Talk:James Rhodes (pianist)

Untitled

It could well be written by James Rhodes, but anyway it is a touching document. There could be reasons to clean it up, but please keep the aspect that (the classical) music can help a troubled soul and that the art has another message than just being "art". I have just listened to a Danish pianist (Katrine Gislinge) explaining her aversion against playing at a concert where it has to be "art" and how hard it can be to set up yourself. So a Wikipedia article about an artist with another bid on how concert life could be is very welcome. --d-axel (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about public school

The article includes this: "he was sent to a local public school where he experienced abuse by his gym teacher." However, it then goes on to say that at 13 he went to Harrow. In the UK a public school is normally attended from age 13 onwards, so I am a bit puzzled about why he is said to have attended public school before going to what most people would regard as "going to public school", i.e. Harrow. Normally in the UK a boy who is destined for public school goes to prep school up to the age of 13. The only other explanation that I can think of would be if he went to one of the very minor public schools which admit pupils from 11, like a normal secondary school, and did the first two years of a public school with entry at 11 in lieu of the last two years of a prep school. That would be strange, as public schools that take pupils at 11 do not then prepare pupils to leave two years later via the Common Entrance exam. This leaves me wondering how he was prepared for Common Entrance, if he was already at public school. Better still, can no sources tell us which school he attended? Given that the sexual abuse took place at this school it would in some ways be of more biographical interest than Harrow, which seems not to have had such a big impact on the rest of his life.--2.218.202.1 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Name of ex-wife; her nationality and current country of residence

Why is his ex-wife's name consistently removed?—chbarts (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) His ex-wife is a public figure (a popular writer) and thus, has put herself in the public sphere. It doesn't seem like she should have the right to censor this page. (The ex-wife did not edit this page. It was Lighinlondon and I am not the ex-wife. - My apologies to Wikipedia. I'm s new user and was not aware of the "edit war" rule. I was simply trying to protect the interest of the son - nothing to do with the mother or James Rhodes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I remember there is some sort of legal injunction in place to the effect that she should not be named. Your attitude to legal injunctions by British judges against disclosure/repetition of otherwise/previously public information is a whole other (bigger) issue, of course. But I suggest that you probably should not wish to breach a legal injunction emanating from a properly constituted court of law in a state that enjoys a reasonable level of democratic or other ersatz legitimacy ... unless you have a very good reason for doing so. (Yes, lots more questions...) Ask that nice Mr Hislop. As for the name of Mr Rhodes' first wife, I think it likely that 99% of those who care also already know, though you may take a different view, if only regarding the actual percentage: I guess you would need a tighter definition of "care" (and of "know"?). As for the book which triggered the case, sales are presumably far higher than the publishers had earlier anticipated. For those of us who think books are good, that's positive.

On censorship, the "should" and the "is" have always been a long way apart in the opinions of many who have thought about it. But in this particular case, maybe it's a price worth paying for people to be permitted to read the book (and for Mr Rhodes to make public details which, evidently, he is keen to make public). Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The information about the name of his ex-wife is available on other web sites and thus, should not be censored on Wikipedia. The injunction was lifted by the UK Supreme Court who said it never should have been placed in the first place. The fact that a popular writer (who thus is also a public figure) has tried to suppress (and succeeded for a time) the writings of another writer is important public information, and that popular writer should not be allowed to censor Wikipedia (part of her motivation for doing so would obviously be her concern about how her action to censor her ex might negatively affect her book sales). Wikipedia should not be a party to such censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and so as above, their name is perfectly fine. I'm sure people with bad motives have much more sophisticated ways of finding information than using Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason, legal or otherwise, to censor her nationality, country of residence, or occupation, as the UK Supreme Court has clearly made that public information. There is really no reason to censor her name - there is certainly no legal reason for her name not to appear in Wikipedia as Rhodes's ex-wife. Rhodes's ex-wife never should have filed for the injunction. It was never going to succeed, and her lawyers should have been frank with her about that. All the publicity it has brought only damages her reputation (especially as a popular novelist, as writers should not attempt to censor other writers). Additionally, it only increases public knowledge of Rhodes's book, which is really a good thing, but not at all what she intended to do. Any negative effect on their son is the responsibility of the ex-wife. Had she handled publication of the book more appropriately and dealt intelligently with any questions their son might have had, it would simply have empowered their son. Censoring of the Wikipedia page only does further damage, and may lead to more publicity, if the press decides to write an article about the censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The name of Rhodes's ex-wife, and the fact that she was *his* ex-wife, was in the public domain before this case was filed. The full-text of the UK Supreme Court's decision (point 29; https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-judgment.pdf) specifically says that its initial prohibition (before the case was decided on May 20, 2015, at which point the injunction was lifted) of making public information did NOT apply to information that was in the public domain prior to 1 September 2014. Additionally, per point 26 of the UK Supreme Court decision, the interim injunction prohibited ONLY THE DEFENDANTS from making information public. The prohibition did not apply to other members of the public, or indeed, the press.

