Talk:Eric Clapton

One of the most influential...

Hi all

I have restored the sentence in the lead. It is not right that something with three references should be removed without discussion.

Please discuss here why the decisioon to remove this sentence was taken. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Here, and not my talk page, is the proper forum for discussing the EC entry. My more-than-adequate but poorly read edit summaries already well-explained why the only one ref was removed, and why the others where dodgy. To restate: there were only two references in all; one dupe doesn't count, regardless, the RS source, made no such claim of "most influential and important" is thereby irrelevant and useless in that context, and a sub-headline, usually not written by an article's author is a dubious source, and a NYU professor proficient in post-modern academic English theory on modernism, but hardly an authority on guitarists, in fact reckoned Jimi and EC as the two most "influential rock solo guitarists." (They also where incredible rhythm players, and more than that, power trio players, something pretend erudites often overlook. And his nonsense about the "school of Chuck Berry makes this even more clear how bad an authority he is on guitarists). None of the sources say EC is one of the most "important" guitarists of all time: this POV has been deleted. My suspicion is that Meisel was cited ipso facto in a classic case of quote mining. Finally, and this is another restatement of an edit summary, sub-headlines are not citable unless qualified as such. Look at it this way, the citations used are

1. one that says nothing about EC being the "most important an influential guitarists of all time"
2. an English prof who didn't say so either
3. a subheadline that makes the claim, but the relevant article doesn't

Weak. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Far from weak. And Rolling Stone is not a "dodgy" source. If you don't like Clapton, that's fine. But don't remove a reliable source without consensus here. Cresix (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I was aghast that I called RS a dodgy source, but my rereading of what I wrote settled me. To quote what the editor could not read though there it was " rm dupe [RS]ref , the other sources are dodgy and questionable, no citation for "immortals" claim provided yet." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And RS is not a "dupe" source. I changed the edit to refer specifically to RS. The Artist, please don't edit war. Wait for a consensus here before removing the RS source again. Cresix (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The RS source is good only for noting the 53rd designation, LS made the statement and needs to be both quoted and cited in the lead so the reader is not left with the mistaken impression that a RS editor or staff writer made the declaration. The greater honor is that a peer regarded EC as such. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If consensus agrees with you, that's the way it will be. I'll remind you that there is no consensus of one person, and that edit warring (including three full or partial reverts within 24 hours) is policy violation. Cresix (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The ANI page explicitly warns against carrying the 3RR dispute to this page. The hope is that for a change the substance of the dispute can be determined, though I have no idea what is is at issue since I have left the RS ref in and have correctly have cited it. I really have no idea what is currently being objected to in terms of content. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against asking an editor not to edit war on the talk page of an article in the context of a content dispute and after multiple reverts without consensus. And even more especially when warnings on the user's talk page are followed by continued reverts and a comment by the editor that he does not read the messages left on his talk page. As for "correctly citing it", providing correct citations does not negate the need for consensus. Read WP:CON. There is no consensus for your changes; the fact that you make them multiple times and claim to be right does not constitute a consensus. Cresix (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I was mistaken, though common sense would suggest discussing that this is not the place to discuss 3RR issues once it has made an ANI issue. Now, let's get past that. What is in dispute, content wise? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll get past it if you will stop edit warring, acting without consensus, and making unnecessary threats. As for the content dispute, this version of the article is perfectly acceptable. You can disagree, but so far there is no consensus for your version, and two editors have expressed opposition to your version(s) of the article. Now, as is usually done on Wikipedia, let's see if other editors weigh in. If another editor who hasn't expressed an opinion changes the disputed material contrary to the way you wish it to be, I strongly suggest that you not make any changes. You have skated on very thin ice in your edit pattern on this article, and a 3RR report is still pending. So please, for your sake as well as the article's, don't make any more changes to the disputed content. Cresix (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless told what content is in dispute, I'll presume nothing is, which is what I suspect at this point, and the current edit meets all concerns. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop creating a straw man to attack and divert attention from the real issue. If you can read, you can see the differences in the version of the article I linked and the latest version you created. And I'll kindly ask you to stop making false statements that "nothing is ... in dispute". You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't care to follow the consensus process, and your post immediately above again confirms that. Now, if you have nothing additional to say about the dispute then say nothing, and don't make any more changes to the disputed material without consensus. 21:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

Ones talk page is where editors leave messages which are required to be left, questions on actions/edits and pleasantries as well. It is normal that such messages are put there so that ones attention is drawn to it as soon as possible, especially in the case of something which would perhaps be best explained in more detail to the person in question. Discussing your actions/motives on this talk page would not be appropriate as they are not pertinent to the Eric Clapton article or its content.

As for the content in question the reason for this discussion being started is that there appeared to be clear support for inclusion of the statement, and its supporting refs, from at least four editors and one who was against it. Consensus can only be really achieved once the discussion is started and all parties involved agree upon what content and refs which should remain.

