Talk:Eric Clapton/Archive 2

"Controversy" section
As of the time I am posting this, the section has no verifiable sources. That's completely unacceptable for such allegations about a living person. See WP:BLP. If the section is not cleaned up with proper citations within a day or two my plan is to delete the entire section, but I am open to reasonable suggestions. Ward3001 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added several references and quotes from the references. Revolutionaryluddite 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The section still does not distinguish between opposition to mass immigration and racism, but I don't know how that could be done. Revolutionaryluddite 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's remarkable how much larger this section is than the section in the Mel Gibson article. Just a thought that far too much is given to a 30 year old drunken remark. Vytal (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. When I have time I may trim it, but I'm OK if someone else gives it a try. Ward3001 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This section needs revisiting again. When it when originally bloated into an anti-Clapton/Eric is a racist section by a user named Blue Guitar it was decided that the incident wasn't notable and that the way the text was being altered/slanted was not portraying the event for what it was, minor. WP:BLP didn't really exist then and the main obstacle to the content was, as stated earlier, that the way it was written sounded "racist" when it was really an "opposition to mass immigration" and as stated by Clapton, "England portraying itself as the land of mil and honey only to slot all its new arrivals into low income/unhealthy ghettos". Since the creation of WP:BLP this section is now a policy vio. Several editors decided in 2006 that the section wasn't worth anymore than 2-3 lines. The fact that the same discussion came back up in 2008 shows that it is still an issue that has never been properly resolved. Something should be decided on so that the section can have both the 'soap' and the 'box' removed and leave only the facts and a reliable source to support it. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You'd be hard-pressed to find any evidence of racism in Clapton's entire life story other than this rather-misunderstood drunken statement. Bluewave (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (no known relation to Blue Guitar)
 * Especially since there is no racism in his drunken statement to begin with. The section needs a good hacking. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with someone trying a revision of the section, but let's not lose sight of the fact that, regardless of whether the criticisms leveled against Clapton were justifiable, they were noteworthy because they got a lot of press. I don't think the section should be reduced to a sentence or two, especially if it includes Clapton's responses to the criticisms. The most important thing is that the section should be accurate, balanced, and in some reasonable proportion to other events in his career. If you measure balance crudely by number of words, right now the defenses against the criticisms (last two paragraphs) are a bit underweighted. So the criticisms (first three paragraphs) could be trimmed some, but not drastically. Ward3001 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm frankly amazed that those minor edits were reverted immediately and that contributors have apparently come to the conclusion that providing any details to readers about Clapton's statements that night constitutes giving "undue weight" to the subject. I can only assume that is because either the contributors in question are Clapton fans who would rather people not know exactly what Eric said that night (or would rather not hear about it themselves) or are largely ignorant of the significance of this controversy not only in Clapton's career but in the history of British popular music. This incident is absolutely notorious in Clapton's career, it's brought up constantly in concert reviews and articles, it's been mentioned in dozens of Guardian articles in the last few years alone, and frankly it's what a lot of people, especially those of a certain age who were around at the time, mostly remember Eric for. It sparked one of the biggest political musical movements ever in the U.K. But including some example of what Clapton actually said to cause such outrage is giving it "undue weight"? But we get plenty of Clapton quotes, not the actual remarks from that concert, but Clapton's own self-justifications during the decades since, including "I couldn’t be a racist - it wouldn't make any sense", but readers can't decide whether to agree with him or not because they have no idea what he actually said because the most offensive bits have been left out of the article. Isn't that giving "undue weight" as well, in this case to Clapton's own defence? I don’t object to Eric’s subsequent statements on the subject being there, on the contrary they should be, but why give over so much space for remarks that put Eric in a rather better light rather than bothering to include the actual remarks that caused the trouble? Not very balanced is it? Like or not, a lot of people are going to come to this article having heard about the "Clapton racist rant" to find out about it and they are not being given the story at all. Bit poor for an online encyclopaedia isn't it? The article as it stands suggests, aside from some inflammatory remark about a "black colony", that Eric basically just got up and praised Enoch Powell and suggested there should be some limit to immigration. Controversial and possibly offensive to a lot of people certainly, but plenty of people call for limits on immigration and give qualified praise to Powell even now. Problem is, Clapton didn’t just do that, did he? He actually got up and berated “wogs” (actually “bastard wogs” if I remember rightly), “coons” and repeatedly used the National Front slogan “Keep Britain White” (Eric may or may not have known it was an NF slogan, he’s certainly never expressed support for the NF and I sincerely doubt that he ever would, but it does make clear Clapton’s problem was not so much with immigration per se but non-white immigration). If Clapton used that kind of language and those slogans on stage now, he’d be convicted of inciting racial hatred. The storm of controversy wasn’t purely because Clapton praised Enoch Powell and politely called for limits on immigration, this certainly would have been a major controversy, it was a lot to do with the openly racist language Clapton used (regardless of what one thinks of Clapton’s views, I think “throw the wogs out” and “Keep Britain White” qualify as racist statements in almost anyone’s book, regardless of who says it – that’s the kind of language you’d have heard from John Tyndall, not Enoch Powell). Note that Clapton refuses to apologise and says he “stands by every word”, even “Keep Britain White” apparently. Imagine Noel Gallagher for instance getting up on stage tonight and remarking to the audience “This country is becoming a black colony – we need to throw the bastard wogs, the coons and the niggers out. Keep Britain White.”, and then readers come to wikipedia to be told “Noel made some controversial remarks last night about immigration which some people think are racist but we aren’t going to tell you what they were, just rest assured that Noel now tells us “I’m not a racist, I’m just an opponent of mass immigration.” It’s unimaginable isn’t it? Whether Clapton is or isn’t a racist is certainly not for Wikipedia to determine – I have no idea what goes on in his mind or why he said what he did - and I’m not suggesting that the article is attempting to do that, but at present, the article is nonetheless misleading – it is suggesting that the controversy was over a few words of praise for Powell, and nothing more. There is a massive difference between speaking out against immigration and using the kind of language Clapton used, regardless of what Clapton thought he was doing. Any readers coming to Wiki to find out about this are not being told the full story of this incident, they are being given a sanitized version that is omitting the actual statements Clapton made which caused much of the uproar. Funnily enough, one of the posters on the talk page says "nothing Eric said is racist" - why do I get the impression he can say that because he dosen't know what Eric actually said, probably because it isn't in the article? If posters on here have decided that including one or two quotes from the concert or even just a sentence explaining that Clapton used racist language is giving “undue weight” to the issue, I find that staggering. And apparently anyone who thinks otherwise must by definition be "anti-Clapton", according to some on there. What’s the point in people coming hear to Wikipedia find out about the infamous alleged “racist rant” by Clapton? None really, because the most relevant material is being excluded from the article, so readers are left none the wiser. If contributors to this page still feel that including the most relevant information about one of the biggest scandals in the career of any British rock musician is giving “undue weight” to the subject, then perhaps some moderators who don’t have the same high regard for Clapton as some of the contributors should be allowed to take a look at this rather absurd situation. 92.2.55.190 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is rather long-winded but this poster is basically correct. Clapton's speech was not merely a rant against immigration, he did in fact repeatedly use racist language. 'Keep Britain White' does not indicate that one is concerned with the economic and social effects of mass immigration, it indicates that you have a problem with people living in Britain who have dark skin, and it was in fact a NF slogan at the time. This was an extraordinary incident and highly significant historically. Devoting one paragraph to the event itself - in which Clapton's own racist statements are excluded, thereby denying the reader crucial information about the controversy - while devoting three paragraphs to Clapton's subsequent justifications and excuses (where he mentions a bunch of issues which have nothing to do with what he said in 1976 - he didn't mention "conning immigrants" or "putting them up in ghettoes" or show any concern for their plight as he suggests since, he just said he wanted the wogs and coons out and Britain kept white) is not presenting a neutral account of the controversy, its presenting an account slanted in favour of Clapton and its misleading. What any contributer thinks of Clapton's views, his music or anything else about the man is not relevant, fact is the article is biased in Clapton's favour due to crucial ommisions. MarkB79 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing omitted is uncited editor pov and assumptions. The section already bloats too much on a minor issue that has had been pressed several times by editors trying to soapbox their own original research over the cited content. Still could use a few lines trimmed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you appear to have no idea about the furore caused by this event or even what actually happened at the concert. Up the page you state that "nothing was racist" in what Clapton said. Since I assume you would agree that statements like "throw the wogs out", "throw the coons out" and "keep Britain White" are inherently racist, I assume that you had no idea what Clapton said on stage. Aside from that, the event was immensely significant. It caused an extraordinary uproar within the black community and the music industry and was singlehandedly the spark for Rock Against Racism, this was probably the biggest political popular music campaign ever in Britain. Eric got 100,000 people marching through Hyde Park to protest racism. Eric is notorious for this episode. It's brought up continously in interviews, newspaper articles, etc. It is not "a minor incident" - the suggestion that it is simply factually wrong. As for cites, there are plenty: sources Clapton stating: "I think Enoch's right ... we should send them all back. Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!".  here has Clapton saying "throw the wogs out".  again quotes Eric's "keep Britain White". There is all the sources you want there plus any number more if you do a websearch. There's no "point of view", just report the facts. It dosen’t matter what anyone here thinks of Clapton’s statements or what he meant or why he said it one way or the other, he caused uproar and was widely accused of being a racist and still is – hence, his statements that led to the furore should be there. If the section "needs trimming" – which it dosen’t, a suggestion that is a little worrying – then trim some of Eric’s post-hoc rationalisations, which unlike "keep Britain White" and the rest of the shocking language are included at length and they have precious little to do with his original statements and as far as I am aware generated little controversy or attention. Some of them at least should be there, his own explanation of his views should obviously be present, but if anything should be trimmed it should be that – as it stands, the actual incident, the subsequent furore and the fall-out get one paragraph, Eric’s subsequent justifications get three. Hardly balanced, neutral or logical. The article should’nt be saying Clapton is or isn’t a racist, it just needs to report facts so readers who come to the webpage to read about this get an accurate account of what happened – I think one or two of them might like some indication of what Eric actually said and why so many people thought his statements were racist. MarkB79 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that when posters make the perfectly reasonable suggestion that some example of Clapton's statements that caused this considerable controversy be included in the article, some other posters seem to get extremely annoyed and start accusing them of "pushing POV" and attempting to get "uncited" statements in the article. Nobody is suggesting that any POV be included, merely Eric's own words, without commentary or judgement. Then when the cites are produced for Eric's statements, it's very curious that everybody seems to go remarkably quiet. Could this be because there is no excuse or reasonable argument left as to why Clapton's most controversial and relevant words should be excluded and it's easier to just ignore the posters and hope they go away rather than have to let these rather embarassing statements go into the article? Perhaps instead just quietly revert any attempts to add them and ignore the talk page altogether? Curious, as I say.

Somebody mentions Mel Gibson above. The relevant part of the Mel Gibson article probably does not have three or four paragraphs of his own explanations for his words and actions, thats probably why its smaller. It does however include his words "All the wars in the world are caused by the Jews" and his asking a policeman "are you a Jew". I can't imagine the reaction if a bunch of Mel's fans deleted those statements and argued that anyone trying to re-insert them were "anti-Mel Gibson" and trying to push a "POV that Gibson is an anti-semite". However over here we get paragraphs of extended highlights of every statement Clapton appears to have made over the last 30 years on the subject, where he of course sounds quite reasonable and not at all racist. But the most controversial statements from the night itself, exactly what most people who read this section will want to know about? Can't find them on here. One wonders why, maybe it's because those statements might give a slightly different impression. Otherwise, it's a pretty good article. Shame. 92.10.141.159 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked out the Mel Gibson article. It does indeed include his actual words on Jews being the cause of all world conflicts and little of his own subsequent statements on the furore. However the main reason why the section is much smaller that the one on here is not because it's deemed to be of little significance as some contributers above have suggested, quite the reverse in fact - the reason is that the Gibson controversy has an article of its own. It was clearly deemed important enough to warrant a whole article devoted to the controversy itself, which is why there is relatively little about it on his biography, aside from the most relevant information (the most controversial words out of Gibson's own mouth, exactly what is excluded here). The Clapton incident does not warrant an article of its own, but it certainly needs some expansion on here to include the actual statements Clapton made that caused the furore, it's absurd to exclude them and makes no sense on any level. MarkB79 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's surely doubly absurd that this Wikipedia article cites a reference (Number 24) to corroborate Clapton's use of the phrase "black ghetto" when the document 24 links to (an Observer article) includes no such words! However, it does include the quotes "...throw the wogs out!" and "Keep Britain white!" which, at the moment, the Wiki article does not include.  In it's current form this article seems to be failing to accurate representing it own sources, let alone offer an unbiased account of the incident in question. cncoote  —Preceding comment was added at 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Melia McEnery
In the article, Clapton's first encounter with his wife is described thusly: "In 1999 Clapton, then 54, met 23-year-old store clerk Melia McEnery in Los Angeles while working on an album with B.B. King. They met while McEnery was working for Georgio Armani. Clapton entered the shop and a coworker told McEnery Eric Clapton had entered the store to which she responded, "who's Eric Clapton?". "

