Talk:Dr. Luke

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023
There is currently a sentence that includes the word "recount" that should actually be "recant" towards the end of this article. I just wanted to fix that typo. 2600:4041:581B:7500:707B:6DB3:1017:B593 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I reworded the text according to the source which does in fact say "recount" not "recant". She means she cannot recall everything—does not remember everything. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 3/19/24
Can we link to the Kesha page in the last paragraph of the overview and on first mention in the lawsuit section. Thank you. Sloe education (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Kesha and Dr Luke's lawsuit
It is extremely odd that the lawsuit is not in the lead for this article especially when considering there's a whole paragraph dedicated to the lawsuit in Kesha's lead for her article. This raises questions over bias and suppression as to who wrote this, the discrepancy is even more odd when considering that Kesha is far more notable than Dr Luke and yet his article is the one that does not mention the lawsuit in the lead. This clearly needs to be fixed ASAP. What do others think? Jasp7676 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree 175.39.68.91 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Copied and edited the paragraph in Kesha's article and added it to the lead. Feel free to make any changes to it. Jasp7676 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have removed it for now because this is worthy of discussion being that this is a biography. I was wondering if it was suitable for the lead since it was a lawsuit that was settled. If there is an agreement that it should be in the lead, then it needs to read from a neutral point of view which it currently doesn't. It says a lot about what the accusations of the lawsuit were, but then a single line that it was settled. This gives the appearance that he actually did what he was accused of. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't but it is all about the sourcing and how much weight is given to it. I have pasted the wording below that you included.


 * Removed Wording - "In 2014, Gottwald became involved in a public legal dispute with Kesha. A series of lawsuits, known collectively as Kesha v. Dr. Luke, were exchanged between the two parties in which Kesha accused him of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and employment discrimination against her, while Dr. Luke claimed breach of contract and defamation. The case was settled out of court in June 2023."


 * Proposed Wording - If we can agree that it belongs in the introductory of the article, then it should read something more like: "Gottwald was involved in a lawsuit with Kesha which was settled out of court in 2023."


 * I am open to other wording but we would first need to decide if it belongs. I am not sure that it does given it was settled out of court. I would like to hear other's opinions. --RTotzke (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand what you mean it does read slightly biased, I didn't actually write that myself, I just directly copied it from Kesha's article, editing the first sentence slightly. It's also in her introductory bit as well if you would like to check. In terms of your first point I really do think it should be in his lead simply because it was an extremely public case, and I don't necessarily agree with your proposal for it to only be one sentence. I am by no means an expert on either Kesha or Gottwald but the notability of the case definitely warrants it being in the lead in my opinion.


 * Proposal 2 - In 2014 Gottwald was involved in a legal dispute with Kesha where she alleged abuse and employment discrimination, whilst he claimed a breach of contract and defamation. The case was settled out of court in June 2023. Jasp7676 (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Since there are apparently no thoughts on this...I'm going to add this to the lead. Jasp7676 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)