Talk:Marianne Williamson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
WikiProject Spirituality (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I spent several hours trying to track down exactly where Mandela spoke this, as it is such a beautiful statement, and I wanted to really know if that was how Mandela thought. Much to my disappointment, after doing numerous word searches through his speech database, it became clear that he did not ever say this in any of his recorded speeches. Perhaps somebody should write to him and tell him about the story of this whole mis-quote, so he can put it into one of his future speeches!!!! Scott P. 12:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are extreme WP:NOR and NPOV issues here. The article claims: "A certain passage from her book is possibly one of the most widely misquoted passages in modern history" needs to be directly attributed. As it stands, it is merely an offhand claim, which is only made POV by its assertion that its "one of the most misquoted"-SV|t 06:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the need for substantiation[edit]

Dear Steve,
          You are indeed correct that the way this was worded, it appeared to be mere conjecture. I have since inserted substantiating information, plus additional information about Mrs. Williamson.


Scott P. 20:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not nearly complete...[edit]

I'm unclear on a lot of the details, but she was also a minister(for lack of a better word) at the Church of Today (later the Church of Renaissance Unity) in Warren Michigan. There was also a rather ugly departure from the church. Oh yes, it also had a TV show; "Sunday's With Marianne" I believe. I'm not much for elegant wording, so if somebody else wanted to add this in...yeah.

I stuck the stub tag on there. This article really needs more to it. I would do it myself, but you know, exam time :P Limited Moon

This article needs a lot more information. I'm no expert on Marianne Williamson, but I know she has a much more extensive biography, there is much more involved in how she became an author, and I know that the Course in Miracles has its own substantial history that precedes her, and she somehow got involved in popularizing it again. There must be somebody out there who knows all of these details. Jurgfella (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)jurgfella

Because the article contains no information whatsoever about her relationship (or former relationship) with Unity Church, I removed "{{Unity footer}}". Editors can feel free to put it back in, if some explanation is provided in the article. (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Performed Merge[edit]

The book had it's own article with very little information. It is doubtful this person meets WP:BIO, but a merge will at least put the information in one place. The article on the book has very little. Ste4k 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirect from the merge left about four links ambiguous which I cleaned up. Ste4k 19:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some notes while I am working on this article: I condensed the thesis and completed the merge removing redundancy and added the reference section. Some notes on the reference section: Please don't add "official" web sites since WP cannot ever determine whom is official and whom is not unless the subject in question actually owns the site and is listed with the internet registrar. Also, it's very touching that links to CD's and music sites were added, but a notable person such as Marianne really doesn't need the hype associated with her name and people can dig for those sorts of things on their own. It doesn't make sense to pick out one of thousands of music/CD/DVD sites and associate that site with the subject and it could easily be misconstrued as advertising for one or another site or connecting that site purposely with her name. Ste4k 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I dug into the officialness of the web-site in question and the most that we can actually print without any original research is simply the name, address, and webmaster, etc., since it hasn't received any notoriaty of its own at this time. Ste4k 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is fairly NPOV now, has a variety of notable sources, shows her many perspectives, and it topic centric. Ste4k 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is pretty good for a stub, and is quite informative. However, there were a few little grammatical errors (I've fixed a couple) I also removed "But the press has failed to give her the praise she deserves for her work for dying AIDS and cancer patients and the homeless on L.A.'s streets." because it could be interpreted as POV (the Centers for Living sentence is sufficient).

The last paragraph (the part starting with "the message fills...") may also need to be rechecked as possibly being POV. Also, you should give some examples of some of her published works - there's a chance they could have articles on here (if they do, link them - if not, don't). Other than that, it's pretty good. --Coredesat talk 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "the message fills", I agree that it appears POV, however, since it is nearly a direct quote of the cited source, it would actually be POV to change it in any way. It should be noted that no mention here is given to whether or not "filling" is good or bad or otherwise, nor that it does this "filling" in a qualitative sense such as "well" or "poorly". It was a tough decision to make right there. The only POV that I can still admit remains is that by stating that there is something that it "fills", the statement implies that there is a gap. There isn't any real resource to cite for such a gap, nor did the article in question go deep enough to justify that comment. Ste4k 08:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

