Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"con artist"

Per this diff removed.. calling her a con artist in the opening lead section with a cite to a single sensationalist source is a WP:BLP IMO. Such a statement is plainly derogatory. At best it would have to be attributed ie. "NBC called her a con artist because XYZ", and no way it would be in the lead section. That is "at best", however I do not believe it should be added at all at this point, any inclusion would need to show consensus. -- GreenC 21:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Further reading our article Con artist it involves fraud and she is not at this time guilty of fraud, only charged with it. The upcoming court case will determine if she engaged in fraud. Until then she is not a fraudster, con artist or anything like that. For Wikipedia purposes. -- GreenC 22:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous to GreenC's revert, I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elizabeth_Holmes. I strongly support GreenC's removal of this terminology. I believe this is a straight-forward violation of WP:BLP, but wanted another set of eyes on it. --Yamla (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why we would use the "con artist" contentious label in the opening sentence when we have never allowed this for Bernie Madoff, Bernard Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, or Kenneth Lay. Over the years I have seen all sorts of contentious labels thrown at Holmes in the lead, most notably "drop-out" that we would never allowed this for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Steve Wozniak. My opinionated conclusion is that some feel free to do so because Holmes is a woman.

I find Holmes's actions abhorrent & believe that she will be convicted of fraud, at which time we can add "and a convicted fraudster" to the lead sentence. Leave off of the contentious label opinions & wait for the conviction. Peaceray (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone - I'm the person that added the phrasing. I appreciate the efforts you are going to to keep Wikipedia "correct," as it were, but here we have a case where the world has accepted her status as a con artist so much that there is a documentary, a podcast, a tv series, and a movie (with Jennifer Lawrence as Elizabeth Holmes) coming out about this fairly sensational case. I think that we're on good footing here to go ahead and use a label, but I think all three of you are much more versed in the nuances of Wikipedia than I am; I've been fairly casual over the last fifteen years of being on here, so I'll defer to the majority consensus. Cheers all.

Oh, also, Peaceray, it isn't because she's a woman. Bigtrick (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

"The world has accepted her status" is not what those sources say. Further, the world does not have all the facts, those will come out during the court case when she has a chance to defend herself. It's still within the realm of possibility the court will find her innocent of the fraud charge. Imagine if she is found innocent and Wikipedia was calling her a fraudster in the mean time, causing an innocent person harm. -- GreenC 22:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bigtrick (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Commatitis

This article, suffers, from systemic commatitis. I'd fix it, but I'm afraid I'll work for an hour just to have it all reverted as a minor change. It's, bad. Real, bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.55.252 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

I edited out some references to a person's place of birth and religion. I felt that these were not relevant to the article, and were not presented for other individuals named in the article. Sorry for screwing up a good page. Leonotopodium (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. I see no reason why that information was relevant to the page and appreciate you removing it. --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I think you made the right decision. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Leonotopodium (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason for this is because there has been a lot of misinformation about his place of origin with many claiming he is from India. This resulted in a constant stream of editors changing his origin to India, here and in his main article. There are even many (wrong) sources that say he is from India. When you just say "Pakistani" this causes conflict because as everyone knows, Hindu's are not from Pakistan. Hinduism in Pakistan tells us only 1.8% of the pop of Pakistan is Hindi, it's a small minority and one that many people are not familiar with. It's confusing to many people, including sources. Otherwise, it opens the same can of worms and continual battles with misinformation and misunderstandings. This is why his origin is precisely stated, because it's unusual, a source of confusion and misinformation. -- GreenC 14:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also most sources when they refer to Balwani give his Pakistani (or incorrectly Indian) origin. It would be strange not to provide this information as is commonly done with recent immigrants to give the reader basic context who the person is. -- GreenC 14:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It may be appropriate for an article on Balwani (indeed, I'm sure it would be), but how is it relevant to Holmes? Also, I don't agree with calling him a "recent immigrant"; I can't immediately determine when he immigrated to the U.S. but he got a degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1986. --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean first generation. But yeah any article/source about Holmes that mentions Balwani will invariably mention his Pakistani origin. -- GreenC 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If the sources always mention it then it could be appropriate to include. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What relevance does his nationality, ethnicity, or religion have for her? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Because when you say someone is Pakistani you don't assume they are of Hindu ethnicity, the same way when you say someone us Russian you don't assume they are of German ethnicity (of which there are in Russia in a very small minority). As for relevance just about every source mentions it. -- GreenC 22:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

But why do we have to say that he's Pakistani on this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's notable, just about every source mentions it. -- GreenC 15:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources say lots of things. They are newspapers, we are not. How is Balwani's ethnicity relevant to Holmes? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Typically when someone is involved this deeply with someone - he was not just a boyfriend but also an alleged co-conspirator in a crime, and was the second most influential person in Theranos - some details about their background are more than trivia (NOTNEWS). -- GreenC 15:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Counter-examples

About this removal: the editor appears to have overlooked that these were counter-examples to avoid, inside a comment. But just my 2 cents. 84.147.37.56 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment space is a not BLP-free zone to call her names. In fact the names currently there should be removed. -- GreenC 16:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. -- GreenC 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Reportedly" married?

There was an edit and a revert a couple of days ago over whether Holmes is really married to Evans or not. I haven't studied the question carefully, but I do notice that both ABC News and CNN have recently referred to him as her "partner" rather than as her husband, which seems like an odd choice of words if they are indisputably married. (And AFAIK, marriages are a matter of public record, so they ought to know whether a marriage was recorded or not for someone who has been the subject of keen public interest.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it may be right. I looked around and while the majority of sources say they were married, they also say it was done in secret - though apparently not? There never was an official confirmation by the couple: "Elizabeth Holmes deflected questions about whether she was married". It is possible that had an unofficial (not legal) "marriage" to protect the husband's partner's large estate from creditors and law suits related to Elizabeth, yet to make a personal vow of commitment since they wanted a child - it's speculation but a reasonable motive. Until we know more it might make sense to say allegedly. -- GreenC 21:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the quoted "deflected" comment is not the actual title of that article. It is a quote from a (misleading) "key point" given at the top of the article as a summary. What is described in the article is not really deflection. She didn't sidestep the question or talk about something else. She simply stayed silent. It sounds like they just shouted the question at her as she walked by and she didn't answer it. In such a context, no answer should really be expected. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been modified again to remove "reportedly". This probably isn't worth a lengthy battle. However, FYI, California does allow "confidential marriages" [1] so absence of proof (as in finding an actual marriage license) is not proof of no marriage. Lamona (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted. The Business Insider source attributes their information to anonymous sources, and uses the word "reportedly". Cosmo also uses anonymous sources, and also uses both the Daily Mail and the New York Post as sources, which makes me think Cosmo is not RS for this information. I wouldn't be opposed to removing "reportedly" if we have a source that says for a fact they were married. But given the two sources we have, I think "reportedly" should stay. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

