Talk:Carol Yager

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

A formal Request for Mediation related to this article was filed with the Mediation Committee on 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC). Please see the discussion on the case's request page. All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

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.

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)

Contents 1 Geo Metro? 2 Note purportedly from Yager's sister 3 "first hand" material 4 Dispute Continued 5 Question 6 Larry Maxwell 7 Springer, Simmons, et.al. 8 Weight loss record 9 Eight feet wide?

[edit] Geo Metro?

The article currently states that her alleged max weight was as much as a '72 Geo Metro... I find this both unneccesary and degrading, and I don't think a note like that should stay in the article.

Your sense of compassion may be misplaced -- she weighed 1600 pounds, and you think the comparison to an automobile is degrading? Her girth is degrading; the comparison to the automobile, on the other hand, seems to me a useful reference point for those of us who have never met anybody so obese. Uucp 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Uucp on that one. This lady has a wikipedia article because of her weight, so I think it's quite acceptable to give the reader a point of comparison. If this article was about somebody not known for primarily for their weight/size, then of course a comparison to a passenger vehicle would not be appropriate (like comparing Star Jones to a Buick). Taco325i

[edit] Note purportedly from Yager's sister

The following was posted into the main article on July 17, 2006:

There is so much dis-information in the following article, I don't even know where to begin. If anyone is interested in the *truth* about my sister, feel free to email me via Wikipedia. Thank you.

--Terry Yager

Uucp 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

--Terry Yager, you have no idea how to edit --articles --you --are --not --supposed --to --actually --say --"edit" --in the article.

recycleyourpets 66:7, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

With a little help and guidance from another Wiki member, I now understand better the correct editing procedure, and I invite you all to view the latest, hopefuly better, and certainly more accurate article. Sorry I didn't fully familliarize myself with the editing guidelines before my previous knee-jerk posts.

--T

[edit] "first hand" material

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)

• I am going to completely clean up the article very shortly. Let me know what you think of it when I'm finished. K-UNIT 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• The cleanup is finished. I think that's a big improvement. K-UNIT 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Kevin,

I like the formatting, and I do appreciate your assistance, but I have gone back and re-edited some of your edits which contained factual errors, such as the thing about 17 firemen, clearly an exaggeration, or the "special" ambulance. It actually took 6 - 8 firemen to load her into a standard ambulance, although she did have to ride on the floor because she couldn't fit on a gurney. I also completely deleted the part about "boyfriend Max", because the whole paragraph had too many errors to be corrected. He didn't deliver an "emotional blow", I had that priveledge myself, and when I told her that he had married her friend the day before, she laughed out loud. (She was finally beginning to beleive that her "memory" of thier 20-year love afair was false, and she was happy to be rid of him). And, BTW, while she is one of the White girls, her name isn't Joana, and she was never Carol's "best friend". (Her closest friends were Robin S. and the 'two Barbs', who were her constant companions throughout most of her adult life). Carol also didn't die that same night, she just went to sleep peacefully, and lapsed into a coma in her sleep. She was moved from the nursing home back to the hospital that night, and died about 48 hours later. As for the 'original research' issue, I'd hoped to have that cleared up, but apparently it is still an issue with some readers. Oh, and one more point, I am a brother, not a sister.

--T

• The original version didn't cite any sources either. And it's very clear that this is a much more accurate revision than how it stood before. Unless anyone can find any credible, third-party documentation, this is definately the most accurate this article has been so far. Terry Yager I consider to be more an "expert" on Carol Yager (because this is about a person, after all, not a topic) and not a source of "original reserch" in the sense of what that Wikipedia policy on that was meant for. K-UNIT 00:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Carol would have loved this line:

"While a great many of her friends were hard-core outlaw bikers, Carol herself never actually rode one." (Rode what?)...

Save a Hawg...Ride a Biker!

--T

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

[edit] Dispute Continued

While there are many "sources" of mis-information, dis-information, exagerations, confabulations, lies, damned lies, and statistics, which can be cited, just because a 'fact' has been published doesn't make it true. I'd rather share my first-hand knowledge than to cite this webpage, that magazine, or the other TV show, which have published incorrect information.

--T

This discussion makes me even more convinced that all the "Terry Yager" material should be removed. We have no proof of who this person is and, if "Terry Yager" could prove the personal connection, the material *still* shouldn't be here. If any editor wants to publicize his or her personal knowledge of the subject, he or she should create a personal webpage, not edit articles here. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research ; this page is now significantly in violation of the intent and policies of Wikipedia. Uucp 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...how exactly would you like me to "prove" my identity, and even if I were to do so to your satisfaction, that still doesn't change the fact that my knowledge is still 'first-hand', and only verifiable through myself or Carol's daughter. When Carol died, our mother was still considered the 'next of kin', and therefore, the only person allowed to request her medical records (since Heather was still a minor). By the time my mother died, the records had already been destroyed by the hospital, who have a policy to only maintain records of deceased paitents for seven years, therefore, there is no other source of factual information other than the memories of her nearest relatives.

