Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Labelling Elizabeth Holmes a 'Former biotechnology entrepreneur' legitimises her fraudulent behaviour and should be removed. She should only be regarded as a fraudster in the article's opening sentence.

Some users disagree with this statement and are welcome to reply below JRGregory (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too experienced in Wikipedia standards, but I would say that I think it's important in the first sentence to have some indication of what Holmes was involved in, in regards to her fraud. Also I don't know if it's relevant, but Holmes was only legally convicted with regards to defrauding investors, but not patients (unlike her former partner Sunny Balwani who was convicted on all counts). But she is known for deceiving both patients and the general public, so perhaps this should also be reflected front and center as well. As for your comment that "'Former biotechnology entrepreneur' legitimises her fraudulent behaviour", I don't think it does. It's simply a description of her activities. If it should be removed, I think there needs to be a better reason. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not listing what she committed fraud in in the opening sentence sounds like a non-starter to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to report the facts not to have some agenda like legitimizing or, ahem, de-legitimizing. Like it or not, she actually had a career. Furthermore the court case only answered some very specific questions related to the law, it said nothing about if her career was legitimate or not. -- GreenC 20:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Her career is invalidated once it has been legally established in court that it was built on fraud and criminal activity. Like it or not: That makes it, a criminal career. Not a "biotechnology entrepreneur" career. This should be the first statement, that she is a criminal. The next statement, can by all means describe the nature of the criminal behavior. IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please show me the court documents that say her career has been legally invalidated. You are confusing the court of public opinion with legal courts. Legal courts have an extremely narrow and technical purpose. -- GreenC 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

See topic below - I object to "fraudster" in the lead - neither proper nor correct. Bdushaw (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not begin the lead sentence of the Bernard Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, or Jeffrey Skilling articles with "fraudster". I do not believe we should do differently for Elizabeth Holmes as it would indicate a bias. Peaceray (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

100% Agree - she has NO science credentials. Honoring her as a "biotechnology entrepreneur" is like referring to Lee Harvey Oswald as a former Marine. Tiptopper (talk)

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, so that'd be an accurate way to define him. Oswald's claim to fame is not his military service, but Holmes' is Theranos. You don't need "science credentials" to be a "biotechnology entrepreneur", as she had the same credentials in science as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg had in computer engineering when they dropped out of university to found their companies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree "biotechnology entrepreneur" does not require science credentials, just as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk don't need to be aeronautical engineers to be space entrerpeneurs. The expertise is in selling the technology, not being an expert in the science of creating it. And the article describes her as an entrepreneur, not a successful or honest entrepreneur. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ironic that an editor would bring up Lee Harvey Oswald when the lead sentence for Oswald's article reads: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a U.S. Marine veteran who assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, on November 22, 1963. Peaceray (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Assassinating a president is a tad more serious than fraud. By the way, look up the meaning of irony. Sundayclose (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, def # 4 fits what I meant by ironic: Contradiction between circumstances and expectations; condition contrary to what might be expected. I am sure that Tiptopper did not intend it that way, though. Peaceray (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Mental Illness

The following discussion 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.

---

It seems some reliable sources indicate that she is likely suffering from a mental illness called Pathological Lying (similar to George Santos). I wonder if this should be included in the article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/elizabeth-holmes-is-trying-to-start-a-new-company https://stevegallik.org/elizabeth-holmes-pathological-liar-or-misguided-genius/ --Westwind273 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

For me, the answers definitely no. First, the sources you posted don't actually agree with each other. The VF article features a quote from John Carreyrou, the reporter most known for exposing the Thernaos fraud ... and someone who is, notably, not a psychologist. He suggests that Holmes suffers from "sociopathic tendencies" and says "[o]ne of those tendencies is pathological lying". The second source is apparently a discussion of "pathological lying" by a ... biology professor on his personal website?

