Jump to content

Talk:Marianne Williamson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

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

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.

Thanks,

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

article

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)

Created page for "A Return to Love"

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|70.246.125.23}

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)

Performed Merge

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)

2014 US House campaign

Wukai/AlsoWukai; you need to (1) Explain your edits using the WP:EDITSUMMARY field, and (2) Gain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes, which you have been edit-warring over for a day and a half now. Per WP:BRD, please do not make any further changes until you gain consensus on this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

She opposes mandatory vaccination

She described them as "Orwellian". An editor has whitewashed this from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Another editor deleted her remarks in full and added some campaign speak on the issue to replace the RS reporting - which is not how we do things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard.[1] I cannot discuss this here with myself while it's being reverted by editors who not only remove the text without cause but are brazen enough to insist that I "discuss on article talkpage" while they themselves are no-shows.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Relatedly, I also think its interesting that any references to the term 'new age' seem to have been removed from the body.

Not nearly complete...

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. 71.219.214.111 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with Marianne from when she first became an author. It should be pointed out that most of her thoughts and books come from "A Course in Miracles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.113.20 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles

I have come back to the editing team after a 21 year period of a severe disability. I apologize if my remarks are not done correctly. I have been involved with "A Course in Miracles" (ACIM) from close to the beginning. I have studied the Text, done the Workbook, read the Manual for Teachers many times over many hours and years. I was involved in the version wars and so much more. I understand it and was able to to realize the end result over a period of 3 days on a silent meditation retreat.

Now that Marianne is a presidential candidate, it should be added to her profile her close association with ACIM. Many if not most of the ideas in her books come from ACIM. She has co-authored at least one early book. She teaches ACIM.

I read a transcript of the second debate. It was clear to me then that she still has not fully understood some of the key concepts of ACIM. She obviously judges the current President. Judgement is one of the key psychological mechanisms that started and maintains the great separation. In addition, she cannot manipulate Love in some kind of political battlefield. Love has no favorites.

I still have the severe disability. I do not think that I can re-learn Wikipedia's editing skills and catch up with the new ones or write a section properly. If you look at my profile, I have a star for some of my work on ACIM. At this point I need someone to step up and carry the torch. I would be happy to try to help. For a start go the Goggle and look up Marianne Williamson together with A Course in Miracles.

—Who123 12:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

basic income

her website says she supports universal basic income like andrew yang. is this notable for the article? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Michael Ten (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Objectionable introductory sentences. And . . .

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)

A second objection: her description as a politician. She has not held any political office. Therefore, "aspiring politician" may be a more appropriate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:FBB2:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

“Spiritual Leader”?

Is this an appropriate description of Ms. Williamson? A cursory search of the rest of wikipedia shows that this is a relatively rare descriptor, that seems to be used mostly for people who are actually actively members of clergy or religious organizations. 2601:19B:B00:2CD:1141:BC4B:FBDD:6B0C (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Page for 2024 Presidential campaign

The subheading on 2020 presidential campaign has one. Should 2024? Apinchofspence (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It should But for sooome reason it was rejected. Even RFK Jr. got a wiki article faster than her. Sgt12221 (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Russia, Ukraine

Nowhere is there any reference to her positions on Russia, Ukraine and NATO. Difficult to justify ... Lestrad (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange Accent

It would be interesting to know how she got such a strange accent. Has she spent a lot of time abroad or with people not born in the US? Where does this odd accent come from? 125.25.17.107 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Has she spent a lot of time...with people not born in the US?" Her parents perhaps? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but where did they get it? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Her father, and maternal grandparents, were Russian Jewish immigrants..." HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
And then she grew up in Texas. Technically part of America, but a strange part, including accent-wise. And then Houston is "a bit different" from the stereotypical cowgirl twang, more just your average gigantic urban "Western world" melting pot. Anyway, I like the cut of her jib, however it happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I found Houston to have a high Spanish speaking population, especially among service staff. Maybe Marianne had a Spanish speaking nanny. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
She also had a "wasted decade" touring 1970s California. Plenty of everything down that road, I hear. Can't blame her parents or nanny for what she picked up there, it was probably Jane Fonda's fault somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
why is her accent relevant? - Curious editorial bystander reading your editing comments. 2601:152:4C81:3240:BD49:E3A3:C9B7:D398 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article under Mid-Atlantic accent includes her in the list under "Elite use". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:FBB2:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Political positions

