Jump to content

Talk:Paul is dead/Archive 2F

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wired Italia article

This is a jarring piece of evidence that goes against expectations. As I understand it, Gabriella Carlesi, an Italian forensics expert who specializes in examining evidence from photographs, was assigned the project of examining the photos in the McCartney case, for an article in Wired Italia magazine. She, and the co-author of the article, expected to demonstrate that the photos taken before and after McCartney's alleged death were photographs of the same man. Instead, there were substantial differences in the two sets of photos. Carlesi examined parts of the body that were not modifiable by plastic surgery, such as the tragus, and the teeth in the mandible. I've added some info to the existing place in the Wikipedia article where the Wired Italia piece was mentioned and tagged each bit I added with [citation needed] tags. Perhaps what is needed more than anything is a good translation of the Wired Italia article into English.99.57.128.122 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This issue was previously discussed at Talk:Paul is dead/Archive 2#Recent edits and the conclusion was that the Wired article could be mentioned as an example of continuing interest in the rumor but that its contents were not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. Piriczki (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Article found that says that The Beatles cooked up the idea for Paul's death

Right here Paul McCartney Admits Beatles Planned Death Hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:3A80:11B:F90C:8F7F:BF19:FD25 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You did read the black box at the bottom, didn't you? Britmax (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A new version

World News Daily, <wink, wink> Yngvadottir (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, World News Daily Report is a fictional news site and none of its content can be included in this article. Ringo Starr never said anything purported by that web site and no such interview ever took place. Piriczki (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, hence wink, wink. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Poe's law detected : -) Jonpatterns (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (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)

Reading this I can understand why a comprehensive list of clues isn't feasible, but there are such things as notable clues. The Sgt. Pepper Inner Groove that played backwards says "Will Paul come back as Superman" (it's on YouTube, you can hear it for yourself or find an MP3 of it and play it backwards with software), or the "clues" on the Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road covers. Just adding a list willy nilly is a bad idea because anyone could just say "well I saw this..." but there are clues that have received non-trivial media coverage, as well as reference in biographies, histories of the Beatles, etc. I don't see why a list couldn't be placed here by simply following the sourcing criteria Wikipedia already has in place. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) no it doesn't - you've been fooled by pre-loaded auditory suggestions. If somebody had told us it said "My toe runs backwards often" then we'd hear that - it's how those ghost-hunting people rig the game ... (B) the topic of listing "clues" has been discussed often and many alternatives have been tried, including a separate article. The current situation has been consensus for quite a while. This doesn't mean it can't change, but it require a lot of discussion and effort to change it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried your pre-loaded auditory suggestion, "My toe runs backwards often," and it doesn't work. All I hear is "will Paul be back as Superman." And quite clearly. In contrast I hear nothing intelligible when the clip is played forward. Though if somebody has an auditory suggestion for that I'd be happy to try it. (I'd always wondered what the purpose or meaning of that short segment was about.)
This is a new clue for me (I thought I'd heard them all. The reasonable ones, that is.) Thanks 68.146.52.234 for bringing it to my attention.
(And no, I don't believe Paul is dead. I do, however, believe that most the clues were intentionally done, to increase sales or add intrigue. It's pretty obvious that's the case, and one of the songs pretty much admits it.) SDLarsen (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I just listened to it again, more carefully and slowed down to half speed. It could easily be either "now will Paul be back as Superman" or "now we'll all be back as Superman." (In other words, the "p" is Paul is not strongly enunciated.) I think it's the former because the latter would require the plural "Supermen," but is clearly the singular "Superman." SDLarsen (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Paul himself has spoken about the backmasking of Sgt. Pepper's Inner Grove, but as such that in Fall 1967, a fan came up to him and asked him about the "naughty stuff in there once you hear it backwards". Paul didn't believe him and the fan played it backwards for him on tape, and it sounded like "We fuck you like Superman!" Paul was utterly shocked. So yeah, many people hear "Superman" in there, but even if I try very hard, I can't hear "Will Paul come back as Superman", especially because the consonants are just not there. It only sounds like "ee-aw-yoo-ike Superman".
While Sgt. Pepper's Inner Groove is controversial as a supposed "clue" in how it takes a lot of imagination to read into it what you're quoting and even what it's supposed to say hardly talks about death, there is a much more notable incident that's been written about, and that is when you reverse Julia from the White Album, it sounds clearly like "Paul is dead, man. Miss him, miss him, miss him!", much more than Sgt. Pepper's Inner Goove does ever sound like "Will Paul come back as Superman?" My guess is that either it's a sheer coincidence, or John was making a morbid joke in reference to the early appearance of the rumor from 1967. After all, it's the same album where they spoofed the deep study of their lyrics with Glass Onion. --2003:71:4E07:3E36:6DF2:D4BA:45EE:CA19 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Get a non-English-speaking person to listen to any of these after telling them that it contains hidden messages, and they'll hear something in their own language. It's auditory pareidolia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