Carreyrou admits he's speculating, and I'd say the biology professor's personal website isn't a reliable source (at the very least, as to his analysis, it's a primary source). I'm also deeply skeptical that any such speculation is encyclopedic, barring very wide coverage by media sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not. First of all, there is no psychiatric diagnosis of "pathological liar". Frequent lying can be one of several symptoms of a variety of disorders. Secondly, popular magazines (and particularly those who wrote these articles) have no credentials or skill in making psychiatric diagnosis. Wikipedia does not use its voice to make medical diagnoses. It's obvious the woman did some serious lying and had little insight as to the consequences of those lies. We can describe that, with reliable sources. But we don't synthesize our own conclusions from those sources to make diagnoses. Sundayclose (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you know that I was in no way implying that we should synthesize our own conclusions. That was a cheap shot. I clearly posted links to sources. Westwind273 (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see how this does not follow Wikipedia BLP policies at the current time. However, with the two recent examples of George Santos and Elizabeth Holmes, it feels like this phenomenon may be increasing. I think it is something to keep an eye on. Westwind273 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but no. This is a WP:BLP and we wont be concocting our own pet theories here. Even discussion of it on this talk page without sources is probably not kosher. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you not see the sources I listed in my comment? Or are you saying those sources don't count? Westwind273 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 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.

Medical expert who unmasked Holmes

Diff was reverted, but, I wonder if we might include it with appropriate sourcing: the given source says nothing about unmasking Holmes, it's a primary source paper from May 2015. I read Bad Blood and recall it had a section about this, but can't recall who the medical expert was. -- GreenC 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Eleftherios Diamandis is not mentioned in Bad Blood, at least not based on my check of the index (I have the book in front of me). Chapter 19, The Tip, notes that Carreyrou was tipped off by Adam Clapper from Pathology Blawg. On page 219 (first edition, paperback) he's described as "a practicing pathologist in Columbia, Missouri". Let me know what more you'd like. --Yamla (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll note page 223 indicates Carreyrou was contacted on the second Monday in February (2015-02-09), months before the paper referenced in the diff above was published. Still possible that Diamandis contacted Carreyrou, I suppose, but the book doesn't mention this as far as I can see. --Yamla (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Looks like lots of people were suspicious/critical prior to Carreyrou. This Reddit post and this thread from 2013 has more info. Not sure how deep we want to go into it here, all the experts who called BS. For the purposes of Holmes bio, probably Carreyrou is the most important since he was the catalyst of her downfall. The rest were kind of accelerants leading up to Carreyrou's WSJ article bomb. -- GreenC 23:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets not use a term like 'medical expert', this is not encyclopedic and gives undue weight. Just say who the person is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Could change "expert" --> "professional" or "researcher", which we would need to qualify even if they are named. A Google search of "Holmes" and "Adam Clapper" will tell us now notable he is in this context. -- GreenC 15:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are there so many additional topics for this person?

It feels like this wiki has been watered down to downplay this persons criminal activities.

we have promotional activities, connections, recognition, and in the media as superfluous sections in the article. These don’t seem necessarily and seemingly only exist to add more content that veers away from this persons actual noteworthiness. I move that these sections are reduced as they seem self promoting and create a self serving narrative to what is supposed to be a neutral article. 2600:4041:5872:C500:61F3:6EB7:A3BF:6C44 (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Comparable articles would be Bernie Madoff, Bernard Ebbers, & Jeffrey Skilling. There are probably others with which to compare at Category:American confidence tricksters & Category:American people convicted of fraud. Peaceray (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Holmes was not a businesswoman who got caught up in some kind of fraud. Rather, she was a confidence artist the whole time. For some reason there is a concerted effort to whitewash her misdeeds. 72.76.158.105 (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Look at the RfC above where people think the opposite the article goes too far in calling her a criminal. It goes back and forth like that. There is no conspiracy. But be careful of your own biases. -- GreenC 14:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Prison

Is she now in prison? 2A00:23C6:658C:9501:C821:CB71:2AEC:5A5E (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, according to the article. "Holmes is incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp, Bryan." --Yamla (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

American former biotechnology entrepreneur

The lead section says she is "former". This is unusual phrasing. We don't normally say "former".

