Jump to content

Talk:Lou Pearlman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.120.85.210 (talk) at 23:14, 22 May 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Disputed

This article is: 

- this article is a mess and needs to be organized.
- not written from a neutral point of view and contains both explicit and implicit opinion
- faintly racist
- contains improper English and is badly structured
- libellous
- in need of detail citation
  • Any hate content about Lou Pearlman will be removed as it is found.
  • So will obvious advertisements or glorifications. Let's try and make it a well-balanced article. He is an interesting phenomenon with good, but also some controversial aspects to it. This cannot be denied.
  • Nex day, June 13. Another copy&paste job by User:65.14.5.2 from Talent Rock office network. He does not even try himself to give his own version of what really happened, he just deletes other's. Mark, do you consider my contribution about the last four years "hate content"? If so, would you please explain what bothers you? User 82.73.143.81 Klaas.
  • The content I keep putting up is the only content I will allow unless you have something that's not negative that you would like to add, Klaas. In my article I talk about Lou pearlman's run in with the Backstreet Boys, but all this business about Talent Rock being a scam is all false information. TalentRock 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't just the Backstreet Boys that had issues with Lou Pearlman's questionable business practices, but *NSYNC as well. I've added that legal dispute to this page as well, as it was reported on VH1. I've kept the entry as objective as possible, but personally, I can think of absolutely no justification for taking over ninety-seven percent of a recording artist's net profits. If Lou expects a cut that enormous, he'd better be onstage singing with the rest of the artists! - M.Neko
  • mikka this battle between Klass, Lou Pearlman and a few others has been going on for a few years now. Klass is only targeting Lou Pearlman's Wikipedia page for search engine leverage. TalentRock 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • False information? Search engine levering? I am only pointing to information that has been in the independent press. Never to my own site, nor to other sites who are Mr Pearlman's targets. You are only trying to leave out (is in fact falsify) historic facts. I request a permanent ban for mr Tolner, (User 65.14.5.2) and any other distorting contributors like this. I welcome any further improvement of the article, also if in favor of Pearlman. June 16. User 82.73.143.81 Klaas.
  • Klass, first off I am not Mark Tolner. Mark Tolner was let go back in early 2005. Talent Rock is also not a talent scouting company nor a talent agency. "Talent Rock is a company that hosts talent search events. These events provide opportunities for aspiring actors, models, dancers, comedians and singers to network with more than 100 industry professionals, learn about the entertainment business through industry workshops and compete for a share of more than $100,000 worth of sponsored prizes." There is nothing more to Talent Rock then that. That's is why I will only allow people to post negative information about the whole Backstreet Boys mess and not negative Talent Rock press. You like a few other people have a few serious misconceptions about Talent Rock because of some of the people that worked for Talent Rock in the past. On a side note I am going to let some of the links you just posted stay, but most of the content you just added will be removed again. TalentRock 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for trying to make a start. We could try to communicate, although it seems you still fail to understand you can not play boss here. Quoting: "I will only allow", "I am going to let ... stay", "will be removed again", never once signed a message. First I'd like to know to some extent with whom I have the pleasure. No name if you don't want to (mine is a nom-de-plume). What is your function with Talent Rock? Are you here as a company representative? User 82.73.143.81 Klaas. 17:00 GMT+1, June 17 2006 (UTC)
  • You may also write a separate Talent Rock article. Please keep in mind rules of wikipedia: the information must not look like an advertising and must be based on independent reputable sources of information. In particular, the company webpage may be used only for providing basic factual data. Blogs and personal webpages are not valid sources. `'mikka (t) 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just got done removing a few links. Here are the links and reasons why...
http://entertainment.iwon.com/celebgossip/pgsix/id/10_20_2003_1.html - Iwon is not a trusted news source. I also could not find this article on the New York Post website.
the page bears copyright of NYP. I doubt it that it is a fraud. `'mikka (t) 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/columns/story.asp?id=3066 - The Orlando Weekly is not a trusted news source. It is a free weekly paper that is written mostly by local college students.
Is it printed or online-only? If the information in the articles is false, why the OW is not sued for libel? `'mikka (t) 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/columns/story.asp?id=3556 - This link was removed for the same resons as the last link.
References "Tim Barker, "Scouting network's history troubles Pearlman," Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 5, 2003" - This article was not found on the Orlando Sentinel website. TalentRock 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case of dispute why don't you contact Tim Barker for verification? `'mikka (t) 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted your changes. The sources are trusted, and the content never has been disputed, as far as I can see. Even though at times sites clean up their online archives, the originals are still there. 82.73.143.81 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trusted by who? Can you name any large trustworthy media outlet that can vouch for them? Also can you please hold off on changing my work until the mods have a chance to look over what I did and why. TalentRock 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may understand that you don't want links to these publications because of their nasty tone. At the same time, the corresponding statements in the wikipedia article present apparent facts, not opinions, about some legal matters. So if you don't want the current links, then you may either prove that the facts are wrong or replace by equivalent references from official sources (which would be more neutral), since this information is supposed to be public. `'mikka (t) 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mikkalai, did you get the email I sent you via Wikipedia? TalentRock 17:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a little reshaping, left the main intention intact but cut out some more (imho)marketing hype & name-dropping, to achieve a more neutral tone of voice. Hope you can live with that, Talent Rock. 82.73.143.81 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mikkalai, thank you for you immediate attention. You removed a phrase and explained ("is not known" is a too strong phrase. Requires quotation.) I do not agree. Anyone will be unable to find any big name that was discovered on one of Pearlmans talent events. Just try and find one. Therefor "is not known" is simply true, nothing too strong about it imho.

