Talk:Paul is dead/Archive 1

message: Doesn't "hoax" imply deliberate deception?  If I understand correctly, the whole business resulted from people misinterpreting supposed "clues," not from any deliberate action on the part of the Fab Four.  Perhaps "'Paul Is Dead' Controversy," "'Paul is Dead' Allegations," or "'Paul is Dead' Urban Legend."  JHCC 13:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, this article seems to currently be titled "Paul Is Dead", not "Paul Is Dead hoax", although "hoax" is the first real word in the article.  The article states that "Though it has been denied by all four members numerous times, many fans are convinced that the hoax was perpetrated deliberately by the Beatles as a joke."  If these "convinced" fans are correct, then it would be a hoax (assuming of course that Paul Is Live).  But on the other hand, the radio DJ announcement would certainly qualify as a hoax (assuming again that Paul Is Live and also that the DJ knew so).  -- SS 17:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the original DJ announcement would qualify as a hoax (or at least a sick joke).  However, unless the Beatles had deliberately planted the supposed clues and had been in collusion with said DJ (for which there is no evidence, only speculation), then what we have is a rumor, not a hoax.  I've changed "hoax" to "rumor" in the article, with a note that some fans believe that it was a deliberate hoax.  I also changed the second paragraph to note that Russell Gibb's announcement began, or at least accelerated, the rumor. Take a look and let me know what you think.  JHCC 19:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what to think.  I suppose you are right that it can't really be called a "hoax", but I'm not sure "rumor" is a wide enough term to incorporate everything that the article discusses.  What we have here, I suppose, is a conspiracy theory.  -- SS 18:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conspiracy theory" could be tricky, as it implies deliberate conspiracy.  There's a difference of degree between "Paul's dead and there are hidden clues in the lyrics and album covers" and "Paul died in a car crash and the remaining Beatles and their management conspired to hide his death in order to continue to sell Beatles records."  I'll note that some people believe the latter, which will bring conspiracy theory in.  I do think that we should keep "rumor" as our main concept, since that's how it started.  JHCC 16:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Actually, noted that the rumor morphed into a conspiracy theory, which is probably more accurate.  JHCC 16:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title issue 

message: shouldn't this article be called "Paul is dead", not "Paul is Dead"? Kingturtle 04:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many capital letters in title? 

message: Has anyone ever found out who the VW Beetle with the famous number plate belongs to?
The info on the image above says the car was "probably intentionally parked there as a rebus", but other sources I've read just say the car belonged to a local resident. You'd have thought that with all this controversy someone would have looked into this! I wonder if the DVLA has records going back to the 1960s...
: I remember reading somewhere that the car was sold at an action for a ridicilous high price.
: --Husky 14:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LMW 281F 

message: Will this have to be changed in the future after Paul McCartney really is dead?  — JIP | Talk 16:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could always name it something like "Paul is Dead Rumour" or something of the like.  But I say we don't worry about that until he has passed.  Which I'm sure won't be for a while.  He's still rockin', man.  --Jude 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one will create a page called "Paul is Dead" when he does die. There isn't one called "John is Dead", so I think it can stay like this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future changes? 

message: Does anyone know something about the confession that George Harrison should have made before his death and that is shown on very few webpages (for exapmle this one: http://pid90066.tripod.com/PM2.htm )? Did he say that for real?
Well, I don't think so, because it would have published more often and there would be more scandals, of course. But why is that 'interview' not mentioned in the article? I mean, even if it's a fake, it's also part of the "Paul is dead" - story.
The information the link points to is both hilarious, completely credible, and hilarious.
I've seen the same page refered to as an interview from 1992, it's fake.
BOLLOCKS Mr Richardson 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confession of George Harrison? 

message: The leftmost black man is wearing a long white robe, with golden ornaments, as if he were a priest... didn't anybody else think of that?
Also, the men in black (young beatles?), the one in the front (Paul?) is the only one with a black shirt, and no tie, and he has the other ones' hand on his shoulders, as in consolation.
Tordek 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More in Sgt Pepper 

message: The article states that Paul was left handed for all purposes other than playing guitar but in A Hard Day's Night, he signs an autograph with his left hand.  He also generally smoked with his left hand - see p. 246 of the Beatles Anthology book for some example photos.
The statement "Ringo was left-handed" isn't true either.  (See p. 84 of tthe same book for pictures of Paul and Ringo signing with their left and right hands respectively.)
: Is it not possible that some of the plates have been reversed? Both Paul and Ringo were, I believe, left-handed. Is this really so hard to believe when around one in ten of us are left-handed..? --Mal 06:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted your change since it doesn't seem particularly "obvious" - possible, certainly, but not something that can be flatly stated. The previous version, noting that he was only left-handed for playing, was much more useful for the casual reader. - DavidWBrooks 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be flatly stated here because it has been flatly stated by Paul McCartney himself in a 1986 Rolling Stone interview;
Kurt Loder "On a more trivial but similarly ancient note, a new biography of you claims that Paul McCartney, the world's most famous left-handed bassist, is actually right-handed. True?"
Paul McCartney  "No, I'm quite definitely left-handed."
I've also heard him discuss his left-handedness with Jools Holland on TV. I've removed the following sentence as it's completely untrue; However, many people forget that Paul McCartney is only left-handed when playing guitar; with everything else he is right-handed, this includes smoking.
Pufnstuf 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  left handed 

message: It's one of those seminal usenet jokes, really classic.
* Everyone BUT Paul is dead A hilarious sendup of the whole "Paul Is Dead" phenomenon
* Part 2 of "Everyone BUT Paul is dead"
It could go in the "Other references" section.83.105.34.180 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the funny and classic "Everyone BUT Paul is dead" removed 

message: That category is not necessary. Unless it can be expanded, I reccoment it be merged into the opening paragraph again.
:Done.--Cuchullain 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul appears to be alive 

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

message: Why was the pre-Sgt Pepper introduction removed?83.105.34.180 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre Sgt Pepper intro 

message: I'm changing the wording in the opening sentence back to "The Paul Is Dead hoax" from "The Paul Is Dead rumor", which is actually how the original composer of the article put it.  The word "rumor" makes the actual truth of the matter ambiguous, when there is no ambiguity whatsoever here.  This is an encyclopedia, not a cut-rate tabloid.  Let's not lend credence to outlandish conspiracy theories that started off as radio-show jokes.  24.199.113.234 00:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was put there to keep NPOV. If you want to  add more weight to the Paul is Live arguement, perhaps an "Evidence that Paul is Live" section could be added. 83.105.34.180 10:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "The Paul is Dead Phenomenon"? 83.105.34.180 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the very beginning, it was known to be a hoax, a macabre joke. Paul had the definitive word on it at the time: "It's a lot of old crap!" Wahkeenah 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

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

message: Under "Explanations", there is a label that says "This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it."  I don't understand what exactly needs to be added.  It seems completely useless to have it there.  I would delete myself but I don't want to mess it up if someone has a good reason for it being up.
I'd like to help.  If someone can explain that, I'd be happily up to the challenge.  --Jude 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A stub? 

message: I fear there is way too much cruft in this article. It should stick to reporting the hoax as it developed and was documented at the time, and ditch most of the fan-invented elaborations that have been tagged onto the hoax in the years since. --kingboyk 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "fan-invented elaborations", as you call them, show that the "hoax" is still very much alive. Since the article is about the Paul is Dead legend and not the "Paul is Dead urban legend as it was in the 60's", these elaborations are not "cruft", they are as relevant anything else. Billy'sShears 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This topic is getting far too much attention as it is. Why does the article even have to be that long? Mütze 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll never get rid of the over-enthusiastic hoohah, but it doesn't really harm anything; anybody with sense will ignore it. What this article really needs is another couple of paragraphs in the introduction giving more of an overview of the whole situation, for the casual reader who won't go past the first screen. That sort of writing is easier said than done, however; longer is always easier. - DavidWBrooks 11:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... easier said than done, but I just gave it a shot. - DavidWBrooks 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much crap 

message: Can we all agree that the joke about Paul being allegedly alive - ha ha, how clever - has been done to death and no longer needs to be inserted into the opening paragraph by every passing anonymous editor? ... No, I didn't think we could (sigh) - DavidWBrooks 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the ha ha, how clever bit.--Crestville 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note for Mr. Brooks: I wasn't aware that the NPOV dictum was a joke.  That's fine if from your POV today's "Paul McCartney" is the same man as he was before 1966.  There's no reason to incorporate that subjective POV into the article and send snarky messages to people trying to correct it and uphold Wiki's standards. -- J
What a poor argument.--Crestville 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul is allegedly alive 

message: I remember reading when I was younger (about 7-8 years ago) an article in a British newspaper that made the same claim about Noel Gallagher from Oasis. THat he was dead, and had been replaced by an imposter. They used the Be Here Now album cover as 'proof', that the date of release was a tribute etc etc.
I can't remember if it was some sort of April Fool's joke or just press shit-stirring, and I havent heard anything resembling it since, but I was wondering if it merits a mention here. As parody at least.
: Not without a lot more details. - DavidWBrooks 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noel Gallagher is dead?? 

