Talk:Paul is dead

Comments

I consider myself one of the top experts on the so-called "Paul-Is-Dead" phenomenon. I've written a book about it, which was heavily referred to for information posted in this entry. Yet, my book -- which was one of the cited references -- was recently removed. Why? R. Gary Patterson's book (which is now cited as the sole reference) contains little original contributions, while my book is comprised of original research and interviews. I believe I should be credited, since other contributers to this Wikipedia article obvious sourced my book in the first place!

170.20.96.116 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Andru J. Reeve

LMW 281 F another explanation

in this funny story there was another meaning for the famous LMW 281F : Live McCartney Was 28 IF. meaning : If MacCartney was alive, he would have 28 years old when the picture was taken which was true (the picture is from 1968)

No, it is not. McCartney was born in 1942, so he was 26 in 1968 and 27 (!) in 1969 when Abbey Road was released. Does anybody know why this is part of this "theory"? I mean I'm not that good at arithmetics but 1969 - 1942 makes 27, does it? --89.53.30.185 19:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right. This has been accomodated by proponents of the story via the supposition that some eastern philosophies consider the human being to be one year old at the point of birth. Therefore, if the Beatles subscribed to this view, McCartney would indeed have been said to be 28.

Thanks for the information. --89.53.43.32 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Way too long

Note- This article is quite a bit longer than the article on the Beatles themselves. The Paul is Dead hoax shouldn't be NEARLY as important as the main article for the Beatles. If possible, it should be cut in size to about half what it is now.--I Am The Walrus 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It attracts anon editors like flies ("Ooh, ooh, I heard that you could interpret this lyric in a funny way!") Cut away; once one person starts, it's easier for the rest of us to join in. - DavidWBrooks 10:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well- The pop references length especially fatigues me. This is not, IMHO, encyclopedia-worthy information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.29.124 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedantic?

I hate to be pedantic, and overly British, but actually the poster referred to in the section about the booklet of the magical mystery tour was in fact originally a British Poster depicting Lord Kitchener, and not as the phrasing implies an American poster that was copied by the Brits. Sorry if that sounds petty I haven't editted it for that very reason! Triangl 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold! If you can fact-fix an article go right ahead. dreddnott 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

impossible?

I think someone should note that some of the songs and album covers containing these so called 'clues' were released/published prior to 1966 there alleged year of his death. - 172.200.44.46

Exactly. That is why this theory is bogus.--Montaced (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

some sort of android

If Paul's not dead, then how come he isn't aging? Compare a picture of Paul now with a picture of Mick or Keith. Gzuckier 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Keith isn't a person, he is McCartney's The Picture of Dorian Gray come to life. - DavidWBrooks 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I think we're onto something here. Gzuckier 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with joking items like this is that they make me actually look at the article again - god, does it suck. If there was ever a wikipedia article that needed to be torn down and rebuilt from the bottom, this is that article. - DavidWBrooks 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's like all public endeavors, from Christianity to Socialism to the US to the counterculture to Wikipedia itself; it started out with visionaries, then progressed to well-meaning incompetents, and finally gets invaded by crazies and nasties. Gzuckier 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul has aged significantly since the 1960s. He just hasn't abused his body the way Richards and Jagger have. Wahkeenah 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just made a dozen or so cuts, trims and movings in preparation for a major reorganization of this article. (Boy, I need to get a life) At the very least, I want to move the "explanation" tidbits into the various clues they "explain." But to do that, I think I need to set up a new format under each clue - something like alleged clue and alternative explanation under each heading. But it's still such a big mess that I'm not sure whether that will work ... oh well, at lest I've cut 4 kb from the article. - DavidWBrooks 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen an article with so many POVs in it. --Gobsmacked 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the theory, but...

In the Magical Mystery Tour album cover, the walrus is wearing black, while the others are wearing white. Wouldn't this fuel conspiracy theorists' fires? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.18.21 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

• By then the Beatles were making fun of it. Wahkeenah 20:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on the MMT cover, the walrus isn't Paul. It's John, just as it is in the movie. Billy'sShears 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thus the lyric "Here's another clue for you all: the walrus was Paul." (from 'Glass Onion') ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

creating subarticles

User:The President of Cool has created a separate article, listing clues from Sgt. Pepper's. This is a very good idea, leaving this article as an overview of the scenario, history, and cultural impact (including parodies), and moving the endless list of clues elsewhere! (I hope he's now going to slash and hack this Sgt. Pepper's clues section way back.) Why didn't I think of that? - DavidWBrooks 01:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple pages?

The entire thing is a hoax, a joke, whatever you want to call it, and you're thinking of breaking it into multiple pages??? Wahkeenah 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's absurd, but so is Pokemon and look at how many articles IT has! This ridiculous hoax/joke draws a lot of attention and interest even though anybody with any sense rolls their eyes at it, so article expansion might be legitimate. Plus, this will let us unload most of the dreck ("I think this photo means that!") leaving the interesting issue, which is how this developed and why people care. - DavidWBrooks 02:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. If Pokemon has many pages, there's plenty of room for this one to proliferate. Wahkeenah 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, why in god's name is THIS necessary. And please do NOT use the freaking Pokemon argument, okay? --Calton | Talk 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• By the time of the White Album, the Beatles were well aware of this hoax and were playing to it. John Lennon was nothing if not a jokester. Wahkeenah 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The hoax did not start until a year after the White Album was released, and the Beatles have always denied deliberately pulling it. As for why I created a seperate article for White Album clues, it's for the same reason that I created the Sgt. Pepper clues article. Both contained many notable clues. --The President of Cool 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm aware the article claims that, but I recall hearing about it about it before then, so I'm not convinced. Wahkeenah 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Various google lookups indicate the rumor was first published in fall of 1969, and that the writer got it from someone he heard it from, as those urban legends typically go. I've been unable to find anything citing an interview I heard around then, where someone asked Paul, and he said, "It's a lot of old crap!" Wahkeenah 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OPERATION: SHRINK ARTICLE?

I've now created seperate articles for the clues from Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Abbey Road, Let It Be. I'm planning to create one article for the albums with very few clues (the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, the Anthology, and possibly the pre-Sgt. Pepper albums). After that, I'm planning to delete every clue that's still in the main article. However, DavidWBrooks thinks we should keep a few of the best-known clues. I thought I'd see what other people think. --The President of Cool 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a single heading titled Clues or something clever like that should remain, listing a few of the more famous ones and giving see also links to the sub-article pages. The idea is to give casual readers a sense as to what sort of things people are behind this - er, interesting phenomenon.- DavidWBrooks 11:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Including the Beatles themselves, with the line, "Here's another clue for you all..." That was from "Glass Onion", which was in the White Album, as this hoax was already widespread before the White Album came out. They were making fun of it, and all the fans knew it. Wahkeenah 11:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now what?

Since no one other than myself and DavidWBrooks have commented on whether to leave any clues in the main article or not, I went on ahead and zapped every clue that was still in the main article. I figure we can always still talk about whether we want to have any clues in the main article, and if so, which ones. --The President of Cool 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's not quite true, given that I ridiculed it. However, go ahead, knock yourself out. Then in a few months, some editor-to-be will say, "Hey! Let's merge these pages!" Wahkeenah 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • An editor's note? Well, it's worth a try. Wahkeenah 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Cab for Cutie

According to [Death Cab for Cutie (song)], that phrase was coined in 1957, and probably has little to do with McCartney's 'death'. --Mainstreetmark 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the name of the song came from this hoax, it says the Beatles put the song in the MMT film, perhaps as a "clue"/ joke. That's seems reasonable; or, at least, as reasonable as anything in this whole silly thing. - DavidWBrooks 20:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Laugh

This article is hilarious. It ranks right up there with fan death.Isaac Crumm 08:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it the article that's hilarious, or just the bizarre concept that it's describing? - DavidWBrooks 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief that John Lennon is dead. The clues are there if you care to look for them (though of course this would be original research) -88.111.1.148 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Maybe the National Inquirer cover photo in December, 1980, of Lennon lying in the morgue, was just a red herring. Wahkeenah 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, John, Elvis and JFK have a party house in the Hamptons.Isaac Crumm 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know from Hamptons. Hampton Inns, I know. Wahkeenah 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Copied from the AFD:

