Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Elizabeth Holmes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
NPOV dispute
The whole section with "Holmes doesn't own a TV and states she works every day from the time she wakes up until she goes to sleep." feels out of place in a biographical article. Many people make claims like this about themselves, and though it does illustrate some part of her personality, I think highlighting it in this way destroys the neutrality of the post.
To improve the article I would suggest removing or rewriting that paragraph in the main header.
50.78.98.70 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Habryka
- Moved that paragraph to a new section, "Personal life", which should resolve WP:NPOV, but it still needs work. ozhu (talk·contribs) 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Since all "facts" stated in that section are totally irrelevant, it does not matter what the section is called, but should be removed completely.--178.2.23.3 (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with this. Things like "she works every day from the time she wakes up until she goes to sleep" and "what matters is how well we do in trying to make people's lives better" sound like PR puff -- every other 'successful' person claims to do this. Not really encyclopedic. utcursch | talk 23:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this position as well. It is out of place and has no place in this article. This is supposed to be a neutral article not a advertisment for the out of context integrity of a Standford dropout. Her company is being investigated by the FDA for massive fraud.
Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the entire section. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to discuss. utcursch | talk 17:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that as of November 2015 Theranos is only using its touted technology on 1 test out of the 200 claimed. So the text about "offering 200 tests" is entirely false. Since finger-prick testing is the reason-for-being of Theranos, the above fact brings into question the very relevance of Ms Holmes' company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.217.112 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they offer 199 tests that do not use their touted technology + 1 test that does, the claim of offering 200 tests is not false. I don't mind this bit being removed from the intro though: this article is about the person, not the company. I've added that the company is now using its proprietary technology only in 1 of its tests. utcursch | talk 18:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
As of November 2016, it would appear that this article is undergoing a significant re-write/deletion where NPOV is not being followed. References to Ms. Holmes' personal involvement in the company controversy, the FBI's investigation of Ms. Holmes, lawsuits where she is named, etc. are all being systematically deleted. Some edits are traceable to an IP addresses in Palo Alto, Calif., where the company is based. Company marketing language has been re-inserted into her biography. Lslong427 (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)