Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 31 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dr. Luke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 40 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Record Production High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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: add your name to the list of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production High This article has been rated as High-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. Katy Perry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Katy Perry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Katy Perry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Katy PerryWikipedia:WikiProject Katy PerryTemplate:WikiProject Katy PerryKaty Perry 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. Pop music High‑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 Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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)

Controversy section

It seems that Misplaced Pages 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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 19:44, 23 February 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 Misplaced Pages page and details. OpenDoc3551 (talk) 21:59, 21 March 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)

RfC - Should section header mention sexual assault allegations?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 ). 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" (, ) and "Sexual assault allegations and lawsuit" (, ). 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of musicians
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Record Production articles
• High-importance Record Production articles
• Start-Class Katy Perry articles
• Mid-importance Katy Perry articles
• WikiProject Katy Perry articles
• Start-Class Pop music articles
• High-importance Pop music articles
• Pop music articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment