Talk:Eric Clapton

Eric Clapton

Derek and the Dominos

I added info on Clapton's guest appearence with Bobby Whitlock in 2003, added info on Radle's death, and changed the sources for the live material on the Goodbye album. (Heteren 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Discog Question

Is there any particular reason why the albums released while Clapton was with Cream are not listed in the Discography section? If someone were to give me a yay or ney on adding these, I would appreciate it. I don't want to change anything without first trying to find a why, assuming there is one. (I intend to remove the subject heading for this after I get an answer)[I changed my mind]--Ostermana 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself. Counting his work with The Yardbirds, Cream, John Mayall and Blind Faith there are at least a dozen albums Clapton released before 1973 that are not in the discog section, and I for one would like to see them listed. Derek & The Dominos are listed, why not these? I know they're mentioned earlier on the page, but sometimes you just can't be bothered to read the whole article for just a couple of small pieces of information. You dig? -- MightyMoose22 03:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• While the previous was a valid input, I was sort of hoping for a series of "go ahead"'s and "no, because..."'s - Ostermana - EDIT: If you say "no" make sure you *STATE WHY!!!!*
• Yeah, me too. I think we'll have to wait a bit longer for that. If it helps any, I say go ahead. -- MightyMoose22 05:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Final Update Ok, in the last 122 hours, I have had a total of 2 responses from a total of one person. Anyone who knows of an album that isn't included, even if clapton only has a bit part or a cameo of sorts, go ahead and add it. If anyone wants to complain later, they certainly have the ability to do so here on the talk page. --Ostermana 03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess I'm a bit late on this but I'd say there's probably no need to check on this kind of thing (see WP:BOLD). Making the change certainly isn't malicious, and if someone originally had a good reason not too, then chances are they'll revert the changes and leave a comment as to why.

At anyrate, I say go ahead and add them (I think you have already). An argument against it may be that it's not technically Clapton's album, it's Cream's, but I say it makes sense to have a consolidated discography of all Clapton's work instead of a bunch of links saying "Oh, he also played with Cream, so go check out their discography", or some such thing. B.Mearns^*, KSC 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Marriage Breakup

In the section "Bad Luck Clapton" it says "It resulted in the break-up of his marriage.".

1. What resulted in the break-up ? The success of "Tears In Heaven", his son's death or the tragedies that struck him in the 90's ?
2. Marriage to whom ?

Jay 09:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the wording would make me believe it was the grief over his son (that was the subject of the previous sentence), but that is just a guess. I agree that it should be cleared up, and maybe even some additional detail would help

• The article now says that the death of his son resulted in the breakup of his marriage to Lori Del Santo, but according to everything else I have seen about them, Clapton and Del Santo were never married. --Metropolitan90 01:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the line since 1. Clapton and Lori Del Santo were neved married. 2. They were already separated at the time of their son's death, so the death had nothing to do with the separation. The separation was due to other reasons. [1]. Jay 09:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Question about Backtracking Album

Please, can you explain to me why the 'Backtracking' Album is not in all officials Clapton discography ? Thanks --Le mollusque 09:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of Backtracking. I am a major Clapton enthusiast - owning all commercially released recordings and many bootlegs. Is it a bootleg? A non UK/US release? A search on Yahoo only yields three matches that mention it - all three are simple personal CD lists. Perhaps you could post some more information about it here. - Slow Graffiti 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Peacock v. weasel, etc

The wording of the piece that identifies EC to readers as one of the best, the best, premier, maharajah, etc. is tricky. I've removed the words "by many", as that really doesn't add anything, besides being an inexcusable use of weasel terms. What is ideal is a quote or something, such as one I remember from Snopes saying that Clapton had reigned unchallenged as the world's premier guitarist for well over thirty years. Alternately, we can use the system that the pages on the Telecaster, Stratocaster, and Les Paul use, saying "one of the best along with..." and naming the others. I don't think there are really any others that can lay claim to the title; Duane Allman, Jimi Hendrix, and Stevie Ray Vaughan have tragically died. Jimmy Page has never really broadened out or had a solo career and doesn't do much anymore, three issues that operate for Eddie Van Halen as well. This entire post, of course, is POV, though, and such reasoning has no place in a encyclopedia article. We need to work something out. Deltabeignet 23:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No on has reverted my use of Rolling Stone's rankings, so I'll assume it works fairly well. Deltabeignet 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the rankings from Rolling Stone are pretty idiotic... having guys like Kurt Cobain and Johnny Ramone not only on there but high, and not even have a guy like Steve Vai is odd. I understand that, you know, they probably care about things beyond techinical skill, but still.. these are kind of out there. But, I suppose, Rolling Stone is the most popular rock and roll magazine out there, so maybe it's the most relevant in the intro...