After some consideration on the matter, I will change the word "fills" to "addresses", and look at rewording that clause. Ste4k 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

About the "But the press..." sentence, you should probably leave out the "the press failed to give her the praise she deserves..." even though it's almost a direct quote, but instead rephrase it into something more NPOV, like "(sentence about her opening the Centers for Living). Despite this, she has failed to attract any attention or awareness from the press" or something like that. That's probably not much less POV, but writing NPOV articles is fairly hard work. --Coredesat talk 10:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. And will try to reword and possibly meld the two statements together. We shouldn't be agreeing with any particular POV statement made by a cited source. Ste4k 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I replaced that whole section with a comma, and removed some jumbly words, moved the large citation which backs up the others to the end of the entire affair. Hope that works. The way reads now though is that the press is "popular". That should also be removed, imho. Ste4k 10:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "That is the essential core of her appeal" should be merged with the preceding sentence somehow to remove the earlier concern, and specifically the mention of a "void" between the two philosophies which is implied POV. Ste4k 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Created page for "A Return to Love"[edit]

In attempting to edit this article, it occurred to me that A Return to Love indeed deserves its own article because the book is the most successful book of ACIM interpretation, and one of the most successful self-help/New Thought books of all time. That in itself makes the book notable. As I mention on the page (a cited and quoted mention, by the way), this book gained Marianne Williamson time on Oprah, 20/20, and was Publisher's Weekly's best seller for about 10 weeks. That in itself makes the book notable.

Marianne Williamson is the author of many other books, but in my opinion only this first one is notable and deserves its own page. Every subsequent book by Marianne Williamson has carried the notice "By the author of A Return to Love". I think it is fine to mention her bibliography on this page, but I think that this one book in particular deserves its own page.

There are certain books that have had deep impacts within certain genres and deserve their own pages aside from the page devoted to the other. For example, Melody Beattie has her own page, and so does the book Codependent No More. I think we have a similar situation with Marianne and Return to Love. -- Andrew Parodi 08:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you would read the article and particpate in discussions you would know that there are eighteen books in total and that it has already been decided that this page should contain brief synopsis of those books. Whatever those synopsis are, I will warn you know, will need to have been written in the public by other professional editors and cited in the reference section, otherwise whatever it is will be original research. Ste4k 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely endorse Ste4k's comments here. Non-notable articles should be put through AfDs and should not be linked from this article. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Her teachings are very dangerous. She denies the supremacy of Jesus Christ. She is another New Age false prophet. {{unsigned|}

This article is written with NPOV. Ste4k 01:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page is unblemished hagiography.

Is there any objective evidence supporting the claim "working with ... the homeless on L.A.'s streets"? The reference cited doesn't mention homeless, just AIDS patients. (it is also a highly critical review from a biased source). I could find no evidence on the web that she has ever done any work with the homeless in Los Angeles.

Does she really believe, as the CRI site claims, that AIDS patients should employ "enlightened visualizations" to effect healing or that a person who is ill only thinks he or she is ill and that healing comes not from pills but from belief? If so, an objective (wikipedia bio style) reference to the fact that there exist controversies around her views might be in order.

(previous edit appears to have overwritten/deleted "this is unblemished hagiography" comment -- please restore that comment. Sorry about that.)

The theology of this lady is dangerous and outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. She denies the primacy of Jesus Christ.

I wanted a link to the Center For Living. It seems the Manhattan Center For Living was closed in 1994. The LA Center For Living has changed its name to Angel Food Ministries and is doing very well. More information is neede here. I would also have liked to see something about her association with Louise Hay and Hay House. Healingworks 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I tried to clear up this article a bit and also added new headings. More info needs to be added about her... --Mimi C. 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Objectionable introductory sentences. And . . .[edit]

My problem with the introductory sentences is that they sound as though they were written for the purpose of giving positive publicity to the subject of this article.

And, it's hard to believe that there aren't a fair number of people who have criticized her work. Why does the article say nothing whatsoever about them?Daqu (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marianne Williamson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)