A simplified fictional example:

• "Joe Smith is a writer, parachutist, professional chef and public speaker"

In fact, Mr. Smith is 88 years old, has not parachuted since his 20s, was a chef in his 40s-60s and recently published a memoir and gives public talks.

We don't say:

• "Joe Smith is a writer, a former parachutist, a former professional chef, and a public speaker

The active status of a career label is not typical for the lead sentence for two reasons.

1. Maybe Joe Smith will start parachuting again? It would be impolite and unprofessional to assume otherwise. Unless he has publicly stated he has quit the sport. Elizabeth Holmes may be writing her next business plan right now, to pitch to investors, actively engaging in entrepreneurial activities. We don't know what she is doing with her life to declare in wikivoice she is no longer an entrepreneur.
2. Joe Smith never stopped being a parachutist as a description. Per WP:LEAD the first sentence should indicate what they are notable for. Holmes is notable for two things: being a very famous biotech entrepreneur (pre-conviction), and being convicted of fraud (post-conviction). Her notability was worded as being a "former" entrepreneur, which is not the same thing as being a notable entrepreneur.

We should simply state their reason for notability in the first sentence, and not engage in wording that attempts to downplay what they are notable for. Per BLP. -- GreenC 18:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of subject

Elizabeth Holmes was a con artist and not an entrepreneur. The opening description of this person is misleading. Comparitively, the Wiki article for Billy McFarland cites him as a con artist, not a festival organizer. 159.2.21.193 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be accurate - the two articles describe each person in the lede as:

• William Zervakos McFarland (born December 11, 1991) is an American businessman whose enterprises have been characterized by fraud
• Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American biotechnology entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud in connection to her blood-testing company, Theranos

They're actually pretty similar? Seems like the this article is more severe to Holmes than the McFarland article in description? Also the article unequivocally supports the "entrepreneur" claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a continuous stream of editors violating BLP, across nearly every article about a criminal on Wikipedia. They modify the lead section to label the person disparagingly ("con artist", "thief", "killer", etc..). It feels so good and righteous - they are self-appointed judge and jury, heroes of all humanity (in their mind). In fact, they are a unregulated mob with no limits in how far they can go to attack people.

The psychological basis behind this is explained in my essay The Instinct to Punish, and we have an essay Wikipedia:Crime labels on how to respond. In general, when it's an IP on a talk page the best solution is to remove the post entirely as a violation of BLP. For the record, no court in any country has determined that Holmes is a "con artist", that is purely subjective label, and not one we should state in Wikivoice, in the article, or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not in the business of punishing people, although many people use it that way, they become energized and motivated by it - again see my essay for why it feels so good and is a continuous problem on Wikipedia, and society wide. -- GreenC 19:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I also oppose this name calling in the LEAD. I wish there is a broader RFC on this so we can put a stop to it, the amount of TE and pushing these negative themes in the lead for likely WP:RGW purposes appears to be increasing and going on across many subjects. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Incarcerated status in the lede

I don't think that [i]t's already in the infobox, and in the body of the article. Do we need it a third time? is a valid reason for removal. The very purpose of the lede is to summarise the article, and by extension the infobox - things such as her name, date of birth etc all appear in all three locations, so what's the issue with her incarceration - which is a pretty major event in her life?

We mention the sentencing, so why not the actual result as well? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

PS: I'm aware that while the lede is to summarise the article that doesn't mean that everything in the article automatically qualifies for inclusion in the lede - my point is that claiming the information in the lede appears elsewhere in the article is not a valid reason for removal from the lede. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The article lead is already clear on her incarceration status: she is serving an 11-plus year sentence as of last year. Your edit isn't about that, it's about where she's being incarcerated. Why do we need that in the lead? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the infobox, at the top of the article, right next to tthe lead section. The lead in this article is already too long and detailed. What benefit does it serve to say it a third time. It feels like pov pushing, like trying to overly emphasize she is in prison. The third paragraph of the lead says "She was sentenced to serve 11+1⁄4 years in prison, beginning on May 30, 2023". So in fact we already say she is serving time in prison. This would be the fourth time, and three times right at the top of the article. The lead section summarizes and we summarized she is in prison, there is no need to say the name of the prison when it's already there in the infobox. -- GreenC 16:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's already in the infobox. So is her name. And date of birth. This is the point of the lede, and indeed the infobox. It's supposed to have detail such as this.