As one can see in the page history, the one and only reason of Talent Rock company and supporters contributing to Wikipedia, has been to spam the Talent Rock link and thus using wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their commercial business. Pearlman personally was very successfull in marketing these boy bands, but this is unrelated to his talent contests like Talent Rock. One of the major complaints against Pearlman's methods of selling the WSN/TCT, has been their falsely suggesting that Pearlman's boy bands success would imply higher chances on the same kind of success with the contests. They are only trying to do the same here. Please consider putting back the removed phrase, to illiminate this suggestion. 82.73.147.201 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found another solution, by simply replacing the Talent Rock pr-gibberish by "organising talent contests". In its most neutral tone of voice it comes down to that, doesn't it. 82.73.147.201 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Lou, not about promoting his currently most active company. There already is an access point to TR via the external link to his companies. Feel free to try and create a page on Talent Rock in a neutral tone of voice, if you can. aka Klaas de Vries Jr 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, please try to explain Lou being a businessman related to his being jewish. I am of jewish heritance myself, but I fail to see any connection worth mentioning between the two. In fact I feel it as being a racist POV, and this category should not be allowed to exist. I am studying the possibility to have it removed. SooperJoo 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you read the article's content? aka Klaas de Vries Jr 17:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into consideration your and especially your collegue 65.14.5.2 contribution history, I cannot conclude anything else than the link's intention is mainly commercial. TR is already linked from both Transcontinental Companies and Lou's personal site. I did however remove the Amazon entry to the book, which may be looked at as being not only informational. SooperJoo 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no difference between Trans Continental Companies link and the Talent Rock link, and here is nothing commercial about them. Both companies are two totally different identities that are solely owned by Lou Pearlman. The only reason you keep removing the Talent Rock link is beacuse you think the company is a scam. It has nothing to your false commercial claim. Do I really need to point out your personal hate towards Talent Rock in order to prove my point? Enough said... 65.14.5.2 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think being critical about Talent Rock's predecessors (generally acknowledged as scam, except by Pearlman and co) and keeping a close eye on Talent Rock's eventual improvements (there are some, I noticed) should not not be classified as "personal hate". Your contribution history makes your intention of spamming that link quite clear. If you are such a great fan of Pearlman, why haven't you ever tried to improve the Career part? And why did you never write a seperate article about Talent Rock, like suggested several times? Not convinced about it yourself? Or just lazy? SooperJoo 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite contribution history udner this ip, the fact still remains that that both Trans Continental Companies and Talent Rock are solely owned by Lou Pearlman. Because of this "Talent Rock" is totally relevant and attached to the Lou Pearlman name. This is why the company should be listed on Lou Pearlman's page. I am not going to write a seperate article about Talent Rock because I do not know enough about the company in order to do so, and even if I did, a link to Talent Rock on Lou Pearlman's page would still be totally acceptable uneder the Wikipedia rules. So, again the link is readded... 65.14.5.2 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talent Rock is one of several companies owned by Lou. These companies all can be easily found and explored by entering the two links. Dropping the TR name and link is superfluous. Please stop spamming wikipedia. Thank you. SooperJoo 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true that Lou Pearlman does own many companies, and via the wikipedia rules I have the right to list every company that Lou Pearlman owns because it is relevant to his wikipedia page. Lou Pearlman's two main companies are Trans Continental Companies and Talent Rock, and all of his smaller companies are subsidiaries of these two main companies. The Talent Rock link is no way wikipedia link spam, and I would highly suggest you stop removing it before you get banned from editing this page. Thank you, Mr. Klaas. 65.14.5.2 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By whom? To request Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. SooperJoo 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 65.14.5.2. Whining at Talk:Discospinster about our disagreement, you wrote: "User SooperJoo keeps removing a highly relevant links and content on Lou Pearlman's page. The only reason he keeps removing the link and editing Lou Pearlman's page is because of his personal hate for Lou Pearlman. As an employee of Lou Pearlman's I can tell you that we have a court order against SooperJoo a.k.a Klaas de Vries Jr that keep him from publishing information about Lou Pearlman (we can send you the court documents if needed). Our legal team is also in the process of contacting the people that run Wikipedia to get a permanent of Mr. Klaas's ip address. While we wait on our legal team is there anything you can do to help us stop this guy from publishing false information and removing relevant links?". The legal document you are referring to is being published on mr. Pearlman's smear sites for more than two years now. I never have been approached about it, not even an email. My current IP number is 82.73.147.201, my long known computer ID is