Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Singapore and Mandarin

This line puzzles me: "Since she was fluent in Mandarin, she was able to spend the summer after her freshman year at the Genome Institute in Singapore". I've lived and worked in Singapore for over 20 years, and while the majority of people here are of Chinese descent, the main language of academia and business here is English. Fluency in Mandarin is definitely not a requirement for working in Singapore government research institutes. Gbeauregard (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed as copyright violation. The text was word by word from http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/hol0bio-1 - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Alas, all mention of Holmes seems to be wiped from www.achievement.org GangofOne (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Net worth

An article by Forbes from June 1, 2016 reduces Holmes's estimated net worth from $3.6 billion to nothing. However, their bio page for Holmes lists her "real-time net worth" as of June 1, 2016 as $3.6 billion. Because of this discrepancy, I've removed the net worth from the infobox. I say it should stay that way until the bio page with the real time net worth is updated. Plandu (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added the article to body of the article, as it's relevant information, even if another source gives a different number later. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I've also mentioned that the Forbes has reduced the estimate of Theranos' value to ~$800 million. The article needs to be updated in general. utcursch | talk 14:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, the ongoing discussions surrounding her net worth can be discussed in the article, but while this is ongoing and we have multiple sources that disagree - including a source that seemingly disagrees with itself - it is best to keep this out of the infobox. Galestar (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like reliable sources have settled on the $0 figure. I suggest adding it to the infobox. Andrew327 19:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit implemented. Andrew327 15:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

DISHONEST

This is a very dishonest article in too many ways to sum up here. She is not an inventor and she is a con artist, and these should be in her opening line. With edits like I've seen to this article I cannot take Wikipedia seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:ADE6:8CB0:89D6:F06F (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Holmes holds patents; so the Patent Office considers her an inventor. She fits both the definition of entrepreneur & inventor. She may be a con artist & a fraud as well, but until someone provides verification, this remains in the realm of opinion. I note that the lead already contains coverage about doubts of her veracity including the statement that "federal prosecutors began criminal investigations for potentially misleading investors and the government". However, according to the rule of law in the U.S., a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Holmes has not even been charged yet. I therefore implore your patience, as I have faith that the truth will come out. Peaceray (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The US Patent Office is infamous for its lack of rigor. Would you also consider someone peddling a perpetuum mobile an "inventor" if the US Patent Office issued a patent for it? Because significant parts of Holmes claims are just as scientifically ridiculous as a perpetuum mobile would be. It is not pertinent whether she deliberately misled anyone to whether she actually invented working technology or not. --91.67.245.87 (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, then provide verification from a reliable source that "Holmes claims are ... scientifically ridiculous". Otherwise, you are only offering an unsubstantiated point of view. Peaceray (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Peaceray, do you have a link which shows that an Inventor designation on a US Patent is sufficient for Wikipedia to allow the claim that someone is an "inventor"? Surely you understand the difference between a formal designation and the meaning of the same term in general useage? I have filed several US Patent Applications, does that make me an "inventor"? Or, because none of them were ever pursued (for various reasons including novelty and my company's financial interests), should I not claim that title? Facts are she was touted at one time to be an inventor but it is NOT clear that she actually invented anything. The problem is, I doubt many people skilled in the art will care enough to comment here as to the validity of her patents. It seems to me that because her behavior has been so vile, so dishonest, unethical, immoral, and illegal and since her device put people's life and health at risk, that many people can't see that even lying cheating scum like her can be inventors, while others can see the possibility but confuse possibility with certainty. Her and her company's claims, along with EVERY statement which was based on those claims shouldn't be taken as reliable. We shouldn't attribute reliability to persons who have been shown to be unreliable. So, my question to you is: do YOU have reliable sources which have independently analyzed her inventions? I doubt you do, especially since she has worked very hard to prevent exactly that. The USPO ASSUMES that the documents submitted are true, so their granting a patent when the veracity of the author has been shown to be lacking, should NOT be taken as reliable, should it?98.21.221.175 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@98.21.221.175: Well, actually there is a cited source, the Wall Street Journal. I do not accept that the US Patent office designation as an inventor is inherently invalid. I understand that patents are sometimes issued improperly & can be subsequently invalidated. I will accept that when all these patents listing Holmes as the inventor are invalidated, then Holmes can no longer be considered as an inventor & the that statement can be taken out of the article.
I do understand "the difference between a formal designation and the meaning of the same term in general useage [sic]". Do you understand that the primary legal definition of being an inventor would be a listing on a patent?
06:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The reasonable way to refer to her would be "accused con artist" or "accused fraudster" If Wikipedia's rules really require that she be referred to as an "inventor and entrepreneur," then there is something wrong with Wikipedia's rules. —24.180.126.48 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 02 June 2018 (UTC)
@24.180.126.48: The indictment for fraud is now in the second sentence. Regarding the statement about Holmes being an inventor, this is not governed by your opinion but by Wikipedia policy. Verifiability is a core content policy. The statement that Holmes is an inventor is established by reliable sources. Please see the Holmes as an inventor & as a fraud section for my further comments about this. Peaceray (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
So everyone that holds a patent should be described as an "inventor" in the first line in Wikipedia? Eddie van Halen; Abraham Lincoln; James Cameron; Marlon Brando; Lawrence Welk. All of these people hold patents. Should they be described as "inventors" in the first line of their Wikipedia entries? —68.132.225.41 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@68.132.225.41:
Peaceray (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"The US Patent Office is infamous for its lack of rigor" - I've literally got into some pretty serious arguments over this very point and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Hedy Lamar (it's claimed) invented FHSS "because the patent has her name on it" - only that's utter baloney, but I've spent a good chunk of my next book discussing it (and the real inventors, pre and post) so I'm not giving it all away for free. Smidoid (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Peaceray, you are requiring proof of a negative. I hope that is not official WikiPedia requirements. You are implying that people can write whatever they believe (or perhaps not believe) to be true and it is the responsibility of others to prove it is wrong. Sam Tomato (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