media in the lead

does the lead really needs that "Holmes's career, the rise and dissolution of her company, and the subsequent fallout are the subject of a book, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, by The Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou, and an HBO documentary feature film, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreateAccou4343nt555 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine anything more consequential in the life of Holmes than the book Bad Blood and the WSJ articles written by John Carreyrou the book is based on. The HBo doc maybe not. Keep in mind the lead section is a summary of the article, this part of the lead is summarizing the "In the media" section.-- GreenC 19:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph needs to move to Downfall section

The paragraph in Personal life starting "Before the March 2018 " is not about her personal life. It probably belongs toward the end of the Downfall section. Lamona (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Her net worth history ie. personal wealth, seems appropriate for her personal life. Granted her personal wealth was tied up in the companies fortunes, which were tied up in Holmes personally so it's all kind of gray. But I don't see a problem simply describing her net worth history in the personal life section. -- GreenC 19:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not crystal clear

I have to say this doesn't seem to make sense to anyone without specialist knowledge. Could someone rewrite it so it's crystal clear?

On May 16, 2017, approximately 99 percent of Theranos shareholders reached an agreement with the company to dismiss all current and potential litigation in exchange for shares of preferred stock. Holmes released a portion of her equity to offset any dilution of stock value to non-participating shareholders

Also, what exactly is 'boarded'? Not in my dictionary.

In December, 2021, Apple Studios boarded a feature film adaptation of John Carreyrou's book, starring Jennifer Lawrence and directed by Adam McKay.[142]

--86.156.70.7 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2022 (GMT)

Storyboard. Which is to say no real money has been plunked down yet to make the film it's in early development that may or may not result in a film. Sounds like the investors dropped the lawsuits in exchange for a payoff .. in shares. In hindsight not a great deal, but they had no choice as the company had no cash anyway. To give new stock they had to create new stock which would dilute shareholders so Holmes burned some of her stock to offset it. -- GreenC 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks but I think the term 'boarded' needs to be replaced in that sentence, perhaps '...Apple Studios made a storyboard of..etc'

Your explanation of the shareholder sentence makes more sense to me although I'm not sure what 'burned' means in this context. I think this sentence needs a rewrite, but I can't do it as I didn't understand it in the first place and it's still not crystal clear despite your gloss, for which thank you. 86.156.70.7 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2022 (GMT)

Can someone who knows about this clarify "boarded"? All I could think of was boarding house. I suggest we de-verb this noun and provide a link. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Storyboard is the only possible meaning in this context. -- GreenC 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree: 'boarded' isn't at all clear, and English is my native language. 86.156.70.7 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's Hollywood Reporter, a magazine for the movie making industry. There are more instances of "boarded" in that magazine (Google "boarded" site:hollywoodreporter.com). Storyboards are a basic element of making movies. Boarded is simply shorthand (it used to be 'story boarded' or 'story-boarded'). See "Storyboarding Apes" and search "boarded". Or "Storyboarding Like Satoshi Kon" search "boarded". Tons of sources like this where storyboard is equated with boarded. -- GreenC 03:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But it isn't standard English, and so it isn't clear. It doesn't matter if some specialist sources use the term, because in everyday English, to people who don't have this specialist knowledge, it just reads as nonsensical. I could, by way of illustration, on a much less trivial level than Hollywood, write the following: "a photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. Due to mass–energy equivalence, the Planck constant also relates mass to frequency." This is bog-standard physics but never mind how many publications or magazines it's in, it's technical and not accessible to non-specialists. And 'boarded' isn't either. 86.137.203.255 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. What exactly is your objection, and what do you suggest we do? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought my point was very clear: let's not put jargon into Wikipedia without crystal clear gloss or re-write. 86.137.203.255 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

They are probably unaware the word "boarded" does not exist in the article Elizabeth Holmes any longer. -- GreenC 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hurrah! 86.137.203.255 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm still keen to get the following sorted out into plain English, at the moment it seems like jargon: 'On May 16, 2017, approximately 99 percent of Theranos shareholders reached an agreement with the company to dismiss all current and potential litigation in exchange for shares of preferred stock. Holmes released a portion of her equity to offset any dilution of stock value to non-participating shareholders'. 86.137.203.210 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I could have a try but knowing the way that some mysterious hierarchy of officials on Wikipedia can get their knickers in a twist, I will wait to see what response I get here first LOL 86.137.203.210 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes please give it a try. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I can not correctly parse that either. I think we are missing some key info. It might require more research a better source. -- GreenC 22:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

We need a new source. There are two cited. CNBC is easy to understand, but it doesn't say what ended up happening, only what Holmes intended to do. Business Wire says what happened, but in a way that's incomprehensible to the general reader. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to bring to your attention the fact that, when a word ends in “s” and an English possessive must be applied, that is done by adding an apostrophe, and thus not a subsequent “s”. E.g. “Theranos’”, and not “Theranos’s”.

This should really be edited as it’s incorrect spelling.

Thank you. 2A02:A448:3063:1:B40A:278A:7F8:9472 (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:POSSESSIVE suggests rewording in case of singular nouns ending with 's', but doesn't specifically bar such usage. So perhaps it can be left as it is? Hemantha (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. MOS:POSSESSIVE says to use 's even for words ending in s. The exception is when it's :"difficult to pronounce", which is vague, but I don't actually think that's the case here though. It's funny though because I was taught to not add an s, but it seems to be a debated topic. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WSJ archive

Something funny is going on with the archive copy of this ref:

• Carreyou, John; Siconolfi, Michael; Weaver, Christopher (July 8, 2016). "U.S. Regulator Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes From Operating Labs for Two Years". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 8, 2016. Retrieved December 25, 2021.

The original has a different title "Theranos Dealt Sharp Blow as Elizabeth Holmes Is Banned From Operating Labs" from the archive "U.S. Regulator Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes From Operating Labs for Two Years". Also a different set of authors. And the text is different, at least in the first paragraph. The dates are the same. Maybe the story was updated by WSJ after the archive was taken. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi GA-RT-22: archive.today have both old and new pages in full for comparison: https://archive.today/https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-regulator-bans-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-from-operating-labs-for-two-years-1467956064 -- GreenC 19:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Fraud victims = investors, patients and physicians

I recall some early sources classifying the victims into three camps. Likewise the jury verdict found her guilty of fraud for investors (4 counts) and not guilty for patients (4 counts). But nothing about a verdict for physicians. Are they the three no verdict counts? If not, what were the three no verdict counts for? -- GreenC 19:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This source says the 3 counts were fraud against investors: Miles Cohen (January 5, 2022). "Juror speaks out after convicting Elizabeth Holmes". ABC News. Retrieved January 6, 2022. -- GreenC

Thanks! I found it earlier but forgot to update this thread. It's been updated in the article. -- GreenC 19:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I am having difficulty accessing some of the cited sources due to paywalling/anti-adblocker websites. The Wikipedia article currently says the alleged victims were "investors, doctors and patients" and that she was "found not guilty on four counts of defrauding doctors and patients". In what way was she alleged to have harmed doctors? It is pretty obvious how bad tests can harm patients, but what is the harm to doctors? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

All three sources quote FBI Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett: "This conspiracy misled doctors and patients about the reliability of medical tests that endangered health and lives." GA-RT-22 (talk)

Yes, but I thought that, for a legal case, it would be necessary show harm to the deceived party. How did being misled harm doctors? (Perhaps it is sufficient to show that there was misrepresentation motivated by financial gain, but I thought it was necessary to show that the misrepresentation caused harm to the person who was misled. Harm to a patient who receives inappropriate care or emotional distress as a result of a bad test is obvious, and harm to an investor who loses their money due to misrepresentation of investiment potential is also obvious, but the harm to a doctor is less obvious.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This and this are good sources. In the second, scroll to the list of PDFs, the first PDF (july 2020) has a list of the 12 indictments and what they are for (one was later dropped for 11 total). They are for investors and patients only, not doctors. Count one and two are not listed, those are the two conspiracy charges. I think we can remove doctors as outdated info. -- GreenC 22:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the article says that "Prosecutors [were not] allowed to argue that doctors and patients were fraud victims." That's a little hard to reconcile with "found not guilty on four counts of defrauding doctors and patients". Why would a jury need to issue a verdict about something that prosecutors were not allowed to argue had occurred? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what's happening here yet. Unless that means they were not allowed to group doctors and patients together, but were allowed to argue for patients only. -- GreenC 22:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove "doctors" from the June 2018 indictment? It's in there, but was dropped in one of the superceding indictments. All three of the cited sources say "doctors", as does the indictment itself: [2] GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-added. -- GreenC 02:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Regarding your cn tag for "Prosecutors would hence not be allowed to argue that doctors and patients were fraud victims" isn't that supported by the Reuters source? It says "The court ruled that since the tests were paid by their medical insurance companies the patients were not deprived of any money or property" and "there was no evidence to show that Holmes ... directed doctors to make misrepresentations to their patients". GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I notice two things about that statement that bother me. The first is that although that sentence seems like a plausible interpretation of what the source says, it is not exactly stated in that way in the source – to produce that statement, one must interpret multiple sentences in different paragraphs in the way you outlined. The second is that the sentence still seems impossible to reconcile with what is later stated in the description of verdicts, which now says "She was found not guilty on four counts of defrauding patients". If prosecutors were truly prohibited from arguing that patients were fraud victims because "the patients were not deprived of any money or property", then the jury would not have been asked to render a verdict on whether or not Holmes was guilty of doing that (i.e., "of defrauding patients"). I think we need additional sources to clarify exactly what the judge ruled about what accusation was prohibited. My current suspicion is that the Reuters source is not doing a very good job of describing the prohibition ruling precisely and that although Holmes could not be accused of making such misrepresentations using direct communication to doctors and patients, she continued to be accused of using an interstate wire communications medium (i.e., advertising, i.e. wire fraud) to make such a misrepresentation. I suspect that prosecutors were thus continued to be allowed to argue that doctors and patients were wire fraud victims, but not victims of non-wire fraud. I think that readers would consider wire fraud to be fraud, so I think the quoted sentence (and the current cited source) are not doing a good job of fully describing what kind of accusation was prohibited and what was continued to be allowed. I hope I have adequately described my concern. If my interpretation of the judge's ruling is not correct, I would like to know what the correct interpretation is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a better source that explains what happened.[3] -- GreenC 22:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you both. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing category

Wait, shouldn't the category "American people convicted of fraud" be added to her article? For some reason it is missing. 2A00:23C7:ED18:A300:A959:20BA:B03D:67CD (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Criminal charges section

This section is essentially the pre-trial period, dealing with trial matters. Propose:

1. Copy the entire content to the trial article, in a 'Pre-trial period' section
2. Delete the section from this article
3. Create a 1-paragraph summary, in the trial section of this article

It would reduce the length of this article. Much of the information is overly detailed for this article now the trial is over, and there is a separate article for the trial. -- GreenC 17:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

+1 Lamona (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

• Done. Fbergo (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity and voice edit

I'm a communication professor who studies gender, technology, and work. I added an edit in the section about Holmes voice and debates about its authenticity noting scientific research that shows that women commonly have to modify their voice, dress, and language to confirm to the expectations of technology and science subcultures in which being male is the norm. This edit was deleted last time I made it. I have added it back (a year or so later) and hope to have a meaningful discussion about it rather than just rejection without explanation. I'm not a fan of Holmes but the debates about her voice do not conform to basic understandings of sociology about how gender works in culture. Lirani (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022

I believe that the below section should be removed from the article. While I understand the sentiment behind it, the editorial nature of the comment degrades the article as a whole. It is an empathic statement, not one based in fact, and lends to the idea that Wikipedia is an amateur, untrustworthy source.

"Claims of authenticity and inauthenticity both ignore how gender is performed situationally and socially; women in STEM fields commonly modify their voices and bodies to better fit into a masculinist culture of science and technology." ManicKanye (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done I agree, this text is also very likely WP:UNDUE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for making this change. What about removing the whole paragraph about her voice? Business Insider and TMZ aren't exactly reliable although John Carryrou is. There's a lot of speculation, talk, and controversy about it, which is perhaps notable, but I question its value in this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That paragraph is absolutely WP:DUE for this article, as it's a topic which has been covered in many multiple reliable sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

 Done -- Dane ^talk 04:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dane

"...convicted by a jury of criminal fraud."

