Talk:Barkley Marathons

Refs for finishers
I would like to discuss a Sources column for the Finishers table, to contain a reference for each finishing time.

First, is there any real opposition to such an addition? If so, on what basis?

Second, the obvious most authoritative source would be Cantrell. He, or someone close to him, does the actual timing, and presumably he keeps the official records in some form. Does he put the records online? Where? If not, is there a single online source that is more "reliable" than the rest? I'd be looking for someone who has direct access to the official records, rather than getting their information from other sources such as Facebook, Twitter, or simple word-of-mouth (emails, phone calls, etc.). Failing that, someone who at least has direct contact with Cantrell.

Comments? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have recently made non-trivial changes to the article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I found the website where they post official times here: http://www.mattmahoney.net/barkley/ and it also includes race reports which may be useful in expanding the article -NJasperse — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJasperse (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, I was aware of that page, it's easy to find. It identifies some of its times as official, and others as unofficial, but the Wikipedia editor in me is reluctant to blindly take his word for either. I'd at least like to know where and how he gets his data. I emailed him two days ago, but no response yet—and I may never get one since he doesn't know me from Adam. Anyway, I'm just fishing here, hoping someone knows something more about that page or another source of official finishing times. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What time of year is the race
What time of year is The Race season 2006 no unfinished. I'm curious because I want to be one of the 40 people that enter possibly with bib number one considering my recent track record....! TSeeton (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Started today actually  spryde  |  talk  18:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing the Finishers Table
If I remember correctly they changed the length of the Barkley Marathons, would it be worth separating, the table into old loop vs new loop?


 * 1) This would potentially need a differentiation in lengths between the loops

2607:EA00:107:3407:2D2A:7E35:5741:1CEA (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm relatively sure the course changes slightly every year PyropePe (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Slowest finish" for Paris
Re:

"... it's a metric unique to this type of race"

I somewhat understand the rationale. I wonder why, after 29 years, it suddenly becomes important to note this metric for the first female finisher. I might be more inclined to accept it for a male finisher, although the "slow" end of the range comes down to differences of a few minutes (seven finishes over 59:30:00; only 00:04:48 between the two slowest).

For a female finisher, it's a lot less appropriate. It's a scientific fact that female runners have less stamina due to less muscle mass; this is clearly evidenced by the fact that it took 29 years for a female to finish (not for lack of strong female participants). To a great extent, of course she's the slowest finisher; it would be more notable if she weren't. It's at least as notable that hers is the fastest (only) female finish, and it seems to detract from that achievement to flag it as "slowest". To include this metric for Paris is to compare apples (men) to oranges (women), and I continue to oppose.

