 50 million users. The app developer breached Facebook's terms of service by giving the data to Cambridge Analytica.

Should be: The data about the 87 million Facebook users were acquired from 270,000 Facebook users who shared the data with the app "thisisyourdigitallife". By giving this third-party app permission to acquire their data, back in 2015, this also gave the app information about the friend network of those people, which resulted in information about 87 million users. The app developer breached Facebook's terms of service by giving the data to Cambridge Analytica.

Here is a reference: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/did-cambridge-analytica-get-your-data-youll-know-soon Rehonwiki (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

I have noticed a few minor grammatical errors with the "Mexico" subsection of this article: please capitalise the words "British" and "American", correct the spelling and capitalization of the word "Russian" and remove the inverted commas and italicize the term "modus operandi". I also suggest that the "modus operandi" term should be wikilinked. There are also grammatical errors in the "Other countries" section: please remove the redundant repeated "party" in "Jubilee Party party" and remove the inverted commas before the colon. 114.75.88.217 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done plus a couple more you didn't mention. Thanks! (For the record, those sections need a thorough copyedit.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)