This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
I am not sure I agree that this is non-neutral, though I suppose it could be seen that way. I chose the word because I needed to describe someone who thinks that changes should not have been made. I understand the issue that is raised but can't think of a better word at the moment. Alternate edits invited. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should use no adjective at all, and just describe what he did. --damiens.rf 12:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If you can find a wording that you like and that doesn't enrage someone else, I personally have no objection. Just can't seem to generate an alternate myself. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I agree that the reference is an example of the law being cited and does not, if you want to be picky, back up that it is *often* cited. However, the law is very much "in reference provided." Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
While this article covers some professional info, it lacks pertinent information about the Eric the man. His publicly stated views from 2001 to present day have caused controversy and have been extremely important in defining how he is viewed in the real world. I think to leave out such important details makes the article incomplete and borders on Whitewash_(censorship). Exohuman (talk)
The information on Nedanet and Raymond's involvement in it is false and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, IMO. It's a made-up self-promotional material. First of all he didn't "help found" anything. He only joined the team as a spokesperson [as he claims], but most importantly, this vague project never really existed outside of a static website (which is a dead link for some time now). You can't find anything about this project from any credible third party sources.Omid.espero (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the hoax existed. Shouldn't the article mention that? This is part of what ESR really is. --damiens.rf 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should talk about it but a better source is needed to back the claim. The source you cite here is just an incidental mention. Do you have a better explanation? Blue Rasberry(talk) 17:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll have to do some research. I remember the hoax and the hype at the time, with some sites (Wikipedia included) just reverberating Eric's self-promotion. --damiens.rf 05:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Damiens.rf The problem here is just the sourcing. It only takes one good source to back a statement. The content just added and removed was mostly from self-published sources. Add something again, except this time omit those sources and have a citation for whatever you add. Blue Rasberry(talk) 14:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is too little mention of Raymonds philisophical and political conventions. Specifically that he is an anarchist, and libertarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason at all to think that his political views are at all notable? In my opinion the whole section on his politics should be deleted. Right now his own blog is being cited as support, which I think violates the guidelines on using primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If I read the rules correctly, none of these instances clearly violates the letter of WP:SELFPUB. However, I suspect it's a violation of the spirit of the guidelines to have an article of this size where 12 out of 23 sources cited were written and/or are controlled by the subject. Anyone else think we should condense this a bit?
I'm not suggesting we need to be drastic; just gently cut some of the blubber. Consider, for example, the sentence about "Linus' Law," a failed self-promotional neologism that has never had any uptake. If we cut just this one sentence, the number of WP:SELFPUB sources would drop from 12/23 to 11/22, i. e. to a mere 50%. Weirvile (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)