Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911 horoscope

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedied by request of author. Deletion carried out by Stewartadcock.

911 horoscope

[edit]

POV original research. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

I do not understand what POV original research means. I am in the process of delineating the chart to state the astrological significance of the chart. I do not understand why someone would want do delete this article because I have not written anything in the article that is not true. --TracyRenee 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

The consequences of this attack were so extreme that the United States and the United Kingdom were prompted to illegally invade Iraq and capture Sadam Hussein even though they had no firm evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the now infamous attack on the twin towers or had weapons of mass destruction. It's not our place to determine whether the invasion was legal or not and making the chart would break our No original research policy. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 11:07 (UTC)

All of my work is original, so if you have a policy that states you are not allowed to put in any original research then perhaps it should be deleted. Would you have any objection to me just having the chart there and quoting and quoting that Ruth Montgomery predicted it in her books.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

I have tidied it up and made it as nice and pretty as possible. I have quoted the source of the date of the event as well. I would like to do a nice delineation of the chart, but I am not going to waste me time if you are just going to delete the article because delinations take a lot of time and I am doing this for free for wikipedia but would charge a lot of money if I was doing it for a paying client. I would be grateful, therefore, if you would kindly let me know what your intentions are regarding deleting this article. If you decide not to delete it then I will delineate it the chart. --TracyRenee 6 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

  • Delete and/or merge. Most of the information is just a (questionably POV) re-hash of September 11, 2001 attacks, and the prediction part could easily be a footnote in that article. However, before adding that footnote, further research should be done to establish a) did this person have a history of predicting attacks that did not come to pass b) how many othe people (besides Stanley Kubrick) made the same prediction -Harmil 6 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
  • Delete: No, just...no. POV, Orig. Res., and questionable. --Alex 6 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)--68.45.247.33 6 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. I don't even see how this is encyclopedic, regardless of any other issues --Excession 6 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Ruth Montgomery was a journalist and has written many books on spiritualism. She made many predictions re politics but the attack on NYC is probably the most notable. I do not agree with the previous comments re the article being re-hash and I don't agree that it is not encyclopedic.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense. Elfguy 6 July 2005 14:10

(UTC)

Just one question. Do any of the people who have voted for deletion contributed anything to this site other than deleting other people's work? I am interested to know how many people who have voted to delete this piece have actually written an article and put it on the net.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Check our edit histories. Note that I just moved from Alex12_3 though, where I did equally little. However, attacking us will not change our opinions. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
Anyone who's ever written professionally had screamed in the face of had that discussion with their editor. Wiki had countless editors who in addition to not giving a damn about the blood and sweat you've poured into your work are also inconsistant and sometimes just mean. Sorry Tracy, but that's how it is here. It can be very very tough to meet the standard. Don't let us "vote to delete" bastards get you down. And, in the nicest possible way: Delete, original research. - Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

I do not agree with Armadni's comment that I was attacking people. All I asked was if the people who are voting to delete my piece have taken the time to actually write an article themselves. I think it is a fair question. It is easy to criticise other people, but not so easy to come up with original work. It was a question, not an attack. I think that Mr Armandi needs to go and re-read my question. If he cannot even read a simple question then I doubt very seriously that he even read my article. I think that based upon the fact that Mr Armandi accused me of attacking him when I did not shows quite clearly that he is not a credible person to be voting on deletion of my article.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

  • Looks like a personal attack to me, and so does this comment. Implying that someone lacks credibility or didn't take the time to read your question or article is quite impolite. See WP:NPA, WP:CIV. Regarding your question, I'll turn around and ask you another one: why does it matter whether or not voters have contributed to their own articles? Removing inappropriate content is just as important, IMO, as adding good content. The content in your article is simply a POV summary of an event that is covered more completely elsewhere, and the bit about the prediction deserves, at best, a footnote in September 11, 2001 attacks, if it can be verified. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