???? Michael__Louis__Simes__JD__MBA (talk) 06:08, 19 November 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 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. -- GreenC 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

We use fraudster on Wikipedia see List of fraudsters. -- GreenC 04:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Changed to "is an American former businesswoman found guilty of fraud in 2022" .. see how that goes. -- GreenC 07:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Entrepreneur? Businesswoman?

In what world are such terms applied to a person whosr entire 'working life' since dropping out of university consists of setting up and runninging a massive fraud operation? 185.65.27.236 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your confusing the criminal case, which has extremely narrow criteria and goals specific to US law code, with broader cultural views on the topic. -- GreenC 17:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Being a businesswoman doesn't mean you're a good businesswoman. The lady down the street who opens a bakery is a businesswoman/entrepreneur. The guys who started Enron are entrepreneurs/businessmen. Drug dealers are entrepreneurs. It has no moral, ethical, or legal connotation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case surely Bernice Madoff should be described as an investment genius rather than a ponzi operator? Holmes was never anything but a fraudster. Rustygecko (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

In the Recognition section, I would like to request that Holmes was listed on Bloomberg's 50 Most Influential in 2015. SnowPanda88 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the prefilled cite. -- GreenC 20:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Investor and executive Ellen Pao wrote in a New York Times opinion piece that Holmes was targeted for prosecution because of "sexism", and that her trial was a "wake-up call for sexism in tech."

Is this misrepresented or is this Pao person insane? Holmes perpetrated fraud on a 10^9 dollar scale. How does Pao see past that? Too many zeroes to comprehend? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:8C7A:B04B:5768:A65F (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. See WP:RSOPINION, we don't have to give consideration to this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with muboshgu. This is inherently UNDUE and not echoed by others. Shock value is not new to opinion pieces, and this is no different. As an encyclopedia, we are looking for enduring assessments by experts which echo significant viewpoints in the industry. This is likely none of those things. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Imprecise wording regarding potential flight to Mexico

The article currently says: "After her conviction, Holmes and her partner allegedly attempted to flee ..."

Is this a business partner or a romantic partner? Current use of the word "partner" in lieu of husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend often confuses matters, but particularly in this situation, when we are reading about a business-related crime. 71.65.167.152 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"fraudster" in the lead lead sentence?

I object to this initial labeling in the lead sentence of the lead. Not to suggest that Holmes did not commit fraud, but it is a distortion of what happened, and likely a distortion of who Holmes "is". I do not see that she set out to commit deliberate fraud in the manner of Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff. That has certainly not been established - my own opinion, worth nothing other than to suggest it is as good as any other thing - is that she was a weak character caught up in a whirlwind; she started with an idea, then grotesquely failed to put a stop to it and bail. I assume an element here is the infamous high-tech mantra "fake it 'til you make it". So to label her up front as a "fraudster" seems to me not only POV, but not correct either. If there was evidence she set out to commit fraud, or, indeed, if she had left a trail of other frauds, ok, "fraudster". But there isn't, so I object to this extreme characterization. This is also a biography of a living person (however odious), so care and caution is the approach. I also suggest wariness of the persistent threat of misogyny in articles such as this. Bdushaw (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I agree that some mention of "fraud" in the lead would be warranted. That's not the same as labeling a person a "fraudster". Bdushaw (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I have edited that opening sentence. Yes, the fraud must be discussed in the lead. It's what she's known for. But leading the article with "Elizabeth Holmes is a convicted American fraudster" is problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I reverted before I saw your comments here. I have no objections if anyone reverses my change. I don't object to "fraudster" but agree that some mention of "fraud" would perhaps be better. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be an improvement to mention the fraud more prominently in the opening paragraph and move the founding into the second paragraph. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be the first thing mentioned, but I agree with the anon IP that it should be in the first sentence. perhaps as they just edited, American former biotechnology entrepreneur and convicted fraudster.

I'm not sure the distinction between Madoff and Ponzi and Holmes is necessarily warranted as widely as everyone here seems to think. One might wonder, did Madoff set out to commit outright fraud from the beginning? Or did he get in over his head in trying to rob Peter to pay Paul? Certainly, from very early in Holmes' company's history, she began to commit fraud. As early as 2013, when Walgreens became involved. Or likely 2011, when she pitched George Shultz on her ideas. Per interviews in Carreyrou's book, Shultz was deceived from the beginning about the state of Holmes' technology.

As a further aside, we must ask ourselves, "what descriptors do our sources use to describe Holmes?" And as answered:

"fraudster"[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Most of these sources literally say "founder of Theranos and convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes".

Indeed, the very definition of the word "fraudster" is only: "person who commits fraud, especially in business dealings" per OED and "a person who engages in fraud" per Merriam Webster. I cannot find a single definition which incorporates intent, chronology, etc. Holmes is indisputably a person who committed fraud, and was convicted of it. In her business dealings.

