Talk:Lenovo

Is Lenovo Chinese or American (or both)

There has recently been some edit conflicts about whether Lenovo is Chinese or American (or "Chinese/American"). I lean towards it being Chinese because the main argument for Lenovo being American is that it has an "operational headquarters" in NC (there is also one in Beijing, and the main HQ is in Hong Kong). The company originated in China, is managed mostly by Chinese citizens, and is traded on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Also, see all the sources cited in the article which call it a Chinese company. Lenovo doesn't become American because it bought the Thinkpad from IBM and has a base in Morrisville. Amazon has a European HQ in Luxembourg and it bought British-created IMDb, does that make it European? 2600:1004:B096:6C3:9782:FC35:7AA1:8D25 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B096:6C3:9782:FC35:7AA1:8D25 American definitely 2001:BC8:1E00:8415:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI the edit warring is likely due to the activity of the "Linde PLC vandal".

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Linde_plc_vandal CameronNemo (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone seems to take great care to keep that claim here. I've checked this page in other languages and most say it's Chinese... 77.118.229.80 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Is a trial testimony excerpt an appropriate source?

This trial testimony transcript says, at page 71, lines 5-13:

Q Anything else going on during 2008 with other technology

that was found to be counterfeit being used by the military in Iraq?

A The primary thing that was found was Lenovo laptops. IBM Think Pads were outsourced to a company in China called Lenovo to be built. A large amount of Lenovo laptops were sold to the US military that had a chip encrypted on the motherboard that would record all the data that was being inputted into that

laptop and send it back to China.

So that reference is definitely relevant, and shouldn't (IMO) have been removed just because it's tangential to what the court case is about. But there may be other reasons not to readd it (as a properly marked-up reference this time). Opinions? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing Product Section

I know "original research" is forbidden or I'd fix this article myself. It's missing a Lenovo Tablet section. I came here to learn about the "Lenovo Tab P12", but I guess it isn't "significant"?172.113.33.43 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

mot click wifi icon 117.96.16.148 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Request Update to Russia/Ukraine Section

Hi. My name is Stuart and I work for Lenovo. The current page has a section called "Response to 2022 sanctions against Russia". The Wall Street Journal published an article elaborating on Lenovo ceasing operations in the country. I wanted to ask that someone incorporate the WSJ article and prepared a draft addition (see highlighted):

During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Lenovo reportedly suspended shipping to Russia on or before February 25, 2022 and, although it didn't confirm the suspension, faced a domestic backlash from Internet users in China. The Wall Street Journal also reported that Lenovo stopped all shipments to Russia, though they did not announce it publicly.

Also, I wanted to ask if it was appropriate to have a dedicated section on Ukraine. Wikipedia's Manual of Style discourages short sections and WP:CRITS discourages dedicated sections for individual controversies. Lenovo was not substantially involved in the war and its response to it was not anything unusual. I think it would be better placed near the end of the History section. @PauAmma: StuartGill (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

StuartGill (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Re your suggested addition: it seems to me it doesn't say anything the existing text doesn't already say, so I'd just add the WSJ ref to the existing text.

Re your question about a dedicated Ukraine section, I have no opinion. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Update to U.S. Marine Network Security Breach section

The bottom of the page has a section called "U.S. Marine Network Security Breach" that alleges Lenovo secretly installed spy chips on U.S. military equipment for China. The section is cited to this Bloomberg story. However, NPOV requires summarizing major viewpoints with due weight. Therefore, I think the section should also include this Gizmodo story criticizing Bloomberg's investigation.

The Gizmodo article says the Bloomberg investigation is "widely disputed" and "drew widespread criticism from other journalists and commentators...It’s a wild report and was summarily panned as questionable, at best." Specifically, "The primary complaint is that it lacks hard evidence and is instead based largely on anonymous sources whose claims cannot be fact-checked by third parties — a common complaint against reports based on unnamed sources..."

Pursuant to WP:COI, I'm requesting an impartial editor consider my request to balance the section with the Gizmodo story. I can put together a draft couple sentences upon request. Best regards. StuartGill (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

[Note: StuartGill pinged me on my talk page to take a look at this; I don't know why me in particular and I don't usually respond to direct requests to jump a queue but actually following the COI rules shouldn't result in having the request sit silently for half a year.]

Hi, I agree the Gizmodo article strongly disagrees with the Bloomberg report, but a quick google isn't giving me any other sources disputing it, and plenty agreeing. Could you point me at some other sources making similar arguments? I'm reluctant to highlight too strongly the argument of one source among many uncritically reporting the Bloomberg story, though I agree the section could use some balance in that direction. Rusalkii (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)