Talk:Paul is dead

message: Why are changes to this article suddenly subject to review before they're accepted? I say "suddenly", because changes I made to the article up to less than an hour ago went through as usual; but now, any change appears to sit in a "pending" basket. Perhaps it's some sort of glitch ... But if it's not, who's imposed this? Who is the reviewer? JG66 (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending revisions 

message: Although the "references in popular culture" sections of all your articles tend to be a waste of space, there is a rather splendid pop culture reference which deserves to be included here but isn't. I refer to "Batman" #222, published in June 1970, in which the Dynamic Duo investigate the rumour that one member of the fictional British band the Oliver Twists, who are clearly the Beatles in all but name, is secretly dead. The cover of the comic is a parody of the entire "Paul is dead" hoax, and really ought to be added if somebody feels like doing it. By the way, Batman and Robin eventually discover that the character representing Paul isn't dead, but the other three are.
: It used to be in this article, with a picture of the cover. Not sure what happened to it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo was removed, presumably as a copyright issue, and apparently the only mention was in the caption. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batman meets the Beatles! (Well, kind of...) 

message: This new sentence
:
needs rewriting.  An inquiry is not a claim; what did he deny, that Paul was all right? —Tamfang (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely yours was reverted on other grounds; I took another stab at this sentence alone, we'll see. —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrow's account 

message: The photo was actually taken in August 1966 during the band's U.S. tour. I don't have a source for this, but that is the date that appears on the captions in every other article it is used. 2601:192:8802:6FA0:1028:59A5:ED1:E3FD (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reliable source and this may be worth discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the articles uses Steve Turner's book as a source for the claim "Stagg was part of the press corps attached to the tour, reporting for WCFL Chicago." There are also many sources in Sgt. Pepper that discuss the fact that the Beatles weren't around each other between September and November 1966. 2601:192:8802:6FA0:1028:59A5:ED1:E3FD (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Find a reliable source that says this was taken in October.  The description of the photo makes no claim to when it taken, only that it was published in October.  So it is entirely possible that it was taken in August.  The original upload also shows the reverse side of the page, showing the chart for the 6th October.  That makes it unlikely that the photo was also taken in October, that very same week.  Also take into account that the Beatles toured Chicago (where the photo was taken) in August, and there is no record of them returning in October.  And why would they do a promotional interview somewhere they'd toured two months previously?  So I'd say that the claim that it was taken in August is far, far stronger than October. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Same goes for the 1967 photo.  If a photograph is published in magazine in July it is extremely unlikely the photo was taken that same month, and the magazine does not state what month it was taken.  This is particularly true when a magazine dated July is likely on the news-stands in June.  Usually it wouldn't matter, no one cares a month here or there and the publish date is as good as any, but in this article the photo date is important and it should avoid claiming an accuracy that is near impossible and not in the source.  (A newspaper photo would be a different deal.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stagg photo is misdated 

message: In the Analysis and legacy section, a Wired Italia article, wherein forensics compared pre-1966 and post-1966 photos of Paul, was cited, and the conclusion said that the photos didn't match. Due to this, the article became used by theorists such as this blog (click at your own risk) as evidence.
However, I found a YouTube video questioning the validity of the article. The problems stated in the video are:
*Some of the post-1966 photos were stretched in order to seem that it didn't match.
*In the comparison of the ears and the mouth, the photos are from different angles. For the latter, different facial expressions are present.
*The photos are of poor quality, despite high quality images of Paul from before and after his supposed death circulate.
*(According to the uploader, this is a stretch) The comparison resembles one made from a believer of the theory who also happens to be Italian.
Is it fine to use the YouTube video in the article?
Chris25689 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of the Wired Italia Article