I think that any reasonable person would realise that my comment was a question. I do not agree with you that it was a personal attack. I think that if people are going to criticise other people's work then they should at least see what it is like to produce original work by writing an article themselves. As I said, I do not agree with you or with Armandi. Your opinion that my question is an attack is POV and is not substantiated by any evidence other than your own opinion, which I believe his highly biased. Also, Aaron voted for deletion and is no longer a member. I do not think that people who vote for deletion and then delete their membership have their votes counted.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

  • Questions can easily be personal attacks. How long have you been a Communist?, for example. Implying that those without substantial writing credits on Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to determine whether or not to delete content, as you have done with your question, is akin to saying Roger Ebert ought not to criticize filmmakers because he's not one himself. Of course my opinion is POV – that goes without saying. The NPOV policy states that we should strive for NPOV in articles. "That's just your opinion!" is a valueless statement, because it's also your opinion that your article has worth. Also, Aaron Brenneman has not "deleted his membership." He simply hasn't bothered to create a user page yet. (As a relatively new user, his vote may be discounted anyway.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only one sentence of this article is on topic and not fully covered more appropriately elsewhere ("One item of interest is the fact [...]"), and that is already covered in Ruth Montgomery, which is a much more useful entry. (Also, please look up the word 'propitious') - Marvin01 6 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't vote here that often. When I do, it's because I feel strongly about some aspect of the subject. Here, it's three: POV, original research, and Ruth Montgomery. Not a good combination, in my opinion. --Mothperson 6 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
  • Delete - TracyRenee, go ahead and click on my name at the end of my comment and check out my user page; I do much more contributing than I do voting for deletions. I also vote to keep and merge articles as often as I vote to delete them. What you need to realize is that an encyclopedia is not a place for original research; it's a place to archive printed information that's found elsewhere. It's obvious that you put some time and effort into your article, and I'm sorry that there's no place for it on Wikipedia, but perhaps you can submit it to some kind of astrological or paranormal journal. Not having a home on Wikipedia doesn't mean that your article can't go up elsewhere. Good luck. Fernando Rizo 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Impossible to have anything on this page that is not either better covered in other articles or original "research." -EDM 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Delete -- another fraud claiming to have used the mystical powers of the crystal tarot or whatever to predict something FOUR YEARS AFTER IT HAPPENED. Brilliant. Ben-w 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  • Umm, yikes... delete: 1) vast majority of the article doesn't even deal with the subject in the title, but instead (poorly) duplicates September 11, 2001; 2) the (extremely brief) horoscope stuff is original research. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, original research, and my contribs can be located here. Oh, and the title is poorly formatted, too. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I wrote a really long reply to say what I thought about the comments that have been made on this page, but sadly, it did not save. Suffice it to say, I am not very happy about the things that some of the people have said and I feel that the individuals who accused me of attacking them are totally unsubstantiated in their claims and are only looking to pick a fight. I feel that the individual who said that I was impolite was impolite himself, so it is pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. I feel that the person who said the article was nonsense should not have said it because it was rude (yet I am the one being accused of being impolite). I feel that Ben should not have called Ruth Montgomery a fraud because he has no evidence and his comment is slanderous, or perhaps he was calling me a fraud, I don't know. If Ben was calling me a fraud then his comment was definately slanderous because I have never pretended to be anything that I am not. I have no motivation to retype what I said, as it is only words. I know in my heart that the people who made the most offensive comments about me and my article are deeply unhappy people who have chosen the internet as an avenue to pick fights with people and I doubt very seriously they would have the nerve to do it face to face. If the people who made nasty comments were to say those things to someone's face the person would either laugh at them, hit them, or walk away - either way they would find themselves all alone in the world, which is probably why they are spending all of their time deleting articles on Wikipedia anyway. I do not understand how Hermione could say that title was poorly formatted, now that really is just trying to find things to criticise when a person complains about the formatting of a title.--TracyRenee 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