--T

I suggest that we revert this page to a state before you began adding material, and that you create your own website, outside of wikipedia. On that page, you can post your memories of your sister, discussion of errors in the popular press, and anything else you choose to include. I would suggest that, in order to convince readers that you are actually related to Ms. Yager, you include things like photographs that have not already been printed in magazine articles about her. Mention the web address to your personal page on this discussion page, and editors who are more removed from the situation will edit her page accordingly. The edits will probably take the form of "she was reported in the press to have peaked at something near 1600 pounds, though her brother says she never got much higher than 1400," etc. The page will not probably not reflect every change you would make yourself, but that is the nature of wikipedia.

Please understand that none of us have any personal feelings on this subject; we don't dislike you or have any agenda with regard to your sister's story. We are just trying to make an encyclopedia article of high quality.

Which reminds me, if you took and still own copyright to any photos of your sister, would you upload them to wikipedia so we can include one in her article? Uucp 02:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming I could dig up any previously unpublished photos, how would that prove anything? If your idea of 'popular press' includes such 'authoritative sources' as supermarket tabloids, freakshow webpages, and the allmighty and infallable Jerry Springer Show, then how can I expect to compete against such overwhelming evidence, armed only with mere truth? If you choose to believe that a woman equal in size & weight to an automobile can have sex on a moving motorcycle, even though it requires 17 fire fighters to load her into a specially built ambulance, presumably because a 'normal' one-ton cube van ambulance cannot accomdomate her bulk, then I might as well just have Elvis land his UFO in your back yard and drop off a Sasquatch or two, in the hope that they might convince you. Meanwhile, I have to agree with Mr. Unit, that the article should be allowed to remain as written until someone else can come up with conclusive proof otherwise.

--T

Terry, your edits violate wikipedia policy and must be removed. If we need to get administrators in here to arbitrate to convince you, I will do so; the case is black and white. I've made a suggestion about how you may share your story with the world, and thus indirectly influence what is written here. You are free to take that suggestion or leave it. I will make the reversion now. Uucp 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I should've known it was a losing battle from the start. One of the first things I learned as Rumor Control is that you can't fight propaganda with truth, the only effective weapon is counter-propaganda. Of course, if there are arbitrators who rule on such matters, please do bring them to the table so I can ask them why it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to publish lies, just because the same lies have been published elsewhere. I'd also be interested in knowing who wrote the cited/linked page and magazine article, and what are thier credentials? Who the Hell is "Karl Niedershuh" and where did he get his "facts" from? For that matter, who even wrote the original Wikipedia entry, and where did thier facts come from? How is it that these others are considered authorities on my family while I'm not? And yes, I can prove my bona-fides if necessary, and will gladly do so for the administrators, in private, as I don't wish to post sensitive material in a public forum.

--T

Bizarre Magazine? Never heard of 'em, so of course, I googled, and found this amazon.com review: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007KPK0/102-6934959-7105716?v=glance&n=599858

"Product Description From the Publisher Allows readers to stay up-to-date on what's going on in the fetish scene with the best fetish photography, classic pin-up artists, and the hottest nude fetish models. Also, includes interviews with dominants and fetish party coverage around the world. (Contains nudity - not intended for minors.)"

Ah yes, certainly a fine example of authoritative, unbiased journalism!

--T

For those of us who're keeping score, we now have: 1). A freakshow webpage, and 2). A Magazine that provides masturbation fantasies for chubby chasers, and 3). A Wikipedia article, written by person or persons unknown, based on facts not in evidence, and 4). My own words.

So that makes it Lions: 3, Christians: 1, right?

Feel free to believe whatever 'Authorities' you want to, but at least allow the alternate version to be presented, without censorship, so that readers can have a choice.

--T

I've been doing some more reading, and I'm willing to concede that I am a 'Primary Source', which may not meet Wikipedia's guidlines as a 'Reliable Source', but I would also like to point out that the 'Secondary Sources' cited in the article (a personal webpage & a dirty book) cannot be considered Reliable Sources either, therefore, I request that the entire article be removed. Better no 'Carol Yager' page at all than the page full of tabloid trash that the article currently consists of.

