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]

Contents

[edit] January 2006

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)

[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

I think the comparsion to a '72 Geo Metro is inappropriate for an enitrely different reason... there is no such car. The Geo Metro did not exist until 1989.

[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)

Didn't even have to leave this site to find out that the record for largest weight loss ever recorded still belongs to Jon_Brower_Minnoch, 924 lbs, far more than the 546 calimed by Carol Yager or even the 736 lbs. by Rosalie Bradford.

[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)

[edit] Help with footnotes?

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)

[edit] Proving the negative

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)

[edit] Weasel words

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Photographic evidence

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)

No, that only shows that she was smaller than 60" at the time the photo was taken. Uucp 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] NEWS FLASH! 1000-lb Dead Woman Gave Birth to Octuplets!

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)

Nobody has advocated using supermarket tabloids as sources. Uucp 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Terry, Bizarre isn't a fat fetish masturbation magazine. Uucp 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nice try, but still weasel-ese... Terry Yager 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

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)

Thank you, UUCP, for your help with the notes. The page looks much better now. Terry Yager 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many footnotes?

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Formating

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)

[edit] Unreliable claims

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Body Mass Index

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Kidney vs. Renal

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)