text:
Paul di Resta

Paul di Resta (born 16 April 1986) is a British racing driver from Scotland, competing in the FIA World Endurance Championship for Peugeot Sport in their LMH entry. He drove in Formula One for Force India from to, and became a reserve driver for the Williams F1 team in , driving a single race for them as a substitute driver in. A former Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters (DTM) and Formula 3 Euro Series champion, di Resta did not secure a Formula One seat for 2014, instead rejoining Mercedes to race again in DTM. He later became a reserve F1 driver for McLaren for the 2022 season, and a former commentator for Sky Sports' coverage of F1.

Early life
Di Resta is of Italian descent and was born in Uphall, Scotland, and grew up in Bathgate, West Lothian. He is a former pupil of Bathgate Academy and supports Celtic Football Club. He now lives in Monaco, and is a cousin of racing drivers Dario and Marino Franchitti. His step-father was Scottish footballer Dougie McCracken. His younger brother, Stefan, has raced at an amateur level and his half-brother, Jon, is a goalkeeper for the Norwich City u23's.

Di Resta and Laura Jordan became engaged in December 2013 and married on 28 August 2014.

Karting
He started his career in karting, racing in various competitive series of karts from 1994 until 2002. In 2001 he won the British JICA Championship.

Formula Renault
He stepped up to single-seaters at the end of 2002, when he competed in the British Formula Renault Winter Series. He raced in British Formula Renault full-time in 2003 with the Eurotek Motorsport team, finishing seventh in the standings with one race win. He switched to Manor Motorsport for 2004, finishing third in the championship standings with four wins. He also entered some races of Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0 with the Manor team. He also won the McLaren Autosport BRDC Young Driver of The Year Award in 2004. The award had been won by his cousin Dario Franchitti in 1992.

Formula Three
Di Resta switched to the Formula Three Euroseries with Manor Motorsport in 2005, finishing tenth in the standings. For 2006 he moved to the ASM Formule 3 team, winning the championship with five wins, beating teammate and future Formula One World Drivers' Champion, Sebastian Vettel. Di Resta also won the 2006 BP Ultimate Masters at Circuit Park Zandvoort.

DTM

In 2007, di Resta switched from single-seaters to race in the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters (DTM) touring car racing series, for Mercedes. In the championship, he finished 5th overall behind drivers Mattias Ekström (who won his second DTM title), Bruno Spengler, Martin Tomczyk and Jamie Green. Di Resta was the highest driver in the standings to drive a non-2007 car. His performances earned him a 2008 Mercedes C Klasse for the 2008 season, in which he won two races and finished second in the points, four points behind eventual champion Timo Scheider of Audi. In 2009, he finished third overall behind Scheider and compatriot Gary Paffett. In 2010, he won three races in a row on the way to winning the championship.

Formula One
Di Resta tested for the McLaren Formula One team, and was in the frame for a drive with the Force India team for the 2009 season due to the teams' shared engine supplier, Mercedes-Benz. However, Force India chose to retain Giancarlo Fisichella and Adrian Sutil, with Vitantonio Liuzzi as reserve driver.

2010
In December 2009, with Fisichella having moved to Ferrari and Liuzzi being promoted to the race team, di Resta took part in a test with the team at the Jerez circuit alongside J. R. Hildebrand. At the Autosport International show in January 2010, he was said to be close to a deal as the team's test and reserve driver for the 2010 season. The deal was announced on 2 February. Di Resta made his Formula One race meeting début at the 2010 Australian Grand Prix, where he took part in the first free practice session in place of Sutil and finished 11th. He drove in the first practice session of all the following races until the Monaco Grand Prix where he did not take part. He resumed driving for the team at the European Grand Prix and the following British Grand Prix. After sitting out the German Grand Prix he returned for the Hungarian Grand Prix. Di Resta subsequently sat out the Belgian Grand Prix as Tonio Liuzzi and Adrian Sutil needed as much track-time as possible to get the feeling of the new parts. He participated in practice for the Italian Grand Prix, but did not participate in the Singapore or Japanese Grands Prix. The team elected that di Resta should miss the Korean Grand Prix to allow Liuzzi and Sutil to get used to the new track for the race.

2011
Di Resta joined Adrian Sutil in the Force India Formula One racing team for the season, replacing Vitantonio Liuzzi. He scored his first championship point at his first race, the, after both Saubers were disqualified. This was followed by another 10th place in Malaysia, 11th in China, and a retirement in Turkey, where he left the pits with a loose wheel. He was running fifth in Canada until a collision with Nick Heidfeld left him with a damaged car and a drive-through penalty, and later crashed out of the race on lap 67. He qualified sixth at Silverstone but finished 15th after a long pitstop due to a tyre mix-up.

His third points-scoring finish of the season came in Hungary, where he finished seventh in changeable conditions. In the he finished 8th. This was followed by a career-best sixth-place finish in Singapore, ahead of teammate Sutil, who finished eighth. He finished tenth in Korea, ninth in Abu Dhabi and eighth in Brazil.

2012

On 16 December 2011, it was announced that he was to be retained by Force India for the 2012 season, with Nico Hülkenberg taking the place of Sutil as his teammate. He qualified 15th for the season opener in Australia and finished 10th in the race, passing Jean-Éric Vergne and Nico Rosberg on the final lap. He qualified 14th for the, and finished seventh in the wet race. He was 12th in China. In Bahrain he qualified inside the top ten, having missed the second free practice session after several members of the team were caught up in a petrol bomb incident. Using a two-stop strategy he took sixth place in the race, which equalled his previous career-best result. He was 14th in Spain, a lap behind winner Pastor Maldonado; seventh in Monaco having started 15th on the grid; and 11th in Montreal. At the European Grand Prix he was the only driver on the grid who performed a one-stop strategy and came 7th whilst his teammate, Nico Hülkenberg, finished in 5th position.

After failing to score a point in the next three races, di Resta finished tenth in Belgium. The following weekend, at the Italian Grand Prix, di Resta showed strong pace in qualifying, setting the fourth fastest time in Q3, but took a five place grid penalty for a gearbox change to start the Grand Prix in ninth. He finished the race in eighth. At the Singapore Grand Prix, he qualified sixth and finished a career-best fourth, after the retirements of Maldonado and Hamilton. The final five races of the season resulted in only one further points-scoring finish – 9th place in Abu Dhabi.

2013
On 31 January 2013, Force India confirmed di Resta would race for the team for a third consecutive season in. After qualifying outside the top ten in Australia, di Resta managed to battle through into the points, finishing just behind his teammate, Adrian Sutil in eighth place. In Malaysia, however di Resta retired after his car's wheel nuts kept jamming, and the team was ultimately forced to retire both cars.

Qualifying in 11th place for the Chinese Grand Prix, the race saw him finish in eighth place and he obtained four points.

Di Resta matched his career best result in Bahrain with a fourth place, being overtaken close to the end by Lotus's Romain Grosjean, depriving the Scot of a maiden podium. He followed that up with a seventh in Spain.

A disappointing qualifying session in the wet meant di Resta started from 17th in Monaco, however initially going for an aggressive two stop strategy; luck played its part and due to a red flag he was able to use a new set of tyres, and made ground to ninth-place finish with some good overtakes.

Another disappointing qualifying session at the next race in Canada saw di Resta starting in 17th position yet again. Starting on the harder medium compound tyre, di Resta was able to run the longest of all drivers on his first stint, going 56 laps before finally making his only pit stop. The strategy worked as di Resta finished the race in 7th.

After six consecutive point finishes, di Resta struggled in the later part of the season as his team Force India struggled to cope with new Pirelli tyres and he recorded five consecutive retirements.

On 12 December, it was announced that he would not be retained as a driver with Force India for the season.

2016
After a two-year absence from the sport, di Resta returned to Formula One as reserve driver for Williams.

2017
Williams retained di Resta as their reserve driver for 2017 whilst he competed for Mercedes in DTM.

He replaced lead driver Felipe Massa for qualifying and the race at the as the Brazilian recovered from an illness. This marked di Resta's first F1 start in almost four years, whilst also becoming the first British driver for Williams since Jenson Button in and Scottish driver since David Coulthard in. His qualifying results were described as an "unbelievable job" by Mercedes F1 Director Toto Wolff, having competed without having driven the FW40 prior to the session. He ended the day in 19th place ahead of Marcus Ericsson and was 0.766s off his teammate Lance Stroll. He retired in the race after 60 laps.

McLaren (2020–22)
After another absence from Formula One, di Resta returned to the sport as a reserve driver after McLaren put him on standby for the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix at the Silverstone Circuit in Silverstone, United Kingdom.

McLaren retained di Resta as a stand-in reserve driver for the and  seasons while he competed in the FIA World Endurance Championship.

DTM return (2014–2019)

In May 2014, di Resta returned to the Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters series driving for HWA Team, who manage the AMG Mercedes team in DTM. Di Resta finished the 2014 season in 15th place having scored points only three times, all three being 4th-place finishes.

Di Resta finished the 2018 season in 3rd place in the driver's championship, after winning three races at Hungaroring, Brands Hatch, and Misano.

