Talk:David Packouz

Prostitution Conviction
Besides his conviction for fraud, in 2012 David Packouz he was arrested for prostitution. Packouz was arrested at Motel 82 in Naples after allegedly agreeing to have sex with an undercover Collier County deputy for $400, according to police. Packouz was ultimately found guilty of prostitution by a jury in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Honorque (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines prohibit primary research. Reference and conclusions derived from County Records removed. In addition, County Records did not reflect what was stated earlier. Crimson yachiru (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Content Issues
There appear to be some content issues with this page. There is a lot of WP:PROMOTION, and deleting (or obfuscating) relevant facts that make Packouz "look bad". Packouz is mainly notable for his activities at company AEY, which was involved with some very high profile crime with the US government. This is easily Googleable, and there is tons of material surrounding it. Essentially, AEY shipped old, bad Chinese ammunition to fulfill a $300 million United States government, and got caught. They had a lengthy record of failed contracts before this, which is notable in that it calls to question why the US government gave AEY such a large order.

The page is being edited to downplay this, to a significant degree. Any input welcome. Thanks! --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard for noteworthiness is whether information has been published in reliable secondary sources, and biographies such as this one should be conservative with both praise criticism (WP:BLPSTYLE). I removed trivial information about an earlier arrest, along with other cleanup. I think the article pretty fairly emphasizes the arms-dealing affair and trial, both in the body and lead section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't believe there is much room for "praise" here. Guy defrauded the government out of $300 million dollars. True about minor arrest with no secondary source, that can stay removed. I added second arrest, which is reflected on Efraim Diveroli's page and has secondary sourcing behind it. True about massage therapist not being notable enough for lead. I do think that "inventor" is far, far less notable than his arms dealing; 99% of the secondary source material for Packouz is regarding his arms dealing, and there is a movie made about it, etc. I also do think that is important that the failed contracts be in the lead, given that it calls into question why the US government gave AEY such a huge order to begin with. They clearly weren't just a regular arms company...they had a lengthy record of disaster which is what makes the case so notable in the first place. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I used " and former arms dealer" in my edit here only because "former arms dealer " is ambiguous. I don't particularly care about the wording there, but I think presenting Packouz as someone "convicted of fraud" in the lead sentence – without any further explanation – fails to explain his notability, and likely creates a biased impression. Many people are convicted of fraud and other crimes without having Wikipedia articles written about them. It's important to present a balanced view of the subject according to his or her treatment in reliable secondary sources (WP:BLPSTYLE); how do those sources typically describe Packouz?
 * I also disagree with the reinstating here of the material in the lead section about the failed contracts and later congressional review of army contracting; that material is duplicated at the page Efraim Diveroli, where it makes more sense, since AEY was primarily Diveroli's company. It seems incidental to a biographical article on Packouz, unless reliable sources have made special note of Packouz's role in those events. It also creates a redundant content fork (WP:CONTENTFORK). I would suggest summarizing it here with a link to the page about Diveroli.
 * As to the other recent changes, ammo is jargon or slang and therefore less desirable than the full word ammunition; constituted as fraud is ungrammatical. I'm also mystified by the emphasis on crumbling boxes in the lead. Is there something especially significant that reliable sources have noted about the condition of those boxes? (I see that phrase was removed here.) —Coconutporkpie (talk) —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the sources on the 2006 arrest (removed from article here), it was Diveroli who was arrested, not Packouz. In any event, Biographies of living persons stresses the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a trial conviction, which did not happen in this case. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pasted incorrect links. Packouz was also implicated for the 2006 arrest:
 * Hearing Before the Committe on Oversight and Government Reform
 * NY Times
 * TPM News
 * But you are probably correct, so I will remove 2006 arrest accordingly from Diveroli's page as well, as per Biographies of living persons. (See this was done already) --FuzzyGopher (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NY Times
 * TPM News
 * But you are probably correct, so I will remove 2006 arrest accordingly from Diveroli's page as well, as per Biographies of living persons. (See this was done already) --FuzzyGopher (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Though the New York Times (and the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report that used the NY Times as a source) described the ammunition as 'substandard', the according to Lawson's book (p. 238), the State Departments small caliber ammunition expert testified at Ralph Merrill's trial that he personally tested the ammunition and the vast majority of it was in "good condition". He said "I took the oldest ammunition—which was from 1958—and one of the most recent rounds, from 1974, and I test-fired them. They fired as they were designed to fire." Factdefender (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There appears to only be one source regarding this. Actually Googling that quote in fact, only reveals 0 sources except that book. There are many, many other sources describing it as substandard. Wikipedia is built upon verifiability, not truth via Wikipedia:TRUTH so even if this were true, verifiability states otherwise. See specifically "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Guy Lawson is an investigative journalist, and therefore his book is as valid as a story in the New York Times (for which he has written articles, BTW). The source that Guy Lawson refers to in his book is the transcript of the testimony of ammunition expert Jerry Miller at Ralph Merril's trial, which can be found here on page 21. One other thing to note, there were no charges brought by the Government against any of the defendents regarding any deficiency in the quality of the ammunition. That's because there were no issues with the quality, other than a very small quantity of BULGARIAN (not Chinese) ammo that was delivered to and rejected by the Army (and not paid for). Was what they did illegal? The Justice Department decided yes -- but not due to 'substandard quality'. This has been disproven, please move on. Factdefender (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

