This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dave Clark (musician) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Dave Clark (musician) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 January 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Image:Daveclark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The Dave Clark Five page says 1939, but this page says 1942. Which one's right? Yoshiman64 ( talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This year is NOT correct - a search can be made on the information Clark himself would have lodged with Companies House by doing a director search at ukdata.com. The results show that Dave Clark was born 15 December 1939, and is therefore 70. There is no reason to believe that he would have falsely inflated his age but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 ( talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Then you didn't search properly - I've just done it again and find 13 results (eight for Dave Clark and five for Dave Clarke). At the very bottom of the first page is indeed a Dave Clark with the folowing details Date of Birth: 15-12-1939 NW1 0AD. And that postcode fits in with the Dave Clark we are talking about here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2010 UTC
It can't really be any clearer - that is THE Dave Clark in question, and he runs his business empire from said address in Camden. In further evidence, Clark owns the DCFiveBitsandpieces.com website, which whois shows as registered to him at the same address, with the same postcode. How much less circumstantial do we need to be? I have no agenda against Clark but dislike rock starsforgetting their real ages, or hiding them. The whois data is as follows:
domain: dc5bitsandpieces.com created: 12-Jun-2007 last-changed: 26-Feb-2010 registration-expiration: 12-Jun-2011
nserver: ns67.1and1.co.uk nserver: ns68.1and1.co.uk
status: CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED
registrant-firstname: Dave registrant-lastname: Clark registrant-organization: Dave Clark London registrant-street1: 1 Pratt Mews registrant-street2: Regent House registrant-pcode: NW1 0AD registrant-city: London registrant-ccode: GB registrant-phone: +44.2075544840 registrant-fax: +44.2073888324 registrant-email:
admin-c-firstname: Dave admin-c-lastname: Clark admin-c-organization: Dave Clark London admin-c-street1: 1 Pratt Mews admin-c-street2: Regent House admin-c-pcode: NW1 0AD admin-c-city: London admin-c-ccode: GB admin-c-phone: +44.2075544840 admin-c-fax: +44.2073888324 admin-c-email:
tech-c-firstname: Hostmaster tech-c-lastname: ONEANDONE tech-c-organization: 1&1 Internet Ltd. tech-c-street1: 10-14 Bath Road tech-c-street2: Aquasulis House tech-c-pcode: SL1 3SA tech-c-state: BRK tech-c-city: Slough tech-c-ccode: GB tech-c-phone: +44.8716412121 tech-c-fax: +49.72191374215 tech-c-email:
bill-c-firstname: Hostmaster bill-c-lastname: ONEANDONE bill-c-organization: 1&1 Internet Ltd. bill-c-street1: 10-14 Bath Road bill-c-street2: Aquasulis House bill-c-pcode: SL1 3SA bill-c-state: BRK bill-c-city: Slough bill-c-ccode: GB bill-c-phone: +44.8716412121 bill-c-fax: +49.72191374215 bill-c-email: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 ( talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Clark or one of his apologists has changed the DOB bat to 1942; I have made it 1939 again both here and in the DC5 entry, In the discussion part of the latter I find further verification of his year of birth thus: Dave Clark - throughout the 1960s his date of birth was reported as 15 Dec 1942. Supporting evidence: when first contracts were issued for the Ed Sullivan Show in 1963, he was said to have not yet been a professional of legal age; news reports in December 1963 in the London Daily Mail, and other easily-verified sources, applauded his first contracts on his 21st birthday and their toasting with milk (Clark was then and remains? an alcohol non-drinker). The England and Wales Birth Index of British vital records, available at Ancestry.co.uk (hereinafter called Birth Index), lists sixteen David Clarks with births registered in the fourth quarter of 1939, fifteen more David Clarks with births registered in the fourth quarter of 1942, with many more inbetween--and it would be impossible to make a positive identification from this evidence without knowing his mother's maiden name, as none of these are recorded at "Tottenham" and three were recorded in nearby Edmonton. Clark's mothers maiden name was Bartlett the name he used when registering at acting school in the late 60's. Using that name the birth records confirm he was born in 1939.
