Talk:Carol Yager

message: As Far as I know, the Guinness Books do not officially recognize Yager as the world's fattest woman ever. I certainly would like to see some strong support of her weight of over 1400 lbs. ( which doctors measured and weighed her etc.) Otherwise she is not the fattest verifiable person, thus Minnoch deserves the title still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuscaloosa11 (talk • contribs) 21:55, January 22, 2006
: The entry specifically cites Hurley Medical Center for this weight. That's authoritative unless you have some reason to question their ability to make such a measurement. Uucp 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2006

message: As Wikipedia is expressly not for original publication, I think all of Terry Yager's material will have to be removed unless she can provide outside citations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research. I would like to see some discussion of this before taking action, though. Please ring in below. Uucp 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, I think it's worse -- the phrasing may be better, but it is still dominated by original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. At least Terry Yager's revision made clear what the source was; the current revision hides it, which seems clearly worse to me. Uucp 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong. The original article had two citations and one outside link to corroborating information. Uucp 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "first hand" material 

message: If I were to quote an article quoting myself, would that be considered a valid second-hand source?
Terry Yager 06:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have removed some of what I had written, after realizing that it was based on original research, and not supported by any of the articles cited, but I would like to address the matter here, just to set the record straight, if no one objects to first-hand material appearing here.
While Larry Maxwell has been painted by the media (often manipulated by himself) as some kind of heroic knight-in-shining-armor, who stood loyaly by Carol's side through all kinds of adversity, and even put himself in peril defending her and/or my niece, but he is actually a liar, a thief, an idiot, and by all accounts (including my own), a chicken-shit as well.  The '1600-lb' quote originally came from his lips, not from any authority.  He is also the only one who ever used the term 'cattle scale', although both comments have been widely reprinted/quoted.
After Carol revoked his power-of-attorney, and placed Heather in the care of our semi-sister, Gina, he immediately lost all interest, and commenced to persue Earnie White's kid, Felecia, marrying her a few days later. (That is a whole 'nother story, too).  So much for loyalty, eh?
(Sorry, if this comment is inappropriate for this page, feel free to delete it).
Terry Yager 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not create a personal webpage in which you discuss these things? If credible, it would then be a source to which other editors might refer when creating future revisions of the Carol Yager page. Uucp 02:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only wish I had the time and know-how to do so.  I'm hoping to tackle that project sometime in the future.  Besides which, I was under the impression that personal webpages may not be cited as athoritative sources?Terry Yager 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be cited as qualified sources, I think. "On his personal webpage, Yager's brother Terry claims...." Uucp 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Larry Maxwell

message: I would also like to correct a point made in the cited Dimensions magazine article.  The article states that Springer, Simmons, etc, had made but not kept certain promises.  Regardless of my personal opinion of them, in all fairness, I have to admit, they did keep thier promises to whatever extent was possible, both spending and/or committing to large amounts of money, manpower, etc, mostly out of thier own pockets.  Between them, they managed to reserve for her a bed in a hospital (somewhere in the Carolinas, IIRC), which specializes in obesity-related illness, and to arrange for transportation, medical care, etc.  This assistance came too late, as her doctors would not allow her to be transported at that time, stating that she would not survive the plane trip.  The plan called for her to undergo extensive care until such a time as she would be healthy enough to make the flight, but tragically, she never did get better.
BTW, I have contacted the owner of that page a few different times, pointing out the error, but so far, no action has been taken.Terry Yager 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Springer, Simmons, et.al.

message: While it may not seem important to others, Carol Yager's family would like for her to be remembered for the positives in her life as well as the negatives.  Why not include that she set the record for most weight lost (to that date).  This fact is documented in at least two of the cited articles, by two different authors.  For brevity's sake, I'll only quote one of them here:
"521 pounds.  Though unofficial, that slimming far surpasses the Guinness Book record of 392 pounds shed by Celesta Geyer in 1950 and 1951, slendering her from 546 pounds to 141 pounds in 14 months."  -Mike Stobe, August 18, 1993
Not including the positive along with the negative only contributes to the freak-show sensationalism, and contributes nothing to the validity or the quality of the article.  Terry Yager 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight loss record

message: Susannah -- Thank you for the link. I will (for now) stand corrected. I do not intend to make the article any more controversial than it is already, I merely quoted the sources that I have at hand.  (Apparently the Journal and I need to hire better fact-checkers).
A big part of the problem is that, in 1987, the most trusted authority, the Guinness Book, changed thier policy about publishing human anatomical records such as the tallest, shortest, fattest, etc. They have since reversed that decision and begun publishing these data again, but there is a few years gap in thier coverage.
I am confidant that the CNN article is well researched, and probably accurate for the most part.  I do however, question the veracity of the claim that *any* human being has ever measured 8 feet wide, it defies common sense. A full-grown bull elephant is not that wide. (Imagine a person laying on thier side on your living room floor, thier opposite side would be touching the ceiling!). I'm certain that what they meant to publish was that Ms. Bradford's *circumference* exceded the 8 foot mark, a measurement which is certainly much more plausible.
Terry Yager 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eight feet wide?

message: I still have not been able to figure out how to add specific citations for each individual quotation in the article.  If anyone is familliar with the procedure, any help will be appreciated.  I can provide all of the necessary material to any who volunteer.  Thank you.
Terry Yager 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with footnotes?

message: UUCP -- I wish you would please explain to me exactly how to go about 'proving' that nobody in authority ever made certain statements?  Sure, I can find several sources that seem to support the 'estimated' size & weight, but none that say that so-and-so didn't say such-and-such.  It cannot be done, at least not without relying on my own first-hand knowledge.  I was given power of attorney to handle my sister's affairs, including being charged with the responsibility of making life and death decisions concerning her medical care.  I was, therefore, in daily contact with her doctors & medical team for the last year of her life, but not once was this '1600-lb. estimate' ever mentioned to me by any medical authority.  I can cite an article that mentions that Jerry Springer was given a note that contained the 1600-lb estimate, but that even he questioned it's accuracy.
Of course, I can cite the specific article and quotation in which her own doctor declined to confirm or deny the 1600-lb estimate, but is that sufficient proof of it's unverifiability, or is the dirty magazine a more reliable authority than her own doctor, or family?  So it would seem...
Also, how would I go about 'proving' that no one on her medical team ever measured her and concluded that she was five feet wide?  All that I can do is quote the Marcia Mattson article which verifies the width of the door to her house, in conjunction with another article describing how emergency personel were able to manuver her through that portal while laying flat on her back, which would not have been possible had she exceeded it's width.
Terry Yager 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proving the negative

message: Also difficult, if not impossible, is to avoid weasel wording when quoting from an article that is itself weasely.  Citing an article that contains statements such as 'some estimates', etc is not in the spirit of NPOV, unless the article cites it's authoritive source.  Saying that 'Bizzare Magazine stated something' is still thinly-veiled weasel wording, since Bizzare's source is unknown.
Terry Yager 16:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent evidence that there is a problem with the source (which in this case, despite your apparent distaste for it, there is not), the correct thing to do is provide the fact with the citation, period. Uucp 16:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier on this page, it is indicated that Bizzare Magazine is a self-proclaimed fetish magazine, which doesn't exactly match Wikipedia's own definition of 'mainstream' media.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream  If that isn't 'evidence' of a 'problem with the source', then what is?  Terry Yager 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Terry, earlier on this page 'you asserted that Bizarre Magazine is outside the mainstream. At the time, you had never seen a copy. It is an international publication from a mainstream British publisher, and examples were provided earlier on this page of its coverage of many legitimate topics. You have no reason to indict their article on this subject. Uucp 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll check again, I made my 'assertion' based on a direct quote from the publisher's own product description.  I have no need to indict them, they've already indicted themselves.  Terry Yager 20:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the correct thing to do is provide the fact with the citation, if indeed what is being quoted is an established fact, and not an opinion, which is all that an 'estimate' really is. Stating that 'it is a fact that Bizzare published an estimate' of something is the very essence of weasely language.  Terry Yager 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest the removal of the term "diet maven" in connection with Richard Simmons.  Maven is a purely American slang term, unknown and unused elsewhere.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: If I cite previously published articles which contain photographs of Carol Yager sitting on a standard 60"-wide queen-size mattress, with room to spare on both sides, isn't that proof enough that she did not exceed that width?
Terry Yager 20:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that only shows that she was smaller than 60" at the time the photo was taken. Uucp 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did I know you would take that stance?  What else should I expect from someone who considers tabloid trash to be responsible or even scholarly journalism?  Your personal beliefs aside, don't Wikipedia's other readers deserve better?  Perhaps the tables should be turned, and the burden of proof placed on you.  Can you cite an article written by someone who actually measured her, or an article directly quoting someone who did so?  I would like to see some proof that any person wider than a queen-size bed ever existed anywhere outside the fantasies of chubby-chasers.  Terry Yager 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographic evidence

