Talk:Paul is dead

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)

Pending revisions

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)

Batman meets the Beatles! (Well, kind of...)

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)

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)

Rumours declined after an interview with McCartney, who had been secluded with his family in Scotland, was published in Life magazine in November 1969. During the 1970s, the phenomenon was the subject of analysis in the fields of sociology, psychology and communications. McCartney parodied the hoax with the title and cover art of his 1993 live album, Paul Is Live. In 2009, Time magazine included "Paul is dead" in its feature on ten of "the world's most enduring conspiracy theories". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.165.184 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is an opinion, not a fact

The term "conspiracy theory" is an opinion, a form of editorializing. The page also uses the term "defies logic," when the reality is, while the claim that "Paul is dead," is improbable--it is not impossible or outside the realm of logic. What you call a "conspiracy theory," some might call the thought-crime of what can be imagined (get it?). The book "Tomorrow Never Knows," by Nick Bromell (a professor at UMass), addresses the "Paul is dead," theory and how it fits in with the ethos of what rock music is about and how it influences the thought processes of the listeners. Bromell's take on it is that "Paul is dead" represented a subconscious fear about the impending end of the 1960s and that The Beatles were trying to save them from the end of the 60s--that if they figured out all the clues, they'd be transported or led to a magical island where the 60s would never end.

On the flip side, there is a logically sound argument to make that the real Paul McCartney died in a car accident at the end of 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike named William Campbell Shears, or, "Billy Shears," who turned out to be a competent musician as well. Basically, "Paul McCartney," has been a fictitious name statement ever since and this would explain why John Lennon lost the rights to Lennon/McCartney songs that were eventually bought by Michael Jackson. A fake McCartney could not claim 20% of what does not belong to him--Lennon owned 20%, McCartney owned 20%, Brian Epstein owned 10%, and Northern Songs owned 50%. It's a material fact that Michael Jackson bought the rights to Lennon/McCartney songs on a suggestion from "McCartney." The end of 1966 is when The Beatles stopped touring and they left for India; their last public concert was on a rooftop, likely out of guilt that close-ups would show the differences between the real McCartney and Billy Shears. Additionally, their manager, Epstein, died in the early part of 1967. The Beatles could have released recordings of songs recorded before the real McCartney supposedly died, such as, "Penny Lane." Their subsequent new material turned more towards production values and overdubbing (shifting in influence from Brian Wilson and more towards Frank Zappa), likely to cover up any noticeable differences between the vocals of the real McCartney and Billy Shears. At the same time, Billy Shears would not have been able to get legal credit for writing any songs because he was impersonating McCartney...meaning, in theory, Billy Shears could have written, "Hey, Jude," under the name of Paul McCartney and the money would not have gone to Shears, at least not directly. This would explain why "McCartney," was the one who pushed The Beatles towards working with Allen Klein--who, basically, would give cash advances to the band in exchange for negotiating the deals with record labels and collecting a majority of the royalties from the copyrights. So it seems fitting that Shears under the name McCartney would also write a song like, "You Never Give Me Your Money," "you only give me your funny papers." All the while, the fans were blaming the internal discord of the band on John Lennon's relationship with Yoko Ono, when the reality might have been, Lennon could not work with a fake McCartney. McCartney also started to buy the rights to songs of other musicians, such as Buddy Holly. McCartney's father-in-law, Lee Eastman, was a show business attorney, adept in issues of copyright law. The marriage between "Paul" and Linda McCartney was clearly an alliance.

Lennon's song, "How Do You Sleep," on the Imagine album is an obvious slam at McCartney, "those freaks was right when they said you was dead." Publicly, Lennon backtracked by saying that it was, "all in good fun." Yet, you could say that I can "imagine" Lennon sang the truth in his lyrics but simply backed off it, publicly. Back in the 1970s, Lennon would also send angry letters to Linda McCartney about Paul--possibly because Lennon would not recognize Billy Shears as being the real McCartney when sending a letter to Billy Shears but addressed to Paul McCartney would have, in effect, been recognizing the legal existence of Billy Shears as Paul McCartney. The actual "conspiracy theories," are around the murder of Lennon. It's not really a "conspiracy theory," to argue that the real McCartney died at the end of 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike named Bill Shears who was also a competent musician--it is, however, improbable or unlikely but I've heard of stranger things. The problem is, McCartney is a larger than life cultural icon--who fans agree was 'bigger than Jesus'--and exposing him as a fake would be iconoclasm to the politics pushed by The Beatles that have been intertwined with "flower children," "hippies," or other people who identify with the counterculture of the 1960s. At the same time, Lennon had briefly converted to Christianity in the 1970s (Gospel According to The Beatles) and was supposedly dabbling in the politics of Ronald Reagan...when the song, "Come Together," was loosely inspired by Reagan's arch-rival, Timothy Leary. Lennon also said "Imagine," was "just a bloody song." Oddly, Ono's song, "I'm Moving On," on the Double Fantasy album does say, "You're getting phony," and Lennon and Ono were estranged at one time in the 1970s where Ono agreed to letting Lennon have an affair with another woman. So at the end of the day, it seems eerie that Lennon would get shot down by a bat-s*** crazy fan who was obsessed with a book about a fictional character who hates phonies. 2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