What's the source on this? In Clapton's autobiography, he tells a different version of this (he says he was introduced to her and her roommate at an Armani event then went to the store the next day to seek her out, then embarked on a sort of three-way relationship with her and the roommate for a few months before Clapton and McEnery became a monogamous couple). There's no mention of her not knowing who he was beforehand, and given the honest tone of the book, it doesn't seem like he'd sugarcoat things by leaving out this detail. In any event, I at least edited this section to fix the spelling of "Georgio" Armani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjnyc (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clapton's guitars
I realize this is an important section because of Clapton's notability as a guitarist. But it is a long, detailed, and somewhat technical section, yet has no sources. I don't wish to delete it, but I also don't wish to dig up the sources myself. Per WP:V, if some sources aren't provided within a reasonable period of time, my plan is to delete it. Ward3001 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've rewritten half of it, but it is still bloated (man, there's got to be a better word than that!). I'm in the process of supplying sources, as well as trimming it down more. This section is a magnet for minutiae.

Vytal 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is improved with the addition of sources. But it still has some unsourced statements. I'll give this another week, then I'm taking the unsourced information out. Ward3001 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

His "I Shot the Sheriff" not reggae as such
The opening paragraph mentions him doing reggae as a style and cites I Shot the Sheriff.

Musically, he reworks the song in a much more rock vein reworking the rhythm and de-emphasizing Marley's pure 2-4 downbeats. It is reggae tinged, perhaps, but not reggae as such. Rev. Pigpen (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would tend to support the wording as is; though I don't disagree with your comparison of the Clapton version and the original, Clapton's record song is still recognizable as having a reggae beat and was certainly among the "most reggae" tunes to have hit the charts at the time of its initial release. The sentence in the lead is intended to emphasize Clapton's stylistic range, not make a detailed musicological judgement of the recording, and I think the current version does this well and accurately.  Jgm (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but Clapton does not need to have "reggae" listed in the infobox as one of his genres, when one song out of the hundreds he has done used this style. Seriously, would anyone really be able to argue that Clapton is famous for using or that he used the reggae style extensively? Or does anyone have any sources for this? One song being justification for listing this genre is ridiculous. James25402 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there are probably a handful of tunes that are reggae-tinged, mainly from around the same era, & whilst not overly significant in Clapton's musical development or catalogue, or within the vast array that is the reggae genre, it's significance culturally is pertinent as Clapton was one of the first notable white artists to bring this form of music to people who may have been less familiar with it & so he helped to breach some cultural divides. Gwladys24 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Clapp vs. Clapton
Why would his mother be named Patricia Clapton if her parents were named Jack and Rose Clapp? Sylvain1972 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They were not. Jack Clapp was her stepfather, her mother's second husband. Her father's name was Clapton. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks - I will make that more clear in the article. Sylvain1972 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)
 * And both of you can get better references than a fan site. Right above we read another unreferenced claim. Sounds like a bit of fan nonsense actually.20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton and SRV "good friends?"
Not a big deal, but I seem to remember Clapton saying that he didn't really know SRV in his autobiography. It seems like he knew his brother more than anything. In particular, he said something about hearing his stuff (SRV's), but never really knowing him personally that well.

Perhaps I'm wrong?

Nbegley (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering SRV played with Clapton in several concerts as well as his final one before the helicopter accidents, I think it's safe to assume they knew each other to some degree. The first concert I've seen them together dates to ~84 so they knew each other to an extant for at least 6 years. --84.109.25.117 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts
In the article it claims Eric cplapton was associated with The Beatles. I am aware that he recorded several songs with them, but he was never an official band member (as far as I am aware). Therefore I think that this affiliation should be removed, unless I am wrong and recoding one song constitutes band membership. Andypandy2020 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The list is Associated acts, not Bands belonged to. He wasn't part of Roger Waters either (a solo artist). I've always been confused myself about what an "associated act" is, but I think The Beatles belong there as much as others in the list. What I'm even more confused about is that you argue that The Beatles should not be included, then you added "The Glands" (whoever they are) without a citation. Who are The Glands, and was Clapton a member of that group? Ward3001 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Glands, according to Eric Clapton's autobiography, were a group he briefly toured Europe with during his time wih the Bluesbreakers. They lasted a few months, most of that time spent in Greece. This is all found in Clapton but I don't have page numbers since I listened to it as an audiobook. They are definitely an associated group, since he was the only guitarist in the group. -Eric J. Ehlers, 15 April 2008


 * So does Roger Waters not belong in this section then? sounds like he was back when "Ward3001" was replying to "Andypandy2020". He did more than play one song on that album. --22:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy
This article states that Eric Clapton joined The Bluesbreakers in 1963, but the John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers article states that he joined in 1965, leaving the band in 1966. This should be resolved. - Eric J. Ehlers, 15 April 2008