SEC charges Holmes with massive fraud

The SEC.gov has issued this release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-41 Now it is legally demonstrated that Holmes committed fraud and Theranos is a sham company. But the pahe is locked "to avoid vandalism". Please, stop protecting this fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.162.97.189 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest any recommended changes to the article. Andrew327 17:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Some changes have alredy been done, but I think the "entrepreneur and inventor" title must be removed as is is laready known Hommes invented nothing, and her entrepreneurship is not such, as now we know her company is a scam. The title scammer, or sham inventor can be used to illustrare adequately her title.

Also, the section about "Philantropy" needs to be reworded as she made promises never acomplishes, such as the one in Mexico where, given her technology doesn't exists, she can't use it for "lowering the costs of blood tests". regards, C.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.104.132 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@189.216.104.132: There is ample reason to state that she is an inventor, as stated by multiple sources that I have listed elsewhere on this page & as can be seen from "Elizabeth A. Holmes Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications". According to Forbes, one of the patent fillings dates back to at least 2003, long before there was any discernible hint of impropriety. Peaceray (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

early life

It is perhaps worth noting she was raised in a family of high wealth and connections, which helped her get early momentum

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/business/theranos-founder-faces-a-test-of-technology-and-reputation.html

"The family’s wealth, power and political connections date to the 1890s, when Christian Rasmus Holmes, a Danish immigrant and physician, married Bettie Fleischmann, heiress to the namesake yeast fortune and a Cincinnati socialite with a fondness for Chinese bronzes.Elizabeth’s father, Christian IV, grew up in California, raised by his mother, a former Powers model, whose second husband was a prominent San Francisco businessman. The family moved in powerful circles. Mr. Holmes took a Hearst daughter to a debutante cotillion in 1967.Mr. Holmes had a distinguished career in public service, holding a number of senior government positions in Washington. He took on important roles in international trade and disaster relief, and his daughter recalls a home filled with photos of her father in conflict- and disaster-ridden areas around the world.Her mother had connections, too. Noel Anne Daoust worked as a congressional aide to Representative Charlie Wilson, among others, although she took a dozen years off to raise her two children.In the early 1990s, Mr. Holmes moved the family to Texas where he worked for energy companies, including Tenneco and Enron. (Mr. Holmes has since returned to public service and now works at the United States Agency for International Development.)"

Perhaps it should state in her Bio... "Holmes is the Grandaughter of Bettie Fleischmann of the yeast fortune, and her father was a senior officer at various agencies involved in international trade, disaster relief, while her mother was a senior congressional staffer for Rep Charlie Wilson, as well as committee staff to the House International Relations committee, amongst others." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Add that lone "alternative view" is from former neighbor/friend's father?

John Carreyrou's book mentions that Tim Draper was Elizabeth Holme's neighbor and childhood friend's father, which was crucial to securing him as a first big investor. Since he is the only person to defend Holmes currently in the "Alternative Views" section, information about this potential bias seems crucial.24.180.126.48 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Selling compilers to Chinese Universities

I highly doubt the veracity of the claim that a teenage Elizabeth Holmes sold C compilers which she wrote to Chinese Universities. At this time I know there were definitely free compilers like GNU which many programmers have and still do use for small projects. I don't know what the state of the Chinese university system was at the time, but I find it highly suspicious that a teenager with limited experience could take up the task of writing on a whim and then to sell it to a non-trivial institution such as a University. Do note that in the article source, there is no mention of the universities to which this compiler was sold nor the process of its design and manufacture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margielamango (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither the source nor this Wikipedia article say she wrote the compilers. She just sold them. I guess she bought them wholesale in the US and sold them in China. It was in the late 1990s or early 2000s, so she may actually have sold boxes with DVDs and books. Or she may have sold licenses that she bought from the developer. Or maybe she had a contract with a company which made compilers and sold them for a premium... Many scenarios that are quite possible. Nothing special.
"free compilers like GNU which many programmers have and still do use for small projects" - Free compilers like GCC have always been used for huge projects, e.g. GNU/Linux, but other compilers may have advantages, e.g. you pretty much need Visual C++ if you want to build Windows programs. There are several other possible reasons why a university may prefer a specific compiler. Nothing suspicious here either. List of compilers#C++ compilers (And by the way, the source (and this article) say she sold C++ compilers, not C compilers. Closely related languages, but also quite different.)
Just to make this clear: I'm not trying to defend Holmes. Given here later history, it's possible she also lied about the compiler business. But so far, there's no good reason to doubt what's reported in a reliable source, and the part about the compilers hasn't been retracted.
P.S.: At least she admitted that her compiler business didn't make much money. Chrisahn (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bias

