Given that this section has already been removed and reinstated once, I am going to try to explain my problems with this section.
It is composed entirely of unsupported and/or subjective claims, from the first sentence to the last. The first sentence states that this phone is "one of the most controversial Nokia phones" without any support. The next statement then introduces a list of "common" problems, without any indication what is meant by "common". How many posts in the support forums make a problem "common" as opposed to "rare"? Is there any official or expert confirmation that a particular problem is "common"?
The list of problems is a vague list of anecdotal problems, and as with everything else in this section, unsupported by any citations.
After the list of problems, it is then claimed that "most" of them "should be fixed" in the first update. What does "should be fixed" mean? That there is a high probability that they will be fixed? That Nokia should fix them because their customers are very angry? To paraphrase a certain old Jedi: an update either fixes a problem or it doesn't, there is no "should". Which problems are going to be fixed, and how can we be sure that that constitutes "most" of them? Where are the citations to support any of this?
The last sentence is wholly speculation and it even declares itself as speculative.
Generally speaking, information of this sort should not be included in an encyclopedia until it is well-established fact, which for consumer products, tends to require at least a few years of consumer experience, not a few months which is how long this product has been available. Additionally, given the amount of press (and hence, general attention) these issues have received (which is little or none), it hardly merits its own section called "controversy". Merely known issues with an insufficiently tested product.
I'm the same person who wrote the previous post and who removed the section recently. I notice that the section has been reinstated again, with an additional comment possibly insinuating that Nokia was responsible for its recent removal. I just want to clarify that I do not work for Nokia and I do wish they'd fix all these issues because it's stopping me from buying this phone, which I've been waiting for since it was announced. None of this changes the fact that the Controversy section in its current form does not belong on Wikipedia (IMO), and my above arguments still stand. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a soapbox or backup repository for support issues. If this is what is desired, either make a new website, or find an existing website devoted to this purpose. I'm not going to bother trying to remove this section again, as I'm sure it will become irrelevant as the issues are either addressed or the product becomes obsolete. (I also apologize if my posts sound arrogant in any way. I'm trying to be objective.)
I would support the opinion of the previous poster. I am amused that products are listed in Wikipedia but I am not to argue about that. The section about the problems is meaningless. Actually I had bought the unit in November 2009 before I read about some of the problems in some user forums. I could not imagine that Nokia would not have been addressed publicly in various newspapers if the claims hold true. I would be able to state, that in my version with my firmware none of the problems occur and that I am very happy with it. My E75 that I had before got destroyed by a person who thought that it had a touchscreen. I am not an employee of Nokia and I was especially annoyed when they closed a factory in Germany. But the product itself is ok. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)