Talk:Paul is dead/Archive 2

Two Years Late

How can Detroit radio station dj Gibb and the Michigan college kid LaBour be credited with starting/popularizing the "Paul is Dead" rumor in September and October 1969, when the Beatles press office issued a statement on October 21, 1969 refuting the story as a "load of old rubbish" that had been circulating for about two years? The "Beginnings" paragraph is this article should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.62 (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that Gibb and LaBour are credited in Reeve's and Patterson's books (the nearest things we have to WP:RSs). If you have a more RS that says otherwise, please add it to the article. The press office most likely were referring to Paul's car being written off in '67 and knew little of the substance of the new rumour (William Campbell etc.) Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading some more October–November 1969 newspaper articles I found a couple more references to the story being around awhile. In this October 23 article about the unfortunate fellow who had the phone number contained in one of the clues, it says he had been "getting calls from America, night and day, month after month." This November 22 article about the rumor mentions that "speculation during the past two years reached a high pitch here in recent months." Piriczki (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The MMT 'phone number' had been there since '67; the fact that people dialled the number before late '69 in no way implies that they thought that the number related to the topic of this article. Yes, there had been mumblings re McCartney prior to Gibb/LaBour but it's not clear that this is significant or related — there had been similar mumblings re other famous people/musicians. The consensus is (Reeve, Patterson, etc.) that it is likely that the true source of the '69 rumour will never be known. Certainly though, the article body starts abruptly so some background info would be useful, but we need WP:RSs. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The article about the telephone number says that callers would ask to speak to characters from Beatles songs and that "all wished to know if Paul McCartney was alive." Piriczki (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Blatant omissions?

How come the article doesn't even contain terms like "Faul", "Phil Ackrill", "William Campbell", "Billy Shears" and "Billy Shepherd"? I'd say EXTENSIVE expansion is due. And yes, I will try to contribute, but I encourage others to do so too. --uKER (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the history of the article - many of these things have been removed or trimmed over time, particularly the Billy Shears ruminations, because they couldn't move beyond poorly sourced speculation. Good, sourced expansion is welcome, of course, although a few blogs saying "I think this photo looks like that photo" may not pass muster from the editing crowd. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Corpse

I'm afraid I'm teetering on the brink of an edit war, so I'm bringing this up here. Regarding the interpretation of Paul on the cover of Abby Road as a clue, neither of the cited sources say anything about a walking corpse - one says that corspes are barefoot, and often wear blue suits, but none talks about corpses walking, or being out of step, and nothing like the current statement. That's why I've kept reverting.

Currently it says: "McCartney is dressed in a blue suit without shoes, and is walking out of step with the other Beatles as would, supposedly, a resurrected corpse.[1][14]"

I would prefer: "McCartney is barefoot and walking out of step with the other Beatles."

Am I missing something? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only corpses are barefoot, nor is wearing blue suits common to them. In the absence of a proper source to link barefootedness or blue-suitedness to the depiction of McCartney, this is synthesis in an over-optimistic manner. Sure, some writers may have made the comparison, but that's just their opinion, and is no better (or worse) than anyone else's. I agree we should stick with a description of McCartney on the cover (which is verifiable by, er, looking at it), and leave interpretation out unless properly sourced. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The cover was interpreted by many in '69 as a funeral procession—and you can't have a funeral without a corpse! But true, some rework/citing may still be needed. The original interpretation was I believe LaBour's: "Paul the resurrected, barefoot ... just walked out of a cemetery". — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking the given sources we have "Paul, the corpse, is out of step with the other Beatles" and "Paul McCartney is death, out of step with the others; dressed in black; and barefoot because that’s the way bodies are buried in many parts of the world". Seems as though all the elements are there? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How about: "McCartney is barefoot and out of step with the other Beatles, symbolizing death." (the sentence does make it clear that the article doesn't make this claim, but is relating that the sources made this claim. It's just that I think we had gone beyond what they claimed). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we could lock it down with a direct quote?:

Another was the interpretation of the Abbey Road album cover as symbolising a funeral procession; as described by Harbidge: "John, dressed in pure white symbolises the preacher or heavenly body. Ringo, dressed in full black symbolises the mourner. George, in scruffy denim jeans and shirt symbolises the gravedigger and Paul, dressed in a shabby, out-dated suit and barefoot symbolises the corpse." — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good way to go. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Beetle 281F and Billy Shears

There is a massive amount to read through so sorry if this has already been covered, the Volkswagen Beetle has a registration that ends in F which was what all new registrations from August 1968 to August 1969 had to have. It just so happens that it is 281 F which could be seen as 28 IF Paul were still alive further fuelling the disproved theory.