I feel like the header text of this page is super biased and vindictive. Is anyone going to complain if I bump the details of her shortcomings into subsections? They don't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasFletcher (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Do you mean the talk page, or the article itself? I'm not clear exactly what you intend to do. Mockingbus (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean the article itself. I propose bumping most of the bad news about Theranos into a subsection. We don't need 4 paragraphs of it, 1 is plenty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasFletcher (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about the lead section? Which "4 paragraphs" (I see 4 in the lead). Also remember she is now mostly notable as the failed CEO of Theranos, the article should be about that to an outsized degree. -- GreenC 05:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure she has any notability that isn't directly related to her tenure as CEO of Theranos or the subsequent legal action. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Although I still feel like the header paragraphs are overly biased, I'm clearly in the minority here, so let's drop this idea. DallasFletcher (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the lead text is "biased and vindictive", but I think I agree that some of the details need to be moved into later sections. It's overly-detailed and redundant. I'll condense it and try not to leave out anything important. Mockingbus (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the way you rearranged the header looks great! Much appreciate it. DallasFletcher (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to GreenC, too, who did much of the heavy lifting! Mockingbus (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No such thing as sensational or influence or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivklwks (talk • contribs) 11:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wording of sentence in Lead

This section is for discussion of the wording of this sentence in the Lead. Base arguments on community-standard Guidelines, Policy and good English grammar rather than personal preference. If required additional community members can be summoned who can look at the case and help decide a solution. I look forward to working through this as long as is required. -- GreenC 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You chose not to participate in this discussion and reverted the change again, with the rationale of "ignore all rules" and that you personally prefer it this way despite what other editors think. Redacted my mistake. -- GreenC 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Try reading the actual edit before reverting and making charged accusations. I left the version you reinstated and fixed a typo—you spelled Theranos as “Therenos.” Is that MOS too? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
You are right, I misread. -- GreenC 17:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now I think that a possessive is preferable to the passive voice; I cited WP:IGNORE just to emphasize that we don’t always have to follow the rules to a T. Wouldn’t you agree this makes more sense? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The possessive creates awkward phrasing per MOS:POSS thus the guideline to rephrase those cases. Not sure I see the argument for why passive is better. I also find the possessive of "decline" to be a little odd in its current usage, before the idea has been introduced and explained. The passive version plainly sets the paragraph to emphasize 'decline of' as the operative of what is to be explained. -- GreenC 20:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

In the media

The section Elizabeth_Holmes#In_media states: "Holmes has been featured in a number of books, movies, podcasts and documentaries" then proceeds to list them. This section was deleted as "promotional" (though incongruously keeping the book but not the CBS documentary). I restored it because this is standard material on Wikipedia when someone has had significant biographical works about them. -- GreenC 00:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Age-gap relationship

In the main article, it seems like an unnecessary value judgement to point out the ages of Holmes and Balwani when they first met: "…whom she met when she was 18 and he was 37" Lukfunk (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources consider it notable to mention, and we are not making a value judgement but reporting what the sources say. -- GreenC 16:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Education

The reference to education should not be Stanford University. She attended but did not graduate so it is inaccurate to claim Stanford as an "alma mater" as it implies the graduation that she did not achieve. The education/alma mater listing should be changed to St. John's School to reflect the high school from which she graduated and the only school that really is an alma mater for her. It is more appropriate to mention her time at Stanford in her biography and note there that she did not complete her studies. Sansonoma (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Alma Mater refers to a school or university that someone attended. Graduation is not a necessary condition for a school to be considered an alma mater. Plandu (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Alma Mater means different things depending on your country. In the USA where Holmes is from, it can mean two things: where your graduated, or where you attended. Merriam-Webster Definition. There is a disambiguation problem when using this term in the context of USA. It can lead to confusion that she graduated. The same confusion Sansonoma experienced. -- GreenC 15:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox person it says: "It is usually not relevant to include alma_mater for non-graduates". I agree with this as it can give the appearance of graduation (see above) and since this has been a continually controversial topic it is better left off and leave it to the article text to explain. -- GreenC 16:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Alleged fraudster

I undid an edit which added Alleged fraudster from the infobox under occupation. I was then reverted by the IP who added it and Natureium restored to my version. If Holmes is convicted we could perhaps argue that her occupation was fraudster... perhaps. But for now putting it in her occupation, even with alleged and a cite, strikes me as BLP violation. I will note that the IP suggests I need to have talk page consensus to remove it, but will again suggest, because of the BLP implications, that they should have talk page consensus to include it. I am opening this conversation to see if there is any such consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And I see now that the IP has been edit warring. I assumed a little too much good faith here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Powerful Connections

While this new section is well sourced, the tone is horrible and it is definitely in my opinion over coverage.

