Talk:Lou Pearlman/Archives/2016

A mug shot now

How about now? He's in prison now, so wouldn't a mug shot be okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Article is a mess (again)

Ok, the last section (current events, I guess?) has become 2x larger than the rest of the article. Is anybody else editing / rewriting this article (as the tag would indicate)? Wow but it needs it! Eaglizard 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, I guess the section should be cleaned up some day soon. However, the case is quite fresh and having this extensive list of press articles is still quite handy at the moment. I suggest we wait until pace of events is slowing down. --SooperJoo 11:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional charges?

Posting here because what I am about to say probably does not belong on the main page for reasons of original reasarch and or neutrallity, but stay tuned while I consider whether or not I can convince some more appropriate sources who have heard me say things (very privately) regarding the possibility that someone in the music business was responsible for various drive by shootings of potential witnesses, providing ramp passes to September 11th hijackers, murder of another possible witness who may have been thrown from a bridge, etc. Generally speaking of course, a ponzi of this size does not normally operate for this long (15 years?) without a certain amount "cement". Or should I add this one to other theories about "Who really killed Toupac?" 71.138.134.242 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand things, several criminal complaints have now been officially filed before at least one Superior Court in the State of Florida and at least one United States District Court. State of Florida, Office of Financial Regulation v. Trans Continental Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 48-2006-CA-011136, is already on the public record and should be in Discovery of Fact within three months. Whoever has sources for the additional complaints I suspect should likewise post them; they're needed for this article. - B.C.Schmerker 15:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: needs photo

I added an Infobox musical artist for non-performing personnel 15:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC). If anyone has a copy of Pearlman's frontal mugshot from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, it should be a GO for inclusion as, being an image property of the United States in Congress assembled, it qualifies as public domain. - B.C.Schmerker

Update: That was a rather clever edit on the part of User:SooperJoo. Incidentally, the Infobox musical artist could have easily taken the mugshot now at the top of the article with parameter:Landscape=yes. At least the Infobox is intact if bumped to Section 1. - B.C.Schmerker 06:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment B.C., but even if I knew how to have the pic in the infobox, I think Pearlman's "merits" as a con man outdo by far his merits as a music producer. From what is known so far, it appears the fame he b(r)ought the boy bands was mere instrumental to reach his own goal, being rich and famous in the music industry like his cousin Art. --SooperJoo 15:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Reports of Pedophilia and Inappropriate Conduct section

I removed the Reports of Pedophilia and Inappropriate Conduct section. The entire section is speculative, based on rumors and not proven fact. Not a single case was even brought against him, thus he has never been tried or convicted. Unless credible reports from an actual victim are made known, this section does not belong as it is not factual. The section was well written and sourced from a Vanity Fair and New York article, but that should be considered tabloid journalism. All evidence points to nothing more than rumors. 138.88.153.55 17:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I completly disagree and I bet you have not read the Vanity Fair article. There was an actual case brought against him (by a boy or 'boys' its unknown) but Lou called up the FBI claiming blackmail and began harassing the persons into silence so the case was dropped. Vanity Fair is a pretty reliable source. There are quotes by former boyband members and mothers...I wouldnt call that 'rumors'. I mean for someone to be accused of something major doesnt make it irrelvant because its not an awarded case. For instance OJ was aquitted of murder but to take that out of his Wikipedia entry would be insane. Nowhere in the article does it say he was tried and convicted for it; but several reliable sources have said it was a major part of what he was doing. I dont see why its not Wikipedia relevant...--Thegingerone 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He is accused of this conduct. This is reasonable to report with cited sources. We must not go overboard to make it appear that he is actually guilty. We should simply report the fact that some people make these accusations and if Pearlman or a spokesman has denied them, these denials deserve at least equal attention. --Blue Tie 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And that has been done because I went to great lengths to add 'he has not been charged with' and 'accused'. As much as Id like to see some of these claims proven I know they have not been; it cant be added as such --Thegingerone 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section to remove the term "pedophilia" as it is not accurate. While the allegations may have accused him of inappropriate or illegal behavior, the references and information contained here in the Wiki article don't suggest that he was in any way involved with or accused by prepubescent boys. Pedophilia refers to prepubescent children, not simply persons under the legal age of consent. A title of simply "allegations of inappropriate conduct" is a more suitable as it truly reflects the facts. I feel that the general public often confuses a person who engages in or is interested in minors with a pedophile, when in fact the latter term refers to a subset of those interested in minors. I have not seen any information about Lou Pearlman to suggest he is a pedophile or that claims of pedophilia have been brought against him.Tha*Lunat!k (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-added reference to Defrawy

User:DylanKate Removed an unflattering yet NPOV and well cited refererence to Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. This user is an employee of Mr. El-Difrawi and was warned about vandalism numerous times and contributed to an edit war on the entry for El-Difrawi. (Mr El-Difrawi's IP address is still blocked due to vandalism I believe)

One of the cites goes to a copy of the original El-DIfrawi Wikipedi entry which had been removed due to Original research, NPOV, and Notability issues. However, it is well cited and not a blog and thus suitable as a reference for Wikipedia.

