Talk:Elizabeth Holmes

Latest comment: 5 months ago by Grayfell in topic Some sources are blocked by paywalls


RfC list (pinned)

edit

Previous RfCs for this article:

Trimming the lede

edit

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:

The decline of Theranos began in 2015, when a series of journalistic and regulatory investigations revealed doubts about the company's claims and whether Holmes had misled investors and the government. In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Theranos, Holmes, and former Theranos chief operating officer (COO) Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani with raising $700 million from investors through a "massive fraud" involving false or exaggerated claims about the accuracy of the company's blood-testing technology; Holmes settled the charges by paying a $500,000 fine, returning 18.9 million shares to the company, relinquishing her voting control of Theranos, and accepting a ten-year ban from serving as an officer or director of a public company.

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

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)Reply
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. -- GreenC 15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Previously you said [t]he lead in this article is already too long and detailed[1] when you wanted to remove material, but now you want to restore material you think that the lead is not that long. 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)Reply
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. -- GreenC 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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'mere Eugene (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll accept that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entrepreneur...

edit

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.


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)Reply

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.

Some sources are blocked by paywalls

edit

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)Reply

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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources for an explanation of this. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply