Talk:Dr. Luke/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mos Def?

I believe that Mos Def should be removed from the list of artists Dr. Luke has worked with. It is evident that Dr. Luke has had limited interaction with Mos Def having only remixed his works while he has produced and written with all the other artists on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.64 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

occasinally hints on taboo subjects

"He is known for writing heavy pop-rock songs and occasionally hints on taboo subjects."

Whatever that means... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.161.123 (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Personally I think most of the writing on this article is terrible. It needs a major overhaul because at the moment it's practically sub-fansite material. 128.62.42.115 (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discography section

The discography section should be organized by date, not by artist. 98.207.159.144 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Never produced for Hilary Duff

Dr. Luke wrote a tweet saying he did not work with Hilary Duff. http://twitter.com/TheDoctorLuke/status/10582850202 Apparently, he keeps deleting it, but somebody keeps adding it. Stop, whoever you are. --Sdoo493 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Top Ten singles

Is this section really necessary, why not just note them in the table or in the body? Fixer23 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Dr. Luke, also known as Doctor Luke, Luke Gottwald, Lukasz Gottwald, (birth name Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald)

What's his nationality? Polish?

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly sounds like it, it doesn't get more Polish than "Lukasz" as a first name. A source is needed though. Podagrycznik (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link from a popular polish site, it is in polish though. It reads that his grandparents came to the USA from Poland. It also reads that he doesn't like to talk too much about his background as he finds it irrelevant. http://muzyka.onet.pl/publikacje/artykuly/polski-luke-trzesie-ameryka,1,4853947,wiadomosc.html Norum 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Age

The age of Dr. Luke listed on this article is most certainly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.158.155 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is why we need to WP:VERIFY all claims, especially personal claims about living people. I've commented it out until a date can be reliably sourced. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dr. Luke

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dr. Luke's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Billboard":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dr. Luke. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

It seems that Wikipedia discourages "Controversy" sections in bios on living people (WP:CRITS). Considering Kesha is the only thing in that section, shouldn't the entire thing simply be retitled "Lawsuit by Kesha" or something?

Good idea. I went ahead and retitled it to that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This should be titled "Sexual Assault Allegation by Kesha". The Bill Cosby page has a section titled "Sexual Assault Allegations". It is a bit weird that his page is clearly labeled as such while Dr. Luke's is fuzzily labeled "Lawsuit with Kesha". TripleVenom (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the stupid hatnote, as it was almost certainly placed for the lulz. No one is going to search for "Dr. Luke" looking for the biblical figure.

Agreed and done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

A preliminary injuction was denied. It is incorrect to say that "the" injunction was "dismissed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.65.252.13 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

TripleVenom (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Lawsuit with Kesha should read "Rape Allegations". It is highly misleading to characterize it as anything but a rape and sexual assault allegation.

Not done: The lawsuit is more than just that and the section covers more than just the allegations. The current title seems neutral and appropriate given the material. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How on earth is it neutral to use that header and to bury the information in the third paragraph when every single news outlet reporting this is use the lede "Sexual Assault/Rape Allegation". This makes zero sense. I really think this page needs a thorough review from wiki management. Because as it stands, it fails to be objective on this matter and is greatly in favor of Dr. Luke's point of view. TripleVenom (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no "wiki management". If you want other opinions, I recommend posting on WP:BLPN. Other options include a request for comments and request for a 3rd opinion but I think we have more than one opinion here. To reiterate my point, though, the section is mostly about the lawsuit and the section header should reflect that fact per WP:DUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

But evergreen, every news source reporting on this is framing it as a sexual assault issue. One gets an entirely different impression from the Lawsuit section of this article, than one does from all the major mainstream sources. TripleVenom (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The current title isn't neutral, it is misleading. If the lawsuit covers more ground than call it "Lawsuit and Rape Allegations" because I am telling you, the rape allegations are central to the case and the reason why people are even interested in it (they are at the heart of the story). The way that section is currently structured, I could see the header and skim the first few paragraphs, and totally miss that this all centers around her claims that he sexually assaulted her (because it is only dealt with in the final paragraph of the section and very lightly handled where it appears). I am not an activist. I don't even like Kesha. But it is clear to me that this header is not adequate. I would like to ask for a formal review of this. I understand you want impartiality and neutrality (which I think is good). But I really don't see how this is neutral. It is biased in favor of Dr. Luke. TripleVenom (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are not going to alter the headline, can you at least include relevant details about the allegations in the paragraphs beneath it? As written it slips in references to sexual assault in a long list of things. I am honestly quite surprised to see the subject so glossed over in Dr. Luke's entry, when it gets its own section in the Bill Cosby article. Multiple reliable sources have reported her allegations that he gave her date rape drugs and raped her on at least two occasions. This ought to be included in the section. And if not, please explain why. Also, I would once again like to restate that I think this page needs a review because from the outside it looks like it is biased in favor of Dr. Luke and minimizes very serious public allegations made against him in court. TripleVenom (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add mor information on the lawsuit, just please remember to use NPOV. There is only this one allegation thus far in case of Dr. Luke and it is highly controversial. This does not guarantee a separate heading. This case as it stands now is vastly different to Bill Cosby case as explained above.--129.132.211.163 (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

Sony Music did not drop Dr.Luke as stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.42.204 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

True. They are only allegations at this point and they haven't been confirmed, even the source article states that, so I've removed the statement. Melonkelon (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

General discussion section

In this writing I will say my opinion on the entire Kesha rape claim and revdel (and sockpuppetry?) thing.

First of all, both of the socks that have posted on this should obviously be blocked.

To be clear cut, the claims should be in the article, but well cited, and no saying he is a rapist. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(Discuss below!)

Allegations of sexual assault are already mentioned in Dr._Luke#Lawsuit_with_Kesha and are sourced. I'm not sure what you are proposing we do in addition to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Added citations to previous deposition details to correlate with the lawsuit Wikipedia page and details. OpenDoc3551 (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Allegations

