Talk:Gordon Cheng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
  • 4. Keep, 6 April 2007, see discussion.
  • 3. Keep, March 24 2006, see discussion.
  • 2. Overturn deletion, May 19 2006, see DRV.
  • 1. Delete, August 30 2005, see discussion.

Contents

[edit] Sigh

Gah! I wanted a factual article (which means sort of dry and boring). Oh well. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of "Father"

There appears to be no reference to him being referred to as "Father Cheng". If there is such a reference, please provide it. Otherwise this should be left without the title "Father". (JROBBO 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Deletion tag added 10 dec 2006

Could the anon user who added the deletion tag please provide as per the usual procedure a rational for the deletion tag. Knobbly 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The candidate article is a vanity article. The notability cited of Gordon Cheng is that he is ordained, is an editor for a magazine (I cannot find another similar position so listed here) and is an associate of someone noteworthy. In addition, it seems to be considered noteworthy that Mr Cheng posts on bulletin boards. This is hardly unusual. In fact, the board cited is one he is currently suspended from posting on due to his "persistently, willfully, and deliberately being a jerk" (citation for that quote and the suspension here: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003745 Even that doesn't make him notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. And neither does one citation of his postings to a bulletin board by one newspaper. If famous friends, posting on bulletin boards and being cited in the paper were what it took to be noteworthy, everyone and their brother would have such an article. Unless something can be listed here which makes him noteworthy, or even be proved as accurate since there are also longstanding questions about verification of facts here, the article should be deleted. (Anonymous)
Gordon's notability is through him being an author of many Christian books, not his postings on Ship of Fools (which is why I deleted most of that paragraph). The article already says that, and we have already been through an AfD on this issue. There's no need to revisit this. JROBBO 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JROBBO, although I think it is noteworthy that Gordon's comments from SoF were reprinted in the newspaper. I think anon (see history for their IP address) has some sort of personal reason for adovocating this article for deletion and this prevents anon from having a nPOV.Knobbly 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I firmly oppose deleting this article. What is this? Delete an article we have already decided to keep month? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous Anonymous Comments

Gordon Cheng has no awards for his work, and I have yet to see an independent review, much less multiple independent reviews. There are certainly none cited. (Anonymous)

Whether or not the site is Christian isn't the point. It is cited in the article, he's now suspended, and if his posting there is notable, the notability is mostly from his being suspended! As for being an author of Christian books, most other authors of his level aren't listed here, for the reaon that they don't meet the notability guidelines of Wikiepedia biography. Namely: #"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" (Anonymous)

[edit] Inclusion of Ship of Fools posting

Interesting... Gordon should have stayed out of that site. He may have said some faily controversial things, but for a site that calls itself "Christian", I find the following quote particularly unloving:
P.S. I debated whether to do this in Purgatory or Hell. I chose Hell so I could add this postscript. For all of the concern that sincere Shipmates have wasted on you, for the time and energy that the hosts have had to put into policing the crap you've started, and for the effort that I put into responding to your complaint in the Styx, I say fuck you, you self-important, hateful, hurtful bastard. You are a hemorrhoid on the asshole of Christendom.
(by Scot, Member Admin)
And they wonder why Christians aren't taken seriously? Thank goodness Christians in most churches I know of don't act like that in real life. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the site is Christian isn't the point. It is cited in the article, he's now suspended, and if his posting there is notable, the notability is mostly from his being suspended! As for being an author of Christian books, most other authors of his level aren't listed here, for the reaon that they don't meet the notability guidelines of Wikiepedia biography. Namely: #"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" (Anonymous)

It was an aside. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. just so I can clarify, I'm comparing that admin to the people from Godhatesfags. Same sort of behaviour. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Call me pedantic, call me Nigel, call me a friend of Hitler, but the thing that most bothers me about this whole scenario is that my good friend Phillip Jensen, who will deny all knowledge of me when questioned, spells his first name with two Ls. I really don't care about all the other stuff (OK, I deleted stuff about outies and scrunchers, but come *on*), but you ought to get this right >:-<

~~Gordon

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.97.50 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Gordon, don't stress, I'll get it fixed if it hasn't already. Incidently, saw your video on encouragement... good material, but I was falling asleep by the end of it! If you read this, please take it as constructive criticism, and as a brother in Christ. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Priest

Dispite what your editors say, Gordon Cheng is a priest! In the Anglican Tradition, the term "Minister" and "Priest" are interchangable so why have you removed the catagory references to "Anglican Priests" Gordon Cheng may not like being called a priest, but that is the correct catagory for this article!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.129.114 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

"Minister" is a better term which is more suitable to the article and to Gordon's work. "Priest" is not the correct term - the term was replaced by the Sydney Anglican Synod by the word "presbyter" anyway. The "Australian priests" category was full of Roman Catholic priests, which Gordon is not- It's a redundant category. Minister is a suitable neutral category. Let's leave this alone. JROBBO 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We've already had this debate; please stop changing it back to "priest"; it is incorrect, and I have never seen Gordon referred to as a priest at all in Australia - he is a minister, not a priest. JRG 13:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
He is a priest, whether you think so or not. To say someone is a minister, in an Anglican context, generally suggests that they are not in Holy Orders. For example, one might speak of ministers of Holy Communion, meaning chalice bearers, who are clearly not in Holy Orders. But Gordon Cheng has been ordained by an Anglican bishop in tactile apostolic succession, therefore he is an Anglican priest. It is misleading to call him a minister because he is more than that, he is a priest. Troyac 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we are going to go down that path, then all true Christians are priests, as per 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (NIV). I do think that this debate is a bit silly and irrelevant really. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not misleading - a "minister", to a lay context is simply someone who works in a church. Wikipedia is for everyone to read, not simply to people overly familar with old-style Anglican terminology. I'll accept "clergyman" or something like that, but priest is inaccurate so far as the Sydney Diocese goes (they don't have priests, only presbyters and deacons). Let's stick to a NPOV term that everyone understands. JRG 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Old style" - riiight. Sydney does have priests, whether they acknowledge it or not. And they have bishops as well. Just like every other Anglican diocese in the world. "Clergyman" is old-style terminology; it would be more appropriate to say cleric. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.219.253 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Alright - I'll put in "presbyter" with the explanation of "priest" - he is referred to in mainstream media as such so I'll be consistent. JRG 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)