While it's clear that a list of clues is unfeasible (and I think that even the "Clues" section as it now stands is tempting fate), it seems to me that the "Beginnings" and "Growth" sections could be expanded just a bit to include a few more of the clues cited by the original Drake Times-Delphic and Michigan Daily articles and mentioned on the Russ Gibb and Roby Yonge radio broadcasts. This would cover most of the well-known clues, provide their origin (as far back as can be traced), be properly sourced, and be self-limiting: cited clues would have to be tied to a source that was significant in terms of the origination and early development of the legend. I think this approach would give more information to the person looking up the page who has heard vague rumors and a few commonly-known clues and wants to see what their origin is. Schoolmann (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember, the clues don't actually exist. The Beatles or George Martin or whoever-you-want did not put odd pictures or rebuses, backwards comments or mumbled noises, or anything else in or on their albums pointing to Paul being dead. The cited "clues" are after-the-fact imaginings by fans or people trying to sell magazines or the slightly delusional. Trying to get too analytical about them is - well, tricky. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: My above comment was also responding to another comment about analyzing clues, which the poster subsequently removed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Alleged clues, then. I'm in agreement that none of these things were intentional on the part of anyone to suggest or support this rumor. But anyone interested in this subject at all is going to be interested in the various items that have been cited to support the rumor. Someone wondering, "I've heard that there are clues to Paul being dead on the Sgt. Pepper album cover. It's all rubbish of course, but still, I wonder what they are?" may turn to this article to find out--and won't. Schoolmann (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
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. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
But even that idea, I find, gets out of control almost instantly: Check the very first article in the Michigan paper and you'll see it's got a dozen "clues" listed, a panoply of silliness that would not only create an unreadable paragraph but would draw every "wait, THIS clue is more important!" addition in the world. So you'll end up with editors choosing which of the "clues" they think are the most important, which gets us back to where we started. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, just an idea. For what it's worth, I would have considered doing this in conjunction with jettisoning the "clues" section entirely. Therefore, mentioning the clues would have been strictly a matter of historical data, and not an invitation for people to take flights of fancy. And let's not forget: it may all be "silliness," but the alleged clues were what the rumor was actually about. It's like having an article about leprechauns but avoiding talking about leprechauns because we don't believe leprechauns exist. Schoolmann (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Go for it, then - but as I noted, limiting it to historical references still involves a ton of items, as well as the difficulty of sourcing old radio shows. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul is dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory vs. urban legend

A conspiracy theory, of course, is a hypothesis that offers a conspiracy as an explanation—an urban legend is a tale, and is not by definition conspiratorial in nature. Paul is dead is a conspiracy theory, as it rests soley on the alleged/proposed basis that some group conspired to replace Paul McCartney; urban legends are stories, and though urban legends share the characteristic of not being proven/known to be real, urban legends do not characteristically involve deception or conspiritorial acts, nor do they characteristically offer any form of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, in an attempt to prove that said tales were factual accounts; hence the entire concept of an urban legend, which is a story some guy tells in a bar that he heard from some other guy somewhere; an urban legend is easily distinguishable from a conspiracy in that urban legends are not based on even disprovable reasoning or assertions, but on no attempts to provide evidence to support assertions of factuality at all. I have removed any mention of "urban legend" from the lead and have left "conspiracy theory" as it was. I encourage any discussion here. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good points all. An urban legend is, by nature, vague about its origins and parties involved. "Paul is dead" is very specific and an allegation of a conspiracy by very specific people. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
By the time the "Paul is dead" rumor gained widespread notoriety in 1969, it had been over two years since McCartney had supposedly died. This begged the obvious question—what about all the public appearances and music created by McCartney over the past two years? There were three primary explanations offered for this inconvenient truth. One was that Paul was dead and had been replaced by a look-alike. Another was that was Paul was not dead and the Beatles were perpetuating a hoax. The other, the one shared by most rational people, was that Paul was not dead and that the supposed clues were the product of some very vivid imaginations. And those rational people that do consider one of the former explanations mostly do so as a fanciful diversion or light entertainment without any serious belief they are true. The treatment of the rumor as form of mild amusement likens it more closely to an urban legend than a conspiracy theory which generally portends something far more sinister. From 2006 to 2014, the lead sentence read "'Paul is dead' is an urban legend..." That version was stable for 8 years and over 3,000 edits which can be assumed to be a form of consensus. The additional text "and a conspiracy theory" was added by an anonymous IP without explanation in 2014. Since the urban legend contains elements of a conspiracy theory, that addition was not unreasonable. However, to identify the rumor as a conspiracy theory rather than an urban legend is misleading.
Also, the first sentence of the section Paul is dead#Beginnings refers to an actual event that occurred on January 7, 1967, not the fictional backstory that developed later that concocted a November 1966 car crash. This edit, where "January 1967" was changed to "January 1966" demonstrates a lack of basic knowledge about the subject of this article and apparently reading the source did not result in any understanding. Piriczki (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the above: It's definitely an urban legend. Whether it's also a conspiracy theory is debatable (in my opinion that's way too serious a term for this frivolity) but we absolutely must have "urban legend" in the introduction. The argument that "urban legend" remained through 3000 edits over many years is a compelling one, as well. I'm going to return it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Also good points. I'm still of the opinion that this is more conspiracy theory than urban legend, but don't have a big issue with it being described either way. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Query about context

I've tried to provide a very small piece of context to this conspiracy theory - that it is common for rumors of unannounced deaths to attach themselves to celebrities. I'm not into edit-warring, but I would like to know why it should be excluded. There seems to be a suggestion that The Guardian is not a reliable source (if I read aright) - is this considered to be the case? The Guardian article offers a list of strange celeb rumors, moving straight onto McCartney after mentioning Lavigne: the reader is quite clearly intended to observe the similarity of the two cases and the similarity of the psychology and environment which produces these stories. Given that both stories are inventions, I am struggling to imagine exactly how a legitimate 'link' could be established between the two beyond observing their essential identity. Are we absolutely certain that neutrality is being observed here, given that it is very much to the advantage of conspiracy theorists to give the impression that their theory is special and unique, and not one of a million humdrum yarns which are spun every day? It seems misleading to have a long article on this subject with no contextual recognition that such stories are common across the board. Surely even a small amount of context should be considered enlightening. Cpaaoi (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, here's some sources which mention the Paul McCartney story in tandem with the Avril Lavigne story, as well as others relating to people such as Eminem and Tupac:

CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/avril-lavigne-hoax-persists-1.4118140 The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2017/may/15/avril-lavigne-melissa-cloning-conspiracy-theories The Mirror, http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/avril-lavigne-died-twelve-years-10425308 Esquire, http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/news/a14920/internet-thinks-avril-lavigne-been-replaced-by-doppelganger/

Reading the article as it is, with no indication of the breadth of similar rumors, one could easily imagine that there might actually be something substantial to the 'Paul is Dead' myth, which seems pretty questionable.Cpaaoi (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the mention is a legitimate addition to this article, with the sources that make the connection. I have returned it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There is only one source, The Guardian that makes the connection. But the edit summary did not make that clear, as I explain below. Dr. K. 12:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cpaaoi: There would be no need to open this thread on the talkpage, had your edit summary mentioned that the second reference also included Paul's case. If you had mentioned that the second reference compares this to Paul's case I would not have reverted your addition. But your edit summary only mentioned that you added the second (previous) reference 'for the full name of Vandella", not because of the connection to this article. Complete and clear edit-summaries help. Dr. K. 12:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Although I admit I've done it myself (life is short and wiki-editing time is limited) it's not a great idea to revert somebody's edit without reading it and checking that the source supported it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was not as simple as that. Of course I read it. How could I revert it without reading it? But there were a couple of edit-summary exchanges prior to my reversion that misled me. The OP of this thread was reverted first by another editor who specifically challenged the source provided: Sourrce does not mention any "link" to this phenomenon. In response, the OP re-adds the same edit and an additional reference without addressing the challenge by the previous reverting editor directly: Fair enough - but this one certainly does place the Lavigne theory in the same tradition as the McCartney story. Quite happy to take this to the talk page if you would like to discuss. Also including the previous ref, for the full name of Vandella That lack of direct response to the challenge, and the offer to discuss this on the talkpage, led me to believe that there was no direct mention of Paul's case in the second source either since I had already checked the first source and it did not include any mention of Paul. Normally, if a source satisfies a challenge, one mentions it in the edit summary. One doesn't offer to discuss on the talkpage if an RS already covers the fact added to the article. So we go back to the edit-summary. Dr. K. 13:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is its notability seems to be predicated on the notion of "similar rumors concerning other celebrities." If it's just Avril Lavigne then just say that. I don't object to this being in the article but don't overstate the facts. The sources mention Taylor Swift and Beyonce but that seems like a stretch, being about cloning and the illuminati. Piriczki (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Any descriptive text added to introduce the Lavigne case may easily become OR if we are not careful to follow what the RS says. Another concern is that this article may slowly become a list of similar phenomena if we keep adding new rumours. Dr. K. 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul is dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (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)