In 2019, after five seasons driving for Mercedes, di Resta joined the Swiss motor racing team R-Motorsport, driving the Aston Martin Vantage DTM. Di Resta finished in 16th place having scored points only four times.

Endurance Racing (2019-present)
In 2018, Paul di Resta raced in the Asian Le Mans Series for United Autosports, scoring one win and 4 podiums alongside Phil Hanson and eventually winning the 2018-19 Asian Le Mans Series championship.

Following their Asian Le Mans Series win, Di Resta and United Autosport competed in the 2019-20 FIA World Endurance Championship going onto to win the 2020 24 Hours of Le Mans alongside Hanson and Filipe Albuquerque in the LMP2 Class and finishing 5th overall.

On February 8, 2021, Peugeot Sport revealed di Resta will drive their LMH Hypercar entry in the 2022 FIA World Endurance Championship alongside Mikkel Jensen and Jean-Éric Vergne. He, and the Peugeot team, competed in the last three races of the season with a P4 finish in the 6 Hours of Fuji and two retirements in the 6 Hours of Monza and the 8 Hours of Bahrain. In the end, Di Resta finished in P10 in the Driver's championship.

Sky Sports F1 (2016–2023)
Since 2016, Di Resta has been a regular contributor to the Sky Sports F1 channel. He was a common presence as a co-commentator, analyst and one of the insiders in "Sky Race Control" during practices, qualifying sessions and races, alongside Jenson Button, Karun Chandhok, Anthony Davidson, Damon Hill, Nico Rosberg, and Johnny Herbert until being axed by Sky Sports in Jan 2023 along with Johnny Herbert.

Racing career summary
$†$– As di Resta was a guest driver, he was ineligible to score points.
 * Season still in progress.

Complete Formula Renault 2.0 UK record
(key)

Complete Formula 3 Euro Series record
(key)

Complete Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap) † Driver did not finish, but was classified as he completed 90% of the race distance.

Complete Formula One results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap) $†$ Driver failed to finish the race, but was classified as he had completed more than 90% of the race distance.

Complete IMSA SportsCar Championship results

 * Season still in progress.

Complete European Le Mans Series results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; results in italics indicate fastest lap) † Car was initially a Pro-Am entry, therefore was ineligible for points.
 * Season still in progress.

Complete Asian Le Mans Series results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; results in italics indicate fastest lap) † Not eligible for points. * Season still in progress.

Complete FIA World Endurance Championship results

 * Season still in progress.

title: Paul di Resta


text:
Roll with It (Oasis song)

"Roll with It" is a song by English rock band Oasis, written by lead guitarist Noel Gallagher. It was released on 14 August 1995 by Creation as the second single (the lead single being "Some Might Say") from their second studio album, (What's the Story) Morning Glory? (1995). In a highly publicised chart battle with Blur's single "Country House" dubbed "The Battle of Britpop," "Roll with It" reached number two on the UK singles chart.

'Battle' with Blur
"Roll with It" received a great deal of attention when Food Records, the label of Britpop rivals Blur, moved the original release date of the single "Country House" to beat it on the charts, sparking what came to be known as "The Battle of Britpop". The British media had already reported an intense rivalry between the two bands and this clash of releases was seen as a battle for the number one spot. The media sensation was spurred on by verbal attacks from the respective camps (in particular Noel and Liam Gallagher, Damon Albarn and Alex James), that extended beyond the music industry to the point where the two bands were regularly mentioned on the evening news. In particular, public imagination was sparked by the contrast between the "working class" Oasis and the "middle class" Blur. In the end, Blur's "Country House" single sold 274,000 copies to Oasis' 216,000 copies of "Roll with It". The singles charted at number 1 and number 2 respectively.

In 2019 Noel Gallagher reflected on the battle on Dermot O'Leary's Reel Stories, dismissing both songs as "shit". He suggested that a chart race between Oasis's "Cigarettes & Alcohol" and Blur's "Girls & Boys" would have had greater merit: "'Roll With It' has never been played by anybody since the band split up".

Critical reception
The AllMusic editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine described "Roll with It" as "an assured stadium rocker that unabashedly steals the crown from Status Quo". David Stubbs from Melody Maker wrote, "This isn't the mounting cascade of manna and adrenalin that was "Some Might Say" or "Acquiesce". It's subdued by comparison, a light shower after that musical thunderstorm, something for us to kick through the puddles to until their next mighty moment of precipitous pop. Rolling along, marking time, fair enough." Mark Sutherland from NME said, "Have no fear, you will la-la-la-like it. It is, after all, a pretty good record."

Top of the Pops performance
When Oasis played "Roll with It" on British chart show Top of the Pops on 17 August 1995, they were required to mime the song, and in doing so the Gallagher brothers switched roles with Liam pretending to play guitar and Noel pretending to sing (equipped with Liam's tambourine).

Marketing
The single artwork features a photograph of the band on the beach at Weston-super-Mare. Many potential locations were examined along the Somerset and Avon coastline (Oasis were playing Glastonbury that weekend, so a beach within striking distance of the festival site had to be found).

Themes
The song is like several other Oasis songs, such as "Supersonic", in that it preaches the importance of being oneself.

Track listing

 * UK CD single (CRESCD 212)
 * 1) "Roll with It"
 * 2) "It's Better People"
 * 3) "Rockin' Chair"
 * 4) "Live Forever" (Live at Glastonbury '95)

 * UK 7-inch single (CRE 212)
 * A. "Roll with It"
 * B. "It's Better People"

 * UK 12-inch single (CRE 212T)
 * A1. "Roll with It"
 * B1. "It's Better People"
 * B2. "Rockin' Chair"

 * UK cassette single (CRECS 212)
 * 1) "Roll with It"
 * 2) "It's Better People"

 * Australian CD single (662325 5)
 * 1) "Roll with It"
 * 2) "Talk Tonight"
 * 3) "Acquiesce"
 * 4) "Headshrinker"

Note 1: "Headshrinker" was a B-side of the band's previous UK single "Some Might Say" and was one of the last tracks to feature original Oasis drummer Tony McCarroll. Note 2: "Live Forever" was recorded live at the Glastonbury Festival on 23 June 1995.

Personnel

 * Liam Gallagher – lead vocals, tambourine
 * Noel Gallagher – lead guitar, acoustic guitar, backing vocals
 * Paul Arthurs – rhythm guitar
 * Paul McGuigan – bass guitar
 * Alan White – drums, percussion

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Roll with It (Oasis song)


text:
Azali

An Azali or Azali Bábí is a follower of the monotheistic religion of Subh-i-Azal and the Báb. Early followers of the Báb were known as Bábís; however, in the 1860s a split occurred after which the vast majority of Bábís followed Mirza Husayn ʻAli, known as Baháʼu'lláh, and became known as Baháʼís, while the minority who followed Subh-i-Azal, Baháʼu'lláh's half-brother, came to be called Azalis.

Azali Babis continued to push for the end of the Iranian monarchy, and several individuals were among the national reformers of the constitutional revolution of 1905–1911. Azalis stagnated and disappeared as an organized community after the revolution, numbering at most a few thousand by the end of the 20th century, mainly in Iran. Azalis are considerably outnumbered by adherents of the Baháʼí Faith, who number in the millions.

Distinguishing characteristics
Azalis do not accept any of those who have advanced claims to be the Báb's promised one (known as "He whom God shall make manifest"). The most bitterly contested claim is that of Baháʼu'lláh in 1863. Azalis rejected his claim of divinity as premature, arguing that the world must first accept the laws of the Báb before "He Whom God Shall Make Manifest" can appear.

Involvement in Persian secular and constitutional reform
With respect to the direction that Azali Bábism took immediately after the split, MacEoin said:

"Azali Babism represents the conservative core of the original Babi movement, opposed to innovation and preaching a religion for a non-clerical gnostic elite rather than the masses. It also retains the original Babi antagonism to the Qajar state and a commitment to political activism, in distinction to the quietist stance of Baháism [sic]. Paradoxically, Azali conservatism in religious matters seems to have provided a matrix within which radical social and political ideas could be propounded."

After the split with the Baháʼís, some Azalis were very active in secular reform movements and the Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905–1907), including Sheikh Ahmad Rouhi and Mirza Abd-al-Hosayn Kermani. However, the community was still suppressed as a heresy, and the accusation of being an Azali was often enough for most to believe it to be true. Coupled with the Azali practice of taqiyya (dissimulation), determining whether or not a particular figure in Persian politics was an Azali is difficult.

Taqiyya
Taqiya ("dissimulation") was practiced by some Bábís. It was justified by some as a response to the often violent oppression the community faced. However, prominent Bábí leaders never encouraged individuals to practice it; and some who had practiced taqiyya later abandoned it, declared themselves openly, and were put to death.

Among Azalis, however, the practice became ingrained and widespread. One historian has noted:

"The Azali Babis and in particular Mirza Aqa Khan Kirmani and Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi showed little hesitation in alteration and falsification of Babi teachings and history in their works. Azali Babis regarded taqiyyah as an imperative requirement. In contrast the Azali Babis glorified taqiyyah in their literature. Taqiyyah was considered a virtue and classified into various levels of concealment. Prominent Azali leaders openly recanted their faith and even abused [the] Bab and Azal in the process."