26. The court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from making “generally available to the public by any means all or any part of the information referred to in Confidential Schedule 2 to this Order (‘the information’) whether by publishing the particular extracts identified in Confidential Schedule 3 or by publishing any substantially similar words to like effect”. ...

29. The prohibition does not relate to information contained in the book apart from the Confidential Schedules or contained in the public judgment of the court. Nor does it apply to any material which had been placed in the public domain before 1 September 2014 and either appeared on the internet in the father’s name in a form and on a site accessible at 1 September 2014 or was attributed to the father and contained in a national television programme transmitted in England within the previous 12 months.

The full text of the UK Supreme Court's decision has point 2 which includes, in part, as follows(https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-judgment.pdf):

2. ... As the object of the proceedings has been to protect the child from harm, all the parties have until now been anonymous, as has the country where the child now lives. This court has decided that the tort does not have the scope contended for on the child’s behalf and hence that the book may be published including the specific passages to which objection is taken. This means that the book will inevitably be published in the very near future. In those circumstances there can be no justification for keeping secret the information contained in the book. This includes, obviously, the author’s name and also the country where mother and son are now living.

The video recording of the UK Supreme Court's reading of its decision includes the fact that the mother is an American writer, now living in the US; that information is considered PUBLIC by the UK Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2014-0251/judgment.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court Press Summary (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-press-summary.pdf) includes the following public information about the ex-wife:

The Appellant (the “Father”), James Rhodes, is a concert pianist, author and television film maker. He has written a book titled Instrumental, which he is hoping to publish, and it is aimed at providing a sound track to the story of his life. It includes searing accounts of the physical and sexual abuse and rape inflicted on him from the age of six by the boxing coach at his school. It goes on to chart his subsequent resorting to drink, drugs, self-harm, attempts at suicide as well as his time in psychiatric hospital culminating in his redemption through learning, listening to and playing music.

The book also refers to his first marriage, to an American novelist then living in London (the “Mother”), and the child they had together (the “Son”) to whom the book is dedicated. The Mother and Father divorced some years ago. During the divorce, they made a residence and contact order in London on 15 June 2009. This included a recital by which the Mother and Father agreed to use their best endeavours to protect the Son “from any information concerning the past previous history of either parent which would have a detrimental effect upon the child’s well-being”. The Mother and Son now live overseas. ...

A first draft of the book, sent to the publishers in December 2013, was leaked to the Mother in February 2014. Some changes were made, such as the use of pseudonyms. However, the Mother wanted more significant changes as she was concerned that the book would cause psychological harm to the Son, now aged 11, if he came to read it. In June 2014, she brought proceedings (later taken over by the Son’s godfather), on behalf of the Son, on various grounds seeking an injunction prohibiting publication or the deletion of a large number of passages. ...

Blatant BLP issue

I removed this section of text for now "James and Canongate were held to a temporary injunction, filed by his American ex-wife (also a writer), against publishing the book pending a full trial. The injunction was granted on the claim that the details about the severity of the sexual abuse Rhodes suffered as a child, as well as subsequent mental illness, would be harmful to his son and was 'toxic material'. However, on May 20, 2015, UK Supreme Court lifted the interim injunction (video of decision; full text of decision; UK Supreme Court press summary) that had prevented the defendants (Rhodes and publisher) from publicly speaking about certain personal details relating to the abuse and his subsequent struggles with mental health (prohibited items were listed in Confidential Schedules to the initial temporary injunction (now overturned);) Please remember "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous."

A trial has not yet taken place. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your editing, and the reasons behind it, are highly biased. Either than, or you're uninformed about the facts (and thus should not have out material based on the UK Supreme Court decision). Exactly what trial are you expecting to take place? Is the text of the UK Supreme Court decision not final? Your trying to create an issue of contention when there is absolutely no such issue. Think about. You need to read the decision - links are in the section above (or simply read the section above dealing with making public his ex-wife's name, nationality, country of residence).

How much higher quality of a source can the UK Supreme Court be? The information presented at the UK Supreme Court web site is not contentious - that was the decision of the court. It is fact. It is relevant. That information should be included on the Wikipedia page. How can it possibly be inappropriate to include information that was included in the Supreme Court full text decision, press summary or video of the reading of the decision? Removing the links to the materials at the Supreme Court website is simply blatant censorship. Much of the justification for including this information on the Wikipedia cite is discussed in the above section discussing his ex-wife. I cannot fathom how anyone could think it appropriate to censor links to the Supreme Court website.

How can there possibly be any BLP issue, blatant or otherwise, if the information was included in the UK Supreme Court's decision as public information? Such a claim just twists the facts. And quite frankly, makes Wikipedia look ridiculous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the information is at this point contentious and concerns a living person. Perhaps after any trial that may occur finishes, then might be the time to include such info in the article. There is no censorship going on, only protection to a living person as allowed by WP:BLP Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what trial are you awaiting? The decision of the UK Supreme Court is final. Including information on Wikipedia that was published by the UK Supreme Court is appropriate. Excluding it is censorship. You have provided absolutely NO justification for excluding the information. There is nothing libelous or contentious about material published in the UK Supreme Court decision. The information is not poorly sourced. You have no justification for your censorship whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore on May 20, 2015, UK Supreme Court lifted the interim injunction about the gag order. The UK Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case or pending case. That is a very big difference. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Again no censorship here, just enforcing WP:BLP. We go by wikipedia policies here. Gee you seem very upset about this matter, may I ask, do you have any relationship to the parties in this matter, or are you one of the parties involved? Please do read WP:COI. If the answer is no then please do pardon the question. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification for this censorship, and engaging in a personal attack is inappropriate. Censorship is wrong, and against the spirit of Wikipedia.

You clearly are misunderstanding how the UK court system works. The UK Supreme Court said the book could be published - read the decision of the UK Supreme Court. It also clearly made public the ex-wife's country of residence, occupation, and citizenship. Additionally, the temporary injunction (now overturned) applied ONLY to the DEFENDANTS - not to the general public or press. (read paragraphs 2 and 29 of the UK Supreme Court decision which are included in the section discussing his ex-wife's name) Additionally, reporting on what the UK Supreme Court decision SAID is neither libelous nor contentious. It is fact, and it is public information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Politely asking you a question is not a personal attack here at wikipedia. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

btw, I notice that you did not answer said question. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This was a personal attack: "Gee you seem very upset about this matter", as were everything you implied in that sentence. You lack any reasonable justification for your editing of material that is sourced to the UK Supreme Court. I am going to reinstate it. If you disagree, you need to take it to the notice board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There certainly is no consensus to reinstate the information that is a blatant WP:BLP issue. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no blatant BLP issue here. You are abusing that. The UK Supreme Court website is not a weak source; including information from the UK Supreme Court decision is not libelous or contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The UK court sources provided are WP:PRIMARY sources, and we would almost never base a controversial statement about a WP:BLP subject on such a source. What is needed here is independent coverage in reliable sources. The UK injunction and related controversy is unrelated to whether or not Wikipedia publishes. I'll have to go find a reference for it, but UK courts don't have jurisdiction in Florida. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit-war, I noticed that most of the sources are court documents, which BLP explicitly forbids. Seems like a pretty clear case. CorporateM (Talk) 02:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly Tgeairn and CorporateM. Thank you to you both for your input in this discussion. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is an independent source; there are many: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/supreme-court-overturns-ban-on-james-rhodes-autobiography/5048933.fullarticle I do not understand why a non-primary source is preferred over a primary source. The UK Supreme Court decision is the ultimate source for the reporting of the facts of the temporary injunction, its overturning, and what influence that had on James Rhodes's ability to publish his memoirs. Secondary sources can eliminate important details, can rephrase, and all these can lead to framing of the information in an incorrect way.

Additionally, the BLP policy should not be allowed to be abused. It was being abused here. There was nothing in the paragraph that I reinstated that violated that policy in ANY way whatsoever. Allowing censorship, if even for a few days, is wrong. I did suggest WordSeventeen take the issue to the noticeboard. The "Edit Warring" claim should have been directed against WordSeventeen as there was no basis whatsoever under BLP for removing that material. Censorship is wrong. The material was relevant to the article, as the ex-wife's filing of the injunction censored Rhodes's ability to publish (and from his own article about this incident, did quite a bit of emotional damage to Rhodes as well).