Chocolate addiction
Shouldn't his chocolate addiction be mentioned?  Hel pslo ose   21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Who's he ethnically? I mean, what are his ethnical roots? 89.139.179.81 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ClaptonD&D.jpg
The image Image:ClaptonD&D.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let It Grow and George Harrison
The article states that George Harrison collaborated with Eric Clapton on the song "Let It Grow" from the album 461 Ocean Boulevard. There is no source for this assertion, and I question it, since Harrison is not credited on the album. (In the same section of the article, it correctly states that Harrison and Clapton co-wrote the song "Badge.") Anyway, if it is true that Harrison collaborated on "Let It Grow," there must be some source, which should be cited, and, as I say, that source is not the album credits (which do not credit Harrison in any capacity). 24.128.159.123 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clapton's Father
In his autobiography released in 2007, Eric Clapton states that he does not know who his biological father is/was, so for a person to be named in his bio in this article is a bit presumptuous. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.131 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Blues: The?
Here i read his 1999 album's name is Blues, not The Blues. Maybe that page should be moved. --Ginosal (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Copyedit
I just got through doing some major cleanup/ copyediting on this article. I now believe it is most definitely at Good Article status. There are still a number of "citation needed" tags on there, and with those being fulfilled I believe this would be a legitimate Featured Article candidate. Washburn mav (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a great job. Perhaps you could re-visit the controversy section and try and trim the fat a little more. It's a minor "non-event" in the artist's life.(an completely null event in general, really) And it has it's own section??? Can 2 or 3 lines be salvaged from the rest of the crap and place ina better chrono order somewhere else? That's just a quick observation. It's a section that's overdue for removal. Libs (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look at that when I have some time. Washburn mav (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Revisit
Libs I read over the controversy section again, and I still think it has merit. I can't really see how it could slip in anywhere else, and I believe it is notable enough to be its own section. Can we get another opinion on this? Washburn mav (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review Washburnmav. For Libs, and anyone else who may not know the history behind that section, I will fill in some info on its origin. The original editor (first an IP then an account) that added that section did so, not to add encyclopedic information, but to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to try and push their own personal pov skewed point that Clapton was a racist. He obviously isn't. And the referenced content supports that he isn't. But the editor kept expanding and skewing the text to suit their opinion. It was a lengthy battle and the section, as it is now, more or less, is the outcome. The same editor also tried the same tactics on the David Bowie article, again, without much success. It is similar to editors trying to soapbox false allegations onto Wikipedia that Bowie, Wyman, Townshend, Page, etc are pedophiles. I am not a fan of this section because of its original intent. But I certainly trust Washburnmav's review and reason that the wording is neutral, as per Wiki demands, and that the references for the section are valid and support the wording of the section as it is. Hope that helps. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the support anger. You're right, the sources are all legitimate, and although I think this is a small part of his life, and does not reflect him as a person, I believe it is a notable event that should be included in the article. It also plays an important role in the start of Rock Against Racism. Washburn mav (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thinks there's grounds for inclusion... The incident IS detailed in the Wiki article on RAR, and in various other noteworthy media and profiles of Clapton, so why not here? Reporting the incident factually is not in and of itself judgmental, and its widespread reporting in other media make a strong case for its notability. Either way, what really is absurd is that, as the page stands today, a four line paragraph beginning "in a 2004 interview with Uncut magazine, Clapton referred to a 1976 controversy..." is included, but the incident itself isn't... Can it possibly be that we are saying a interview he gave 30 years later about an incident IS relevant, but any information about the incident itself isn't...? Cncoote (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it's absurd to omit the incident itself but include some quotes about it from 30 years later but I suspect the reason for it might be, as someone has pointed out above, Clapton's subsequent statements in interviews might sound dubious to many but they do not sound remotely racist (except perhaps to people who would regard any statement of support for Powell as racist) but to 99% of readers who visit this webpage, Clapton's actual statements on the night - "throw the wogs out" and "keep Britain White" - would obviously be regarded as deeply racist. Almost nobody would think otherwise and few would be impressed with the "he can't be a racist no matter what he says, he likes black music and has black friends" argument (racist attitudes can be a bit more complicated than that) nor with the excuse that he was drunk. Highly offensive racial slurs and National Front slogans do tend to fill people with revulsion. I don't think all of the users are deliberately trying to censor by omission, rather they have decided for themselves that Clapton cannot possibly be a racist in any way (it's not for them to decide of course, you're just supposed to present facts on here, not adopt a position and then omit material if it dosen't fit your preconceptions) and are excluding the details from the article because they know only too well that readers would not unreasonably conclude that Clapton is a racist (or at least holds, or did hold, some racist attitudes) if they are to read the man's own words from that night. And if anyone else thinks otherwise, they must be "anti-Clapton" or "pushing POV" or "soapboxing" or it's even compared with people trying to push the POV that Pete Townshend is a paedophile, though I'm not sure what the comparison is supposed to be. I’m not sure all the posters on here have that attitude, but some certainly do. It should be a simple matter of just giving an unbiased, dispassionate account of the night, what Clapton said, that it sparked Rock Against Racism, and what Clapton has said about it since. It could be done in a relatively short paragraph and no it dosen't need its own section. But unfortunately that would mean including Clapton's statements about "bastard wogs" and keeping Britain white. If you look at Wagner's article, we find quotes that lead to him being accused of anti-Semitism (and yes Wagner had Jewish friends and liked Jewish composers). John Lennon's article contains his Jesus quotes and his incidents of violence against women. None of this is presented with any agenda or in a judgemental way, quite rightly, and the same arguments could apply – the nature of Wagner's attitude towards Jews is complex and Lennon wasn't a serial wife-beater as some people like to believe. But we don't omit these things from the articles. Why is Eric Clapton treated differently? Is he special? Are we writing a hagiography instead of a biography? If so, I think we just get rid of all the potentially damaging stuff from John Lennon's article too, why should he be held to a different standard to Clapton? As pointed out out above, the issue should be decided by neutral moderators but there's precious little chance of that happening. MarkB79 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Outstanding argument, totally agree that this important incident should be addressed in an encyclopedic treatment of EC. Sswonk (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded - where is ANY of this. Lack of inclusion supports those people who believe Wikipedia is not a reliable resource/is partial. Coatgal (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia IS partial and unreliable, hence this page. It appears to be fairly easy for EC's fans to censor his page and whitewash the guy (no pun intended). There is a an article on this episode on MSN Music UK http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=11310662 which has the following to say and includes some of the purely "anti-immigration" stances Clapton outlined that night: "But perhaps the dumbest, most offensive, and to this day unretracted example of rock star stupidity came from the legendary Eric Clapton. Seemingly in response to MP Enoch Powell’s infamous 1976 speech in which he predicted racial tension in Britain would bring “rivers of blood”, Clapton allegedly addressed the audience of his Birmingham concert with the following diatribe (and please be warned, this is unpleasant stuff): “Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. Wogs I mean, I'm looking at you. Where are you?” He then claimed someone of foreign extraction had pinched his wife’s behind. This lead to the conclusion: “I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country.” The former Cream guitarist continued ranting, using phrases like: “Stop Britain from becoming a black colony.” “Keep Britain white.” And, charmingly: “I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism.” We actually can’t bear to print much of what was said that night. We imagine even those on that leaked BNP members list would turn pale at the repulsive bigotry on display. Clapton has never apologised for these statements (he could hardly claim they were taken out of context!); his only excuse was that he was drunk. Well we’ve all had nights like that, nights when one too many Sambucas has turned us into a raving, racist maniac. Except we haven’t." Ah yes, this is what this Wiki bio describes as a principled "anti-immigration" statement and then lets Clapton tell us that he "couldn't possibly be a racist" without including any of this. Keep spinning boys! And don't whatever you do let any of Eric's actual words go in this article, we gotta protect him! 92.10.32.8 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you all for your support, it appears now that some information about the controversy has now been readded and has thus far remained in the article. It's not excessive in length and it's well balanced and neutral, including both Clapton's statements from the concert itself (some of them) and his subsequent remarks on the issue, hence including all sides of the story and allowing readers to make up their own minds. That's all that needed doing in the first place. MarkB79 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Were the "actual words" 92.10.32.8 writes of above (and in the article presently attibuted to "Rebel Rock by J. Street. First Edition (1986).Oxford Press Basil Blackwell.pp.74-75") actually recorded or were they transcribed from someone's memory after the fact? TheScotch (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