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)

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)

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

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 mention 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)

Missing talk archive

For some reason the Archive pages of the talk section for this article only go back to 2010, six years after the article was created. I know I participated in many discussions (usually about whether to list more clues!) that aren't listed any more. Anybody know what happened? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I searched back through the archives manually trying to figure out how long people have been debating "clues" - I find discussions as far back as 2006. Also, this snippet from December 2006 shows what we're up against when we assert "it's never going to get like that again":
'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).

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Should there be an article for "evidence"?

It seems that there's not enough examples on the page but people don't want all the information. Should there be a second page called "Evidence for Paul is dead" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X7universe (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A list type article for all the clues could be useful but it would likely become a magnet for poor quality contributions and a dumping ground for every outlandish clue and conspiracy theory floating around the internet and will require constant monitoring, so it's probably not a good idea. And it certainly couldn't be described as evidence.
More clues should be discussed in this article though. There was a finite set of 19 clues associated with the original rumor related to three album covers and seven songs. I have yet to see where there was any consensus to not add any more of those clues. Ohnothimagain (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
There were extensive arguments some time back. Essentially the examples were limited as this section was vulnerable to editors adding their "favourite" and the section became longer than the rest of the article. Britmax (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the situation's completely different from anytime in the past, because the article's been expanded so much, with pertinent examples of the extent of the rumour's impact at the time and, especially, with sections covering sociological and cultural analysis into the phenomenon. This point was discussed here up at #Clues again. When I was expanding the article, the only addition I made that was questioned in any way concerned clues in the Abbey Road cover – which was ridiculous, because there's non-free content included and that has to be justified. While I was going through dozens of sources on the subject and adding text to the article, it seemed inconceivable to me that we omitted any mention of the clues from the artwork for Sgt. Pepper – the best-selling and most revered rock album at the time that Paul is Dead really hit, in late 1969. And all because someone decided to limit examples to just two, not with any thought of whether two sources of clues sufficiently represent the subject. I remember going through all the talk archives, and back through the article to about 2005 – I never found any consensus for this limit.
At one point, the article did look like a joke; it was nothing but a long collection of clues, much of it original research. That was dealt with, and it's never going to get like that again. Personally, I don't want to see too much more added but, now that the issue's been raised again, Pepper should definitely be mentioned in some detail. That was the main source of clues in 1969, because the packaging was so elaborate and, for the first time ever, lyrics were printed on the cover. Anything more (to answer your question, X7universe) probably belongs in a separate list: List of clues relating to Paul is dead, or something like that. JG66 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The word "walrus" doesn't appear in the article. What does that say about completeness. Ohnothimagain (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If there was a consensus, it occurred when this was a poor quality article, not as it is now. The other issue is whether there was any debate about which clues to include or exclude. Or was there just an arbitrary cutoff as the article existed at that point? Many Wikipedia articles started out as nothing more than lists because the authors did not have the ability to write about the subject and could only list examples of the subject. Once the lists of examples, whether in list form or prose, were eliminated, the poor quality additions stopped and the articles stabilized.
I suggest presenting the clues in three paragraphs: the first two would discuss the clues associated with the rumor as it existed prior to the release of Abbey Road. One paragraph would cover the visual clues found on Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour and the other would discuss the audio clues. The third paragraph would present the visual clues on Abbey Road that were quickly identified following its release. This would limit the clues to those that existed while it was an active rumor (late 1967 – late 1969) and eliminate the myriad of ever more ridiculous clues added to the story later after it had passed into an urban legend. Ohnothimagain (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Go for it, if you must - but remember that the "clues" don't actually exist. They are after-the-fact imaginings by fans and jokesters and conspiracy theorists and what-have-you, they are not hints deliberately placed in advance by the Beatles. We don't want to say they were "identified" - they were made up via pareidolia and excess pattern-matching and trolling. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be an underlying misunderstanding coloring all of the discussions here about expanding or improving this article. None of the regular contributors are even remotely suggesting the rumor is true. No one is suggesting the clues, hints, signals, omens, whatever you call them were deliberately placed for others to find later to discover some truth. They only exist in one's imagination. No one is trying to pile up a mountain of "evidence" to prove anything to be true, it's simply a matter of completeness.
Another thing to remember about these imagined "clues"; the rumor was not dropped into our laps one day in 1969 which then sent everyone going back to search for clues to corroborate the story they just heard. The search for hidden meanings in the Beatles' lyrics had been going on for several years since they veered away from boy/girl subject matter into unfamiliar and sometimes indecipherable territory in 1966–67. The clues were being "discovered", again, utilizing one's imagination, along the way which contributed to the evolution of the rumor. One can even argue that the search for clues came first. Early on the clues were only interpreted to hint something was going on related to McCartney, to omens of his imminent demise, to the still-evolving version that emerged nationwide in October 1969. Other imagined clues were related to a parallel rumor of a magical Beatles island somewhere. Once again, none of it was true, but it did result in a very real phenomenon that is worthy of covering in more detail in the article. Ohnothimagain (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) Really? I've never heard of any of these clues cropping up before the "Paul is Dead" foolishness began - and I'm old, man, old enough that I was around then, listening to the albums when they first came out starting with Meet the Beatles (I'm in the US) and reading Tiger Beat magazine, which was full of that kid of fancruft. What's our source that the "search for clues came first" because I think that's wrong. This whole silliness was, indeed, dropped in our laps in 1969 and all of the clues were "found" after that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

My first album was Let It Be so I don't have the same personal recollections but I have found plenty of contemporary reports from 1969, including in Ohio newspapers and Ohio college newspapers (Ohio was basically ground zero for the rumor) that recount the evolution of the rumor over the previous two years (1967–68). What I also found was that much of the story was quickly lost to history once Russ Gibb entered the story and began taking credit for starting the rumor. I have loads of content to add to the article but I can see it will be the same old uphill battle to expand and improve it so never mind. Ohnothimagain (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
If you've got actual sources that expand the article in a new way then that's great, go for it. But it should be an uphill battle to add brand-new material to a wikipedia article making claims that don't exist elsewhere - if it was easy to do that we'd be overrun with goofball crap like the rest of the internet and wikipedia wouldn't be worth much. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
There was a cycle for a while where people would expand the section for clues and then someone would have the idea that as the section was taking over the article they would hive it off to another article. After a while this article would be deleted as not notable, or something. I wouldn't get your hopes up that this cycle would not just play out again this time. Britmax (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

COI

fyi - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweethominy. Cabayi (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi: Gosh you've outdone yourself ... Can you possibly say what this Sweethominy has contributed to the article, and not just link to some investigation report that means nothing in this context. To repeat, per Template:COI#When to use: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."
So, again, what is non-neutral about this article? What has this sockpuppet contributed here that brings the article into possible COI? I've written, or rewritten, most if not all of the text, so I can't see how the sock's contributions (whatever they are) have any bearing – the whole thing's well referenced, multiple sources are used. If you could actually engage rather than simply tagging, it would be much appreciated. JG66 (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
JG66, Sweethominy made a movie on the topic and made sure this article mentioned it. After a six year gap in editing he's recently been back for more self-promotion and has been recruiting meatpuppets on Reddit to help do the job. Feel free to remove the COI tag again, but please keep an eye out for a renewed attempt to publicise his movie. Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Cabayi, I've just checked the contribs of all those users listed at the sock investigation – none of them made a single edit here. Even taking your point that Sweethominy has made a film about this subject, that alone doesn't warrant blindly tagging the article. I just think you should show a bit more care before tagging, and especially before reverting when you haven't even started a discussion. It's no trivial matter for a reader to see a banner across the top of a page – the whole article is then under suspicion. In this case, for no good reason, as those contribs show. JG66 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/380275171. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_is_dead/Archive_2F&oldid=1157954416"