message: Since supermarket tabloids are such scholarly sources, I suppose it's only fair in the interest of NPOV, that I share this story, (I wouldn't want to be accused of bias), which was published by The SUN, Vol. 13 - No. 48, November 28, 1995, pg. 20 - 21, although the rest of the world's media somehow missed this scoop that should have been the story of the century.  Apparently, Carol Yager didn't really die in 1994, she simply escaped to England, where she changed her name to Diane Petruzzi, and cleverly disguised herself by dying her hair blonde with dark roots, so as not to be recognized when she appeared on the cover of a 'widely distributed' publication, after giving birth to the world's first living octuplets!  Perhaps all the other journalists overlooked the story because it was buried amongst the other earth-shaking news of that week, including two ghost stories, one Bigfoot tale, the discovery of a 4500-year-old Egyptian statue of Elvis, one account of a Mummy's Curse causing 14 brutal deaths in Peru, a new cure for blindness, and the Hubble Telescope's photograph of the face of Christ in deep space.  With so much going on, I guess it would be easy to pass over one little miracle birth.  Terry Yager 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has advocated using supermarket tabloids as sources. Uucp 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you imply that your fat-fetish masturbation magazines are somehow more credible to a mainstream audience.  Terry Yager 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terry, Bizarre isn't a fat fetish masturbation magazine. Uucp 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Speaking from personal experience?  Now you should be able to see the difficulty of being on the wrong side of a fallacious argument.  All you have to do now is prove to me and the rest of the world that nobody has ever masturbated over a copy of Bizzare Magazine, with it's 'hottest nude fetish models' (thier own words, not mine), in the same way that you ask me to prove that somebody didn't say something.  I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the minds of sexual deviants, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_fetishism), but I do get the impression that Bizzare would probably take offense to being described as 'mainstream media'.  They seem more inclined to wear thier outside-the-box status as a badge of honor.  Terry Yager 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terry, that is a curious standard to ask for. Can you prove that nobody has ever masturbated to a copy of the Flint Journal? I doubt you could, and yet you happily cite that paper. Conversely, I am sure than many people have masturbated to Playboy, and Playboy is an excellent source for Wikipedia. Your objection to Bizarre seems to be that (1) they say Carol Yager topped out at 1500 pounds, while you think it was 1200; (2) they say she was five feet wide, while you say she was not quite so wide; (3) they say that her boyfriend left her for her best friend, while you say the woman in question was a friend, but not Carol's best friend, and (4) they say that Carol's daughter disappeared after the funeral, while you say she stayed in touch. I don't think any of these are very important; the difference in width, for example, could be explained by her being measured standing up versus lying down. Absent a canonical answer, the correct thing to do is either to use vague language that encompasses both possibilities, or to include both versions with clear citations. For you to say "I say I knew the subject and I can pick which of these articles is more accurate" is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and I hope you are not trying to impugn a source as a mask for original research. As we have discussed in the past, it may be best for you to create a personal web page in which you can make your feeling on these subjects known without Wikipedia's limits. Uucp 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you've missed the point entirely.  My current objections are to the weasel wording, which only indirectly calls into question the reliability of the source.  In the words of Wikipedia, one example of weasel wording is: "A source states that..." (What is the source? Is it reliable?)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words  I have carefully removed my own weasel wording, and I only ask that other editors do the same, or if not, then allow me the liberty of using weasely language too.  If your sources state that they are estimates, then why try to pass them off as facts?  A source that contains a number of factual errors, however trivial you may think them to be, becomes in itself questionable.  Whether or not someone is a 'best friend' is of course, purely subjective, but the article didn't even get the name right.  Who is 'Joanna White'?  I've known Earnie White's three daughters for most of thier lives, and none of them are named Joanna, so it isn't a simple case of mistaken identity among sisters.  Where did that name come from?  Was it the same root-source that provided Bizarre with the estimates of size and weight?  Terry Yager 03:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The standard is curious because it is dependant upon fallacy.  At least, I identified mine as fallacious, but you don't seem to see that your own arguments are based on the very same fallacies.  To compare one of the world's best-selling periodicals to an obscure publication with a very limited audience (dare I say, cult-following?) isn't a fair comparison on it's surface, even without considering the obvious fallacy: A). Playboy publishes pornographic images, and, B). Bizarre publishes pornographic images, and therefore, C). Bizarre is equal to Playboy.  Wrong!  C does not necessarily follow A & B, therefore, the argument is fallacious.  Along the same line is the fallacy: A). Playboy contains pornography and reliable information, and,  B). Bizarre contains pornography, and therefore, C). Information contained in Bizarre is reliable.  Again, it doesn't logically follow.  Also, the difference in weight between 1189 and 'about 1200' lbs is trivial, and I have no objection to such rounding-off.  A disparity of 400 lbs., on the other hand, is far from trivial.  That amount is equal to the weight of what, about three average-size persons?  You also assert that Bizarre is not a fat fetish masturbation magazine, yet offer no supporting evidence, in spite of the evidence to the contrary from thier own product descripiton.  I don't understand why you insist on holding me up to a higher standard of proof than you adhere to for yourself.  Terry Yager 06:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice try, but still weasel-ese...  Terry Yager 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEWS FLASH!  1000-lb Dead Woman Gave Birth to Octuplets!