100 Greatest Guitarists citation
The current citation is which leads to the story but by clicking the "Next" button there it is followed by page after page of banal comment postings exhorting various favorite guitarists. I think the link is probably preferable as clicking "Next" at that link goes to the next guitarist, Duane Allman. I haven't changed it as I am not a contributor to this GA candidate, so someone please change it if I am on the right track. Sswonk (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you on that, Sswonk, although it is a little nitpicky. Be bold, and change it yourself. You don't have to be a major contributor to edit an article, I hadn't touched this article until I decided one day to do major cleanup. Good catch, we appreciate the help. Washburn  mav (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slowhand re-emerging
In this section, the next to last paragraph says:

"A collaboration with guitar legend J. J. Cale, titled The Road to Escondido, was released on 7 November 2006. The 14-track CD was produced and recorded by the duo in August 2005 in California.[citation needed]"

Clapton's Autobiography (2007) says on page 300 that he left his family in Ohio "and I went on to L.A." Sounds like California to me. He stayed with J. J. for a week, then (p. 301) "The album ... was 'done and dusted' within the month". Based on the timing of events mentioned before and after, the album would have been recorded in August 2005.

Clapton flew back to L.A. for album photos in late August or early September of 2006, a year later (p. 308). Page 309 supports the album release month (Nov 2006) but does not state the actual date. This probably could be determined by his concert schedule from other sources.

64.123.132.52 (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid dross
Reading this article I was disappointed to find it bloated with with exhaustively annoying tabloid-style dross about Clapton's girlfriends, wives and affairs, alcoholism and drug use. Please read WP:BLP carefully, follow Wikipedia policy and delete such crap. The existence of this stuff is no reason to reproduce it here. This article also contains totally irrelevant info, the unfortunate murder of a band member's mother for example, and a comment by his ex wife that should, I think, be moved to her article. I am not a big fan of Clapton; my comments do not come from that perspective. And I don't mean to offend editors who have obviously put a lot of research into this. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre
The "Genre" section of the infobox should be limited to what genre Eric Clapton is, not what genre Cream was. Their genre is noted in their infobox. Clapton's (Clapton's, not Creams's) music is not "hard rock." That designation should be removed. S. D. D.J.Jameson 16:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the article is on Clapton's entire life, not just his solo years. I prefer that "Genre" be eliminated because it has so many problems, but as long as it's here, let's try to get the most representative indication of his career as a whole (without going overboard and listing 20 genres). I think hard rock has been a significant genre in his career. Let's see what other opinions may emerge. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like there's going to be many more opinions emerging. I still feel like it's misleading to the reader to have "hard rock" in an infobox about Eric Clapton, when that's not his genre. Where do we go from here? S.  D. D.J.Jameson 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Associated Acts
If John Mayer is counted as an 'associated act' then surely BB King and Buddy Guy should be too, on the grounds that Eric has contributed to albums of theirs many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveThePhysicist (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hblackhawks (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

'Controversy' again, I'm afraid [Round 3]
I came to this page to find information aboyt Claptons racsist outburst from the '70s, but can find no information in the article, nor anything pointing me to such information. I see from this page that there has been much discussion of this, yet there is nothing in the article. I understand that Clapton has devoted fans, but fail to see why this means that important information can be excluded. There are sections about other important parts of his life such as 'tragedies', and there is plenty of emotive and partial language in favour of the man, for example: '... his choice of guitars is as notable as the man himself.' I found the information I needed by looking at the 'Rock Against Racism' article, but really feel that this information should be included here, or at the very least linked to this page. Issues like this should not be left to the whim of fanboys. Does anyone feel better qualified than me to edit in this essential information? If not, i will do it myself in a couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.150.220 (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll be wasting your time adding it because no matter how well sourced it is it will be swiftly deleted by people who apparently do not want readers to know what Clapton said that night. You're equally wasting your time expecting a response here since the arguments against including the information are ridiculous and, very wisely, the 'fanboys' as you call them now simply disregard the talk page entirely, having figured quiet deletion is now the better strategy. Calling Clapton's outburst a simple "anti-immigration" statement and allowing him to state unchallenged that he "couldn't be a racist" dosen't really square with what he actually said in '76, such as "I don't want any fucking wogs living next to me with their standards", "keep Britain white", "throw the wogs out", "throw the coons out", "Britain is a white country", "we need to make it clear to them (blacks) that they are not welcome" "all the fucking wogs and foreigners here are just disgusting and that's the truth", "I use to be into dope, now I'm into racism" and so on. Hence, we have to censor the page seemingly to keep Mr. Clapton appearing whiter than white, so to speak. 92.9.3.163 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I hadn't noticed you'd already added some more material. Notice what happened though. While I agree with the editor that you can't really state Clapton "used racist and offensive terms", which sounds like commentary, interesting that in the interests of "balance" any references to the incident sparking Rock Against Racism were removed. Too embarrassing? Or a mistake? If there was any real "balance", then some of Eric's remarks from '76 would be there to "balance" his claims that he "could'nt be a racist" as well as the simple fact that he sparked Rock Against Racism. 92.9.3.163 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that there's been so much conflict over this section (though not particularly surprised). Of course it has to be included -- I'm offended at any suggestion to the contrary. I've just finished merging some material from a different part of the article, and overhauling the whole section to get rid of redundant passages and have it read more coherently, while maintaining balance & NPOV. I also added a single sentence about the incident (with a link to the section) at the proper point in the main body of the article. The one thing I couldn't take care of was the now-dead link for one of the interviews. Cgingold (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for doing that, I noticed some weeks back that the incident was now pointlessly mentioned twice in the article and that it needed sorting but hadn't got around to it. Only thing I'm not sure about is saying that Bowie's statements were "explicitly pro-fascist" - while I'd agree that some though not all of what Bowie said would warrant that description (some of it might have been open to interpretation), I'm not sure we are sticking to NPOV by telling the reader that they should regard Bowie's statements as "pro-fascist". Perhaps wording it along the lines of "statements by Bowie seemingly expressing admiration for fascism" would be more neutral. However, I'm not going to change it, would rather hear other opinions. As for the conflict, some users (probably fans of EC) probably find it an absurd idea that a man who worships black music and has dated a black woman could possibly hold any racist attitudes. EC has said that "if it ain't Mississippi black music, it ain't worth a damn" and dismissed Pete Townshend as a "mere honky", but also says "Keep Britain White", "Throw the Wogs Out" and "I don't want any fucking wogs living next to me with their standards". It is bizarre but it's not impossible to hold the view that black music is superior to white music and to be uniquely touched by it and be happy in the company of black people while still holding prejudicial views of black people and feeling that black faces don't belong in leafy Surrey or wherever he lives (as opposed to say Louisiana). At the end of the day, we are just supposed to present facts and let readers decide for themselves, not edit the article to give a certain impression of the individual. As it stands now, the section is fine, it dosen't imply that the reader should regard Clapton as a racist at all. There is also the problem that some people on here do not know - or didn't know - what Clapton actually said in '76. It's certainly a little more shocking than the average 'anti-immigration' speech. MarkB79 (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About the Bowie thing: At the very least it seems to me we're going off on a tangent here. (I remember, by the way, a relatively early interview in Rolling Stone in which Bowie calls rock and roll "fascist", but in context it is clear that he is expressing a fear--a fear of the power of rock and roll, he isn't at all praising rock and roll. I also remember Bowie in an early interview, possibly the same one, calling himself a "reactionary", and I don't remember if he made any sort of connection between the two remarks.) TheScotch (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion / Faith Wikiproject
Why is this article in WP:WikiProject Religion ? Just for the "Clapton is God" event ? Due to the name of the Blind Faith band ? I propose the removal of this wikiproject tag. Fbergo (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New High Resolution Pictures of Eric Clapton in concert
Hello there,