cc24591-b.groni1.gr.home.nl . About a year after the document was published, Fashion Rock requested another half year delay (which was miraculously granted by Pearlman's judge) because purportedly it was a problem to have it translated into Dutch. LOL, anybody can have that done within two weeks! The explanation for this peculiar behavior is simple. The suit is completely frivolous (several others have called Pearlman's talent search companies 'scam', but were never sued), and all mr Pearlman's lawyers intend to do, is to stretch and stretch proceedings in order to hurt mr Henderson financially. Lou Pearlman picked the wrong guy to sue and will lose both cases, no doubt about that. My work on this Wikipedia article consists of well-sourced NPOV. I challenge you to try and do the same. You can't. Because all you have is PR gibberish and lies. SooperJoo 07:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said makes my case against you even stronger. You are totally obsessed with making both Lou Pearlman and Talent Rock look bad, and you will stop at nothing to get your way. You and Les Henderson are the only two people that think Talent Rock is a scam. Talent Rock is in no way, shape or form a scam! Talent Rock is the most recognized and well respected talent search event of it kind in the world. Yes, back before Mr. Pearlman owned Talent Rock and the company was called Fashion Rock there were a few problems. This was back when Mark Tolner and Alec Defrawy owned and operated the company, not Lou Pearlman. When Mr. Pearlman stepped in and bought off the company he got rid of Mr. Tolner and Mr. Defrawy, and recreated Fashion Rock into the company it is today. This is why the name was changed from Fashion Rock to Talent Rock. If anything you should be thanking Mr. Pearlman for stepping in and stopping Tolner and Defrawy. But, no you and Les Henderson did the complete opposite. You kept targeting Mr. Pearlman because he is a brand name and a much larger target in the public eye. Know one in the real world knows the names "Mark Tolner" and "Alec Defrawy", but by attaching them to Mr. Pearlman you got much more attention. I tip my hat to you for coming up with a great way to market your cause. Now, being rich, powerful and kind of a celebrity (in some people eyes) comes with its fair share of crazy lawsuits from time to time. For example, look at Donald Trump and your favorite new movie star Sacha Baron Cohen. Just look at how many crazy lawsuits both of these guys are being slapped with. Do their Wikipedia pages focus on every little lawsuit they are involved in? No they don't! All of the information that you are referencing to (other than the boyband stuff) has been tossed out of court. The only two reasons why you are posting negative and hurtful information about Mr. Pearlman's page is because of your personal hate towards him, and to help aid your buddy Les Henderson in his book sales. We do have a court order that states that you can not publish any information about Lou Pearlman and Talent Rock, but because you are not in the United States it is much harder for us to stop you from doing what you are doing, lucky you. You can be rest assured that once our legal team does get in contact with WikiMedia you will never be able to edit Mr. Pearlman's page again, so feel free to post away while you still can. I'm not going to remove any of you wonderful hate content anymore, but I will keep adding a link to Talent Rock. It is a totally valid and relevant link that is attached to Lou Pearlman's name, and it is in no way spam. Sooner or later a mod will stop by and block you for censorship, so you just keep on removing that link for your own personal reasons. 65.14.5.2 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My good man, where in the world did you get all this factual nonsense about the history of Lou in the talent scouting business? You wrote you could not write a seperate page about Talent Rock because you did not know enough about it (being an employee and all), and I must agree to that, lol. And oh yes, I have called TR a scam and a ripoff several times, with good reason. But if you can find TR or FR mentioned on mr Henderson's site, or one remark he made about these companies, I'd be obliged if you'd show the proof. SooperJoo 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just said yourself that the information is factual, but you see it as factual nonsense. The United States Court System found Mr. Pearlman to be totally innocent on all charges, and the entire case was tossed out of court. I'm sorry if you don't agree with the ruling, but the fact still remains that Mr. Louis J. Pearlman indeed innocent. I get my information from the same places that you do, various press releases, websites and court documents. You just focus all your efforts on false negative allegations from the past, where I tend to focus on what is really true about Lou Pearlman. This is why I am fighting to get you banned from Wikipedia. On a side note, I am an employee of Lou Pearlman's but I do not work directly with or Talent Rock. I work for a smaller subsidiary company that falls under the Talent Rock umbrella. 65.14.5.2 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you got your TR link at last. You may have tried to spam it on impropriate places, but one cannot consider this page as being impropriate for this link, oke. I have to admit it has been my intention to provoke you guys into making unthoughtful actions & rubbish statements, which was easy to achieve (thanks, lol). Look buddy, all that counts on Wikipedia are the plain facts (well-sourced and described from a NPOV) in the article. My contributing so far has only been a start, many more biographic facts are to follow. Good luck with your future contribution efforts. SooperJoo 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your disagreements in the article talk page. Please sign your messages in the talk page. Please get yourself familiar with other basic editing policies in wikipedia:Welcome page. `'mikka (t) 15:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