All that certainly reads like a conspiracy theory to me. HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

What you call a conspiracy theory - other people call a thought-crime of what can be imagined. If you'd like to comment, please give comments that provide insight rather than attempt to disregard an argument without any rebuttal. I debunked the claim of the Wikipedia page in which it says the claim "defies logic." It does not defy logic and is based on material facts; clearly you do not know the meaning of a logically sound argument. 2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. Even if you convinced everybody here that you are right, we would still have to follow the rules and keep the term. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources:

--The Gospel According to The Beatles, which was written by an authorized biographer of John Lennon; in which Lennon briefly converted to Christianity and sent letters to Pat Robertson to apologize for his comments about the Beatles being 'bigger than Jesus.'

--the angry letters Lennon sent to Linda McCartney about Paul were auctioned off in recent years

--accounts from recent years about John Lennon dabbling in the politics of Ronald Reagan

--Tomorrow Never Knows by Nick Bromell, professor at U Mass

--facts about copyright ownership of Lennon/McCartney songs

--it's well-known that McCartney suggested to Michael Jackson that he should buy Lennon/McCartney songs...there are multiple sources on that

--accounts from Yoko Ono and Julian Lennon about John and Yoko's estrangement in the early 70s...in this case, a YouTube video from the Grunge channel about John Lennon, as well as Julian calling his dad a "hypocrite."

--reading the lyrics of songs, "You Never Give Me Your Money," "Come Together," "How Do You Sleep," and "Imagine"

--facts: Allen Klein, Lee Eastman--were handling the financial affairs of The Beatles; Paul McCartney bought the rights to the songs of Buddy Holly

--Brian Epstein died in early 1967 when he owned 10% of Lennon/McCartney

--you can use production values, such as overdubbing, to cover noticeable differences in vocals...make an impostor sound similar to the original

--much of this was inspired by a purported account, from Ringo Starr in The Hollywood Reporter, that the real Paul McCartney had died at the end of 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike named William Campbell Shears, or "Billy Shears."

2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

19:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not. I provided reliable sources that provide material facts (ex, copies of the letters sent by John Lennon) - what you just suggested means that you think Yoko Ono and Julian Lennon are not reliable sources about the life of John Lennon. You sound like a bat s*** crazy fan.

This is a "talk" page in which I questioned and have debunked the use of the term "conspiracy theory," in regards to the claim that "Paul is dead." The point of raising this question was NOT to prove that Paul is dead, but merely to prove that, the claim that "Paul is dead," is not a "conspiracy theory," and that the term "conspiracy theory" is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. Time Magazine created a list of what they call "conspiracy theories," but that is only their opinion, not a "reliable source." Just because Time Magazine is a brand-name magazine, does not make it a "reliable" or unquestionable source...it makes it a "popular" or influential source that is not necessarily reliable. Time Magazine is not a primary source, it is a secondary source. The sources I provided are primary sources.

Also, what I said is that the "Paul is dead," story was more of a tall-tale among the counter-culture of the 1960s, which is not a "conspiracy theory." It was basically a popular story, urban legend, small-talk, or a type of a game being played by hippies and flower children who had a subconscious fear about the impending end of the 1960s. Additionally, I showed that you can make a logically sound argument--based on the legal issues around the copyright ownership of Lennon/McCartney songs--that the real McCartney died at the end of 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike named Billy Shears who has functioned under a fictitious name of Paul McCartney. This, however, is not about proving whether McCartney is in fact dead, but that you can make a logically sound argument that he is. Please look up the difference between a sound argument and a cogent argument before telling me to use "reliable" sources that are in fact, secondary sources. The claim "Paul is dead," therefore, does not defy logic as the main Article claims.2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

2601:647:C000:2CD0:4C3F:5AFC:A2ED:9649 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, you need to read WP:RS and WP:OR. HiLo48 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Barrow's account

This new sentence

He [Barrow] began receiving a number of dubious calls from people asking about whether Paul was alright, but he denied those claims due to the fact he claimed to have called Paul.

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)

@Tamfang: I agree, the article begins rather amateurishly. I tried to fix it but my effort was immediately reverted. Help? 2601:192:8802:6FA0:1028:59A5:ED1:E3FD (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Staggs photo is misdated

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)