Thank you all for the contributions to the wiki on Eric Clapton! I learned a lot from it. So I thought I should make a contribution as well. I have just uploaded recent pictures of Clapton in concert. I took these pictures on 28-06-2008 during the Hard Rock Calling concert in Hyde Park, London. You can find them here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_2.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_3.jpg

I hope you'll like them!

UPDATE February 22, 2009: Could someone explain to me why my pictures were deleted? What's wrong with them? If I would know I could probably do something about it. I cannot see why the pictures featured in the wiki are better than mine? Apart from being low resolution, they are either b/w, from a wrong angle (there is a mic stand in front of Mr Clapton's head) or Mr Clapton is so far away you can hardly see him.

Please bear with me, I am a new user. Thanks!

majvdl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majvdl (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, why have they been deleted? I thought they were a really good addition to the artcle. And free! Bluewave (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE February 24, 2009: Thank you, Bluewave for your support! As no-one else responded to my question, I have just reposted one of the pictures which was deleted earlier for no apparent reason. If someone has a problem with this, please state why, so I can at least understand what the problem is. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majvdl (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure why they were deleted, but I can think of some possible reasons. First, you set the size too large. I adjusted that. Secondly, they way you put them in, it created a lot of white space. I moved them to try to adjust for that. Thirdly, I suggest you crop them and remove the "youtube.com" info. Youtube as a source of info is frowned upon on Wikipedia because it has so many copyright violations. I am assuming that you took the photos and posted them on youtube. If, in fact, you did not take the photos, then we have a serious copyright violation and they should be removed immediately. And finally, don't add any more. I think for the length of the article, it doesn't need any more photos unless some are replaced by better ones. Ward3001 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE February 26, 2009: Thank you Ward3001 for your help. Much appreciated! To begin with, I took the photos and I added the "youtube.com" information to guide people to my page on YouTube. But on your advice I removed the info and uploaded the photos again. I hope you like them better now. On that note, I still think that my photos are better than the ones featured in the wiki. Check them out here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_3.jpg

In my opinion the photos are taken from a better angle (no mic stand in front of Mr Claptons head), with more color depth and with an higher resolution. I also like the pose and expression of Mr Clapton while he is playing his guitar. So if someone would agree with me, I would like to replace the “Tsunami Relief concert” photo as it’s quality is not on par with the rest of the wiki. I further would like to add the photo in which Mr Clapton is playing his acoustic guitar as the wiki lacks an Unplugged photo. Let me know your opinion. I am quite aware that I am not objective about my own photos ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majvdl (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Tsunami Relief photo should not be removed completely, as he is a bit younger and looks different; we need images from throughout his career if we can get them. For the same reason, the 1977 photo should not be removed. But I would not object to moving Tsunami photo out of the infobox to another place in the article, then putting your best shot in the infobox. And again, we don't need to add too many. Perhaps one additional photo would be OK, if others don't object. Ward3001 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Ward3001! I agree with you on not removing the other photos completely. I propose to replace the Tsunami Relief image with Eric_Clapton_1.jpg if no-one else is objecting the coming weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majvdl (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox photo
I feel that, yes, while newer photos are used first in the infobox, the quality of the photo has GOT to be of at least the same importance. The last two photos in the infobox weren't ancient, and did a better job of showing the subject's face, body shots, and performance. Just because a newer pic comes around doesn't make it a better choice! This current one is awful. --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the new photo is not good. It is a more recent image, which should always be used. Also it shows an unobstructed view of the subject's face whereas the previous image had a microphone in front of Clapton's face. The previous image should be added into the main body of the article in the proper section and the new image be left as is. Wether B (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was speaking of the Tsunami photo from 3 years ago- not the Crossroads one of 2 years ago. However, I agree on one point; if a photo is really good, but being replaced in the infobox, it should be moved down to the period of time it represents. Thus, my photo from 1974 is about a third of the way into the article. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos
It's my feeling that the quality of the photos that were in place (and are now ah... missing), were much better than what is now left. Is this a group plan, or what's going on? The infobox photo is nearly identical to one much further down. I understand that the infobox generally goes to the most recent photo, but when it's a matter of months, I can't understand removing free images for poorer (and fewer) ones. --leahtwosaints (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with the infobox photo? It looks good to me. A typical recent representation of what the artist looks like. It isn't supposed to be a fansite. Its an encyclopedia. Free-use photos have must be used, if available, in place of fair-use photos. I think the number of photos in the main body of the article makes it look cluttered and perhaps a couple could be removed. GripTheHusk (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox photo is great... but the placement of the others needs some more thought. The entire article is very poorly written. It should be one of the showcase articles of the guitarist project... but then again there are about 150 guitarists articles that should be "showcase" as well... it's just a matter of too-much-work/too-few-hands. I think this page is a perpetual work-in-progress. This page has the same issues as the Pete Townshend page. Both have these waste-of-space 'controversy' sections that are WAY too wordy and non-notable trivia compared to the careers of the article subjects. It has a long way to go. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The controversy section is two short paragraphs. The first one gives the most basic info, entirely sticking to the basic relevant facts. The second is a bunch of quotes from years later from Clapton defending himself, at least some of which have to be there for balance. How is it "too wordy"? 92.9.5.89 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

