Talk:Paul is dead

"28 IF" Image

This article desperately needs an image, the Abbey Road cover with the "28 IF" license plate. Why don't we have it? Is it a copyright problem?

Well, we have the cover: [[Image:AbbeyRoad.jpg]]. Marnanel 01:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I've added it. On a side note, I dont think it's very NPOV to put "clues" in quotes. Doesnt that imply an official Wikipedia position that the theory is barmy?(which it is, to be sure.) Deepak 17:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article also says McCartney is alive as of 2004, so there are bigger fish to fry. Personally, I think we can leave it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Title issue

Doesn't "hoax" imply deliberate deception? If I understand correctly, the whole business resulted from people misinterpreting supposed "clues," not from any deliberate action on the part of the Fab Four. Perhaps "'Paul Is Dead' Controversy," "'Paul is Dead' Allegations," or "'Paul is Dead' Urban Legend." JHCC 13:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, this article seems to currently be titled "Paul Is Dead", not "Paul Is Dead hoax", although "hoax" is the first real word in the article. The article states that "Though it has been denied by all four members numerous times, many fans are convinced that the hoax was perpetrated deliberately by the Beatles as a joke." If these "convinced" fans are correct, then it would be a hoax (assuming of course that Paul Is Live). But on the other hand, the radio DJ announcement would certainly qualify as a hoax (assuming again that Paul Is Live and also that the DJ knew so). -- SS 17:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the original DJ announcement would qualify as a hoax (or at least a sick joke). However, unless the Beatles had deliberately planted the supposed clues and had been in collusion with said DJ (for which there is no evidence, only speculation), then what we have is a rumor, not a hoax. I've changed "hoax" to "rumor" in the article, with a note that some fans believe that it was a deliberate hoax. I also changed the second paragraph to note that Russell Gibb's announcement began, or at least accelerated, the rumor. Take a look and let me know what you think. JHCC 19:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think. I suppose you are right that it can't really be called a "hoax", but I'm not sure "rumor" is a wide enough term to incorporate everything that the article discusses. What we have here, I suppose, is a conspiracy theory. -- SS 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" could be tricky, as it implies deliberate conspiracy. There's a difference of degree between "Paul's dead and there are hidden clues in the lyrics and album covers" and "Paul died in a car crash and the remaining Beatles and their management conspired to hide his death in order to continue to sell Beatles records." I'll note that some people believe the latter, which will bring conspiracy theory in. I do think that we should keep "rumor" as our main concept, since that's how it started. JHCC 16:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Actually, noted that the rumor morphed into a conspiracy theory, which is probably more accurate. JHCC 16:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should this be at Paul is dead? Rick K 00:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

McCartney/Mal Evans Update

I've removed the comment "(In reality, McCartney could not make the photo session and road manager Mal Evans stood in for him)" which followed the reference to McCartney's backview on the back of the Sgt. Pepper LP cover. My 1987 issue CD of the album has a booklet containing several additional photos from that session, including some with McCartney facing forwards, and three-quater turned, with his face clearly visible. They are clearly from the same photo session, as the clothing and posture of other three is identical, including the position of their hands - Starr with his hands cradled in front of him, Lennon with them tucked in his waistband, and Harrison with his thumb hooked over a button. For some reason McCartney evidently decided to turn around while these shots were being taken.

how many capital letters in title?

shouldn't this article be called "Paul is dead", not "Paul is Dead"? Kingturtle 04:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LMW 281F

Has anyone ever found out who the VW Beetle with the famous number plate belongs to?

The info on the image above says the car was "probably intentionally parked there as a rebus", but other sources I've read just say the car belonged to a local resident. You'd have thought that with all this controversy someone would have looked into this! I wonder if the DVLA has records going back to the 1960s...

I remember reading somewhere that the car was sold at an action for a ridicilous high price.

--Husky 14:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future changes?

Will this have to be changed in the future after Paul McCartney really is dead? — JIP | Talk 16:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then we'd change it to "Paul is Dead(1969) or something like that--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confession of George Harrison?

Does anyone know something about the confession that George Harrison should have made before his death and that is shown on very few webpages (for exapmle this one: http://pid90066.tripod.com/PM2.htm )? Did he say that for real? Well, I don't think so, because it would have published more often and there would be more scandals, of course. But why is that 'interview' not mentioned in the article? I mean, even if it's a fake, it's also part of the "Paul is dead" - story.

The information the link points to is both hilarious, completely credible, and hilarious.

I've seen the same page refered to as an interview from 1992, it's fake.

The Hand on Sgt. Pepper

I think, from what I've heard, the hand belongs to Issy Bon, not Stephen Crane. User:Orville Eastland

More in Sgt Pepper

The leftmost black man is wearing a long white robe, with golden ornaments, as if he were a priest... didn't anybody else think of that? Also, the men in black (young beatles?), the one in the front (Paul?) is the only one with a black shirt, and no tie, and he has the other ones' hand on his shoulders, as in consolation.

Tordek 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The one Beatle in the front is not Paul, it's Ringo. The one putting his hand on his shoulders is Paul.

The date

The Beatles were British, and Brits write their date as Day/Month. So, if "I one" is 11 and "IX" is 9, Paul died on September 11. Orville Eastland 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

left handed

The article states that Paul was left handed for all purposes other than playing guitar but in A Hard Day's Night, he signs an autograph with his left hand.

Why was the funny and classic "Everyone BUT Paul is dead" removed

It's one of those seminal usenet jokes, really classic.

Everyone BUT Paul is dead A hilarious sendup of the whole "Paul Is Dead" phenomenon
Part 2 of "Everyone BUT Paul is dead"

It could go in the "Other references" section.83.105.34.180 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Family Guy Guy 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul appears to be alive

That category is not necessary. Unless it can be expanded, I reccoment it be merged into the opening paragraph again.

Done.--Cuchullain 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is Live

On this page and the one for the album Paul is Live it said the car's liscence plate read "58 IS", implying that McCartney was 58 at the time. By my calculations, he was only about 50 in 1993. I don't have the album to check if it really says that, but I haven't seen that quote outside of Wikipedia.--Cuchullain 07:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPD backs it, but I too went through the figures, and it didn't add up. I reckon it's a joke on how in the original 281F licence did NOT have Paul's real age. 83.105.34.180 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the licence plate in fact reads "51 IS" [1] 83.105.34.180 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Sgt Pepper intro

Why was the pre-Sgt Pepper introduction removed?83.105.34.180 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I'm changing the wording in the opening sentence back to "The Paul Is Dead hoax" from "The Paul Is Dead rumor", which is actually how the original composer of the article put it. The word "rumor" makes the actual truth of the matter ambiguous, when there is no ambiguity whatsoever here. This is an encyclopedia, not a cut-rate tabloid. Let's not lend credence to outlandish conspiracy theories that started off as radio-show jokes. 24.199.113.234 00:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was put there to keep NPOV. If you want to add more weight to the Paul is Live arguement, perhaps an "Evidence that Paul is Live" section could be added. 83.105.34.180 10:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The Paul is Dead Phenomenon"? 83.105.34.180 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting evidence section title

Anyone have a suggestion for a title for a section for arguements against Paul is Dead? I can only come up with "Evidence that Paul is Live". 83.105.34.180 09:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]