message: I'm starting to get the hang of the footnotes thing, but still not perfect.  If someone more knowledgable would help in cleaning them up (multiple notations from the same source), I'd appreciate it.  Tnx.  Terry Yager 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I'm still trying to get the hang of this 'style' thing.  Is it possible to have too many footnotes?  Terry Yager 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that there is a policy on that; I always try to have as many good footnotes as possible; more than one per sentence is fine, even multiple footnotes per factual claim in some cases. Uucp 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was just concerned that it might reach the point where the footnotes become so numerous that they could actually detract from the article itself.  Terry Yager 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many footnotes? 

message: A suggestion, most of the leading section should be moved below the contents, so that there is left with only an introductory paragraph. Mathmo Talk 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formating 

message: The charge that Carol Yager was the most heaviest person to have ever lived should be removed.  The claim that she once weighed as much as 1,600 pounds is basically hearsay, an estimate by an opportunistic ex-boyfriend, not verified by a physician or any kind of reliable source.  (jarbarf) 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, jarbarf, whoever you are (were?).  That is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along.  A published report that somebody somewhere estimated something should not be treated as verifiable fact.  The article I cited is the earliest reference I can find of the 1600-lb. estimate, but if someone can find an earlier and/or more reliable source, please publish same.  The very first entry on this page is from someone questioning the veracity of the claim of 'world's fattest'.  The response to that was that the source was Hurley Medical Center, but this also cannot be verified.  If it were possible to pin something like that onto Hurley, I'd hang the biggest lawsuit on them possible, for disclosing priviledged information.  (Actually, the 1189-lb. figure is a matter of public record.  An employee sued Hurley, claiming a back injury from handling Carol, so the information was 'officially' entered into the court records.  I'm not going to cite chapter & verse, but the information is available to anyone willing to do the homework).  Terry Yager 02:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead paragraph has been slightly modified to reflect what can be reliably sourced.  There is a related list, List of the most obese humans, which should probably be deleted since it is in gross violation of Wikipedia's policies, namely Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability.  (jarbarf) 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable claims