It was reported that the look alike selected after the death was Billy Shears a London singer. Who must subsequently have composed some worthwhile music and done the "Wings Over America Tour" he was a pretty good musician in that case, good enough to have been in The Beatles during the time of most popular member Pete Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.134.77 (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A Bit Of Trivia

I was watching the american children's show "Icarly" when I noticed something. While bantering randomly for a skit , Jennete Mcurdy (sorry about spelling) says "I Buried Paul" This is an obvious reference to the "I buried Paul/Cranberry sauce" Myth. Beforehand Nathan Kress says "I think i'll go to the cranberry parade". Would someone decide if this is worth including or not? Thanks - NDGKH (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... Just a note

With as much attention, regarding editing, as this page has seen, I have to say that the facts of the hoax, or a cogent telling of it are not apparent. No offense, but I think this whole page needs to be redone. There is a huge lack of data here and not just in regards to the small details regarding album covers, song lyrics, back-masking and the like, but just the basics of the initial crash, the ensuing argument, the news reports, etc. Since nary a mention has been made on the McCartney main page, I would think those concerned would tidy this page up a bit. Just saying. No offense.

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, as it's hard to know what's been deleted or debated, but isn't "Wednesday November 9th, 1966" the date that most people center on regarding this 'incident' regading the accident?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrUnitPanic (talk • contribs) 07:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page and having read it, would direct you to various comments made about "clues": how they took over the article as everyone added their two pennyworth, and were then hived off into another article to prevent their endless profusion. This article then went to an AfD vote and failed. OTOH I too have noticed that their is no mention on the McCartney main page but hesitated to add one as I thought it might be expanded into a long section in an already long article, and I wasn't sure where in the main article it would go. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the whole clues argument, I would disagree that we need more details about "the initial crash" - since there really was no crash, just confusing about other accidents - or the "ensuing argument, the news reports". There is plenty of detail (IMHO) about all that, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments

Okay, I just want to take the time to mention a few things here and list some links that may be useful for sourcing further additions to the article -- Although it has escaped the attentions of the primary authors of this article (not trying to be snarky there, 'cos you all have done a great job, on the whole), the popularity of this rumour experienced something of an explosion a little less than a decade ago through several different sites (http://60if.proboards.com/index.cgi and http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/ to name two). David Icke's message boards also regularly host long and drawn-out discussions on the topic, with most degenerating into insanity and being locked. This is, for the most part, the present life of the rumor. These sites are where, aside from the privacy of individual Beatles fans' homes, the vast majority of discussions on the topic take place, and where people new to the rumour first hear about it. Something like that's got to be notable, hasn't it? I run a site debunking the rumour and consider myself something of an amateur expert on the topic, so I'll be using my knowledge to add to the article in the near future.

I just wanted to make it known that I'll be adding some new info to the article in the coming months regarding these sites, and that I welcome help from anyone interested. Kudos on a great article so far. Evanh2008 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability before editing. Discussion boards, blogs, self-published sources and original research are not considered reliable sources and any content derived from such sources will likely be reverted by other editors. The fact that the topic is discussed on the internet is not, in itself, notable. Discussion of just about every topic imaginable takes place on the internet. Piriczki (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Doing a little preparation (including looking at old Talk Page discussions about what has been added/subtracted in past years) will save you a lot of frustration. This is a weird topic and it's sometimes a little hard to know what is and isn't appropriate for the article.