• • • Comment the non-triviality of the "Paul is dead" hoax is shown by the widespread press coverage over decades. See for instance Edward Rothstein, "Review/Music; McCartney's 'Liverpool Oratorio'" New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1991. pg. C.20, which said that the "Paul is dead" rumor was: "the hottest rumor in the politically charged youth culture" twenty years earlier, and which lists the "clues" including Paul walking barefoot on the "Abbey Road: cover with a "coffin nail" (cigarette) in his hand, the flower covered grave on the "Sergeant Pepper" cover, and the "deadman" utterance heard when Revolution number 9 is played backward. Proquest provides 8 such references to the hoax from the NY Times, Variety, USA Today, and other reliable publications from 1991 to the present. I do not presently have access to older publications, but I read press coverage of it back in the day. Edison 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Thus the article can be improved by addind references from the late 1960's early 1970's to show not that the claim of his death has any validity, but to show what a big story it was at the time, and to show that the "clues" are not OR on the art of Wikipedia editors. I played some of the records backward at various speeds back before sound processing programs on computers removed the risk of breaking the phono cartridge, and clearly there were words dubbed into some of the records backwards or forwards at different speed from the main recording. The Fab Four apparently liked to play with the tape editing equipment, and the story may have been a bid for publicity to increase record sales. Edison 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Appearing in print doesn't preclude triviality. Jordan (Katie Price) frequently filled up page 3 of the Sun, but is does that make her earth-shatteringly important? User:Barliner^chat 00:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Interested editors may proceed merging content from diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody tries to merge back the various articles titled "Paul is dead clues from (album name)". These used to be part of this article, as categories, but grew unmercifully, swamping everything, and after much discussion and effort were tunred into separate articles as a way to tame the flood. The separate articles may strike some as picayune, but they allow this article to be more useful. - DavidWBrooks 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

However, it has been re-merged, and I now see it starting to grow. Come back in a couple of months and we'll be talking about how to move all that stuff out of this article again. Ah, well ... - DavidWBrooks 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the clues

I tried removing all the clues en mass, to Clues that Paul is dead, rather than to separate articles about each album, because they're already attracting add-ons and goofballs. It has been reverted rather quickly, however, so at least one person disagrees. ... I've moved them to the bottom of the article, so people will get a chance to see the interesting parody information (which I've pruned) without having to wade through more than 30 KB of glop. - DavidWBrooks 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the right to decide what's glop? Billy'sShears 18:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Rotten apple" youtube stuff

First, apologies to the user whose "Rotten Apple" YouTube items keep getting reverted without explanation. You certainly deserve an explanation.

I removed them originally because (a) they were terribly formatted and ungrammatical, and very repetitive (b) the videos I checked were so long and boring that I couldn't figure out the point, other than to draw attention to somebody's personal project, and (c) YouTube links are regularly removed from wikipedia out of copyright concerns. The material has been removed again by somebody else, whose motives I don't know. - DavidWBrooks 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1 ONE I X HE ^ DIE

Not sure I've ever read so much nonsense. That aside, query re this: 'If a mirror is laid horizontally across the words "LONELY HEARTS" on the drum on the cover of Sgt. Pepper, the mirror image spells "1 ONE I X HE ^ DIE".' Surely it says that whether you use a mirror not? BennyFromCrossroads 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty of wikipedia articles with as much nonsense as this one: Wander through the New Age category and your head will spin. Having said that, I don't follow your objection - how can there be a mirror image without a mirror? - DavidWBrooks 14:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get that comment. You need the mirror to create the bottom half of the letters, for example the Y becomes an X when reflected across the centre. As for it being nonsense, of course it is! It's fun - but also something which has become a minor phenomenon over the years. 81.96.161.52 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour Cover

This article claims that it is Paul who was the walrus on the MMT cover. Although that how the legend goes, it's not true. Actually, John wore the walrus costume. If you look closely, the hippo is wearing the same ring and wristband/watch that Paul wears throughout most of the Magical Mystery Tour movie. This is explained in a YouTube video(youtube.com/watch?v=4cesHpBY2qQ) that includes a comment from Neil Aspinall confirming that the walrus was John.

Billy'sShears 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul is, in fact, wearing the exact same costume as in movie. Therefore the walrus was NEVER Paul. However, it's worth mentioning that Paul played the role of the walrus in a 1968 recording of "The Walrus and the Carpenter" by Donovan.

This is sheer fucking insanity!

First question with Wikipedia: Is it encyclopedic? This is NOT. Artrush 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been through at least one AFD and passed, so apparently your charmingly expressed opinion is not shared by all. And the existence of an article about a phenomenon doesn't mean that phenomenon is true or legitimate, only that it exists to the point that notice should be taken of it. - DavidWBrooks 12:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening

"Paul is dead" is an urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of the British rock band The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike and sound-alike. McCartney is alive and well as of 2007.

I'm merging the last two sentences so that it says "and McCartney is alive, and well as of 2007."

As it stands now, it seems as if Wikipedia thinks he's alive.Bryse 04:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid the change, which I assume was done as a joke, since it made the urban legend claim McCartney is alive. - DavidWBrooks 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "McCartney is alive and well as of 2007." since it is irrelevant to this piece, is a misplaced attempt at humor, and requires updating every year. This article is strictly about the urban legend that McCartney was replaced in 1966. There's no controversy about whether today's Sir Paul McCartney is alive. The urban legend states that he is not the original Beatle. oward (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That sentence was put in years ago by people who believed that without it, the article implied that the claim is true. It wasn't supposed to be humorous, believe it or not. Also, not all urban legends are false, so there's no absolute statement in the article that McCartney is not, in fact, dead.

But let's see how things go now that you've removed it. If nothing else, it may prevent the vandals who put "allegedly" into the sentence and pat themselves on the back for being wicked clever. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to change

As stated by many others, this article is way too long, to the point of absurdity. Having said that, I don't think that having a seperate clue page for each album is the way to go, either. The main bulk is created by each clue having its own paragraph in the article. Considering there are numerous clues in each album, that soon adds up. I propose keeping each album as sub-headings within this article, and limiting the clues to a list under each subheading with only a line or two of explanation for each "clue". Sub-sub-headings for each clue need to go also as we have a Contents box that is too long and unecessarily complex. We don't need to intricately document each and every single possible clue that has been dug up over 40 years, just enough to provide a good enough overview of them. There are plenty of webpages that go into further detail that can be included in External Links. Liverpool Scouse 00:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with your eminently sensible idea is that this page attracts silly additions (Paul's wearing black, which means death! Paul's wearing white, which means death! Paul's wearing red, which is the blood after the accident! Paul's not wearing red, because he bled it all out after the accident!) like sugar attracts flies. You are asking for an unending edit battle keeping them away.

Much better, IMHO, is moving all the clues to one separate page (Clues that Paul is dead or something like that) rather than a separate page for clues from each album. The silliness can explode there, and we'd keep only a very short summary of them here, to give casual readers an idea of what form they take. - DavidWBrooks 12:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It certaintly can't stay this way, that's for sure. Let's have a shortened, suitably encyclopaedic article that gives an overview of the hoax and background as to how and why it came about, and the main bulk of the clues elsewhere. Top idea. Liverpool Scouse 18:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested it a while back, but it was caught up in the re-merge-ing of all the separate album-clue pages into this one (which I objected to strongly, without avail). Let's see if anybody objects before we do it. - DavidWBrooks 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been 3 days or so with no objection so far. Any suggestion of how long would be appropriate to wait before we start this remodelling? Liverpool Scouse 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What should the other page be called? Clues that Paul is dead? Kind of a clumsy name, but I can't think of any other ... - DavidWBrooks 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Paul is dead clues or Paul is dead: clues more or less clumsy do you think? These 3 are probably the only viable options. Liverpool Scouse 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the last one, but the colon might offend some wikipedia stylists, and the first is hard to read, since "dead clues" looks like a single phrase. So let's go with my suggestion, do you think? - DavidWBrooks 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I notice this article had a contested FA nomination, perhaps this "clean up and clear out" of the excessive clues details might provide us with a clean platform to work towards something like that again. Liverpool Scouse 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's done - work needs to be done on the intro to Clues that Paul is dead, and probably to the Clues section in this article, too. - DavidWBrooks 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the page has been moved to a longer, clunkier title - DavidWBrooks 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been on Internet-free vacation for three weel\ks - I gather that the clues page went to AfD and died? - DavidWBrooks 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion

The article should be merged with the Paul McCartney article, and Paul is dead should redirect to the Paul McCartney article. Mr Richardson 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Captain Infinity 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• 'Disagree - a quick mention on McCartney's page, directing to this article, is fine. This is enough of a weird phenomenon in itself that it shouldn't be lost amid the musician's biography. - DavidWBrooks 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - Mr. Richardson, I reverted your blanking of this article and redirect to Paul McCartney some days ago. Whilst now you are doing the right thing by discussing it here first, the article is still best left here. It's too long to be included in the PMcC article, and even a recent AfD nomination saw the result as Keep rather than Merge. Perhaps you can elaborate on exactly why you propose this merge? Liverpool Scouse 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree McCartney's article failed an FAC because of its size (amongst other complaints) so it doesn't need more. --andreasegde 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax by Beatles

I'm amazed that the article doesn't mention the widespread speculation that the whole thing was a joke by the Beatles. Perhaps accidental at first, but eventually intentional. I haven't done research but I remember that being a popular theory at the time. I remember watching a TV show that presented the 'Paul is Dead' theory like a trial and asked you to be the jury.... I digress... anyway, I'll poke around for a reliable source, imho, this should be in the article. Dlabtot 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

There are too many and they should be used as references in the Notes section to fatten it up. :) --andreasegde 09:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When/if Faul/Paul dies.

