Talk:Emmett Chapman

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Jazz Mid‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Emmett is a creative genius. His success comes in the form of his instrument and his music, but also in the thousands of good friends he's made over the years in his travels. You may find some folks with an ax to grind writing negative things about him, llike any famous person. They are just energy vampires. My sincere wish is that you never encounter one of these creatures, but if you do, just whistle or play them some music. They don't understand what music is so it will confuse them and give you time to make your escape.

Happy Tapping, Greg

Fair enough, but the statements you removed from the article are both relevant and NPOV. As sufficiently notable, factual statements, I believe they should remain. Thank you for being so courteous about this, though. Junkyard prince 04:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a paragraph and a link based on two criteria.

First, a minor lawsuit between businesses that did not get very far in the legal system or have any effect on anyone except on the participants was an insignificant event in Emmett Chapman's overall life, and thus is not relevant to include. Mr. Chapman's importance to the world at large is in the invention, manufacture, technique, performances and recordings of the Chapman Stick over the past 35 years, not in a short-lived business dispute that created no legal precedent, no significant judgement, no media coverage and no lasting effect on the world at large.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson had many financial problems and legal disputes toward the end of his life, but these are not included in the extensive Wikipedia biography of him. If we allow this kind of inclusion, what is next? Allowing Wikipedia to become a repository of negative credit report information and stories about private disputes with neighbors on public figures' biographies? I think this kind of "scandal sheet" misuse of Wikipedia is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's mission to provide a valuable information resource.

Second, the statements do not pass NPOV policy of Wikipedia. They present the point of view of one of the defendants in the lawsuit, which does not fully and accurately represent the lawsuit events. The statements did not include, for instance, the fact that as the lawsuit progressed through its legal process, the judge ruled that the suit was not frivolous when a motion to dismiss was filed, and then ruled a second time in favor of Mr. Chapman before the suit was eventually dismissed at a later stage. The statements also nowhere state what was actually charged in the lawsuit. Any information that would reflect badly on the defendants was ommitted, while any information the might reflect badly on Mr. Chapman was included.

It seems to me both that a NPOV summary of the suit is not possible, since the judge issued a ruling requiring all parties not to talk about the settlement, and inclusion of the story of the lawsuit makes the article itself non-NPOV. Including a paragraph about this dispute disrupts the neutral balance of the article elevating this disupte to an equal significance with Mr. Chapman's important achievements. I guess we could try to balance it by listing good deeds Chapman has done for his friends and neighbors, but that would also dilute the focus of the article away from the things he has done that anyone but an angry business rival might care about.

Finally, including a link to a defamation site run by a defendant in the lawsuit who apparently is still angry almost a decade later, even though the suit against him was dismissed, cannot be considered in any way NPOV. If Mr. Topaz qualified for a biography page on Wikipedia (he does not as I read the biography guidelines), the lawsuit would qualify as a central event in his life, but not in Mr. Chapman's. User:Vancegloster Talk

Stick v. Warr Debate

I recognize that WP is not the place to air petty grievances and respect the fact that people are working to maintain NPOV. However, I believe it is a bit much to compare Mr. Chapman to Thomas Jefferson if we are talking about NPOV...I mean the scope of their influence is just not comparable. Both hero-worship and outright slander are violations of NPOV as I understand it. Has anyone thought of a separate article about he Stick v. Warr issue? It's not currently mentioned in either the Warr entry or the Chapman entry as if it didn't even happen. As for Mr. Chapman's character he seems to be a divisive figure and seems to inspire either hatred or devotion amongst touch style guitarists, depending on their camp. Can anyone verify Brian Kenney Fresno's comment that Emmett was dismissive of Stanley Jordan? Lyrics: http://www.bonghitrecords.com/bonghit/lyrics.htm Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ofCM6g78RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauNacht (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the main picture

Would someone please edit the caption to say what instrument Chapman is playing? I thought it might be a stick, but I thought those usually had more than 8 strings. --30daysinAKK (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]