Talk:Lon Solomon

message: Out of curiosity, am I the only person who thinks this article sounds at least a little biased towards Mr. Solomon?  Not to say he necessarily doesn't deserve it, but still, given the aim of objectivity of Wikipedia, it seems a little out of place.
:No I agree, it doesnt read like a wiki article the Spiritual path section seems to be written a bit too "impassioned"
Johnny lunchpail 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral POV? 

message: This article sounds suspiciously like it's copied from one Solomon's several web-accessible autobiographies (called, I believe, witnessing, in Evangelicalese.) He did not, in fact, set out on "a relentless search for meaning and purpose." Instead, he became a fundamentalist preacher of fire, brimstone, homophobia, and nonsensical apocalyptic prophesy, a bamboozler swindling people out of their money and threatening them with imaginary damnation. Sure, that's my POV. I wouldn't put it like that in the article. But what is there at the moment won't do either. Somebody has to go and find something neutral to say about this man, or otherwise we should consider not saying anything at all.
:The reason it sounds like it's copied from his biography is because it is copied from his biography. It's both an NPOV violation and plagiarism (and was marked as such months ago), but the standard reaction to plagiarism complaints around here seems to be to delete them and pretend the issue was never raised. DarthSquidward (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There should be some discussion / examination of the degree to which the McLean Bible Church is built around him and the likelihood that his church might implode if he were no longer able to preach there. Is he a minister who serves as the teaching pastor at a church... or is he a pastor who now has a church that serves as his pulpit? Is their evidence to show that he is proud or one who truly strives not to be proud (ie full of himself)? Does he teach in a manner where he continues to include multiple verse citations in his sermons and implore those who listen to study what the Bible has to say about the subjects he teaches (ie "Don't take me at my work on this. I'm a former dope dealer. Go read all of this for yourself") or does he now teach where he is giving his opinion (whether correct or not) to the extent that some of the thousands who listen to him would drink the Kool-Aid if he told them to?
These congregants would definitely gulp the kool-aid. They don't want any challenges. They just want to sit and be entertained. This MBC is almost a charicature of a McChurch. Unlike some other Megachurches in the deep church and a few up here in northern VA, there is no architectural indication that the building is a church. No steeples, no pews, no "church" or stained glass windows. This place could be a conference center. Virtually no religious symbols, either. There's a large plain cross on the right wall of the auditorium which is almost invisible because it is painted almost the same color as the wall. Occasionally a small cross will appear at the upper left corner of the videos. As with other Big Box preachers, Solomon has adopted a plexiglass lectrum. This is definitely the place for the person uncomfortable with reminders Christianity, whether you're a non-Christian or one who was raised Christian but has bad memories of the church. --FrancisDane (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megachurches / Bible Churches 

message: There should be a section on controversies surrounding Lon Solomon. The previously mentioned issue about his pay not being disclosed would be one such controversy. There is also the constant anti-gay focus of many of his sermons, and his advocacy for ex-gay programs (which have been shown to be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of gays and lesbians). In addition, he has tried (successfully) to pass off the fallacious story of Charles Darwin converting to Christianity on his death bed to his congregation as a fact (a fabrication supported only by the Lady Hope story). Certainly these warrant some sort of mention on the page, which, as has been pointed out, looks like it may as well have been written by the man himself. AllesJetzt (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]