What will this article be called? Paul was dead? Helpsloose (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Paul is Dead" refers to the urban legend, not to an existential state. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

However, Paul was dead would undoubtedly be the best article title in all of wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul will have been dead might be a good article when he dies. I think the title of this section is being a bit, uhm, optimistic, when it posits that Paul might not die. Mykej (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be named something like "Paul was dead in 1966". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But which McCartney is dead.

My edits to the article have repeatedly been rejected out of hand. We will never be able to prove that the original is still alive or whether it is the look alike that has been alive for all these years. "McCartney is alive and well as of 2007" implies to me that the original McCartney is still alive, "A McCartney is alive and well" expresses with NPOV the fact the we will never know which McCartney is alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.20.84 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I will respond to this argument. (I'm curious: Are you making the same edit to every biographical article in wikipedia - after all, we can't *prove* Queen Elizabeth or Dali Lama or anybody else is still alive. They might have been replaced by a lookalike too and we just haven't noticed the clues yet!!!!)

This article discusses the urban legend's existence, not argues whether it is legitimate. So please don't add the edit again. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. There's a pretty clear consensus that this is an urban legend, a fringe theory with no actual basis in fact. OTOH, Wikipedia's foundation is verifiability and citations to reliable sources, so if you can find a citation to a reliable source in which some doubt is expressed as to whether or not Paul McCartney is alive, perhaps it would be appropriate to add that to the article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Evidence?

I'm shocked to see that there are only currently two pieces of evidence throughout the whole article, and that there's no real section addressing the evidence (I could be wrong; please correct me if so). I think to make this B-class article into an A-class article, we need all the evidence we can get about "Paul Is Dead" and and put it into a section entitled "Paul Is Dead Evidence" or something. --ObentoMusubi - Contributions - 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is lacking in this regard. Apparently, before I started editing the article, there was a list of clues at one point, which was removed for some reason. Perhaps someone who's been working on this article longer can weigh in... Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Look up at the talk page or the article history from about six months ago - this was a LONG discussion. Clues were in this article but absolutely swamped it; everybody who wandered by added some tidbit that they'd once heard from a friend about something cool from some Beatles song (we even had clues from songs recorded before the "death"!!!), and it turned into a moronic trivia pit - so they were pulled out as a separate article, exactly as you have suggested above, which I thought was a fine way to proceed. But then somebody else thought that article was too trivial for a fine establishment like wikipedia, so it was put to a deletion vote and lost. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument could be made, by the way, that the interesting thing really isn't all those idiotic clues - it's the mere existence of the phenomenon itself. Hence there's no need to list them. In a way it's irrelevant what people think they hear when they play songs backwards; what's interesting is the fact that they convince themselves that they hear something which supports their wishful thinking. That's why this is worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like if it's reliable sourced, some more information about the purported clues would be appropriate. Maybe I'll find some time to look at those old discussions. Dlabtot (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, and it's nice to actually have some people agree with your suggestions (for the longest time for me, it was the exact opposite here). I think you guys have really good ideas. I'm not a big Beatles person myself, so I don't know the whole "Paul is dead" hoax (although I love his solo and his work with Wings). Maybe I could proofread the article for you guys because of my lack of knowledge. Cheers! --ObentoMusubi - Contributions - 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting)Go back in the history of this article in June of 2007; you'll find a very large "Clues" section within this article. If you like it, you can use it to create a new article. Clues that Paul is dead was the original title of the other one, later changed to Supposed clues that Paul is dead before it was deleted (part of the issue was what to call the other article; nobody could think of a good title). If you're psyched, give it a shot. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did that. Please help me save it from deletion. Chewy5000 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Batman222.jpg

Image:Batman222.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GreatHoax.jpg

Image:GreatHoax.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy on 'References By The Beatles'

I had an edit rejected which cited the famous "The Walrus Was Paul" line from "Glass Onion" (White Album) as a 'Reference By The Beatles'. I added this because John Lennon explicitly said the lyric (and the song) was intended to poke fun at Beatles conspiracy theorists. See the article on 'Glass Onion' for confirmation of this. Now, if this famous line doesn't qualify as a 'Reference by the Beatles', why does the 'Death Cab For Cutie' song by the 'Bonzo Dog Band'? Surely that's much more speculative as a 'refence' to the hoax, given that no Beatle has ever made a direct link, and the only relationship seems to be the idea of paul as "the Cute one"? 143.167.86.32 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point (I'm the guy that removed your edits, largely because it mentioned the black-carnation "clue" and clues are a hot topic in this article!). Feel free to re-introduce the lyric, perhaps with a quick mention of Lennon's explicit comment. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Death certificate (lack of)

Is it worth mentioning that in the UK, every death must be registered and a death certificate issued. The indexes to these certificates are public documents and can be checked by anyone. The index for 1966 does not include a James Paul McCartney (or James McCartney or Paul McCartney) of about the right age. Therefore the death theory falls at the first attempt to check its veracity (comparison with official records). Bluewave (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Has somebody done that record check, and is it online somewhere we can reference? - DavidWBrooks 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at drafting some stuff but it is difficult to find citations. Most people who refute the PID theory, seem to do so either on the grounds that it is obviously nonsense, or else they get into the detail of arguing about the "clues". Hence, I can't really come up with anything sensible that doesn't look like original research. However, the fact remains that every UK death requires a death certificate (and I've checked the whole of 1966 myself, for McCartneys). Not only that: every sudden death requires a coroner's inquest, and there is no easy way to keep them concealed, because they are held in open court and the press always attend. The other thing that never seems to be addressed is the number of people who would have known about the supposed replacement and have kept silent ever since. Without knowing any great details of McCartney's friends and family in 1966, I could think of about 30 people who would have noticed the change (so the total must be a somewhat larger number). None of these pracicalities seem to be addressed by the conspiracy theorists! Bluewave (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If Paul is not dead, then...

It would be really easy for "Paul McCartney" to prove he is the real deal. Simply take a DNA test. Why has he never done this, to end the discussion once and for all? Maybe "Faul" has something to hide...98.220.43.195 (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because they sell enough albums from people who are looking for clues to be bothered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.226.213 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The hoax is so obviously untrue that no proof is needed.

In order to conduct a DNA comparison, there needs to be 2 sources of DNA. They would need a sample of DNA from pre-1966 Paul McCartney to compare the current DNA of the alleged "Fake Paul McCartney". I imagine finding any pre-1966 DNA samples from Paul McCartney is highly unlikely. Side note: I think the comment previous to mine here should be removed, being as it is unsigned, and is clearly POV, being as it is not "obviously untrue" else there wouldn't still be debate decades after the "hoax" emerged.TheRanter (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

three members?

A claim that a hoax was perpetrated by The Beatles themselves, either as a joke or to stimulate record sales, was denied by all three original band members. All three? They were four... It is not clear to me who is excluded... --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch ... wonder how long that has been there? I changed it (and added a lid, so it's clear you're not part of the above commentary). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And it has only been here since 17 February 2009: see this change. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ringo Star probably denied it too, but he wasn't an original Beatle. Have you forgotten Pete Best?—Kww(talk) 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Ringo isn't an "original Beatle" is, IMHO, nit-picking. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You treat some pretty large things as nits, then. John, Paul, and George were a trio. Stuart got added, Pete got added, Stuart left, Pete got fired, Ringo got hired. The Beatles played for two years under the name "The Beatles" without Ringo. Nitpicking would be arguing about Stuart Sutcliffe, who performed with them the first day they performed as The Beatles, but was not a founding member of The Silver Beetles, counts as an original Beatle or not. Sutcliffe died in 1962, so he couldn't have had an opinion on the "Paul is dead" thing.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bogus counter-argument

There have been lots of rebuttals of certain clues which seem to be, and sometimes were shown to be, themselves false. An example is the reason Paul had his back to the camera on the back of Sgt Pepper - it was said he couldn't make the shoot and it was in fact Mal Evans standing in - nonsense of course.

There's a hint of a similar example in the article, regarding Paul's moped crash:

"McCartney was involved in a moped crash on December 26, 1965, which resulted in a chipped tooth and the scar on his lip that can be seen on promotional videos for the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" single, made shortly after the crash, in May 1966."

Hold on - if the scar on the vid was a result of the crash, then why was it not seen for some 5 months?? And the chipped tooth - where is it in the first half of 1966? This account is surely flawed as it does not follow logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.165.196 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The item doesn't say nobody had noticed the chipped tooth prior to the video, it only says the tooth is visible in the video. Are you aware of video taken betwen Xmas 65 and May 66 that shows him intact? (If so, that would be very interesting!) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Biometric Analysis

This section needs an English language source.

