Talk:Elizabeth Holmes

RfC list (pinned)
Previous RfCs for this article:
 * Is the use of the label "fraudster" for Holmes appropriate?

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:
 * 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 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. -- Green  C  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)
 * The psychological basis behind this is explained in my essay The Instinct to Punish, and we have an essay 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. -- Green  C  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)
 * 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 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. -- Green  C  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. -- Green  C  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. 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)
 * Compromise - what do you think of consolidating the two sentences of:
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * That's fine. -- Green  C  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  - 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)

Trimming the lede
Based on discussion above, I'm thinking about the size of the lede, which was a fair point brought up earlier.

It seems to me that this entire paragraph can be either removed or turned into a descriptive sentence - it's entirely focussed on Theranos as a company:

Thoughts? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've been WP:BOLD and removed the above paragraph. To be precise, I've marked it as hidden, but the end result is the same.  As per my edit summary, it's mostly about Therano and the parts that are about Holmes are also covered in the other lede paragraphs.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this removal. As noted in the edit summary, it's hard to understand Holmes and Therenos separately, you can't disconnect them. Also, the lead is not that long. -- Green  C  15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Previously you said when you wanted to remove material, but now you want to restore material you think that .  If I were the slightly more petty person, I'd use the argument that the detail you want to keep is already present in the article so there's no need to repeat it here for a complete role reversal...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * GreenC - it's been a week, and you've not replied - although you have edited this page elsewhere. Can you elaborate why after stating that the lede is too long you now think that it's fine with no change - apart from wanting to restore material rather than remove it?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sheesh. Some material is worth keeping some is not. If you would rather play a game of hypocrisy without addressing the actual content in question, no sorry. Like I said, it's hard to understand Holmes and Therenos separately, you can't disconnect them. The purpose of the LEAD is to summarize the body of the article and pretty much the majority of this article concerns Holmes at Therenos and events that transpired there. -- Green  C  15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think this material is not worth keeping - You do understand how your mutually exclusive comments could be confusing? I'm trying to address the content - which is why I started this section even before content was removed, and my justification is that the removed section focusses on the company Theranos (Therenos?) and not Holmes.  I agree that the detail is in the article body which is fine, but again, as championed by you earlier, inclusion in the body is not automatic qualification for inclusion in the lede, especially when the lede already contains plenty of Theranos detail.
 * I'm going to WP:3O on this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Third opinion: The details of the charges against Holmes are appropriately included in the lead section; 4 paragraphs are satisfactory for an article of this length, per MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:35, 29 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)

Entrepreneur...
Am i an entrepreneur if I fake invented something, used that to fake build a company, created nothing and got jailed? Would it not be a more accurate description to just call her a conman? 2A02:8085:E0C0:3580:287C:33DD:CB8F:3095 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Some sources are blocked by paywalls
First of all I'm sorry if I ignore wikipedia's rules on this topic. But it does not feel right that some of the sources cited in the article are locked behind paywalls, subscriber exclusive content, or otherwise inaccessible to the average user who may want to check if the information is factual or just read the source of the information. The umeboshi (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All things being equal, freely-available sources would be preferable for many reasons, but we do not reject sources solely because they are behind a paywall. See Verifiability for an explanation of this. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)