Succession and aftermath
There was some dispute on the question over who was Subh-i-Azal's appointed successor. MacEoin states that Subh-i-Azal appointed Yahya Dawlatábádí as his successor in turn after the death of his (Yahya's) father, Mirza Hadi Dawlatábádí. However, this was disputed by Subh-i-Azal's grandson, Jalal Azal, indicating that this question was not entirely resolved.

MacEoin notes that, in any event, neither he (Yahya Dawlatábádí) nor anyone else arose to organize the affairs of the community, or produce significant writing to develop the religion. He goes on to say (writing in 1999):

"With the deaths of those Azalis who were active in the Constitutional period, Azali Babism entered a phase of stagnation from which it has never recovered. There is now no acknowledged leader nor, to the knowledge of the present writer, any central organization. Members tend to be secretive about their affiliation, converts are rare, and association appears to run along family lines. It is difficult to estimate current numbers, but these are unlikely to exceed one or two thousand, almost all of whom reside in Iran."

Prominent Azalis
Despite their small numbers, the Azalis have included several prominent Iranian political and literary figures, notably Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi and Mirza Aqa Khan Kirmani.

title: Azali


text:
Talk:Sejm

To do/check
In the PLC:
 * could a law pass without King's support? Since when?
 * before the Nihil Novi, could King's lack of support stop the legislation entirely?
 * could the King propose the legislation himself?
 * did the Senate dignitaries had a vote in the Sejm - what was their power beside being advisors to the King? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To translate more from PWN entry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To translate Polish wiki template: pl:Szablon:Posłowie kadencji PRL i RP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sejm
What do you think about a specific category for specific sejm sub-types (like confederated) and famous Sejm (like Silent or Contract)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * About how many articles are candidates? Anyway, sounds ok to me. Deuar 18:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We have about 10 articles listed now in Sejm, and although there are only a few Sejm-types, I think eventually every Sejm office term (pl:kadencja - how is it translated into English?) is notable and deserves it's own article (and of those we may have even a hundred or more, eventually).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "term of office" i suspect, although there's no article by that name. Deuar 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Sejm
I think the current article has far too little (relatively) about the present Sejm. The impression you get from a brief look at the article is that the most important things happened centuries ago. I would also like to suggest that the historical section be moved below discussion of the present Sejm. Deuar 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I usually prefer for history to go before the main. But you are right that the present needs to be expanded... I am pretty sure one can find info about the present Sejm in English and online (on their pages) rather easily.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PRL Sejm
Just a point of clarification:
 * The Sejm in the People's Republic of Poland was to have 460 deputies

So did it actually have 460 members? If not how many were there. Also, did the number of members change with the years? Deuar 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx for the catch, I fixed it ('had'). I have no info on the number changing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Initially, Sejm consisted of 425 members. About 1960 there was simply no room for additional armchairs, so the number has been fixed (Act of December 22, 1960; effective Dec 27). Picus viridis 15:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! Typical for PRL ith those armchairs ;-) Deuar 14:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

National Assembly
The National Assembly is not the name of the Polish Parliament: "The National Assembly (Zgromadzenie Narodowe) is the name of both chambers of the Polish parliament, the Sejm and the Senate, when sitting in joint session." Barry Kent 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sejm of the People's Republic of Poland
This paragraph is idiotic. There existed a partially free Sejm with PSL and later all Sejms were staged. As one deputy wrote (Kruczek ?) - they visited Warsaw to buy basic products.Xx236 08:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Basic data
How many Sejms were there in II RP, PRL, III RP? Xx236 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Source tags
Sorry I had to use so many (and they're appearing weird b/w sections) but there's really only one section that has references (and they're not that wonderful, sadly). I didn't want to use a big fat totally no-sources tag at the top, and also didn't want to up the text, so this was the only way. I copyedited pretty much the whole article & can't work on sourcing right now (no time); I'm hoping someone who knows more about the Sejm can work on it awhile, maybe. Thankee -- Sugarbat (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh -- P.S. I forgot to mention I removed some Polish terms for things that didn't seem necessary to reiterate in Polish. For the record: It's probably a good idea to try not to use other languages in an English article unless the terms/phrases will interest/educate the reader (use your best judgment). In some cases, giving translations does little more than clutter up the article, and in the worst cases (I'm seeing this a lot, for some reason, in a bunch of Poland-related articles -- but not just there) people are forgetting to provide the English terms altogether. Just be carefulz, is all I'm saying. SB

Category:National lower houses vs. Category:Sejm
Category:Sejm is itself a category within Category:National lower houses. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Membership update for December 2010
After looking at the nice membership graph in the side infobox recently, I noticed that it's horribly out of date for the current Sejm as of this moment. The chart does not indicate recent developments from by-elections, the collapse of the LiD in 2008, and the party split by rebellious PiS members to form the PJN at the end of 2010. If someone can recreate the chart to reflect current changes, that would be great. Miles530 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not B-class
I have reviewed this article for WP:POLAND and it does not meet B-class criteria: little if any references, only history section is seems somewhat comprehensive - little on organization, nothing on function, nothing on election procedures, there are probably other areas that need to be covered. It is barely C class, perhaps should even be just start class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Chambers?
You can read here: 'In the Kingdom of Poland Sejm referred to the entire three-chamber parliament of Poland, comprising the lower house (Chamber of Envoys; Polish: Izba Poselska), the upper house (Senate; Polish: Senat) and the King'. Obviously, the King is no chamber. All the three elements indispensable for the functioning of ordinary Polish-Lithuanian diets should be referred to as 'estates of the diet' (Pol. stany sejmujące). I do not deem it necessary to find exact equivalents for the early modern institutions in the language of the present-day politics. That world was simply different and we should try to respect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.229.156 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Women in Sejm
Roza Pomeranc-Meltzerowa was elected not in 1919 but 1922. Source - Polish Sejm base https://bs.sejm.gov.pl/F/HDG1KL7SRYS7CY98217SV4JKPIL3SVPX9KPI2M7BHVI1D6VQ75-07426?func=full-set-set&set_number=041367&set_entry=000001&format=999 But a number of Polish women were elected in 1919, for example Gabriela Balicka https://bs.sejm.gov.pl/F/HDG1KL7SRYS7CY98217SV4JKPIL3SVPX9KPI2M7BHVI1D6VQ75-68650?func=find-b&request=balicka&find_code=WRD&adjacent=N&x=41&y=9 or Zofia Sokolnicka https://bs.sejm.gov.pl/F/HDG1KL7SRYS7CY98217SV4JKPIL3SVPX9KPI2M7BHVI1D6VQ75-69150?func=full-set-set&set_number=041791&set_entry=000001&format=999 31.172.189.130 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreement
Agreement left the coalition  Braganza (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * not oficially + 2 or more MPs will stay within Law and Justice structures (possibly as members of The Republicans). Arasakacorp (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * what do you mean by officially? A source would be great here to provide clarification. Until that, I think it would be best to revert the edit.

Name of the new party in Konfederacja
I'm not sure how this stuff gets decided (consensus?) but I feel like "Liberters" doesn't sound too good. I don't think it's an actual word at least. Maybe "Liberalists"? Means basically the same thing but is different enough from "liberal" or "libertarian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonCube (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Current Government
There is an official minority government of Morawiecki. The information should be changed to show Law and Justice as government rather than current majority vs. minority way 144.82.8.157 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Tusk is not the prime minister yet
Tusk is not yet the prime minister, neither has he yet been chosen by the Sejm. (There are currently ongoing talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WtsVXtxXg )

