Talk:Paul is dead

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)

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)

Stagg 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)

Find a reliable source and this may be worth discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Validity of the Wired Italia Article

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)