Talk:Andrew Wommack

Cut down the quotes
An article should not be built out of a series of quotes; we may want to cover much of what he's saying, but not how he says it. We need to be covering more what people say about the subject, both for neutrality and to establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Amen! (no pun intended... er... well... okay, maybe it was) I just cleaned-up a couple of them to at least reflect that they came from his books and websites; but, indeed, they're almost preaching. As proof that a lot of it is just lifted (copied-and-pasted) from his website, I noticed, when I was editing, that some of what's already there had the kind of slanted quotation marks where are not possible in the Courier-New fond in which we make all of these edits.

I also made it crystal clear, in the part about his college, that all of its claims were from its website.

Yikes! This thing is almost like an ad for this guy! It needs to be cleaned-up. I once wrote a WAY less self-promoting article about a seminary in South Africa that was both actually accredited, and infinitely more credible this this guy and his unaccredited "college," and powers-that-be around here yanked it in its entirety within a week (and put it in my sandbox for improvement). If that article couldn't stand-up to Wikipedia standards, then trust me when I tell you that this one comes not even close!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 21:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talk • contribs)

"Controversy"
There are no sources given showing any controversy arising from the situations listed; unless some sources are provided, the section should be removed or at very least renamed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Andrew Wommack. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024011800/http://www.awmi.net:80/about_us to http://www.awmi.net/about_us
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024011800/http://www.awmi.net:80/about_us to http://www.awmi.net/about_us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Wommack. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.awmi.net/about_us
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401022303/http://www.awmi.net/live/sfbc10/speakers to http://www.awmi.net/live/sfbc10/speakers
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928162352/http://www.awmi.net/about_us/history to http://www.awmi.net/about_us/history
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.awmi.net/about_us

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The relevance of the Bible college needs to be stated more clearly.
Hello fellow Wikipedians! There is an entire section in this article that contains only the sentence "Charis Bible College (CBC) (originally Colorado Bible College) is an unaccredited Bible college that opened in 1994." It says nothing about the connection between CBC and Andrew Wommack, which makes the whole section seem rather irrelevant to the article. Please elaborate. Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put that differently: The opening section does state that CBC was founded by Andrew Wommack, but the separate section on the college adds no new information. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have restored the section. Except for some very standard bits, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, so redundancy is not only not wrong, it's the goal. The body bit does contain some information not at top (the unaccredited status), and should be expanded, not removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Dominionist" or "conservative Christian"
Hello! User 4.28.22.114 changed the adjective describing the "Truth and Liberty Coalition" from "dominionist" to "conservative Christian" and added a claim that the purpose of the coalition is merely to uphold the constitutional republic - all without writing anything on the talk page. That edit seems panegyric to me, and so I have reversed it. Said user (or anyone else) is of course free to argue for why they think "conservative Christian" is a more fair description than "dominionist", and why they think an overt religious agenda can be fairly dexcribed as upholding a constitutional republic. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! I think we need to decide whether or not it is fair to characterize the "Truth and Liberty Coalition" is "dominionist" or not - but an editing war is NOT the way to make that decision. Before making any further edits to that effect, please present your case here on the talk page. Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You are using "dominion" in its broadest non sequitur sense. Just because someone teaches that Christians should be INVOLVED in their secular surroundings, does not mean they believe that they will change the nation to being Christian, not that they believe that they can effect change to some sort of Mosaic Law adhering nation. Even in the wikipedia article on Dominion theology going as far as Nikolaj1905 to name all Christians who believe in getting involved in the government in any way as dominionists, shows a broken view of what dominion theology really is. NJ paints a pretty wide swath of what is dominionism. The term should be changed to conservative Christian.2603:8081:8900:A185:A22B:13C8:8013:EDA1 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input!
 * I would like to know where you see me making a statement to the effect that "all Christians who believe in getting involved in the government in any way" are dominionists. I have made no such statement, and if it is indeed the case that the TLC is merely encouraging Christians to get involved in government, I absolutely agree with you that "dominionist" is the wrong word to use. However, this is not what I find when I browse the TLC's website. What I find is, among other things, a defined goal to make "Biblical principles and prayer" an integral part of public education (see https://truthandliberty.net/mountains/#mountain-education), which in my view is clearly an attempt at changing the nation to becoming Christian.
 * Now, I'm not particularly strong on the precise definitions of Dominion Theology, so you are more than welcome to educate me on that. But whether or not "dominionist" is the right word to use, there is no denying that the TLC is a POLITICAL organization which has political change as its goal, so "conservative Christian" is hardly a sufficient description. Perhaps a compromise could be to skip the attribute and simply write, "an organization that believes God has" etc.? Nikolaj1905 (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)