I can see that there has been discussion and that consensus seems to be met with the statements as they are now. Normal practice would be for the discussion to be completed before the statemnet was edited to follow consensus but as that seems to have been the result anyway I am fairly happy to discontinue my invovment in the process.

Please be aware that page ownership is an issue that must be avoided at all costs and in this case it seemd to me that Mr Anonymous choses to edit the page a great deal and was perhaps beginning to seem as if page ownershipp may have been an issue. If one cannot see that ones edits are against consensus then one has to look at ones motives and perhaps step back and choose to edit the topic less rather than more. It is all too easy to "defend" content to the point where one cannot see one is stepping into a bunker, putting on a hard hat and digging in for the duration.

If all are agreed that the content is now satisfactory, as I am, then I can assume the topic is closed for the present? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. What "Straw Man"? I didn't see one, seriously, but then again, it's not the only impenetrably vague objection I've had to deal with.
2. Unless told what content is in dispute, I'll presume nothing is, which is what I suspect at this point, and the current edit meets all concerns. Nowhere does that declare or note anything but a deafening silence. Now, there are some scoldings to address. (queue up "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me?")
3. Ones talk page is where editors leave messages which are required to be left. Nonsense: per WP:REMOVED Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Hope that edifies at least two of you.
4. I can see that there has been discussion and that consensus seems to be met with the statements as they are now. Agreed. Makes you wonder what all the shouting is about.
5. Please be aware that page ownership is an issue that must be avoided at all costs. And motherhood is a really swell thing too :) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you have created a straw man to divert away from the real issue; The Artist, that may be a common tactic for beginners on high school debate teams, but it doesn't fly here where people aren't as stupid as you might assume they are. No one has said you can't remove content from your talk page. What is especially problematic, however, are your false accusations of "harrassment" simply because an editor asks you not to edit war and responds to your messages. Now please drop this false issue or take to editors' talk pages. Cresix (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't understand the meaning and intent of Ones talk page is where editors leave messages which are required"" to be left. [emphasis added] as an instruction to me to stop deleting some mandated posts from my talk page, we are at an impossible impasse. I don't know what would make you think I've judged you as "stupid", and I hope you are done putting words in my mouth. For the record, I believe you could exercise patience and eventually understand my arguments because I have made the clearly. Of course, you have no obligation to agree with them. As for Straw Men, imagined or not, they really hate it when they are ignored and usually go away. Muh bad. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Chaosduid, I agree with most of your comments, but it is not true that "all are agreed" or that the "topic is closed". I oppose The Artist's edits, not to mention his editing tactics that you so accurately suggested assume ownership of the article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, to the point, you've only expressed your sentiments, but none of the particulars. BTW, about that consensus flag you've been waving, Chaosduid just threw down with my last edit. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Chaosduid just threw down with my last edit": And that does not create a consensus. Except, of course, your version of consensus in which all opposing opinions are simply ignored. Cresix (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and do you have a point to make? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Yep": I'm glad you agree that there is no consensus. That was my main point in my comment about two lines up. But since you agree that no consensus has been achieved, that portion of the problem is solved. Cresix (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstood the phrasing I was using. "where editors leave messages which are required to be left"

There are some messages which have to be left on a users talkpage - notices of 3RR, ANI etc are required to be posted on the users talkpage. Whether the use wishes to delete them afterwards is up to them. Nonetheless editors are required to leave them there to notify the editor about such actions taking place. If I had use the phrase "where editors put messages there which are required to be put" it would perhaps not have clouded your perception? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point and appreciate the clarification.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the encyclopaedic summary of the view given in several reliable sources. It is almost a truism to say that Clapton is regarded as one of the most important and influential guitarists - it's not really a statement that people are going to challenge, though it is appropriate that there are sources to refer to which support what is said. Using a single quote, and naming the person, makes it appear as though the view being quoted was somewhat exceptional, controversial, alternative, or particularly famous or notable. The view that Clapton is important and influential is a widespread and normal one, so that is what we should be saying. The quote itself was rather hyperbolic, and not quite appropriate for a sober and neutral encyclopaedia entry. I have also started a Legacy section, where views on Clapton's importance and influence can be properly explained. SilkTork *^YES! 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so this now is the consensus. Cresix (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wah should be in the lead