It would be useful in view of the proof if the date of birth were fixed as 1939, and impossible for meddlers to change again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.203.211 ( talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at all the discussion of this and all the evidence, I have changed Clark's year of birth back to 1939. Why do you persist in letting him (or one of his lackeys) change it to a more flattering 1942, in spitre of all the evidence. I agree with the above poster, fix the date and make it impossible to change again. 109.154.197.224 ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the Tottenham birth register entry be cited as evidence of his birth in 1939? It seems a nonsense that the vanity of an artist is allowed to get in the way of the truth. Dave Clark is three years older than he claims. 109.154.113.65 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I am glad that the year of birth for Clark is now accurate (1939). However, the justification for it is ridiculous. Just because a published source (a slight and unimpressive 2009 book) says so, you jump to attention and alter it. Has it not occurred to you that the reason the 2009 book (penned by Stuart Rosenberg) assigned Clark's birth to 1939 was the welter of birth certificate/Companies House detail shared here. Rosenberg himself gives no evidence, whereas I and others gave plenty here, Shame on you, Ghmyrtle. Have the courage to correct something when there is evidence not when blindly trusting an author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.223.41 ( talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I keep having to remove the text below from the article. It's poorly written (for an encyclopedia) and mostly not supported by the one source.
As far as it is known, Dave Clark was the first musician to negotiate a reversionary clause into his recording contract which leased his recordings to the record company for a certain number of years. After that time, all ownership of the material reverted back to him. This is common practice today but relatively unknown at that time. On the release of a (DC5) British hits album in the mid-70s, Dave Clark resided in the United States for a year thus avoiding paying taxes in Britain on the proceeds of that release. The British government challenged this but lost the case in court. [1]
But, there may be scope for including a properly written and properly sourced sentence or two on his business acumen, which has been noted elsewhere - for instance here and here. We need to bear in mind WP:BLP, and the fact that Clark is (to quote one article) "a very private man" who I'm sure would not take kindly to inaccurate information being published here. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Acumen/savvy? You must be kidding. Elton John called it savvy. Poorly written? Who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.241.67 ( talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "savvy" is English for the French "savoir faire". Actually, when I asked who you were, I was wondering if you were an editor employed by Wikipedia or just some anti-Dave Clark (Five) fanatic. I wasn't interested in knowing your name. The question wasn't intended to be offensive. I just found your manner to be pretentious and overbearing. Also, I'm not sure why you rejected the reference in regard to the taxation dispute. If you're an actual editor for Wikipedia, I would respect your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.241.67 ( talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Clark (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There used to be an entry on here about The Dave Clark Skiffle Group, which preceded the Five. It listed names and instruments and suggested that they did at least some gigging. Was it a false fact or was it removed for some other reason? -- Deke42 ( talk) 23:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dave Clark (musician) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Dave Clark (musician) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 January 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Image:Daveclark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The Dave Clark Five page says 1939, but this page says 1942. Which one's right? Yoshiman64 ( talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This year is NOT correct - a search can be made on the information Clark himself would have lodged with Companies House by doing a director search at ukdata.com. The results show that Dave Clark was born 15 December 1939, and is therefore 70. There is no reason to believe that he would have falsely inflated his age but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 ( talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Then you didn't search properly - I've just done it again and find 13 results (eight for Dave Clark and five for Dave Clarke). At the very bottom of the first page is indeed a Dave Clark with the folowing details Date of Birth: 15-12-1939 NW1 0AD. And that postcode fits in with the Dave Clark we are talking about here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2010 UTC
It can't really be any clearer - that is THE Dave Clark in question, and he runs his business empire from said address in Camden. In further evidence, Clark owns the DCFiveBitsandpieces.com website, which whois shows as registered to him at the same address, with the same postcode. How much less circumstantial do we need to be? I have no agenda against Clark but dislike rock starsforgetting their real ages, or hiding them. The whois data is as follows:
domain: dc5bitsandpieces.com created: 12-Jun-2007 last-changed: 26-Feb-2010 registration-expiration: 12-Jun-2011
nserver: ns67.1and1.co.uk nserver: ns68.1and1.co.uk
status: CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED
registrant-firstname: Dave registrant-lastname: Clark registrant-organization: Dave Clark London registrant-street1: 1 Pratt Mews registrant-street2: Regent House registrant-pcode: NW1 0AD registrant-city: London registrant-ccode: GB registrant-phone: +44.2075544840 registrant-fax: +44.2073888324 registrant-email:
admin-c-firstname: Dave admin-c-lastname: Clark admin-c-organization: Dave Clark London admin-c-street1: 1 Pratt Mews admin-c-street2: Regent House admin-c-pcode: NW1 0AD admin-c-city: London admin-c-ccode: GB admin-c-phone: +44.2075544840 admin-c-fax: +44.2073888324 admin-c-email:
tech-c-firstname: Hostmaster tech-c-lastname: ONEANDONE tech-c-organization: 1&1 Internet Ltd. tech-c-street1: 10-14 Bath Road tech-c-street2: Aquasulis House tech-c-pcode: SL1 3SA tech-c-state: BRK tech-c-city: Slough tech-c-ccode: GB tech-c-phone: +44.8716412121 tech-c-fax: +49.72191374215 tech-c-email:
bill-c-firstname: Hostmaster bill-c-lastname: ONEANDONE bill-c-organization: 1&1 Internet Ltd. bill-c-street1: 10-14 Bath Road bill-c-street2: Aquasulis House bill-c-pcode: SL1 3SA bill-c-state: BRK bill-c-city: Slough bill-c-ccode: GB bill-c-phone: +44.8716412121 bill-c-fax: +49.72191374215 bill-c-email: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 ( talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Clark or one of his apologists has changed the DOB bat to 1942; I have made it 1939 again both here and in the DC5 entry, In the discussion part of the latter I find further verification of his year of birth thus: Dave Clark - throughout the 1960s his date of birth was reported as 15 Dec 1942. Supporting evidence: when first contracts were issued for the Ed Sullivan Show in 1963, he was said to have not yet been a professional of legal age; news reports in December 1963 in the London Daily Mail, and other easily-verified sources, applauded his first contracts on his 21st birthday and their toasting with milk (Clark was then and remains? an alcohol non-drinker). The England and Wales Birth Index of British vital records, available at Ancestry.co.uk (hereinafter called Birth Index), lists sixteen David Clarks with births registered in the fourth quarter of 1939, fifteen more David Clarks with births registered in the fourth quarter of 1942, with many more inbetween--and it would be impossible to make a positive identification from this evidence without knowing his mother's maiden name, as none of these are recorded at "Tottenham" and three were recorded in nearby Edmonton. Clark's mothers maiden name was Bartlett the name he used when registering at acting school in the late 60's. Using that name the birth records confirm he was born in 1939.
It would be useful in view of the proof if the date of birth were fixed as 1939, and impossible for meddlers to change again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.203.211 ( talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at all the discussion of this and all the evidence, I have changed Clark's year of birth back to 1939. Why do you persist in letting him (or one of his lackeys) change it to a more flattering 1942, in spitre of all the evidence. I agree with the above poster, fix the date and make it impossible to change again. 109.154.197.224 ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the Tottenham birth register entry be cited as evidence of his birth in 1939? It seems a nonsense that the vanity of an artist is allowed to get in the way of the truth. Dave Clark is three years older than he claims. 109.154.113.65 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I am glad that the year of birth for Clark is now accurate (1939). However, the justification for it is ridiculous. Just because a published source (a slight and unimpressive 2009 book) says so, you jump to attention and alter it. Has it not occurred to you that the reason the 2009 book (penned by Stuart Rosenberg) assigned Clark's birth to 1939 was the welter of birth certificate/Companies House detail shared here. Rosenberg himself gives no evidence, whereas I and others gave plenty here, Shame on you, Ghmyrtle. Have the courage to correct something when there is evidence not when blindly trusting an author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.223.41 ( talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I keep having to remove the text below from the article. It's poorly written (for an encyclopedia) and mostly not supported by the one source.
As far as it is known, Dave Clark was the first musician to negotiate a reversionary clause into his recording contract which leased his recordings to the record company for a certain number of years. After that time, all ownership of the material reverted back to him. This is common practice today but relatively unknown at that time. On the release of a (DC5) British hits album in the mid-70s, Dave Clark resided in the United States for a year thus avoiding paying taxes in Britain on the proceeds of that release. The British government challenged this but lost the case in court. [1]
But, there may be scope for including a properly written and properly sourced sentence or two on his business acumen, which has been noted elsewhere - for instance here and here. We need to bear in mind WP:BLP, and the fact that Clark is (to quote one article) "a very private man" who I'm sure would not take kindly to inaccurate information being published here. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 07:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Acumen/savvy? You must be kidding. Elton John called it savvy. Poorly written? Who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.241.67 ( talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "savvy" is English for the French "savoir faire". Actually, when I asked who you were, I was wondering if you were an editor employed by Wikipedia or just some anti-Dave Clark (Five) fanatic. I wasn't interested in knowing your name. The question wasn't intended to be offensive. I just found your manner to be pretentious and overbearing. Also, I'm not sure why you rejected the reference in regard to the taxation dispute. If you're an actual editor for Wikipedia, I would respect your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.241.67 ( talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Clark (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There used to be an entry on here about The Dave Clark Skiffle Group, which preceded the Five. It listed names and instruments and suggested that they did at least some gigging. Was it a false fact or was it removed for some other reason? -- Deke42 ( talk) 23:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)