Ergo, she is absolutely a fraudster, and as our sources say, we should describe her as such. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I still object to the word "fraudster". For one, it is an unencyclopedic, informal word. Your citations are well and good, but with all due respect, represent a degree of sensationalist journalism, Holmes being the "bad guy of the day." I searched my reliable sources Washington Post, NY Times, BBC and none seems to use the word. "Fraudster" implies a predatory aim to deceive and steal, but I don't see that exactly in the Holmes case. She started with an idea, at age 19, and sold that idea to quite a lot of high-placed, smart people; all capable of critically evaluating the idea. Then the whole thing took off, yet the product couldn't deliver and was badly misrepresented, there was deception, etc. The notion that at age 19 Holmes set out to deceive a bunch of people and make a lot of money off them by misrepresenting her idea seems far fetched; certainly not established - but that's what a "fraudster" implies - a predator who sets out to take advantage of people (like Ponzi and, yes, Madoff). From this BBC review, I would say the fundamental driving factor was more a psychological desire; not unlike perhaps the nature of S. Jobs, who Holmes emulated. But per the very nature of venture capitalism, at the get go there was uncertainty as to whether the idea would work or not, but one proceeds with optimism. I would prefer an initial statement something like "...a business entrepreneur who founded the blood-testing device company Theranos, but who was ultimately convicted of massive fraud for deceiving the public as to the utility of the device." We don't need the label, and I suspect if I were more proficient I could quote a chapter and verse of Wikipedia policy about that. We only need to just plainly state what happened. Bdushaw (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Fraudster is standard usage on Wikipedia. Many articles use it. It sounds like your seeing a softer version of Holmes' crimes, where she was simply doing what all people do in Silicon Valley and got a little ahead of herself, the difference being she got caught. Well, have you read Bad Blood which is entirely based in journalistic interviews with people who worked at Theranos? This company was a nightmare (IMO), not at all typical, it was Stalinistic in the massive cover-ups of crimes for years. Also, she was not convicted of "deceiving the public", she was convicted of fraud, the English word for someone convicted of fraud is a fraudster. -- GreenC 14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Over the past few months, I have contemplated the nature of disagreement. I parse the above arguments. The argument that "everyone is doing it" is a weak argument. Next is an ad hominem argument ("your seeing a softer version..."); a logical fallacy and not relevant. Her corporate behavior sounds not unlike working for Steve Jobs at Apple, but it is also not relevant. Next is a straw man argument (she was not convicted of "deceiving the public"...) and a misrepresentation of what I wrote just above. When I wrote, "something like", that was an invitation to anyone to write something more accurate, as they saw it (anyone care to write a better sentence?) Lastly, the definition of "fraudster" is repeated, also given a few times above, to which no one is objecting. Not to give GreenC a hard time (apologies to GreenC!), so much as to point out how easy it is to get off track - these sorts of arguments serve to distract attention from the main points, take up time, and gas light a little. Indeed, my argument that we don't and shouldn't use labels is ignored.

By making the statement "...is a fraudster" one is saying that the person was always a fraudster (I alluded to that above; we don't know that), is a fraudster now (ok, true), and will always be a fraudster (we don't know that). Suppose Holmes gets a degree in Economics while in prison and goes on to win a Nobel prize in Economics - how will we revise the label? Once a fraudster, ex-Fraudster, is no longer a fraudster? We don't know the future, as the label implies.

We can remove Holmes from the discussion, and contemplate the sentence "Donald Trump is a liar and a fraudster." There is ample evidence he is both (but let's not get off track with arguments over whether he is or isn't; let's assume these labels have been established.) Do we write this sentence in the lead section of the Donald Trump article? The point has been extensively discussed on the Trump Talk pages, and such things are not written in Wikivoice. Use of such labels is simplistic, misleading, if not incorrect, rhetoric, no matter how satisfying it may be to make them. As I said above, such labels are not needed, and it is far better, accurate, efficient to be specific and just state what happened.

See also This today in the NY Times. (Speaking of everyone is doing it.) Bdushaw (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

By making the statement "...is a fraudster" one is saying that the person was always a fraudster.. and will always be a fraudster. Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about, you cherry picked three words from the lead and ignored all the other contextual personal history. Fraudster is an objective description of someone who has been convicted of fraud and is known for this. The only question here is how significant is the fraud to her notability and unquestionably it is central to her notability why we lead with it. -- GreenC 15:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

By making the statement "...is a fraudster" one is saying that the person was always a fraudster

I see zero evidence anywhere in Wikipedia policy or common practice that "fraudster" means "always was a fraudster". That appears to be entirely your interpretation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Your citations are well and good, but with all due respect, represent a degree of sensationalist journalism, Holmes being the "bad guy of the day." I searched my reliable sources Washington Post, NY Times, BBC and none seems to use the word.

Here are RSes as good, if not better than, the outlets you cited (and some of the same) describing Holmes as a "fraudster":
The Washington Post, The Guardian 2 3, The New Yorker, The Times, Bloomberg News — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not use the term "fraudster" om the lead sentence of the Bernard Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, or Jeffrey Skilling articles. I believe using it here & not in those articles would demonstrate bias. Yes, I realize this is a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, but I think that despite the failure of the consistency proposal that consistency is a generally a good thing, particularly in avoiding gender bias. Peaceray (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is the use of the label "fraudster" for Holmes appropriate?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against using the label fraudster. The numerical advantage of the opposition combined with many of those supporting its use were open to other terminology or other wording make it clear that the term should be avoided, and the actions or situation should be described instead. There are some wording suggestions that have gained some traction, so a bit of discussion around those should be all that's left here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Is the use of the label "fraudster" for Holmes appropriate, in the lead or otherwise? There is guidance on MOS:LABEL and WP:BLPSTYLE on the use of labels applied to people in biographies, but they appear to me to be not definitive in the present case. It's clear the use of labels is an issue of concern for Wikipedia, and a biography of a living person demands special care. Further, the issue extends beyond the present article to others, e.g., Sunny Balwani and likely many other articles (and perhaps similar labels). It's also clear that sometimes, though a label for a person is formally correct, it is not employed for an article, out of decorum or other reasons. Use of the "fraudster" label in reliable sources is ambiguous, some sources use the term, others don't. N.B. This RFC is specifically limited to the use of the label "fraudster", or equivalent. There is universal consensus that Holmes' fraud is to be stated early in the lead. Bdushaw (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• No - Per my extensive discussions above. One editor produced a long list of sources that use the term for Holmes, but I found them to be more sensational than reliable. Searches on more reliable sources (IMO): NY Times articles, BBC News articles, Washington Post articles, do not use the term. This recent NYTimes article reviews the multitude of recent Silicon Valley frauds and the word "fraudster" does not occur. Of many concerns I have, after Holmes has spent her 10 years in prison, will this article still refer to her as a "fraudster"? Or then the article will be revised to remove the term, depending? Having committed a fraud, one is to be labeled as a "fraudster" for all time? Seems inappropriate. As the guidance states, labels can be avoided in lieu of a more informative, factual statement. Bdushaw (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Per discussions above. She is known for committing fraud, it is central to her notability. The neutral and factual term for someone who commits fraud is fraudster, a term (not a label) commonly used throughout Wikipedia e.g. List of fraudsters and 1,139 uses. The noms concern about what will happen in "10 years" do we still call her a fraudster the answer is it depends what happens in 10 years to her notability how much emphasis we put on it but right now as a convicted fraudster it is the biggest aspect of her notability. -- GreenC 15:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes but The term "fraudster" is an odd one that I've never heard in modern life. The fact that she has committed such massive fraud is linked to everything else she has done, making it in a real way the reason she is notable. I'd be in favor of something about fraud in the lede (and ideally the first sentence still). Lulfas (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes There's not a MOS:LABEL issue since she is a convicted felon. I'm not fond of the wording though at it seems like the lead could be a little more specific. Something like American former biotechnology entrepreneur and convicted felon for fraud or American former biotechnology entrepreneur and felon convicted for investment fraud. Nemov (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Our sources say she is a fraudster ([18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31])
  Our highest-quality news sources also use "fraudster": The Washington Post The Washington Post, The Guardian 2 3, The New Yorker, The Times, Bloomberg News
  Most of these sources literally say "founder of Theranos and convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes".
  Indeed, the very definition of the word "fraudster" is only: "person who commits fraud, especially in business dealings" per OED and "a person who engages in fraud" per Merriam Webster. I cannot find a single definition which incorporates intent, chronology, etc. Holmes is indisputably a person who committed fraud, and was convicted of it. In her business dealings.
  Ergo, she is absolutely a fraudster, and as our sources say, we should describe her as such. We can make it the second thing in the sentence so as not to overemphasize, but this is an extremely pertinent part of her description in popular consciousness. At wikipedia, we follow, we do not lead. We report, with unbiased summary in proper balance, what our sources say. In this case, that is "fraudster". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes—kinda—but I don't think we should. I actually think the key word that makes "fraudster" okay is "convicted". So far as I am aware, "convicted fraudster" only translates to "someone convicted of fraud". If "convicted" were to be removed, maybe WP:LABEL would be an issue. I'm somewhat sympathetic to @Bdushaw:'s arguments, but I think he's overlooking the "convicted" portion of the label (or perhaps understating the degree of intent—scienter—required for Holmes's convictions [32]). That said, I don't know that "fraudster" is the most common term. And why not be more specific to avoid the label entirely? In other words, I think it'd be better to say: "Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American former biotechnology entrepreneur who, in 2022, was convicted of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (Update: Struck per better alternative provided by User: Shibbolethink--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC))
• No - Obviously “convicted of fraud” would be a better phrasing as it is impersonal and accurate, while “convicted fraudster” is not because the legal charge is commission of fraud not ‘being a fraudster’. I think some statements above are making WP:OR positions for ‘fraudster’, but that would be for slang ‘a fraudster’, not “convicted fraudster”. In general I think vague name-calling or labels is just poor practice for WP as somewhat indicated by MOS:LABEL, WP:BLPSTYLE, and essay WP:TONE. I will also suggest that when a large portion of RS are not using personal or sensationalized labels, WP should follow suit of the more restrained RS and not start the article this way. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

