Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, many sources say she is. That's allj. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Why are you being such a sexist? The fact that she's a woman is not the point.

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)

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)

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

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)

Uh, Henry Kissinger is still very much alive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

I'd say 69.111.244.201 has to be a troll. There's only one thing in that person's posting history, and it's this nonsense about Kissinger. 68.196.162.105 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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