Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 2

WSJ report
It should be noted that on October 15, 2015 The Wall Street Journal published an expose accusing Ms. Holmes of overstating the scope of her company. The technology that she touted had never been put through peer review, and request to fully analyze the machine used by Theranos have never been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:4000:3BA0:DDCB:2F33:55E2:96F0 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's more applicable to the article on the company, and has been added there: Theranos. utcursch &#124; talk 00:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of sentences have been added to this article too. utcursch &#124; talk 18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit War on Hedge Fund Analyst Valuation
Comments are sought from others about an evolving "Edit War" on an entry quoting a hedge fund analyst suggesting that the Theranos valuation (and thus Homes net worth) could potentially approach $0 given recent events. This is a story of immense recent interest and the quote was made politely and accurately. She claims to be worth over $4 Billion; it's appropriate to include in the article the alternate point of view that it's just a paper estimate of net worth which could potentially disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.35.224 (talk • contribs)


 * The article already includes an "alternate point of view" from WSJ: "...whether its valuation (and hence Holmes's personal net worth) are realistic".
 * The problem with your edit is not the lack of pertinence or "recent interest". As mentioned in edit summary, as well as the talk page of your other IP address, the problem here is that opinion of "Tyler Durden" from ZeroHedge is not an acceptable source for a biography of a living person (please go through those two links, if you haven't already). Actually, a random blog post that reads "she lied again, something which appears to have been a recurring pattern for this 31-year-old paper multibillionaire" is not an acceptable source for any encyclopedic article.
 * utcursch &#124; talk 12:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you're same as the above IP (and others). Care to explain why you're removing reliable sources like NY Times and WSJ, or why you think that a random blog post by "Tyler Durden" qualifies as a reliable source for a biography of a living person? utcursch &#124; talk 21:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes same person I don't mean to remove NYT or WJ posts at all. Here is my main concern.   While I agree that Tyler Durden doesn't have audited financial statements to conclude that Theranos is worth $0, neither does Forbes have those documents so say that it is worth $9 Billion.  This is a very unusual situation where really major publications have published data that now WSJ says may all be false.   So either we let all the weak data in (and the readers can sort it out) or we let none of it in (in which case the article becomes useless).   Or do you have some other suggestion.  Truth is - Theranos might really be worth $9 Billion.  Or it might be worth $0.  Nobody knows at this point.  rkaplan &#124; talk


 * As I've mentioned in my earlier comment, the article already includes a sentence suggesting that the valuation is questionable,w ith WSJ as a reference ("...whether its valuation (and hence Holmes's personal net worth) are realistic"). We don't need a pseudonymous blog post for that.
 * You are simply refusing to abide by Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:BRD), and now, you're adding your own opinion to the article. utcursch &#124; talk 21:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between a questionable valuation and a $0 valuation.  It's a big, big, big deal when a hedge fund analyst says a company might be worth $0.  Who are you or me to say who is a credible source - Forbes listed her as a billionaire with almost no due diligence in retrospect.  I say again - don't censor.  Instead, allow all the sources to be included.  We have quoted Forbes saying she is a billionaire, we have Durden saying she might be worth $0.  If you have another source, list that too - the more the better.   rkaplan &#124; talk

Have a look at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. And please don't re-add this content per WP:BRD and WP:BLP. Feel free to add it with a reliable source. utcursch &#124; talk 02:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rkplan, you've already been told about WP:BLP, but you continue to add the "$0 valuation" bit to the article (when even ZeroHedge blogpost doesn't directly support that assertion). For BLP articles, the disputed content should be removed until the issue is not resolved. utcursch &#124; talk 14:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive note: That WP:RSN discussion is now archived at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 199. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015
Is it possible to add a profile photo for Ms. Holmes?

Furkanicus (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on if there is an appropriately license image available that meets Wikipedia's policies on image use. Cannolis (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)