Incidentally, please check the article history and you'll see that I reinstated the detail after it was removed here as part of all the media series that was indeed clogging up the lede. Holmes' status in the lede has been present since at least November 2023 - the removal was the bold edit, hence I reverted you. Now we discuss.

I maintain that this is not extraneous detail, but an important part of her story, and as such is valid in the lede. The sentence "She was sentenced to serve 11+1⁄4 years in prison, beginning on May 30, 2023" does say that she was sentenced to prison, but the "As of..." makes it clear that this is still her situation.

You're obsessing over the fact that the detail appears in places other than the lede and as such shouldn't appear in the lede due to multiplicity. I maintain that if the detail didn't appear elsewhere it would have no place in the lede - but it does, so is valid. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

PS: Her incarcerated status was added here on 9th July 2023. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also just like to point out that if consensus goes against me here, I've no issue with it being removed, but until that happens the information should stay - blatant BLP violations notwithstanding. One of my hills to die on is the removal (or insertion) of information from an article, and the insistence that it stays removed while justification is discussed on the talk page. I'm not implying that this happened intentionally here, but it just winds me up when I see it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You should answer the question by Muboshgu above. Why do you think it's so important to list the precise name of the prison where she is currently located in the lead section? The lead section already says she is incarcerated, and it already lists where, in the infobox. This kind of information, the name of the prison, is not terribly important to be in a lead section. -- GreenC 20:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned because it's all part and parcel of investigation to sentencing to incarceration - we say incarceration, why not location as well? The sentence is in the infobox as well as the article itself. Once again, I have to comment on your mention of the infobox, and once again I think that's a non-starter for non-inclusion, for reasons that I've mentioned several times before - lede, summary, inclusion in article necessary. I believe people are interested in what ultimately happened to her - and her place of imprisonment is important based on the variety of prisons available - not that I'm an expert in the American prison system, but "Prison" is a vague term that has a wide range of restrictions - there is a difference between being incarcerated in United States Penitentiary, Allenwood and Federal Prison Camp, Bryan. (I know that's not the best example as Allenwood is a male-only prison, but I can't seem to find an exclusively maximum security female-inmate prison on Wikipedia, as per List of United States federal prisons. Federal Medical Center, Carswell comes close, but also contains a minimum-security wing, which would only confuse matters further.)

We can't expect readers to jump from one section of the article, even when close together, to glean facts as they go along. Yes, the info is in the infobox - but they're reading the lede.

• Compromise - what do you think of consolidating the two sentences of:
  • She was sentenced to serve 11+1⁄4 years in prison, beginning on May 30, 2023.
  • As of July 2023 Holmes is incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp, Bryan.
• to
  • She was sentenced to serve 11+1⁄4 years at Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, beginning on May 30, 2023.

While retaining the information, it also reduces the lede by 9 words, and if I'm honest it is better located there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. -- GreenC 17:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think her incarceration location can be in the LEAD. We can prune & summarize other content if necessary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made the change as proposed. I also have a question prompted by this discussion, bot not directly related: Again as I'm no expert in the American (or any) criminal system, this may be the standard - the infobox text reads 11+1⁄4 years (135 months) in prison - is it normal to convert a sentence to months? I can understand lower figures, such as "18 months", but 135?Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Awkward wording?

Following the collapse of Theranos, she started dating hotel heir Billy Evans, with whom she has two children.

The tense mismatch kind of makes it sound like she had the two children before she started dating him. Maybe better as “started dating hotel heir Billy Evans. They now have two children.” Or maybe someone can come up with a better edit. 108.7.79.71 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It seem ok to me? Past tense to show that she started dating him, present tense to show they now have children together? I prefer the original. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)