Talk:Paul is dead

I have to ask

This has been bothering me. Assume for a moment that the article is true: that Paul died and the Beatles decide to cover it up. Then why in God's name would they leave clues about it? What do the believers in this conspiracy theory claim in answer to that? Kimpire (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't bring logic to this party, my friend - you will be very lonely. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

One explanation was that they were testing the fans' perceptiveness. Another was that they were breaking the news slowly to save fans from overwhelming grief. Look at what happened when they just blurted out that Zayn was leaving One Direction, you can't have that. Piriczki (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If by "explanation" you mean "wild, groundless flights of fancy" then, yes, those are explanations. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources for those explanations? Because I think it's a large hole in the article (not to mention the theory ;) ) and would be valuable additions. Perhaps a "Why they left clues" sort of subsection. Kimpire (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a hole in the article, perhaps, but not in the theory; in the context of such conspiracy theories concerning the alleged actions of the Illuminati, there is an element of Satanic philosophy termed "Satanic mockery", whereby the acting entity (in this case MI5, according to the Paul is dead theory) would have been deriving morbid satisfaction/amusement from blatantly, arrogantly hinting at what they had done. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've wondered about that for almost as long as I've been aware of the whole thing.... ;) PurpleChez (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You're all forgetting the "conspiracy" part. Back when I dove into all of this as a kid, the whole point was that The Man was trying to pass a fake Paul off on us to preserve his filthy record profits. But of course the other three Beatles were outraged by this lack of respect for their departed brother. So they were sending us messages in a bottle, naturally. They'd been forbidden to tell anybody about Paul's mishap, so they sent us encoded messages. Things like "he blew his mind out in a car" and "I buried Paul", that no-one other than a teenaged Beatles fan could possibly recognise as a clue that he was dead.

'Course, if The Man was that terrified of losing all his money that he'd go to all this trouble to cover it up, seems he'd also balk at firing John for saying "Paul's dead" right out loud on camera. And John was not famous for his obedience to authority.

But don't over-think it, man! This is a messed-up world, man! Laodah 01:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "proof" in Wired Italia

After doing a little original research, I discovered that almost all of the "evidence" put forward in the Wired Italia article claiming to offer positive proof that Paul was replaced, is taken almost verbatim from a PID website. Additionally I and my friend searched the web trying to find any trace of the purported forensic analysts who made the discovery and found nothing, and one of the photos in the article appears to be doctored to make Faul's face longer, enhancing the differences between the two pictures.

I personally believe there's enough evidence to give the theory some credence, but I won't stoop to fraudulent reports to try and back it up. This news article is a sham and has no credibility whatsoever. 150.143.97.91 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Area?

Is there an area in the article we could set to indicate some of the "clues"-such as this one I just figured out and was trying to include but did not in which the band members are crossing a street on Abbey Road, which could, theoretically at least, indicate a clue about "crossing over"? Antonio Antonio is Dead! Martin (Answer me and you'll see Im still alive indeed!) 04:19, 21 December, 2018 (UTC)

This has been much, much discussed in the past - you can see it in the archives of this Talk page. The consensus at the moment is that we don't need more "clues" that people make up - listing a couple of the most famous ones gives a sense of what we're talking about. In past years this article has been swamped by "clues" and at one point a separate article was created listing them all, but it was deleted as being "original research". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Clues again

There's an editor who wants to expand the list of "clues" around Abbey Road - the 28If license plate, etc. etc etc. I have reverted it as part of the continued discussion about not larding up the article with them, but others may want to join in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And there's an editor who doesn't appear to be familiar with the requirements for fair-use of non-free images and other files ... I raised the need to ensure that the significance of the Abbey Road cover image is well established in the context of this article – you don't address that concern at all. Right now there are four non-free images in this article. Two of them have no third-part commentary whatsoever; another one (the Life cover), I've tried to add something suitable for, but it's pretty weak.

I looked through the talk page archives, briefly. What I see at a discussion like this from 2012–16 is you constantly batting away other editors who suggest, not a list of clues, but more of a presence for the main ones. You say in that thread: "The difficulty for wikipedia is establishing a hierarchy of legitimacy, explaining why we would mention these two imagined things but not those 17 other imagined things. There's no official source about which clues are more important than others, which is why various editors in this Talk have mentioned many different ones. As you suggested, listing "clues" cited by the very earliest publications to mention this folderol is one approach, although sourcing old radio shows is hard." Well, that's wrong on almost all fronts. Many reliable sources do identify the main clues – the same ones keep coming up – so that level of coverage is our guide. And there's an article dedicated to Paul is Dead in the Mojo Special Limited Edition title that outlines the clues cited in the first print and radio stories on the rumour; several books on the Beatles do also.