Having said that, don't be too shy - wikipedia depends on interesting additions from knowledgeable folks. If you're unsure, add something and explain why on this page you think it's notable. Just don't get offended if other editors don't agree and squelch it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I will certainly take them into consideration and do the best I can to find proper sourcing.Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page)(talk) 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, all. I noticed recently that there have been some edits made recently that attempt to draw conclusions based on the Wired article, which does not exist in a professionally translated English version, and, from what I understand, clearly disowns the idea that it made any kind of scientific conclusion to this "debate". Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't sources on an English article required to be in English themselves, per Wikipedia policy? Also, I'd like to point out that speculation on this page ought to be carefully monitored and removed, as it seems to fall squarely under WP:BLP. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources in English are preferred here, but other languages are not excluded if they are reliable and provide input otherwise unavailable. In this case, I am surprised that the English language version of "Wired" does not appear (to me) to carry a translation. Even so, we could ask an Italian speaker to comment on the validity of the Italian source, although i confess I have no idea how we would do that! Hengist Pod (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From the rough translation I've read, as well as the pictures I've viewed from the article, I'm going to come out and call shenanigans on it. In particular it draws on pictures of Paul that have been unequivocally proven to have been manipulated, as well as so-called "comparisons" which were made by a man (alias: SunKing) who has been proven to be a liar and to have doctored evidence (see here for an overview of the manipulated "evidence" used in Wired: http://maccafunhouse.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=essentials&action=display&thread=3860). I would move to purge all mention of the "Wired" feature from the article on those grounds, though I honestly don't know whether or not I would be accused of POV for doing so. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember, the Wired article is not being cited as a source, it is only mentioned as an example of references to the legend in popular culture. In that regard, I'm not convinced the Wired article is noteworthy to begin with, or at least some better examples could be found. Also, keep in mind that the content of the Wired article is not a matter for debate in this article or its talk page. Piriczki (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on both points - the Wired article is an unusual example of the way references still percolate in unusual places, and is well worth mentioning. Also, this talk page is a good place to talk about the content of the Wired article, as long as the discussion is in relation to how it should be described in this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Wired article being mentioned, per se. But if it's going to stay, we need to mention that the evidence therein was manipulated. From what I understand, the only reason the Wired article exists is the online stuff I brought up a while ago (see above), which was started by a guy from Italy. As I see it, we can't be simultaneously be decrying the PID situation as an "urban legend" (first paragraph), and leaving the question open-ended as to what a supposedly scientific study concluded, when there is clear reason to be convinced that foul play was afoot. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that someone was still studying photographs of McCartney looking for clues 40 years after the rumor surfaced and a magazine published the article is what is notable here. The conclusions may be complete nonsense but they are irrelevant and don't even need to be mentioned. One unique feature of the study, if I'm reading it right, could be the use of a facial recognition system. Perhaps that could be mentioned but that's about it. Come to think of it, the Wired article is actually more of an example of an analysis as mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph rather than an example of a reference in popular culture and as such, I'm not certain there is a valid reason to point out this particular study over the other unnamed analyses. Piriczki (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That was kind of my point. I think the article itself is probably notable, but in the interest of accuracy, if we're going to say anything at all about the conclusion of the article, we need to state that the photos used were manipulated. I'm still debating whether or not to add mentions of SunKing's stuff to the article, seeing as how insane it is. The more I look into it, the more I think it doesn't deserve a mention. One particular theory advanced by SunKing and his ilk is that Paul was replaced by an aging female WWII spy, who was also the real Paul's mother (I wish I was kidding). Honestly, they make the 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like perfectly reasonable, well-balanced individuals. I really don't think we ought to give that kind of insanity a voice here, unless we can be 100% sure that it's notable. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing any conclusions made in the Wired article, then there is no need to state the photos were manipulated (which would require a reliable source, by the way). I've never heard of this SunKing and I doubt any such material would pass as a reliable source. Besides, the subject of this article is a rumor which flourished briefly in 1969. Yes, there is continued interest in the phenomenon, and that is notable, which is why there is the "Aftermath" section of the article. However, associated fringe theories propagated by various individuals are not within the scope of the article and have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. That's what blogs and discussion boards are for. Piriczki (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New Evidence of Paul McCartney Being Dead.