WordSeventeen never said on this page that the issue was with the source being the UK Supreme Court documents thus I do not believe that was his/her objection. I am completely baffled as to why court documents are not allowed. They are VERY relevant here, because people were claiming that there was an injunction prohibiting publishing of certain information about his ex-wife. The UK Supreme Court decision makes clear that her occupation, country of residence, the fact that she lived in London at one time, and that fact that she was the one to start the court proceedings, are public information. How does one establish that without resorting to the UK Supreme Court documents? It must also be noted that the UK Supreme Court *never* established any kind of injunction on the press or the general public with regard to this case, or the ex-wife. In fact, it clearly stated that information that was in the public domain before Sept. 1, 2014 was not covered by the injunction.

WordSeventeen and perhaps others need to review the BLP policy, which reads in part "... what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. See WP:BLPADMINS."[1]

Please note that I did suggest WordSeventeen take this issue to the notice board!

Additionally, Wikipedia does not prohibit categorically use of primary sources. My use was appropriate, given that people were questioning what was allowed and not allowed to be published, after the UK Supreme Court's decision of May 20, 2015 was read. No other source other than the uK Supreme Court decision, could have addressed that particular issue. Here is the Wikipedia policy.

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't use primary sources for BLP articles due to precisely this type article content. See WP:BLPPRIMARY for the actual policy, but basically it is impossible to use the court documents without adding at least some form of original research (that's the very short explanation of some very lengthy policy discussions over the years). Regarding censorship, remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech either. Wikipedia is a private website and the very concept of censorship doesn't directly even apply. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly Tgeairn. Again, I thank you for your input and explanation of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: WordSeventeen has been blocked by Wikipedia for a month, and his Pending Changes Reviewer and Rollback rights have been revoked, for his disruptive editing practices, which included his disruptive editing of material at the James Rhodes page (above provides discussion of that incident), as well as in many other incidents. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen131.191.80.213 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Right to publish autobiography

There appears to be some disagreement between editors as to what content to place in the article regarding the recent supreme court decision to lift the injunction barring publication of Rhode's autobiography. I recommend that editors use this section to agree on sources and formulate what to add. There does appear to be controversial content and solid sourcing is of course needed. Cheers all, Tgeairn (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This source looks fine to me at-a-glance and I think a two-sentence summary of it would be excellent. CorporateM (Talk) 03:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CorporateM that this is a reliable secondary source, and briefly summarizing it resolves any concerns about using a primary source, namely the Supreme Court decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Having read this article, and the judgments in both Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. I have an issue with publication of details about the most recent litigation surrounding him. Especially this:

"In 2015 Rhodes was blocked from publishing his autobiography by a temporary court injunction prompted by his former wife. She said that publishing the book, which includes details of sexual abuse as a child, would psychologically harm their child, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's, ADHD, dyspraxia and dysgraphia. In May 2015, the Supreme Court decided that the book qualifies for free speech protection and lifted the interim injunction."

As the text itself notes, the whole issue of the case was about protecting the Child. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court both noted in their Judgments that the Child has found this Wikipedia article (FWIW, I also have Asperger syndrome so I know what it's like, and I can guess his train of thought). If he sees any references to the Book in the article, he might very well try to find the Book (which isn't too hard to imagine, given that he has alraedy found this Article). The point is that if the Child isn't meant to find out about the book, then posting details of it on a Wikipedia page which he has already found, it's possible that he might then go on and work out that there is a Book which - even though he isn't mean to read it - he will try and read. The Historian (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a book published by James Rhodes, published, taking it out of this article is not helping the child much, it is already in the news. Spumuq (talq) 11:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Rhodes (pianist). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209065206/http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/featured/6439433/part_4/the-accidental-pianist.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/featured/6439433/part_4/the-accidental-pianist.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Rhodes (pianist). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209054117/http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/featured/6439433/part_3/the-accidental-pianist.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/featured/6439433/part_3/the-accidental-pianist.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright claim by Sony

Should check for articles/reliable sources coming up about this dispute with Sony for a Bach performance uploaded on Facebook: https://twitter.com/JRhodesPianist/status/1036929244654460928 --Nemo 12:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile I see there is https://boingboing.net/2018/09/05/mozart-bach-sorta-mach.html --Nemo 12:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Rhodes Law

Spanish law (proposal?) related to James Rhodes. Maybe best to wait to see comments at https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:James_Rhodes#Ley_Rhodes to find best sources. Jgvictores (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)