Talk:Gen Digital/Archive 1

Article expansion

I don't know enough about Symantec myself, but i feel like this artical is lacking. Could this be fleshed out to include company history, controversy (if any, I know Symantec = Microsoft), partnerships, etc... Whiteknight 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed kinda lacky. I'll try and add something to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntóineO'Connor (talk • contribs) 18:26, January 2, 2006 (UTC)

You should definately find some proof then show if symantec is in Microsoft's pocket. Thats why I looked it up, saw on the BBC that they said IE had a more secure rendering engine than Mozilla, and came here. I somehow doubt that I'm the only one who will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tortanick (talk • contribs) 15:27, January 5, 2006 (UTC)

This article sounds more like corporate propaganda than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.11.181 (talk • contribs) .

If you've got some ideas on how to expand it, fire away. Remember NPOV, if your criticism is that the article doesn't say "SymanTEc is teh sukc!" then Wikipedia isn't the right place. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mergers

It was not a merger with VERITAS. Symantec acquired them for $13.5 billion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BellJonez (talk • contribs) 20:27, January 17, 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of documenting within Wikipedia the rise an fall of companies of the computer age. It appears that in the case of PowerQuest, there is no fall, but some people accepted an offer that was too good to refuse, as was the case when Peter Norton sold his company to Symantec. Question: Where did Symantec get so much wealth that they can continue to swallow major players? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.154.68 (talk • contribs) 14:35, February 4, 2006 (UTC)

-- Peter H.

IRS and Symantec

Apparently, the IRS is charging Symantec close to 1 Billion USD for issues relateing to the VERITAS takeover or buyout. Check this slashdot article. [1] I think a section on this would be helpful and appropriate. zorkerz 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Corporate edition

What about Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition? You didn't list it in the products as well as not having an article for it. 70.111.224.253 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Usually, people call it "Enterprise Norton", but I think it should be listed and have it's own article, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OtherPerson (talk • contribs) 04:12, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, esp. since the Enterprise client is far different in terms of resource usage and interface. If you didn't know they were made by the same company, you wouldn't notice. 128.220.235.148 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial or not commercial?

The link to "ZDnet preUK Security Operations Centre (SOC) bunker" is, from our perspective, is a commercial link. As certified Symantec engineers and able to assist and advise people on Symantec I added our link yesterday. If links to certified Symantec engineer sites can not be included then only Symantec should appear here. As AV engineers we are in a position to know all AV products from actual experience in many computing environments. We have a lot of information to help people with Symantec that Symantec does not publish. Actual experience and solutions that can easily be interpeted as "reviews or "news". And our links to purchase these products are the same as the ads on ZDnet. They are commercial links. ZDnet is a news publisher site. We consider the information available on news sites to be at the very least equally useful to the interested reader. All three web site types: news, reviews and certified engineer web sites are commercial so if one is here they all have to be here. Trotline trotline 10:00 am est

Commercial links are allowed in Wikipedia, although I sometimes use the phrase "commercial link" to avoid hurting any feelings with the word "spam" when reverting edits that don't add anything to an article. The site you removed, news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39237560,00.htm, is a link to a ZDnet magazine article subtitled "Inside Symantec's nuclear bunker", about Symantec's test lab. Symantec is the subject of this article, why on earth would you remove such a link? Next, I don't know much about the software business, but I'd be willing to bet Symantec has more than one "Partner" such as yourself, why should your link be here, or anywhere in Wikipedia? Take a look at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 3, "Links mainly intended to promote a website".

Wikipedia needs content, not links. I'm sure your organization has a lot of knowledge to contribute. For starters on how to contribute, look at item 6 Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. --CliffC 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully I submit that commercial links is another term for "links mainly intended to promote a website". The ZDnet article is a commercial site offering content to get you to view relevant ads. The same information can be found on Symantec's web site. Symantec's web site is tens of thousands of pages deep and they have many press releases such as the one on ZDnet. As Symantec Partners we receive all the press releases and the Lab is one of them. If their article is not primarily posted to get you to purchase from their advertisers then I would like to know how they make money.

Yes there are many Symantec partners. We are the number one Symantec Partner in Norton sales volume. Many partners have valuable insights into Symantec. These insights are much more useful that the article on the ZDnet site.

Since you are self defined as "I don't know much about the software business" I suggest you lend some validity to the opinions of people who do have that experience. For example, my computer experience is 30 years. Our staff of certified AV specialists have no less than 10 years each.

