Talk:Wing Bowl

Criticism

Sources should be cited for the criticism section, or it should be removed. Right now it could just be the author's opinion. Bjewiki 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

other information

it would be nice to know how long the contestants have to eat the wings during the competition 192.35.35.34 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The format for 2007 is:

Round 1: 14 mins - all 25 eaters eat

Top 10 eaters advance to Round 2

Round 2: 14 mins - 10 eaters eat

Top 5 eaters (cumulative Round 1&2 wings) advance to round 3:

Round 3: 2 mins - 5 eaters eat

Just not sure where exactly to put this info. Bjewiki 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the competition?!

It says "The event pits competitive eaters in a chicken wing eating contest." Is the contest to see who can eat the most? Who can keep down the wings with the highest hotness rating (i.e., the most scoville units?). How are the wings cooked? Details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also in Colorado?

I know this article is mainly in Philadelphia, but I must mention that the Wing Bowl also takes Place in the Pepsi Center in Colorado, which is sponsored by KBPI. Is it possible to make a general article on the Wing bowl? 75.166.123.207 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so i guess the question needs to be asked of how well established the Denver event is and how long it has been going on for before doing a disam, otherwise i don't see a reason not for adding a subsection relating to the event in Denver. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Its actually been going on for about 10 years. Its sponsored by the colorado mammoth, so its pretty big. 75.166.123.207 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Past Wing Bowls

I've gone through and removed much of the "Past Wing Bowls" section because almost all of it was content about living individuals which was not supported by citations to reliable sources. In addtion, much of it was original reasearch and not written in an encyclopedic tone. There's nothihg wrong recapping an individual event, but round-by-round commentary is not needed and any claims which such as "so and so cheated", "so and so retired", "so and so won such and such prize" should only be inluded when it can be supported by an independent source. I will go back and see if I can find any newspaper or other reliable sources which can be used to support the information removed, but others are welcome to do so as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of sexism and misogyny

Marchjuly has repeatedly removed attempts at adding this section onto the page. There are numerous articles written online by major publications that discuss this issue, yet Marchjuly appears to not want this included at all in the article. Here are some sources that backup the need to include some type of section on this: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/03/17/bbc-sure-makes-wing-bowl-sound-rapey/ http://www.phillymag.com/articles/2015/01/18/wing-bowl-time-to-end-it/ http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news/wing-bowl-is-a-hot-mess/article_d7d416ea-ee26-11e6-97bf-b32ae0e8b8b3.html http://greatideas.people.com/2016/02/05/wing-bowl-2016-photos/

This article seems like it's just some wing eating contest, with NO mention about any of the extra controversy around it.<Personal attack redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.137.107 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you have a dispute and a disagreement regarding the content in the article and you're welcome to discuss it here, but making personal attacks at other editors and calling them "misogynist" is not acceptable and is not going to fly. I know Marchjuly to be a level-headed and neutral editor who will be more than willing to explain and help this dispute come to resolution. Please be respectful and give him a chance to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability of the sources being cited; I believe the publications they are found in are WP:RS, but the article's themselves read more like editorial commentary and personal opinion pieces than objective commentary, so they seem a bit WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY to me. The New York Times, for example, is reputable publication, but Wikipedia doesn't automatically assume that OpEd pieces or personal commentary pieces in the NYT are automatically acceptable as reliable sources by default per WP:NEWSORG. If the consenusus estabished here is that the sources are good enough to merit adding content about these allegations to the article, then it will be added in some form or another. Further feedback may even be requested at WP:RSN if necessary. I think the article should be reverted back to the last stable version per WP:STATUSQUO until a consensus is established for including this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added {{Please see}} templates to the relevant WikiProject talk pages as well as WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN to try and get more feedback about this, since as the 98.111.137.107 has expressed concern on their user talk this article might not be one watched by lots of editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The first link the IP gives references a BBC article that could be used: Wing Bowl: Chicken eating with a difference. But I agree that these sources read like blog posts. They're mostly the opinion of the author, with very few claims of fact thrown in. Well, at lease usable claims of fact; there seem to be a few claims that people or the event as a whole are misogynist. But we can't characterize an event as misogynist (events don't have emotions; they can't hate women), and we can't say it about a person either, without much better sourcing. And for all that, what the authors are describing is male chauvinism; it's not hatred or even dislike of women, it's the objectification of them. But "misogyny" is a hot term right now, so it's not unexpected. However, the use of idiomatic language instead of precise language reinforces the impression that these are little better than blog posts.

So, if the authors are notable, then their opinions might be due, but would need to be properly attributed to them. The BBC article could be used to make claims of fact, such as about the existence, use and purpose of the "can cam". But other than that, this material does not belong.

And for the record, I'm a proud feminist. So please hold off on accusing me of pushing my own bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. The BBC one referenced by MjolnirPants seems to be the most usable of the sources, but synthesizing (alone or in combination with the other articles) into a blanket chracterization of the event as a whole seems to be WP:OR. This might be possible to use as critical commentary of the BBC's and other TV coverage per se, but again that does not seem to be what's being proposed here. This may makes mention of the "Can Cam", and how it's used, the Wingettes and also the "floats" the contestants use to "enter the ring", but the author also seems to express admiration for the female winner of the event. This seems to the most critical of the event and calls for women to boyvott next years event, but I'm not sure this is enought to justify an entire section such as this.

If the event was being officially protested, boycotted or condemend by politicians, women's groups, etc. because they feel it objectifies women, and these protests and how the event organizer has responded to such claims are being reported on by local, national or international media, then I can see including neutrally worded factual content describing that type of thing being added to the article. However, I don't think it's proper to simply label the event as being one which objectifies women, especially Wikipedia's voice, and such claims would need to be properly attributed to whomever makes them. The problem with this is that with respect to the sources provided so far, I think it might be WP:UNDO to attribute them to the these individual writers since they appear to be too WP:PRIMARY and too not WP:JOURNALIST to be considered highly regarded well-respected experts in this field per WP:NEWSBLOG and not just your typical human-interest reporters per the second paragraph of WP:NEWSORG. I'm not trying to discredit how these reporters feel about the event, but care needs to be taken when trying to use such "opinions" in articles.

Also, just to add on, the WP:SOCK attempt by a new WP:SPA to re-add this content to the article is not helpful or conducive to this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)