Talk:Robert Currey

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Astrology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isle of Man Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

COI/Autobiography[edit]

This article seems to have been written by the subject, and requires review. Verbal chat 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, I originated this article and signed myself as author using my own name. Anyone who is not aware that many people use pseudonyms or agents to write their Wiki autobiographies, is naïve. I felt that this practice is disingenuous, but also wanted records to be accurate from the start - others can edit later. However, if you feel that the entry should be deleted since I unwittingly broke the rules of Wiki neutrality or that I am not sufficiently notable, I have no objection. Robertcurrey (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

Why is this chap notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood why this biography, with 10 references for its less than 100 words, should be tagged as being in need of more references. I certainly don't see how the subject lacks notability. I was aware of the reputation of Robert Currey many years ago - his name is prominent in modern astrology for his development of Equinox and that company's pioneering work in computerised reports (not something I am fond of myself but it is a clear point of notability which by itself justifies the presence of this page on WP).

I also don't think that biographies should be created without adherence to standard policy; nor proposed for deletion for any other reason. What I see here is a page being proposed for deletion specifically because the subject acts as an editor of WP, and to avoid a criticism of COI. But there is no COI if the interest does not conflict with the policies and principles of WP. Therefore I should like to address the problems that have been identified, and (unless Robert Currey would prefer me not to) I will make some time for this over the next few days. Zac Δ talk 08:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is as notable as you suggest, there should be a little bit more to say about him, for a start. More, although the article counts 10 refs, most of them are very poor quality indeed. Do you accept that? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the biography should have been fuller but I suspect it was deliberately understated out of concern that this biography of a WP editor who doesn't hide his real name might attract concerns about promotional content. There is a lot to say that could be added, but I decided to keep the entry succint. Robert's development of the Equinox charts and the significance of the Astrology shop could have been augmented since the notability is widely reported in independent sources. The well established media profile was also under-reported so I have added some details on that. I've ensured that there are no commercial links on the page that could draw the potential for criticism. It's now robustly referenced with notability established so I'll now remove the deletion proposal. Zac Δ talk 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Man[edit]

Current text says: "based in the Isle of Man". Should this not read "based on the Isle of Man"? I realize that this is a country but it reads strange. Aquirata (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought 'in' rather than 'of'. For example, we say that someone is based in England, we don't say they are baed on England (same with Blackpool, New York, Europe, and so on ...) Zac Δ talk 19:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:NOTFORUM SÆdon ^talk 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sister commissioned a 17-page Personal Horoscope for me from Mr Currey at Christmas 2002. It contains some interesting assertions. I refrain from from commenting on the assessment of my own personality, since I'm obviously a biased judge; but among the unqualified assertions of fact to be found in it is the following:

"This pattern is reflected in the way that you argued with your sister and your mother in your early years."

As it happens, my parents divorced when I was two year old in 1948, and my father disappeared to Africa; my (half) sister was born in 1952 to his second wife. I never knew I even had a sister until until 2002, when she found me on the Internet.

I know this is OR, but I think the topic is of interest none the less,

Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to archive this because it's a more general discussion of the topic, but to comment on your inquiry: you may want to take a look at our article on cold reading. Psychics/astrologers/shamans/etc use this technique profusely to trick gullible people. One can make generic comments vaguely enough that they'll apply to most people and it's expected that the "wrong" statements will be forgotten as the customer is left in awe by the "right" statements. So an astrologer banks on the fact that siblings fought as kids - doesn't take a genius to predict that, but make enough of these general statements and otherwise intelligent people all of a sudden forget that we don't live in the Sabrina universe.. SÆdon ^talk 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why archive this, in some manner that portrays authority and suggests 'no modification', as if this talk-page comment has any sort of authority or credibility? Some random pseudonym passes by to leave an unverifiable report and you archive it; then break the policy you just noted WP:NOTFORUM to give talk-page advice concerning the profession of this subject. Like any other page, this page is subject to the guidlines for living person bios, and non-verifiable aspertions should not appear in the article itself; or be made on the talk page. Yes, it is unverifiable OR, and so (as far as WP is concerned) the topic is of interest to no one. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the best thing you could have done in response to me breaking WP:TPG was to also break it in protest.

Feel free to move the {{discussion bottom}} template below your inevitable next comment. SÆdon ^talk 00:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your predictive powers are amazing - though you failed to foresee that I shall also render this irrelevant discussion invisible (to those who wish not to see it) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Birth charts[edit]

Do u do Birth Charts? Gailbirth (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]