This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians C‑class This 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pop music C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Record Production C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's documentation of Record Production articles. Questions or comments related to record production and related articles are welcome at the project's talk page. Anyone interested may join the project: to the list of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)[reply]

An editor recently placed on the page "a gay allegation" made by an anonymous source in the article below, I would classify it as gossip.

Boy Band Mogul Lou Pearlman's Prison Interview: My Ponzi Scheme Was Smarter Than Madoff’s

The article states.. "A high-ranking former Trans Continental staffer (who asked to remain anonymous to avoid being drawn into any legal disputes)", not to mention Trans Continental is defunct. I think it should be deleted RomanGrandpa (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted the IP twice as the material is a WP:BLP violation. Not only is the material based on rumor, it is derivative of a Vanity Fair article that itself was based on rumor: "The allegations were the focus of the 2007 Vanity Fair exposé "Mad About the Boys," which relied on innuendo and hearsay but contained no first-person accounts of sexual misconduct." I left a final warning on the IP's Talk page. I haven't decided whether I will block the IP if they do it again or ask another administrator to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lou Pearlman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070219063301/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com:80/sptimes/access/128667221.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&PMID=33031&desc=Lawsuit:+Pop+star%27s+manager+a+racketeer+Series:+2b to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/128667221.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&PMID=33031&desc=Lawsuit:+Pop+star's+manager+a+racketeer+Series:+2b
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/1789200/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070207071434/http://blogs.tampabay.com:80/money/2007/02/state_say_trans.html to http://blogs.tampabay.com/money/2007/02/state_say_trans.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Lou Pearlman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pilotonline.com/business/bz0128mod.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ksat.com/news/1231335/detail.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for fox5atlanta.com/iteam/tct.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081223064044/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/09242006/business/louie_wasnt_n_sync_business_tim_arango.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242006/business/louie_wasnt_n_sync_business_tim_arango.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100101042618/http://www.cfnews13.com:80/News/Local/2007/6/14/lou_pearlman_taken_into_custody_in_indonesia.html to http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/6/14/lou_pearlman_taken_into_custody_in_indonesia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And that would be why?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]