Morawiecki, despite failing at receiving the vote of confidence, is still the prime minister until Tusk is sworn by the president (which will probably happen on December 13) - please refer to Article 154(3) of the Polish constitution, as well as some additional sources like https://www.prezydent.pl/prezydent/kompetencje/desygnowanie-i-powolywanie-premiera-i-rady-ministrow and https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/kiedy-mateusz-morawiecki-przestanie-byc-premierem-donald-tusk-musi-czekac/eq07bjg Max19582 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 * They just voted him as a new pm like 10 min ago Luentez (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As of 6:49 PM Polish time, Tusk has been appointed by the Sejm. This makes him the appointee, not the PM. Please refer to the links above again. Max19582 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay ur right I forgot about that lol Luentez (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He is PM already. Until the President swears him in, he is the acting PM. Morawiecki was voted out. 79.191.69.91 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * per https://www.prezydent.pl/prezydent/kompetencje/desygnowanie-i-powolywanie-premiera-i-rady-ministrow :
 * "Prezydent powołuje tak wybraną Radę Ministrów i odbiera przysięgę od jej członków." ("The President appoints so selected Council of Ministers and takes the oath of office from its members.") Max19582 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just a formality. See the debate about the EU council summit VS date of swearing in by the President. 79.191.69.91 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the debate was focused on appointing Tusk before the summit, so he could officially attend as the PM. Max19582 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional sources to back our claim:
 * https://dorzeczy.pl/kraj/512085/tusk-premierem-poleci-w-nowej-roli-na-szczyt-ue.html - Rząd Donalda Tuska ma zostać zaprzysiężony 13 grudnia rano. To oznacza, że już jako premier weźmie udział w szczycie UE-Bałkany Zachodnie.
 * (Donald Tusk's government is to be sworn in on the morning of December 13. This means that he will already be attending the EU-Western Balkans summit as prime minister.)
 * https://wiadomosci.radiozet.pl/polska/polityka/nieoficjalnie-tusk-dogadal-sie-z-duda-ws-zaprzysiezenia-rzadu-ustalono-date - Nowy rząd Donalda Tuska zostanie zaprzysiężony przez prezydenta Andrzeja Dudę rano 13 grudnia - poinformowała Wirtualna Polska. Dzięki temu lider KO już jako premier pojedzie kilka godzin później do Brukseli i będzie reprezentował Polskę na szczycie UE-Bałkany Zachodnie.
 * (Donald Tusk's new government will be sworn in by President Andrzej Duda on the morning of December 13, Wirtualna Polska reported. As a result, the KO leader will already go to Brussels a few hours later as prime minister and will represent Poland at the EU-Western Balkans summit.) Max19582 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the Polish Wikipedia also still lists Morawiecki as the PM. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premierzy_Polski Max19582 (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just to avoid any ambiguity. All experts agree that even if Duda didn't swear Tusk in, he could still fly to Brussels as PM:
 * https://www.tokfm.pl/Tokfm/7,103087,30437003,duda-bedzie-zwlekal-z-zaprzysiezeniem-rzadu-tuska-wypowiedzenie.amp
 * DoRzeczy is a right wing newspaper and not reliable, BTW 79.191.69.91 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't address any of that. In addition, the Polish Wikipedia editors also agree that Morawiecki remains the PM until Tusk being sworn in: https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Premierzy_Polski&diff=prev&oldid=72061981
 * Once again, per https://www.prezydent.pl/prezydent/kompetencje/desygnowanie-i-powolywanie-premiera-i-rady-ministrow, "Prezydent powołuje tak wybraną Radę Ministrów i odbiera przysięgę od jej członków." ("The President appoints so selected Council of Ministers and takes the oath of office from its members.") Max19582 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is correct Tusk is prime minister. Octilllion (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources to back your claim? Max19582 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://x.com/gibandych/status/1734292019894219240?s=46 The presidential minister herself calls Tusk PM so does the President on twitter Octilllion (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reliable source. I think we can change it now, and in case anyone objects, come back to discussing the issue. Max19582 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I replied to @Max19582 on their talk page, but to clarify for the purpose of this discussion: Tusk was nominated and confirmed by the Sejm but is not yet PM; Morawiecki will remain as acting PM until December 13 when Tusk is going to be sworn in . Some WP:RS below; there are plenty more. Please wait to make relevant edits until then.
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/world/europe/poland-donald-tusk-government.html Mr. Tusk, a veteran centrist politician who led Poland from 2007 to 2014, is expected to be sworn in on Wednesday by President Andrzej Duda, an ally of Law and Justice.
 * https://www.ft.com/content/c86aad61-2ebd-4c57-a07c-096089000d91 Tusk will have to wait until Wednesday to be signed into office by President Andrzej Duda, who is a PiS appointee and has played along with the rightwing party’s stalling tactics since the elections.
 * https://polskieradio24.pl/5/1222/artykul/3298285,dymisja-rzadu-mateusza-morawieckiego-przyjeta-do-srody-gabinet-bedzie-dalej-sprawowal-obowiazki Andrzej Duda accepted the resignation of the Council of Ministers submitted by Mateusz Morawiecki on December 11. The president entrusted Prime Minister Morawiecki's cabinet with continuing to perform duties until a new government is appointed - it was reported on the president's website. (translated)
 * Thanks,  Ppt91    talk   23:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The presidential inauguration in the second const step is only a formality. President only appoints the PM in the first and third step. Tusk is already PM Octilllion (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is becoming repetitive and slowly but surely approaches the level of "unconstructive". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Another clarification is provided here: Until Prime Minister Tusk and his ministers are sworn in by the president, Prime Minister Morawiecki and his ministers should perform their duties. From the constitutional point of view, this oath completes the second constitutional step - emphasizes Dr. Hab. Ryszard Piotrowski. The second constitutional step is the election of the Prime Minister by the Sejm, after the president's candidate from the first step does not receive a vote of confidence. (translated) https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykuly/9378972,kto-dzis-rzadzi-kto-jest-premierem-a-kto-administruje.html
 * Please do not make any further changes until tomorrow when he is sworn in.  Ppt91    talk   19:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is becoming repetitive and slowly but surely approaches the level of "unconstructive". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Another clarification is provided here: Until Prime Minister Tusk and his ministers are sworn in by the president, Prime Minister Morawiecki and his ministers should perform their duties. From the constitutional point of view, this oath completes the second constitutional step - emphasizes Dr. Hab. Ryszard Piotrowski. The second constitutional step is the election of the Prime Minister by the Sejm, after the president's candidate from the first step does not receive a vote of confidence. (translated) https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykuly/9378972,kto-dzis-rzadzi-kto-jest-premierem-a-kto-administruje.html
 * Please do not make any further changes until tomorrow when he is sworn in.  Ppt91    talk   19:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the current standings section.
Should this be written as it is, where the number of deputies is also displayed as of 26th of january 2024? Technically untill the Marchal unsuccesfully reseats this place, this is still reserved for someone who ran from the PiS electoral list. This should only be changed if all available candidates for that seat have refused to take it up (as is speculated for ex-MP Wąsik's and ex-MP Kamiński's seats). This is only a procedural wait, and will change very quickly, making this information inaccurate and potentially missleading (two of the seats have already been reseated, making is inaccurate as of 9th of February).

The number of seats per party's election list doesn't change in any other way than elections. ASwiergocki (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sejm


text:
Shinya Nakazawa

Shinya Nakazawa (born March 29, 1978) is a Japanese race car driver who competed in Formula Palmer Audi during 1998 and finished 13th in points. 1996 volant elf Winfield Magnycours 2nd position. 1997 Formula Renault Ecurie Winfield. 1998 Formula palmer Audi UK series. 1999 Formula France vice champion(2wins).He has not appeared in a major professional racing series since, and currently works as a racing instructor at the Taki Racing School.

title: Shinya Nakazawa


text:
La Red (Chilean TV channel)

La Red (literally The Network), is a private television channel in Chile. It began broadcasting on 12 May 1991, as the second private television station in Chile, after Mega.

From 1991 to 2014, the channel operated in facilities adjacent to the Chilefilms complex in Las Condes. In 2014, it opened its own production complex ubicated in Macul, which has three studios.

Programming
Among the many TV shows broadcast on La Red are:

 * See also es:Anexo:Producciones de La Red

Network
The channel was owned by several companies, such as TV Azteca and Copesa, before being sold to Mexican businessman Remigio Ángel González. The channel was called Red Television (Network Television) for about ten years until 2009, before being reverted to its original name in 2009. It mainly airs Hollywood blockbusters (especially in primetime). It is also the TV station that broadcast the local version of the popular "Big Brother" and WWE shows like WWE Raw and WWE SmackDown.

In audience share, it currently ranks fifth behind TVN, Canal 13, CHV, and Mega.

title: La Red (Chilean TV channel)


text:
Deferred maintenance

Deferred maintenance is the practice of postponing maintenance activities such as repairs on both real property (i.e. infrastructure) and personal property (i.e. machinery) in order to save costs, meet budget funding levels, or realign available budget monies. The failure to perform needed repairs could lead to asset deterioration and ultimately asset impairment. Generally, a policy of continued deferred maintenance may result in higher costs, asset failure, and in some cases, health and safety implications.

Technical vs. accounting
The technical community (e.g., engineers, facilities managers, and logisticians, etc.) makes distinctions between maintenance and repairs whereas accountants generally do not. Accountants typically look at maintenance and repairs as period costs requiring immediate expensing as opposed to capital improvements that become capitalized and depreciated over some future time period. The technical community often defines maintenance in terms of retaining an asset's functionality compared to repairs that restore an asset's functionality.

The accounting standard-setter for the U.S. Government (FASAB) defines deferred maintenance to also include deferred repairs thus: “Deferred maintenance and repairs” are maintenance and repair activities that were not performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be and which, therefore, are put off or delayed for a future period. Maintenance and repairs are activities directed toward keeping fixed assets in an acceptable condition. Activities include preventive maintenance; replacement of parts, systems, or components; and other activities needed to preserve or maintain the asset. Maintenance and repairs, as distinguished from capital improvements, exclude activities directed towards expanding the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to serve needs different from, or significantly greater than, its current use." (Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard 40)

Examples
An example of deferred maintenance for a household would be putting off the recommended 1-year checkup on one's car, or putting off the repairs recommended at that checkup: the car will not run as smoothly or efficiently and will be more likely to break down or crash. The term is usually used in the context of large organizations or governments, however.

Maintenance competes for funding with other programs and is often deferred because appropriations are not available or were redirected to other priorities or projects.

Deferred maintenance is often not immediately reported—and sometimes, not at all. Maintenance which is deferred because of insufficient funding may result in increased safety hazards, poor service to the public, higher costs in the future, and inefficient operations.

