Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Holmes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 76: Line 76:
The opening sentence uses the term "fraudster" to characterize Elizabeth Holmes. While her actions do constitute her as such, it is still a juvenile and biased word to use. I would suggest just taking it out altogether and leaving "former businesswoman". The citation used for this statment references an NPR article that does not even use this term. I would argue that this reflects the author's personal bias rather than an empirical point of view. [[User:MrPygophilic|MrPygophilic]] ([[User talk:MrPygophilic|talk]]) 04:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The opening sentence uses the term "fraudster" to characterize Elizabeth Holmes. While her actions do constitute her as such, it is still a juvenile and biased word to use. I would suggest just taking it out altogether and leaving "former businesswoman". The citation used for this statment references an NPR article that does not even use this term. I would argue that this reflects the author's personal bias rather than an empirical point of view. [[User:MrPygophilic|MrPygophilic]] ([[User talk:MrPygophilic|talk]]) 04:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> -- <b>[[User:Dane|<span style="color:blue">Dane</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Dane|<b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk</b>]]</sup> </b> 04:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> -- <b>[[User:Dane|<span style="color:blue">Dane</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Dane|<b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk</b>]]</sup> </b> 04:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

:That logic makes no sense. She was convicted of fraud. That's not bias. She is, in fact, undeniably, objectively, a fraudster. It's not a juvenile and biased word. It's a word defined as "a person who commits fraud, especially in business dealings." That's Elizabet6h Holmes. End of story.


:Undone. Before seeing this I just removed "former businesswoman" because it's redundant information with defunct Theranos in the same sentence. I disagree about removal of fraudster but am open to wording changes ("convicted felon"), this is now a major part of her notability. She will forever be known by this, like [[Bernie Madoff]] (which says "fraudster"), it's a very high profile case. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
:Undone. Before seeing this I just removed "former businesswoman" because it's redundant information with defunct Theranos in the same sentence. I disagree about removal of fraudster but am open to wording changes ("convicted felon"), this is now a major part of her notability. She will forever be known by this, like [[Bernie Madoff]] (which says "fraudster"), it's a very high profile case. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:59, 29 August 2022

Template:Vital article


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Fun-house mirror article

This article is a mix written when she was flying high, and then later when she was brought low. It's a bit disjointed. It should be refactored top to bottom in light of current events - tone down the promotional-ism in the sources pre- October 2015. -- GreenC 05:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article was written in an overly promotional manner. Then the WSJ articles came and the tone changed suddenly. You can really see which parts were written when. The article needs a rewrite. Andrew327 00:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record a rewrite was done. -- GreenC 03:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A rather poor one all things considered. The Section that lists those who supposedly helped her.. Lists Henry Kissinger. And links to His wiki page. Just want to point out the fact that Kissinger died well before Holmes was even born. So its rather hard for him to have supported her. Now mind you It might be someone else with that name. But it links to a Dead man. So..Someone has no clue about history or even bothered to look at who they linked. Shoddy work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.244.201 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Henry Kissinger is still very much alive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, it a Wikipedia article only lists a birth date, the person is still alive. Kissinger was indeed a board member and investor in Theranos. While his own investment of $6M was relatively small compared to others, his personal connections (mostly through his lawyer) steered several hundred million into the company. KaturianKaturian 14:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Um... what? Kissinger is still alive today, and he DID in fact help her.68.196.162.105 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani birth/Indian nationality

I'm not sure why this page needs to have the birth country listed of Elizabeth Holmes former lover and colleague? He obviously identifies as Indian and talks to his history in India. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/theranos-remarkable-blood-test-claims-began-unravel/story?id=61173853 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.142.52 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didnt see this comment before I just edited it out. You are absolutely right. Leonotopodium (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur? How so?