A few examples where I do not understand the point, disagree with the tone, and/or see opinion and OR:
"a further nuance especially notable to many observers"
"the imprimatur of the Theranos board" -the catholic church is involved?
"association with a powerful, avuncular figure" -there is an uncle involved?
"Adherents of this theory" -what theory, and how do you get to claim they are in on this theroy?
" took the aforementioned decisive -- if belated -- regulatory actions" -obvious opinion being inserted

Beach drifter (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It reads like an investigative reporter following leads and building a story - more like a newspaper or magazine articles than an encyclopedia. Nothing wrong with newspaper and magazine articles but Wikipedia has to follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Also there is a WP:WEIGHT problem, this is supposed to be a biography article but nearly half is dedicated to this one aspect - too much attention paid to transient gossipy theories. Also the bullet lists per WP:PROSE are not required, it makes the section that much bigger overwhelming the rest of the article visually. Notify User:Dd53703. -- GreenC 13:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Beach drifter and GreenC, duly noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dd53703 (talk • contribs)

@Dd53703: hey don't get me wrong, I like the work you did on that section, hope you can find a place to publish it somewhere as it is a well-written synthesis of the current state of knowledge on that topic. It's just long and detailed and the tone not NPOV enough for Wikipedia. Some of that might still be added so long as its factual and concise to the point. BTW there is similar material in Theranos. A further thought it might also be possible to create a standalone article called Theranos governance or something which would provide room to expand on board members, investors, directors and and management. Then link to it from this article and Theranos. It would have to be careful not to adopt a POV otherwise it would be a WP:POVSPLIT ie. creating a new article to make a POV that wouldn't otherwise be given in other articles. -- GreenC 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Past tense

"Elizabeth Anne Holmes was the founder..." The founding took place in the past, but Holmes is still alive. Tense needs to be changed. Page is hard-lock protected, so only admins can edit. Please fix. 71.233.84.60 (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for posting with a suggestion. I don't think that would be correct. AGK ■ 12:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Businesswoman"?

From reading the article it would appear that she made her money peddling the 21st century equivalent of snake-oil, and is being investigated for same. An appropriate description for that profession would be "confidence woman" or "con artist", not "businesswoman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. She's the biggest fraudster since Bernie Madoff, and it would appear that she's got some minions reversing edits that point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5500:7FFE:D93D:9E5C:A3F2:FDDE (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough evidence is already in place to change her occupation from "entrepreneur inventor" to "scammer". What more data is required to name her just what she is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.122.191 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am tired of editing her "entreprenuer and inventor" title to "self-proclaimed inventor", because evidense is enough to show she has just invented noting but a scam. But changes are removed again and again even there is nothing that supports her "inventor" title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.96.127 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Holmes holds patents; so the Patent Office considers her an inventor. She fits both the definition of entrepreneur & inventor. She may be a con artist & a fraud as well, but until someone provides verification, this remains in the realm of opinion. I note that the lead already contains coverage about doubts of her veracity including the statement that "federal prosecutors began criminal investigations for potentially misleading investors and the government". However, according to the rule of law in the U.S., a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Holmes has not even been charged yet. I therefore implore your patience, as I have faith that the truth will come out. Peaceray (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So everyone that holds a patent should be described as an "inventor" in the first line in Wikipedia? Eddie van Halen; Abraham Lincoln; James Cameron; Marlon Brando; Lawrence Welk. All of these people hold patents. Should they be described as "inventors" in the first line of their Wikipedia entries? Of course not, because that's not what they are known for. So too with Holmes. She is known for being an accused confidence artist. —68.132.225.41 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@68.132.225.41:
  • Please see Help:Talk pages & Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines so that you can lean how to properly format your comments & how to sign your posts.
  • The fact that Holmes hold US patents & is thus an inventor, at least by US legal standards, has been part of the article for over 1½ years, since this edit. Therefore WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies.
  • As per MOS:BLPLEAD, "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph." I would argue that inventor applies here. Given that holding a patent was a successful achievement, as opposed to being an unsuccessful CEO & entrepreneur, I would argue that is significant for her. Regarding the folks that you cited, I would say that inventions are not the foremost achievement for which they are known. I will also note that Hedy Lamarr is not know primarily foremost for her inventions; nevertheless, they were notable achievements & why the word inventor has been included in the lead sentence of her article.
  • As for your comment that Holmes [primarily] "is known for being an accused confidence artist", that is already noted in the second sentence. As evident in the Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & other articles about executives who have committed fraud, we adhere to "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph" guideline & avoid contentious labels in the first sentence. Thus no mention of fraud in the first sentence in the articles about those men have been convicted of fraud, & it must be no different for this article about a woman has been indicted but not yet convicted.
  • If you are still unconvinced of the value of maintaining neutral language in the opening sentence, then I would ask that you please consider the lead sentence for Adolph Hitler as a model.
Peaceray (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Most patents are worthless . . . is there any verifiable source which says that Holmes' patent has any value? If someone has a few worthless patents, they are not an "inventor" by any reasonable definition of the word. And certainly they can't be known for their (worthless) invention. Not unless they are a con artist. Anyway, I don't Wiki's rules, but I do know rules-laywering when I see it. And I do know that Holmes is not an inventor. —24.46.147.106 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@24.46.147.106: There is verification in the article that the US Patent Office considers Holmes to be an inventor, including a citation to the US Patent Office. Patents are legal instruments & their value becomes apparent whenever someone licenses them or has to pay damages for violating them. Therefore, the statement "Most patents are worthless" strikes me as a biased statement on your part, & any editing based on this opinion would violate the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Unless you have verification that she is not an inventor. Do you have a reliable source? Peaceray (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Peaceray. Holmes still holds patents (and I think she probably did invent some things that actually work, although her idea as a whole failed, and she lied about the failure). The first (short) sentence mentions "inventor and "former entrepreneur", the second sentence clearly states that she is under indictment for fraud. As soon as she has been convicted, we can change the second sentence accordingly, or we can add the conviction to the first sentence. Until then, the introduction is fine as it is, because it clearly states the salient facts. Chrisahn (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Just noting that adding the conviction to the first sentence would be inconsistent with we have for Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & other articles about executives who have committed fraud. Their convictions are not listed in the first sentence. I do not see why it should be any different for this article. Peaceray (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Have any of Holmes supposed inventions been licensed? Has anyone paid damages for violating her patents? Of course not. Her patents are worthless and she's not an inventor. More importantly, she is not known for inventing anything of value;she is known for being an accused confidence artist. I'm not as good a wiki-lawyer as you are, but it's ridiculous to refer to her as an "inventor" and this is obvious to anyone with common sense. —68.132.225.41 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@68.132.225.41:

  • Again: Please see Help:Talk pages & Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines so that you can lean how to properly format your comments & how to sign your posts.
  • As per WP:5P1, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Why, then, do you keep offering up your opinion without any verification?
  • As per WP:5P2, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Offering your opinion without verification to back it up cannot be considered anything but bias.
  • You are asking us to value your opinion over that of the US Patent Office. Why would we choose your unsupported opinion over verification from a reliable source?

I think you misunderstand, or disagree, with our purpose. Please have a look at our fundamental principles & our policy & guidelines. If you are agreeable to these, then I welcome you as an editor. If you cannot agree, than I respectfully ask that you please edit elsewhere. Perhaps you can find some wiki site where editorializing is paramount.

Peaceray (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Three thoughts

1. Inventor. The "inventor" claim was sourced to a primary source and an opinion piece, neither of which passes BLP muster. References should be impartial and reliable secondary sources. Citing a patent record as justification for calling someone an inventor is original research.

2. Scam artist. It's too early to use words like "scammer" in the article.

3. Lies/Fraud. It is verified through hundreds of reliable sources (including an entire book) that Holmes lied about her technology. Elizabeth Holmes is primarily known for her deceit. Some business leaders became known for other things and then committed fraud. Other people are known primarily for their fraud. Holmes is in the same category as Bernard Madoff, Frank Abagnale, Charles Ponzi, and others who have references to their schemes at the beginning of their biographies. Andrew327 23:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewman327: A few questions/comments:
  • Do you have full access to the full article for Rago, Joseph (September 8, 2013). "Elizabeth Holmes: The Breakthrough of Instant Diagnosis".? While I do not, I can see from the snippet that it is an interview with explanatory introductory text beforehand. The Wall Street Journal does not identify it as an opinion piece. I am curious as to what causes you to identify it so?
  • If you still continue objecting to the Rago piece, would you have any objections to any of these as verification that Holmes is an inventor who holds patents instead of or in addition to the Rago source:
  • My objection is placing the identification with fraud in the first sentence; anywhere after that is fine with me. I have read your note about Frank Abagnale, Charles Ponzi, Earl Jones (investment advisor), & Kweku Adoboli, & I see that they are only known for fraud, whereas Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & Joseph Nacchio were know for their roles & positions before they went bad. I believe that since Holmes had already filed patents & had founded Theranos in 2003 at age 19, that she was arguably notable for that alone until it became evident over a decade later that she was dealing in deceptive practices. Also, she currently stands indicted but not yet convicted. My advice is to avoid contentious labels altogether in the first sentence & bring it up in the second sentence, to be consistent with the Ebbers/Skilling/Lay/Nacchio articles. Am I being a stickler on this? Yes, I am holding to principle. Over the history of this articles, there has been all sorts of contentious labels inserted that would never fly in numerous other articles. The only diffence that I can think of is that Holmes is a woman & Ebbers, Skilling, Lay, & Nacchio are men, although I doubt anyone would own up to that. It is important to avoid gender bias by being consistent.
  • Is there a model for neutral language in the first sentence, followed by more pointed language? I can think of no better example of a neutral lead sentence than the Adolph Hitler article:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.

Surely if we can state just the facts about roles & positions in the lead sentence for Adolph Hitler, we can do the same for Elizabeth Holmes.
Peaceray (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Holmes became known for certain things that later were discovered to be lies. A lot of the old articles are tainted by her false claims. Regarding the Wall Street Journal piece, it's from their series "The Weekend Interview", which lets famous people describe what they do in their own words. An interesting read, but not an objective source.
Sexism isn't a concern here since every analogous article I provided is for a man. For what it's worth, I think several of the other articles (including Hitler) should be rewritten. I've started working on a few of them. Andrew327 15:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Why doesn't Hitler's introduction mention that he was an animal rights activist? The answer is that's not what he is known for. Elizabeth Holmes is not known for being an inventor (which makes sense, since she is not an inventor), she is known for being an accused confidence artist. An inventor, as most people understand the term, is someone who comes up with useful inventions. There is no reliable secondary source stating that Holmes is an inventor, which makes sense because she never came up with any useful inventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.147.106 (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@24.46.147.106: I would beg to differ. There are sources that note her for this. Consider these two:
Her early recognized status as an inventor is an important part of the narrative. It is why so many gave her & Theranos credence in the first place. Just because Theranos was massively incompetent on capitalizing on the technology & fraudulently promoted it as anything but vaporware does not mean that the underlying patents are invalid.
Peaceray (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"has been part of the article for over 1½ years, since this edit . Therefore WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies." Does Wikipedia really have a statute of limitations? I kinda doubt it. Looks like Wiki-Lawyering to me.