There is a Documentary film titled "Paul McCartney Really is Dead: The Last Will and Testament of George Harrison" which claims that:

• In the summer of 2005, a package arrived at the Hollywood offices of Highway 61 Entertainment from London with no return address.

• Inside were two mini-cassette audio tapes dated December 30, 1999 and labeled The Last Testament of George Harrison.

• A voice eerily similar to Harrison's tells a shocking story: Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in November of 1966 and replaced with a double!

• British intelligence, MI5, had forced the Beatles to cover up McCartney's death to prevent possible mass suicides of Beatle fans. However, the remaining Beatles tried to signal fans with clues on album covers and in songs.

There is much in this film which lends credence to the theory that Paul McCartney died in a car accident in 1966 after leaving the recording studio following an argument between the members of the Beatles.

I am willing to watch the documentary film over again and transcribe it for use here, but I need to be at least somewhat sure that I will not have done so for no reason. I understand your skepticism about this theory, as before watching that documentary I would have agreed with you. But if what this film claims about receiving 2 mini-cassette tapes with George Harrison's voice on them is true, then we must consider the possibility that it's true that Paul McCartney is in fact dead, and that he was replaced with a double.

I've taken a long shot and sent an email to the Director of Highway 61 Entertainment, the company who produced the documentary. I explained that I am working on editing this page, and asked if I can obtain copies of the actual mini-cassettes to verify that they do in fact exist. Of course I'm not counting on a response, but it never hurts to try. TheRanter (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no tapes, that is the fictional backdrop for the film which is a faux documentary or "mockumentary" which rehashes some of the more fanciful details of the rumor that have been around for decades. Piriczki (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, then he will likely tell me that in his reply, if it comes. I'll wait and see. I find this whole topic intriguing, so I will continue to do my own research on the subject in the meantime. TheRanter (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Or he/she/they might take the opportunity to further confuse things for the fun of it, which is the whole point of many mockumentaries, by pretending that things are real when they're not ... so approach any response with caution. Having said that, the existence of a mockumentary about this topic is probably worthy of mention, regardless of its veracity. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It already has a mention: it is referenced as one of "several books, films". I can't at the moment see why it should deserve special treatment. IMDB has it as documentary/fantasy. Uniplex (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't wsee that it was already mentioned - I agree that it seems sufficient. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am going to be trying to figure out is whether there is any information in that film that isn't already included on this page, and see if I can find any corroborating sources to validate it. Here are some things I remember from the film:

It states that McCartney got into a heated argument with the rest of the Beatles at the studio and left. It goes on to say that McCartney picked up a girl named "Rita" in a blue dress who was walking down the road in the rain. "Rita", according to the film, didn't recognize Paul McCartney until after she had already been in the car for a short period of time. Upon recognizing McCartney she passionately attacked (for lack of a better term) him whilst he was driving, causing him to swerve and lose control of his car, resulting in a collision with a tree, in which McCartney's head was split wide open, which killed McCartney instantly. It also went on to claim that the Beatles were brought to the scene of the accident to confirm it was McCartney, which is where a British MI5 Agent named "Maxwell" came into play. "Maxwell" allegedly walked up to the remaining Beatles and stated something along the lines of "Kind of looks like a Walrus, doesn't he?" which the film claims is the origin of "I am the Walrus". I think this really might deserve some attention. Call it a hunch, a gut feeling kinda thing. TheRanter (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AFAIK, Joel Gilbert is not regarded as a reliable source (WP:RS) on this topic so his script would not qualify for inclusion here. Uniplex (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice I said: "What I am going to be trying to figure out is whether there is any information in that film that isn't already included on this page, and see if I can find any corroborating sources to validate it."

I am not suggesting that the film is the truth, I just think that this deserves scrutiny and researching, as there seems to me that there is information in that film which has not been mentioned on this page. We as researchers cannot just arbitrarily dismiss possible leads on information, just because they are contained in a questionably sourced film. We can only dismiss information after we've attempted to verify it and failed to do so. I may be new at editing pages here on Wikipedia, but I have been a researching various topics for a decade now.