I know that weasel words aren't supposed to be used, but I personally think they are OK in a case like this. If you state that someone is the best, then that would be a POV. It seems OK to me to say "many people consider him the best". Of course, in this case you can report the poll as a fact, but often you don't have something like that. Bubba73 04:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are Rolling Stone rankings "dubious"? It seems a very POV statment exactly the same as stating that "EC is the beat guitarist" If you have never read RS then it leads to the belief that EC is rated too high by the magazine. CambridgeBayWeather 06:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

SG or Les Paul on "While my Guitar Gently Weeps"?

The article says "Clapton also played the SG on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" ". The article While My Guitar Gently Weeps says it was a Les Paul. I've read in other places that it was a Les Paul (and that he gave the Les Paul to George Harrison afterwards). I always thought it sounded like a LP. So which is correct?

• I've adjusted the article to say "either SG or LP", but that's hardly a long-term fix. I agree that it sounds like a Les Paul, though I'm more of a Fender type anyway. Deltabeignet 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that every other source I've seen says that it is a Les Paul. Bubba73 04:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I, too, believe it was a Les Paul on While My Guitar... but a large part of the sound is due to the use of a Leslie cabinet (a speaker type predominately associated with the Hammond B3 organ that has a rotating horn (high frequency speaker) and produces a Doppler-type effect.) Crash Pad Dad

Tears In Heaven

Tears In Heaven was nominated for a Grammy (and a Golden Globe and MTV Music Award) but didn't win. Al 20:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This song is a tribute to Conor Clapton, Eric's pre-school son, who died in an accident in 1991. The housekeeper just finished cleaning the window and left it open and when Conor ran past he fell out of the 53 story building.

The "dubious" rankings?

Isn't "dubious" rankings a little biased? It seems out of place to question the reliability of Rolling Stone Magazine's rankings of guitarists, as we should let the reader decide for himself as to the journalistic/musical credibility.

I happen to agree that RS "lists" are dubious as far as citations of notability, but I also agree that it makes no sense to make a reference and call it "dubious" at the same time, especially in the lead paragraph. What I'd suggest is that we move the RS "ranking" to the Trivia section, and try to come up with some neutral way to establish Clapton's notability and esteem in the ranks of guitarists. What say? Jgm 16:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if you move the the RS bit to trivia you still need to drop the word "dubious" as it's POV. See my remarks above. CambridgeBayWeather 16:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me take a shot at it and see what you think. Jgm 16:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Clapton Redirect

If you visit the Clapton page, you're automatically redirected to the page about Upper Clapton. I'd be willing to bet that more people would be looking for this page than that one, but it seems to be not worth making a disambig page for only 2 subjects. Any thoughts? - MightyMoose22 07:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I disambiguated it.There's nothing inherently wrong with a two-subject disambig, though I added Lower Clapton as well. Deltabeignet 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - MightyMoose22 08:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Didn't he play for Roger Waters on tour in the late '80s? Or maybe Roger Waters played for him but I don't see him in the band section. Then again maybe I'm completely wrong but I remember it from somewhere.

Clapton played for Waters on a tour, but this does not constitute joining his band. The 'band members' section is more for permanent (or intended long term) members such as his touring band; not guest spots, session work, etc. - Slow Graffiti 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perfectionist

One thing that doesn't come out in the article is Clapton's perfectionism and resulting modesty about his own musicianship. The nickname "Slowhand" was propagated by Clapton himself. Some of the album titles like "Journeyman" and "Reptile" seem to be slightly taking the piss out of himself. I heard a radio interview where he said that he made so many mistakes on the Unplugged session that he didn't want the album to be released and that, in any case, only a few devotees would buy it. (At the time of the interview it had sold 15 million copies.) This all fits with his extreme discomfort with superstar status and the "Clapton is God" era. Bluewave 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Main image

Since the main image will soon be deleted due to copyright problems, I thought I should try to find a new one. I really like http://www.drjazz.ch/album/bilder/CLAPTON31.JPG even though it is B&W. I know we have Image:Eclapton cardiff.jpg, but honestly, it doesn't look very flattering, and you can't really see his face well. I contacted the site's webmaster seeking permission, I hope we get it. Just thought I'd throw this out here so everyone knows. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I got permission, it's now at Image:Clapton.jpg and I've updated the main article with it. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please change the main picture to something else? Any other alternatives? - himurakenshin

Vaughan Helicopter

I have read from numerous online sources that it was Jimmie Vaughan that surrendered his seat to Stevie Ray Vaughan on the ill fated helicopter. I edited the Clapton page to this effect, but the changes have been deleted. Hopefully the 'deleter' can provide some evidence to support his assertion?

Can you provide sources to support yours? -Greg Asche (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's between the Vaughans and has little to do with Clapton. You can list 73 people who passed up that seat if you want to, but the only bit that's relevant to this article about Clapton is that he was one of them. - MightyMoose22 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

British Canadian

The article describes him as British/Canadian. I know he had a Canadian father (whom he never met) but, to me, "British/Canadian" implies that he has dual nationality: AFAIK that is not the case. Bluewave 16:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with voting on Enoch Powell?

I don't think that comments against massive immigration and encouraging to vote on Enoch Powell are "ill-advised". And that is what is written in the article. I understand that some people might dislike him, but to be fair you can't make comments like that. Ask French or Dutch what they think about massive immigration now...

Brief reply

• In England, we don't vote "on" people. We vote for or against them. Whether the French or Dutch like immigration in 2006 is nothing to do with what Enoch Powell and Eric Clapton said in 1968 and 1976. The contemporary situation should not be used to justify things done long ago. Your remarks make it look as the the historical record is being moulded to suit your current political opinions.

Can anyone verify?

Once while playing a Cream concert, he suddenly stopped playing, and neither Ginger Baker nor Jack Bruce noticed.

That quote although being on the page for a long time seems to be inaccurate or strangely put especially for a trivia page. In most bands people notice if the lead guitarist stops playing especially in a three a man band and when your guitarist is Eric Clapton. I think it just might be very well disguised vandalism to discredit Clapton but if someone can back it up then fine I'll go along with it. -- Patman2648 15:47 1 February 2006

Taken from the presentation booklet included with Those Were The Days (page 28)...

"The last year became extremely painful for me," offers Baker. "When we first went out, Eric and Jack had one Marshall speaker cabinet each. Then it became a stack, then a double stack, and finally a triple stack. I was the poor bastard stuck in the middle of these incredible noise making things. Finally they started to mike my drums because people were coming up to me and saying that the only time they heard my drums was during the solo. It was ridiculous. I used to get back to the hotel and my ears were roaring. That one year damaged my hearing. The incredible volume was one of the things which destroyed Cream. Playing that loud had nothing to do with the music. There was, in fact, one gig where Eric and I stopped playing for two choruses. Jack didn't even know. Standing in front of his triple stack of Marshalls, he was making so much noise that he couldn't tell if we were playing or not."

- MightyMoose22 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it when nice and friendly wikipedians like you leave a comment or answer to a question on a talk page, half the time I'll put something down and wait months for a random guy to come along and say "hmmn, I don't know." Thanks again Patman2648 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have that problem too, eh? Probably most of us who bother to ask unusual questions strike that from time to time. You're never alone in Wikipedia. JackofOz 05:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all in the same boat when it comes to that, and it's true, you are never alone when you're in a boat with more than 850,000 other Wikipedians. :) - MightyMoose22 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Beatles

I seem to recall that he is the only musician to contribute a major instrumental section to a Beatles album... Can someone confirm? SteelyDave 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several others: Billy Preston on various songs, George Martin's piano through Rubber Soul, Chris Thomas' harpsichord on "Piggies," etc.

"Damage" to career by political views

I have edited the start of the "Controversy & Tragedy" section which stated that Clapton's career suffered "damage" from his remarks on UK immigration as I have not seen any evidence of this "damage". Did people stop buying his records or attending his concerts? Did he find it difficult to get work in the UK? Did other artists criticise him personally? --Thoughtcat 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Too negative for such a "god"?