    • No spirit guides predicted anything, no horoscopes predicted anything, you had no foreknowledge of the event, your horoscope did not tell you that two jets would be piloted into the twin towers on the day in question. None of this happened. Sorry if that offends you but what you say is not true. Ben-w 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. A more proper title would have probably been something to the effect of September 11, 2001 horoscope. I'm sorry if you feel antagonised here, but lots of articles get deleted here daily. I read through the article; not being an astrologist myself, it didn't make a lick of sense to me, nor did it seem to follow the guidelines set out in the Wikipedia help pages. Hermione1980 6 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
Look, nothing is personal unless you choose to make it so. Your article doesn't suit Wikipedia. That says nothing about you, unless you choose to think it does. It would seem to make more sense for you to figure out where else your work might go, instead of arguing against what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedians do. --Mothperson 6 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, non-encyclopedic. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  • Delete high POV diatribe about the Iraq war et al, original research that, I'm afraid is non-encyclopedic. Having read it, I don't even see any reference to a horoscope save a link to Ruth Montgomery — not being psychic I can't fathom the picture without some explanation in the article. -Splash 7 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article states that "it is worth taking a close look at the event chart of the first attack, which occured at 8:43 Eastern Standard Time on the morning of 11 September 2001" but no explanation of the event chart is given. There is a circle with astrological symbols, numbers, and colored lines, but no explanation of what any of it means. Even if the event chart were explained in the article, there would still be issues of POV and original research to deal with. Do not merge article with Ruth Montgomery; apparently she predicted an attack on New York in the 1990s which would lead to World War III, but 9/11 was after the 1990s and hasn't led to World War III, nor did she cast the horoscope which this article is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 July 7, 2005 06:00 (UTC)
  • Delete Original Research. Moreover, since the article doesn't even "explain" the chart, I don't know what purpose it was intended to serve. Even if astrological charts were encyclopedic (which they are not), a chart without clarification is of no practical use to the general public. Xoloz 7 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. original research. (oh, and FWIW - which is nil, since all editors in Wikipedia have equal say regardless of how much they've done here - I've written about 540 articles here) Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Delete for various reasons all of which have been stated already. Author even admitted that it should be deleted. Descendall 7 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)


I think that Ben's comment that me and/or Ruth Montgomery is a fraud should be struck from this page because Ben cannot prove his comments and it is libel. Ruth Montgomery is a very well respected journalist as well as a spiritualist, and if she were to read Ben's comments, which are not substantiated, then she could very well sue Wikipedia for defamation of character. I also think that the person who made the comment that the article was nonsense should delete the comment becuase it is not constructive. I am being asked not to take things personally, but some of the people who have posted comments have made some very personal attacks on me. The article was in progress and I was going to make an analysis of the chart, if anyone had bothered to read the discussion page they would see that the article was still in progress. If you would like to delete the article that is one thing, but please don't make nasty and offensive comments to me about me, Ruth Montgomery, or my article. The people who have made nasty comments like to see themselves as editors, but no true editor would be given such a position of responsiblity if they were not capable of giving constructive criticism in a positive fashion. The quality of many of the comments has not been positive criticism and I feel is a reflection of the mindsets of the people who posted them.

Libel is very hard to prove in the United States. You'd have to first prove that the comment was false, which would be impossible. Descendall 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
  • Let me try to go through this once more, since this issue is obviously very important to you. "I am being asked not to take things personally, but some of the people who have posted comments have made some very personal attacks on me." They have said things, but only you have to power to turn them into "personal attacks." Maybe some of them even thought they were making personal attacks, although I tend to doubt it for most of them. But even if they thought that, it doesn't make it real until you decide to believe it is. And even then it still isn't "real" because... oh, never mind. Let's pretend that I - in the persona of - "Icki" - am the person who has made all the remarks you consider offensive (and I might as well be guilty, because I've thought some of them even though I haven't written them down). You've then said that I, Icki, am a slandering, irresponsible, nasty, ungrateful, talentless, rude, bullying, miserable imposter of an editor, and have, by such behavior, earned unhappiness, social shunning, and an eternal damnation to a life of deleting articles such as yours. Well, everything you've said about me, Icki, is yours. What I choose to do with it is mine. I can scream like a banshee, go cry in a closet for an hour, kick a wall, fume for the next six months, or I can tra-la-la my way on to write, edit, or delete another article, grab the inner tube and head for the pond, etc., et al., ad infin. In other words, I can choose to take your words seriously, or I can dismiss them. I would bet real money Icki is doing the latter. Unless you enjoy working yourself up to a lather (and while the melodrama can create a certain adrenaline rush, it doesn't last), you might consider doing the same. It would seem you have talents that other people do appreciate, so why not give up on Icki as a total idiot, and go do something else more enjoyable? --Mothperson 7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
    • Tracy, you should bear in mind the caveat on the bottom of every edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Don't take it personally; this is how Wikipedia works. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The only new "information" is the prediction of an attack in the late 1990's. Not only unverifiable and an unremarkable prediction, but wrong by a few years. Peter Grey 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a "7 7 horoscope" article by some phony that "predicts" the tragic events in London after they happened? Ben-w 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
  • Comment No, we'll have to wait another four years for that Descendall 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Please find attached a message that I sent to a person in Wikipedia asking that Ben be banned for his comments:-