Also worthy of mention is that the film makes use of the Beatles own music and album art as evidence, like the frequent backward-masked messages contained within their music. TheRanter (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are probably many often repeated details in the film that are not in this article, but only because consensus was reached previously to avoid listing every detail and clue here. Keep in mind the film in question is a fictional retelling of the rumor and any "new" information therein is merely the product of a screenwriter's fancy, just as many of the enduring details of the story were the product of a Michigan college student's fertile imagination. Any new embellishments to a decades old story wouldn't seem to be of much importance. Piriczki (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the proper way to look at this. Isn't this a page about the "Paul is Dead" Theory? Why shouldn't it include as much information as possible? The "clues" are a part properly portraying the theory, and as such they should be included. Take a look at the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page, it covers a very large amount of information relating to various different theories, so it seems to me the more info the better. This is an Encyclopedia after all, it's supposed to cover the topic as thoroughly as possible with the available verifiable information. We as researchers can not allow our own preconceived notions about a subject to effect our research, anyone who cannot do this should step away from the subject, as it is detrimental to the accuracy of the page. Not making accusations here, just pointing that out. TheRanter (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Check out the archived discussions and you'll see that the consensus a long time ago was not to list "clues" (e.g., backward-masked stuff and pictures on the cover art, etc.) because this article became an endless sea of stuff that somebody somewhere thought might indicate something. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think that is the wrong way to go. Look at it like a criminal investigation. An entire case can go down the tubes because of one missing piece of evidence. Same here. How can this page possibly portray the "Paul is dead" theory if a good bit of the information is discarded as irrelevant? If information can be verified, it should be included. And I also think that the backwards-masked audio and hidden clues in album art should be referenced here, because it is an integral part of the theory, call it circumstantial evidence. Just like a person can be convicted of murder with no physical evidence due to circumstantial evidence, a theory can be gain credence through cumulative evidence. You can not portray how to add to 10 with "1+...=10", and similarly you cannot portray a theory properly without including the evidence which supports it. TheRanter (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It *is* referenced here - it just isn't listed in tedious, silly detail. (At one point in earlier incarnation, people were adding song lyrics from *before* the supposed accident!) The article's description gives readers an idea of the sort of "clues" people cite; there are lots of online places where they can hunt down details, and listen to "I buried Paul" clips to their heart's content. And remember that this article is not designed to give credence to this theory or to debunk it, merely to give an overview of its situation in understandable format. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article shouldn't be too weighty. But, I also think that there should be a reasonable number of examples of the information fueling the theory. I think that if there is any new information available, which I feel there might be, it should be researched, and included if found to have validity. TheRanter (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm new at editing here on Wikipedia, so I have a question... Can a video, say from YouTube for example, which is of an interview on a legitimate TV Program for example, be used as a source on Wikipedia? TheRanter (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is understandably nervous about YouTube videos, see the guidelines here: [1] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was of the impression that use of Copyrighted Material on Wikipedia is considered acceptable under Section 107, Title 17 of the U.S. Code, being as it is Copyrighted Material used for educational purposes... If I'm wrong, which I am fairly certain I'm not, could someone please explain how I am? TheRanter (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Follow the links, read the items, check it all out - the issue is complicated. Just saying "we're educational, so we can use it" isn't enough. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So it would be better to list the source as what TV Program it appeared on, and when, rather than to link to a video of the TV Program which may be posted in violation of the copyright, even though my linking is used in an educational context, correct? TheRanter (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question "isn't this a page about the 'Paul is dead' theory?" The answer is no, it is not. This article is about a false rumor that flourished for a few months in 1969 and was quickly disproved. The rumor was repleat with an elaborate, but fictional, back story that tied into purported clues found in Beatles recordings, lyrics and album covers. Continued interest in the Beatles and facination with the rumor and its myriad of clues has made it an enduring social phenomenon. While the story contained some elements of conspiracy, these were among the many fictional embellishments to the rumor and not an indication of the existence of a conspiracy theory surrounding a real event. Piriczki (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The point I am trying to get across here is that the makers of the film "Paul McCartney Really is Dead" claims to have received 2 mini-cassette tapes marked as "The Last Testament of George Harrison", which the film claims the recordings were of an "voice eerily similar to Harrison's" which goes on to lay out a fairly convincing argument that Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in November of 1966 and was replaced with a double. This film also claims that the Beatles were under orders from "Maxwell" the MI5 agent to dispel the rumor themselves, or risk ending up like Paul. I think there is more to this, and I feel that it's not getting the proper attention it deserves. I could care less whether it turns out true of false, my point is that as researchers, it is our job to look at all of the information, especially when there might be new information, and assess it's validity, regardless of our opinions.

I'm sorry Piriczki, I do not mean to offend you, this is nothing personal... But, after looking at your other comments here, it appears to me that you have come to a conclusion about this subject, and I think that you shouldn't be editing this page anymore. I'm only saying something because I take researching quite seriously. I want this page to be handled properly, and you really portray a bias towards this theory being false, which isn't objective. Again, I'm sorry, I meant no offense. TheRanter (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison? is a fiction movie with a voice actor reading a script. If you cannot grasp that concept there is nothing I can say to further your understanding of the subject. Piriczki (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get this information from? I would like a source. TheRanter (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The theory IS false. Paul McCartney is alive. That is an objective fact, established by consensus. Fringe theories, which are demonstrably false, are not to be given equal weight to independently verified facts. A few comments on the "George Harrison" film, which may or may not be helpful: 1. First of all, the voice sounds nothing like George. Anyone who has ever heard the real Harrison speak for more than twenty seconds could tell you that. 2. The film wants us to believe that George Harrison, on his deathbed, had the energy to speak clearly into a tape recorder, remembering specific details of events that had occurred four decades earlier. It's also interesting that the result of this recording attempt (supposedly made on George's deathbed, mind you) sounds remarkably like a studio narrator, speaking of every twist and turn in the story with an increasingly dramatic tone, almost like a PROFESSIONAL NARRATOR. 3. "George" makes the claim that Paul's funeral was attended by a priest, the rest of the Beatles, and Paul's parents. Parents. Parent(s). Paul's mother had been dead for nearly a decade at the time of Paul's supposed death. And what about Paul's brother? 4. Only A Northern Song -- A song written and sung by Harrison himself. "George" claims that it’s a Lennon song that contained even more clues for the fans about Paul’s supposed death. 5. My personal favorite -- Heather Mills is claimed to be the Rita in the song Lovely Rita in this film. That song was written and recorded in 1967. Heather Mills was born in 1968. Draw your own conclusions. But if you think Paul McCartney is dead, you are wrong. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have already stated elsewhere in this discussion, I take researching quite seriously, and I requested a SOURCE. Coming from you is not a source. I want a link, or a reference to material which supports your assertions. And about the voice in the movie not being Harrison's... Have you stopped and considered the possibility that maybe the tape itself was not recorded continuously, and that maybe there were things on the tape that the producer of the film thought to be inappropriate to include into the film, and so the decision was made to re-record it using a voice actor? You need to consider all of the possible aspects, and more importantly you must source your claims, as per Wikipedia's rules. I want a source, please provide one. TheRanter (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you are the one asking for information to be included in the article, YOU need to provide a reliable source backing up the idea that the movie is anything other than, at best, fiction, and at worst, absurd contrived BS that makes use of a dead man's image and likeness to further belief in a long-since disproved conspiracy theory. You do that, and we'll talk. I don't have to "consider" anything unless you have evidence for it. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. This whole set-up raises one giant WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources to back them up. Not a self-declared documentary. Otherwise we might as well use the Blair Witch Project and Apollo 18 (film) as reliable sources, both of which are in the "newly-discovered true tapes" category of films. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting using this movie as a source. I am suggesting that there might be some truth contained within it... And I'm done for now, I'm too tired for this right now... I'll be back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanter (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One last thing, how is this a WP:REDFLAG? I have kept a WP:NPOV. Any information I've included here today was information from the film in question. I really don't see how anything I've said here today is a WP:REDFLAG... Be back tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanter (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The claims of the film are covered by REDFLAG, because they are on the fringe side. Your description of the film is ok. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TheRanter, re your statement ‘I take researching quite seriously’, remember that WP is no place for ‘original research’ (see WP:OR). Researching for WP is more like collating other people's research, where ‘other people’ are those considered to be experts, or at least knowledgeable, in the article topic. So it doesn't matter whether you or I believe that Harrison is/isn't speaking on the tape. The most likely source of new information for this article would be a new book published on the subject of the Beatles or the urban legend (taking a scholarly approach), or news reports from mainstream news agencies. If there were newsworthy facts presented in the film you mention, the chances are we'd have had news reports by now. If you're thinking, "What if there's a cover-up?" then please read WP:FRINGE carefully. HTH, Uniplex (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To The Ranter