Nothing about Clapton being a pederast? Maybe a little NPOV. --24.131.209.132 02:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because he isn't and never has been? You should either withdraw this allegation immediately or provide concrete evidence for your suspicions. --Thoughtcat 07:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently added picture

Does anyone else feel that the leading picture doesn't accurately represent Clapton? -- Krash (Talk) 14:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of any of the pictures currently in the article. I mean, they're nice pictures and I'm not saying they shouldn't be included in the article somewhere, but I feel the main image should be one of Clapton with beard circa 1970s/80s, as seen in the artwork for his eponymous album & August and in Tommy. I think it's his most recognisable/iconic look. It's how I always picture him, at least. - MightyMoose22 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with all of that. I would suggest using the August picture as the main image, however it's rather small and the resolution is bad. And you're quite right; that is really his iconic look. I'm not an expert on finding fair-use/public-domain images so I'm really only in a position to contribute opinions at this point. -- Krash (Talk) 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. But that's what talk pages are for. ;) - MightyMoose22 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, when I added the picture I was thinking a similar thing. You must admit it is an awfully cool picture of Clapton with his SG and little afro. I'm up for moving that down and replacing that Cream album image with that one, and finding a a big version of the August album (or something of similar nature) and placing it as the main image. Hacmid

Not bad. Though his hand's kind of obscuring his face. Everyone's a critic. Any information on the date of that picture? -- Krash (Talk) 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Band Members

I know the list of his band members is incomplete, so I'll try to help. Anyone know who is in this clip? I know there's Nathan East, Steve Gadd, Andy Low, as well as Niles and Kisson I think, and perhaps Phillinganes. But what about the bloke with the saxaphone and the other keyboard player? Thanks. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The sax player is the famous David Sanborn! Phillinganes was not there; the keyboardists were Tim Carmon and Dave Delhomme.

The clip is taken from the concert Clapton put together for the Crossroads Centre following his first major guitar auction (released as Eric Clapton & Friends In Concert: A Benefit For The Crossroads Centre At Antigua). Other guests that night included Mary J. Blige, Bob Dylan (on Crossroads and Don't Think Twice, It's Alright), and Sheryl Crow (on Little Wing among others). - Slow Graffiti 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the point of your asking when I commented earlier (that it's about the 'Band Members' list of the article). This concert was a one-off fundraising/celebration sort of thing, so the musicians here shouldn't necessarily be included in Clapton's 'band members' list. [Not that you implied such, but...] If we did include them, we'd have to include the slew of other musicians he shared a stage with at one point or another.

I don't know anything else about the two keyboards (Carmon and Delhomme) from that night. I'll comb through other Clapton credits to see if they've played with him at other gigs. - Slow Graffiti 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Layla live

The article currently states:

"Because the electric version is difficult to coordinate live (it requires the use of a piano), Clapton will frequently play the acoustic version of "Layla". However, Clapton did play an electric version of the song at Live Aid in 1985; instead of a piano, an electronic keyboard was used."

This statement is incorrect. There was no 'acoustic version' of Layla until the MTV Unplugged performance. Clapton was hesitant to play Layla live, but only for the first part of the Derek & the Dominos tour. His hesitation was not because it required a piano - Bobby Whitlock had a piano onstage, and Clapton continued to have a keyboardist at most live gigs for the rest of his career. The hesitation was about being able to sing the chorus while playing the famous guitar riff (as he was the only guitarist in the band).
He soon learned to do this, and the song was played 'electric' on most of the tours since (unless it was left off the setlist altogether). It was also played in full (electric guitars, piano outro) at his comeback Rainbow Concert. On the '70s solo tours, the song was usually stopped prior to the piano-led outro - maybe because his keyboardist usually stuck to organ, or to shorten the length of the song in the live setting. It was a long song by Clapton's studio standards (7 minutes), and Clapton was already spending much of the night stretching out many blues songs; perhaps he didn't want to overdo it.
On his more recent tours, the song has been played 'electric' complete with piano outro. I plan on removing the above statement soon. Input is welcome. - Slow Graffiti 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the current comment is totally inaccurate. As if a musician like Clapton with the sort if bands he commands would be unable to play a song because it requires the use of - shock horror! - a piano!! Is there also any evidence that he "frequently" plays the acoustic version? He may in fact not play either electric or acoustic versions very often these days, especially as he does more concerts that are blues- rather than greatest-hits-based. --Thoughtcat 11:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"because it requires the use of - shock horror! - a piano!!"

Heh...my thoughts exactly. Thanks. I'll remove the statement now. Slow Graffiti 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article if well cited

If this article were to put in citations (far more than it does now), I can easily see it becoming a featured article. Unfortunately, I don't see a single in-line citation... Nrbelex ^(talk) 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed that. There are no citations at all. It is well written, and a fun article. I might go through and look for places where citations are needed, but I have no time to go around finding them. Djarnum1 ^(Talk)

I wrote from Clapton's Early Days all the way to Full Throttle Career so I might be able to find the sources I used but I wrote it in Sept. 2005, 8 months ago and most of the information was just from my own knowledge which was all factually based and is verifiable which prevents the material from being from Wikipedia:No Original Research. I'll look into the materials I used or just re-write parts of it that could be linked to sources but keep bulk of the info. Interesting note, the song Layla by Clapton when in D&Ds was a featured article back on October 23 so Clapton does have a featured article history. Cheers - Patman2648 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

edit wars

What's been going on today (and yesterday)? Through all the pedantic semantics we're losing some good information.