Unregistered editors cannot be pinged, so I will notify the other editor on their user talk page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think editor meant that people who know the Barkely are used to see the "slowest finish" in this article since many years, and find it fun; it is not something that was added for Jasmin particularly. This kind of sarcasm is part of the blood of the race. You can see for example this video at 37:55, where Gary joked on Karel's slowness record. Ninsuo (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what they meant; their edit summary was very different.
 * I've been participating at this article for a number of years, and I haven't seen "slowest finish" in the table until now. I think you're mistaken about that. At one point there was an attempt to add it to "Course records" in the infobox, but that was rightly removed.
 * Anyway, I think we can agree that any such "fun sarcasm" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (Mandruss editing logged out) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not mistaking, this "slow" record is indeed out there, le me help you browse the history find a random example. About the "fun sarcasm", I've nothing against removing it, and I attempted to explain what the original editor meant. But your writing style is quite agressive so now, I may reconsider putting it back. Ninsuo (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That was added on 12 August 2023 and removed (not by me) on 22 March 2024. I'm partly wrong and I'm amending two of my posts accordingly. You're partly wrong since seven months does not constitute people who know the Barkely are used to see the "slowest finish" in this article since many years. Sorry for "aggressive", which many call "assertive" or "direct". I'm an American. And I've spent many years editing American politics articles, where this style is unfortunately necessary. In any case, the "fun sarcasm" bit is a small part of my argument. (Mandruss editing logged out) 161.97.225.237 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This "slowest finish" didn't shock me more than that as the whole race is based on making dark humour from race eligibility, bib collection, race rules, sections & book names, and DNFs/finishes. But I can understand that this note doesn't fit well with Jasmin's recent performance, most importantly for people who don't know the Barkely's. There are many other ways to spread the "fun" of the race so it looks fair enough to leave only "Only woman" and then "First woman" in the notes section of this table. Ninsuo (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was the one who added the slowest finish. I am sharing here a news article (written by a woman) which mentions her "slowest finish" not as a derogatory, but as in fact something which many/most people who do fixed time races pay attention to. Also, here is the 2012 finisher complementing the 2023 finisher on beating his "slowest known time". This is in fact something which has been in the zeitgeist of this race for a long time. Lastly, Mandruss' initial comments about the female physiology do show a concerning ignorance about these long-form races, where women do frequently outperform men. Plenty of men did not even finish this year, and women do win these races outright on occasion. That lack of knowledge was odd, in tandem with not knowing the "slowest finish" metric had in fact been on this page before. 73.229.212.72 (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * this article also says that sanchez is spanish so it does not seem to be reliable... 2A01:CB06:806C:B38D:4878:15A7:CF33:83E5 (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One error, not in the same ballpark as the topic at hand, on a respected ultrarunning website doesn't seem particularly relevant. But just in case, here is another article from an even larger running website, also written by a woman, mentioning it.73.229.212.72 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * a concerning ignorance about these long-form races, where women do frequently outperform men - I confess to ignorance about any long-form races other than this one. I'm a dedicated non-runner. As empirical evidence, one finish in 26 doesn't seem to support "women do frequently outperform men". (Sure, the strongest women often beat the weakest men, but that's not the same thing. For a meaningful comparison, we have to look at the strongest of both, which is what the Finishers table does.) I looked for an explanation and couldn't come up with anything besides physiology. Is there something atypical about this particular race that strongly favors men? If men and women are equal in endurance running, why is it necessary to show separate stats (e.g. Boston Marathon)? Never mind endurance, why don't men and women compete against each other in Olympic track events? How much evidence do we need that men have a physical advantage? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are various resources, among many more widely available, showing how women have demonstrated the ability to outperform men in long distance races. 73.229.212.72 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good job, but entirely unresponsive to my points, which, in my biased opinion, are more compelling than your links. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If we followed the precedent established in the rest of the world, we would have a separate table for female finishers. I could live with that, even though it would have only one entry for some undeterminable amount of time. But I'd also settle for simply omitting "slowest finish" for Paris, which would probably be less controversial than a separate table. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That lack of knowledge was odd, in tandem with not knowing the "slowest finish" metric had in fact been on this page before. By the way, it's bad form to criticize a fellow editor for a simple memory lapse that was immediately admitted and self-corrected. In my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * After further thought, I have created the women's table and added back "Slowest finish" for the men. This is obviously revertable, but I think it's the best (least bad) compromise. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some facts: This documentary (1:24:31), released in 2014 about the 2012 race, has Ed Furtaw asking John Fegyveresi at the 2012 finish line, "How does it feel to be the slowest man ever to finish this race?" Fegyveresi was first listed in this Wikipedia article as the slowest finisher in March 2019, and he remained there until March 17, 2023. This documentary (38:00) of the 2023 race has Lazarus Lake saying to Sabbe right at the finish line: "59:53:33. You are now the slowest Barker ever." Sabbe replaced Fegyveresi in this Wikipedia article as the new slowest finisher on March 17, 2023, the day of his finish. Immediately after the race (March 18), Sabbe posted on his Instagram, "While I usually go for the Fastest Known Times, I can live with my Slowest Known Time on the Barkley course for sure." On March 20, 2024, i.e., before Paris's finish, there was fan speculation that someone might take Sabbe's SKT, then fan congratulations to Paris on March 22 for doing it.