FuzzyGopher A few outstanding issues I have with your version:


 * 1. AEY did NOT violate the arms embargo. The ammunition was given to Albania by China in the 1970's before the 1989 Arms Embargo was implemented.  You can buy Chinese made AK-47's in the USA legally if they were imported from China before the 1989 ban.  AEY violated the terms of their contract with the US Army, which forbade Chinese ammunition.  AEY was in breach of contract, not in violation of the embargo.
 * 2. As specified in my last post above, the quality and age of the ammunition was never an issue, as illustrated in the legal case against AEY, and therefore does not belong in the wiki page.
 * 3. There is no evidence that Packouz was involved in AEY's failed contracts, and therefore this doesn't belong in his wiki page, let alone in the lead of the article.
 * 4. Your insistence on deleting well sourced, positive facts about this individual seems to indicate that you wish to cast him in a negative light, violating Wikipedia's neutrality principle. Examples: You delete that he is 'currently the CEO of Singular Sound', the amount raised by his crowdfunding campaign, his musical work and his philanthropic work.  All are well sourced facts and are relevant in giving a complete picture of this individual.  From your edits I can tell that you feel very strongly about this story.  I do too, but in Packouz, at least, I see someone who has made mistakes but has turned his life into something positive. I think that purposely casting him in a negative light isn't what Wikipedia is about. --Factdefender (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. This is just semantics, I don’t particularly care whether what they violated was the embargo or their contract. My impressions is that embargo was inherent in contract. Present edit says "violated contract" [in violation of embargo]
 * 2. Yes, I had already removed quality of ammo as per your request.
 * 3. Failed contracts demonstrate red flag that government ‘’should’’ have avoided AEY. They weren't a typical company, lead should reflect this.
 * 4. You do not reference any policies or rules to me ever. You simply just say “negative bias” and “violating neutrality”. You consistently comment on contributor, not the content, saying things like “Recuse yourself from editing this page", and "please stop your…biased edits".
 * “CEO” is irrelevant term for company Packouz says he founded himself; titles are self-applied and meaningless. I think it's obvious from the fact that he founded it. Again no preference. But specific crowd-funding amount is not standard Wiki and meaningless as well. This was previously removed by an admin. Maybe it belongs on the Beat Buddy page, but certainly not this one. Musical career is not notable enough for inclusion in a Wiki article, little mention in secondary sources. Not sure why you insist on put their ages in the lead in parenthesis, given that their birth years and the years the company was active are already in the article—maybe you're trying to make them look "cool"?