User:65.14.5.2 blocked (24hours) from editing for censorship of Lou Pearlman article. `'mikka (t) 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to block User:65.14.5.2 for some time for violating the wikipedia policy that prohibits multiple reverts, see WP:3RR. Please take your time and read other wikipedia polcies, if you want to contribute. `'mikka (t) 15:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper referencing

All adverse information must be thoroughly backed by references, since it is the most probable target of dispute. `'mikka (t) 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing

I have no idea neither desire to know rights and wrongs here (I am SO far from any culture biz), but I will not allow arbitrary deletion of facts that backed by references. If someone believes that a particular statement in the article is false, please explain why in the talk page. The arguments like "hate content" and "advertisements" are invalid. The only criterion here is "true/false" based on the policy wikipedia:Verifiability.

If someone feels that the article looks nonbalanced towards "hate", please add facts that may be considered success, but not delete negative facts. If there is nothing much to say positive, well, then Lou cannot be helped. `'mikka (t) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mikkalai you will find that Lou is about 50/50. Lots of people started to hate him after the whole Backstreet Boys thing, but on the other hand lots of people love him for all his other works. I personally do not know Lou Pearlman, but I do know everything that is a fact and everything that is not. Unfortunately there are a few false facts made about Lou even from trusted new sources, but then again that comes with the territory when you have some fame and you work in the entertainment Industry.

I am well aware that in making money it is often impossible to be "a jolly good fellow" for all and I have no problem with this. But you did not read carefully what I wrote: please explain in this talk page which exactly statements in the article are wrong. This is the rule of wikipedia. Otherwise I will unfortunately have to block you from editing. Also, please sign your posts in the talk page. `'mikka (t) 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fare enough I will get that done on Monday for you mikkalai, but for now I'm out of here... Have a great weekend.