I would like to make a complaint about Ben W. He has posted some libelous comments on Wikipedia about me and he sent me an email saying that I am a fraud and a liar. He has also taken it upon himself to delete articles, and I think that someone like that should not be allowed to make any entries on Wikipedia. One day he is going to say something about someone who is in a position to sue, and Wikipedia will be in a lot of legal trouble. Thanking you from banning this individual from the site for making libelous comments about me.

I would also like Wikipedia to know that I do not want Ben to send me any more emails. If Ben sends me any emails I will take his malicious communication to the police and seek legal action against him. I will also use the malicious comments that he has made in this site and ask them to look into the matter because there are laws about malicious communication and harrassment, and I consider his emails to me and his postings on this page to be just that.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

  • Ah, the concept of "slander", a tool employed by the plutocracy to silence their critics and opponents, to suppress the free flow of information. The concept of suing someone for "malicious communication" is a slippery slope and undermines freedom of expression, which the GFDL which Wikipedia is grounded in is based on. -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Mothperson, if you don't want any more emails from me that is just fine. I only emailed you because you made a comment and I wanted to speak to you privately about it, but if you don't any more emails from me that is just fine with me. I only sent you one email stating my case and that was all, so I would rather that you did not come on this public forum and try to make it sound as if I have been sending you lots of emails, by using the plural. I promise that I will never ever in a million years send you another email or acknowledge your existance in anyway if you will promise that you will not put in this public forum that I have been sending you plural emails when I only sent you one that I am aware of.

There seems to be problems with the editing of this page because I put comments in and try to save it, and nothing comes of it.

To be honest, I would rather that you just delete the article and this page as soon as possible because I am just to upset to worry about it anymore. The article really pales in comparison to what happened today. There are more important things to worry about, such as the bombing in London. I would rather focus my energies on positive things and not this page, which has become very negative. The people in the group have made some very nasty comments that have been directed at me, and I am very upset about the whole thing. I think that some of the people who have made comments on this page have some very serious issues with regard to bullying, harrassment, libel, slander, just to name a few.

With regard to the legal issues, if a person sends an email to another person's hotmal account, calling them names and saying hateful things then that is harassment. In England there are laws about harrassment and malicious communication, and I doubt very seriously that the police are going to care about Wikipedia's bylaws if BenW continues to send me emails to my hotmal account calling me names and saying things about me.--TracyRenee 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