Not entrepreneur at all. Seriously, there was never any validity/legitimacy. She is a confidence/trickster artist. She fits the later definition entirely and not the former at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C54:4400:C76:3C53:47FD:8DE:2A48 (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Entrepreneur" is wrong "con woman" is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.45.12.194 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She fits every definition of entrepreneur and is the appropriate term for the founder of a large startup. She has been charged but not found guilty of a crime, the rush to smear her on Wikipedia needs to be tempered with the facts as they exist today and not turn this into a smear page based on the public opinion. See WP:BLP. -- GreenC 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If she is found innocent, and the company is found to be a business we can add it back. It seems presumptuous at the moment to call her an entrepreneur. Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is presumptive to not call her that because so many sources use that exact word. She might arguably not be one if she was found to be running a criminal syndicate instead of a company. But even then, criminals have been called entrepreneurial. -- GreenC 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many sources say she is. That's allj. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that people lose all ability to reason when they see a somewhat pretty girl.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.151.135 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Elizabeth Holmes, not a "pretty girl." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Entrepreneur" doesn't mean you were successful at it or did it within all the bounds of the law. It just means you ran a business. A drug dealer is also an "entrepreneur." [1] Bernie Madoff was an "entrepreneur." [2] Are we to say that Madoff was because he was better at faking legitimacy for longer?— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Madoff was never an entrepreneur, and neither is a drug dealer. I swear, some of the commenters here sound like they must be from Elizabeth Holmes' defense team. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:E4E8:33E6:5F18:8414 (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The word "entrepreneur" does not appear anywhere in Bernie Madoff's article. The opening sentence refers to him as nothing more than a fraudster and financier who ran the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Now that Holmes's business has been found to be fraudulent, this article should likely refer to her in similar terms. 72.79.117.169 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was unambiguously an entrepreneur, there are countless sources that say so. The fraud trial was for Holmes personally, not the business. She was found innocent of defrauding patients. In fact more charges she was found innocent or a hung jury, than guilty. The trial had nothing to do with establishing her status as entrepreneur, legal trials are very specific in their aims. This is a BLP, trying to strip her of accomplishments post-fact is not good. -- GreenC 15:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The post to which I replied used an argument that criminals like Bernie Madoff were also "entrepreneurs." But Bernie Madoff is NOT listed as an entrepreneur in his article even once. He's labeled as a fraudster and a financier. Holmes AND her business were found not to be delivering a real product of their own, there is no "accomplishment" besides raising money and placing machines that didn't do what she claimed. She should thus be labeled similarly as Madoff, since he was the example. EGarrett01 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bernie Madoff was an entrepreneur; Pablo Escobar was an entrepreneur; etc. But it would never occur to anyone to describe these MEN with such a word. This is feminist nonsense, pure and simple. If it had been Bernadette Madoff or Paolita Escobar, then people would insist on using words with more positive connotations like "entrepreneur." 24.46.151.135 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I come to this page now and then to laugh at what a joke Wikipedia has become. I just changed the Wikipedia entry on Charles Ponzi to say that he was an "entrepreneur." Let's see how long that lasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.151.135 (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Let's see how long that lasts," the answer is 5 hours and 45 minutes, as I just reverted it since it appears unsourced and WP:POINTy. Please do not edit articles on Wikipedia just to try to make a WP:POINT in arguments with other editors. You seem to have added "entrepreneur" to the Ponzi article only to create an absurdity in Wikipedia article content in order to support your argument that the word should not be included in this article. Please keep the discussion on the talk pages, not in the article content. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Re "Let's see how long that lasts," the answer is 5 hours and 45 minutes"
Exactly, because Charles Ponzi was a man. If it had been a cute blond girl named Charleen Ponzi, people would be fine with calling her an "entrepreneur." Thank you for proving my point. 24.46.151.135 (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being such a sexist? The fact that she's a woman is not the point.

Fraudster

The opening sentence uses the term "fraudster" to characterize Elizabeth Holmes. While her actions do constitute her as such, it is still a juvenile and biased word to use. I would suggest just taking it out altogether and leaving "former businesswoman". The citation used for this statment references an NPR article that does not even use this term. I would argue that this reflects the author's personal bias rather than an empirical point of view. MrPygophilic (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Dane talk 04:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That logic makes no sense. She was convicted of fraud. That's not bias. She is, in fact, undeniably, objectively, a fraudster. It's not a juvenile and biased word. It's a word defined as "a person who commits fraud, especially in business dealings." That's Elizabet6h Holmes. End of story.
Undone. Before seeing this I just removed "former businesswoman" because it's redundant information with defunct Theranos in the same sentence. I disagree about removal of fraudster but am open to wording changes ("convicted felon"), this is now a major part of her notability. She will forever be known by this, like Bernie Madoff (which says "fraudster"), it's a very high profile case. -- GreenC 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MrPygophilic, she was convicted of four counts of fraud. Is there a better word to use for someone convicted of fraud than "fraudster"? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We use fraudster on Wikipedia see List of fraudsters. -- GreenC 04:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, Fraudster is not necessarily an incorrect term to use. However, it does carry a tone of sensationalism and may reflect an author's bias, especially in the opening sentence. I would again point to the references used to back this: NPR does not use the term and the fact that fraudster is used for Bernie Madhoff does not justify its use here nor there. It reflects the tone of a news article rather than an encyclopedia entry. I would agree that convicted felon is appropriate. Why not just state the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion? Using terminology that is biased weakens the credibility of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPygophilic (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MrPygophilic, please don't reopen requests while discussion is in progress. Edit requests are for changes after reaching consensus. Hemantha (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's used nearly 1,000 times not just Madhoff (some of those are not in-wiki text). Wikipedia calls people fraudsters because Wikipedia follows NPOV and BLP guidelines, it can only do so if they are convicted of fraud, the term is accurate when used on Wikipedia. "An author's bias": I am the author I am not biased as my long history in this talk page and article demonstrate. The problem with "felon", so is murder, human trafficking, etc.. this was white collar crime. Maybe it could say "white collar criminal"? But it's less precise. -- GreenC 06:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "is an American former businesswoman found guilty of fraud in 2022" .. see how that goes. -- GreenC 07:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I processed this edit request (and I agreed with it), I don't hold a strong opinion about this. I do think the word "fraudster" just sounds weird the way it was written and I do like and support GreenC's change. -- Dane talk 07:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it's just been changed back. I don't care all that much, but I do think we should arrive at a consensus instead of changing it every day or two. Maybe an rfc? GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page discussions are consensus, and quite a few people have voiced concern with "fraudster" thus far, leading me to believe any higher level formal consensus discussion would lead that way as well. Further, "fraudster" can mean civil or criminal fraud so it's imprecise; and the argument of concision is I think weaker vs. concerns of tone. For those reasons I am setting it back and will leave to anyone who wants to use fraudster to gain better consensus for it. -- GreenC 14:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say that using only the term “fraudster” falls way short to describe this person, and other terms like liar, insidious and manipulating can perfectly be applied. Pazvilre (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voice