p.s. Perhaps personalising or demonizing is also a cultural difference ? - doesn’t seem as such at the UK Asil Nadir, (no listing at all for Maria Michaela or Tony Sales,) nor Aussie John Friedrich. Markbassett (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• No we can say what she did rather than calling names and per what pistongringer says after me, I couldnt have said it any better Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. The term "fraudster", while appearing in reliable sources, is a term used to be catchy for media, not an encyclopedic term to characterize the crime. Pistongrinder (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. Let's say what she did (fraud) instead of calling her names (fraudster). Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No. The term "fraudster" is appropriate in this case as a way to define Elizabeth Holmes in some of her specific actions, but it would be better to share the nature of the crimes she committed ("fraud") instead of just labeling her as a fraudster, thereby undermining other characteristics of Elizabeth Holmes and her life in this living person biography. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say no. Why call her a fraudster when her fraudulent actions are mentioned in the lead and article? It seems redundant to basically say that she's a fraudster who committed and was convicted of fraud. She might be definitively a fraudster, but the term does hold stronger connotations than, say, "felon" and therefore seems at least less neutral. Just my thoughts. Pillowcrow (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning no. Did she start out with the intention to defraud people, founding her company only as a means to that end? It seems she was interested in biotechnology and commercial applications in general, at least initially, engaging in fraud only later on. Senorangel (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• No. The term is unencyclopedic, and should be changed to "convicted of fraud" - let's keep a distance from POV-type terms in a BLP. Jusdafax (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• No While it is true that many reliable sources note her fraud conviction, and therefore it is appropriate to include this in the lead MOS:ROLEBIO, these same sources don't typically refer to her using the term "fraudster." Because the term can be seen as a contentious one (hence this RFC), my suggestion would be to find another way for her fraud conviction to be included in the lead but without using the specific term "fraudster" MOS:OPENPARABIO. For example: Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American former biotechnology entrepreneur convicted of fraud.Writethisway (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, or alternative - The key thing is that the lead sentence of the article should clearly state what she is known for, that is, what makes her encyclopedic. Reviewing the sources makes it pretty darn clear to me that she is primarily known for being convicted of fraud. Thus, this information MUST be in the lead sentence. In this sense, "convicted fraudster", regardless of whether or not reliable sources use this specific term, is simply descriptive of what she is known for. Given that it looks like there ARE reliable sources that use the term, I would generally support its use here. However, I can see that this is contentious, and others disagree. I would not be unhappy with a compromise that keeps the information intact but rephrases it to avoid using this exact wording. For example, we could say "entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud". Calling her a convicted fraudster or simply stating she was convicted of fraud, either way seems pretty much the same to me, it is conveying the same necessary information. This is what she is known for. One of the two phrasings is needed, but I don't entirely care which one is used in the end. Fieari (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it's better to use the expanded term "convicted fraudster", which seems to be the way she is more often described in the RSes. So maybe something like: "American former biotechnology entrepreneur and convicted fraudster". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• No The key thing is that the lead sentence of the article should clearly state what she is known for I agree and at present the opening para lays out clearly the specific fraud which she committed and is known for - which is much more informative than the bare 'label'. The label is technically ambiguous anyway, since the more general meaning is someone who habitually and professionally commits fraud - rather than in her case, someone who perpetrated a single massive fraud, for whatever self-deluded reason. We don't need to label her, the facts speak for themselves and the label adds no useful info IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• No the term "fraudster" is not used in American English and this is an article about an American. It sounds quite unusual to my ear. Americans would typically say "con artist", "cheat", "scammer", "swindler", etc. but those all sound fairly colloquial as well. Maybe "defrauder".