This is a strange article. I did not know of this person before stumbling on this article. I find the "Political positions" section much too long for someone who never seems to have held political office and who is not a key figure in politics at any level. Why does the article outline her political opinion in such detail? From what I can tell she is primarily notable for her books on spirituality. I propose we shorten this section to just the opinions that are her key opinions and those that have achieve national attention in some way. Ashmoo (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I Agree, while the section should exist, it is far too lengthy and reads like an advertisement at times. It should be reduced and have sections combined, such as one single subsection for all her foreign policy positions. Ageofultron 17:01, 25 April 2023
I'm not sure if the section should exist or at least be the length it is given she's never held public office.The One I Left (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Most of the content is sourced to only her campaign site so I think all of that should go and only include what is supported by secondary sources, which does not appear to be much. S0091 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
She is one of only three candidates for the democratic party running for presidency. People want to know where she stands. I know more about it than you do, because you follow main stream (corporate) media. Look deeper. She's been discussing political issues since 1992. Dig deeper... 2601:152:4C81:3240:BD49:E3A3:C9B7:D398 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No citations for claims of alcoholism or nervous breakdown

There are claims of a struggle with substance abuse and a nervous breakdown in the intro, but there are no references supporting the claims. In the "A Course in Miracles" section there are four citations for a quote attributed to her stating she had been "mired in a series of unhappy love affairs, alcohol and drug abuse, a nervous breakdown, and endless sessions with therapists," but none of these four citations contain the quote nor do they support claims of substance abuse or a nervous breakdown. I submit that either references need to be added to support the claims or the article needs to be adjusted to remove the claims. Cacash refund (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

When I reverted the addition of that language a few days ago, I was reverted by The One I Left, with the reasoning being that "Sourced material is in the body of the article."
Here's a link to my edit:
[3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cacash refund it seems to be a quote from her book. See [4]. S0091 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking a the sources provided in the article, the Houston Chronicle supports "nervous breakdown", the Chicago Tribune quotes her stating, "I went into therapy several times, but it rarely made an impact. I sank deeper into my own neurotic patterns, seeking relief in food, drugs, people or whatever else I could find to distract me from myself." With that, I don't think there is a valid argument there are no sources supporting these claims. She has stated so and again, the quote appears to be coming from her book but I cannot confirm outside of the Mirror article I provided above. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary results

