Talk:Eugene Kaspersky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEugene Kaspersky has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2016Good article nomineeListed

Old talk[edit]

Removed the phrase "Eugene is a member of the Computer Anti-virus Researchers' Organization (CARO), the global association of leading anti-virus experts. " from the text as Eugene Kaspersky is not a member of CARO anymore.

Some people tend to think Eugene is a Communist. These people are known as correct people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxis ftmfw (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of son[edit]

Is Kaspersky son really kidnapped? Even sophos labs has pulled their article. Shuld we do the same? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the tga is not really for these kind of questions its mainly for user talk page help queries not consensus building.
At any rate, see what the RS says and if tis dubious one can always add that caveat(Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Try asking at the BLP noticeboard too. -- Ϫ 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from the WP:BLPN noticeboard. I have removed the material, which should be re-added when the story develops. These articles, though themselves in reliable sources, are no more than reports of assertions made on Russian websites of unknown reliability. It is a sensitive and continuing situation, the family has asked for privacy, the facts are uncertain and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eugene Kaspersky.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Eugene Kaspersky.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eugene Kaspersky.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two changes made to the article[edit]

My name is Aliya Tuktarova, and I'm working in corporate communications at Kaspersky Lab. I have corrected one spelling mistake and added a new definition.

1. I changed Kaspersky Labs to Kaspersky Lab as only the latter spelling is right.

2. Changed the general company definition to "Kaspersky Lab is a developer of secure content & threat management systems and the world’s largest privately held vendor of software security products" - this definition is used in all the official company communications and gives more precise wording of the company occupation.

I will be happy to discuss these changes with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliya Tuktarova (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired article about Eugene[edit]

I have added the information about the Wired's article about Eugene Kaspersky into a proper section, along with Eugene's own counter-response to this article (where he discusses several errors and omissions from that article), in as "neutral" way as it is possible. If you have additional information related to it - obviously feel free to add it, just don't try to add the redundant "fluff" text to it or any irrelevant sources which are not directly related to Kaspersky himself (for example the information about "Flame" virus - keep this information in an article about Flame, not here) or your own "conspiracy theories" (for example about this Wired article being "published with just a few months left until the U.S. Presidential elections" or similar nonsense).98.113.47.15 (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

This article basically reads like a puff piece. I'd also advise checking just how many company employees have been responsible for editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.139.64 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur seems to lack NPOV. The wired article discussion is a great example. Wired pointed out his KGB and Soviet ties, there is zero mention that he was a Soviet Intelligence Officer on this article or concerns about his ties to the Russian Government.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POC Check[edit]

The tone seems to lack neutrality and balance. Mainly positives. No mention of tenure as former Soviet Intelligence Officer or ties to Putin, which are all publicized criticisms (Wired). Plus the tone of the article seems to lack neutrality.Lets discuss and find some encyclopedic balance. --0pen$0urce (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @0pen$0urce: I rewrote some sections. I didn't think it was over-the-top promotional, just sort of eager-to-please/flattering. I hope it's more neutral. It fully mentions that he went to what was at the time a KGB academy, and also includes the reference to the Wired article alleging his shady connections to the Russian government etc. Per WP:BLP, I don't think there is anything to elaborate there at this point - he's not been arrested for any crimes or had his assets frozen or anything else substantive. Wikimandia (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg error.[edit]

The article currently states :- In March 2015, Bloomberg accused Kaspersky to have close ties to Russian military and intelligence officials.[49] Kaspersky slammed the claims in his blog, calling the coverage "sensationalist" and guilty of "exploiting paranoia" to "increase readership," but did not reffer clearly whether these claims are true or not.[50]

In the blog EK specifically called the allegations false. AnnaComnemna (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eugene Kaspersky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

The current article has some promotional content like the "Awards & Recognition" section, not enough content about speculation over his Russian government affiliations, which is one of the things he is best-known for, and other issues of sourcing, NPOV , etc. Also, it has been inappropriately edited by his employer in the past in a POV manner and even on controversial issues. They didn't know any better and this is a big part of why I'm here as a sponsored editor to correct these mistakes and ensure better conduct in the future.