—DIYeditor (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussions

Comment This list of references is the same one I mentioned above. I found them to be more sensationalist than reliable and gave another list of many other references that never mention "fraudster". To these I can add a list from the LA Times, where "fraudster" is never mentioned. There are many "labels" that are true by definition, but never used, e.g., "Donald Trump is a liar." "Bill Clinton is a womanizer." "Winona Ryder is a shoplifter." A label is a cheap, imprecise way of stating the identity of someone. So I agree with the definition, but oppose the use as the label. Like the many references I have provided, there are more precise, informative ways of stating the fraud, without resorting to the label. Bdushaw (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Donald Trump is a liar." "Bill Clinton is a womanizer." "Winona Ryder is a shoplifter."
Yes, we only use such labels when our best available sources do. Such as the Washington Post, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Times, and Bloomberg News, as I cited above using "fraudster" for Holmes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

(It's incidental, but the WA Post article you cite does not use the term.) Bdushaw (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources NY Times, WA Post, BBC News, LA Times, and NPR list all do not use the term. It is misleading to suggest that all reputable sources use the term. It is also curious that these major periodicals universally avoid the "fraudster" word that has often appeared in others. Bdushaw (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears I may have pasted the wrong link, I can't find the full text for that particular article.

Here are the exact places (with quotes) where the sources you mentioned (and a few extra good ones) use the term wrt Holmes:

Mentions of "fraudster" re: Elizabeth Holmes in Bdushaw's favorite sources:

The Washington Post The saga reflects a headspinning fall from grace. Just a few months ago, Bankman-Fried was toasted as crypto's Warren Buffett; now he's drawing comparisons to convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes. And even if you find Holmes's fraud loathsome, there's a vicious pleasure in watching her gullible targets make fools of themselves in pursuit of her approval and in defense of her reputation. Their vehement adherence to Holmes's fiction isn't merely a testament to her skills as a fraudster; it's an indictment of establishment judgment. In a different business, Holmes might have ended up like Adam Neumann of WeWork: a neophyte real estate hype-master who somehow torched billions of investor funds legally - and walked away with millions. Instead, she is a convicted fraudster facing years in jail. The New York Times Which brings us back to Elizabeth Holmes. For those who believed she was guilty of a great crime, it's a disappointing verdict. The jury essentially said she was both a visionary and a fraudster. The Wall Street Journal In the world of fact-based fiction, two performances in particular stood out -- Amanda Seyfried as fraudster Elizabeth Holmes in "The Dropout" and Julia Garner of "Inventing Anna." One of Mr. Gibney's gifts -- which has been showcased in such films as "Zero Days," about the self-replicating Stuxnet malware, or "The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley," about Theranos fraudster Elizabeth Holmes -- is to make a complicated subject not just accessible and digestible but aesthetically seductive. Sources

And those are specifically about Holmes. With regards to the extremely wide-ranging claims you're making about "style", Here are how many times each of these outlets has used the term "fraudster" in ProQuest (excluding editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor):

• Wall Street Journal (108 since 1984)
• New York Times (145 since 2008)
• Los Angeles Times (56 since 1996)
• NPR News (202 since 2002)

With regards to your statement It is misleading to suggest that all reputable sources use the term. It is also curious that these major periodicals universally avoid the "fraudster" word that has often appeared in others.

This is wrong on several accounts. 1) I never said "all reputable sources use the term, you appear to be arguing against a straw-man of your own design. and 2) They don't "universally avoid the "fraudster" word" as you've suggested. See above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be specific, I searched for "Elizabeth Holmes" on the periodicals I mentioned, and searched the first 10 articles or so that resulted and found nothing (2 incidental exceptions). I appreciate the effort you took for a more thorough search. Thinking about the issue and above discussion, I am willing to concede (though for myself still disagree; I don't like the word) that "fraudster" could be used...but I still say it is bad writing, with a sensationalist element. How many readers have the precise definition of "fraudster" in mind when they read the article? It is unnecessary when we can just state what happened. Bdushaw (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A postscript, though it's beating a dead horse...you have included opinion pieces in your searches, I see; to me, those don't count. I also should have said "avoid the "fraudster" word applied to Holmes", which is what I was thinking and, by my more limited search, is true. Anyways, Bdushaw (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Commment Just a reminder that fraudster is not slang word (it's a standard dictionary word), or a pejorative, or derogatory. It is widely used in society, by reliable sources and on Wikipedia such as at List of fraudsters. It's interesting the RfC was basically straight-line "yes" until one person complained about it being "slang", and ever since then everyone basically fell in line with that (factually incorrect) POV and voted "no". -- GreenC 16:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd agree it's not slang—I was a "yes but no" vote because I thought it would be more encyclopedic, more efficient, and more informative to simply state what Holmes was convicted of up front rather than use a label. That said, I will say that I've seen other articles that use label-versions of criminal actions; "murderer," I think, is one I see quite a bit.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    Someone who commits murder is a murderer. MOS:LABEL says a label implies "contentious opinion". On Wikipedia we only need to be careful they have been convicted, if so there is no opinion, thus no label. -- GreenC 16:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    That's a fair point, though I'm not sure I agree for a few reasons.

    1. Principally, again, why not just state what Holmes was convicted of? I haven't really seen any argument as to that point. Above, I suggested Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American former biotechnology entrepreneur who, in 2022, was convicted of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Again, relative to the label, isn't that more informative? I haven't seen any particular as to why we shouldn't take that approach.
    2. Separately, I'm not actually sure how I feel about using convictions as indication of whether a label is appropriate, but I don't think we have to dive into that before we address point 1.

    --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    I think I would personally prefer: Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American former biotechnology entrepreneur who, in 2022, was convicted of fraud in connection to her blood-testing company, Theranos.

