Talk:Elizabeth Holmes/Archive 6

Let's remove the networth 0
It looks like shaming to me. 73.223.80.43 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not shaming. Her notability is decidedly a story of rise and fall which is best illustrated by net worth, which is widely reported in many sources. -- Green  C  01:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GreenC. I have worked to keep a lot out of this article that seemed to be denigration in comparison to other people accused of fraud or other entrepreneurs, but happened to be male. However, it does not strike me as inaccurate to list her net worth as zero when at one time she was considered a billionaire. That is indeed an important part of the (his)story. Peaceray (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I, too, agree with GreenC. It's directly relevant to current events, too. See, for example, this Bloomberg article. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2020
In February 2020, Holmes defense requested a federal court to drop all charges against her and her co-defendant Balwani, arguing that the government's inddictment was "full of ambiguity and fudging language". A federal judge then narrowed the case against Holmes and Balwani by ruling that since the tests were paid by their medical insurance companies, the patients were not deprived of any money or property in taking Theranos blood testing services. Prosecutors would hence not be allowed to argue that doctors and patients were fraud victims. However, the judge refused to drop the charges of wire fraud.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crime-theranos/u-s-judge-drops-some-charges-against-theranoss-holmes-leaves-wire-fraud-idUSKBN2060GN https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-trial-judge-narrows-case-against-founder-elizabeth-holmes-11581540190 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/elizabeth-holmes-attorneys-ask-judge-to-throw-out-theranos-fraud-case.html 2A02:8109:19BF:9BB4:D871:72AB:D251:8C7B (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add the information I summarized in the four sentences, or just the four sentences themselves at the end of the section "Criminal charges". The reliable sources are in the three links to news organizations which I provided, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and CNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:19BF:9BB4:24D9:3E76:12C3:1DDA (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Done.-- Green  C  15:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but you got one thing wrong - the proceedings took place in February 2020, not February 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:19BF:9BB4:212B:85E3:C1F6:5CAA (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. -- Green  C  22:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Net worth estimate
This has been slowly churning for a while: - the infobox entry is for people of high net worth, the Forbes article confirms she is not high net worth.--  Green  C  13:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes she is absolutely not high net worth nowadays and the Forbes article just says: "But Theranos, the blood-testing company she founded in 2003 and owns 50% of, has been hit with allegations that its products don't work as advertised and is being investigated by an alphabet soup of federal agencies. That, plus new information indicating Theranos' revenues are less than $100 million, has lead us to revise our estimate of her net worth. To zero." zero what?!! zero billion dollar?! zero million dollar?! I think because that article is about "2016 Billionaires NET WORTH" its mean is zero billion, in anyway the clam "US$0 (December 2019)" was very silly and bullshit.--Editor-1 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020
In the first sentence of the second para in section Elizabeth Holmes, please replace the word "immigrated" with "emigrated".

This is the correct syntax because the sentence would normally read in full "... who emigrated from Pakistan to India ..." but 'from Pakistan' has been elided as it is implied by referring to the subject as Pakistani-born and would be redundant to restate in the same sentence.

Thank you. 121.44.38.245 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not a grammatician, but as far as I understand: You emigrate from a country, but you immigrate to a country. As such "emigrated from Pakistan to India" is prima facie correct; "emigrated from Pakistan" is also; but "emigrated to India", even if we state "Pakistani-born" earlier, seems incorrect. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs)  03:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes PR photograph
Someone claiming to be a Theranos employee and PR head has uploaded a publicity photograph of Elizabeth Holmes to Commons. There is an Image for Deletion discussion (scroll to bottom for active discussion) --  Green  C  20:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)