Talk:Brad Garlinghouse

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brad Garlinghouse. 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/20100808193947/http://corp.aol.com:80/2010/05/12/brad-garlinghouse2 to http://corp.aol.com/2010/05/12/brad-garlinghouse2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Controversies"
Removing the controversies about which Garlinghouse is at best tangentially related, are not notable, or both, was a Good-Faith edit. The Aug 1 rollback is without explanation despite Wikipedia policy requiring rollback to be explained: "Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work." Consensus Crypto makes enough controversies already -- no need to manufacture more. 73.252.202.140 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Garlinghouse was clearly involved in all of said controversies. You may wish to review General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the referenced General Sanctions link above. Regarding SWIFT, I don't dispute that Garlinghouse was involved. However, this isn't a controversy about Garlinghouse, but about SWIFT.  Regarding the second, again, this is a controversy about Ripple Labs, not Garlinghouse.  Surely it isn't Wikipedia policy to include in all bios a reference to any litigation in which the person tangentially named.  Finally, regarding the sale of XRP to fund operations, this isn't explained as controversial.  None of these are NPOV and all were submitted by a user whose only edits have been non-NPOV against Ripple Labs and Garlinghouse.  73.252.202.140 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest stopping whitewashing the article - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please Assume Good Faith as I understand is Wikipedia Policy. Please provide explanations for rollbacks, as I also understand is Wikipedia Policy.  I have presented my arguments for my edits. Your response is to refer me to General Sanctions, about which this article is not listed.  I elaborate on my explanation for my edits. Your response is "I suggest stopping whitewashing the article" This sort of non-response and dismissiveness discourages participation in Wikipedia.  I'm happy to work collaboratively with you to settle this dispute. Please let me know if you are open to find consensus. 73.252.202.140 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest stopping whitewashing the article - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I rolled back the change made by Pizzamyheart because it used a poor quality source and additional wording gave the impression that 6% claim was credible when it has been comprehensively refuted.. The KPMG Sweden blog simply stated "the official error rate reported by SWIFT is 6% of all executed payments" without providing any reference. The LSE article provides the exact paper that that Ripple claimed was the source for 6% error rate claim, which was refuted by the author. The LSE article even mentions the KPMG blog as an example of poor quality evidence. "What is more disturbing is that announcements made by Ripple are repeated and often exaggerated by numerous supporters of Ripple and XRP on social media. Even KPMG, the major audit and consulting firm, repeated the six per cent claim." BSVeritisium (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the heading itself while leaving the text. "Controversies" headings inherently fail NPOV. The subheadings aren't necessary for such a short article anyway. ♟♙ (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

stop whitewashing the article
NPOV means we present facts from reliable sources without undue weight; it doesn't mean "avoid any embarrassing facts". Anything that concerns Ripple during his tenure there is relevant to his article. I wouldn't be surprised if these anonymous reversions were being made by the man himself. (Heroeswithmetaphors)  talk  22:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Two different birthday dates
Garlinghouse's birthday is mentioned three times for some reason. Once as Feb 4, 1971 and twice as Feb 6 the same year. 73.189.160.157 (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving insufficiently cited content to talk page for discussion
I have moved the following content from the article because it is cited solely to primary sources, and a secondary source is required to demonstrate encyclopedic noteworthiness for a subject being named in litigation.


 * Garlinghouse has been personally named in a group of class actions, notably Zakinov v. Ripple Labs Inc. (case number 18-6753), running since 2018 that claim Garlinghouse and his employers, Ripple Labs Inc. have been in breach of various California and Federal securities laws. He was also a party to Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement LLC v. Ripple Labs Inc., which was administratively closed with reference to case 18-6753 previously mentioned.

Cheers! BD2412 T 23:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)  BD2412  T 23:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)