Talk:Kari Byron

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Since her main image got deleted : Image:Kari Byron.jpg, I think we should find a new one. Here are some possible choices [1], [2], [3]. They would have to be cropped and then re-uploaded to the commons, but which one do you guys like best? --$user log ^(Talk) @ 01:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by $user log (talk • contribs) [reply]

I had a look through the photos of her on flickr which had the right licences just after the picture was deleted, but didn't think any of them were really suitable. Of the ones you suggest, the third one is really the only one which would look good enough (once someone crops out the other woman). Adam McMaster (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; that shot is the best overall. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I uploaded the last image & set it in the infobox. I also cropped and uploaded this other one : Image:KariByronProfile.jpg. --$user log ^(Talk) @ 20:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by $user log (talk • contribs) [reply]

You know, now that I've seen both of them cropped, I think Image:KariByronProfile.jpg looks better (since it's actually in focus). What does everyone else think? Adam McMaster (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is father? Another website claims she married some guy called Richard C. Mongler, but other than that who is the father? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her spouse is listed as Paul Urich in the article, so the logical assumption would be that he is the father. Adam McMaster (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was in that little box. I wasn't looking there and so couldn't find it. I added it down in the personal life section of the article. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like more of a in-depth look on each cast member's beliefs and/or lack of due to the fact that they work with james and Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.130.115 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other 5 regular cast members of Mythbusters have their Date of Birth and Ages listed on their pages. Can anyone provide these for Kari Byron and update this accordingly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reliable source for this info. We have yet to find one. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But she is listed on the December 18 page (December 18). Is MythBuster's Twitter a reliable source? [4]80.101.171.18 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed her from December 18 as unsourced. As for the Twitter, that post does not show her birthdate. The presumption is that today's(?) tweet is an indication that today is her birthday. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it does not give a year. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now editors have removed the "Atheist" designation from the religion section, both stating that atheism is not a religion. Compare this to Atheism#Atheism_and_irreligion and Religion#Secularism_and_irreligion and we have a problem. Also, we have Category:American_atheists, which is in Category:American_people_by_religion. Also Category:Atheists_by_nationality is in Category:People_by_religion_and_nationality. And Category:Atheists is in Category:People_by_religion. Basically, those who wish to argue that atheism is not a religion have a whole lot of editing to do. I wait a bit for comment before changing this back. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the first two links that you linked? They state quite clearly that Atheists are not religious, unless, of course, you are a Buddhist for example, who may classify their followers as atheistic. Nymf _hideliho! 18:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the part about "are often assumed to be irreligious" (some people's assumptions) or "The strictest sense of positive atheism" (with the modifiers "strictest sense" and "positive"? That's the closest I can find in Atheism#Atheism_and_irreligion to "stat(ing) quite clearly that Atheists are not religious".

I also can't find anything that "quite clearly" says that in Religion#Secularism_and_irreligion. I see where it says, "though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of 'religious'". What is this "theistic religion" if there isn't "atheistic religion"? Is it like "fat free water"? I also see where it says "The true opposite of 'religious' is the word 'irreligious'. Irreligion describes an absence of any religion." So, atheism is not "irreligious" or the lack of religion.

Did you read past my first sentence? You know, the part where Wikipedia says American atheists are American people by religion, People by religion is people by religion and nationality, Atheists is People by religion (there are plenty more...)?

I'd go into the U.S. Supreme Court affirming that atheism is a religion, Atheist Chaplains in the U.S. military, CIA World Factbook categorizing "atheism" under "religion" etc., but that's U.S. centric.

Further, the reversion being made says "None" for religion. She didn't say that. Thanks.

Finally, your argument seems to be that "Atheists are not religious". We're discussing whether Atheism is a religion. I know non-religious Roman Catholics, Muslims, etc. If you'd like to argue that, say, Catholicism isn't religion... - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you are going to be snark (re: "fat free water"), don't bother discussing it at all. It is quite obvious that atheism is going to end up under religious categories, as it strongly relates to that. The lead of religion and atheism explains it rather well. "The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system" and "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.". If that's not enough for you, then I suggest you request a WP:RFC. Nymf _hideliho! 22:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem not solved. If it's so obvious that atheism is going to "end up under" religious categories in some cases (every category we have...), why shouldn't it "end up under" religion in articles? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a RfC, I've taken this to Template_talk:Infobox_person#Religion:_Atheist.3F to see how we currently handle this (it seems to be unevenly applied as there are articles with and without it in the various articles in Atheist categories). Additionally, I'm asking for clarity on the possible inconsistency if we do not include it in the info box, but have the parent/subcategory structure I've noted. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit indicating that filing for divorce had been made was reverted because I supported it with a link to the filing. I was referred to a rule ab not using primary sources for anything other than facts stated directly in the primary source. A divorce filing is a fact supported directly by a record of a divorce filing, so I guess I don't quite understand why that is an unacceptable use? Merpius (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged a source as user-generated in the section headed Shell - see WP:USERGENERATED as why this can be an issue. Autarch (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]