I am removing the ZDnet link again since it opens the door for many other commercial links parading as "news sources" who are simple affiliate marketers. If you would like to continue to debate the issue I would appreciate you providing some facts as to how the ZDnet article is more valid than other press release duplicating sites that post content to get you to view relevant ads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trotline (talk • contribs) 17:02, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

And next, another editor will revert it back and then you will have to abide by the three revert rule. The link's been there for some considerable time, adds useful, NPOV colour to the articel, and is from a notable source ... richi 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Adjusted some indentations above for readability)

I've responded to some of this over in Talk:Antivirus software#External links. --CliffC 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with all links except the one to symantec.com being removed. The original editor might have been trying to be pointy, but a link like the ZDnet one would probably be best used in the context of a reference in the text itself. From an editorial perspective, if nothing else. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By reading the first sentence of Chairboy's response it seems to be saying he is fine with all links being removed except Symantec's. (Chairboy please clarify if I have it wrong.) Unfortunately all I can assume from the constant restoring of the commercial link is that the people constantly restoring it do not want to discuss the validity of linking to one commercial site and banning all others. (Which would be an obvious breach of NPOV) Due to that it appears the folks restoring the links have a financial interest in the links. This looks like the issue needs to be escalated. Does anyone else want to shed some light on the issue?Trotline 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have phrased it more clearly. The only link that makes sense that I've seen recently is the one to www.symantec.com. The ZDNet article, while interesting, seems better as a reference to something in the article, not a stand-alone link. The nortons.com and other reseller links need not be in the article, and if folks keep restoring it, some type of action might be needed as using Wikipedia as an advertising medium is contraindicated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, thank you for responding. I agree with what you said. To clarify, the nortons.com link is not the issue in this discussion. That site is what is called a "thin affiliate" and you are right it is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT about. However there are many antivirus sites that are full of specific information about the subject written by AV specialists and they are, at the very least, just as valid as ZDnet article written by journalists from a Symantec press release. And they are just as valid as the self proclaimed "unbiased comparison site". The issue I would like to remain on task with is this..."Assuming both sites have relevant information; should one link be allowed to one commercial site and all others banned?" Now, if the folks in this discussion would like to discuss this I am all ears. Respectfully, Trotline 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Again adjusted indentation for readability)

You say "...Due to that it appears the folks restoring the links have a financial interest in the links" – this is particularly absurd coming from an editor with a flaming WP:COI problem that he doesn't want to address. I too am okay with the ZDnet link being removed, let's leave it out; my objection is to your original removal of it based on the reasoning "if I can't have a link, nobody can have a link". --CliffC 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Rtvscan

Rtvscan is a short article that is unlikely to expand. Is anyone opposed to merging it into this page? DiggyG (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Oppose. This is an article about the company. That info should be merged to Norton Antivirus, which is about that product. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, new merge discussion is at the Norton AntiVirus talk page: Talk:Norton_AntiVirus#Merge_Rtvscan. DiggyG (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Financials

The current financial numbers are completely wrong. Someone should look up the numbers for FY2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.188.54 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Need for Accuracy and Objectivity

I'm going to fix the missing early history, there's a lot missing. I wrote some of the early third party software Symantec marketed through the Turner Hall Publishing Division. There is also a lot of missing details about how they mostly bought and rebranded products and did not actually develop all that much in-house.

Let's stop the noise about adding criticisms into the article this is supposed to be objective and factual and neutrality is paramount in any article. TW Burger (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Noise about criticism? Take a look at this gem: "The combination of VeriSign’s security products, services and recognition as the most trusted brand online and Symantec’s leading security solutions and widespread distribution will enable Symantec to deliver on its vision of a world where people have simple and secure access to their information from anywhere." -- what the hell is that? Here we have a somewhat sleazy company bought by the biggest snake-oil peddler of the whole IT, and that press release for dumber managers is somehow acceptable but valid criticism is not... KiloByte (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Central Point Software

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2DC1E3FF936A35757C0A962958260 should suffice as a cite (or if it doesn’t then CPS’s own page has a problem too l-) Ewx (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Someone should put on the main page that Symantec's security products are among some of the world's worst software. In General they: Slow down a computer system dramatically. Offer sub standard detection of threats. Are ludicrously easy to disable. Can not be cleanly removed because they believe they OWN your PC and can do whatever they want. Cost way more than they are worth. Lack general quality, as more money is spent on advertising, legal matters and developing anti-piracy systems than on actually developing the main purpose of the software itself. Should be avoided at all costs.