On May 11, 2011 the Chairman of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), Tom Allen, announced that the FASAB issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 40, Definitional Changes Related to Deferred Maintenance and Repairs: Amending Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment. SFFAS 40 represents a first step toward improved reporting on deferred maintenance and repairs. The Board is working, and will continue to work, closely with stakeholders interested in improved reporting on deferred maintenance and repairs. By addressing definitional issues as a first step, the Board will facilitate continued cooperation. Two areas in need of improvement relate to (1) the lack of comparability when assessing asset condition both within and among agencies and (2) measurement and reporting practices that vary greatly among agencies. These issues arise—in part—due to agencies having differing interpretations regarding the definition of “deferred maintenance” in SFFAS 6. “Redefining the term ’maintenance’ to include repair activities and better reflect asset management practices is an initial step in resolving the problems noted,” according to Chairman Allen. “However, the Board also plans to address measurement and reporting issues through continued consultation with stakeholders which could lead to the issuance of additional guidance and/or standards.

In December 2011 FASAB finalized statement of federal financial accounting standard #42, (SFFAS 42) amending existing standards regarding the measurement and reporting of deferred maintenance and repairs (DM&R). The principal changes in this SFFAS require federal entities to (1) describe the policies over maintenance and repairs (M&R) and the prioritization of M&R activities, (2) identify factors considered in determining acceptable condition standards, (3) identify the general property, plant and equipment (PP&E) and stewardship PP&E to which DM&R relates and provide the rationale for PP&E that may be excluded, (4) provide DM&R balances by category of PP&E, and (5) explain significant changes from the prior year.

Submission
Pursuant to the FASAB Rules and Procedures, the proposed Statement has been submitted concurrently to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Comptroller General, and the Secretary of the Treasury for a 90-day review. FASAB will announce it as a final FASAB Statement after the expiration of both review periods, unless otherwise informed within each of the respective review periods. The standards included in the Statement will be effective for fiscal periods beginning after September 30, 2014.

title: Deferred maintenance


text:
Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film

Facts uncovered by Greg Long that are not disclosed in the article
In May Patterson attempted to shoot a film with his cowboy buddies chasing Bigfoot with dogs. He ran out of money. He obtained money to finish the film from the Radfords. He didn't spend it on the camera rental or anything else. He went to Hollywood to try to raise money. He had $700 of the Radford's cash ($4000 in todays money). This is verified by a contract that held up in court - despite Patricia Patterson attempting to claim it was forged.

In July or August Gimlin asked Heironimus to wear a suit that was being prepared. Patterson and Gimlin began pretending to hunt for Bigfoot around Ape Canyon and Bluff Creek, traveling back and forth. Tracks are found around the Bluff Creek vicinity and Canadians are notified.

In September or early Oct. Heironimus travels to Bluff Creek and makes the Patty footage. Gimlin says they were only there to check out some tracks. Heironimus mailed the original footage to DeAtley's business.

In October Patterson and Gimlin stage their "coming out of the woods and mailing the film" scenario. The fact is that the film of Patty was already edited and ready to view.

The Canadians watch the film the next day and think they have prize footage of a real live Bigfoot to prove they are right. The hoax worked. So it begins...

Justtalk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.244 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source for this? -- œ ™ 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, Greg Long's book. He provides documentation for the facts above.

Examples:

1) Gimlin said that AFTER he and Roger spent time with Hodgson they drove to the EUREKA POST OFFICE and air-mailed the film to DeAtley at 9 pm. PROBLEM? The post office was already closed.

2) Hodgson said that Roger told him they'd JUST GOTTEN BACK from the EUREKA POST OFFICE when he met them at 6:30 pm. They stayed there until they returned to their camp later that night. PROBLEM? That too doesn't fit with the things Patterson and Gimlin claimed went on prior to getting to the store. There simply wasn't enough time.

3) DeAtley always said he couldn't recall anything about the film, but one day he did give an explanation when told that the Post Office in Eureka would have been closed and neither Patterson's nor Gimlin's story matched reality. DeAtley then claimed his pilot had brought the film to him in his plane as he often ran such errands. PROBLEM? The pilot DeAtley used wasn't even in the USA all that year.

4) And finally, Bigfooters decided that the only thing to do is to claim that Gimlin couldn't tell the difference between the downtown Eureka Post Office and a local airport and so they must have had it specially flown from there. PROBLEM? Records show that NO PLANE flew anything to Washington at all that entire weekend.

5) No one can say where the film was processed. Why?

6) The film you see today has been heavily edited ("splicing"). What was edited and why?

7) No one was ever allowed to see or analyze the original, unedited film negative. Again, why?

8) Why did Roger and Bob lie about the date the film was shot?

9) Roger Patterson was making a movie with Jerry Merritt about 5 cowboys tracking down bigfoot to a hidden mountain.  He was NOT making a documentary, which was the story that was told for over 40 years.  We have the court documents that was used in the 1973 case where Bob Gimlin sued Patricia Patterson and Al DeAtley for his share of the profits that PROVE this.  Would you not need a bigfoot costume for a bigfoot movie?

10) Is it not odd that Roger Patterson just happened to film a "real" bigfoot after failing to get further funding for his bigfoot movie?

11) Is it not odd that Roger Patterson never returned to Bluff Creek?

12) Is it not odd Roger Patterson just happened to be a well known conman, liar, and hoaxer? The credit reports, testamonies, contracts, and court documents dug up by Greg Long PROVE this.

13) Is it just a coincidence that Buck Maffei was working at the same rodeo when Patterson was a rodeo rider after he and his buddy Merritt got out of the military? Or that Patterson and Merritt just happened to build an exact replica of Corriganville as soon as it closed its doors (right down to the grocery store, number of shoot-outs per day, speakers in the trees and exact number of exactly the same buildings) in imitation of gorillaman Corrigan's movie ranch?

14) Is it also a coincidence that Crash Corrigan sold off all his gorilla suits (including his white one) in 1961 when Patterson came home from rodeoing and decided to make his first Bigfoot hoax attempt?

15) What about Al DeAtley, who helped finance this film, admits that he participated in hoaxed film?  Hmm....

16) And in addition to Al DeAtley, what about Bruce Mondor, Roger Patterson's OTHER brother-in-law?  He has come forward and admitted that Roger showed him how he faked bigfoot evidence and made tracks using Plaster of Paris.

I could go on and on, but it is simply ridiculous at this point that anyone would take this film seriously. This was a money scam by Patterson, Gimlin, and DeAtley. The suit came from Hollywood. Wah Chang, Janos Prohaska, and John Chambers were the men responsible. Why is this not included in the article? Because no one wants to actually investigate the FACTS and DOCUMENTATION out there. Yet there is plenty of it. It was a hoax. Case closed. Justtalk

 * See WP:OR. -- œ ™ 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. This IS original research. It's in Greg Long's book, "The Making of Bigfoot". It documents the facts above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of hearsay here, not documentation. Documentation isn't writing a book. So much attention is paid to the money Patterson wanted to get for the film of bigfoot but surely more people have made money claiming they've debunked him—do you think those book royalties go to charity—yet the motives of the debunkers is never questioned. Shows how you can expect a very high level of proof from one side but lower your standard for the side you agree with.

If you have *proof* of any of these accusations, please post it. Proof, not hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389F:AACC:FD38:2E9E (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, someone writing a book of "X said this, Y said that," isn't proof, especially when it's a half century after the fact. If you can, say, turn up a negative of Heironimus in a monkey suit, and we can prove that piece of film was taken or processed around fall 1967, that's an example of PROOF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389f:aacc:fd38:2e9e (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Uh, try reading the book. It is NOT a book of "X said this, Y said that".  It is testimony from people who were involved in the hoax.  All the conversations were knowingly tape recorded for accuracy before going to print.  Again, it's in the book.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:910:E00:1890:51:7FBD:3EB5 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Learn how to WP:SIGN.
 * Wikipedia is not about "proof". It is about reliable sources.
 * See Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Bigfoot exists" is extraordinary, "Bigfoot does not exist" is not. So, obviously, you need stronger evidence for the first.
 * Your way of arguing does not work here. You need to be better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * YOUR way of arguing doesn't work here. Try looking up the word "hearsay" before misapplying it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:910:E00:A84D:462F:96F2:D894 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected your indentation. Read WP:INDENT.
 * I did not even use the word "hearsay", let alone misapply it. I only explained that Wikipedia does not work the way you think it does. But I forgot to link WP:RS and WP:OR. Read those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured article
This article is great and fun to read. Portillo (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words
I've tagged a few. These need to be clarified. There may well be others. Rlinfinity (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've removed the ones from the lead as they are unnecessary. See WP:LEAD. -- œ ™ 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Munns Analysis
I am no wikipedia expert but this section only makes reference to Bill Munns' website and claims he has done the most extensive analysis of the film yet to date. I am not sure if this would be original research and should be removed, or if it needs to be expanded further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.213.199.43 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request edit, since I am the named person, submitting information about myself (also new to the Wiki protocols, so apologize if I am formatting anything wrong):

Bill Munns has been studying this film since Jan. 2008, as a researcher with intention to publish analysis and findings of this film. "The Munns Report" now comprises a series of website available PDF documents totaling over 150 pages of research and analysis. Munns has contributed to the film's analysis in two specialized ways.

One is with extensive discussions of how movie creature suits are designed and fabricated, so discussions of whether the Patterson Gimlin Film's subject is or is not a hoax with a costumed human, those discussions may have a stronger foundation of factual information about such suits and particularly the materials available in 1967 to fabricate them. The actual "Creature Suit Analysis" material is on the Bigfoot Forums/Film, Video Discussions/Patterson Gimlin Film.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35

Discussion threads cited are on "Creature Suit Analysis 1-12"

His resume of experience in this profession is at www.billmunnscreaturegallery.com

Second is that Munns has done more high resolution scanning of film copies than any prior individual, and assembled a film frame inventory database which may be the largest centralized source for film image data for analysis, for all future studies of the physical film itself, and issues of frame numbering, splicing or editing, image artifacts from copying, camera starts and stops, cropping issues, grading the quality of copies to appraise their potential for analysis, and establishing a foundation for new potential science techniques (like a stereo-photogrammetry analysis of the film site, and definitive analysis of the lens used on the camera) to resolve some issues that evaded any final analysis previously.

More detailed descriptions of this material are at:

http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_050.htm PDF Documents: PDF 3.2 The Physical Film, Part #1 PDF 3.2 The Physical Film Part #2 PDF 3.2 The Physical Film Part #3

BillMunns (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't think this belongs in here quite yet. For one thing, it reads awfully like self-promotion. But what's more important is that I don't think your analysis of this video has yet made an impact in the world.  We shouldn't go ahead and mention it until it has been picked up by more notable investigators.  If you can offer up information showing that your work has made a significant impact on the scholarship relating to this film outside of your own website and posts on internet forums, please let me know and I can rereview the request.  Them  From  Space  02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the notation. I have no problem with letting others appraise my effort and if anyone feels that further notation be made in your article, that's fine. I wouldn't know exactly how to appraise or guage the impact of my work on the film controversy. So I'm fine with letting the discussion unfold with other participants contributing their appraisals or information. I'll just continue to check in occasionally to see how it develops.

BillMunns (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 * It IS self-promotion. Let's not forget that Bill Munns is a make up man with ZERO experience in 60's creature suits.  He claimed, for instance, that he had never seen a two-piece ape suit before.  That is pretty bad since ALL professional ape suits were (and still are) made in this fashion.  Jeff Pruitt pretty much embarassed him in the BFRO and JREF forums to the point that he never returned to the JREF. just talk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.244 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, I specifically asked the editorial staff to advise if there was any conflict of interest, respectful of the protocols here. Second, I started doing makeup in 1967, a fact, so the comment above is incorrect on that point. Third, two piece ape suits are not the standard but a rarity rarely seen, so the comment above is not supported by any industry knowledgable source. Fourth, Jeff Pruit "AKA Dfoot" did not post to the BFRO, but to the BFF (another error of the above comment), and on the JREF, anyone can read my letter explaining why I am not actively posting there anymore, although I still hold an account in good standing and have posted occasionally, long after Jeff ceased all activity there. So to say I left because of him, or never returned there, are also falsehoods the JREF forum itself can refute, by it's archived material

My work does inspire some people to invent falsehoods to try and discredit me. The above comment is merely an example. The fact that the comment is anonymous certainly must give us pause to consider why the person making the accusations against me chose to hide his/her identity.

BillMunns (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Ummm....you discredited yourself when you said that you had never seen a two-piece ape suit before. It doesn't matter if who posted it is anonymous or not.  Just sayin'. just talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.244 (talk) 01:29, January 27, 2011

Just following up to document why the unsigned remarks are not factually correct. The unsigned person claimed "Jeff Pruitt pretty much embarassed him in the BFRO and JREF forums to the point that he never returned to the JREF"

My most recent post to the JREF was July 18, 2010, (and jeff pruit had been long gone by then), Thread title: "Bigfoot PG Film The Munns Report", page 89, post #3549.

So i still do post there whenever I feel it's appropriate to add to a conversation.

BillMunns (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Mr. Munns, I seen your analysis of the film on the television show MonsterQuest. Is this parts of the same analysis that is on your website? -- œ ™ 06:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering the above, I was doing my analysis for more than a year before the MonsterQuest people asked me to be part of one of their programs, and I've continued to do a lot more research since that show was filmed, but the MQ program did provide some help to advance my research and what they featured in their program was the current status of my work at the time of filming (February, 2009). As with any good research, new work and new data can change some conclusions, and so my current analysis has evoloved somewhat beyond what they presented back then. On the lens issue, I am specifically reviewing the entire process and factoring in other considerations which were not available to me then, so the lens and height calculation are being reconsidered with more variables factored into the equation.

BillMunns (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed Mr. Bill Munns report. Mr. Munns did a forensics analysis on the film and it is very well done regarding the things he investigated. There are other issues like the flash of a gun where he was looking at the wrong frame. The flash wasn't from firing a weapon but a reflection from its barrel. The number of pieces that make up an ape costume is neither limited to one piece, two or more. The most important fact that Mr. Munns investigated and documented was that there are variations of videos of the film that have been reproduced exaggerating the frame size thereby changing the perspective. Although I disagree with Mr. Munns' view that the creature was a bigfoot, I respect the effort and enlightenment that he brought to the surface. For that reason I feel that the reference is applicable to the content. The fact that the report is available for all to see on the web doesn't diminish the importance of his work as some people would insinuate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.176.9 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on the above remarks, "There are other issues like the flash of a gun where he was looking at the wrong frame. The flash wasn't from firing a weapon but a reflection from its barrel." it should be noted that I do illustrate frames which other people claim are muzzle flash evidence, so I do source the claims correctly in terms of which frames are claimed by others as evidence of a muzzle flash. There may be other frames also claimed to have such evidence, and therein may be the discrepancy in the remark about my looking at the wrong frames. I do possess a complete inventory of every single frame of the 953 frames known, so I have the research capability to positively identify any frame as to it's exact frame count number, and cross reference that frame across multiple scanned copies of the film, for positive identification. It may also be noted that what some investigators believe is a gun/rifle muzzle flash (their words, which I merely reference), I personally feel that analysis across multiple scan copies of the footage indicates a light artifact from the copy process. Suffice to say, this specific issue is still debated among researchers.

In regard to this comment from the above: "The number of pieces that make up an ape costume is neither limited to one piece, two or more." this is correct. Even what is commonly thought of as a "one piece suit" (one main full body section) actually has a seperate head mask, seperate gloves, and likely seperate feet, so that may actually be a 6 piece suit if all parts are properly inventoried. But suit designers can and do design suits in a varied number of parts for specific reasons or purposes. So I simply wanted to concur that the remark is correct, and the number of suit pieces can vary greatly from one designer to another, or one project specification to another.

BillMunns (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two videos that have been posted on Youtube. One is called "Patterson Bigfoot Film - Starring Cast" which shows people/faces supposedly found in the background. Can you verify that the people/faces are actually in the originals? The other is called "Bigfoot-Sewing it Up" in which a separation is shown in the materials of the right arm. Additionally there is supposedly evidence of football shoulder pads with d loops, zipper, and suspenders shown in one frame. Can you verify that the extraction is real or a matter of someone editing the frame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMikeAnderson (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the duty of the person making such claims to verify their claims. If a researcher wants me to look into their research or claim, they should email me and provide their material for review. I've looked at every single individual film frame and don't find either of the things referenced above. As for shoulder pads, zippers, loops and suspenders, I've built many apesuits myself and do not see any indications of such in the PGF.

75.140.3.56 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This last post was mine, above, but my signature didn't display. Just acknowledging I wrote it. Bill Munns BillMunns (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I find the paragraph about verifying one's claim disturbing. The original film appears nowhere to be found. It is impossible to say what is or isn't in the original film. I'm only catching up on the subject but my interest in the video's on YouTube brings on questions that I think you may want to address.

There is a video showing a cat and dog in the middle of some frames. It would difficult but not impossible I assume to miss those if one has reviewed the copies you have in detail. As blurry as they are, I reviewed several other videos of the PGF before posting this and there they are in the middle of the frame. Can you relate for the audience whether you have seen the animals and how they relate to the film.

It was mentioned previously about a gun flash or reflection from a gun barrel. Can you explain the difference as it relates to the composition of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMikeAnderson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying to the above: I have seen claims of a cat as well as a baby sasquatch in the film. Never heard of the dog. Generally these claims arise from people who are looking at a single frame capture from a DVD or video, and the film to video process blends frames, creating false image shapes from the blend. The solution is to look at actual specific film frames, scanned directly from the film, no frame blending. Many of the claims of things found in the film disappear once real film frames are examined. I have the largest database inventory of 4K scans of actual film frames in the research community. And I have the first true index of every frame inventoried. So once I am shown a frame somebody thinks has something suspicious in it, I can identify that exact frome as well as identify if the frame is a true film frame or a tv blend. With that database as my resource, I have found that the "cat" is merely red-orange tree folliage (at least for the claim of a cat I was shown).

There are a lot of curious image shapes in the blurs of the film (either from motion blur or the TV version blended frames) and some image artifacts on specific copies, and that does cause a lot of confusion. But for the most part, I have found these claims don't hold up to proper inspection of true film frames at high resolution.

BillMunns (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this article a hoax?
It's pretty plain to anyone that this was a man or woman in an ape suit. While it may be wikipedia worthy does it really need to be such a large article? The article for the planet of the apes novel is a stub compared to all this.

Im sure there are some true believers out there that we really do have bigfoot's running amuck but does it all need to come here?Woods01 (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Meldrum and Bill Munns have more than destroyed the superficial, emotional knee jerk rejections of this film as being the authentic film it is. This film is so obviously not a fake once the most basic facts about it are investigated that it can be deemed as the perfect sociological study of just how pathetic the human brain can be when it just wants to believe something they do not want to believe. All intellectual honesty goes straight out the window and nothing but an emotion driven, faith based rejection is all that is left. The extend to which anonymous losers have harassed Patterson and Gimlin and their families for decades now just for making this absolutely astounding discovery is one of the most disgusting, pathetic demonstrations of humanity I have witnessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.45.218 (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Of course it's always better to have a more comprehensive and detailed article. Why should yours or anyone else's point of view on this subject have any bearing on the article's size? Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view policy on all subjects and strives to inform its readers the best it can. Furthermore, if the Planet of the Apes novel article is incomplete then maybe you should help improve Wikipedia and expand it! -- œ ™ 06:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly untrue that it is "always better to have a more comprehensive and detailed article" -- in this case it's a major violation of WP:UNDUE because the weight of this article pushes a WP:FRINGE belief. A large number of the sources used violate WP:RS. This needs a major rewrite, largely by dumping a lot of fringe authors' claims. DreamGuy (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Of course it's a fringe belief, how can it be undue weight when the article is entirely ABOUT that fringe belief, so why would it be bad to have a comprehensive article about a fringe belief when our goal is to be the best encyclopedia possible? I don't buy into the notion that providing less information about a subject is better simply because it's a fringe topic (which btw I wouldn't call this fringe as this film is firmly entrenched in popular culture by now). If you think the article is unbalanced by there not being enough weight from a skeptical viewpoint then the best thing to do in order to improve the article would be to ADD as much as that viewpoint as you can find from reliable sources, not remove content that forms the whole basis of the article. But as far as I see it the article does a great job at providing every viewpoint there is on the subject, both skeptical and belief, and certainly does not need any kind of rewrite. -- œ ™ 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have more of a problem with the way some of this information is represented. Long seems to base much of his book upon rumors, and much of the information also appears to be trivial. For example, take the following sentence, replace the subjects with "someone," and correct the passive voice:
 * Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.
 * Someone says he heard from someone that someone claimed he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.

--SweetNightmares (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob Heironimus was being misquoted. He never said that the suit was made from horsehide, he said his brother Howard had told him that Roger claimed that. So it was corrected here. And unlike every bigfoot writer in the past, Greg Long actually checked up on the facts. For example, when Bob Gimlin told Greg Long that he had never been arrested in his life, Greg went down to the courthouse and found his arrest record, which proved Gimlin was lying. Documentation can be found in the book, not "rumors". JustTalk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.244 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * On your first point: this is classic double hearsay, which is about as reliable a source as would be Crazy Bob from down the street claiming that he Elvis riding a unicorn over Niagara falls. To your second point, whether or not Gimlin had ever been arrested is totally irrelevent, and being asked such a question for the sole purpose of discrediting a person is not only a dishonest tactic, it commits multiple fallacies. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant if it’s hearsay or not, the fact remains that Bob never said the suit was made from horsehide; he said that was what he was told. Big difference. As for Gimlin goes, the example given was to show that Greg Long provided documentation, in this case the arrest record, in his book. Learn to read more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:910:E00:8968:C5ED:581F:FB19 (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not "obvious" to "anyone" that this is someone in an ape suit. Please don't speak for seven billion people and tell them what they think. How presumptuous of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:3d4c:d403:ae55:31a5 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are probably talking to Woods01 who has not had any contributions since 2016, although he said "plain" and not "obvious". The meaning of the word "anyone" changes with context, and the way you used it means "it is obvious to no one", which is wrong: It is obvious to Woods01 and to me. Also, WP:SIGN your contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a Patterson film agnostic, but I don't know how seriously to take anyone who can't use the word "hoax" in the correct context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389f:aacc:fd38:2e9e (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Learn how to WP:SIGN, and learn what article Talk pages are for. Since this is the fourth time I told you about signing, I guess that Wikipedia is not the right place for you, with your read-only memory brain. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Mystery 360 show on National Geographic
I just watched the show yesterday - they tested some myths and talked to many experts. They didnt prove that film really depicts Big Foot - but evidence shows that in 60' it would be almost impossible to hoax it.

I higly recommend this show - i was a skeptic myself but now i think this movie really shows some kind of big ape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.59.120.17 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hate to break this to you, but the costume in the film used techniques from the 1940's. Don't get your information from cheesy T.V. shows. JustTalk

And what is your proof for that? The guys in the show were special effects experts - one from the era and one from today. Both said it wasnt possible then and it is very hard to make such and costume even today. maine

 * Ladies... read the note at the top of the page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject". Let's keep discussion focused on article improvement. -- œ ™ 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, do any of you have any contributions to make to the article?MilkStraw532 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Falsehoods, mistruths and lies within this article
There is a section of the article thankyou, that is titled "encounter", and within this section, it is claimed that 25 feet is the precise same as 8 meters/metres, even within the body of the article itself. This is an outright lie, as 25 feet is a full 38 centimeters/centimetres short of being 8 meters/meters, even to the point that it is 7.63 meters/metres.

This needs to be ficed I feel, and it may even appear elsewhere in the article, or god knows even elsewhere in the website, even on other articles. Wikipedia can it really be so inaccurate or to allow such flagrent inaccuracies? It may only be a case of 28 centimatres/centimeters, but it is not right that this should be allowed to continue unchallenged, even to the point that it is accepted as an article.

I shall change it forthwith. Thankyou for your time to read. Popping Corns 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I disagree. By giving the exact conversion, we might introduce false precision. I think it is clear from the context that the measure was an estimate, so an imperfect conversion is appropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be precise, as the initial distance is only an estimate. Such accuracy is not needed on this article, as it might be for instance if discussing a sport record.--Dmol (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Female Ape-Hominid
Oceania2000 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Female Apelike-Hominid - if you look at the footage, you can see breasts on the creature. Does anyone mention that they created a female ape-suit for Gimlin and Patterson? Or do those who claim to have made the suit overlook this detail? Could it have been real footage that they later decide to discredit for whatever reason?
 * heh - not "breasts" - ape suit defects 50.111.59.83 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the breasts thing sort of weirdly fascinating. If you were making a sasquatch costume, why would you give it breasts and make it a female? It would only make it more complicated and more dubious, and from the analysis, a bigfoot costume would have been already expensive and technically complicated, without doing that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Roger Patterson had drawings of female bigfoots with hairy breasts in his book just two years before he faked this film. 75.8.102.122 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there were two choices, and they picked one for their fake. Not weirder than the other one.
 * I don't think this has much to do with article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Date??
Why does the article say "It was supposedly filmed on October 20, 1967." How do you "supposedly" film something? Hoax or real, this footage was filmed on that date, a fact that can be confirmed in numerous books and websites. Thor2000 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the date of the filming given by Roger Patterson has been in question, for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.49.176 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 * "Various reasons" being what? i see five citations, all from offline sources, with the page numbers, but no further information. the reasons ought to be in the article. and, if the sources do not provide any explanation, then that should not be included in the article at all. Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How can I (or someone with editing privileges) revise the Coordinates data at the upper right of the first page?
The latest research, in 2012, located the true location of the filmsite, something that had been in dispute until then. This discovery is corroborated by the presence of a configuration of trees that matches those in the background of the PG film, and by the identifying characteristics of some of the trees within it. (E.g., the Big Tree, the Ladder Tree, etc.) The location given for Patterson's estimated camera position is: 41.26.412 -143.42.115. See the blog of one of the participants in the team that located (and mapped) this site for details and this coordinate claim, at: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/gps-coordinates-for-bluff-creek-pgf.html

A full issue of Bigfoot Times newsletter (August 2012, pages 1–4) was devoted to this. The team's claim is now generally accepted among Bigfooters. (The newsletter provides coordinates for a location "ten feet south of the big tree": 41 26 440N  123 42 103W )

The current coordinates are not accurate. According to a map (from google earth I think) e-mailed to me by the blog owner, Stephen Streufert, they point to a location about 100 yards east of the creek, in the woods. Anyone relying on these coordinates to get to the site would be led astray. Streufert's email is bigfootbooks@gmail.com

RogerKni (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit the article and search for . Melonkelon (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Melonkelon. I found it. Now I'm double-checking with Streufert and Barackman (source of current coordinates) before I apply the change. RogerKni (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've now checked with those two, plus I. Carton, another member of the 2012 team, who is the most expert on the coordinates. He's emphatic that the current Wiki coordinates are wrong. The team came up with different coordinates for different locations on the site, such as RP's filming position or 10 feet south of the Big Tree. The figure Ian suggested is for the (estimated) position of "Patty" in Frame 1: N 41 26 24.7  W 123 42 6.9 RogerKni (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my list of Patterson's negative to positive characteristics by Hidarimigi
@Hidarimigi, who wrote: "Removed biographical Original Research. Sorry, but this "negative to positive" characteristics drawn from a single source is non-encyclopaedic)"

Here's how Wikipedia defines Original Research: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." My source was Greg Long's book, The Making of Bigfoot, which came from a published source, not myself. The publisher, Prometheus Books, is long-established and substantial, publishing many books a year. It has a good reputation generally, although it prints many controversial books. All of the quotations Long printed were taped and, surely, listened to by by his editors the publisher's legal staff for accurate transcription, given the possibility of a lawsuit by them or by Mrs. Patterson or Bob Gimlin. By that measure, his book is reliable. So that takes care of the "original research" objection.