message: there used to be a mention of the fact that Paul is in fact alive in the article (by used to I mean a few hours ago).  I think this is valid and useful - if I'm researching a rumour, one of the first things I want to know is whether the rumour is true or false.  It's true that the information could become dated but (touch wood) I don't think Paul's likely to die this year -MBlume 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article relates to the rumor itself, not to the actual status of Paul McCartney. I don't think it's necessary to say he's alive, because that's not what the article is about. I'd consider it too temporal a point to be necessary. For the sake of an article about a 1960s rumor, what does it matter that he's alive in 2006? When he does die, do we need to change it to say "Paul McCartney died at so and so time." I think it might make some sense to explain in some way that the rumor proved untrue, but I don't see the best way of managing that is by saying he's alive today. If he'd died last week, the rumor would still be untrue. Whether Paul McCartney is still alive is not relevant for the purposes of this article, where the accuracy of the rumor itself may be. Sarge Baldy 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is, although I've trimmed the mention back to the bald fact of his non-dead-ness (jokesters love to mess with that sentence, as the article History shows) - DavidWBrooks 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul is Live 

message: Gazpacho made a WP:POINT of removing the NPOV disputed tag from this article, and went on to state on my talk page that he saw no POV problem in it, which is simply amazing unless there's a language barrier. I'd like to hear his defense of this article's statements like: "cryptic, portentuous", "The most common belief", "as implied in", "According to believers", "Many fans are convinced that...", "an excellent demonstration of...", "presumably due to..." "it has also been alleged", "suggested to be", "seems to resemble", "Believers have interpreted this to represent...", "This is another reference to the car accident", "A TV that is not turned on represents the news blackout about his death", "that may refer to", "In an odd bit of irony", "None of the clues listed from this time could possibly be real because...", "All these morsels were concocted together", "with his usual flair", " if one listens closely, it sounds as if...", etc., etc. wikipediatrix 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not "unneutral point of view", that's "unsourced" - and it's already got an unsourced tag on it. This topic is too fatuous to carry something as weighty as NPOV ... IMHO, of course. It needs to be  and tightened, big time, but just sticking a big ugly box on top doesn't really help much. - DavidWBrooks 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Opinions are NPOV, and most of the items I mentioned above are opinions. We don't need to find a source for "with his usual flair", we need to remove such statements entirely. wikipediatrix 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  True enough. Go ahead! - DavidWBrooks 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  massive POV and OR 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.See footnote
*Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 34 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, the bot can't write "Needs lots of work"? - DavidWBrooks 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol maybe! But it looks useful anyway. This article is at A-class at the minute, and is a high importance to the project, so any help and improvement can only be good, right? :) --Mal 22:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer review suggestions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LMW 281 F another explanation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Way too long 

message: 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)
replies: text: <B>Be Bold!</B> If you can fact-fix an article go right ahead. dreddnott 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  impossible? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Keith isn't a person, he is McCartney's The Picture of Dorian Gray come to life. - DavidWBrooks 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, I think we're onto something here. Gzuckier 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  some sort of android 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I don't believe the theory, but... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  creating subarticles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple pages? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OPERATION: SHRINK ARTICLE? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Now what? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Death Cab for Cutie 

message: This article is hilarious. It ranks right up there with fan death.Isaac Crumm 08:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the article that's hilarious, or just the bizarre concept that it's describing? - DavidWBrooks 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Rotten apple" youtube stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1 ONE I X HE ^ DIE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Magical Mystery Tour Cover 

message: First question with Wikipedia: Is it encyclopedic? This is NOT. Artrush 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is sheer fucking insanity! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I disagree.  Captain Infinity 23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In my opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hoax by Beatles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: What will this article be called? Paul was dead? Helpsloose (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Paul is Dead" refers to the urban legend, not to an existential state. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, Paul was dead would undoubtedly be the best article title in all of wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When/if Faul/Paul dies. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Batman222.jpg 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:GreatHoax.jpg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Policy on 'References By The Beatles' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea. Has somebody done that record check, and is it online somewhere we can reference? - DavidWBrooks 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death certificate (lack of) 

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

text:  And it has only been here since 17 February 2009: see this change. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Saying that Ringo isn't an "original Beatle" is, IMHO, nit-picking. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  three members? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bogus counter-argument 

message: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: If you think, however, that the matter should be revisited, you're welcome to do so! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't the article mention ... 

message: There seems to be a similar phonemenem involving football player/rapper(?) Paul Gascoigne that he is also dead suggested for exzample this link & this link. Should there be a similar article about Gascoigne? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No joy? When there is any give us a bell asap. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no joy? When there is any give us a bell asap. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Will do. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Gascoigne is dead? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Growth (of rumor) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corrected cites 

message: Substituted at 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment