Talk:Eric Clapton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eric Clapton is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Eric Clapton is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eric Clapton article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
  1. December 2005 – September 2007

Contents

[edit] "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: [1] sources Clapton stating: "I think Enoch's right ... we should send them all back. Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!". [2] here has Clapton saying "throw the wogs out". [3] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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

[edit] Chocolate addiction

Shouldn't his chocolate addiction be mentioned? Helpsloose 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)