    The lead is for summary, doesn't immediately need to describe the exact counts and descriptions of crimes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

    Stating here again that we do not use the term "fraudster" on the lead sentence of the Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, or Bernard Ebbers, articles. I believe that not using the term in those articles but including it in the Holmes article demonstrates bias, specifically gender bias. Yes, this is potentially a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, but I think that that consistency in this matter would be best. Peaceray (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

    Also good with that!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment I have been contemplating this dispute and ongoing discussion. It seems to me this issue turns on what is meant by "fraudster". Definitions from various reliable dictionaries have been given above, but my theme here is that those definitions do not encompass the practical understanding of that word; such definitions are disingenuous, seems to me. For example, given the definition, the two phrases "he is a convicted fraudster" and "he has been convicted of fraud" are mathematically equivalent (So what's with all the contention?). But starting from the very first entry of this Talk page above, the word "fraudster" has been vehemently insisted upon, belying the innocuous nature of the definition. The List of fraudsters, by the given definitions, would be translated as a "list of people convicted of one or more frauds", whereas my own perception of that list is that it is a "list of rogues"; few would think it the first interpretation, IMO. Several have commented on the meaning as referring to intention or planning, others have said that using it is calling someone a name. Those advocating for "fraudster", it seems to me, seek, in fact, to convey a value judgement, a negative sentiment, an indication as to the devastating nature of the fraud that occurred, etc., and attach a label as such to Holmes. I have objected to the label, but I have no objection to the first sentence of the lead making a specific description of the terrible nature and consequences of the fraud that occurred. I would suggest that "convicted of three counts of wire fraud" rather misses the nature of the issue. Perhaps something like: first sentence: "...a fraud that caused the collapse of Theranos costing investors billions and damaging reputations" and second sentence: "...Holmes was ultimately convicted of three counts of wire fraud...etc.". That is, first give a description of the pain that resulted, followed by the technical fraud convictions. Bdushaw (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment There are a couple good alternative suggestions above by User:Shibbolethink, User:Jerome Frank Disciple. This is not the first time fraudster has come up on the talk pages, it's been added and removed and discussed by various editors over time. I'd like to see this RfC close with some guidance such as the word is not technically wrong, but has been contentious with editors, and thus alternative wording is recommended. We can determine alt phrasing without another RfC. -- GreenC 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair point! For what it's worth, I am personally made a little antsy about using convictions as labels because I think, perhaps irrationally!, they imply something permanent about a person's core identity in a way that, to me, feels evaluative and judgmental rather than encyclopedic. (Why do I say "permanent"? Well, just look at the tense used! The suggestion was to say that Holmes "is a ... fraudster".) I'm not suggesting WP:LABEL forces my preference—after all, my conclusion was that the term was probably appropriate for inclusion, even though I said I think an alternative would be better—but I'd always rather say someone was "convicted of fraud" or, in some cases, "who defrauded [victims]" rather than use a label (same goes for any offense—"murderer" vs "convicted of murder" or, if it wasn't contested, "who murdered X").--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• We arent an echo chamber for name calling in mainstream media. Hero, villian, yadayada, all is not encyclopedic Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

End the RFC?

Suggestion: I don't at all mean to suggest that debate should be ended early, but I do think there's a pretty clear consensus here, and I wanted to see if @Bdushaw: might be willing to withdraw the RFC. I'd also ask if @GreenC: would be okay with the withdrawal (or, alternatively, asking for a closing summary). It goes without saying that WP is not a democracy, I do think the !votes indicate we have a pretty clear consensus:

Not Votes	Include	Can Include But Fine with Alternative	Can Include But Prefer Alternative	Exclude
Number	3[1]	1	3	10
[1] (I'm counting User: PieLover3141592654 as a full include, since that user indicated a preference for "convicted fraudster", but, as I understand "convicted fraudster" is the proposed wording.)

In short, while there's a relatively solid split on whether the term "fraudster" can be used ... there seems to be a supermajority of users who think an alternative should be used. The users in that camp seem to universally prefer saying that Holmes was convicted of fraud rather than saying she was a convicted fraudster. I'd suggest we use what User:Shibbolethink drafted, which manages to work both the convictions and the nature of Holmes's company in the lede:

Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American former biotechnology entrepreneur who, in 2022, was convicted of fraud in connection to her blood-testing company, Theranos.

Just a thought.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would support ending this early as a WP:SNOW close, and implementing the alternative wording instead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really care so long as the next time this comes up we can point to this RfC and move on with our lives. The last time this came up Talk:Elizabeth_Holmes/Archive_7#Fraudster I changed it from "fraudster" to "convicted of fraud" and that didn't stick. So this I tried to make fraudster stick, and that didn't work either. Please settle on something. -- GreenC 14:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this could absolutely be cited for future discussions, even if SNOW closed.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Closure I've requested a formal closure with an appropriate summary statement for the purposes of precedence. Regarding the replacement wording, I am OK with the proposed lead sentence, though as I mentioned above, touching on the notion that Holmes misrepresented the product and the company collapsed losing investors billions may be more on the mark. (It occurs to me that if the lead sentence is overly benign it may attract endless edit warring...) I suggest that a hidden note be added to the lead sentence to the effect of this RfC - viz. avoid "fraudster". Thanks everyone! Bdushaw (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed the lede feature the sentence proposed by Shibbolethink. Waiting for an official RFC closure to add the hidden note that Bdushaw suggested (which sound like it will allay the edit-warring concerns GreenC had). Bdushaw, I'm not sure if I addressed your concerns about making the scope of the fraud clearer earlier in the lede, but I tried my hardest. Chiefly, I put the $700 million number (from SF Chronicle) in the lede and moved it to the first paragraph. I'm done with my efforts; I hope they're a productive start.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The single word "fraudster" went too far, but making the entire first paragraph about her fraud is acceptable? IMO the way it was before was a much lighter touch, now the lead heavily over-emphasis the fraud. It's also out of chronological order now, the way it was before told her story in a chrono narrative of events the made it easier for the reader to follow. I thought we agreed to change a few words not the entire structure of the lead to make the entire first paragraph about the fraud. Sorry I am changing to back. -- GreenC 21:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed fraudster per discussion here: Special:Diff/1151890606/1151890913. Further changes to the lead need to be discussed first. -- GreenC 21:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; just made two slight changes: incorrect use of the word "By" and also re-added the $700m number. Also, I'm not sure it's legitimate to dramatically change the lede (you'll notice that the current version doesn't look like the version before I edited) and unilaterally state "any further changes need to be discussed first." That's a WP:OWN issue. (If you have trouble seeing that, imagine if I, for example, had said, "Okay now that my preferred version is set, no more changes without discussing them first.")--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not own, you can of course follow normal editing processes, I was just thinking about the ongoing RfC because making big changes like that in an RfC can be problematic towards resolving the RfC when there is disagreement, it gets confusing. I think we should close out this RfC asap then work on the lead more because while I like the first paragraph the remaining paragraphs could be trimmed some while new material unrelated to the fraud brought up into the lead, more representative of the whole article in balance. -- GreenC 02:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.