Talk:Amy Alkon

message: The statement about Alkon being criticized for her comments on Tarika Wilson has been removed.  The only "critic" is a blogger.  If this were in some commercial publication, the statement would be valid, but citing a blog as a source for anything other than the blogger's own opinions is completely invalid. 72.91.58.135 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarika Wilson

message: Corrected Amy's stance on Atheism.  She wrote on her own blog that she's a weak atheist, and included the citation. This is Patrick, by the way, posting as an anon as I have removed my name from this site. I wouldn't be writing here on any Wikipedia entry, but since I'm the one who wrote that Alkon was a strong atheist, and was corrected by Alkon herself on her own blog (see the citation), I considered it my obligation to correct my own mistake. I have now done so. So, good-bye, Wikipedia. 72.91.58.135 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak Atheist

message: Restored the "Campaigns" section.  This is published material and as much a part of her writing as her column. PatrickLMT (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The partial restriction on editing expires on Sunday night. I hope you will add that material on Monday. --El Ingles (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Not acceptable.  Your only source for this alleged criticism is a blogger. This falls under Wikipedia's definition of Questionable Sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. If you can find a legitimate source that criticized Alkon for her comments on Tarika Wilson (or anything else), it would be appropriate to add this. 72.91.58.135 (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: In 1987 (the August 17 issue) The New Yorker magazine published an article written by Alec Wilkinson concerning one Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, a 23 years of age individual who would sit out in Greenwich Village and offer passersby Free Advice. In 1991 the first media reports about the three Free Advice Ladies began to appear. Why? Because, unbeknownst to the general public, Amy Alkon and her two colleagues Minnick and Johnson, had read the article in The New Yorker and figured they could make it appear to be their own original idea. Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence exists at The Official Free Advice Man Web-site. Lightning-Feather 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous.  "The expense of someone else's idea?" Oh, please.  Like free advice is some great intellectual privilege in need of a 1000 different copyrights and 2000 patents.  But as it is, by the standards of Wikipedia, true or not, this will still not stand in the article itself. Not one event of this is verifiable, nor has it ever been reported in any major media outlet.  At least if this event made it to "The New York Times" or something, it could stand as something you "alleged." The only verifiable aspect of the above statement is that an article appeared in the 1987 New Yorker.  You can't prove that Alkon and her colleagues got the idea from an article they supposedly read four years earlier. As (the writer claiming to be) Alkon states, Charles M. Schultz has more intellectual ownership of the idea for his character of Lucy Van Pelt offering psychiatric help for 5 cents.  For that matter, Bill Watterson once had his character of Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) set up a booth offering "Candid Opinions" which he used to hurl abuse at a neighbor's child, Susie Derkins. And your claims of your encounter with Alkon and company are simply hearsay.  We have absolutely nothing to go on but your word vs. hers. As far as I know, you never even made your claims of this "confrontation" to a major news outlet, so it could be reported on. The idea that the above should be included in the text of the article is simply asinine. As "stubby" as the text is, at least what's there is honest. PatrickLMT 09:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A matter of fact

message: On 2/24/15, an IP editor added this edit (with slight cleanup immediately following); these were the only edits listed for that IP user.  The edit accuses Amy of "maligning Muslims and Islam" and claims to quote from her writings radical statements that are out of context, unsourced, and which might be considered potentially libellous.  The content was updated the next day with an apparent good faith edit somewhat reversing the effect of the alleged quote by another IP editor without removing the alleged quote, again without sourcing, and which left rather confusing results. 
I've removed the unsourced content per the BLP infobox instructions.  --WBTtheFROG (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Islam talk 

message: :
I tweeted HBD at her on March 8, and she replied  — so I'm going to add a "citation needed". —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthdate in question