edit to tragedies section
In the tragedies section I have deleted the quote from Pattie Boyd and replaced it with the the neutral and much shorter sentence, "Boyd criticized Clapton because he had not revealed the child's existence." If anyone objects to this, please read the neutrality policy[]. --Zanthorp 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Link to a possible source
I ran into this link from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame- has some really good material, not just here, but in other places on the website, and I'm overwhelmed with other projects just now. Perhaps someone would like to look it over:
 * Clapton Rock & Roll Hall of Fame --leahtwosaints (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Genres
I took "Reggae" off the genres list. Surely Clapton has made covers of reggae songs and many of his songs might be influenced by reggae, but he never played reggae per-se. It's way more simple to keep the genres listed as "Rock - Blues-Rock - Psychedelic rock - Blues", because those are the main genres he plays/played. Having reggae there on the front page might give someone who doesn't know his works an idea that he would be a reggae musician, which would be terribly wrong.

I hope I made my point clear and anyone who knows atleast a bit of Clapton knows that reggae doesn't describe him too well.

Cheers, Roope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.99.31 (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Audio samples
There are far too many audio samples on this page (see WP:NFCC); some will have to be removed. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is someone able to identify the few most important sound files to retain? Knowledge of the subject is required; otherwise, we risk losing them all. Tony   (talk)  05:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Layla is a must keep. I'd say Cocaine and White Room should probably stay too.  Deserted Cities 09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm copying a thread from User William Avery's talk page that responded to this issue.

Eric Clapton sound files
Hi, there's a note about the need to reduce the large number of excerpts. Do you know who put them there? Are you in a position to decide which ones should go? Tony  (talk)  01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although a link is given to WP:NFCC there is nothing there to support a blanket accusation of "too many", as long as each has a rationale and illustrates a separate point.
 * User:Deltabeignet - One tranche in the section "Clapton's guitars" with captions claiming they each illustrate some notable phase or facet of his oeuvre. Only one of these seven is used elsewhere (File:1 Steppin' Out.ogg in Blues).
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&diff=185986846&oldid=185923749


 * User: Poeloq
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&diff=prev&oldid=196251007 - Fair use also claimed for Layla
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&diff=prev&oldid=196252266 - Fair use also claimed for The Yardbirds
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&diff=prev&oldid=196250599 - Fair use also claimed for Blind Faith
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&diff=prev&oldid=196136607 - Fair use also claimed for Sunshine of Your Love


 * Most material would be retained by leaving the ones under "Clapton's guitars" and removing the ones that are used in articles about individual bands or songs. William Avery (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

William, I'll stand corrected if one of the experts from NFC has different advice, but in my experience, 12 fair-use samples for one article, to illustrate one man's style (even if it evolved through his career), is way beyond normal practice and exposes WP to far too great a legal risk. Please remember that WP's content is intended for free duplication worldwide; we need to make it feasible for WP's lawyers to convince, say, a US court, that this volume of copyrighted music is not infringing the owners' legal rights. Please see the second bullet at WP:NFCC: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Also note Cr. 3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." and Cr. 8: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Let's look at the first file: "Got love ...". The description page of the file states merely "To demonstrate the guitar style played by Eric Clapton during this period on this record, as discussed in the article." The discussion in the article says merely "Synthesizing influences from Chicago blues and leading blues guitarists such as Buddy Guy, Freddie King and B. B. King, Clapton forged a distinctive style". I hope this is explicit enough. I think I have a hard time piecing together those influences, and we'd stand up much better in court if the text—either in the file page or the accompanying text—briefly came clean on what those influences were (rather than just claiming they are there). Then we're in a good position to use the audio excerpt to demonstrate precisely these influences. But maybe I'm being too fussy.

The second file, "Sunshine ...", is justified as demonstrating "the guitar style played by Eric Clapton during this period on this record, as discussed in the article" The relevant clause in the article is, I believe, "During his time with Cream, Clapton began to develop as a singer, songwriter and guitarist,...". It is hard indeed for anyone who doesn't already have an intimate knowledge of the style to determine the educational function of the sound file in relation to the narrative of the article. It's all rather general.

OK, the styles sound very different, but I think WP needs to describe in words—even briefly—how they are different. This requires a simple pointing out in layperson's terms of the main distinguishing features, to justify the use of both files.

The third file, "Presence of the Lord" (Blind Faith), really says nothing about the musical style, although we're told about the image of a topless pubescent girl on the jacket.

The text accompanying "Layla" again talks about the recording sessions—even the mechanics of laying down the tracks—but the sound file is not required to enable the readers to understand this.

Could you point to how the text explicitly points to the audio, and vice-versa, for "Cocaine"? What will I hear illustrated in the sound? Is it important to understanding the evolution of Clapton's style?

And there are seven more, I think.

The resolution is claimed to be "low" in each case; what if the judge says "Sounds fine to me—better than my record-player from the 70s."? For all we know, some of those tracks may have been digitally enhanced. Are the owners of the copyrights clear from any of the description pages, as required by Cr. 10?