1. The racism issue - It's not such an important part of Clapton's career that it should be in the opening section. One could argue that it doesn't need mentioning since it has it's own section, except that the section has now been completely wiped off the face of the article due to "content lacking proper citations". Okay, fine, so give it a tag, don't just delete it. It's interesting stuff that deserves to be here, just not in the leading paragraph.
2. Clapton the busker: part I - The bit about Clapton being a busker in his youth was deleted due to it being lifted straight from Cream's official website. Fair enough, copyvios should not be tolerated. However, maybe try copyediting so the info stays in a more wiki friendly way?
3. Clapton the busker: part II - Just after this copyvio was deleted, Category:Buskers was also removed due to "no proper citation" again. Now, the source of this info was made known in the last edit, and as sources go, I reckon Cream's official site is a pretty damned reputable one. True, it wasn't cited properly, but why not take initiative and put 2 and 2 together so that it is, rather than just deleting recklessly. How feasible is it to add a citation to a category, anyway?
   

Is this the way we're running things now? Are we going to start deleting everything that's not written up perfectly? What about grammar/spelling mistakes and general typos? How about we stop to think about what we're deleting and why we're deleting it. A lot of it can be just as easily fixed.
In case you're wondering, the reason why I'm just bitching on here instead of just editing the article myself is that the way things are going today, I fear I'll just be reverted anyway. - MightyMoose22 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Many people do believe that what you call "the racism isssue" is an important aspect of Clapton's career. Personally, I think (a) that it is important enough to go in the intro where it fits neatly and (b) that the persistent denial of the seriousness of this is a peculiar residual feature of the "Clapton is God" scenario. So what if he has clay feet. Doesn't that make him more interesting? (c) This issue is especially important since he repeated these remarks all over again in his big (May 2004) interview with the magazine UNCUT.

Clapton's consistent refusal to apologise for his comments undermines the idea that this is just an issue of alcoholic juvenalia. His attachment to the legacy and vision of Enoch Powell is an important cultural and political component of his larger view of the world and of the outlook of the class to which he belonged as a young man. How a person can hold those views while wanting to be Jimi, loving Freddie, Albert and BB as well as "pimping" the blues and reggae is a deep and significant question that delivers us to the heart of his personality. I admire him greatly and have for nearly forty years but there's no point pretending that these things aren't a significant part of his legacy. After all Rock Against Racism changed Britain decisively and for the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Guitar (talk • contribs)

Sorry I did not sign my comment. I am new to this process. Blue Guitar

Clapton's drunken comments are an interesting tidbit but hardly notable enough for the lead section. It does not convey the full story and leaves a reader with the wrong conclusions simply by having it as a single sentence. Inclusion in the article is fine but it should tell the whole, correct, story. Clapton made a drunken comment in 1976 about immigration. He issued an apology a few days later. He does not retract the sentiment for his comments...that England sells itself as the "land of milk and honey" only to turn around and stick it's invited immigrants into low paying labour jobs, living in substandard conditions...something he feels is very sad and wrong. He is not a racist yet the single line entry in the lead section appears to portray him as such. His best friends include B.B King and Robert Cray. His own backing band, who have been with him for years, can attest to his credibility also. As a balanced, cited part of the article is not in question. As a misleading blurb in the lead section most certainly is. 216.21.150.44 12:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no apology either at the time or subsequently. There have been a few dubious statements that purport to provide an explanation and As I pointed out a degree of repetition. That is not the same thing as an apology. I certainly did not say that Clapton was a racist. I said his views were extreme on the subjects of race and immigration. The Enoch Powell connection substantiates that statement. It is more interesting to me that in the guise of conveying the "full story" you wish to minimise this episode or have it removed from the historical record simply because you find it to be inconvenient. Blue Guitar

I've adeded a {{fact}} tag to the last sentence of the first paragraph. The structure of the sentence is unclear. First of all what sort of extreme views does he hold? Second the sentence makes it seem as if he is dead. The sentence needs rewriting and if true then it needs its own section with an explanation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"It is more interesting to me that in the guise of conveying the "full story" you wish to minimise this episode or have it removed from the historical record" - Nobody's saying that. In fact, my original point was that a full section that was 2 paragraphs long in the article body was deleted. What I'm saying is that it should be there, in it's own section, where we can go into as much detail as the subject requires.