  • mikka, on the subject of editing, I dint realize you're a mod until I read here; the edits I made were just the general stuff I do all over the place, fixin' links, rmving blatant POV terms (like, say, 'internet smear campaign'), so I trust you'll find them within policy. Don't mean to interfere, just doing wikipedia :) Amazing how contentious this rather obscure little page is. Not exactly Freemasonry, but more edit war than I expected to find! Eaglizard 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:65.14.5.2 Just goes on blanking pages, spamming the commercial Talent Rock link and intends to keep on doing that. See latest addition to his/her Talk page. How about an IP block at last? 82.73.161.13 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.14.5.2 blocked for one month for disruption of wikipedia. The account has already been blocked twice for exactly same behavior previously. `'mikka (t) 17:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for addition. New fact to be added at the end of the article: One of the critics that are targeted by Lou Pearlman (Canadian consumer-fraud author Les Henderson (reference to http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Delivered/trans_continental.htm)) has published a book about the Wilhelmina Scouting Network affair, entitled "Under Investigation". (Reference to ISBN: 0968713335 ) 82.73.161.13 16:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About resignation Jacqeline Dowd as assistant AG: there are speculations about it on boards, but no official reason was ever issued. Recently ms Dowd stated that she still is unaware of the true reasons. The mentioned judgement against Henderson ( a socalled Clerks Default, obtained by Fashion Rock lawyer by misleading the clerk)) was overturned by the judge last 18 september, due to it being a "clerks error". It took the judge two (!) years to reach that conclusion. SooperJoo 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor lonesome Lou Pearlman

Dear Lou. Got a biography on the famous renown Wikipedia, but it seems about the only one that has made valid contributions to it is me, lol. All other contributants (your "fans", employees and an obvious nutcase) have shown nothing but behaving like vandals. Speaks volumes about how they feel about you, doesn't it? Is this called love? Or do they really fear & hate you? --SooperJoo 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared of allegations

Even if Pearlman was cleared of any allegations against him, those claims were still reported widely in the news and do belong in an encyclopedia article about him. ... discospinster talk 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlman disappears

Check out this story at the Orlando Sentinel. Pearlman has skipped town.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeago (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

German Pearlman shills invasion

Reverted changes by 213.54.180.142 and 85.212.79.188 (both located near to each other south of Frankfurt am Main, Germany). One of them (Hodel) removed my NPOV contribution from the German Wiki about Lou, and the other (an admin, Geisterbanker) banned me. Purportedly for the use of 'bad German', but their actions here show the true reason once again, namely their being Pearlman shills. --SooperJoo 11:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted interwiki "fraud" links removal by Pearlman shills again. I did not place them, but I think they are perfectly appropiate, since Pearlman is pulling his frauds also outside the US. --SooperJoo 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki language links are meant to link to the same article in other languages. If there are no Lou Pearlman articles in other languages, then there would be no such links on the page. ... discospinster talk 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it says: Interlanguage links are links from an article in one Wikipedia language to the same subject in another Wikipedia language. Which is not the same as the same. I'll check 'm out. There is f.i. an article I know of in the German wiki. --SooperJoo 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you meant. Kind of googleslander. Although the word is very apropriate to describe Pearlman's crimes, of course. --SooperJoo 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Airways

Adapted editorial remarks by User:X-Aviator and moved them from article to this page

"[Removed due to non-factual content: Planet Airways never operated as Trans Continental in any capacity. Planet Airways was a non-affiliated, separate company of which Pearlman owned a minority percentage and was never involved operationally. Planet Airways' clients included the US Marshall Service, the Department of Forestry, and the US Department of Defense; see following references for confirmation. Trans Continental Airlines was an aircraft LEASING company that allegedly leased jets to only major world airlines and allegedly flew limited charter flights for high profile entertainers.] [2][3][4]"

--SooperJoo 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Intro

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. There is too much detail on his criminal stuff there.. its too long.

Also there is alot of speculative pov stuff in there. Sure he may be a slime but this is still wikipedia, he is a living person and stuff here must conform to WP:BLP. If it does not it may be removed without any further cause or comment and it may be removed repeatedly even more than 3rr without incurring violations. So you need to clean the article up. --Blue Tie 23:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned

There I spent all day cleaning this dang thing! Now come on people let's make it look good! The more accessible and better linked the article is the more informed people will be. Let's not mess it up again...the old one was too long...