This information is crucial to this article, becuase Pearlman sued Transcon executives and Mr. El-Difrawi in part because of El-Difrawi's criminal record. It is important to know that record includes both large-scale fraud and violent crime.

DylanKate's entire resaon for any editing on Wikipedia ahd been to cast a favoriable and non-NPOV light on his or her employer - attempting to turn El-Difrawi's entry into a vanity listing in violation of Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.5 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Defrawy, pedophile claims, and trashing

I cleaned this article again. Things on Defrawy are relevant but heavy details should be left to an article about him (if he is notable enough for one). Several charges and aliases have nothing to do with Lou; there useless.

As for the pedophile claims I believe with it being as major as it is that it warrants its own section in the controversies section as long as its cited and kept tasteful. It is mentioned that these are allegations and not proven charges. But they are significant enough for a mention.

As for the rest of it Im noticing some heavy trashing going on here by people I believe mean well. To add something is good; but sometimes people add too many details that are irrelvant. Like someone added Industry magazine just saying how Lou owned it and counted that as a controversy...which made no sense. It wasnt until it was elaborated on that we understood it was a mouthpiece for the TCT scams. And this goes back to irrelvant details and info on people not involving Lou, unciteable stuff, and my ever favorite: removing cited stuff because its 'mean' or doesnt 'look good'. If its cited or referenced and relevant then it belongs there. I think some people need to read up on how to use wikipedia... --Thegingerone 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I bleieve that Defrawy's (El-Difrawi's) aliases are relevant in order to locate information about him and validate sources. If one doesn't realize that Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi and Alec Defrawy, And Michael Difrawy are the same person - the references might not make sense. I think the alias becomes relevant when it is the only name mentioned in a particular sources. Aliases like Alex Simon, Alex Siman, Alan Madison, Michael Chandler and others might not be relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Scandals are too long

The talent scouting and ponzi scheme sections are too long -- perhaps as much as twice as long as they should be. They should not detail all the trivia. Just the key points. This is not a blog -- its an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay you can not just remove things because you dont like them. Several of the things you removed had legitimate sources if not two (for instance the musical percentages had two good sources; Vanity Fair and an industry book which because you dont own you claimed you could not 'find' the sourced information in...you cant just remove BOOK quotes because you do not own them). I dont see this as a blog and thats what Im trying to keep out (look back to older edits you'll see what I mean). But a lot of this info IS encyclopediac you cant just remove it for fun or because you dont like it --Thegingerone 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous post by Thegingerone. These sections are very long because they are incredibly complex and well cited. This in NO WAY resembles a blog which would be one person's point of view written without sources. Many editors are working to keep this entry in NPOV. It is a work in progress because the stories are unfolding now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They are too long and they are badly written. It needs a lot of cleanup. This is normal for an article that is evolving from daily and weekly news article, but eventually it should be cleaned up. And, please note, that I am not removing things just because I do not like them. I have no like or dislike either way. This is a matter of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. There are things that are said in the article that are simply not supported, or they are Original Research. When something is not cited in a biography article of a living person it is subject to immediate removal and it can be removed an infinite number of times without being subject to the 3RR Rule. If you think that I have removed something that is cited then please show the information here because I spent HOURS looking over the cites and did NOT find the information that was delivered in the article. --Blue Tie 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit happy

Please do not delete perfectly acceptable wording when it is CITED. For instance Lou's boyband practices were cited with a Vanity Fair article, him being on the run was cited in two different articles (sale of his home and being captured), and I added an additional one to cite that at the beginning of the article. Dont delete things just because they are 'bad'. It is quite common knowledge (and said in several references) Pearlman went into hiding. It started in December or Janurary (depending who you ask; some people count his appearance in Germany some dont) and did not end until he was caught in Indonesia in June then arrested and brought back to the states. No its not a happy piece of news but he did it. Nothing is more annoying then deleted things that were CITED. --Thegingerone 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I spent hours reviewing the cited sources for support of these statements. I did not find them. Furthermore, we do not need to quote opinions as though they were facts. We need to attribute them to someone who holds that opinion. Note, for example, that it is, as a practical matter, impossible for Lou Pearlman to have been on the run from the law for 8 months since there was no warrant out for his arrest during that time. Again, per WP:BLP if the source does not support it must be deleted. If you believe you have a source for this stuff, quote it verbatim here, because I could not find it. I will delete things that are not supported by the cites. Nothing is more annoying that for you to add things that are not supported by CITES.--Blue Tie 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My source at the beginning of the entry cites that he WAS ON THE RUN since Janurary. The FBI had been searching for him since December. If there was no warrant 1) why would Lou run (he could have stayed here) and 2) Why would they have arrested him the moment they found him in Indonesia for the things he had done in the US? That makes no sense. I'm going to go and recite these sources and if any third party would like to weigh in on this Id be happy because Im sick of having to revert hard edits by you (like the one in the middle of the really long paragraph which I have trouble finding).

