This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Meritocracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey stevie, I knowthey can be listed undr "see also", indeed they still are, but I think its helpful to point out that they arn't synonyms. Alot of people have no clue about a given subject, and pointing things out like that is pretty cool. Sam Spade ( talk · contribs) 18:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see what's going on in the See also section; after all, none of the terms listed is a synonym of, and all should be contrasted with, "meritocracy". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't really see that racialism was terribly relevant (especially as there was a link to race in the text). Why, though, did you revert my "s? I thought that they were preferred? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Summary as Ereinion had it was:
'''Meritocracy''' is a system of [[government]] which is strictly based solely on ones abilities ('''merit''') rather than by wealth or social position; “merit” means roughly ''intelligence plus effort''. Most often, meritocracies are confused with [[aristocracy|aristocracies]], a system that morbidly caters to bias and nepotism. A true Meritocracy acknowledges individual prowess and rewards it in kind, regardless of disposition. Most systems of government contain some form of meritocratic elements; for instance, [[United States Constitution|the constitution of the United States]] decrees that all men are created equal and that life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is not to be infringed upon. -- Sorry, but the U.S. Constitution says nothing about "all men are created equal," nor does it say that "life, liberty, and the pUrsuit of happiness is not to be infringed upon." That stuff is in the Declaration of Independence, which has nothing to do with U.S. Government, nor meritocracy. -- However, while this is elemental of a meritocracy, it does not assure the recognition of, or the rewarding of, individual accomplishment. Some would suggest that the [[military rank]]ing system is perhaps the closest to a pure meritocracy, however, each military is limited by its government. Therefore, military services are better classified as [[bureaucracies]], or as psuedo-meritocracies. Pure meritocracies, however, are virtually non-existent.
Aside from spelling and grammar, this introduces some emotional and very PoV claims, as well as inaccuracies (the characterisation of aristocracy in particular). I don't see anything here worth keeping, but if anyone else does, we could discuss it. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? How was my chracterization of an aristocracy inaccurate? PoV has nothing to do with it, I didn't say anything that wasn't historically or contemporarily accurate. If you felt wording needed to be changed that's different. Having said that, I fail to see what attacking any spelling or grammatical errors accomplishes, or implying I have an emotional issue with the subject. This has nothing to do with the topic as a whole. Unless you're just trying to be foul, in which case you need to check your own PoV issues. I'm reverting it back until someone else can make a civil contribution -- UHC. Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not even up for debate. Either learn some amenities or don't contribute. It's just that simple. But, if you need help in learning this, please see Wikipedia:Civility. If you need help with it, I would be happy to explain it. Until then, I hope it teaches you something. Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG 01:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised to find Han Fei Zi in the article. If I'm not mistaking, He was in favor of full power of the prince and refused the use of counsellors. gbog 4 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
There should be a clear distinction made between attempts, by whatever means, to achieve meritocratic ends and attempts to use the idea of meritocracy to justify manifestly un-meritocratic conditions. Most expressions of a Social Darwinist nature, for example, are merely apologetics for the status quo rather than genuine descriptions of the fair result of a meritocratic process.
Also, with limited resources and positions available in any society, competition is going to be a necessary aspect of any system that is not completely overcome by caste momentum. Again, the distinction between reality and rhetoric needs to be made, as real competition rests on some sort of parity between competitors while the struggle between unequals would only be called a "competition" by those wishing to disguise their unfair advantage.
The article says: "In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public." In the book, there is only hints of the revolution. The causes of the revolution (if indeed there is one) are much more complicated than described here.
A society high on Confucianist philosophy, seems almost like the schoolbook example of a meritocracy society to me.
I think its worth mentioning. Might help prevent thing like those arguments of the U.S. constitution from wasting space..
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Meritocracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey stevie, I knowthey can be listed undr "see also", indeed they still are, but I think its helpful to point out that they arn't synonyms. Alot of people have no clue about a given subject, and pointing things out like that is pretty cool. Sam Spade ( talk · contribs) 18:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see what's going on in the See also section; after all, none of the terms listed is a synonym of, and all should be contrasted with, "meritocracy". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't really see that racialism was terribly relevant (especially as there was a link to race in the text). Why, though, did you revert my "s? I thought that they were preferred? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Summary as Ereinion had it was:
'''Meritocracy''' is a system of [[government]] which is strictly based solely on ones abilities ('''merit''') rather than by wealth or social position; “merit” means roughly ''intelligence plus effort''. Most often, meritocracies are confused with [[aristocracy|aristocracies]], a system that morbidly caters to bias and nepotism. A true Meritocracy acknowledges individual prowess and rewards it in kind, regardless of disposition. Most systems of government contain some form of meritocratic elements; for instance, [[United States Constitution|the constitution of the United States]] decrees that all men are created equal and that life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is not to be infringed upon. -- Sorry, but the U.S. Constitution says nothing about "all men are created equal," nor does it say that "life, liberty, and the pUrsuit of happiness is not to be infringed upon." That stuff is in the Declaration of Independence, which has nothing to do with U.S. Government, nor meritocracy. -- However, while this is elemental of a meritocracy, it does not assure the recognition of, or the rewarding of, individual accomplishment. Some would suggest that the [[military rank]]ing system is perhaps the closest to a pure meritocracy, however, each military is limited by its government. Therefore, military services are better classified as [[bureaucracies]], or as psuedo-meritocracies. Pure meritocracies, however, are virtually non-existent.
Aside from spelling and grammar, this introduces some emotional and very PoV claims, as well as inaccuracies (the characterisation of aristocracy in particular). I don't see anything here worth keeping, but if anyone else does, we could discuss it. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? How was my chracterization of an aristocracy inaccurate? PoV has nothing to do with it, I didn't say anything that wasn't historically or contemporarily accurate. If you felt wording needed to be changed that's different. Having said that, I fail to see what attacking any spelling or grammatical errors accomplishes, or implying I have an emotional issue with the subject. This has nothing to do with the topic as a whole. Unless you're just trying to be foul, in which case you need to check your own PoV issues. I'm reverting it back until someone else can make a civil contribution -- UHC. Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not even up for debate. Either learn some amenities or don't contribute. It's just that simple. But, if you need help in learning this, please see Wikipedia:Civility. If you need help with it, I would be happy to explain it. Until then, I hope it teaches you something. Ereinion File:RAHSymbol.JPG 01:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised to find Han Fei Zi in the article. If I'm not mistaking, He was in favor of full power of the prince and refused the use of counsellors. gbog 4 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
There should be a clear distinction made between attempts, by whatever means, to achieve meritocratic ends and attempts to use the idea of meritocracy to justify manifestly un-meritocratic conditions. Most expressions of a Social Darwinist nature, for example, are merely apologetics for the status quo rather than genuine descriptions of the fair result of a meritocratic process.
Also, with limited resources and positions available in any society, competition is going to be a necessary aspect of any system that is not completely overcome by caste momentum. Again, the distinction between reality and rhetoric needs to be made, as real competition rests on some sort of parity between competitors while the struggle between unequals would only be called a "competition" by those wishing to disguise their unfair advantage.
The article says: "In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public." In the book, there is only hints of the revolution. The causes of the revolution (if indeed there is one) are much more complicated than described here.
A society high on Confucianist philosophy, seems almost like the schoolbook example of a meritocracy society to me.
I think its worth mentioning. Might help prevent thing like those arguments of the U.S. constitution from wasting space..