About that bloody mockumentary....

I took the pain to listen to the most-controversed part of it, i.e. : the "vocal testament" of George Harrison.

Well... If that voice is George's voice, then I am the archbishop of Canterbury !

I've had the opportunity to hear Harrison's real voice many times direct-live.

This movie's voice is just a stupid masquerade ! No need to know the original voice, by the way, to understand that it's a lamentable fake : we all remember that Harrison had slight remains from his youth-time liverpudlian accent all right...

But on this so-called "original tape", the way the unknown voice weights heavily on the "o" sounds, for instance, is a grotesque caricature : it never says Paul, but Pôôôl... Never pronounces John normally, but Jôôônn !

That's almost unbearable, even pathetic to listen to. As would say both Piriczki and Super Genius, this is probably a (bad) professionnal actor who had been (cheaply) hired to do that (sh***) work !

End of the story.

--Mezzkal (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

External links

I see that an external link has been recently added which, IIRC, was previously removed on grounds including WP:LINKVIO—does this no longer apply? I also recall that we had other links: "site refuting the evidence presented in the above site" or somesuch, so if LINKVIO doesn't apply, presumably NPOV dictates that the other links should be re-added too. Uniplex (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Link violates WP:ELNO #2, 4 and 11 and has been removed. Piriczki (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NOT OBJECTIVE

This article needs help from an expert. Spend an hour on youtube and you'll discover that the clues are very indepth references to pop culture that the average American, college student or not, might not know. To say that this came from a bunch of crack pot kids in every way denies what we all know about the music industry as well as the marketing industry. This is too cleverly crafted and well put together. Some thought went into this. Either Paul is dead or someone wants us to think he is. This article can not be considered objective or complete without a nod to the music industry's known habit of manufacturing a gimick to sell records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.33.150 (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite what many people think, "I don't trust XYZ, for good reason" is not the same sentence as "anything bad that I can dream up about XYZ must be accepted as true." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. For anything. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

capital T in The Beatles

Just FYI, The Beatles with a capital T is the name of the band, used a bazillion* times throughout wikipedia as well as elsewhere, not Beatles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• give or take umpty-zillion

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Names (definite article), which is quite clear that "the Beatles" is to be preferred. Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

However, consensus is for the capital 'T'. Radiopathy •talk• 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That style guide is just plain wrong. Just as with The New York Times, capitalized T is part of the name. It's not a style question, any more than whether to capitalize the "n" in New Orleans. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The example shown above is incorrect, "the" in The New York Times is capitalized because it is part of the title of a book, magazine or newspaper, not a proper noun. The Manual of Style is correct. Piriczki (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Check this document, in which shows the Fab Four signing a trademark certificate trademarking the name "The Beatles" ... not "Beatles". A style guide about whether to capitalize "the" according to type of nouns does not override the legal name of the group. [2]. On a more practical level, (a) who gives a hoot? and (b) changing it throughout every wikipedia article would be an endless job, akin to the fight over types of dashes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I give a hoot, and will continue to correct it when I come across it. The legal document says nothing about capitalisation, and we all agree, I think, that the Beatles' name is "The Beatles", not "Beatles". Rothorpe (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(unindenting) Man, you lost me on that last sentence, in which you yourself used the capital T in mid-sentence because it's correct, yet you argue that it should be un-capitalized because of a wiki guide (not a law or Word From On High). I will also continue to correct it - that is, make it a capital The - when I come across it, too. Maybe we'll collide in an infinite loop ... but at least this keeps us off the streets! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not the only ones to tangle over this issue, as a quick hunt through archives of the Talk page on the Beatles shows: [3] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones wikipedia article appears to use lower-case the exclusively ... but The The, perhaps the most deliberately annoying/clever band name in rock history, uses upper-case. For what it's worth. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you're investigating the issue and not being dogmatic. As I remember, 'The The' was an exception because 'the The' would look plain silly. Also a capital T in The Beatles looks better in links, and in inverted commas, and when you talk about the name as a name: they called themselves The Beatles. But once you're just referring to the group, it's customary to drop the capital T, which is why the MoS says what it does. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I arrive seven month "after the battle"... But I think this dispute was really pointless : the matter is not to write blindly the definite article "the" with a capital "T" or in lower case in every occurence found, but to accord it... depending on the situation ! !