 * I am peripherally interested in this case, yes, as anyone who edits any page on Wikipedia is interested in that topic. I was in army at the time (different and unaffected unit) and vaguely remember when the Afghan ammo scandal happened. Saw the movie as well, did some research on the story. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. There's a big difference in the "semantics" and it goes to the heart of the issues surrounding this case -- whether or not AEY violated the Embargo, or a commercial contract with the US Army, is a factual matter. Wikipedia should be accurate and if you "don't particularly care" about the facts of this case, you shouldn't be editing this page, or Wikipedia in general.
 * 2. Thank you for removing the quality of ammo issue -- I'm glad we can agree on something :-)
 * 3. Whether or not AEY should have been red flagged is an issue to be discussed -- perhaps this should go on a separate page about AEY Inc. But such negative implications certainly do not belong in the lead of a living individual of which there is no evidence was involved in these failed contracts.  He is also notable beyond the AEY case.  Google returns 8,540 results for "David Packouz AEY", 1,330 results for "David Packouz BeatBuddy" and 288 results for "David Packouz Microcosm".  His music and business careers are well sourced, and often in the same sources as the AEY story.  He had a cameo appearance as a musician in the War Dogs movie, the source of much of the traffic to this Wikipedia page, and it leads directly into his current notable activities in his music technology company.
 * 4. Putting the amount raised in crowd funding campaigns on an entrepreneur's page is standard in Wikipedia. See Tim Ferris, Yu Suzuki.
 * 5. Putting the corporate position title for an entrepreneur in a company they founded is standard in Wikipedia. See Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs.
 * 6. Their ages have consistently been one of the major aspects of this story that has made it so interesting to the public. Also, the War Dogs movie incorrectly states that their ages were both 22 at the time.  This corrects that factual error.  --Factdefender (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. I mean I don't care one way or another. There you go again, commenting on contributor, not the content. You cannot consistently command editors "not to edit this page or Wikipedia in general". This is a case of WP:HARASS, a serious violation: "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated…or discourage them from editing". See also What harassment is not
 * 2. Yes.
 * 3. Creating a separate page for the company is inadvisable, given that the company is mainly two people.
 * 4. and 5. This is not "standard Wikipedia", and most of thhat is WP:WAX and WP:OSE. I see nothing on crowd-funding amounts for Tim Ferris, Yu Suzuki. There were also untrue information that this is one of the highest crowd-funded campaigns of all time. Again, even if it were true, it belongs on Beat Buddy page, not this one. Admin confirmed this.
 * I have long suspected this, but I think there is massive conflict of interest here on your part. May I remind you that COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If this is true, you must disclose this.


