Talk:Paul is dead/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Photos

Someone needs to run the original photos in early 66' and late 66' through a program like Faceit to solve this once and for all. If Faceit comes up with a match, problem solved.

"Yes he's dead"

I think someone more competent at Wikis than I should add that "All You Need Is Love" contains John clearly and obviously saying the words "Yes, he's dead" played fowards towards the end. If you doubt me, go play it for yourself. I personally believe it was planted as a publicity hoax, but you cannot deny that if anything's a clue, this is. PianoSpleen 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He says "yes it is". As in "all you need is love, yes it is"--Crestville 11:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I just listened to it again a few times, and - to my ears, at least - there's definitely an '-ed' ending on the last word there. Anyway, whether or not it was intended, it's certainly worth mentioning, and is considerably less far-fetched than some of the other theories here. PianoSpleen 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Update! I just found out he's not saying "yes it is" or "yes he's dead" or "yes yes yes". It would appear that he's actually singing "yesterday". This sounds much more accurate. PianoSpleen 11:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Dude, they're "clues" that's it, there is no proof of anything. I'm doing a work on this for a class and trust me, I have stuff even more revealing like that. For an example, if you play the very ending of I am the walrus backwards you will clearly hear "Paul is dead, his head lies of with his spirit" and I have a lot more audio clues that I can even upload and still that does not mean anything, it is not a proof and it is far from being anything like that. Even if in fact John says "yes, he's dead" well my question is, who's dead? I mean, it is a song, he doesn't directly refer to Paul, it is totally subject to any personal interpretation; it is a song, it is a piece of entertaining and that is just it. It is no conclusive evidence. There are even "better" clues and they are still not evidence. However, I still think that the article should not say that Paul is well and alive, since his dead is supposed to be an urban myth which cannot be proved but also cannot be disproved, do you want a proof? People like PianoSpleen that out of ignorance and shortsightedness still think that something subjective implies reason.

"28 IF" Image

This article desperately needs an image, the Abbey Road cover with the "28 IF" license plate. Why don't we have it? Is it a copyright problem?

Well, we have the cover: [[Image:AbbeyRoad.jpg]]. Marnanel 01:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Ok. I've added it. On a side note, I dont think it's very NPOV to put "clues" in quotes. Doesnt that imply an official Wikipedia position that the theory is barmy?(which it is, to be sure.) Deepak 17:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article also says McCartney is alive as of 2004, so there are bigger fish to fry. Personally, I think we can leave it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Title issue

Doesn't "hoax" imply deliberate deception? If I understand correctly, the whole business resulted from people misinterpreting supposed "clues," not from any deliberate action on the part of the Fab Four. Perhaps "'Paul Is Dead' Controversy," "'Paul is Dead' Allegations," or "'Paul is Dead' Urban Legend." JHCC 13:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Should this be at Paul is dead? RickK 00:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

McCartney/Mal Evans Update

I've removed the comment "(In reality, McCartney could not make the photo session and road manager Mal Evans stood in for him)" which followed the reference to McCartney's backview on the back of the Sgt. Pepper LP cover. My 1987 issue CD of the album has a booklet containing several additional photos from that session, including some with McCartney facing forwards, and three-quater turned, with his face clearly visible. They are clearly from the same photo session, as the clothing and posture of other three is identical, including the position of their hands - Starr with his hands cradled in front of him, Lennon with them tucked in his waistband, and Harrison with his thumb hooked over a button. For some reason McCartney evidently decided to turn around while these shots were being taken.

how many capital letters in title?

shouldn't this article be called "Paul is dead", not "Paul is Dead"? Kingturtle 04:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LMW 281F

Has anyone ever found out who the VW Beetle with the famous number plate belongs to?

The info on the image above says the car was "probably intentionally parked there as a rebus", but other sources I've read just say the car belonged to a local resident. You'd have thought that with all this controversy someone would have looked into this! I wonder if the DVLA has records going back to the 1960s...

I remember reading somewhere that the car was sold at an action for a ridicilous high price.
--Husky 14:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Future changes?

Will this have to be changed in the future after Paul McCartney really is dead? — JIP | Talk 16:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then we'd change it to "Paul is Dead(1969) or something like that--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We could always name it something like "Paul is Dead Rumour" or something of the like. But I say we don't worry about that until he has passed. Which I'm sure won't be for a while. He's still rockin', man. --Jude 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

and i dont think were gonna have an article about his death called "paul is dead" anyway :) 80.202.49.176 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be ironic if, when Paul does die, he dies in a car crash.......... Mr Richardson 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one will create a page called "Paul is Dead" when he does die. There isn't one called "John is Dead", so I think it can stay like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Confession of George Harrison?

Does anyone know something about the confession that George Harrison should have made before his death and that is shown on very few webpages (for exapmle this one: http://pid90066.tripod.com/PM2.htm )? Did he say that for real? Well, I don't think so, because it would have published more often and there would be more scandals, of course. But why is that 'interview' not mentioned in the article? I mean, even if it's a fake, it's also part of the "Paul is dead" - story.

The information the link points to is both hilarious, completely credible, and hilarious.

I've seen the same page refered to as an interview from 1992, it's fake.

BOLLOCKS Mr Richardson 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hand on Sgt. Pepper

I think, from what I've heard, the hand belongs to Issy Bon, not Stephen Crane. User:Orville Eastland

More in Sgt Pepper

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

Tordek 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The one Beatle in the front is not Paul, it's Ringo. The one putting his hand on his shoulders is Paul.

The date

The Beatles were British, and Brits write their date as Day/Month. So, if "I one" is 11 and "IX" is 9, Paul died on September 11. Orville Eastland 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC) either way look at it, its kinda scary 80.202.49.176 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for sake of interest, if the date was meant to be November 9, 1966 (instead of September 11), then Paul's "death date" was coincidentally the same day that John Lennon met Yoko Ono at an art gallery. (And we all know how things turned out after that.) --Desmond71 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If the "date" was November 9, 1966 then it stops being yet another far-fetched conspiracy theory and becomes an equally far fetched anniversary greetings card
It makes more sense to interpret "1 one 1 X" as a kind of description of the four. One Beatle, another one, another one, and an ex. This also ties in with the "clue" on "Come Together", 'One and one and one is three, Got to be good looking 'cause he's so hard to see' 81.96.161.52 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

left handed

The article states that Paul was left handed for all purposes other than playing guitar but in A Hard Day's Night, he signs an autograph with his left hand. He also generally smoked with his left hand - see p. 246 of the Beatles Anthology book for some example photos.

The statement "Ringo was left-handed" isn't true either. (See p. 84 of tthe same book for pictures of Paul and Ringo signing with their left and right hands respectively.)

Is it not possible that some of the plates have been reversed? Both Paul and Ringo were, I believe, left-handed. Is this really so hard to believe when around one in ten of us are left-handed..? --Mal 06:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul is clearly left handed for writing, as well as playing, this is evident from many photographs of him signing autographs. The only reason he is holding the cigarette in his right hand is so that it is in view of the camera. BlueKangaroo 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted your change since it doesn't seem particularly "obvious" - possible, certainly, but not something that can be flatly stated. The previous version, noting that he was only left-handed for playing, was much more useful for the casual reader. - DavidWBrooks 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It can be flatly stated here because it has been flatly stated by Paul McCartney himself in a 1986 Rolling Stone interview;

Kurt Loder "On a more trivial but similarly ancient note, a new biography of you claims that Paul McCartney, the world's most famous left-handed bassist, is actually right-handed. True?"

Paul McCartney "No, I'm quite definitely left-handed."

I've also heard him discuss his left-handedness with Jools Holland on TV. I've removed the following sentence as it's completely untrue; However, many people forget that Paul McCartney is only left-handed when playing guitar; with everything else he is right-handed, this includes smoking.

Pufnstuf 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A theory offered is that Paul was left-handed; he died, and his replacement was right handed.


paul does everything left handed except for playing the drums.--66.66.84.39 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the funny and classic "Everyone BUT Paul is dead" removed

It's one of those seminal usenet jokes, really classic.

It could go in the "Other references" section.83.105.34.180 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks! Family Guy Guy 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul appears to be alive

That category is not necessary. Unless it can be expanded, I reccoment it be merged into the opening paragraph again.