 * "Slowest finish" is a real record at the Barkley. 100.0.71.21 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, but it's like an inside joke. Average readers don't follow the Barkley history/culture that closely and don't get it. They need to be our target audience, not the insiders. This is not a niche runner site. Anyway, I gave y'all the "Slowest finish" tag back in return for the separate table; I think that's a fair trade. If a reader really wants to know "slowest finish regardless of gender", it's easy enough to compare Paris's and Sabbe's times. 59:58 > 59:53. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Admirable effort, but he's already been shown to be demonstrably wrong at every turn, and is still hanging on to weird misogynistic tangents now. 73.229.212.72 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now we're stooping to personal attack, hyperbole, and word-twisting. If I'm being weirdly misogynistic, so are the folks who decide how to keep records for the Boston, most of the Olympics, and virtually any sport requiring a lot of physical fitness. Even in pro tennis, women "compete" with men, but only in mixed doubles. Where do women compete head-to-head with men? Golf. Sorry but that criticism doesn't begin to hold water.I'm saying "men have a physical advantage", and you're hearing "men are superior to women". Those are not the same thing. You might as well call me a racist because I recognize that African-Americans have darker skin; that would make as much sense.I thought we were better. If you want your way that badly, I won't stand in your way. Have at it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how any conversation about generalizing gender based performance in long form races is relevant to creating an encyclopedia. Any conclusion we would come to here would be original research. PyropePe (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need reliable sources to tell us the rest of the world separates genders in fitness sports, including long form races. WP:SKYISBLUE. (But we both know I could easily produce the sources if you need them.) Even when men and women compete side-by-side in events, which is often not the case, separate stats are maintained. They might as well be separate events and are combined only as a matter of convenience (who wants to hold two Boston Marathons every year?). Separate stats are maintained for the Boston, the New York, and, I strongly suspect, just about any major organized marathon. There is no rationale or justification for carving out an exception for the Barkley or for other less-known races like it.If Cantrell chooses to lump genders together, that's his choice; it's his race. But that carries little weight compared to the rest of the world. As I've indicated, this is Wikipedia, not a niche site for runners. It's also not a niche site for Barkley fans, much less a niche site for Cantrell.Cantrell had never seen a woman finisher until four days ago, so he had no reason to even think about this question. It remains to be seen what he'll do with his stats after thinking about it more, and the preceding point may well become moot.I can't help wondering if some of these editors are too connected to the article subject for Wikipedia's good. That's when I start thinking about an RfC to better represent the "outside" perspective. But not yet. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like on other trails, men and women performances are not mixed (ex: UTMB, Grand Red), so it looks fair enough to use distinct tables for men and women finishers. Even though having a separate table just for one runner looks visually messy. 169.155.251.104 (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Gendered finishers tables?
I don’t think the inclusion of a separate women’s table is relevant here. Imo there simply aren’t enough finishers to justify a separating anything and there’s enough info about Paris in the article to identify her accomplishment. There are no other differences or separate categories in the marathons, so why separate out the winners. PyropePe (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also reviewing the direction of the conversation the separate table spawned from, I don’t believe statistical or scientific info about women’s performance in running in general is relevant. More concerned about how fixed time races are reported and how the Barkely marathons report themselves. PyropePe (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why we needed a new thread about this. Maybe a section break in the above thread at the point where the separate table came up. Just an organizational nit, however. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I’m seeking literally anyone else’s opinion on the topic PyropePe (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Women shouldn't be in a separate table.  This implies that women are competing in a separate event, which is true of many sports events but not this one. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for repeating myself (as you say below, you only glanced at the longer discussion), and for intruding where my opinion is unwelcome per the OP.Likewise, who wants to hold two Barkley Marathonses every year? Not Cantrell, I expect. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Though glancing at the related very long previous thread, it looks like this is a recognized imperfect solution to singling out Paris as the slowest finisher. I guess I can live with that. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now has now re-combined the tables without participating in the related discussions. Have they even read them? No way to know without asking them. Granted, we lack a clear consensus to include that "new content", and per WP:ONUS disputed new content should be omitted pending consensus to include. I've invoked that principle too many times in my career to argue with it. On the other hand, there is significant support for separate tables, both on this page and in editing, so it was probably worth at least (1) reading the discussions and (2) touching base here first.I'm still considering an RfC about this question, but otherwise I'm bowing out&mdash;out of both frustration and a reluctance to exhibit WP:OWN behavior. Have fun. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on an RfC seems there isn't really clear consensus and a clear need for more voices on this PyropePe (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome! You have my enthusiastic support to do that now; otherwise I'll wait for things to cool down a little first. This issue is, shall we say, emotionally charged at this time (as are most gender-related issues). No real urgency. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No I didn't read this . If you want to separate them, just make sure that they have proper semantics. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I belatedly noticed that you are Koavf, one of the drawbacks of a signature like yours. Worth noting for the record. Thanks for touching base. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ????????????????? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw "Justin" and stopped reading your sig at that point. I assumed that your username was Justin. My error, maybe, but a common one especially for newer editors. Not everyone has that much attention to detail, and I figure why make things even a little more difficult when it's so easy to avoid. Wikipedia offers no shortage of unavoidable complexities. But your sig is supported by policy, regardless of how I and others feel about it, so it is what it is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on gendered finishers tables and associated issues
Should Female finishers be recorded separately for the Barkley Marathons?