What about the "single source" objection? Long claims that he quotes 40 persons in his book who knew Patterson, and I (being very familiar with his book) believe that to be an accurate count. He also says that he could have quoted more. (His publisher made him cut his book down by 20%.) So the characteristics they described and I listed came from multiple sources, not one. Any biography is a single source—so the objection fails, because it "proves too much."

Here's the next, and final, sentence of Wiki's OR definition: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." My paragraph was purely an index to the about-Patterson portions of the book. It implies no conclusion other than that opinions about him were diverse.

I think I've refuted the basis you put forward for your deletion, so maybe I should shut up now. But I'll go on, because there are other concerns in the shadows--concerns that are valid. Many people believe that Greg Long himself was biased, and that his opinions about Patterson were unbalanced. They think he strained to put the worst interpretation on Patterson's motives, and the best on his man-in-the-suit, Bob Heironimus. I agree with that, but I also think that he didn't make up the negative opinions about Patterson that he quoted--they came from persons who were his neighbors or business partners, so why not interview them, and quote them? He made a fair effort to knowingly interview Patterson's friends and relatives, and he gave them a decent amount of space in his book. (He devoted a quarter of the book to interviews with the widow of RP's friend Prentice Beck; Patterson's three brothers; Jim Falon; Jerry Lee Merritt; Bigfooters John Green, Peter Byrne, Larry Lund, and René Dahinden; Glen Koelling; and John Ballard.)

Even if the book is biased, it's something that deserves the sort of X-ray I gave it, because it's become a phenomenon in itself. It can't be brushed aside. It is constantly involved in commentary in forums on sites devoted the PGF debate, particularly The International Skeptics Forum (ISF--formerly JREF) and The Bigfoot Forums (BFF). Most of the commenters there are unaware of where in the book to find backup for what they have a recollection of having read there. They are also mostly unaware of the positive material about him, or anyway, where to find it. That's because Long's index is incomplete, sometimes erroneous, and not helpfully organized around facts-and-opinions-about-Patterson-relevant-to-the-authenticity-debate, the way mine is. What I've provided them with is something both sides will greatly appreciate, that will elevate their discussions (because they'll be able to cite and to quote accurately, rather than fuming (with frustration) and flaming), and that will make Wiki's PGF entry more popular. I think it's the most valuable paragraph in this entry--and it's only five lines, so it doesn't get in anyone's way. (The bulk is in the refs.)

To address the concerns about bias and selectivity, I propose to add the following lead-in to my index, and to undo its deletion, if I hear no convincing objection within the next three or four days: "Opinions expressed in The Making of Bigfoot, and the factual claims therein, are involved in many debates about the authenticity of the PGF. What follows is an index to a dozen or so [I'll count] of those opinions and claims, which should make it easier for debate-participants to locate what they're looking for (and to cite it, and to quote it accurately)—and to discover things they weren't looking for, but should be aware of. Be aware that many Bigfooters consider the author to be biased and selective, so the material this index points to should not be accepted uncritically, especially not the opinions of the author himself."RogerKni (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 * pinging them for you in case they aren't watching this page. Melonkelon (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 * RogerKni has clearly spent a lot of time organizing information he believes is relevant to this topic. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a repository for original research of this sort -- and it's a common misconception to believe that so long as content can be cited to a "published source" it can't be original research. Stated briefly, as in this case, if an editor has made a unique 'synthesis' of material, even if based on a 'published source,' it is considered original research. ("do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.") In this particular instance, while a single, explicit "conclusion" isn't offered, the very act of a generating an index of "negative to positive characteristics" requires that an editor exercise subjective analysis of material, organizing it in such a way that the original author himself did not present. RogerKni demonstrates that's the aim of the paragraph in his response above.

 * Beyond that, there's no precedent that I've come across in any Wikipedia article, biographical or otherwise, to create an "index" of personal opinions about an individual. As I noted in my edit summary and acknowledged by RogerKni, this is drawn from a single source -- a book by a single author. While it may include many interviews, so far as I can tell from various reviews about it, does not make claims to being exhaustive, factual or unbiased. Material such as this generally falls under Questionable Sourcing":

"'Such sources include websites and publications expressing views... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.'"

 * While Wikipedia may not be the right place for such content, I'd suggest that RogerKni recreate his material in a more appropriate context, such as Wikia sites devoted to the subject matter, such as http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_Footage or http://cryptozoology.wikia.com/wiki/Sasquatch.
 * --HidariMigi (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Spam, junk n co
The pictrue here about a bigfood could be a human dressed up like an ape. It could be even something like a gorilla or .. But nobody can ever bring a prove if the pictures are in that bad quality. You can discuss and make other 1000 years theses and antytheses and never will come to an end or an aim. Just junk, spam or what? --2A02:1205:5009:C1F0:148B:C148:1A61:9F20 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right (it probably is a human), but in the wrong place. This page is for discussing improvements of the article, not for general discussion of the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patterson–Gimlin film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521054015/http://www.redding.com/news/big-day-for-bigfoot-believers to http://www.redding.com/news/big-day-for-bigfoot-believers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Patterson-Gimlin film/ You have the wrong county listed
I was always led to believe the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot in Del Norte County. I recently looked at the story on your site and it lists Humboldt County. The lat long on your page clearly puts it inside Del Norte County. Maybe the confusion is that you can access that part of Del Norte only by going in from Humboldt. Anyway, just letting you guys know you have the wrong county. Big fan of your site!

Bill Steven........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.162 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Second Reel section
There is a line "A ten-foot strip from that reel, or from a copy of that reel, from which still images were taken by Chris Murphy, still exists, but it, too, has gone missing."

How can we know it still exists if it is missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:3d4c:d403:ae55:31a5 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the cited sources says it does? --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

My point, which I thought was obvious, was that the statement contradicts itself—obviously a "source" says it. If I say a source says the moon doesn't exist even though it does, would that merit including in an article on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8201:6140:389f:aacc:fd38:2e9e (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Learn how to WP:SIGN.
 * If you say a sources says something, we should not include it. Only if the source actually says it and if it is relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ever hear of Malden Mills?
In the 1960s specifically the late 1960s I worked at the famous Malden Mills in Lawrence Mass where they manufactured a lot of this fake fur that was used in costumes. It is clear to me that the Bigfoot in the Paterson film was a man in a suit. That isn’t to say that I don’t believe that Bigfoot exists. I do. But this particular film is a hoax and I think Bob Gimlin is a nice and honest man but was simply fooled by a very good fake. 2601:19B:8301:E820:0:0:0:3F13 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Bob Gimlin was in on it. He's not an honest man either; just look at his arrest record. 75.8.102.122 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File
Since 2010 Wikipedia has used a fair-use file (File:Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352.jpg) of this film, presumably under the assumption that the film is copyrighted. The film is not copyrighted, because American copyright law states that works published between 1964 and 1977 required a copyright notice or else they would enter the public domain (see this page for more info). The original Patterson-Gimlin film did not have a copyright notice. As such, I have WP:BOLDly replaced the file with one on Wikimedia Commons per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The unedited film recored at 16fps after 1min 50sec the record at 18 fps
When the video is played bottom left you have a little dark spot at a specific frequency(allow better quality image). On 1 min 51sec the start filming at 18 fps the dark spot is about 1,5X faster then before and images are unclear. Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. at 1.51min he actually filmed off hes friends slowly filming treetops after 18 seconds he noticed bigfoot stating there was no haste, he already changed setting to make a more blur image 2A02:A03F:82E9:FB00:9DF0:CABA:1355:39C (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Deathbed confession
It made the news back when the guy died that he confessed on his deathbed that his footage was a hoax; why is this not added? certainly if I heard about it back when, because it made the news, how come Wikipedia hasn't? Also just like vampires and the Tooth Fairy Bigfoot is the invention of someone writing fiction so why would anybody choose to believe this nonsense could possibly exist? same as Slender Man. 69.75.131.46 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is "the guy", and what is the source for this? (I deleted a near-duplicate WP:FORUM post above. You do not need to say things twice here.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP is referring to a common misconception, myth or whatever you want to call it, that Roger Patterson made a confession on his deathbed that the film was faked. This never happened or at least has never been confirmed. See here and here for some comments on this alleged confession. Melonkelon (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I fyou have proof of that, you would need to post a reference. I'm sure if there was an obvious death bed confession, it would have been noted and added to the article years ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film


text: Template:User hu

title: Template:User hu