Done.--Cuchullain 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul is Live

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

OPD backs it, but I too went through the figures, and it didn't add up. I reckon it's a joke on how in the original 281F licence did NOT have Paul's real age. 83.105.34.180 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read the licence plate in fact reads "51 IS" [1] 83.105.34.180 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre Sgt Pepper intro

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

I believe it is because Pre-Sgt. Pepper clues do not fit the theory. Mr Bisciut 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording

I'm changing the wording in the opening sentence back to "The Paul Is Dead hoax" from "The Paul Is Dead rumor", which is actually how the original composer of the article put it. The word "rumor" makes the actual truth of the matter ambiguous, when there is no ambiguity whatsoever here. This is an encyclopedia, not a cut-rate tabloid. Let's not lend credence to outlandish conspiracy theories that started off as radio-show jokes. 24.199.113.234 00:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That was put there to keep NPOV. If you want to add more weight to the Paul is Live arguement, perhaps an "Evidence that Paul is Live" section could be added. 83.105.34.180 10:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
How about "The Paul is Dead Phenomenon"? 83.105.34.180 10:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
From the very beginning, it was known to be a hoax, a macabre joke. Paul had the definitive word on it at the time: "It's a lot of old crap!" Wahkeenah 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Refuting evidence section title

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

A stub?

Under "Explanations", there is a label that says "This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it." I don't understand what exactly needs to be added. It seems completely useless to have it there. I would delete myself but I don't want to mess it up if someone has a good reason for it being up.

I'd like to help. If someone can explain that, I'd be happily up to the challenge. --Jude 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be me. I put that there because at the time the section did not exactly seem to be complete. If you now feel, however, that the section had been sifficently expanded feel free to remove it. Lenin & McCarthy 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Role of Foreign Sources in the Hoax

Can someone add a word or two about the hoax as it passed out of the English speaking countries into the rest of the world? How was the theory of Paul's death (and replacement) received in Germany, France, Greece, or Japan?

Too much crap

I fear there is way too much cruft in this article. It should stick to reporting the hoax as it developed and was documented at the time, and ditch most of the fan-invented elaborations that have been tagged onto the hoax in the years since. --kingboyk 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The "fan-invented elaborations", as you call them, show that the "hoax" is still very much alive. Since the article is about the Paul is Dead legend and not the "Paul is Dead urban legend as it was in the 60's", these elaborations are not "cruft", they are as relevant anything else. Billy'sShears 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


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

NPOV?

I'm kind of new, but is there a point of view issue here? Both the article itself and the external links give little attention to the disproving of the legend--comparing the length of the article in its coverage of the clues and its coverage of disproving the clues shows a major disparity, for instance--and make it seem like a very real possibility that Paul McCartney did die in 1966. I don't think that both points of view are legitimately given in this article.

Why is it an article anyway?

GeneralGreene 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an article because this is/was a genuine phenomenon, known to many people. And since the very first paragraph calls it a "rumor" and says flatly that McCartney is alive, I'm not sure I agr
ee that it makes it seem like a very real possibilty that he did die. You're right that this article isn't very well written; it's overloaded with tedious examples - please, add some balance that you think is needed into the article if you see a spot (although we don't want to put "allegedly" or "of course, other possibilities also exist" or something like that after every single clue, which would make it even more tedious!) - DavidWBrooks 12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul is allegedly alive

Can we all agree that the joke about Paul being allegedly alive - ha ha, how clever - has been done to death and no longer needs to be inserted into the opening paragraph by every passing anonymous editor? ... No, I didn't think we could (sigh) - DavidWBrooks 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the ha ha, how clever bit.--Crestville 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Note for Mr. Brooks: I wasn't aware that the NPOV dictum was a joke. That's fine if from your POV today's "Paul McCartney" is the same man as he was before 1966. There's no reason to incorporate that subjective POV into the article and send snarky messages to people trying to correct it and uphold Wiki's standards. -- J

What a poor argument.--Crestville 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Put apparently.

  • Yes, like you're apparently an IP address. Wahkeenah 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher is dead??

I remember reading when I was younger (about 7-8 years ago) an article in a British newspaper that made the same claim about Noel Gallagher from Oasis. THat he was dead, and had been replaced by an imposter. They used the Be Here Now album cover as 'proof', that the date of release was a tribute etc etc.

