Talk:Marianne Williamson

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:

[1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cacash refund it seems to be a quote from her book. See [2]. 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 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)

• Oppose - as she is a candidate for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @GoodDay That has never been automatic criteria for a spun-off article on a campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 15:06, 22 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.

Marianne Williamson has not ended her campaign

• 'Believe nothing': Marianne Williamson rebuffs report that she's halting her campaign
• Williamson says she discussed with volunteers whether to end presidential campaign

Be on the lookout for attempts to convert "is" to "Was" and similar. Zaathras (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we change the profile pic?

There are thousands of better pictures. GeminiMoon88 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the current image IMO, but if you have something in mind that satisfies the Wikipedia's WP:NFC policies, feel free to suggest one. Zaathras (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)