Indeed, nobody would write "I bought a The Beatles record yesterday" ! Why ? Not because of an inner WP "MoS", but because then, you're talking about an object's qualification (i.e. : a mere "Beatles' record").

But if you write "Ringo Starr was the last drummer of The Beatles", then you're talking about a juridical personnality (the musical group), who owns the trademark "The Beatles", capital "T" included, as mentionned in a previous edit... and therefore, you should use their "cognomen", as you would, normally, with a physical person !

--Mezzkal (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't say I find your arguments very persuasive; it's strictly an arbitrary style decision.

People would say, and do say, "I bought a record by The Beatles yesterday" - your example drops the "The" only because of the placement of the article "a" not for any deep grammatical reason. And people could, and do, write "Ringo was the drummer for the Beatles", capitalizing "the" (or not) based on style, not grammar. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My point wasn't to state an arbitrary decision, but a mere juridical reminder... It has been stated, upwards, that there is a pretty good evidence that "The Beatles" registered their name, as an official trademark, including a capital T for "The".

If this is true, I think that the least we can do, all together, is to (try) to respect the intention of that quartet (let aside the implementation of international regulations about trademarks, which would sound too much formal an authoritative !).

Of course, everybody can do whatever they want ^{(as would say Rabelais : "Faict ce que te plaict"...)} but aren't we discussing here about an inner WP common agreement, so as the writings seen everywhere in this encyclopedia don't burst here and fro ?? :-)

--Mezzkal (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to '27 Club'?

Wonder if it is worth adding to the 'Clues' section a link to the '27 Club' of rock stars who died at 27, as the 'Abbey Road' album cover shows '28 if' on the VW's licence plate. I'd consider it a worthwhile mention, and would add it myself, but I don't want to open up a can of 'what should/shouldn't be added' to this article if it has been settled. There probably should be some mention on the '27 Club' page as well.Rickremember (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue strongly against listing coincidences - lots of "rock stars" died at 37 and 26 and almost any other age - and particularly that one, since the whole point of this article is that nobody died so coincidences about others' death strikes me as particularly irrelevant. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

He was 24. Böri (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Fingerprints

Would it be noteworthy to include a counter-"clue"? When the Japanese arrested him around 1980 over pot charges, they took his fingerprints, and they were identical to the ones taken in 1961 by Hamburg police from when he'd been arrested for alleged arson (that story about him and John nailing a condom to a wall and setting it on fire, over their frustration due to the fact that George was being deported for being underage). --87.151.25.243 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence disproving the rumour is probably not necessary at this point. It would also require a reliable source and this sounds dubious to me. Piriczki (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal belief is that PID is a "real" phenomenon. Not that I necessarily think he died and was replaced, but namely, that I think the clues were deliberately placed, and the rumor was perpetuated by The Beatles themselves, regardless of whether the substance of the rumor is actually true. That being said, if you can find a good source confirming your statement to be true, please do add it!

I actually thought I remembered reading somewhere that the opposite was true. That when he was arrested, they were baffled that his prints did not match the records. Though this may have just been rumor, and given my propensity for reading "Paul Is Dead"-related forums, my source might be garbage. I don't see why a conflicting fact shouldn't be added, if a good source can be found for the info.24.34.63.39 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)