I also belief that the section is not balanced, but I do not have a source at hand for an opposing view. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it smacks of publicity-seeking foolishness, but just because it strikes us as silly doesn't seem strong enough to label it as "dubious". I wonder if we can find anything that has criticized the claim. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's dubious partly because the only source (so far) is not in the host language for this wiki and because there's only one source and because it seems patently obvious to the average person that someone with PM's talent wasn't waiting around for the real one to die so he could step in and take his place, while other people (father, brother, girlfriend) decided it was OK for the surviving Beatles to replace him with a look-alike. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, their conclusion is certainly dubious - but from that point of view, the entire article is dubious. The point is, is it dubious that two people with the reported credentials have made this claim in a public, somewhat reputable place? If they have, it's worth mentioning here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is not dubious; it's supposed to describe the hoax/myth and the response to it by the public and the media. The main point is English-speaking editors can't verify that the source actually asserts what's claimed in the article, and thus leaves a weak, hard-to-believe (dubious!) claim. Perhaps the source describes the claims, and also includes counter-claims, or indicates that scientists dismiss the method as unreliable? — John Cardinal (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm italian, and a contributor of the italian wiki, so i guess my participation could be useful. Actually the article explaines how, considering several biometric parameters (teeth, lips, jaw, trago) there is the POSSIBILITY that the Paul we know isn't the real Paul. But the article ends with one of the two experts (Gavazzeni) saying "I still don't know what to say", while the other one (Carlesi) says, "Doubts are strong and discordances are numerous, but it's not possible to speak with absolute certainty [...] I have to say that anthropometric analisys has to be NECESSARILY (caps by me) equipped with exams of other kind to formulate a forensic test 100% sure". That's it. If needed i can translate parts of this article, or make a short summary (but NOT translate it all, damn... i have a life ;-). Make me know.Willyminor (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A summary translation of the article would be wonderful, particularly since it sounds like your reading of the article is different from the summary we currently have - the article seems to be more tentative than our description. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Willyminor, a summary translation is a nice offer, but we can't use it as a source. I am not sure if that will effect your willingness to do the translation. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the original article is still the source. An english summary would be a useful aid to those editors who can't cope with the original language of the source. Bluewave (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The original article is not a reliable source because it cannot be verified by English-speaking readers or editors. A WP editor cannot do the translation because that's WP:OR (a translation involves interpretation of the meaning). Can someone who thinks this content is important to the article find an English language source that describes the "Biometric analysis" project?

This is OR and so I know it doesn't belong in the article: one of the two authors of the "Biometric analysis" article has a long history with this hoax and has a clear point-of-view on the matter (he's a believer). I wasn't aware of that—I'm not a hoax enthusiast!—until I did some Googling the other day after reading the paragraph in this article. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How parochial can we get! Surely we don't regard something as unreliable simply because it not written in English! Bluewave (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not parochial at all. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, readers of the English Wikipedia speak English and we can't expect them to know every possible language that might provide source information. Without being able to read the information, they can't verify the source, and that makes the information useless as evidence: without an English source, we have to accept the interpretation of the source by editors who know Italian, and that makes them the source, and that's WP:OR and not allowed. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. See WP:NONENG. Dlabtot (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected; I had not seen that part of WP:RS. I think it's a very bad rule, as it allows what happened here: an editor has added content that is not supported by the actual source and there is no way for the overwhelming majority of users to know that. I don't care enough about this to pursue it any further, as most editors who have commented here want to keep the so-called "Biometric Analysis" (i.e., looking at photographs!) and I am tired of shoveling against the tide. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But please note that keeping the mention in this article doesn't imply that their silly conclusion is correct, any more than having this article implies the hoax is correct; it merely draws attention to a publication that approaches the hoax in an unusual manner. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think the biometric analysis article is worth a mention, as it seem totally relevant to the subject of the article. However, I am quite sure the PiD theory is complete nonsense and, as I have said earlier in this page, it doesn't pass any sort of credibility test when you look at practical details such as the how sudden deaths are treated under English law, and how many people would have to have been involved in the conspiracy. No amount of biometric analysis can change that, but it is of interest to the article. Bluewave (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the biometric analysis, I have no opinion. My comment here is about Bluewave's statement that "it doesn't pass any sort of credibility test when you look at practical details such as the how sudden deaths are treated under English law, and how many people would have to have been involved in the conspiracy." That statement requires the assumption that Paul McCartney's alleged death was handled by the Police, for which there is no evidence of. The film "Paul McCartney Really is Dead" claims that when the responding officer reported over the radio that it was Paul McCartney, the accident scene was immediately secured by a British MI5 Agent operating under the codename "Maxwell" and therefor there is a possibility that it wasn't handled in the same manner in which the Police would have handled it. And the number of people involved in the cover up of Paul McCartney's death wouldn't be too many at all. According the film, the conspiracy/cover up consisted of the 3 remaining Beatles, The lone Responding Police Officer, "Maxwell" the MI5 Agent, "Rita" (the girl who allegedly caused Paul McCartney to lose control of his car resulting in a collision with a tree, and his death), and the "Fake Paul", and the parents of the real Paul McCartney, so 9 people. Now granted this information needs to be researched to determine it's validity, but it does suggest that it wouldn't be hard to cover up the death of Paul McCartney, if the circumstances surrounding the accident given in the film are correct. TheRanter (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've Googled a bit, but the only results i've found in english are just forum threads, most of all taken from this WP page... I do agree with John Cardinal when he says that translation involves interpretation of the meaning, but anyway we're speaking about scientific concepts, so i guess translation wouldn't be that different. Well... i'm going to do a short summary of the article. I don't know if it will be usful or not, but anyway it's a good way to exercise my english ;-)

The title is "Chiedi chi era quel Beatle", and it means "Ask who was that Beatle". It comes from a popular italian song titled "Chiedi chi erano i Beatles" "Ask who were The Beatles".

This is the beginning of the article: to write a song like Yesterday it's better to have a cranium somewhat round. If we would like a more rock song, like Get Back, it's better to have a cranium tighter and longer. The fact these 2 songs have the same author carries straight to the heart of the brainteaser that since 40 years has a name, or better an abbreviation: P.I.D. (Paul is Dead). The Paul we're speaking about is of course Paul Mc Cartney that, besides Yesterday and Get Back, has wrote tens of succesful pop-rock songs. Paul is at the center of one of the more curious, persistent and articulated urban legends of every time: the one mantaining his death (kept secret) has been in the august of 1966, and the substitution with a double destined to continue his triumphal and profitable career. So far.

This is the beginning, the continuation of the article makes a summary of the PID stuff, and then starts with scientific speeches. I'll summarize them tomorrow (or ASAP).Willyminor (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This section hinges on the words "it is possible that the images are not of the same person", but these are weasel words (the word "not" is optional in such constructs) so as it stands, I think the section should go. —Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not presenting the article as being accurate or not - wikipedia isn't taking a stand on the reality of this analysis. We're including a short mention of it as a reflection of ongoing interest in their weird Paul Is Dead phenomenon, so I don't think it's significant whether it has weasel words or not. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, so I've just done some needed copyediting. —Wrapped in Grey (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article mention ...

... the song "Come Together"? It was one of the big elements of the conspiracy hoopla. And also, what about the album cover (I forget which album) that had a heart-shaped flower arrangement over what appeared to be a casket? As long as we're gonna talk about silly stuff like this, at least mention the major elements of the conspiracy theory. Worldrimroamer (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Long ago the decision was made not to list all the "clues" that get cited, because they're almost endless. (They were compliled for a while in a separate, enormous article, but it eventually lost a deletion vote.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think, however, that the matter should be revisited, you're welcome to do so! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Gascoigne is dead?

There seems to be a similar phonemenem involving football player/rapper(?) Paul Gascoigne that he is also dead suggested for exzample this link[1] & this link[2]. Should there be a similar article about Gascoigne? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No joy? When there is any give us a bell asap. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no joy? When there is any give us a bell asap. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is wikipedia - if you think it deserves an article, go ahead and create it. You don't need permission. If others disagree with that, they'll let you know. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do in future. Warn me if it causes a state of emergancy though. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

An added note: If it deserves to exist, it doesn't deserve to exist in this article, since it has no direct relationship. (It's already been reverted by somebody else.) Try creating a separate article and see what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Random question about this phenomenon

One thing I've never understood, and would like for someone to explain, is this. If the Beatles went to such lengths to cover up Paul's death, why would they then leave clues to that effect? I'm not attacking, just genuinely curious. 109.186.171.128 (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't and they didn't, because it didn't happen. The whole thing makes no real sense, of course. - DavidWBrooks (talk)