--Thegingerone 06:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear ginger, you deserve credit for starting up the cleanup and did a fine job. However, also user FCYTravis appears sincere and I tend to agree to most of his further cleaning actions. Take a good and quiet look before making new changes, please. Thanks. --SooperJoo 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the specific edits, categorizing Mr. Pearlman as a "fraudster" is libelous until those criminal allegations have been proven in a court of law. The category of People from NYC is superfluous, as People from Queens is a more specific subcategory. FCYTravis 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better now though I dont like the dispute over the Money Talk blog. I feel that's quite reputable. What are the arguments against it? Also whats with the removing of the Jewish thing? Im no Pearlman fan but I thought I'd be nice and include a bit on his pre con life...he is/or at least was raised Jewish (check source) and I dont see why thats removed :S. I think we just need more talk before massive edits. A lot of sourced stuff has been removed and put back several times...if your going to delete a referenced bit then at least come here and say why and reference your own reason. --Thegingerone 04:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are essentially 3 arguments against the money blog:
1. Its a blog. Blogs have been ruled to be lesser sources and if used, to be used sparingly and conservatively.
2. It is not needed in the first paragraph. If the subjects covered in the lead are handled in the article (and they should be) then the article is the source for the statements in the lead and there is no need for in-line citation. Its an article summary.
3. As a source it is extremely confusing to use or verify information from. It is way long and unweldy. I personally looked over for nearly 20 minutes and could not find the information that the reference was claiming. A more focused article that was specific to that thing being claimed would be greatly preferred.
But its a better blog than most and I think it should be found in the External links. --Blue Tie 04:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see others have objected to the blog also. Perhaps, though you love it, better sources can be found that will not continue (for months and years to come) to be controversial and earning edits and reverts. --Blue Tie 05:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. So what about if its a SPECIFIC blog link...like say to a specific entry but not in the first paragraph? Is it then accepted or is that also revert worthy? --Thegingerone 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still is not needed in the lead, if the article is constructed correctly. So if you are referring to the lead, I still have that problem. But if you are referring to other places in the article, it might be ok. I would probably find that acceptable. But y acceptance does not stop it from being a blog, which will continue to earn the scorn of editors in the future, who read that blogs are not acceptable sources. Not sure why you want to earn that sort of attention by using that source. And if there are no other sources for the information, that flies directly in the face of the very policy that discourages blogs anyway. It says that if the information is any good, then it will be available from a different source. So, Why not find a regular reputable source? (I hope the answer isn't "Because I cannot find it"). --Blue Tie 07:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly its easier. I get what your saying about blogs but that one (being from a local established newspaper) seems quite reputable and gathers information from other news sources into one area. There's really no where else that does that on the Lou saga. I guess from now on just to make it simpler if there's new news bits from that blog I'll just cite from where they cite (pending as it should and has been a reputable source). I think a few edits ago someone wanted a CBS article out...I mean apparently 'reputable' is quite subjective. Its not like we're talking Perez Hilton here. So short end of it yes there are other sources; but when your editing a whole dang thing you dont want to follow a 5 link track per information bit.--Thegingerone 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper referencing (2)

The following are NOT suitable sources for referencing of potentioully contentious material:

  • easybackgroundcheck.com
  • rickross.com
  • 'Under Investigation' - the self published book by Les Henderson
  • Blogs (unless written by the article subject)

The websites are clearly identified by Jossi (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) as unsuitable for sources of contentious material in the discussion of ayman ahmed el-difrawi on the BLP noticeboard, and by similar criteria a self published book by anyone other than the article subject is not a suitable source, nor is a blog (as blogs are de facto "self-published" works). If it's not a suitable source, it's not valid as a reference! Mikkalai (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) also mentions the need for careful referencing above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I can put back the refs without the source directly available, if my intepretation of Mikka's reaction is correct.

References "Tim Barker, "Scouting network's history troubles Pearlman," Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 5, 2003" - This article was not found on the Orlando Sentinel website. TalentRock 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) n case of dispute why don't you contact Tim Barker for verification? `'mikka (t) 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) --SooperJoo 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot

I've removed the mugshot as the main pic. In the interests of WP:NPOV, I don't think it's appropriate for that picture to be the first thing a reader sees. However, if somebody wants to reinsert the picture further down in the article, that would probably be kosher. --Bongwarrior 03:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wise move to an extent, as the subject of this Article is one of the most controversial living people ever detailed on Wikipedia. Since WikiProject Musicians reworked Template:Infobox Musical artist, the SVG image could be delisted from the Infobox for brevity purposes should the need exist. - B.C.Schmerker (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Industry magazine

Pearlman's part-ownership of this magazine is listed under 'controversies', but there seems to be no explanation what's controversial about it. Am I missing something here? 62.158.110.102 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue when that snuck in there...I have no clue why its a controversy so Im removing it. --Thegingerone 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is here because Industry Magazine was used as an in-house publication to show models getting work, when in fact they weren't getting work. Also, it is another important link in his association to El-Difrawi. I think this section belongs here, but should be re-written.--SaltyDawg 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added refernce 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

King in Exile

209.6.177.176 has reverted my edits several times in relation to the term 'King in Exile' and then I modified it to be a little more neutral quote: "Despite it all Pearlman does not seem to realize the reality of the situation."

The phrase 'King in Exile' was taken from the Radar interview. It may be a little not NPOV so I agree with that. But I dont think the new sentence is 'original research'. His quotes show he does not accept the reality. He no longer profits off the BSB, he obviously cant be devolping new acts, and overall he seems to have the perception that this ponzi scheme case doesnt exist. I'd say thats not realistic and thus the sentence isnt original research and revelvant...--Thegingerone 02:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His quotes show he does not accept the reality." Either this is true, in which case the most effective way to convey this to the reader is to present them with the actual quotes from which they will inevitably reach the same conclusion; or, it is false, in which case we should not be presenting the conclusion you have drawn from them as established fact. Either way, a sentence expressing a Wikipedia editor's surmises of what's going through Pearlman's head is original research and does not belong in the article. -- 209.6.177.176 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are included; its an introduction sentence for its paragraph and does show that. I think you need to reread the whole seciont again --Thegingerone 21:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you need to re-read Wikipedia:No original research again. The sentence you keep restoring is your interpretation of what Pearlman "seems to" realize or not realize. It is not citable fact. It is your own POV about who is "aware of the reality of the situation" and who is not. -- 209.6.177.176 04:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Obviously the two of us are just going to go in circles...--Thegingerone 05:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Defrawy vandalism

Defrawy (Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi) himself (from IP address 75.112.133.254)is back from his temporary ban due to vandalism, and is vandalizing yet again. He is removing everything about himself, despite the fact that it is well cited (for example his primary role in the modeling business). He also removed a well cited reference about Lou owning part of Industry Magazine.

In the past he had at least one of his employees also register to delete information about his own wiki article. Clearly, he is not editing info about himself from NPOV

I suggest that he be warned again, and his edits be reversed. He is a key player in the Pearlman scandals and his role needs to be highlighted. He had his hand in everytyhing despite what he'd like everybody to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment and additional charges

A superseding information was filed on March 3, 2008 in anticipation of a guilty plea. WTF does that mean? A information was filed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.82.93 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Information" is the term used in some states for what is commonly known as an indictment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.19.38 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and vandalism

Something is seriously wrong with this article. Please, will someone with serious wiki shorthand knowledge place a partial lock on this article? I just don't have the ability myself, but the neutrality of this article is no longer debatable. Lou Peralman IS in fact a con-artist, but to dub him as such in the first paragraph is just incorrect. Won't someone who knows what they are doing (unlike me) lock this up and request proper editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipfan (talk • contribs) 10:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what is known now, Pearlman's wealth was fraudulently obtained. For over twenty years his endorsements - including his (and his boy bands) fame - were financed with that money. Fraud is the essence of his life story. Therefor imho this should come first from now on. The article could do with a good edit though, by someone who knows what they are doing (unlike me) --WeatherFug (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Characterization seems fair to me given his guilty plea and the many illegal and/or questionable schemes he has been involved in. It would not wrong to exclude his music industry work, but including both aspects is legitimate. Some clean up with respect to what exactly was included in his guilty plea is appropriate. The Chicago Tribune reference includes some of the facts for someone to do the editing.
Speaking of BIAS, the mugshot is certainly POV. Better pictures are out there. Sure, most Wiki "editors" hate Boy Bands, but so what? It's POV bias to use the mugshot. Proxy User (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Pearlman, the thieving criminal. Perfect pic for this biographical page imo. The boy bands got their own pages with nice pics. --WeatherFug (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandalism

This article has become so convoluted and indecipherable that it's virtually impossible to separate fact from fiction. However, I have summarily removed this blatant example of vandalism:

It has been alleged that the true reason Kevin Richardson is no longer in the Backstreet Boys is because Pearlman ate him. Bones and all. He did this because the ocean was closed, and no seafood was otherwise available. It appears as though Pearlman mistook Richardson for a sablefish.

--Nonstopdrivel (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


JAILED = OWNED = LOLLED!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lou_Pearlman&oldid=214303677"