message: Is there a reliable source available for any of the purported "Statistical Information" currently published in this article?  (jarbarf) 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done the math, but...if the BMI figure is based on an estimated weight of 1600 lbs. and a height of 5'7", as it appears to be, then the answer is no, there is no real documentation, outside the quote of a questionable root-source for the 1600-lb comment.  Only the (undisputed) height can be verified in more than one reliable source. If the BMI were based on the actual recorded weight, not on the 'estimate', then the figure would be considerably lower. As to the width of 'over 5 feet', I'm still having trouble even imagining a person being as wide as they are tall, it's just not credible at all, whatever the 'source' may be.  Terry Yager 04:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Using similar fallacious reasoning based on opinion rather than verifiable fact, I can 'prove' that Carol never even existed.  The syllogism would be thus:  A). It's safe to assume that somebody somewhere once called her 'fatty fatty two-by-four' and,  B). Two-by-fours are made of wood and, therefore, C). Carol Yager was made of wood, i.e., never lived at all.  Terry Yager 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Body Mass Index

message: Seems to be some disagreement as to the proper word to use here, just thought I'd chime-in and justify my use of one word over another.  Since policy forbids the use of original research, it doesn't matter what the actual death certificate says, only the language used in the published article which is referenced.  I realize it's a very small point of contention, but such minor points are considered important to other editors, so the current language is to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, not necessarily to support the most 'scientific' terminology.
Terry Yager (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidney vs. Renal

message: Once again, I feel compelled to post here to justify the use of one silly little word, 'atrophy'.  Sure, the specific word is uncited (please don't start another editing war and force me to dig thru all those old articles again), but I believe the reason(s) for it appearing here are good.  I first used the word to replace the original language, which asserted that if Yager had tried to stand or walk, her bones would break and her heart explode.  Of course, common sense tells any reasonable person that lifting >900 lbs. is impossible, but I don't think it wrong to include a valid medical reason rather than the exploding heart theory.  Since atrophy is a common problem among those who are bedridden for long periods, I thought the link to the Wikipedia article was also appropriate, for further study by those who wish to learn more about the health problems associated with morbid obesity. Therefore, I am undoing this edit, in the hope of improving the accuracy and the quality of the article just a little.  Any further discussion?
Terry Yager (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of 01:06, 25 October 2008 by 01:06, by 192.91.147.34 (atrophy)

message: Citing "Bizarre Magazine" for a biographical article in an encyclopedia seems highly inappropriate to me, its worse than a tabloid.  We don't use TMZ as a source either, for crying out loud.  If there are no objections, I will be removing links to said site and bringing this up to Jimbo if need be.  coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed already on this talk page, starting with the Dispute Continued section. --Geniac (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: coccyx bloccyx:  While the matter has been discussed here, it hasn't really been settled.  The recent editing war is currently at a state of cease-fire, the article having been pared of nearly all of the outlandish claims that were attributed to Bizarre Magazine. The only claim I have been unable to refute with citations from other sources is that a human being can, and did, measure five feet wide, but I feel less uncomfortable with that assertion, because it is so patently ridiculous that no reasonably intelligent person would believe it anyway.  I, for one, would still like to see a ruling from someone in authority as to whether a self-described sensationalist fetish magazine can be cited as a resource for scholarly research, since actual researchers seeing the claim that someone lived who was as wide as they were tall might disbelieve the rest of the facts presented, based on their incredulity of that one.  If 'Jimbo' is such an authority, please do bring it to his attention. Terry Yager (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, while you're at it, I would also like to see a ruling as to whether "Karl Niedershuh's" (personal?) webpage can be cited as a reliable source, even if it is a sub-page off from the "Dimensions Magazine" page.  The page is clearly identified as his, and the opinions, etc expressed are presumably his own.  Terry Yager (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre Magazine seems highly inappropriate

message: The article states 2007, however the metadata says 1994.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rknell85 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did she die? 

message: Nasty edits done recently. These need reversed. Idontknow2216 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits needed