  • "I'd rather you didn't send me personal e-mails" doesn't imply that multiple emails were sent initially. Compare with "I'd like you to give me some more donut." It doesn't make sense without the plural. I think you're harping on Mothperson a bit too much with this. Anyway, if Ben-w sent you some nastygrams, that really sucks, but you have said some rather nasty things about him in this public forum, including unfounded accusations of libel and threats of legal action. Neither justifies the other, I'm afraid, and you continue to make blanket accusations of bad behavior and libel. Several people, including myself, have attempted to explain to you why the article and the expansion you have planned for it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia; we are met with varying levels of hostility, accusations of rudeness and libel, questions about our credibility and writing credits on Wikipedia, and veiled legal threats. The article's introduction is a summarization of the events of 9/11 and its aftermath, which you have put your own spin on. This material is covered much more thoroughly and neutrally in articles on 9/11 and related articles. A delineation of the chart, as I have explained to you on the article's talk page, would constitute original research, since you are doing some sort of astrological analysis yourself, and that sort of material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The only verifiable fact in the article (outside of the introduction) is that Ruth Montgomery made a vague prediction about the 9/11 attacks that turned out to be off by a few years, and this is already covered in a less POV fashion in Ruth Montgomery. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 23:04 (UTC)
    • "Harrassment" does not consist of the sending of one email. Harassment can only consist of repeated injurious conduct, undertaken after a request for the ceasation of the conduct is made by the complainant. Legal threats don't belong on Wikipedia at all, and frivilous legal threats really don't belong anywhere. Xoloz 8 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seeing the clear majority, I wouldn't have bothered casting a vote until I read something about veiled legal threats. I hate it when people do that. ℬastique▼talk 8 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

I do not object to deleting the article, per se. What I object to is the comments that people have made, directed at my article and me personally. People did not have to call the article nonsense and accuse me of attacking them when I asked a very legitimate question of have the people deleting the articles even written any articles themselves. I also feel that Ben W's comments about me are personal attacks. Andriod, I think that your thinking is very biased, so I am not surprised in the least that you would turn it around to try to make it seem as if I have done something wrong. I think that you would rather the people in this forum sit back and hurl abuse and say nothing. With regard to Ben W, he has sent 2 hate mails so far into my hotmail account and has said some really nasty things. I telephoned the police about the hatemail that BenW has been sending me and they advised me what to do about it. Basically, I was told to have no further contact with Ben W and if he continues to send me hatemail then they will investigate the matter. Just because a person is in Wikipedia does not give him a licence to abuse and libel people. A person can say they disagree with the article without making personal attacks. Android, all of your comments to me have been very negative and I know that you are looking for any way to discredit me. You are not taking into consideration that I have feelings and do not like being personally attacked.

I do feel that some of the comments and hatemail I have received are by people who are very clearly unhappy and are not in the right state of mind to be posting messages here. I also have not made any veiled threats about legal action because if people send malicious communication into my hotmail account then I will report the incident to the police. There is such a thing as internet crime, you know. A lot of people think that just because they are on the internet they can act with impunity, and that clearly is not the case.

I think that in light of the London bombings, it would be far better if we focused our efforts in a positive direction and not this forum, which has become quite negative. I have already emailed one of the trustees of Wikipedia and asked for Ben W to be banned because of the libelous comments and the hatemail he has been sending me, and have asked him to close this page down because of the nasty comments made about me personally on this page. I have already informed him that I have reported the hatemail I have been receiving to the police.--TracyRenee 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

People did not have to call the article nonsense... Are you seriously surprised that most people think these things are nonsense? Oh, and delete obviously MyNameIsClare talk 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
  • I think everybody needs to take a step back and breathe. I don't personally believe in astrology or anything of that ilk, and I do think that Tracy Renee is acting irrationally, but several other people have made some impolite and unnecessarily brusque comments in this VfD. It does no good to point fingers and decide who started what, but the tone of this VfD has gotten absolutely childish. As absurd as it is to throw around legal threats over something so trivial, there are also much more courteous ways of telling someone that their article is unencyclopedic. You can't correct a wrong with a wrong. People who embrace logic and disregard concepts that cannot be empirically proven (as I feel most of us here are) often succumb to condescention when dealing with "spiritual" people, and it's clear that's what's happening here. We all know better than that. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
    • Having already spent a fair amount of time on this subject, I figured sheep, lamb, what the heck. A review of history shows the user has engaged in this exact same kind of disruptive behavior before, and apparently cannot be reasoned with, by even the nicest of people, much less this group (and I mean that in the nicest possible way!). Therefore, we should probably just let this drift into the outer ether. --Mothperson 8 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/911_horoscope&oldid=1137527198"