I personally agree with you, but I'm asking how those who believe in this explain the discrepancy. It's a question I ask about many conspiracy theories based on overt "hints" - if they (whoever "they" are in that particular instance) went to such lengths to hide the truth from the public, why are they leaving hints? Is Paul's body double The Riddler? 109.186.171.128 (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody but a few wildly deluded souls really believe this story - it's a sort of extended joke or a way to make a few bucks selling books/magazines. I wouldn't expend much effort trying to analyze it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it explained thus: The lookalike was inserted into the group to keep the lucrative Beatles business going rather than ending the act. The group felt they wanted to let the fans know but couldn't do it explicitly. Hence the clues which the fans would get, while the record company executives would not. (It's all nonsense of course.)109.157.137.251 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the film "Paul McCartney Really is Dead", it wasn't the Beatles that wanted to cover up Paul's death. The film purports that the remaining Beatles where ordered by a British MI5 Agent named "Maxwell" to keep quiet about the death of Paul McCartney. MI5 feared that if the news of Paul's death were exposed at a time of such hysteria over the Beatles, and Paul McCartney himself, that young female fans around the world might start committing suicide. It goes on to state that the Beatles were told to stay quite or risk being killed themselves. It then goes on to claim that John Lennon was in fact the driving force behind placing clues of Paul's death into their music and album artwork, and that eventually Lennon felt that they were so popular, that there was no way "Maxwell" could kill them, and so he made the decision that he was going to come clean about Paul's death, which the film claims is why John Lennon was killed. As to the validity of this I can't say at the moment, but I think that this subject deserves serious scrutiny, as if it is true, it should be known. TheRanter (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing

No one owns this article. Radiopathy, please stop reverting my changes to use American spelling (it deals with US radio and TV programs, and US sources), as well as changes that improve the overall sentence structure. You have not discussed any reasons for your changes, but I have documented mine. You are wasting my time and going against Wikipedia policy that invites collaboration.Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The English variant used needs to be consistent throughout the article, and is based on the topic of the article. It isn't chosen sentence-by-sentence based on the topic of the sentence. The Beatles is a British band, and British English should be used in the article.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as the article deals with events in the US, US sources and an American phenomenon. I see nothing that suggests because the subject is indirectly British (about one of the ancillary Beatle phenomenons) that all spelling and usages must be British. In addition, Radiopathy has reverted all my edits, not just spelling, including many edits that improved the sentences. This is inappropriate and is not collaborativeParkwells (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

If you'd watch my talk page you'd see that I replied to this. I don't agree that your edits are an improvement, but if you want to put them back in, I will not revert, but leave the UK spellings as they are. Radiopathy •talk• 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I made improvements to sentence structure and grammar: e.g., correcting the use of two different verb tenses in one sentence; added article name, publisher and author to cites, per WIKI MOS; identified a dead link; deleted OPED words per WIKI MOS; used active voice more frequently, per WIKI MOS; and a variety of other copy edits. The article deals with an American phenomenon, so much so that it is not covered in the very extensive The Beatles article, which is why I think it is appropriate to use US spelling. It arose in US newspapers, US radio and US TV.Parkwells (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Growth (of rumor)

I broke up the last sentence of the Terry Knight material because the second portion of the quote, about radio stations using his song as a "tribute to McCartney" was not referred to at all in the Stoller interview. That assertion needs a citation if it is to be kept.Parkwells (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrected cites

Most of the cites have been added to for author, article name, publisher, etc., so if you make edits, please maintain the full cites.Parkwells (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Beginnings

I am surprised that this article doesn't mention the origin of the rumor being the January 1967 car accident involving McCartney's Mini Cooper. Apparently the car, being driven by an acqaintance, was wrecked and rumors began circulating around London that McCartney was dead. The February 1967 issue of the The Beatles Book addressed the rumor in the Beatle News section. Under the headline "False Rumour" it read:

"The 7th January was very icy, with dangerous conditions on the M1 motorway, linking London with the Midlands, and towards the end of the day, a rumour swept London that Paul McCartney had been killed in a car crash on the M1. But, of course, there was absolutely no truth in it at all, as the Beatles' press officer found out when he telephoned Paul's St. John's Wood home and was answered by Paul himself who had been at home all day with his black Mini Cooper safely locked up in the garage."

Also, I think the article should be more clear how some of the details of the back-story, such as the identity of McCartney's stand-in William Campbell, were invented by Fred LaBour for his article. Piriczki (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article had mention of a car crash, but only as an example of how "clues" in songs can be interpreted. After much debate, it was removed, because no reference was given for the tale. You appear to have a real reference - although what the heck is "The Beatles Book"? (ADDENDUM: wikilink has been added to answer my question!) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1967 car-crash caused a minor British rumour that didn't last more than a day or so. The article topic however, is the American (and then international) 'clues'-based rumour that occurred in late 1969 and for which the time of death was conjectured as 1966. Ostensibly, the two rumours are not related; you would need a WP:RS (such as Reeve's book) for a claim otherwise. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with a rumor, it's difficult if not impossible to document something that was spread by word of mouth. It's important to remember, though, that the first September 1969 article was not the beginning of the rumor, it was the first published account of a rumor which already existed. The question is for how long. Granted, the initial rumor was short-lived and limited in detail but it would have been quite a coincidence if two rumors that were essentially the same had developed independently of each other and weren't connected in any way. Keep in mind that The Beatles Book was also available in the United States and many would have read about the January 1967 rumor.

I don't know if it's definitive proof or not, but a couple contemporary accounts seem to view the rumors as one in the same. In a November 2, 1969 New York Times article written by J. Marks, who collaborated with Linda Eastman on the book Rock and Other Four Letter Words, he recalls first hearing the story in the fall of 1967 from a friend of the Beatles, including the details about it happening "last November" and a double posing as Paul. Both of those details were central to the later version of the rumor. Also, in the November 7, 1969 Life magazine article, Ringo is quoted as saying "it's a load of old crap" which seems to indicate the rumor had been around for some time. Piriczki (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Two Years Late

How can Detroit radio station dj Gibb and the Michigan college kid LaBour be credited with starting/popularizing the "Paul is Dead" rumor in September and October 1969, when the Beatles press office issued a statement on October 21, 1969 refuting the story as a "load of old rubbish" that had been circulating for about two years? The "Beginnings" paragraph is this article should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.62 (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Gibb and LaBour are credited in Reeve's and Patterson's books (the nearest things we have to WP:RSs). If you have a more RS that says otherwise, please add it to the article. The press office most likely were referring to Paul's car being written off in '67 and knew little of the substance of the new rumour (William Campbell etc.) Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading some more October–November 1969 newspaper articles I found a couple more references to the story being around awhile. In this October 23 article about the unfortunate fellow who had the phone number contained in one of the clues, it says he had been "getting calls from America, night and day, month after month." This November 22 article about the rumor mentions that "speculation during the past two years reached a high pitch here in recent months." Piriczki (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The MMT 'phone number' had been there since '67; the fact that people dialled the number before late '69 in no way implies that they thought that the number related to the topic of this article. Yes, there had been mumblings re McCartney prior to Gibb/LaBour but it's not clear that this is significant or related — there had been similar mumblings re other famous people/musicians. The consensus is (Reeve, Patterson, etc.) that it is likely that the true source of the '69 rumour will never be known. Certainly though, the article body starts abruptly so some background info would be useful, but we need WP:RSs. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The article about the telephone number says that callers would ask to speak to characters from Beatles songs and that "all wished to know if Paul McCartney was alive." Piriczki (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Blatant omissions?

How come the article doesn't even contain terms like "Faul", "Phil Ackrill", "William Campbell", "Billy Shears" and "Billy Shepherd"? I'd say EXTENSIVE expansion is due. And yes, I will try to contribute, but I encourage others to do so too. --uKER (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the history of the article - many of these things have been removed or trimmed over time, particularly the Billy Shears ruminations, because they couldn't move beyond poorly sourced speculation. Good, sourced expansion is welcome, of course, although a few blogs saying "I think this photo looks like that photo" may not pass muster from the editing crowd. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Corpse

I'm afraid I'm teetering on the brink of an edit war, so I'm bringing this up here. Regarding the interpretation of Paul on the cover of Abby Road as a clue, neither of the cited sources say anything about a walking corpse - one says that corspes are barefoot, and often wear blue suits, but none talks about corpses walking, or being out of step, and nothing like the current statement. That's why I've kept reverting.

Currently it says: "McCartney is dressed in a blue suit without shoes, and is walking out of step with the other Beatles as would, supposedly, a resurrected corpse.[1][14]"

I would prefer: "McCartney is barefoot and walking out of step with the other Beatles."

Am I missing something? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only corpses are barefoot, nor is wearing blue suits common to them. In the absence of a proper source to link barefootedness or blue-suitedness to the depiction of McCartney, this is synthesis in an over-optimistic manner. Sure, some writers may have made the comparison, but that's just their opinion, and is no better (or worse) than anyone else's. I agree we should stick with a description of McCartney on the cover (which is verifiable by, er, looking at it), and leave interpretation out unless properly sourced. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The cover was interpreted by many in '69 as a funeral procession—and you can't have a funeral without a corpse! But true, some rework/citing may still be needed. The original interpretation was I believe LaBour's: "Paul the resurrected, barefoot ... just walked out of a cemetery". — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking the given sources we have "Paul, the corpse, is out of step with the other Beatles" and "Paul McCartney is death, out of step with the others; dressed in black; and barefoot because that’s the way bodies are buried in many parts of the world". Seems as though all the elements are there? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How about: "McCartney is barefoot and out of step with the other Beatles, symbolizing death." (the sentence does make it clear that the article doesn't make this claim, but is relating that the sources made this claim. It's just that I think we had gone beyond what they claimed). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we could lock it down with a direct quote?:

Another was the interpretation of the Abbey Road album cover as symbolising a funeral procession; as described by Harbidge: "John, dressed in pure white symbolises the preacher or heavenly body. Ringo, dressed in full black symbolises the mourner. George, in scruffy denim jeans and shirt symbolises the gravedigger and Paul, dressed in a shabby, out-dated suit and barefoot symbolises the corpse." — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good way to go. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Beetle 281F and Billy Shears

There is a massive amount to read through so sorry if this has already been covered, the Volkswagen Beetle has a registration that ends in F which was what all new registrations from August 1968 to August 1969 had to have. It just so happens that it is 281 F which could be seen as 28 IF Paul were still alive further fuelling the disproved theory.