I think there ought to be a section titled Sexual Assault allegations, as he has been accused of sexual assault by a Kesha. If you look at the wiki entry for Bill Cosby this is how they handle his controversy. Somehow burrying the allegations in a list of criticisms, wedged between a paragraph about Kesha's bout with bulimia, seems rather skewed to me.VernacularTombstone (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Some people have tried inserting info but have done it in a disruptive manner (i.e. kesha's fan base writing vitriolic attacks in the style of a teeny bopping blogger). I'm not familiar with either case so can't really do much, suffice to say that there may be significant differences allowing the info to be posted in one (namely cosby) and not in this. There are legal frameworks wiki has to abide by and that may be restricting what can be included. that's just my view on a potential reason as to why this discrepancy exists. You may get more guidance from the Wikipedia:Teahouse where experienced editors can cast light on issues such as this. Rayman60 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how the Cosby case is legally different. In both situations someone has been accused of rape. Obviously it would be inaccurate to say he is a rapist. But as currently phrased the header of the 'lawsuit' section detracts from the central point of Kesha's lawsuit (which is an allegation of rape). To me it appears this page is being protected by people who either are ideologically opposed to accurately labeling the section or by people who are based in favor of Dr. Luke. TripleVenom (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe there are couple of differing factors to the Cosby case. Primary one being that Kesha did not report a crime. There is no criminal proceedings against Dr. Luke in any state as far as I know at the moment. Secondly, Bill Cosby had a wide range of allegations brought against him (including criminal charge). Dr. Luke has so far one, which is brought in a civil court in a highly controversial manner, and at this stage there exists a substantial chance of it simply being a "retaliatory" allegation following unfavorable to Kesha outcome of the previous lawsuits. After all she signed her last contract with Dr. Luke after having been already allegedly raped by him, which is why the court denied her recent request to temporarily suspend the contract.-202.166.79.224 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The cases are not identical but it is really weird that rape or sexual assault do not even appear in the header and are kind of hard to spot in the body text as well. You might think there is a substantial chance of these accusations being retaliatory but the way the story is being reported focuses on the rape allegations. The article gives a weirdly skewed perspective on the story in my view. TripleVenom (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So we only mention rape in the header if there is a criminal charge? Even if she has made public allegations that he used a date rape drug to sexually assault her? I am not suggesting the article should say he did these things but the allegations she made are very clear and the article itself muddles them. I am genuinely not taking his or her side, as I don't know what happened. But I find it odd that the main point gets lost both in the header and the paragraphs below it. TripleVenom (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions sexual assault allegations under the lawsuit heading. It does so because at the moment the allegations are simply "another chapter of the lawsuit story". In the similar way, as we do not create a separate heading for every single lawsuit allegation Kesha has brought against Dr. Luke in court. Similarly, on Kesha article we do not create a heading "false sexual assualt accusations", although this is what Dr. Luke claims. How detailed the allegations are has nothing to do with how they should be structured in the Wikipedia article. If more sexual assault allegations against Dr. Luke appear from other people, or there are criminal charges filed against him, or even if he just publicly settles with Kesha, we can consider creating a separate header. Though, feel free to add more details in the lawsuit section on its scope, if you have reliable, sourced information.--129.132.211.163 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not buying that at all. The allegations are not 'just another chapter' in the lawsuit, they are at the heart of the coverage and the story. This article is completely biased in favor of Dr. Luke and I believe too many of the editors are consciously or unconsciously biased. TripleVenom (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripleVenom: Do no accuse edits of malice. We simply disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying it is malice, but I do think it is bias. All anyone has to do is google news search Dr. Luke and virtually every news article that comes up has a headline about rape or sexual assault. It isn't just one bullet point in a lawsuit. I am just surprised to see the wikipedia article bury the information like that. There really ought to be a way to ask for a larger editorial review because to me this makes no sense (and I suspect many readers agree). TripleVenom (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@TripleVenom: you decided to change the section header despite lack of consensus here. Please don't make unilateral changes like that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the current header simply doesn't reflect the coverage in mainstream sources. I will keep changing it because it is flat out wrong the way it is now. And I request that this be reviewed by another editor. TripleVenom (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, this discussion is going too much towards a "you are wrong" discussion and not a discussion with the goal to reach consensus. Without any opinion bout who is right or wrong, I don't think the current header is so bad it can't function as a header untill consensus has been reached (unless supporters of the current banner are misusing this by blocking any consensus). with this out of the way, I call on all to try and reach consensus based on arguments. I'll try to give my points of view on both sides of the argument as a baseline to help you discuss this further. On one side of the spectrum there is the argument that this is an encyclopedia and not a summery of gossip magezines. So we have to be carefull to place content based on references that lack factproof. On the other hand, there are some scientifical researches and publications where woman are afraid to speak up bout sexual harashment and/or abuse, cause they feel like being not believed. By blocking these allegations based on lack of proof, you are contributing to that specific situations. Again. I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong. I hope, that you are willing to search for consensus based on a mutual respect for both points of view (assuming I did a good job summerizing them, feel free to adjust them if you feel like it). Any proposal how to reach this consensus?213.17.54.196 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect sometimes people are wrong. And this is a case where it doesn't take any genius to see how buried the sexual assault allegations are in the text (and how they are not even apparent from the header). People keep mentioning NPOV but how is it neutral to depict Kesha as crazy and unreliable (as the article clearly does)? TripleVenom (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The overview of Dr Luke's legal conflicts with Kesha in the opening section of this article seems out of place. For reference, consider that Kesha's article doesn't refer to this feud in the opening section. For some reason, though, Luke's does. These allegations are not a significant enough part of either individual's biography to warrant summary in the opening sections of the articles. The inclusion of this summary on Luke's page foregrounds the issue to an unwarranted degree, especially considering that these claims against Luke have now been dismissed. If the comments in the opening section must remain, they should be altered to read more elegantly, as currently the construction of the paragraph in which they are mentioned is grammatically laboured (in a fashion that only further exaggerates the foregrounding effect, as the sentences appear 'shoehorned in', even on a stylistic level.) 86.18.107.77 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed it per WP:UNDUE. I agree that since the case was dismissed it shouldn't have much airplay in the lede. It seems like it probably should at least be mentioned, since we are saying that he is noted for signing her. if we mention her in the lede at all, it would be somewhat remiss I think not to mention the lawsuit. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dr." need clarification?