On the subject of patents, the problem is that you can invent vapourware and patent it. Patents are a particularly troublesome area because so few of us actually understand the arcane language. When my first one (which, incidentally does work) came back from the patent lawyer along with the humungous bill, I could hardly understand a word of it! Many, many claims have been made "Because we have a patent" but I wonder how many of these patents can be made into working somethings. I remember seeing a patent for a carboard mobile phone once. Not the most practical device you can imagine. Patents aren't granted on the basis that the patented thing WORKS just that it makes an inventive step - which hasn't been made before. This seems, to me anyway, perhaps the biggest hole in this already complex business. Holmes might well have a load of patents therefore, the bigger question remains of how many of them actually work and aren't like her blood-testing scam! Smidoid (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Further to the above, quoting "State intellectual property office. 2015-06-04. Finalists in the "Non-European Countries" category are [...] and Elizabeth Holmes (US) for her simplified blood-testing system." - which as we all now know wasn't so much vaporware, it was all based on a scam. So again, I would ask those with more time to look at this stuff, find her GRANTED patents (applications don't matter now) and see how many of them are actually inventive and likely to work vs. how many are just like this one: fake. Smidoid (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Her business was started based on her first patent that got approved. It was a dream device that did not work in real life. She simply put some cutting edge ideas she read about and put them together on paper as a concept. Is that what inventing is? Designing a non-working science fantasy device? I can just as well get patented for a time machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotshot714 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"does not mean that the underlying patents are invalid." It's not that her patents are invalid, it's that they are worthless. If I were somehow able to patent TNT, my patent would be invalid because TNT has already been invented. On the other hand, if I patented a new way of turning wheat into gold, it might be a valid patent, but it would still be worthless, just like Miss Holmes' patents are worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.144.130 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Holmes as an inventor & as a fraud

Editors keep removing the statement that Holmes is an inventor & the supporting citation from the first sentence of the article. There is no justification for this, as the US Patent Office has clearly awarded her patents & they have yet to be rescinded. I believe removing this statement is a WP:POV violation as it is inconsistent with other articles.

In that regard, adding any statement about alleged or actual fraud in the first sentence is also inconsistent with established practice, as per the edits that we have for Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & other articles about executives who have committed fraud. While those men have been convicted of fraud, this woman has been indicted but not yet convicted. So even without the whole presumption of innocence principle, it would be inconsistent to mention fraud in the opening sentence.

Let me make clear that I do not consider myself a defender of Elizabeth Holmes. I fully believe that if found guilty, then she should be doing serious prison time. But let me make it equally clear that I strongly believe that this article requires neutral editing without contentious labels.

Peaceray (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So everyone that holds a patent should be described as an "inventor" in the first line in Wikipedia? Eddie van Halen; Abraham Lincoln; James Cameron; Marlon Brando; Lawrence Welk. All of these people hold patents. Should they be described as "inventors" in the first line of their Wikipedia entries? —68.132.225.41 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@68.132.225.41:
Peaceray (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep reference to fraud. There is precedent for mentioning fraud early in an article. For a few examples, check out Bernard Madoff, Frank Abagnale, Charles Ponzi, Earl Jones (investment advisor), Kweku Adoboli, Bjarte Baasland, and many others. Andrew327 22:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewman327: I never indicated that we should not mention the fraud indictment in the lead. Nor am I aware of anyone advocating removal of any mention of fraud. What I have written is that it should not be in the first sentence, & that this would be more consistent with the Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & Joseph Nacchio articles. These were executives who performed their initial notable roles & positions legally, then turned bad. I believe that Holmes fits that mold. Frank Abagnale, Charles Ponzi, Earl Jones (investment advisor), Kweku Adoboli, & Bjarte Baasland are only known for there fraud. Bernard Madoff is a special case, & frankly, Elizabeth Holmes is not that special. Peaceray (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peaceray:. Holmes fits the mold of people like Albert Abrams (fake medical devices), Gustave Anjou, David Begelman, Philip Bloom (businessman), Otto von Bressensdorf, Richard Causey, Matthew Cox, etc. I don't see any reason to exclude from the first sentence of an article the biggest thing that makes someone notable. Andrew327 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewman327: There are some red flags for me. What verification do you have that any of the patents that Elizabeth Holmes has are fake or invalid? I have been looking & I have seen no verification of that sort. That is different that the statement that Theranos made medical devices that did not work based on those patents & has (allegedly) fraudulently promoted those devices. The comparison to the swindlers in your previous is also problematic. I have looked at each of those articles & I see no references to any of them holding patents.
Holmes has been indicted on fraud charges. That is not the same as being convicted.
  1. I believe that labeling her as a fraud in the first sentence without that conviction is point of view & original resource. We can find lots of sources that accuse Holmes of fraud. Do you have a reliable source that definitively proves fraud?
  2. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me that she is significantly different from Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Kenneth Lay, & Joseph Nacchio, where we do not put the word "fraud" in the lead sentence. I have read (even edited one) of all the articles that you have cited, & I conclude that she is considerably more similar to Ebbers, Skilling, Lay, & Nacchio than the articles that you have cited. Either be consistent, or change the Ebbers, Skilling, Lay, & Nacchio articles to be consistent. I am going to be a squeaky wheel as long as we treat women executives who may have committed fraud differently than male executives who have been convicted of fraud.
You may be think I am being overbearing on this. But I have seen other bias in the article, such as repeated efforts to label her in the first sentence as a "college dropout", when we do not include the same in the lead sentence for Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or mention there that Steve Wozniak was expelled from college. Conversely, when given a reasonable argument & verification, I have removed the claim that she was a chemical engineer from the lead sentence (see #Whether Elizabeth Holmes was a chemical engineer or not). I excise WP:PEACOCK, WP:LABEL, & WP:WEASEL alike.
Peaceray (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not contesting that Holmes was issued at least one patent. But labeling her an "inventor" is WP:SYNTH unless you cite a recent reliable source that explicitly calls her an inventor. I've now edited each of the articles you referenced to move the criminal claims earlier in the article.
Here's my proposed first sentence. Note that I don't want to use the word "fraud" in the lead sentence.
Elizabeth Anne Holmes (/hoʊmz/; born February 3, 1984) is the founder and former CEO of Theranos, a privately held company known for its false claims to have devised revolutionary blood tests that used very small amounts of blood.[proposed 1][proposed 2].
Andrew327 17:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that proposed sentence is excellent, excepting the omission of the word "inventor".
Citing "labeling her an "inventor" is WP:SYNTH unless you cite a recent reliable source" is patently (pun intended) absurd. First of all, there is no requirement in WP:RS for a source to be recent. Second, patents are inextricably for inventions.
From patent:

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state or intergovernmental organization to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention.

From inventor:

The system of patents was established to encourage inventors by granting limited-term, limited monopoly on inventions determined to be sufficiently novel, non-obvious, and useful.

Kim, Larry (2015-07-01). "21 Surprising Facts About Billionaire Entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes". Inc.com. (BTW, I think most editors would consider 2015 to be recent):

As of last year, Holmes had 84 patents to her name (18 U.S. and 66 non-U.S.).

From Loria, Kevin (2015-04-25). "Scientists are skeptical about the secret blood test that has made Elizabeth Holmes a billionaire". Business Insider.:

... she's the co-inventor on more than 270 global patent applications.

So there is no WP:SYNTH, & there is verification that she is an inventor by any common understanding. As much as you seem to wish to discredit her as an inventor due to the false claims & probable fraud, there is no verification that her patents have been invalidated. Her status as an inventor at an early age is one of the most notable things about her. It needs to be in the lead sentence.
Peaceray (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Bad Blood makes it pretty clear that Holmes isn't an inventor. Here's one quote: "While doing so, she noticed that Elizabeth’s name was on all the company’s patents, often in first place in the list of inventors. When Ian told her that Elizabeth’s scientific contribution had been negligible, Rochelle warned him that the patents could be invalidated if this was ever exposed. That only served to make him more agitated." That's why I'd like to see a reliable source that says she's an inventor and weigh that source against other sources that claim she isn't. Andrew327 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
From Loria, Kevin (2015-04-25). "Scientists are skeptical about the secret blood test that has made Elizabeth Holmes a billionaire". Business Insider.:
Holmes' first patent, filed before she started Theranos in 2003 ...
Thus, it is clear to me that while Holmes may have behaved improperly &/or fraudulently sometime after founding Theranos, the initial patent was before she started Theranos, so your argument does not hold up there. Furthermore, she is the only one listed as inventor for patents 20180089827, 20170329935, 9858660, 9619627, 20160342768, 20160283706, 9250229, 20160025760, 20160025763, 20160011215, 20160011225, 20160003823, 20150072338, 20140358036, 20140342371, 20140335505, 20140170735, 20140114677, 20140114676, 20140095189, 20140081665, 20140073043, 20140057255, 8435738, 20130079236, 20130080071, 8380541, 8202697, 8101402, 20060182738, 20060062852, & 20050100937 as per the "Justia Patents Search". source. Yes, I know that is a primary source, but that completely counters to your claim that "... Holmes isn't an inventor." Rochelle's/Ian's comment in the Loria citation cannot possible apply to Holme's individual patents. To try to make this conclusion is one of the propositional fallacies, namely affirming the consequent. In more plain terms, just because Holmes was either minimally or not involved in the invention of some group patents, it is erroneous to state that this is the case for her 32 individual patents.
It is unclear to me why you consider Business Insider or Inc.com to be an unreliable source as they do not fit any of the criteria for WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE. I find them to be reliable sources, & I suspect that the vast majority of editors would consider Business Insider & Inc.com to be reliable as well.
We have reliable sources that indicate that she is an inventor & holds patents, & that she is notable because she did this at an early age. I ask your cooperation in including this in the lead sentence with the listed verification from reliable sources & using the best wording possible.
Peaceray (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying the sources are fundamentally unreliable, I'm saying they're outdated. It's appropriate to write somewhere in the article "Holmes is listed on x patents in the United States." There's insufficient information to make that literally the first thing people see when they Google "Elizabeth Holmes." Andrew327 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Objecting to the age of a source is a red herring. There is no recency requirement in WP:RS. A reliable citation about the incandescent light bulb from the 1890s is as good as one from the 2010s. The exception, of course, is when a subsequent source discredits an earlier source,. This happens occasionally in medical journals when studies are rescinded & often when journalism exposes the inaccuracy of earlier articles or sources. However, I have seen no one presenting any evidence that Holmes's are invalid or that the US Patent Office improperly issued them.
Her early recognized status as an inventor is an important part of the narrative. It is why so many gave her & Theranos credence in the first place. Just because Theranos was massively incompetent on capitalizing on the technology & fraudulently promoted it as anything but vaporware does not mean that the underlying patents are invalid.
