Talk:Neo4j

Are the listings of board members (for instance who the CTO of neo is) really that crucial to a page about Neo4j? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.15.214 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think not - doesn't really meet the relevance criteria. The page is mainly about the Neo4j-the-database, not about Neo4j Inc. (the company).

I have removed the list of board members. Ekborg (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does this page link to Orly, the place in France? I can't find any relation 97.107.132.202 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article mention the lawsuits around Neo4j and their outcome?

Here is one source, a court decision: Gnuish (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I added some text and citations to the article about the PureThink lawsuit. Gnuish (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Why have you added it under the "Criticisms" section? Is Neo4j winning a court-case a criticism? Surely it's the opposite of a criticism! Fig (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

GNU License confusion

The Free Software Foundation is in a lawsuit against Neo4j concerning the incorrect application of the GPL (license): https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-submits-amicus-brief-in-neo4j-v-suhy That should be noted in the article, otherwise it gives readers the false implication that Neo4j is truly fully under the copy-left license (which it isn't). 47.221.130.125 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems like newer releases are licensed under the GPLv3 with no Commons Clause interpolation, not the AGPL. I couldn't find when this decision was made. ~2026-59722-7 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to review and possibly remove COI maintenance template

I would like to ask uninvolved editors to review whether the COI maintenance template on the Neo4j article is still necessary.

I work professionally on software development projects that use databases, including Neo4j. Therefore, I understand that my edits to this article may be seen as a potential conflict of interest. However, I have not been paid, asked, or directed by Neo4j Inc. or anyone else to edit this Wikipedia article. Any edits I have made were made on my own initiative.

I have also made similar factual maintenance edits to articles about other graph databases, not only Neo4j. These edits have generally been limited to routine factual updates that any editor could verify and make in the same way from public sources, such as release dates, version information, and other basic factual details. They did not involve adding interpretation, evaluation, or promotional language.

Because I wanted to avoid any appearance of promotional editing, I have not tried to rewrite the article body, add promotional claims, or influence the article’s interpretation of Neo4j.

Could an uninvolved editor please review the article history, the current article text, and any relevant talk page discussion, and decide whether the COI maintenance template should remain, be updated, or be removed?

Thank you. Koji Annoura (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)