An IP editor is insisting we clarify that Dr. Luke is not a doctor. I think it's quite clear that he's not (as it is on Dr. Dre). I added "moniker" by the name just to make it clear. Any opinions on this? (Ping Softlavender who just edited on the page.) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not unless we are going to do that to Dr. Dre and every other rapper or other artist/musician who uses a similar moniker. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Edited to add: And not unless it is cited from a reliable mainstream source. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender I agree but the IP editor 152.51.48.1 clearly does not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I have requested PP. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Name the other rappers who use the title "Dr." but aren't doctors besides Dr. Dre and this person. Dr. Dre's page should also clarify that. If either walked into a hospital and said to a patient, "I am Dr. [Dre/Luke]" he could be arrested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.51.48.1 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to clarify that Dr. Luke isn't a doctor. Musicians often have non-nonsensical names. We don't clarify that Prince isn't a prince, or that Lady Gaga isn't a countess. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Should section header mention sexual assault allegations?

Question

Should section header regarding Dr. Luke's legal battles with Kesha mention sexual assault allegations by Kesha against Dr. Luke? If so, what should the section be titled?

Summary of dispute prompting RfC

Previous section header was and is now currently "§Lawsuit with Kesha", which was established in an edit by SNUGGUMS over a year ago per discussion on the talk page (see [1]). TripleVenom strongly feels (and acts in good faith) that the section header should reflect the sexual assault allegations made against Dr. Luke by Kesha. They have changed the section header to "Sexual Assault Allegations" ([2], [3]) and "Sexual assault allegations and lawsuit" ([4], [5]). Others, myself included, have objected to the change. This dispute started during early February 2016 when media attention and social media campaigns around a judge's ruling prompted some editors to target this page. This has been the subject of dispute on the talk page; see #Sexual Assault Allegations, #Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016. Discussion, however, has been rather sparse and between a handful of editors so I am initiating this RfC for further input and to hopefully gain consensus on the issue. I am INVOLVED but have tried to summarize the dispute as neutrally as possible. Other parties are welcome to clarify or dispute my summary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

KEEP TITLE
(non-admin closure)

Large consensus is to keep the "lawsuit" title (as opposed to the "sexual assault allegations" title). For posterity and ease of reference of later readers, I leave a link to the ANI thread.

However, many !votes to that effect are based on the fact that the lawsuit is larger than the assault charges, i.e. WP:UNDUE, not about BLP or NPOV concerns. As a result, the RfC does not mean that a header "sexual assault allegations" would ever be incorrect, or that such allegations should not be mentioned; just that the lawsuit section should not have that heading.

TigraanClick here to contact me 14:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Keep current section title - I feel it is WP:UNDUE to single out the sexual assault allegation for inclusion in the section header. The lawsuit has been ongoing since 2013 and the sexual assault allegation is one aspect of it. Admittedly the allegations are a major part of the lawsuit and have recently be covered by the media, but I'd rather leave the details of the suit to the Dr. Luke vs. Kesha case article where the allegations can be covered in appropriate depth. Adding the sexual assault allegations to the header here gives them too much weight without enough context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain current title we don't need to single out any specific issues, and "Lawsuit with Kesha" encompasses all the controversy between the two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The current title maintains neutrality. Fraulein451 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep current title - The current heading covers the lawsuit as a whole, as it should, not just the sexual assault allegations. Meatsgains (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep current section title - I feel it is WP:UNDUE to single out the sexual assault allegation for inclusion in the section header. Whiteguru (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Change and revise whole section current header is misleading. Every notable sources is talking about the lawsuit as a matter of sexual assault. Further the whole section is biased toward Dr. Luke. The entire final paraphraph is essentially there to undermine the rape allegation. Those details ought to be included but balanced with her explanation. As written this article fails on multiple fronts. It needs to be reviewed by Wikipedia. TripleVenom (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it. Clearly you are all biased. It takes willful ignorance to not see that as the main thrust of the story and given how buried the sexual assault allegations are in the body section, it is clear thos page is biased in favor of Dr. Luke. It is out of step with all the major news outlets reporting on the subject. TripleVenom (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course all editors are biased except you (irony). HandsomeFella (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is now an ANI discussion related to this RfC. It can be found here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again Evergreen, I ask how I can get this page reviewed by admins or higher level editors since I think it is hugely biased. TripleVenom (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no higher level editors. What you see is what you get. MPS1992 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if this is the editorial staff we have. I would encourage people to share the wikipedia page with unbiased third parties they know. See if the header and the body text strikes them as odd at all. Again, I really have no interest in either Dr. Luke or Kesha, but just passing by I couldn't help but notice how this section appeared to lack any thing resembling neutrality or objectivity on the topic. TripleVenom (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep current section title. The fact that the event has its own level-one heading and call-out section is already WP:UNDUE and POV. To change that to "sexual assault violations allegations" would be a blatant violation of Wikipedia's BLP and NPOV policies. And TripleVenom, we are "unbiased third parties". It does not seem however that you are, nor does it seem from your entire editing history that you "have no interest in either Dr. Luke or Kesha". Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC); corrected 02:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender. I never suggested we have the header read Sexual Assault Violations. But we should accurately reflect what is going on and what accusation is being made. No one disputes he has been accused of sexual assault. So why can't the header clearly state that. I wanted it changed to Sexual Assault Allegations, which is an accurate description of what is being alleged (and it is how the story has been reported). I definitely have no bias in the favor of Kesha. I just happened upon the wiki entry and it was clear to me there was an issue. I have to say the level of hostility directed toward me for merely wanting the header to be accurate and for wanting the body text not to bury the sexual assault allegation suggests people are maybe letting their emotions get in the way here. Seriously, read that section and tell me it honestly is an accurate description of what has been alleged. Then look at some other Wiki articles on celebrities accused of sexual assault or sexual abuse (Woody Allen, Bill Cosby,etc ). One of the only other celebrities with such an allegation where the header and body text also seem to bury the accusation is CeeLo Green (and once again I suspect that may be because people contributing to the article are allowing their biases to influence the content). I suspect there may be other articles like that. But from where I am standing turning accusations of sexual abuse or rape into headers that read "legal troubles", "lawsuit", etc appear to be a way to make the article more favorable to the subject (it is borderline double speak). TripleVenom (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

My typo. Fixed now. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, explain to me how mentioning the actual allegation in the header is against NPOV while devoting an entire ending paragraph to call into question the accuser's reliability without offering any additional information isn't NPOV? My whole issue here is that the article is not neutral. I really can't believe people are not seeing that in the section. From header to body text, it clearly presents Kesha's account as unreliable while minimizing and clouding any mention of sexual assault. TripleVenom (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a major issue with the article. It ends with this paragraph:

"Before her legal battle against Dr. Luke, in 2011, Kesha had previously sworn under oath that the producer had never assaulted or drugged her in a deposition for a lawsuit against her former managers at DAS Communications, a key piece of evidence that played a role in the court ruling in favor of the defense.[23][24]"

However Kesha claimed the reason she lied in the deposition was because Doctor Luke forced her to do so. Without giving her account of the situation, it makes it seems like she was caught lying and that was the end of the story. It is a very misleading concluding paragraph. TripleVenom (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep current title - "Lawsuit with Kesha" is the most neutral one and one we should stick too. –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep current title – satisfies WP:NPOV. SSTflyer 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys are confusing bias with neutrality. This is really an egregious article. I'm sorry but wikipedia is quickly becoming a horrible source of info and it is no wonder why seeing all these comments. TripleVenom (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

All what comments? MPS1992 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia isn't here to advocate on anyone's behalf. Lawsuit suggests that the matter is unsettled (though it may be at some point.) --MichaelProcton (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Dr. Luke

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dr. Luke's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dr. Luke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Instruments?

I recall he played more than just the guitar. He’s made a lot of songs over his career, I’m sure he couldn’t have just played the guitar. Can anyone tell me what the case for this is? Gavin the Otter (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The infobox tells the reader the main points of a topic. The article body text is where you would put further details. Dr. Luke is famous for guitar which is why that's listed in the infobox. Other instruments he plays can be described in the article body, with reference to WP:Reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Gender violence

I noticed there's a clarification tag on this. The article is protected so I can't edit it, but if anyone wants to, more information is on page 16 of the source (https://www.scribd.com/document/242979442/Kesha-Complaint). I think we can remove that tag and just link to the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6A09:300:88A2:EA6A:55CE:BB7D (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

I would appreciate the sexual assaults allegations to to be brought forward. Who cares that he produces artist that can literary do on their own and slapping his own name on it, I care about if someone can take no as an answer. That tells me more about their character than what albums they're on. It also tells me A LOT about the main platforms protecting him, assuming since he can payout whoever he wants. 184.147.28.92 (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dr._Luke/Archive_1&oldid=1214706466"