It was reported that the look alike selected after the death was Billy Shears a London singer. Who must subsequently have composed some worthwhile music and done the "Wings Over America Tour" he was a pretty good musician in that case, good enough to have been in The Beatles during the time of most popular member Pete Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.134.77 (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A Bit Of Trivia

I was watching the american children's show "Icarly" when I noticed something. While bantering randomly for a skit , Jennete Mcurdy (sorry about spelling) says "I Buried Paul" This is an obvious reference to the "I buried Paul/Cranberry sauce" Myth. Beforehand Nathan Kress says "I think i'll go to the cranberry parade". Would someone decide if this is worth including or not? Thanks - NDGKH (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... Just a note

With as much attention, regarding editing, as this page has seen, I have to say that the facts of the hoax, or a cogent telling of it are not apparent. No offense, but I think this whole page needs to be redone. There is a huge lack of data here and not just in regards to the small details regarding album covers, song lyrics, back-masking and the like, but just the basics of the initial crash, the ensuing argument, the news reports, etc. Since nary a mention has been made on the McCartney main page, I would think those concerned would tidy this page up a bit. Just saying. No offense.

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, as it's hard to know what's been deleted or debated, but isn't "Wednesday November 9th, 1966" the date that most people center on regarding this 'incident' regading the accident?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrUnitPanic (talk • contribs) 07:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page and having read it, would direct you to various comments made about "clues": how they took over the article as everyone added their two pennyworth, and were then hived off into another article to prevent their endless profusion. This article then went to an AfD vote and failed. OTOH I too have noticed that their is no mention on the McCartney main page but hesitated to add one as I thought it might be expanded into a long section in an already long article, and I wasn't sure where in the main article it would go. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the whole clues argument, I would disagree that we need more details about "the initial crash" - since there really was no crash, just confusing about other accidents - or the "ensuing argument, the news reports". There is plenty of detail (IMHO) about all that, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments

Okay, I just want to take the time to mention a few things here and list some links that may be useful for sourcing further additions to the article -- Although it has escaped the attentions of the primary authors of this article (not trying to be snarky there, 'cos you all have done a great job, on the whole), the popularity of this rumour experienced something of an explosion a little less than a decade ago through several different sites (http://60if.proboards.com/index.cgi and http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/ to name two). David Icke's message boards also regularly host long and drawn-out discussions on the topic, with most degenerating into insanity and being locked. This is, for the most part, the present life of the rumor. These sites are where, aside from the privacy of individual Beatles fans' homes, the vast majority of discussions on the topic take place, and where people new to the rumour first hear about it. Something like that's got to be notable, hasn't it? I run a site debunking the rumour and consider myself something of an amateur expert on the topic, so I'll be using my knowledge to add to the article in the near future.

I just wanted to make it known that I'll be adding some new info to the article in the coming months regarding these sites, and that I welcome help from anyone interested. Kudos on a great article so far. Evanh2008 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability before editing. Discussion boards, blogs, self-published sources and original research are not considered reliable sources and any content derived from such sources will likely be reverted by other editors. The fact that the topic is discussed on the internet is not, in itself, notable. Discussion of just about every topic imaginable takes place on the internet. Piriczki (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Doing a little preparation (including looking at old Talk Page discussions about what has been added/subtracted in past years) will save you a lot of frustration. This is a weird topic and it's sometimes a little hard to know what is and isn't appropriate for the article.

Having said that, don't be too shy - wikipedia depends on interesting additions from knowledgeable folks. If you're unsure, add something and explain why on this page you think it's notable. Just don't get offended if other editors don't agree and squelch it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I will certainly take them into consideration and do the best I can to find proper sourcing.Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, all. I noticed recently that there have been some edits made recently that attempt to draw conclusions based on the Wired article, which does not exist in a professionally translated English version, and, from what I understand, clearly disowns the idea that it made any kind of scientific conclusion to this "debate". Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't sources on an English article required to be in English themselves, per Wikipedia policy? Also, I'd like to point out that speculation on this page ought to be carefully monitored and removed, as it seems to fall squarely under WP:BLP. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources in English are preferred here, but other languages are not excluded if they are reliable and provide input otherwise unavailable. In this case, I am surprised that the English language version of "Wired" does not appear (to me) to carry a translation. Even so, we could ask an Italian speaker to comment on the validity of the Italian source, although i confess I have no idea how we would do that! Hengist Pod (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From the rough translation I've read, as well as the pictures I've viewed from the article, I'm going to come out and call shenanigans on it. In particular it draws on pictures of Paul that have been unequivocally proven to have been manipulated, as well as so-called "comparisons" which were made by a man (alias: SunKing) who has been proven to be a liar and to have doctored evidence (see here for an overview of the manipulated "evidence" used in Wired: http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=essentials&action=display&thread=3860). I would move to purge all mention of the "Wired" feature from the article on those grounds, though I honestly don't know whether or not I would be accused of POV for doing so. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember, the Wired article is not being cited as a source, it is only mentioned as an example of references to the legend in popular culture. In that regard, I'm not convinced the Wired article is noteworthy to begin with, or at least some better examples could be found. Also, keep in mind that the content of the Wired article is not a matter for debate in this article or its talk page. Piriczki (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on both points - the Wired article is an unusual example of the way references still percolate in unusual places, and is well worth mentioning. Also, this talk page is a good place to talk about the content of the Wired article, as long as the discussion is in relation to how it should be described in this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Wired article being mentioned, per se. But if it's going to stay, we need to mention that the evidence therein was manipulated. From what I understand, the only reason the Wired article exists is the online stuff I brought up a while ago (see above), which was started by a guy from Italy. As I see it, we can't be simultaneously be decrying the PID situation as an "urban legend" (first paragraph), and leaving the question open-ended as to what a supposedly scientific study concluded, when there is clear reason to be convinced that foul play was afoot. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that someone was still studying photographs of McCartney looking for clues 40 years after the rumor surfaced and a magazine published the article is what is notable here. The conclusions may be complete nonsense but they are irrelevant and don't even need to be mentioned. One unique feature of the study, if I'm reading it right, could be the use of a facial recognition system. Perhaps that could be mentioned but that's about it. Come to think of it, the Wired article is actually more of an example of an analysis as mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph rather than an example of a reference in popular culture and as such, I'm not certain there is a valid reason to point out this particular study over the other unnamed analyses. Piriczki (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That was kind of my point. I think the article itself is probably notable, but in the interest of accuracy, if we're going to say anything at all about the conclusion of the article, we need to state that the photos used were manipulated. I'm still debating whether or not to add mentions of SunKing's stuff to the article, seeing as how insane it is. The more I look into it, the more I think it doesn't deserve a mention. One particular theory advanced by SunKing and his ilk is that Paul was replaced by an aging female WWII spy, who was also the real Paul's mother (I wish I was kidding). Honestly, they make the 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like perfectly reasonable, well-balanced individuals. I really don't think we ought to give that kind of insanity a voice here, unless we can be 100% sure that it's notable. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing any conclusions made in the Wired article, then there is no need to state the photos were manipulated (which would require a reliable source, by the way). I've never heard of this SunKing and I doubt any such material would pass as a reliable source. Besides, the subject of this article is a rumor which flourished briefly in 1969. Yes, there is continued interest in the phenomenon, and that is notable, which is why there is the "Aftermath" section of the article. However, associated fringe theories propagated by various individuals are not within the scope of the article and have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. That's what blogs and discussion boards are for. Piriczki (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New Evidence of Paul McCartney Being Dead.

There is a Documentary film titled "Paul McCartney Really is Dead: The Last Will and Testament of George Harrison" which claims that:

• In the summer of 2005, a package arrived at the Hollywood offices of Highway 61 Entertainment from London with no return address.

• Inside were two mini-cassette audio tapes dated December 30, 1999 and labeled The Last Testament of George Harrison.

• A voice eerily similar to Harrison's tells a shocking story: Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in November of 1966 and replaced with a double!

• British intelligence, MI5, had forced the Beatles to cover up McCartney's death to prevent possible mass suicides of Beatle fans. However, the remaining Beatles tried to signal fans with clues on album covers and in songs.

