Talk:Paul McCartney

Is that William's month of birth? As it sure isn't James Paul McCartney's!

This is a locked, featured article. How is it that the month of birth is wrong? And it is unsourced!

78.147.212.35 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting your information, but the date is correct, a fact that Beatles fans have known for decades. And it is sourced in the Early Life section; no need to source it in the lead. If you have a reliable source to the contrary, please let us know what it is. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I got my info from the birth docs held online eg registered births. I would expect official documentation to be accurate. Now you have my mind questioning sourced info I read across wikipedia in general.

Do you want the source?

freebmd just have to search for James P. McCartney and possibly narrow it down the approximate 5-10 years. I think narrowing it down by area works as well eg district of Lancashire (as Liverpool was within the district back then) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought sources were supposed to be disclosed when fist needed on wiki articles? Also I checked source 5 link and it links to nothing verifiable for readers, and if it is a book, well that just proves its unreliability given a quick research online can disprove the month!

Any thoughts regarding the month now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Also looks like I was right in the title... The more I research, the more turns up... https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=175958957:5385&d=bmd_1477344112 Of interest is the year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but much of your last post is difficult to comprehend. But if you could link the specific webpage that is your source, that might help.

Some of your other points are difficult to understand. I have no idea what "I thought sources were supposed to be disclosed when fist needed on wiki articles?" means.

" checked source 5 link and it links to nothing verifiable for readers, and if it is a book, well that just proves its unreliability given a quick research online can disprove the month!": This is not consistent with how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Sources do not have to be online sources. Books and other paper publications are perfectly acceptable if they are reliable.

"just proves its unreliability given a quick research online can disprove the month": So far you have not "disproved" the month because you can't give us a coherent, specific source for your information.

"Also looks like I was right in the title"; I have no idea what that means. Sundayclose (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify:

I thought convention here on articles was to provide superscript reference as soon as it is needed eg for the first need - by this i mean shouldnt the ref 5 be on the first mention of the d.o.b.

Hopefully that bmd link shows for you. It was September to be precise. Not June as stated everywhere else.

Williams d.o.b. was June 1938. In my research I discovered this using bmd archives. That is what I meant about my title on this talk page.

Let me know what you think regarding the inaccuracy of the month. Thanks 78.147.212.35 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"I thought convention here on articles was to provide superscript reference as soon as it is needed eg for the first need - by this i mean shouldnt the ref 5 be on the first mention of the d.o.b.": Again, this is wrong for the WP:LEAD. If information in the lead is sourced later in the article, no source is required for the lead.

"Hopefully that bmd link shows for you.": Again you haven't provided specifics about your source. If you click the link you cite above, there is nothing about anyone named McCartney. Give us a link to the specific webpage that is your source for James Paul McCartney's date of birth.

By the way, I hope you realize that it's possible that there is more than one person named "James P. McCartney", and that without the middle name or other conclusively identifying information, your source is not reliable. I also hope you realize that clerical errors can occur in copying old government records to a website. Even if a different date of birth is stated on a webpage, when you put that up against numerous reliable sources that identify 18 June 1942, it is meaningless. Do you seriously think that Paul McCartney, who has never disputed his date of birth as 18 June 1942 in over five decades of superstardom, is involved in a conspiracy with every biographer and every member of his family to conceal his date of birth? If you are seriously claiming that every recognized biographer of McCartney and The Beatles is wrong about birth dates, you're wasting our time and your time. Thanks for giving us your thoughts, but please drop this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

William Campbell was an orphan from Edinburgh, Scotland. Searching for his birth records in Liverpool is a red herring meant to throw us off the track. Typical counter-intelligence tactic (probably CIA) to conceal the real truth. Don't be fooled! Piriczki (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just kidding. William Campbell was a name invented by a Michigan college student after the "Paul is dead" rumor surfaced. Go Buckeyes! Beat Michigan! Piriczki (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, those search results only yield an index of registrations based on date of registration, not date of birth. The index only indicates where you can locate the actual certificate which is where you will find the date of birth. Piriczki (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=184673566:4048&d=bmd_1477344112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider this and it holds scanned paper records more reliable than internet misinformation and bias which you have shown with the use of 'superstardom'. Lets remain objective and let the research do the talking. 78.147.212.35 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything. If you look at the original scanned page, it's for births registered in July, August, and September 1942. Furthermore, as Piriczki notes, it's merely an index; it doesn't provide any specific information and certainly nothing that challenges the birth date in the article. From the notes on the correction page, the month given represents a quarter and not an exact month: It is NOT an error to find that an event that took place in January is shown in March. Events are recorded in QUARTERS (e.g. January, February, March make the MARCH QUARTER), not MONTHS.. Also, Events are recorded in the quarter that they were REGISTERED, not the quarter when they occurred. It is perfectly possible that a birth in May will appear in the September Quarter. clpo13_(talk) 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The birth certificate shows a birth date of 18 June 1942 and a registration date of 14 July 1942 which is why it is listed in the index of "Births Registered in July, August and September, 1942." I hear the one millionth fan to request a certified copy gets a free tin foil hat. Piriczki (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I will make this as clear as I can. The link I provide allows anyone and everyone to perform an unbiased, good faith search using that site for the following info...

---

Births

Surname McCartney

First name(s) James P.

Date range Mar 1935 to Dec 1945

---

Obviously there can be multiple people with that name. Can there be multiple born in Liverpool, with his full name including the middle initial, his mothers same maiden name?

Highly unlikely but still possible but now getting more unlikely. So they are quarterly? The archiving is sorted quarterly but follow the search i provided then examine the actual scans and it clearly shows that each birth is written for specific months, not batch quarters.

This evidence should cast credible doubt on the accuracy of the facts and should encourage everyone, regardless of bias and agendas, to conduct 'proper' research.

It has been stated above that the birth certificate archives should be examined to ascertain the truth. I would encourage and urge all concerned to seek out irrefutable evidence such as this.

I say let the evidence speak for itself.

78.147.212.35 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)