Talk:Cyril Burt

message: The bibliography of this article somehow developed a discussion of the merits of Gould's book, which is not directly relevent to this article. I've removed it, and I'd suggest that if anyone feels that it added something important, it should be in a criticism section, or in the article on Gould's book, not in the bibliography of the Burt article. -Willmcw 19:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismeasure of Man 

message: His name is actually spelled "Burtt." However, since everyone insists on spelling it with only one "t," it may not matter anymore. This is a symptom of our declining literacy.
152.163.101.10 16:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a source shoowing that it is the corect spelling? Thanks, -Willmcw 03:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelled Name 

message: Cyril Burt's birthplace was actually Stratford-Upon-Avon, Warwickshire (birthplace of another famous fraudster according to some!). Quite a biggie really, I'm not sure how the person who wrote this managed to get it quite wrong or why it hasn't been picked up on before! Check Encyclopaedia Britannica for a reference.
The evidence of birth registration (above) also settles the place of birth. Clearly the suggestion that he was born in Warwickshire, near Stratford on Avon, is incorrect as Burt’s parents did not move to Snitterfield until 1892 (Hearnshaw 1979, p.2). It gives me great pleasure to state that Encyclopædia Britannica is completely wrong on this point (I have pointed this out to them today). I believe that the St. Georges Hanover Square registration district did in 1883 include some parts of Westminster south of St. James’ Park; so possibly the Burts may have been living in the York Street/Petty France area close to Victoria street.
IainWallace 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: Society has an interest in proving Burtt wrong. That interest may influence the judgment of his work. If intelligence is largely inherited, then there may be no incentive for self-improvement. People may just accept their limitations with resignation and apathy.Lestrade 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Utility

message: If IQ tests are racist, why do many Middle Eastern (India, Israel), many Far Eastern, and certain Caucasians score high? What is the common racial property that these groups share?Lestrade 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist Test

message: Hi Skywriter, a reference to an academic journal is by definition a "supported claim," so I don't believe your revert is supportable under WP:RS.--Ty580 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skywriter 

message: Hello. Your point is unclear. I certainly did not delete a journal article. I did delete the term "prominent" because it is someone's opinion, and now yours since you put it back in. So, instead of reverting you, it is now labeled as WP:PEACOCK for the weak writing that it is. 
So far as the other changes, they were small copyediting changes.Skywriter 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the link I provided in my above comment.  Thanks for just using the WP:PEACOCK label.--Ty580 03:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Burt affair seems to have common enough usage in the literature to be a good choice for the title.--Ty580 11:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ty580

message: Nearly the entire bio section lacks references. Anyone know where that material comes from? If not, it is subject to deletion. thanks.Skywriter 20:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bio section

message: The first sentence of a Wikipedia article is very important.  In the case of a person, it should succinctly state why that person is notable and in what way.  In this article, the first sentence brings in another person and claims that the subject of the article took credit for his work.  Is that a primary, overarching, most notable fact to be known about the subject of this article?  If not, it should be changed.  If I don't see any objections I will change it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.67.1 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly First Sentence

message: ...when the journal was redacted by Burt.
What does this mean?  I imagine that the intent is "while Burt was the editor of the journal". 72.75.81.72 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redacted" 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible.  -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyril Burt. 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/20050310013515/http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf to http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf
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) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cyril Burt. 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/20061011220457/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Burt2002.pdf to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Burt2002.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011220457/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Burt2002.pdf to http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Burt2002.pdf
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) 20:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed both of the citations for the claim that "According to Ronald Fletcher there is also full documentary evidence of the existence of Miss Conway". Neither was by Fletcher; indeed, both were written by J. Philippe Rushton. The first claimed, "As for the so-called 'missing'  research assistants, they have been found" (with no supporting evidence), the second that "Both 'missing' research assistants were found and the twin data were proven not to have been 'cooked'".  Apologies if I'm wrong in doing so, but it seems to me that such a statement requires a more directly relevant source. JezGrove (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked at the J. Philippe Rushton article, and seen the linked reference which has reinforced my view that a better source is needed for the claim. JezGrove (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Full documentary evidence of the existence of Miss Conway" 

message: @User:Edmund Patrick:  When a person says that another person exists because they were acquainted, why exactly are the first person's credentials relevant? Is a professor more competent at knowing people than an ordinary mortal? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much so in this case; A professor(ship) gave added credence to the authors of the supporting papers into Burt's research and conclusions; being competent has nothing to do with it execpt for the added credence. Miss Howard is interesting as he followed the social norms of the day in calling a single woman Miss but if he had been very smart he could have used Mrs. Joe Bloggs, and of course Mr Joe Bloggs may have had another career altogether. Edmund Patrick –  confer 08:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credentials 

message: The suggestion that, from 1902, Burt specialised in philosophy and psychology at Jesus College, Oxford, seems misleading. Burt entered Oxford with a classics scholarship following several years of training in Latin and Greek at Christ's Hospital. Although he developed an interest in mathematics at Christ's Hospital, he had no formal training in it, either there or at university, but was self-taught. Although Burt did make a number of attempts at Oxford to specialise in the sciences, he remained in the classics faculty throughout his undergraduate study there and took a classics degree. 
He did meet William McDougall in Oxford: McDougall had moved there from London on his appointment as Reader in Mental Philosophy in 1904. After graduating in 1906, Burt first remained in Oxford to study for a teaching diploma. After completing this in 1907, he helped in McDougall's survey of British physical and mental characteristics. In 1908, he was awarded the John Locke Scholarship in Mental Philosophy which he used in that summer to study philosophy in Wurzburg before taking up his first teaching post at the University of Liverpool in autumn 1908. However, any implication that he undertook a formal course of undergraduate study leading to an Oxford degree in philosophy and psychology is incorrect. As with his mathematical training, his psychology was informal and to a significant extent self-taught. Source: Clarence Karier, (1980). "In Praise of Great Men: essay review of Cyril Burt, Psychologist". History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4, p. 475. 
Burt was not a specialist with extensive training and a PhD but a self-taught amateur in many fields including mathematics, and his reaction to a highly critical analysis of his lack of mathematical sophistication was, "I suppose after all that the majority of psychologists in this country, like Flugel and myself, are really Arts people, and are mere amateurs in dealing with what you term 'elementary algebra'". Source: Clarence Karier, (1980). "In Praise of Great Men: essay review of Cyril Burt, Psychologist". History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4, p. 481
The article quotes Jensen as arguing that "[n]o one with any statistical sophistication, and Burt had plenty, would report exactly the same correlation, 0.77, three times in succession if he were trying to fake the data.". By Burt's own admission, he was not the sophisticated statistician that Jensen claims. 
Sscoulsdon (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct, but just very slightly misleading. One or two students in Literae Humaniores ("Greats") at this time (early 1900s)  took a special paper in Psychology in their final examinations. Burt was one. I think if you do a bit of scrabbling about into William McDougall's time at Oxford you'll get adequate evidence of this. It shows that psychology was only just beginning to be regarded as an academic discipline at the time. Thomas Peardew (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Did you trip over the nature of his teaching diploma? My interest in him was sparked by my own education also as a Bluecoat boy and an Oxford graduate (though just a little later than Burt), and I would be surprised if a teaching diploma was awarded by Oxford University at that time. But I was equally surprised to find that you could sit a special paper in Psychology as part of Greats. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  University education and mathematical ability

message: The Burt Affair bulks-up so big on this page that I think it merits its own dedicated page, with just a summary left on this one. Valetude (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate page?