The lead section, however, is meant to serve as a brief introduction to the subject (i.e. Clapton) made with the assumption that the reader is entirely unfamiliar with him or his work. Imagine you're given twenty seconds to outline his life and career, what would you say? "He's a famous and well respected guitarist. He's also a successful songwriter, which has earned him a CBE, a few Grammys and induction to the Hall Of Fame. Whilst mostly blues influenced, he doesn't stick to one specific musical style. He's currently still active, and he made a comment about immigration 30 years ago, but I'm not telling you what he said." I'm sorry, but I don't believe that should be there. Could you at least refrain from reposting it at least until we resolve this issue? Thanks. - MightyMoose22 23:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not repost my contributions yet but this all seems very weird to me. You say "what were the details?" but when I post sources you remove them. When you say "what were EC's controversial views?" all you manifest is your own disabling ignorance. It's a shame that an entry essentially about EC the musician cannot be allowed to accomodate relevant information on EC the man. If he is still talking defensively about all this nearly thirty years after it all started how come none of you, the self-appointed wiki "guardians" of his career and memory can see the relevance of this matter? Blue Guitar

Okay, first of all, calm down. Bandying insults and "sarcasm" around will not win you any friends in this place, except maybe a couple of trolls. The "guardians" of this article have been more than patient with you, always assuming good faith and trying to be helpful. On most other pages you would've most likely been branded a vandal and blocked from editing several times by now. Secondly, as myself and many others have stated already, the information you are trying to add is already in the article, in greater deatil, in it's own section. I suggest you take a break to clear your head, re-read the whole article (as well as the comments on here), have a look at some other bio pages, thumb through the help guides, talk to a few other wikipedians and come back in a week or two when you're absolutely sure what it is that you're arguing. MightyMoose22 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me. Enoch Powell was expelled from the British Conservative government after the remarks that Clapton quoted with approval. This was done because his views and the way that they were articulated were judged to be inflamatory. That is all a matter of public record. I am sure it makes no difference to you but the minority communities in England were also incensed by Clapton's remarks which were described by CLR James the philosopher--perhaps the greatest black intellectual of the twentieth century--as an example of "pure unalloyed evil". Again this is a matter of public record. A new documentary film about the history of Rock Against Racism has been produced in the UK recently. Once again, the whole history of this episode is back in the public eye and it will be discussed again when the Clapton autobiography appears next year. If these issues cannot be accomodated here and are peremptorily dismissed, you risk the credibility of this entry and indeed of Wikipedia itself. Blue Guitar

Please don't try to dictate to me the sentiments behind my own comments. Now, you have been told no less than five times in the edit summaries of Patman2648 & Anger22 on May 25th & 26th, and I have said it a further three times in this discussion, but I'll say it once more before giving up - the information you're trying to add is already there, in further detail, in it's own section. If you feel this section is inadequate, by all means add to it. MightyMoose22 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK having the section looks much better than the single unexplained sentence. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As one of the early editors of this topic before an edit war started, I agree with what you say and my edits that I did way back when backs that up. The controversial section deserves to be incorporated just not in the intro which is exactly what I did and I did remove blatant copyvio because that of course can't be tolerated as you stated, following wikipedia:copyvio regulations, a speedy deletion of the information is suggested and possible other choices below would have been fine with me:

• Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own.
• Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
• Ask for permission - see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

I additionally spent the extra time to aware the editor that such plagiarism is not accepted at wikipedia and inform on policies because I don't like letting newer editors believe that they can simlpy copy and paste large portions, run off and expect someone to reword and cite or ask for permission. Also, the buskers category should be kept as stated and thank you for trying to calm down the edit war and resolve the conflict. The article now in those sections are fine and hopefully with stay that way with everyone keeping calm if any problems arise with a renewal of an edit war, you have my full support. Thanks very much and Best of luck in the future. - Patman2648 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you may have noticed, I have already fixed two of the things I was bitching about earlier. I also plan to write up a bit about Eric's busking to replace the deleted copyvio as soon as I can muster the energy, but if anyone else feels like sparing me the hassle, I really don't mind. :) MightyMoose22 14:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)