I have put together a first draft at: Talk:Eugene Kaspersky/Draft that I think would correct these issues and get the article up to GA quality standards. I realize it is difficult to compare the draft to the current version and I'm happy to go over it section by section or whatever way makes the most sense to any editors responding. I have also included some comments below about potential BLP issues in the draft that may be tough judgement calls and are worth bringing attention to.

BLP notes
  1. Eugene's son was previously targeted for kidnapping because of Eugene's wealth as one of the richest people in Russia, resulting in new security measures to protect him and his family. In this context, I feel that his wealth is of encyclopedic importance, but also that showboating how much money he has on Wikipedia may make him feel, or actually be, threatened or that Wikipedia would be putting him and his family at risk by advertising his wealth so broadly. Thoughts on how to handle?
  1. The Eugene and Kaspersky Labs pages are both going to have basically the same information regarding the Russian-connection controversy. Also even knowing that it is something he is known for, I'm concerned the proposed draft has such a huge controversy section. Should the controversy have a separate page, then use Summary Style on the Eugene and Kaspersky Lab pages?
  1. The Age points out that Eugene was a member of the youth communist party to support claims of government/political entanglement or patriotism, though many sources verify that pretty much all children in Russia join the communist party (they basically have to). Also, much of the controversy is very speculative and requires good judgement in the context of avoid gossip/speculation on a BLP.

Pinging @0pen$0urce: and @Wikimandia:, who participated here on the Talk page on relevant topics previously.

David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 15:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job cleaning up and improving the article. I made a few changes. I added info on the patents, which I assume you deleted because there wasn't a source. I found one that lists Kaspersky as being the author of several. It's an incomplete section with potentially notable info, so I marked that section as needing improvement. I also noticed you removed the book section. I looked for sources indicating notability and couldn't find any - so that's fine. The other change I made was added info about the VirusTotal scandal, reported in Reuters in August of last year, because the report said Kaspersky was allegedly personally involved. I grouped it in a controversies section with the allegations of Russian Government involvement. I also fixed a couple of ref names that were duplicated in your original source. Finally, I noticed you removed the section about him not wanting the company to have his name originally. I couldn't find a source so I left it out - if anyone else can find one, they might consider putting that info back in.Timtempleton (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Timtempleton:!! I wanted to provide a couple comments on things I was surprised about. In my experience, adding patents cited to primary sources, and especially giving them their own section, is usually considered promotional and undue. I have not personally seen any strong secondary sources about Eugene's patents. On the other side of the coin, I was surprised to see the controversy about allegations from two employees of sabotaging competitor software added redundantly. I had already included this in the second paragraph of the "CEO" sub-section. Creating "Controversies" sections are usually discouraged and best practice is to integrate them into the narrative/chronology. I guess maybe you didn't notice I had already added it? Was there some other reasoning? CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: Thanks for pointing out that I missed the mention of the virus spoofing you added in the CEO section. The section I added was more detailed, and included that it was the VirusTotal community that was specifically affected, so I just took the info from your CEO section and merged it with mine. The company issued a press release about the patents [[1]], although in seemingly typical fashion, they don't highlight Eugene's contributions. You have to go to the source I included [[2]] to find his name listed as one of the inventors. I just had an article I wrote about the founder of two notable companies deleted (my first in four years) because another editor felt that all the media coverage was just about him founding the companies, and that didn't make him notable. So adding Eugene's patents here shows personal notability.Timtempleton (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding @Timtempleton:. I think the article contains plenty of evidence of notability and is not at-risk of being deleted. Do you mind if we get a quick third opinion on using primary sources for a patents section? I think this would need to be addressed before I can nominate for GA.

I like your new combined section - I hadn't heard of VirusTotal until just now. A few nit-pick suggestions:

  • "To substantiate these allegations" (un-needed editorializing)
  • "the Chinese" -> "Chinese companies he thought were..." (clarification, he's not after an entire race of people)
  • "Our company has never conducted an..." (the extensive quote is redundant with "the company denied the allegations")

Those are just nit-picky items - feel free to take em or leave em. CorporateM (Talk) 19:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Agree with you and changed them all. I tried to find another source about the patents. This mentions the company's patents, but not him - would have to look up all the actual filings to see if his name is on them.[[3]] While looking, I saw this info which might be relevant for this article also.[[4]]. I just added a related line to the litigation section of the Kaspersky article.Timtempleton (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to use company press releases or patent filings as sources, as they are primary, OR, etc. But this secondary source you linked to looks usable. It's labeled as a "blog" but the author is the site's cofounder. It appears to be published by IDG, which is a reputable publisher (probably the largest) of tech news. That's a great secondary source. I didn't see the spot where you added, but I threw together some content below from it, if you want to throw it in. I think this can be added to the CEO section, without creating a dedicated section for just a few sentences.
"Kaspersky Lab has defended itself against frivolous patent claims more aggressively than most IT companies. In 2012, it was the only one of 35 firms named in a suit by patent troll Information Protection and Authentication (IPAC) to take the case to court, rather than pay a fee. According to an article in TechWorld, this is most likely because Eugene "just hates" patent trolls. In his blog he called them "parasites" and "IT racketeers."[1]"
CorporateM (Talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added patent troll defense info but removed wiki-link - can't even find a web site on them now.Timtempleton (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Didn't get much participation at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the "Patents" section being cited to primary sources. Do you think we can at least do something with it so it's not a one-sentence section? I can't really nominate it for a GA review so long as there are tags and a section with just one sentence. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: I tried to find some more sources and couldn't - it's apparently not something the company is trying to publicize. In order for it to not be an orphaned section, I did as you suggested and moved the info back into the CEO section. I also noticed the first patent troll case didn't have a source, so I added one. I also found a second notable case, and added that info with a source too.Timtempleton (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dunn, John E (October 8, 2013). "Eugene Kaspersky, patent troll killer". Techworld. Retrieved April 27, 2016.

Storage[edit]

I came across another source about Eugene on the Kaspersky Lab page, so I thought I would start storing any sources I come across here for future reference. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eugene Kaspersky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox[edit]

  • Add information about his photo in the "alt" parameter please
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the parameters not being used:
  • "Image caption"
  • "Other names"
  • Keep the death date and place for now
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better link for the "nationality" parameter would probably be the article for "Russians", yes?
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

  • Nada, great work!

Kaspersky Lab[edit]

Origins[edit]

  • Add a comma in between "In 1994" and "Hamburg University in Germany..." please
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Ref. 21 to after this sentence: "From 1998 to 2000, its annual revenue grew 280 percent and by 2000 almost sixty percent of revenues were international." instead of its current placement after "Kaspersky's company grew quickly in the late 1990s." please
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CEO[edit]

  • I think I would add "of the Kaspersky Lab" after "Kaspersky became CEO"; I don't know, it sounds more clear and exact this way
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Alleged affiliations with Russia[edit]

  • Remove the red link to "Sofacy" please
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

Paragraph 3[edit]

  • The last two statements sound more like afterthoughts and are awkwardly placed
Are you suggesting a trim or moving it somewhere else? CorporateM (Talk) 23:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know what could be done with them. There's no better place for them but there, so it's fine. Carbrera (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Ref. 14 - De-capitalize "WIRED"
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of GA Review:[edit]

A very good article, with just a few changes; in fact, probably the least amount of changes I've ever suggested. Good work! On hold for seven days; cheers, Carbrera (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Thanks for your quick responses! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

New York Times profile[edit]

The New York Times recently did an in-depth profile on Eugene Kaspersky. For the most part it's very similar to what we have here and I merely used it to supplement pre-existing content or add small details. At the very bottom of the article it says "Photography is a favorite pastime of his, and he was thrilled when the magazine GQ Russia recently recommended his Instagram account as “enticing and not banal.” I was hoping for another editor's opinion on whether we should add his Instagram as an External Link. Typically we do not include social media profiles, unless the sources discuss them and I am not familiar with how much emphasis we expect in the source to justify an external link. CorporateM (Talk) 22:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should not be added as an external link but may be we can mention the hobby with a reference to NYT and there reference the Instagram?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request declined, because no clear consensus has been reached. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspersky sues US gov't[edit]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-kasperskylab/kaspersky-lab-asks-court-to-overturn-u-s-government-software-ban-idUSKBN1EC2CK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F220:419:4103:0:0:0:116 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eugene_Kaspersky&oldid=1205039738"