As for the music cites Im not going to redig through Vanity Fair but I know it said that. I'll readd 'VHI's 100 Most Shocking Rock and Roll moments' because they also said that. And as for the 'highly unusual' check my dang source; it IS highly unusual. Yes some other managers have done the same but it is not the standard OR COMMON. --Thegingerone 23:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that the FBI was looking for him, is not the same thing as him being on the run. That is original research. Second, if the FBI was looking for him since December, you can say "The FBI was looking for him since December", but you must cite that with a reference and not draw a conclusion from it other than that they were looking for him since December.

If you re-add things that are not cited I WILL DELETE THEM EVERY TIME per WP:BLP (have you bothered to read that policy yet?). If you are tired of it then stop doing it. The answer is simple. Follow wikipedia guidelines of neutrality and biography of living persons and its fine. --Blue Tie 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I still do not agree with you especially because I am reading the same sources you are. I DEMAND a third party intervention; we have entered an edit war and its getting tiring. If a third party thinks these changes should be made then by all means. But if not well then...--Thegingerone 07:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the issue. Here is the bottom line. The policy is that Biographies of Living Persons must be written from a conservative point of view. Derrogatory information that is not well cited must be deleted and may be deleted without any discussion. It may also be repeatedly deleted and is not subject to the 3rr rule. You only must have adequate citation and things will go your way without any 3rd party intervention. But if you do not have citations, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 100th party interventions will do you no good. So it is basically like this: Find sources to back up your statements and create the biography conservatively. It is all spelled out in WP:BLP. Please read it. --Blue Tie 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually its slanted the OTHER way. I.e. BlueTie went to great lengths to make sure no photo of him in jail was used and the jist of 'on the run' or 'evaded custody' though that is INDEED what Lou did. I gave up with it. As for Ponzi scheme you can check the sources; several reliable (newspaper) articles have called it just that and that is indeed what hes in custody for. He is sitting in jail waiting for his trial; I mean its not pretty but why should it be when its by his own actions?

He is indeed encylopedia worthy. He made a bunch of boybands; conned Orlando; conned investors; and conned boybands. Just because his actions arent 'pretty' dont mean its 'biased'. --Thegingerone (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mugshot vs npov

The man is a severely convicted fraud. I fail to see why a mugshot of a crook violates NPOV. He is a long-term dedicated crook, and it is his main description. Twri (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Con man?

I don't think it is appropriate to start out the Lou Pearlman article with "alleged conman" even if it does say "alleged". Seems biased. The man needs to be convicted first in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.229.54 (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Done (g). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.54.169 (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP status change

Due to the death of this person, the BLP status of this article has changed. "This does not mean that unsourced material that would contravene the Biography of Living Persons rules can be added to this article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And that would be why?

Homosexual abuse

The television show 'Crimes of the Rich and Famous' has included new material on the charges in its 'Alter Ego' episode, as well as mentioning the Vanity Fair article. It seems to have got to the point where the article should take some notice. 86.148.54.169 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question, your concern has been an on-going debate here for several years. It was decided by an editor that since no first hand accounts of sexual abuse have ever emerged, and no police investigation was ever conducted, that it's better not to include the sexual allegations. Lou Pearlman has been tried in criminal court and has been sued in civil court numerous times, and the allegations never surfaced during those proceedings. (which would have been the appropriate venue). A couple individuals have indicated that they felt sexually harassed by Mr. Pearlman, like Rich Cronin, but it's a bit of stretch to say it raised to the level of criminal intent. Rich wasn't a minor at the time, and had been financially burned, and he had a bit of a grudge against Pearlman. We don't want wikipedia turning into an alt TMZ, so I agree with the editor who removed the sex allegation section. The sexual abuse content should not be included in this article unless some type of new credible evidence emerges. RomanGrandpa (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Credible evidence DOES exist. Before his death from cancer late Rich Cronin stated long and repeatedly that Pearlman had attempted to molest him. What is the more the Vanity Fair article contained substantive evidence. Even aside from all this, the claims are stated in a slew of general media articles about Pearlman in reputable publications. Wikipedia's policies state that a reputable public is one with editorial oversight which Vanity Fair, backed by Conde Nast and teams of lawyers has. So to leave the allegations out is unencyclopaedic. Pearlman is also DEAD. I state this fact because the BLP policy is constantly referred to. Below is the section that is being removed. 203.206.184.135 (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP policy, in particular WP:BDP, which states that the policy applies to recently deceased people, a minimum of six months but often longer. Pearlman died in August of this year or about three months. Therefore, the policy applies to him.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the accusations are based solely on the words of Rich Cronin in a tongue-in-cheek interview on the Howard Stern show....an interview where he makes liberal embellishments about his career (which lessens his credibility), perhaps it should go on the Rich Cronin's wiki page. Again, Rich had the opportunity to bring it up in court civil proceedings, and he never did. Not to mention, Rich's brother Mike, also worked for Lou Pearlman and also managed O-Town.RomanGrandpa (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)