 * As per WP:OUTING, I am not revealing any suspicion of a specific or suspected identity here (I have none), but it is quite obvious that you have insider information, and are someone well-connected to the case and/or this company. So I believe this to be a case of COI, a serious offense on Wikipedia, and have reported it to the COIN. I hope this can be resolved. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. I was commenting on the content. What is a fact and what is not.  Your statement that you "don’t particularly care whether what they violated was the embargo or their contract" implied to me a disregard of the facts and accuracy of the content.  I believe I have been curteous and polite through out, and have certainly never intended to harass you.
 * 2. What is your source that the company is mainly two people? And even if it was, what would it matter?
 * 3. In Tim Ferris' page under 'Investor and Adviser': "In September 2013, Ferriss raised $250,000 in under an hour to invest in Shyp by forming a syndicate on AngelList.[26] Ferriss ended up raising over $500,000 through his backers and Shyp raised a total of $2.1 million." In Yu Suzuki page in Career section under Mainstream return with Ys Net: "On June 16, 2015, Shenmue III was revealed at E3 as a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign. It became the fastest game ever to reach the one million dollar funding mark on the Kickstarter platform, ultimately raising 6.33 million dollars". It is true that the BeatBuddy was one the highest funded projects on Indiegogo at the time.  See source here.
 * 4. I am not connected to the case or know any of the individuals personally. I am a musician and use the BeatBuddy that David Packouz invented, so perhaps that is my source of my interest in this case. But I don't think that is any more a COI than you having been in the US Army.  Or of an iPhone user editing the page about Steve Jobs.  I simply find this story fascinating.  All information I have is publicly available.  I have just studied this story (perhaps too) extensively. Factdefender (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seem to remember most sources saying it was two or three guys. Those campaigns are notable, because they are millions of dollars and/or high profile companies, in Suzuki's case, fastest game ever to reach the one million dollar mark. In link you gave me, BeatBuddy is 45th most-funded Indiegogo (<Kickstarter) campaign…not notable. An admin previously removed this, don't see why you are fighting this battle. (It should also be noted that there have been many issues with self-promo on the Tim Ferriss page.)
 * Nope, not at all. Being a musician who uses product is not a COI any more than I. But your extreme vested interest is quite suspicious. It was very obvious that one of the court docs you linked me to was uploaded by yourself. Public record, sure, but seems like a lot of work to go thru just for a guy whose product you use. Please note that a COI, if you do have indeed one, is not a barrier to editing. But it must be declared, and not doing so can get you into violation territory. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It started out as two guys, like most companies do, but eventually grew to around 20 people according to Lawson's book.
 * BeatBuddy is 45th out of 190,000 campaigns which I think anyone would agree could be considered 'most funded' -- that being said, I'll concede this point since you have shown your willingness to be open to the information I have presented.
 * And yes, this may seem like a lot of work -- but, believe it or not, I feel like the BeatBuddy saved my life. I was badly injured in a car crash and couldn't walk for a while so I couldn't  play with my band and the only thing that kept me sane while I was recovering was playing with the BeatBuddy -- it's really a brilliant invention and I have a very strong emotional attachment to it.  So I became very interested in how it came about, and after reading into the AEY story it was obvious to me that a lot of misinformation surrounds this story, despite all of the evidence that is available.  And it bothers me when someone who has turned his life around, as I believe Packouz has, is maligned unfairly.  But I'm glad that we have come to an agreement regarding this page.  I'm comfortable that it now represents a fair and balanced account.  Thank you for your passion for Wikipedia and I wish you the best.  -- Factdefender (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I find this very unlikely. Your account is clearly SPA. Please declare a COI (paid or otherwise) if you want to continue editing this page. Thank you. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My edits have been neutral and sourced. My interest may be niche, but it does not violate COI -- I have already declared my relationship to the subject in my last post, which you said is acceptable.  That you suddenly now find it 'unlikely' does not invalidate it.  You keep reverting edits that you already agreed are correct.  Such as the violation of the Arms Embargo issue.  I am honestly baffled as to why after it seems like we came to an agreement after multiple edit versions, you are reverting to a version that predates all of our discussions. This indicates to me that you may have a COI yourself, considering your history in the Army. Factdefender (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ? I never said acceptable. I said suspicious. This is clearly a SPA account with a huge COI (paid or otherwise). Even your name and bio is suspicious. I'm frankly surprised. I think you mistake my editing other articles for lack of attention to this page. Please just admit a COI so we can move forward; it is not a barrier to editing. FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have stated the source of my interest, and it doesn't go further than that, despite your suspicions. If an admin feels that I am being biased, I will recuse myself from editing this and other related pages. However, I believe that anyone who reads the discussion above will see that my edits are neutral and properly sourced, while yours are negatively biased and ignore sourced facts that I have repeatedly brought to your attention.  I invite an admin to make a final decision on this issue. Factdefender (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not for an admin to decide whether there is bias. COI is something that can be discovered, or stated, by anyone (although self-declaring can only be done by an interested party). We, the editors, decide on wehter there is bias, or undue weight, in articles. Discussion with the other editors is what gets things done, and stay done. The admin is simply there for housekeeping, not deciding arguments or a failure to communicate or faliure to reach consensus on article content. Unfortunately, you must appeal to the involved editors, i.e. those editors who are currently editing the page, have done in the recent past, or have made significant contributions since the article started. I imageine that saying an account is "a[n] SPA account" would not be done without some sort of credible validation.

I am only mildly interested in this whole debacle, coming to it from War Dogs. I am totally unbiased and have no COI. (see? easy!) If you are unbiased and have no COI, please also state that. Then, hopefully, we can all get on with discussing changes. If I feel that there is bias in the article, either from undue weight or by ommission, I would discuss with other 'non COI' editors, find a balance (hopefully) and ensure we all agreed on what changes were made. If i felt that there was a party that was not declaring COI, I would ask them if they had a COI and try to explain that they might take a step back from the article while we all discuss everything.

I would also add that having seen that one editor has a very small number of edits (so far - we all have to start somewhere!) does make me categorise that editor as one who is a single issue editor (so far!) I would also add that, obviously, would lead to a suspicion that the editor could have started an acocunt for the purpose of editing JUST articles on Packouz, Diveroli, War Dogs (film) for three months. Suddenly, after claiming that they came here because of "BeatBox", they edit the article twice. That's 2 for beat box, and 75 for the packouz related stuff. You know what? I am NOT surprised that the other editor became suspiscious. It also seems strange that the argument between you two is so easy going. But hey, I can be a little suspicious too :¬)

I'll pop back in a few to see how the other editors get on with things now it seems the whole of Wiki will be weighing in Chaosdruid (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

7 h
He became 7 months Housearrest 2001:16B8:ADA6:900:298B:B9C2:CF54:4EEE (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It´s mentioned in the article. --F.Blaubiget (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Internship
I know you are back for buisness as of 2023 let me build yall back im a sales guy. Marketing major sales is my passion tho let me bring yall back. 2601:940:C480:420:BD99:4E42:FF8D:DD27 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)