Norton works for me, and of course, here is not the place to share user opinions. TechOutsider (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider

I respectfully assert that discussion pages ARE the place to share user opinions. Of course, all of the above could probably be sourced from authoritative sources. FYI, the viability of Symantec seems to be in question with Microsoft's decision to make anti-malware software freely availeble, halfway through 2009. BFBbrown (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:TALKPAGE: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views nor should they be used as User pages." FYI. DP76764 (Talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See also part inside the text not encyclopedic style: I remove this part (too much detail, should go the SEP page): However like most software it`s update capability can become vulnerable if the disk space becomes too little. This is should be not a problem in business environment where good practice dictates maintaining at least free disk space at 25% or more of total disk(hard drive) capacity - 5 GB free to avoid trouble with Operating System. --Pascal.KOTTE (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticisim

Could someone add a "Criticisims" section to this article? Specifically, criticisims as to 1. Symantec's customer unfriendly and often very costly customer service. 2. "Norton" products are designed in such a way as to make it difficult for an average user to allow exceptions. 3. Norton Internet Security acts much like the malware it is supposed to detect and remove. It embeds itself into the registry of the PC and is not completely removed by its own uninstall program. The company was forced by lawsuits to offer a supplementary program to completely remove it. 4. Allegations that the 'Norton' family of products actively prevent silmutaneous use of a rival anti-virus software on a PC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you could cite a reputable source, then you can add that personally to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You could also add a a mention of the famous NETBULA vs. SYMANTEC case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In certain cases, Norton Security Scan has caused Blue Screen forcing people to reboot and lose important work. Any attempt to contact Symantec has failed. It is therefore considered malicious software, and its engineers people with no regards for ethics and law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.34.88 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1 & 2 are subjective -- citation needed. 3) See Adobe products (and almost all other antivirus programs). 4) I do not know of a single major antivirus that works with rival products (IE kaspersky, comodo, avg, nod32, all require competitors not to be installed (as the modifications they must make to sections of the computer are literally incompatible with the other products)) Re 84.202.34.88, that can be said about almost all other software. (It is difficult to point at a single piece of offending software). Please cite an example of their engineers being unethical or unlawful, I will personally add it to the article if your source is reliable. Wasteland Software (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Sections seems to be a single incident, portraying only one side of the argument (and I believe is better described as a specific incident rather than indicative of their entire record. Their own site seems to claim that they are trying to 'green up' http://www.symantec.com/about/profile/responsibility/ http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20090624_01 Wasteland Software (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

Some of the listed controversies are not controversies, and very few explain why they're controversies in the first place. The latest one, for example, re: layoffs. We're left to assume it's a controversy because someone else said it's a bad business decision? That hardly seems like a controversy. Jvincep (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Willful Censorship

I saw this in the edits that someone had undone. "February 2013 Censorship of humanitarian websites

It was discovered that Norton Symantec had unilaterally decided to block access to websites across the world dedicated to help combat problems faced by men and boys. With no supporting evidence these sites were declared 'hate sites'. Some of the sites helped men cope with domestic abuse they were suffering or boys struggling with family and educational problems. One site was engaged in helping soldiers overcome the effects of Post Traumatic Stress and adapt to civilian life. Because of Symantec's insensitive stance many human rights campaigners called for a boycott of all Norton products" I've heard they were being overzealous in their blocking but sounds like political censorship. Is there any more to this? Pleasetry (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How does this pertain to improving this article? Talk pages are not a forum for general Q&A discussion. You may also want to try Google if you want information about whatever that happening was. DP76764 (Talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusing sentence - what does it mean?

The article says that all employees "went on the road, training and selling dealer sales staff". They were selling sales staff? What does that mean? 86.159.197.174 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you say that name? I'm guessing either like "Simon-Tek" or like "Semantic". Any hints? --79.218.107.252 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its pronounced Se-man-tec. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDka7F7lOTE&feature=related at about 2:30 sec. --2.122.141.132 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Suh-man-tech is more accurate I believe. At least in American English. 198.6.33.13 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Symantec. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090328115712/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/company-activities-management/board-management/7109119-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/board-management/7109119-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100928194100/http://precise.com/news/press/2008-0816_performance.asp to http://www.precise.com/news/press/2008-0816_performance.asp

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated with the merger with Blue Coat and the New CEO

This article needs to be updated with the merger with Blue Coat (August 2016), which includes replacing Mike Brown with Blue Coat's CEO Greg Clark. Here is the Wiki on Blue Coat: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.192.194 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Google about to start rejecting Symantec EV certificates.