Clapton's revolutionary use of the wah-wah pedal is quite an important part of his legacy and contribution to music. He should have a sentence in the lead dedicated to that, and there should be a mention that Jimi Hendrix pioneered its use concurrently (Hendrix should be mentioned in the same sentence; the vice versa has been done in Hendrix's lead).Hoops gza (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but without a reliable source, it can't be stated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hendrix's doesn't have a "reliable source" either, yet no one in their right mind or with an appreciable knowledge of music would deny that it is true. Clapton was not as important for the wah as Hendrix but he was using it in soloes in 1966 on Cream's debut album before Hendrix had even pressed a record.Hoops gza (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned in the lead. It is a vital part of Clapton's biography.Hoops gza (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, could I get some feedback please?Hoops gza (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You got some feedback. Provide a reliable source, or move on. And no excuses about Hendrix. Cresix (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly funny but informative interview with EC

When looking for sources for another article I found this interview in two sections, and while hilarious, has quite a bit of detail. I hope something here (mostly trivia, though), might beIf you can use some of this, that's my hope- but also, may give you a short chuckle or more: Part 1: [1] and Part 2: [2]. This is from the Frank Skinner show, in May, 1999. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but I found Skinner to be mildly amusing (although he was trying very hard to be hilarious). I didn't find it the least bit informative. But I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching; everyone has his own idea of humour and information. Cresix (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So true! But inasfar as informative, it would appear tht at this early date, Clapton was already planning to set up the rehab which became funded by his pet projects: Crossroads Guitar Festivals, that manifested themselves in the mid-2000s. [shrug] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Music on TV or movies

I suggest moving the section of Clapton's music to a page of it's own. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing three Eric Clapton songs over the entire Sopranos TV sreies. I'll have to go back and watch the whole of the Sopranos again I suppose. I get back to this. Eddie Punch (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ERic is CBE

Hello , we know that eric is "CBE" Since he is "CBE" we can call him "Sir Eric Clapton" so, we can rename article , and call him sir eric clapton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.102.63 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I like how you make the change THEN ask if you can do it a minute later. Dougy05050 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, the answer would have been No - CBE does not equate to a knighthood. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

CBE = Commander of the British Empire. A knighthood is a KBE Eddie Punch (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Good read. Dougy05050 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Guitars

Clapton played a black Fender Jazzmaster with the Yardbirds in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.125.29 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is established in the article under the Guitars section here Srobak (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

This article seems shockingly deficient in information regarding personal life -- one paragraph at the beginning about life before age 13, and one paragraph at the end discussing what football team he supports(!). I came to this from the article on Tears in Heaven, which DOES contain some germane personal information, to get additional background, but found nothing. Could someone knowledgable on the subject provide some help with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.199.65 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Conner's death

His son, Conner, died after falling 53 stories to his death. This is incredibly important and the basis to which he wrote "Tears in Heaven" and there is nothing about it on here?! This is even talked about in a couple episodes of "Rescue Me". So not only should someone, who is better at editing than myself, add in a Personal Section, but a Media section might also be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.30.125 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the 1990s section?--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 15:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)}

The 1990's section under 'career' isn't the most logical place for something so fundamentally personal. A 'personal life' section would be far more appropriate, although certainly the incident should be referenced under Career:1990's as the influence for Tears in Heaven. Responding 'Have you read the career section?'as though it should be obvious, to someone looking for a personal story on a site where the majority of celebrity articles have a 'personal life' section, is like responding 'Have you looked in the oven?' to someone who's asked where the milk is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.102.75 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect I don't feel we need to separate a piece about his son's death from this section to create and merge the content into "Personal life". It is not his "personal life", but this son's. If you still believe it is in an incorrect location, then feel free to edit the article. Also I am not sure why you find my response illogical, but I answered to your claim "and there is nothing about it on here?!" (I am actually not quite sure whether you are the same person as the original poster). All these media hype, gossips, etc do not belong to an encyclopedia.--GoP_T^C_{N 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)}

Eric Clapton 'Controversy over remarks on immigration' section

Attention required for section noted in above title, did he really say those things? Highly racially discriminate comments alleged to have been uttered by Clapton in the 70's, please address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyray85 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate aspects of personal life out of the career history?

A separate 'Personal life' section might help make the article easier to use. As it is, aspects of Clapton's personal life are scattered within the chronology of his career, which is detailed and extensive (as it should be for someone of this stature). His relationships, drugs/alcohol battle, the death of his son, religious conversion, etc. It would make things clearer if this info could be separate, but retained in the career history where it is relevant (such as the death of his son leading to Tears in Heaven).

As it is if you want to read about his personal life (say you want to know about his son's death but don't know when that happened), you must trawl through the lengthy career section and pick bits out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.102.75 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock?

Should psychedelic rock really be listed in Eric Clapton's genre/styles list? Cream was obviously one of the best and most prominent psychedelic bands of the time, but there's nothing in the rest of Clapton's career, which was much longer than Cream's existence, that comes close to that style. I guess what I'm asking is this: should the genres/styles of an artist who played in a band and had a prominent solo career include the important ones that he played in his entire career or just the solo career? Clapton could be an exception because he helped form our definition of a particular style (psychedelia), but it seems like a debatable point for other, less "revolutionary" artists who played a certain style for a decent amount of time, though the rest of their career had nothing to do with that genre. Krobertj (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No mention to "Just one Night" album

Sorry if I missed something, but I don't see this, for me, important album of Eric, of 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_One_Night_%28Eric_Clapton_album%29

Why is not mentioned?