Re-listed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A number of related questions have come up on this article in the past few days due to Jasmin Paris recently becoming the first woman to complete the Barkley Marathons. Most sporting events keep stats separately based on gender but the Barkley Marathons don't make this distinction as they aren't part of any kind of larger organization or used as qualifiers for anything.

It's important to note that the table originally came from a discussion on labeling her time as the "slowest finish", a metric often recorded for fixed time races but could be seen as demeaning the first woman to finish the race to outsiders. Input on that subject is also appreciated. PyropePe (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak no (summoned by bot). This race seems idiosyncratic enough that I don't think the examples of e.g. the Boston Marathon are especially helpful. And the total number of finishers is so small that I don't think separating the results by gender provides any value to the reader -- especially if that distinction has no official status for the race. On the second question, whether or not to discuss "slowest finish": that's a decision I think we could reasonably leave to the sources. From an initial search it seems like the great majority of RS coverage of her finish does not mention that it was the slowest finish, so I would be inclined to leave that out. But that's just an off-the-cuff impression. Perhaps more knowledgeable analysis of the sources would yield a different result. (FWIW, as an outsider, the idea of tracking slowest finish for a fixed-time race is a bit confusing. Wouldn't the "slowest finish" inevitably converge on 59:59:59 as the number of finishers increases? It doesn't seem like that provides meaningful information. But if the best sources track this information, we should probably follow their example.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support gendered tables per the overwhelming and long-standing precedent established in almost all of the rest of the world (must I count the ways?). If the main rationale for a gender-blind table is that "that's how Cantrell does it", this discussion may be premature per this comment; I assume that, if Cantrell started separating his stats, we would immediately split the table without discussion per that same rationale. To do otherwise would be goalpost-moving.I have exactly zero problem with a single-entry women's table until there is a second woman finisher. There are more important issues here than a mere cosmetic oddity.Oppose "slowest finish", in a gender-blind table, for Paris or for any other woman in the future. Same rationale as per my first paragraph.No objection to "slowest finish" in gendered tables if people think differences of a few minutes or seconds are worth noting. We do love new "records", even records constituting a minuscule percentage difference. Preceding editor is correct: given enough time, we would have a finish at 59:59:59 (or 60:00:00?), establishing a "record" that could never be beaten. Eventually, it would be tied one or more times, forcing us to share the honor or drop it; that bridge could be crossed when we came to it.That said, it would be both unnecessary and improper to note "slowest finish" for the only entry in a women's table, without also noting "fastest finish" or "current record" (which would look ridiculous). For the short time the article had separate tables, noting "slowest finish" for Sabbe and omitting it for Paris looked like an error to some editors, which was somewhat understandable, and there were multiple attempts to "correct" it; this would continue to be a problem until there was a second woman finisher (hidden comments might help to mitigate it, to whatever extent editors read them).One option: Do gendered tables now, sans "slowest finish". When there is a second woman finisher, add "slowest finish" in both tables. (As if this isn't complicated enough already.)I am not deaf to the argument that this is a metric often recorded for fixed time races, but as a running "outsider" that carries relatively little weight for me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak no As unnecessary and so is the note--the table is now sortable. No matter what happens, please ensure that the table has proper semantics, per MOS:DTAB. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The complexities of proper table (coding) semantics are largely lost on the likes of me, but we could just copy what you have there already. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It is unnecessary. No reliable sources presented for this case, and examples from other marathons are irrelevant as being contextually different (per Visviva). There are 20 total finishers, one of whom is a woman. A separate table does not improve the article in any way. The table can be split in the future if the situation changes.  Wracking  talk! 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not now. If more women finish the race in the future, that may change things, but a separate table for one person is confusing visual clutter, and also would mean those results would not be sortable with the rest. With a sortable table, notations such as "fastest" and "slowest" are also unneeded; the reader can easily sort the table and find those things out themself without being knocked on the head with them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Not an event with gender divisions, so it's not pertinent. And there would be only one entry anyway. Even if there weren't, it wouldn't be appropriate since this is not an event that separates participants this way, so it would be OR and PoV, just like dividing candidates of and officeholders of mayor of [wherever], or persons filling the role of CEO of [company name] by gender (or by "race" or other arbitrary splits that are of interest to certain people but not intrinsic to the subject). There may be an article about female marathon runners in which mention might be pertinent, but that isn't this article, a context in which a competitor's gender is immaterial.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support gendered tables Mandruss points out this would be standard for the rest of the world. Sports are typically separated into genders which is different than a CEO or mayor. A table on the right prevents most clutter and with the attention on this event will probably grow in the coming year. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But this sporting event isn't. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But we are not bound by that. Wikipedia has countless tables that have structure "invented" by editors, not based on any outside sources. It also "rights great gender wrongs" in ways like banning the word "mankind"&mdash;ways less meaningful than this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that last part and how germane it is and whether or not you really want to be that guy? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not right great wrongs but "record the righting of great wrongs." Evidence about the nature of the race is a better argument. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But we do right great wrongs, and I just gave one example. I don't think anybody claimed that the word "mankind" has become archaic in reliable sources; that would be an unsupportable claim. We banned it because a majority of some group of editors decided that was a wrong that needed righting; it was social activism, leading instead of following. I didn't like it, but it's now a community-approved way to think, and we can't say it's ok there but not here.And that's hardly the only example. Accepted precedent is a pretty good argument in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is arbitrary on the part of the founder and race director. "The race is too hard for women. They are simply not tough enough to do it." according to him, and he intends to make it more difficult next year in response. The intention wasn't a lack of gender division but just not inclusive of women. He said he will be upset when a women finishes. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Start time
I thought the documentary discussed the earliest start time as being 1:00 am in 2011.

71.178.161.168 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 17 min into the documentary, it says 2011- 1:07 am 71.178.161.168 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)