I restored her % finish in the CA congressional primary. No need to deprive the WP reader of the relative competitiveness of her performance. Activist (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The proposal failed. Additionally, there was no consensus on merging the two campaign articles together - perhaps that should be discussed on those articles' talk pages. casualdejekyll 20:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I propose merging Marianne Williamson 2024 presidential campaign into Marianne Williamson and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles. SecretName101 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support per rationale of SecretName101, with no prejudice against restoring the article should significant coverage of Williamson's campaign increase enough to warrant it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the campaign page is a pretty full and sourced article. Williamson is already near double-digits in polls, is receiving continued media coverage, and the major candidates, Biden and Kennedy, have campaign pages. No need for a merge at this point (if she drops out of the race before the primaries a merge would be appropriate, but as of now she's one of the declared candidates receiving reputably sourced notice). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    Biden and Kennedy argument is an Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And if you may have noticed, I also opened a discussion of the same move for Kennedy's article. Her campaign having reputably sourced information available is rationale to mention it on Wikipedia, but is not necessarily a rationale to support its coverage on Wikipedia to currently warrant a solo article. SecretName101 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, poll this week in FiveThirtyEight has Biden 50 points up on Kennedy and has Kennedy 16 points over Williamson, head to head. Activist (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
    Why are the only edits for this IP before or since pretty much opposition to all merger proposals to 2024 campaign articles? Not sure if this was single-use IP puppeting or not. SecretName101 (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when she drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. Not to mention in some polls she is polling higher than 5% and below 10% which is impressive given she's running against an incumbent. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it's too early to tell if her campaign won't get traction and would rather we wait to see if she is in any debates or wins any primaries before merging. Informant16 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    Plan is for there not to be any party debates, so answer to that appears to be "no". And note that several candidates who made it to the debate stage in the 2020 Dem primary do not have campaign articles anymore. It seems that we acknowledge that many campaigns that make it to the debate stage do not have a need for solo articles. Almost a WP:NOTNEWS situation SecretName101 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: maybe her campaign will take off and make reams of news, but it simply has not yet. Ann Teak (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment: An alternative would be to combine it with the 2020 campaign article and create an article called Presidential campaigns of Marianne Williamson SecretName101 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
    I like that idea. Was thinking the same thing myself, actually. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
    I like this idea as well. She is not a major candidate so combining her campaigns makes sense. S0091 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    For the record, I would oppose this, as explained below. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    You could also, alternatively, include her congressional bid and political positions and call such an article "Political career of Marianne Williamson" SecretName101 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the overall arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her campaign is getting significant coverage independent of herself and that's why we make separate pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Can a coverage of a campaign exist independent of a candidate?
    That aside, notability is an argument for inclusion in the project. But not an argument for the necessity of a spun-off article.
    I contend that all that is contained in the spun-off article, for the time being and foreseeable future, suffices as a subsection in her article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and her candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since she announced her candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    Again, an argument for why it is notable that she has run for president. But not for why that cannot sufficiently be explored as a sub-section of the main article, or (alternatively) in an article that combines both this and her previous campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Unlike RFK Jr's campaign for the Democratic nomination, I don't see any real media traction for Williamson, other than the fact that she was technically the first to enter the 2024 field. However, it is my belief in inclusionism and I generally feel that presidential campaigns of any note deserve their own pages. Her 2020 campaign has one, even though it polled lower and received less coverage than 2024, though one could argue she actually had some kind of chance then. For this reason, I oppose the merger, though not strongly. PickleG13 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Her campaign is just one of two that are against incumbent president Biden and she has received enough media and polling support too. Biden and Kennedy have their own campaign articles too. If her article gets deleted, it would look heavily misogynistic, because Biden's and Kennedy's are left intact and hers gets merged. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is sufficient material and sourcing to spin this off from the main biography. Williamson may be a minor candidate, but her polling is consistent, and she has qualified for debates in the past, which makes her a legitimate contender. I would also oppose combining the 2020 and 2024 articles into one. For joke candidates like Kanye West, that discussion of merging articles makes more sense. Not here. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many campaign pages exist for the republican nomination that are polling smaller percentages than Marianne is, and it would be unfair to remove any of these pages. All political candidates should have their own campaign pages, especially when they are constantly polling higher than 1 or 2 percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:638:1210:EDAF:EBE9:158D:B162 (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like "oppose" is the winner. MonMothma (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I've also proposed similar mergers for a large number of GOP candidates. And polling 5 to 10% in a three-candidate race is very different than polling similar numbers in a far larger field. Poll numbers are not a straight-shot comparison here. SecretName101 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not, until the 2024 election is over, her campaign is too nuanced and hot button of an issue to be merged into her biography article. 2600:1702:20B0:3530:28D8:6252:5FFE:4DBE (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@2600:1702:20B0:3530:28D8:6252:5FFE:4DBE Looking at the campaign article, can you explain to me where the nuance is? I see none. SecretName101 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, as the proposal has clearly failed at this point. BD2412 T 03:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@BD2412 A proposal needs to be formally closed by a non-contributor to the dicussion before a tag can be removed. Please don't unilaterally making decisions that are not your judgement to issue. SecretName101 (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to waste administrator time on these clear outcomes, go ahead. However, many of these propositions with the same discussion trajectories have been removed from their various pages by other editors, sometimes weeks ago, without a peep from you about it. BD2412 T 14:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm placing a request at WP:CR InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added the parallel discussions for other campaign articles to that request. BD2412 T 02:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marianne_Williamson/Archive_1&oldid=1243270511"