Now, I'm sorry to be difficult, but copyright is a bore: blame Congress, not WP. If there were four, not 12 files, the need to play it strictly by the rules might be relaxed a little (I'm unsure). I'll ping the uploaders and Stifle to work this out. Thanks. Tony  (talk)  11:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the section "Guitars" and there's almost no justification for this. I am having a hard time finding any relevant text to describe why those sound files are important. If there is critical analysis of Clapton's performance due to changes in his preferred instrument available through sources, then fine, but this is effectively just listing different sounds of Clapton due to changes in equipment and technology - not appropriate for WP.
 * I would also argue - though I can see keeping them - that the sound bites that are associated with other bands should be kept only at those pages. If the reader wants to know how the band Cream sounds when Clapton was in it, they can go to the Cream article. Now, what I think is fair is that as the sample is already used in that other band article, it seems fine to help with understanding the changes in play style Clapton went during his career, and reuse of an existing non-free piece seems justifiable here. It would definitely help if the "Guitar" samples were removed (which are only being used on this page from a spot check, and thus weighing it down).  --M ASEM  (t) 13:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The text blurbs under each sound file in the guitar section are very poetic and crufty and overkill in a block thats already overkill. I think the first Layla clip is a keeper. Losing any/all of the rest would hurt the page. Between the brickwall of sound files and the cluttered scattering of images.. the entire page looks really bad. Sound files are a best-fit in article about the songs themselves. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly a small number of sound files to demonstrate important styles of Clapton's playing is reasonable in an article on such an important guitarist, but 12 is clearly too many (NFCC#3a), especially as a number of them do not significantly increase the reader's understanding (NFCC#8) as Masem says above. I also agree with the above user that solid walls of sound files are a real turn-off to the casual reader. Black Kite 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "wall" as its been described is a bit much. If it conveys some sort of support in that section is one thing. But in this case it just looks bad and would likely not attract a reader to do what the placement purpose intended. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep: a wall has two problems: (1) each file is less likely to be satisfactorily embedded in the text, in terms of that all-important connective descriptioin that is required by the NFCC; and (2) it looks too much like a chore to the readers. Tony   (talk)  05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Still 12 files there
Guys, it's clearly too many, so your expertise is required to sort out which ones to keep. At a guess, four (stretched even to six) would be safer legally and in terms of the pillars and policy we must adhere to.

Can the regulars please negotiate which files should stay? In particular, any files for which there is no description of the sound in the text are going to have to go. It would be helpful to know which ones are saveable, and possibly what time-line editors would see as fair. Otherwise, I suspect someone from NFC will come along soon and start deleting lots. Tony  (talk)  08:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and removed all but the original of "Layla". Any other clip on the article just wasn't tied to the text in any meaningful way. Only the Layla clip has any tie to the text. That too is weak, but at least there's some tie to the text. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Layla, by its own merit/notability and tie to Clapton, could be easily expanded in the article to help its fair-use status on the page. As for the others I will look them over again but I agree that their inclusion in the article was weak to nil. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

picture annotation
drunk old man blah blah blah? Surely that isn't right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.239.159 (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody see a reason for this in external links?
Having little time to peruse this article, I'll post it here-- I doubt it belongs in "external links", from whence it was removed. If it has merit to the article, please integrate it into the text. Thanks. Learn about electric guitar tone--Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts
I think the definition of an associated act should be clarified. For example, I don't recall Eric Clapton doing any more than guesting onstage with Dire Straits. The same is true for seversl other names in that infobox. The Dirty Mac was a performace at The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus and was a one-time thing, but I can see it's relevance. While he had a relationship with Sheryl Crow, and she performed with him onstage, I don't call that an associated act. If it were true, you'd have to add every member of the Crossroads Guitar Festivals, The Allman Brothers Band, (are you getting my point?). Please, let's add only what are actually associated with Eric Clapton. I think of Blind Faith, Duane Allman, if you want to stretch out Please! This is insane and nobody is paying attention. I'm certinaly not one to thump Wikibook rules around, but let's be sensible if this is already being placed on CD. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong - you don't want a giant sea of senseless blue and list absolutely everyone he has ever strummed a guitar next to? Where's your sense of completeness? j/k :)  Perhaps some clarification on exactly what qualifies as an "associated act" is in order. From my past involvement in the performing arts and recording industry we always attributed them as people whose albums were made a guest/supporting appearance on, and vice-versa.  Then again - this is EC, and even that list would go on for years... Srobak (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

New 2010 High Resolution pictures of Mr Clapton
On June 5, 2010 I had another great opportunity to take photographs of Mr Clapton in concert. The photographs feature Mr Clapton up, close and personal in high resolution, like the photos I took in 2008. One of those 2008 photos is in the artists info box ever since. Please check out the new photographs here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_in_concert.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_live_on_acoustic_guitar.jpg

Last evening I tried to place one of the 2010 photos neatly in the text. Probably I was carried away a bit because I also added another older photograph: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Clapton_2.jpg I think this high resolution photograph registers the energy of Mr Clapton’s performances much better than many of the other - more distant, static and low resolution pictures featured elsewhere on the page.

Anyway, my attempt to make a contribution to the page was short lived. Within a couple of hours both photos had been deleted. Reason? Excessive imagery! If all the other contributors agree with the removal of the photos, I rest my case. Otherwise I would argue that there must be a way to add a 2010 photograph and a more dynamic photo to enrich this otherwise great page on the live and work of Mr Clapton. Majvdl (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the reversion as it un-necessarily further cluttered the article with images. While I will agree the images were quite nice and would be good contained within the article - there is already an over-abundance of images contained within it, and it is affecting overall format and appearance already. The addition of more does not help that situation. If anything - to bring it more in-tune with other artist articles, some should probably be removed. That doesn't mean that some of those that remain shouldn't be updated with your contributions. All that being said - it is important to remember that WP is an encyclopedic reference and not a image gallery or photo album. Yes, some images are needed are good practice to support relevant text/information and enhance the overall article... but there are limits.  As I also mentioned in edit notes, you can see WP:IG, and  for further information regarding imagery in articles, and I see you did submit them to WP:COMMONS Srobak (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Marshall tube amplifier?
With regard to the section "Woman tone", it should be noted that Marshall and Clapton are both British. It would be more appropriate to describe his Marshall amplifier as "valve", rather than "tube".--Rfsmit (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I#m a black albino...
doesn't mean just advertisement. Somebody able to write about these facts?--Raskollnika (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Missing some critics about claptons political positions. No jokes, but rassitic deliberance has taken place. _and a page of WIKIs
 * Don't see how it serves the mission of WP other than by enabling the political grandstanding by way of proxy. Srobak (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're playing a little joke on us, aren't you Raskollnika. If not, let me suggest that you ask someone to help you write a comprehensible sentence. "rassitic deliberance"?? I checked five dictionaries and neither of those words appear to be English words. Cresix (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC) It#s no joke, it# s a missunderstanding of staircase joking. If somebody blames for example B.B.King in a rassistic mannor, it might be a deliberance for him, not being so original as the black is, in his music. But in main categories it#s just a jelous cock, who acts on his defizites. Or singin in madison square garden "I must destroy....!" not in heaven, but three years later ground zero has been bombed. His republican opinion seesms not reasonable! to me.--Raskollnika (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion?!

 * Does anybody knows something 'bout his religious bounds? Wearing buddhis clothes doesn't mean anything to me.It#s me, sananda manjusri asking... Singing abilitys and transformations are a real game. A singer licenze is not a blond one! and being a rep is not so compatible to buddhismen.So on the page should be written somthing 'bout his religious bounds. I'm 108 years old! Ten...--Raskollnika (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)