Regards,

Emiliano.

Date correction - Eric plays with Bobby Whitlock on Jools show

It is very easy to document that Clapton re-united with Whitlock and played on this show several years earlier than the 2003 stated. April 25th was actual date with airing on 29th here is just one.

I believe just changing the date will ruin the timeline flow so some editing in the placement of this date would have to be done.

Torero80 (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)torero80

eric clapton

I think the date of mr. clapton's birth needs to be changed. The main article says his birth year is 1946, on the side it says 1929. which would make him 83.. which is incorrect.. sorry.. I was shocked to see his age at 83.. ooops.. :)Wonder if it could be changed? I am sure he would not want to be born in 1929.... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.226.60 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Slowhand nickname

Second paragraph says:

"In his one-year stay with Mayall, Clapton gained the nickname "Slowhand".

I guess this is not true. In the presentation of "Five Live Yarbirds" they introduce Clapton as Eric "Slowhand" Clapton, and this is before Clapton joined Mayall's Bluesbreakers.

I think that mention should be modified or deleted.

Thank you.

77.27.215.84 (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, note 18 confirms that the nickname comes from Yardbirds' time.

77.27.215.84 (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

details about eric clapton

I dont know if its relevant but should we probably mention somewherer that his painting of german artist Gerhard Richter sold for 34,2 million $ ? and I think claprton sold about 60 -70 million records i once saw in an article? Would you be interested in editing the article I could check up some sources. So please let meknow then !Willy993 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Clapton is god"

Does anyone knows in which book have been published the picture "Clapton is God, Arvon Road n°5", Thank you ~ ~ ~ ~

Time To Restructure

The page needs improvement and restructuring. At least, there needs to be a Personal Life section. I will add that. Editors can move content from other sections and add content to that section. Codwiki (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Clapton? Pianoplayer? Please give a source on that.. I have never heard/Seen/read anything about him playing the Piano:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.112.98 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see "piano player"? Might have been deleted already. For that matter, how many times has Clapton actually played the Mandolin on records - once? Why is this listed as an instrument he is known for? Ckruschke (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Alicia Witt

Alicia Witt posted on Facebook that she has never dated, nor even met, Eric Clapton. https://www.facebook.com/officialaliciawitt/posts/479433842104199 Tamilovesnoles (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed her name from the list of loves pending conclusion of this thread discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Gossip about women

I removed the paragraph listing the various girlfriends that Clapton has been known for. The paragraph was added by some IP user in San Diego, California, on 9 May 2011 with this edit which was 'supported' by a fake reference to the Boston Beacon article "Eric Clapton Talks". A few minutes later the IP editor changed the reference to the Boston Globe, but it was no closer to being real, since the Boston Globe never printed any article by this name, and did not write about Clapton at all on that date.

If somebody wants to put together another list of Clapton's dalliances, it had better be accompanied by iron references. All the biographies say he has been a womanizer, so let's not whitewash the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Geraldine Edwards had her name removed from this biography

At the request of Geraldine Edwards, her name has been redacted from this biography. She has now been married since 2006 to Anthony Flemming-Mueller, and goes by her married name of Geraldine Flemming-Mueller. With the assistance of the highest level Wikipedia administrator and editor, she made arrangements to have her name removed from several Wikipedia musician biographies, and an article about groupies. She also had her Wikipedia biography taken down, finding it to be inaccurate and offensive. Most notably she had her name removed from her late fiance, Robert Palmer's biography. She has very publicly stated that she finds the veracity, credibility, and professionalism of Wikipedia articles pertaining to celebrities and musicians to be seriously lacking, therefore not wanting to be a part of them, which is her right. She had conceded that their scientific, professional, and educational articles are generally well done, but their celebrity profiles need serious improvement. She is now a successful businessperson and entrepreneur, her business assets valued at 23 million dollars. She is the holder of an MPS, MBA, PhD in Business Administration, and an LLM in Legal Administration. Her husband, Anthony Flemming-Mueller, is an English born JD, MD, and a successful professional investor, his investment portfolio alone valued at 150 million, not including his other assets. Geraldine and Anthony Flemming-Mueller own and operate a successful boutique legal practice in Los Angeles, which is their main residence, and are active in multiple charities and humans rights organizations. In addition to having her name removed from all the biographies her name was cited in, as well as having her own biography taken down, a bot has been created for her at her request by the aforementioned Wikipedia editor that removes Geraldine Edwards name whenever it is attached to any biography.