I can't remember if it was some sort of April Fool's joke or just press shit-stirring, and I havent heard anything resembling it since, but I was wondering if it merits a mention here. As parody at least.

Not without a lot more details. - DavidWBrooks 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

divorce

clearly, sir paul's recent divorce is the result of heather discovering he is not actually paul mccartney. Gzuckier 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't think of any other reason. Unless she's not really HMM! Someone kick her in the shin, see if she screams.--Crestville 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
point, if he had died in 1966, Linda nor Heather, would have known the difference. This is an absurd point. Please understand that i do believe that paul mccartney did die in 1966, and William Shears Campbell took his place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobdylan3589 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
There's a sucker born every minute. However, it's possible they would not have known. Consider this line by Groucho Marx to one of his foils: "Why don't you go home to your wife? On second thought, I'll go home to your wife; and outside of the improvement, she'll never know the difference!" Wahkeenah 12:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul is Live

there used to be a mention of the fact that Paul is in fact alive in the article (by used to I mean a few hours ago). I think this is valid and useful - if I'm researching a rumour, one of the first things I want to know is whether the rumour is true or false. It's true that the information could become dated but (touch wood) I don't think Paul's likely to die this year -MBlume 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This article relates to the rumor itself, not to the actual status of Paul McCartney. I don't think it's necessary to say he's alive, because that's not what the article is about. I'd consider it too temporal a point to be necessary. For the sake of an article about a 1960s rumor, what does it matter that he's alive in 2006? When he does die, do we need to change it to say "Paul McCartney died at so and so time." I think it might make some sense to explain in some way that the rumor proved untrue, but I don't see the best way of managing that is by saying he's alive today. If he'd died last week, the rumor would still be untrue. Whether Paul McCartney is still alive is not relevant for the purposes of this article, where the accuracy of the rumor itself may be. Sarge Baldy 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is, although I've trimmed the mention back to the bald fact of his non-dead-ness (jokesters love to mess with that sentence, as the article History shows) - DavidWBrooks 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Post-Beatles clues

Are there, by any chance, any clues in any Wings or solo McCartney songs? Or are all the clues from the Beatles' songs and albums? 71.96.186.14 13:37 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Yes there are. Can't recall the song (I know this is not very helpful). But it seems Lennon's "How Do You Sleep?" (ft. Harrison) is, all of it, a very straight-forward clue.

"How do you sleep" contains 'Those freaks were right when they said you were dead'. Paul has several clues on his own albums. For example his first solo LP has a photo on the cover taken on the Abbey Road crossing, of a spilt bowl of cherries. There's a saying, "life is a bowl of cherries", and here it is - spilt and wasted.

massive POV and OR

Gazpacho made a WP:POINT of removing the NPOV disputed tag from this article, and went on to state on my talk page that he saw no POV problem in it, which is simply amazing unless there's a language barrier. I'd like to hear his defense of this article's statements like: "cryptic, portentuous", "The most common belief", "as implied in", "According to believers", "Many fans are convinced that...", "an excellent demonstration of...", "presumably due to..." "it has also been alleged", "suggested to be", "seems to resemble", "Believers have interpreted this to represent...", "This is another reference to the car accident", "A TV that is not turned on represents the news blackout about his death", "that may refer to", "In an odd bit of irony", "None of the clues listed from this time could possibly be real because...", "All these morsels were concocted together", "with his usual flair", " if one listens closely, it sounds as if...", etc., etc. wikipediatrix 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not "unneutral point of view", that's "unsourced" - and it's already got an unsourced tag on it. This topic is too fatuous to carry something as weighty as NPOV ... IMHO, of course. It needs to be and tightened, big time, but just sticking a big ugly box on top doesn't really help much. - DavidWBrooks 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Opinions are NPOV, and most of the items I mentioned above are opinions. We don't need to find a source for "with his usual flair", we need to remove such statements entirely. wikipediatrix 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
True enough. Go ahead! - DavidWBrooks 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto peer review suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[4]
  • As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[5]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[6]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • allege
    • allege
    • allege
    • allege
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[7]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 34 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [8]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What, the bot can't write "Needs lots of work"? - DavidWBrooks 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
lol maybe! But it looks useful anyway. This article is at A-class at the minute, and is a high importance to the project, so any help and improvement can only be good, right? :) --Mal 22:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)