Google is officially reporting a huge hole in Symantec certificate issuance, and is about to make their Chrome browser reject many Symantic certificates. See [2]. John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2017

Symantec announced it's attention to acquire VeriSign Inc's identity and authentication business on May 19, 2010 for approximately $128 billion in cash. Source is available at:

https://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/other_resources/b-verisign_faq.pdf Kevinbbrown (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Already present in the article. -- Dane ^talk 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Symantec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323232514/http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/Oral_History/102657945.05.01-acc.pdf to http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/Oral_History/102657945.05.01-acc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121220015950/http://www.symantec.com/about/news/resources/press_kits/detail.jsp?pkid=enrique_salem to http://www.symantec.com/about/news/resources/press_kits/detail.jsp?pkid=enrique_salem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729015126/http://www.trustico.com/rebranding/verisign-to-norton-rebranding.php to http://www.trustico.com/rebranding/verisign-to-norton-rebranding.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Symantec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711162458/http://hendrenet.com/synex.htm to http://hendrenet.com/synex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Corrections / Misc.

I am affiliated with Symantec. I added about 20-30 press cites to the article[3] to address the "needs additional citations for verification" tag and in the process noticed several errors / issues I cannot correct myself under WP:COI.

• "all Sygate personal firewall products were discontinued by Symantec,[35] and now appear[original research?] to be part of Norton Personal Firewall." Sygate was discontinued because of overlap with Norton, not in order to become a part of it. (source)

• The Lead reads like it's saying Veritas was created as a Symantec spin-off in 2016 and the Mergers and acquisitions/Veritas section later in the article (last sentence) reads like Symantec currently offers Veritas-brand products. Veritas was founded in 1983, acquired by Symantec in 2004, and sold to Carlyle group in 2016.(source). No Veritas products are currently sold by Symantec.

• There are several places in the article where content has the overt appearance of personal opinion or trivial news unlikely to be vindicated by sources and more likely to justify trimming:

• "Soon after the merger, Eubanks and Raburn recruited Rod Turner into Symantec as its executive vice president for marketing . . ."
• "Because all team members were sharing in the suffering of reduced income"
• "The suit sparked renewed debate about the tactics used by some security software companies, which are similar to those used by crimeware.[citation needed]"
• The article would be very strongly improved by doing a quick CNTRL-F for "solutions" with an eye towards trimming.

CorporateM (Talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Good luck. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

Change "Security softwares" to "Security software" in infobox. Software is uncountable. 83.33.35.75 (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

Please, remove the following statement as there is no reference for it: Netcraft assesses Symantec (including subsidiaries) as the most-used certification authority. Dniften (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Nihlus 18:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested Edit

Current text (in the lead): "The company produces software for security, storage, backup and availability - and offers professional services to support its software."

Proposed text: “The company provides cybersecurity software and services”

Reason: Symantec no longer sells "storage, backup, and availability" products, due to its Veritas business being sold-off.

CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  21:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

There is a spelling error. You have the sentence:- "On January 4, 2018, Symentec and BT announced their partnership that provides new endpoint security protection."

I think it was meant to read:- "On January 4, 2018, Symantec and BT announced their partnership that provides new endpoint security protection." Jamescollett (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018: Change the number of employees

Change the number of employees to 12,518. The source of that information can be found here: https://www.symantec.com/content/dam/symantec/docs/reports/2017-corporate-responsibility-report-en.pdf 2607:F140:400:A016:C869:DFF6:A2A9:6227 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 06:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Internal Audit Content

Under the History/2000 to present section the page has the following content near the end:

In May 2018 Symantec released a press release saying: "The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has commenced an internal investigation in connection with concerns raised by a former employee regarding the Company's public disclosures including commentary on historical financial results, its reporting of certain Non-GAAP measures including those that could impact executive compensation programs, certain forward-looking statements, stock trading plans and retaliation. The Audit Committee has retained independent counsel and other advisors to assist it in its investigation. The Company has voluntarily contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission to advise it that an internal investigation is under way, and the Audit Committee intends to provide additional information to the SEC as the investigation proceeds." The stock lost about 1/3 of its value.

This relies primarily on Symantec's own press release and is a lot of detail on a recent news event for a page that summarizes the company's entire 35+ year history. Also, Wikipedia does not ordinarily cover the ups and downs of the stock market. I propose a more concise summary based on independent citations as a replacement:

In May 2018, Symantec initiated an internal audit to address concerns raised by a former employee, causing it to delay its annual earnings report. Details have not yet been disclosed.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 16-SEP-2018

  Edit request implemented  

1. I have swapped the prior text with this text only because the prior text was unreferenced. In the balance of things, this referenced text is preferable to the prior unreferenced text (which could have been removed simply for being unreferenced, without any replacement text).
2. It goes without saying that the level of detail of the prior text had nothing to do with it being removed, as that level is easily comparable to dozens of other minutely-detailed sections in the article.

Regards,  spintendo  15:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Certisign Certificadora Digital

At "Google and Symantec clash on website security checks" it quotes "Certisign Certificatadora Digital" from TechCrunch which in turn quotes an email with a typo. That email has a reference to Bugzilla with the correct name of the company, which is "Certisign Certificadora Digital". Please write the correct name in the article. 2804:214:810C:ED5:FDAF:E1C:62FA:645D (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

SurfEasy VPN aquired from Otello Corp (formerly Opera ASA)

Hello, Symantec owns the SurfEasy VPN Provider it has aquired from Otello Corp. (formerly Opera ASA). Could you please insert this into the article?

[[4]]

https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/438013

Regards --62.157.118.195 (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Broadcom will acquire the Symantec name, the rest of Symantec will be named Norton then. Sarah2 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable source(s) for any claims, and please make a precise request giving the exact text to change or add, and where, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 sale

In the sale of Symantec's Enterprise Security Assets to Broadcom, the business sold to Broadcom accounted for 50% of the company’s revenue. It's unclear what the 50% which wasn't sold does, what it's called or who owns it. Does it refer to the information management division (Veritas Technologies) which was split off in 2016, or some other continuing business which might deserve an article or at least a mention? Pinging UnitedStatesian. Certes (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Commonname

Eh. Since when do we immediately leap to rename an article when the official name of a subject changes? There is no indication that after, what, 2 days(?) "NortonLifeLock" has become the commonname for this subject. Surely WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME would suggest that we should retain the existing/commonname as the title. And only change it when/if common-use changes. (Personally I think the recent move here was a little bit premature...) Guliolopez (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's more than that. The Symantec name was sold, but Symantec still exists and is now a division of Broadcom. See https://www.symantec.com/theme/broadcom. Symantec and NortonLifeLock need to be two separate articles, which seems like it will be a lot of work to do right. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Immediate renames are actually very standard practice for Wikipedia articles on companies; in fact the very same day as this rename, the HCP, Inc. article was renamed (not by me) to the updated company's name, Healthpeak Properties, and there are many other examples. Point taken that the article separation needs to involve additional editing over the coming days, which I tried to start by having the Symantec article be a dab rather than just pointing here. NortonLifeLock immediately became the WP:COMMONNAME in many reliable-source contexts: you won't find Symantec on any stock exchange, stock market index, or in the SEC Edgar database. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As we've (quite reasonably) broadened this discussion from common name to what still exists, can anyone answer my question in the preceding section? I think that might help with article naming. Certes (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

change "headquartered in Mountain View, California" to "headquartered in Tempe, Arizona". 155.64.38.87 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sceptre (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Fast Track (company)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fast Track (company). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Update all the financial statements and employee figure in the infobox from the Annual Report 2020 source and don't forget to add the source. Thanks--103.102.116.123 (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Update figures in infobox of employees 3,659 (2020), revenue $2.49 billion (2020), Operating income $869 million (2020), Net income $576 million (2020), Total Assets $7.73 billion (2020) and Equity $10 million (2020). Update all these figure and added the above source.--202.78.236.95 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Update all the financial statements and employee figure in the infobox. Employees 3,659 (2020), revenue $2.49 billion (2020), Operating income $621 million (2020), Net income $578 million (2020), Total Assets $7.73 billion (2020) and Equity $10 million (2020). Add this Annual Report 2020 source. Thanks--202.78.236.33 (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: would you please take this request and make necessary changes.--103.102.116.225 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but please be more careful with your numbers in your edit request. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thanks for the update. Instead of mentioning "Fiscal 2020" in the infobox rather mention "2020" Check Microsoft. Secondly add "services" parameter and mention Computer security. Thanks--103.102.116.225 (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)