There is much in this film which lends credence to the theory that Paul McCartney died in a car accident in 1966 after leaving the recording studio following an argument between the members of the Beatles.

I am willing to watch the documentary film over again and transcribe it for use here, but I need to be at least somewhat sure that I will not have done so for no reason. I understand your skepticism about this theory, as before watching that documentary I would have agreed with you. But if what this film claims about receiving 2 mini-cassette tapes with George Harrison's voice on them is true, then we must consider the possibility that it's true that Paul McCartney is in fact dead, and that he was replaced with a double.

I've taken a long shot and sent an email to the Director of Highway 61 Entertainment, the company who produced the documentary. I explained that I am working on editing this page, and asked if I can obtain copies of the actual mini-cassettes to verify that they do in fact exist. Of course I'm not counting on a response, but it never hurts to try. TheRanter (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no tapes, that is the fictional backdrop for the film which is a faux documentary or "mockumentary" which rehashes some of the more fanciful details of the rumor that have been around for decades. Piriczki (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, then he will likely tell me that in his reply, if it comes. I'll wait and see. I find this whole topic intriguing, so I will continue to do my own research on the subject in the meantime. TheRanter (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or he/she/they might take the opportunity to further confuse things for the fun of it, which is the whole point of many mockumentaries, by pretending that things are real when they're not ... so approach any response with caution. Having said that, the existence of a mockumentary about this topic is probably worthy of mention, regardless of its veracity. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It already has a mention: it is referenced as one of "several books, films". I can't at the moment see why it should deserve special treatment. IMDB has it as documentary/fantasy. Uniplex (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't wsee that it was already mentioned - I agree that it seems sufficient. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am going to be trying to figure out is whether there is any information in that film that isn't already included on this page, and see if I can find any corroborating sources to validate it. Here are some things I remember from the film:

It states that McCartney got into a heated argument with the rest of the Beatles at the studio and left. It goes on to say that McCartney picked up a girl named "Rita" in a blue dress who was walking down the road in the rain. "Rita", according to the film, didn't recognize Paul McCartney until after she had already been in the car for a short period of time. Upon recognizing McCartney she passionately attacked (for lack of a better term) him whilst he was driving, causing him to swerve and lose control of his car, resulting in a collision with a tree, in which McCartney's head was split wide open, which killed McCartney instantly. It also went on to claim that the Beatles were brought to the scene of the accident to confirm it was McCartney, which is where a British MI5 Agent named "Maxwell" came into play. "Maxwell" allegedly walked up to the remaining Beatles and stated something along the lines of "Kind of looks like a Walrus, doesn't he?" which the film claims is the origin of "I am the Walrus". I think this really might deserve some attention. Call it a hunch, a gut feeling kinda thing. TheRanter (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AFAIK, Joel Gilbert is not regarded as a reliable source (WP:RS) on this topic so his script would not qualify for inclusion here. Uniplex (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice I said: "What I am going to be trying to figure out is whether there is any information in that film that isn't already included on this page, and see if I can find any corroborating sources to validate it."

I am not suggesting that the film is the truth, I just think that this deserves scrutiny and researching, as there seems to me that there is information in that film which has not been mentioned on this page. We as researchers cannot just arbitrarily dismiss possible leads on information, just because they are contained in a questionably sourced film. We can only dismiss information after we've attempted to verify it and failed to do so. I may be new at editing pages here on Wikipedia, but I have been a researching various topics for a decade now.

Also worthy of mention is that the film makes use of the Beatles own music and album art as evidence, like the frequent backward-masked messages contained within their music. TheRanter (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are probably many often repeated details in the film that are not in this article, but only because consensus was reached previously to avoid listing every detail and clue here. Keep in mind the film in question is a fictional retelling of the rumor and any "new" information therein is merely the product of a screenwriter's fancy, just as many of the enduring details of the story were the product of a Michigan college student's fertile imagination. Any new embellishments to a decades old story wouldn't seem to be of much importance. Piriczki (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the proper way to look at this. Isn't this a page about the "Paul is Dead" Theory? Why shouldn't it include as much information as possible? The "clues" are a part properly portraying the theory, and as such they should be included. Take a look at the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page, it covers a very large amount of information relating to various different theories, so it seems to me the more info the better. This is an Encyclopedia after all, it's supposed to cover the topic as thoroughly as possible with the available verifiable information. We as researchers can not allow our own preconceived notions about a subject to effect our research, anyone who cannot do this should step away from the subject, as it is detrimental to the accuracy of the page. Not making accusations here, just pointing that out. TheRanter (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Check out the archived discussions and you'll see that the consensus a long time ago was not to list "clues" (e.g., backward-masked stuff and pictures on the cover art, etc.) because this article became an endless sea of stuff that somebody somewhere thought might indicate something. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think that is the wrong way to go. Look at it like a criminal investigation. An entire case can go down the tubes because of one missing piece of evidence. Same here. How can this page possibly portray the "Paul is dead" theory if a good bit of the information is discarded as irrelevant? If information can be verified, it should be included. And I also think that the backwards-masked audio and hidden clues in album art should be referenced here, because it is an integral part of the theory, call it circumstantial evidence. Just like a person can be convicted of murder with no physical evidence due to circumstantial evidence, a theory can be gain credence through cumulative evidence. You can not portray how to add to 10 with "1+...=10", and similarly you cannot portray a theory properly without including the evidence which supports it. TheRanter (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It *is* referenced here - it just isn't listed in tedious, silly detail. (At one point in earlier incarnation, people were adding song lyrics from *before* the supposed accident!) The article's description gives readers an idea of the sort of "clues" people cite; there are lots of online places where they can hunt down details, and listen to "I buried Paul" clips to their heart's content. And remember that this article is not designed to give credence to this theory or to debunk it, merely to give an overview of its situation in understandable format. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article shouldn't be too weighty. But, I also think that there should be a reasonable number of examples of the information fueling the theory. I think that if there is any new information available, which I feel there might be, it should be researched, and included if found to have validity. TheRanter (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm new at editing here on Wikipedia, so I have a question... Can a video, say from YouTube for example, which is of an interview on a legitimate TV Program for example, be used as a source on Wikipedia? TheRanter (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is understandably nervous about YouTube videos, see the guidelines here: [3] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was of the impression that use of Copyrighted Material on Wikipedia is considered acceptable under Section 107, Title 17 of the U.S. Code, being as it is Copyrighted Material used for educational purposes... If I'm wrong, which I am fairly certain I'm not, could someone please explain how I am? TheRanter (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Follow the links, read the items, check it all out - the issue is complicated. Just saying "we're educational, so we can use it" isn't enough. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So it would be better to list the source as what TV Program it appeared on, and when, rather than to link to a video of the TV Program which may be posted in violation of the copyright, even though my linking is used in an educational context, correct? TheRanter (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question "isn't this a page about the 'Paul is dead' theory?" The answer is no, it is not. This article is about a false rumor that flourished for a few months in 1969 and was quickly disproved. The rumor was repleat with an elaborate, but fictional, back story that tied into purported clues found in Beatles recordings, lyrics and album covers. Continued interest in the Beatles and facination with the rumor and its myriad of clues has made it an enduring social phenomenon. While the story contained some elements of conspiracy, these were among the many fictional embellishments to the rumor and not an indication of the existence of a conspiracy theory surrounding a real event. Piriczki (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The point I am trying to get across here is that the makers of the film "Paul McCartney Really is Dead" claims to have received 2 mini-cassette tapes marked as "The Last Testament of George Harrison", which the film claims the recordings were of an "voice eerily similar to Harrison's" which goes on to lay out a fairly convincing argument that Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in November of 1966 and was replaced with a double. This film also claims that the Beatles were under orders from "Maxwell" the MI5 agent to dispel the rumor themselves, or risk ending up like Paul. I think there is more to this, and I feel that it's not getting the proper attention it deserves. I could care less whether it turns out true of false, my point is that as researchers, it is our job to look at all of the information, especially when there might be new information, and assess it's validity, regardless of our opinions.