--T

Your disparaging Bizarre Magazine as a "dirty book" is not convincing. It is widely sold on newsstands around here. Even if the magazine were pornographic, that would not necessarily make it a bad source -- Playboy is arguably the most famous pornographic magazine in the world, for example, and runs articles and stories of high quality on a wide range of topics. As listed on the Amazon.com webpage that you linked to, Bizarre magazine has run articles about "obscure and weird" topics, including "sensationalist police rags in Mexico," "amputee soccer teams," "conspiracies, strange television," and in one issue cited in this article, Carol Yager.

If you can help us find an article in the Financial Times or Smithsonian Magazine about Ms. Yager, I am sure it would help us to improve the article greatly. However, she is notable only for her obesity, and it is no surprise that most of what has appeared about her in the press has been in publications like Bizarre and on television shows like Jerry Springer.

I repeat my suggestion above -- you can best share your version of the Carol Yager story by creating a personal website. If it is credible, this page will probably link to it. Uucp 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never 'disparaged' any dirty book. I offered no opinion at all on dirty books, disparaging or otherwise. Maybe I like dirty books. They are probably very good for whatever it is that they're good for. I just don't think that they should be cited as 'scholarly' sources, as defined in Wikipedia's guidelines. If being 'widely sold on newsstands' is a valid criteria for credibility, then I should dig out my collection of 'credible tabloids', because your article has left out some very important 'facts' which deserve to be included in your version. Your article doesn't even mention that she was born a Siamese twin and separated at birth, as reported by the National Enquirer, or the Sun's claim that she gave birth to 8 babies, amazing enough in itself, but even more so since the miracle birth happened a year and a half after she was dead. I don't understand how by being published, a 'fact' becomes more credible than the word of the only living person who knew Carol from birth to the grave.

--T

I would comment on your talk page if you had one, I suggest you create a Wikipedia username just for convenience if nothing else, but I just wanted to congratulate you on one of the most interesting challenges I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I support the ideals of the website but assuming you are who you claim, I'm going to enjoy watching the moderation and how this can be dealt with. -- User:Omishark

Sorry, I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia. How's this?

Terry Yager 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to question my characterization of the cited website as a 'freakshow', I can cite at least one 'Authoritative Source':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakshow

I've been around carnivals for the better part of 35 years, and, trust me, I know a freakshow when I see one.

Terry Yager 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I challenge your idea of "sourced" material. I contend that citing a source that is not available to the general public is not a valid source. Sure, cite a personal webpage, which is explicitly against Wikipedia's policies, but citing a magazine that very few people have access to is not a verifiable source. I'm certainly not going to go to any trouble to compare your 'facts' to those published by "Bizarre Magazine", and I doubt anyone else would be willing/able to do so.

66.227.139.214 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a mass market magazine available in the U.K. and the United States. They have a website if you want to order a back issue. Uucp 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Flint Journal is a daily newspaper that is considered a primary source of news/information by a significant portion of Michigan's population, and I would certainly consider them more reliable than a freakshow or a fetish magazine. Marvel Comics are also mass market products, but I'm not about to put on a suit of tights and go jump off the roof, based on something I might view in thier latest issue. If you choose to live in a world where fire fighters are so puny that it takes 15 of 'em to lift a Volvo, where hospitals routinely maintain 'cattle scales' on hand for whatever reason, where 5-foot-wide people can have sex on a moving motorcycle, that is your right. Just don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your version of reality. And don't try to palm it off as fact in a source as widely trusted as Wikipedia.

66.227.139.214 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For the enlightenment of those readers who've never seen one, this is what a 'cattle scale' looks like, and it ain't something normally found in hospitals (more likely a barn):

http://www.eliasscales.com/index.html

Note also, that this (typical) scale is only 30" wide, far short of accomodating a five-foot-wide person.

66.227.139.214 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And please, pardon me if I refuse to allow you to de-humanize my sister by comparing her to livestock, motor vehicles, etc. Such comparisons are unnecessary as well as sensationalist, and certainly don't live up to Wikipedia's high standards.

66.227.139.214 01:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to login. The above 66.227.139.214 messages are mine.

Terry Yager 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

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)

[edit] Larry Maxwell

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Springer, Simmons, et.al.

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)

[edit] Weight loss record

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)

Terry - I believe - at least according to an article at CNN - that the official amount for most weight loss is 736 pounds by Rosalie Bradford (who just passed away). Here is the article: http://us.cnn.com/2006/US/12/01/obit.bradford.ap/index.html

I applaud you for trying to present the facts about your sister. People are so quick to judge those who are obese. I do not think it beneficial to compare someone to a car (and I am an RN - over 21 years of ICU/ER/Trauma). It is degrading and from a professional's POV - inappropriate and unnecessary. Obesity is a disease just like depression,diabetes,high blood pressure, etc.

Susannah 16:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eight feet wide?

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)