Peaceray (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There's been substantial pushback against the idea that Holmes is an inventor. There is enough evidence to support a claim along the lines of "Holmes has been issued x patents" in the body of the article. Identifying Holmes as an inventor in the first sentence requires reliable sources that primarily identify her as an inventor, ideally sources that came after the fraud allegations came to light. I haven't been able to find these sources. There's no doubt that we should count her patents in the body of the article, but there's no reason to start the article with "Elizabeth Holmes is an inventor." Other than Peaceray, does anybody support starting the article in that way? Andrew327 17:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling Holmes an "inventor" is clearly WP:UNDUE. The market has decided her patents are of no value. Most people with valuable patents are not listed at "inventors" here. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: Your statement that "The market has decided her patents are of no value" sounds like WP:OR. Do you have citations to back that up? Peaceray (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"There's been substantial pushback against the idea that Holmes is an inventor." That's because she's not an inventor. If the rules require her to be described as an inventor in the first sentence, then there is something very wrong with the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.132.222 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately there is no rule requiring that we call Holmes an inventor. Consensus is clearly against labeling her as an inventor. Andrew327 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears folks are still debating this without noticing that the word inventor has been removed from the lead sentence since 2018-06-25, so going on about this is like beating a dead horse.
However, the article is sorely in need of a section about her patents. Regardless how you feel about whether she is an inventor (as listed on the patents) or not, the patents are a compelling part of the story about how she managed to get credibility in the first place. I think at my last count, she was the sole individual on over thirty patents, & listed as an inventor on over 100 patents. She applied for her first patent at age 19. So to not address this in the article is missing out on why so many investors were willing to fork over their money.
Peaceray (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"It appears folks are still debating this without noticing that the word inventor has been removed from the lead sentence since 2018-06-25, so going on about this is like beating a dead horse."

This problem has been fixed (for now) but it is a symptom of a deeper issue.

"missing out on why so many investors were willing to fork over their money."

Investors forked over their money for the same reason some people insist on falsely calling her an inventor: Because she's a pretty girl. Shall we have a section in the article on the problem of men who lose all ability to think critically when they see an attractive woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.144.130 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hucksters only need charisma, compelling story and appeal to greed. -- GreenC 22:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed references

  1. ^ Levine, Matt (14 March 2018). "The Blood Unicorn Theranos Was Just a Fairy Tale". Bloomberg View. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  2. ^ Abelson, Reed (24 April 2016). "Theranos's Fate Rests With a Founder Who Answers Only to Herself". New York Times. Retrieved 30 April 2016.

wp:BLP and fraud

The article asserts unconditionally that she ran a fraudulent business. This is contradicted by the fact a company spent millions of dollars buying the company patents so clearly someone thinks there is value. And no court has ruled on this, she has only settled but never admitted fraud. The article needs to treat her like any other accused person and step back from the court of public opinion. -- GreenC 13:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That may be so, but 'unlikely' is too weaselly when you look at the bulk of what's in the body of the article. I've changed it to 'false' as that is neutral and is more factual. Valeince (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Falsely claiming" asserts fraud, a knowing intention to deceive. We can not assert she or company are fraudulent. We may believe that, and the court will probably rule on it, but until then it's a BLP. It says in the first paragraph "potential fraud" because that is what it is - potential. She has been charged but no one has admitted guilt, they settled previous charges and current criminal charges are still in process. The first paragraph is more than sufficient for readers to understand. The word "claim" inherently says there is more than one side to the story, and the second sentence says "potential fraud". -- GreenC 23:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Bill Clinton

There is a single mention of her being "connected" with Bill Clinton, but no follow up in the later text. It seems it is just thrown in there to suggest she is connected to someone on the left, as well as a plethora of people on the right.

Is there any supporting evidence to suggest she has connections to Bill Clinton? Any documented proof? With citations? And if not, should this reference be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6240:102:21:A146:D8A6:5E01:535A (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

'Clinton' is mentioned several times in Bad Blood (book) including page 285 "She had long cultivated a relationship with the Clintons" goes on to explain she appeared at Clinton Foundation fundraising events, was involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign fund raising, had a friendship with Chelsea and the two of them stood side by side at a fundraising event March 2016. The evidence for Hillary and Chelsea are rock solid, Bill's involvement is less clear. -- GreenC 14:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Holmes/Archive_5&oldid=1111023563"