I'm sorry Piriczki, I do not mean to offend you, this is nothing personal... But, after looking at your other comments here, it appears to me that you have come to a conclusion about this subject, and I think that you shouldn't be editing this page anymore. I'm only saying something because I take researching quite seriously. I want this page to be handled properly, and you really portray a bias towards this theory being false, which isn't objective. Again, I'm sorry, I meant no offense. TheRanter (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison? is a fiction movie with a voice actor reading a script. If you cannot grasp that concept there is nothing I can say to further your understanding of the subject. Piriczki (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get this information from? I would like a source. TheRanter (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The theory IS false. Paul McCartney is alive. That is an objective fact, established by consensus. Fringe theories, which are demonstrably false, are not to be given equal weight to independently verified facts. A few comments on the "George Harrison" film, which may or may not be helpful: 1. First of all, the voice sounds nothing like George. Anyone who has ever heard the real Harrison speak for more than twenty seconds could tell you that. 2. The film wants us to believe that George Harrison, on his deathbed, had the energy to speak clearly into a tape recorder, remembering specific details of events that had occurred four decades earlier. It's also interesting that the result of this recording attempt (supposedly made on George's deathbed, mind you) sounds remarkably like a studio narrator, speaking of every twist and turn in the story with an increasingly dramatic tone, almost like a PROFESSIONAL NARRATOR. 3. "George" makes the claim that Paul's funeral was attended by a priest, the rest of the Beatles, and Paul's parents. Parents. Parent(s). Paul's mother had been dead for nearly a decade at the time of Paul's supposed death. And what about Paul's brother? 4. Only A Northern Song -- A song written and sung by Harrison himself. "George" claims that it’s a Lennon song that contained even more clues for the fans about Paul’s supposed death. 5. My personal favorite -- Heather Mills is claimed to be the Rita in the song Lovely Rita in this film. That song was written and recorded in 1967. Heather Mills was born in 1968. Draw your own conclusions. But if you think Paul McCartney is dead, you are wrong. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have already stated elsewhere in this discussion, I take researching quite seriously, and I requested a SOURCE. Coming from you is not a source. I want a link, or a reference to material which supports your assertions. And about the voice in the movie not being Harrison's... Have you stopped and considered the possibility that maybe the tape itself was not recorded continuously, and that maybe there were things on the tape that the producer of the film thought to be inappropriate to include into the film, and so the decision was made to re-record it using a voice actor? You need to consider all of the possible aspects, and more importantly you must source your claims, as per Wikipedia's rules. I want a source, please provide one. TheRanter (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you are the one asking for information to be included in the article, YOU need to provide a reliable source backing up the idea that the movie is anything other than, at best, fiction, and at worst, absurd contrived BS that makes use of a dead man's image and likeness to further belief in a long-since disproved conspiracy theory. You do that, and we'll talk. I don't have to "consider" anything unless you have evidence for it. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. This whole set-up raises one giant WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources to back them up. Not a self-declared documentary. Otherwise we might as well use the Blair Witch Project and Apollo 18 (film) as reliable sources, both of which are in the "newly-discovered true tapes" category of films. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting using this movie as a source. I am suggesting that there might be some truth contained within it... And I'm done for now, I'm too tired for this right now... I'll be back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanter (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One last thing, how is this a WP:REDFLAG? I have kept a WP:NPOV. Any information I've included here today was information from the film in question. I really don't see how anything I've said here today is a WP:REDFLAG... Be back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanter (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The claims of the film are covered by REDFLAG, because they are on the fringe side. Your description of the film is ok. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TheRanter, re your statement ‘I take researching quite seriously’, remember that WP is no place for ‘original research’ (see WP:OR). Researching for WP is more like collating other people's research, where ‘other people’ are those considered to be experts, or at least knowledgeable, in the article topic. So it doesn't matter whether you or I believe that Harrison is/isn't speaking on the tape. The most likely source of new information for this article would be a new book published on the subject of the Beatles or the urban legend (taking a scholarly approach), or news reports from mainstream news agencies. If there were newsworthy facts presented in the film you mention, the chances are we'd have had news reports by now. If you're thinking, "What if there's a cover-up?" then please read WP:FRINGE carefully. HTH, Uniplex (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

External links

I see that an external link has been recently added which, IIRC, was previously removed on grounds including WP:LINKVIO—does this no longer apply? I also recall that we had other links: "site refuting the evidence presented in the above site" or somesuch, so if LINKVIO doesn't apply, presumably NPOV dictates that the other links should be re-added too. Uniplex (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Link violates WP:ELNO #2, 4 and 11 and has been removed. Piriczki (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NOT OBJECTIVE

This article needs help from an expert. Spend an hour on youtube and you'll discover that the clues are very indepth references to pop culture that the average American, college student or not, might not know. To say that this came from a bunch of crack pot kids in every way denies what we all know about the music industry as well as the marketing industry. This is too cleverly crafted and well put together. Some thought went into this. Either Paul is dead or someone wants us to think he is. This article can not be considered objective or complete without a nod to the music industry's known habit of manufacturing a gimick to sell records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.33.150 (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite what many people think, "I don't trust XYZ, for good reason" is not the same sentence as "anything bad that I can dream up about XYZ must be accepted as true." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. For anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

capital T in The Beatles

Just FYI, The Beatles with a capital T is the name of the band, used a bazillion* times throughout wikipedia as well as elsewhere, not Beatles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• give or take umpty-zillion

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Names (definite article), which is quite clear that "the Beatles" is to be preferred. Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

However, consensus is for the capital 'T'. Radiopathy •talk• 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That style guide is just plain wrong. Just as with The New York Times, capitalized T is part of the name. It's not a style question, any more than whether to capitalize the "n" in New Orleans. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The example shown above is incorrect, "the" in The New York Times is capitalized because it is part of the title of a book, magazine or newspaper, not a proper noun. The Manual of Style is correct. Piriczki (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Check this document, in which shows the Fab Four signing a trademark certificate trademarking the name "The Beatles" ... not "Beatles". A style guide about whether to capitalize "the" according to type of nouns does not override the legal name of the group. [4]. On a more practical level, (a) who gives a hoot? and (b) changing it throughout every wikipedia article would be an endless job, akin to the fight over types of dashes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I give a hoot, and will continue to correct it when I come across it. The legal document says nothing about capitalisation, and we all agree, I think, that the Beatles' name is "The Beatles", not "Beatles". Rothorpe (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(unindenting) Man, you lost me on that last sentence, in which you yourself used the capital T in mid-sentence because it's correct, yet you argue that it should be un-capitalized because of a wiki guide (not a law or Word From On High). I will also continue to correct it - that is, make it a capital The - when I come across it, too. Maybe we'll collide in an infinite loop ... but at least this keeps us off the streets! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not the only ones to tangle over this issue, as a quick hunt through archives of the Talk page on the Beatles shows: [5] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones wikipedia article appears to use lower-case the exclusively ... but The The, perhaps the most deliberately annoying/clever band name in rock history, uses upper-case. For what it's worth. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you're investigating the issue and not being dogmatic. As I remember, 'The The' was an exception because 'the The' would look plain silly. Also a capital T in The Beatles looks better in links, and in inverted commas, and when you talk about the name as a name: they called themselves The Beatles. But once you're just referring to the group, it's customary to drop the capital T, which is why the MoS says what it does. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fingerprints

Would it be noteworthy to include a counter-"clue"? When the Japanese arrested him around 1980 over pot charges, they took his fingerprints, and they were identical to the ones taken in 1961 by Hamburg police from when he'd been arrested for alleged arson (that story about him and John nailing a condom to a wall and setting it on fire, over their frustration due to the fact that George was being deported for being underage). --87.151.25.243 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence disproving the rumour is probably not necessary at this point. It would also require a reliable source and this sounds dubious to me. Piriczki (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

List of "clues"

I apologize if this issue has already been settled in all of the preceding posts, but I don't think I have the time to read through all of them....

I agree whole-heartedly that this article is not the place for a myriad of "clues," especially since this could very easily degenerate into a mess of individual opinions about how you can interpret a particular lyric, photograph, etc. Nonetheless, as this is a very well-known urban legend, and one of the more unsual bits of Beatles lore, would it be possible to have a separate article that was a list of supposed clues? It would have to be monitored fairly closely, to avoid becoming a trainwreck...so in the end, maybe it would be more trouble than it's worth...any thoughts??? PurpleChez (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You have accurately summarized the entire history of the issue. A list of "clues" was once part of this article; it grew so unwieldy that it was pulled out into a separate article (figuring out what to call that article was a tough one - List of Clues That Show Paul Is Secretly Dead Even Though He Isn't or something like that) which turned into such a cesspit of fanboy/conspiracy/I-was-once-told-something/joking glop that it was killed by an AFD vote. (It even included "clues" from songs recorded *before* Paul supposedly died!) If you want to restart it, please be prepared to devote most of your wikipedia time to patroling it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I laughed out loud reading your post. I've gotten a kick out of the whole Paul is Dead thing since I was a young fan in the late 70s. But your wise counsel makes it appear that it would all be more trouble than it's worth. The existing article could always link out to other sites with lists...maybe it already does. Either way...thanks for the input!!! PurpleChez (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Happily, today he just "proved" he isn't dead, yet again. What's significant about the whole episode is that people were so concerned, the conspiracy theorists came out and were able to get a wide hearing. People were that afraid of losing him.

While it's a good textbook example of how uncertain information can run away with you, I do think the details are overdone. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Tripe

Testament of George Harrison? I am from Liverpool. I know the accent. I have one. I know George Harrison's accent having been familiar with it since I was a kid. The accent on that tape is a clearly faked Liverpool accent to the point it is funny.

My nephew met McCartney by chance about 10 years ago. Paul recognised his Liverpool accent and immediately started to talk about Liverpool and how it was. No fake could have that knowledge.

Why would McCartney's family have anything to do with a fake?

It is very difficult to hide a death in the UK. No official details of this supposed car accident have ever been given. The crash, etc, is all traceable.94.194.102.190 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)