Deleted sentence.

In response to claims about the frequncy of Elizabeth Holmes voice a reference/citation linking to this article - https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.593 - claims that "women in STEM fields commonly modify their voices and bodies to gain acceptance"...

Whilst that assertion might be true - women may well modify the way they present to those they interact with - it is not accurate... everyone tries to 'fit in' in with their social circles - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brainstorm/201607/we-all-want-fit-in . Moreover and more to the point being discussed, the cited article does not make any claim about modification of a vocal frequency, referencing observations of modification only in the choice of words... using assertive/definitve language instead of uncertain terms... e.g replacing 'might be' with 'is', or in the volume of the voice, loud vs soft. Storris (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, for slightly different reasons, per WP:SYNTH. You should also have removed the source citation. BarrelProof has taken care of that for you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"she spoke in a deep baritone voice" - no she didn't. Deep baritone is approaching James Earl Jones. Even her "low voice" is obviously something in the alto range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.51.97.23 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but Business Insider does say "baritone". The other two sources, for her family denying it's fake, don't use the word "baritone" and I have changed that. (Having now listened to some baritones, I'm not so sure she isn't one.) GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Former businesswoman"

Bernie Madoff's page has a first sentence saying he's a fraudster. How does Elizabeth Holmes merit "former businesswoman?" Also, keep in mind that if she chooses to monetize her story, she may still be considered a businesswoman. Bigtrick (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search this page for "fraudster" which some editors don't like. She is currently former unless you are aware of her being current. The first sentence says "a former businesswoman convicted of fraud and conspiracy". -- GreenC 22:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Sam law of California means she cannot "monetize her story". Lamona (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Married?

It appears there is some uncertainty about her marriage. I'm changing him to partner as we can't have half truths on here. I've had so many things that are true and verified on here removed due to people not liking them so I'm changing this as it's not certain Sirhissofloxley (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this above. It says "indeterminate marriage status" so we are covering all bases here. Removing it entirely from the infobox is going too far that she is not married. -- GreenC 23:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd support moving her spouse to the partner template as reliable sources don't agree on whether they are legally married. cookie monster 755 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish

Can someone verify that Carreyrou p. 9–10 says "Christian Holmes is of Danish and distant Hungarian-Jewish ancestry. ... Charles Louis Fleischmann was a Hungarian Jewish immigrant"? Google books has a limited preview, and I don't see anything in there about either one having Jewish ancestry. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the ebook. It says Christian Holmes was Danish. And Charles Louis Fleischmann was Hungarian. That's it, nothing about Hungarian-Jewish ancestry. Possibly it's true and can be verified in another source, but, even if true "distant" make it seem non-noteworthy. To be clear, Christian Holmes was the Danish physician of Charles Louis Fleischmann's wife. The way it's worded makes it sound like Christian Holmes is of Hungarian ancestry, which is not what the source says. -- GreenC 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Charles Louis Fleischmann says he "was the son of Alois (or Abraham) Fleischmann, a Jewish distiller". Hmm... so I guess he was a Hungarian Jewish immigrant. -- GreenC 22:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he was, I just don't think we should say that in this article without a source. If someone wants to put that in, with a source, I won't object. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

Change Stanford education to whatever highschool. She dropped out so her education should reflect that 24.13.169.19 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Just because she dropped out doesn't mean its not notable Terasail[✉️] 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall

In the "Downfall" section, please change:

"In October 2015, despite Boies's legal threats and strong-arm tactics, Carreyrou published a "bombshell article""

to

"In October 2015, despite Boies's legal threats and strong-arm tactics, The Wall Street Journal published Carreyrou's "bombshell article""

Reason for request: The journalist is not the publisher

Thanks--76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Holmes&oldid=1107266969"