Where has it been decided that just two clues is sufficient, as you claim? But more importantly, what state was the article in back then? I've expanded it a fair bit since late last year, with details on its emergence, growth, reactions from individual Beatles, exploitation in songs at the time and in books and documentary films in the decades since, and significance as a phenomenon for academic study. Given that expansion, I can't see why a couple more clues shouldn't also appear. It doesn't make sense no to. And particularly when there's a non-free image to support. (You've been watching over this article like a hawk, but you've never objected to the mass of non-free content – images and music samples? Just any violation of this two-clues thing.)

I'm not wanting to see a litany of mindless clues, at all. Simply, a more detailed description of the Abbey Road sleeve clues. JG66 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

At one point there were so many clues that we created a separate article about them - which was later killed as pointless fancruft. Look in the archives and you'll find it. The existing details about Abbey Road are sufficient IMHO to justify the image; adding more clues about the same topic will invite adding yet more clues (the cigarette! the license plate! the foot placement! wait, here's another one listed on a web page!) and there we go again.

The reason I put the mention here in the Talk Page is to gather more editor comments. This discussion dates back years and perhaps opinions have changed; wikipedia is an evolving process. Anybody else want to chime in? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me you're being very evasive. I'd be grateful if you would supply a link to support the consensus you allude to and the hidden text that appears in the article's Clues section: "!--Editors: Please do not add any more clues; after much discussion on the talk page, it has been deemed that the two given are sufficient to illustrate this aspect of the subject--" Also, you're continually failing to address the point about our needing to ensure that the significance of the Abbey Road sleeve is sufficiently established to allow us to include the image here. (I've uploaded dozens of non-free images on Wikipedia and am very familiar with the requirements for establishing fair use. I notice you've not uploaded a single non-free file.)

Btw, for any other editors dropping into this discussion, all I've been looking to add under Clues is: The number plate of the white Volkswagen Beetle in the photo was identified as further "evidence", the characters "28IF" representing McCartney's age "if" he had still been alive.<end note: The fact that he would have been 27 in late 1969, rather than 28, was dismissed with the rationale that, in the Hindu tradition, infants were one year old at birth.> That the left-handed McCartney holds a cigarette in his right hand was also said to support the idea that he was an imposter."] Everything there is supported by first-rate sources, including a Mojo article dedicated to Paul is Dead.

Wikipedia is indeed an evolving process but it seems to me, from looking at the first talk-page archive, that now you might still be stuck in a 2006–07 mindset. (Back in June 2006, the article looked like this – unsourced, OR, POV waffle – and it was quite rightly carved up.) But since late September last year, I've added plenty of information regarding cultural context (suspicion in the wake of the Warren Report, the abundance of conspiracy theorists in the US after events of 1968); comparison with Welles' War of the Worlds hoax; studies of the phenomenon in the fields of sociology, psychology, communication; Camille Paglia's interpretation, etc. But for some reason, no expansion is permitted when it comes to outlining the clues relating to the sleeve of the album that was at the centre of all the frenzied analysis (and, to repeat, an image whose inclusion we need to justify to satisfy fair-use requirements). I'll post notification at the Beatles' project page. JG66 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The other information you've added is fine, which is why we aren't discussing it. My argument is that two examples from the Abby Road cover is more than enough - it gives the reader a good sense of the kind of things that people called clues and it provides justification for the image. Adding two more "clues" is pointless filler, it seems to me - why not three more? five more? - regardless of where they are referenced. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not pointless, the Abbey Road cover was one of the main sources of the rumours and is covered extensively by reliable sources, just two examples is not sufficient to demonstrate its importance. The 28IF licence plate is mentioned in virtually every article I've read on the subject and must be included here IMO. JG66 is also correct that there needs to be detailed critical commentary of the cover to justify its inclusion here per WP:NFCC #8.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, go ahead. I've probably become overly cynical from facing years of goofiness in this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Coming to the article, I was sorely disappointed, as I was looking for at least a list of the major clues. Just two? Seriously? There's a mentions of references to other Beatle songs in White Album lyrics -- what does that have to do with "Paul is Dead"? To ignore the direct reference to the conspiracy in "Glass Onion"'s lyric and the associated MMT clues -- I mean at least explain how "The walrus was Paul" was interpreted. I won't attempt to add the material. I know what will happen. It'll get reverted. The wikipedia hoedown. 162.225.124.179 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

WKBW broadcast "Paul McCartney is alive and Well… Maybe?"

The audio of the original radio broadcast is available to listen to on http://blog.buffalostories.com/tag/sandy-beach/. Seems to be the media was pushing this story and then blaming it on John Lennon... 72.88.119.216 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

here's another source of the same audio: WKBW: Paul McCartney Is Alive And Well - Maybe, 1969 http://reelradio.com/gifts/pmwkbw69.html72.88.119.216 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

50,000-watt WKBW (1520) in Buffalo, N.Y., originally ran this on Halloween night, 1969, when the "Paul is Dead" theory was in vogue. They re-aired it on Halloween in 1972.Let us eat Lettuce