Talk:Meritocracy

See also - Contrast with
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. 18:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I won't revert any longer. This is an unusual approach to See also.  I haven't seen this in any other article.  I see contrasting terms in many See also's that aren't distinguished and really don't need to be. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 18:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was trying to address you personally, but not trying to focus on you instead of the subject @ hand. Frankly, w this situation being all I have to go by, I'd have to say my impression of you is vaguely positive. Oh right, thats an ad hominem ;) Anywho, its not a big deal, I just like it my way better, and think its more informative. If you can find some obscure rule somewhere, I'll probably have to defer to the bureaucracy (or secretly edit the policy page whilst yer not looking XD but this isn't exactly a big issue for me either. The article could use some more content if your in anyway expert on the subject, BTW. I'm off to check the 1911 britannica! Cheers, 18:43, 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 ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And that's generally true of See also items... they either contrast with the article term, or they're similar to the term, but not the same. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 22:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed the &quot;See also&quot; section, and while I was at it I tidied up the grammar and style. The section on Singapore reads rather like a propaganda piece; I removed one obviously PoV sentence, but it could probably do with a more extensive rewrite. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:11, 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 &quot; s? I thought that they were preferred? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 00:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK< recent edits have been fairly good, and since you both seem to dislike the "contrast with", and especially since I see your point about all the see also's being contrasts rather than synonyms, I surrender that particular. One thing tho: what this article really needs is more content, rather than more pruning. Pruning is cool, but I'd like to see a better explanation of what meritocracy really is, and perhaps some better examples of it. I'll see what I can do, cheers, 07:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * More content is always a good thing. Be bold.  :)  &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 08:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Character quotes (") are preferred from what I've seen, and I've been editing for almost a year. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 08:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Wikipedia article on quotation marks, it uses neither... instead, throughout, it uses &lsquo; and &ldquo;. Damn!  I've been using &quot; in all my articles and edits. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Ereinion's edits
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; &ldquo;merit&rdquo; means roughly ''intelligence plus effort''.

Most often, meritocracies are confused with 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, 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 ranking 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 ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 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 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Aristocracy: the term 'morbid' has no place here (it's not even clear what it means in this context, beyond being negative); it's not clear what you mean by aristocracy being biassed; the notion of nepotism makes no sense &mdash; aristocracies are generally hereditary.
 * 2) U.S. Constitition: the quotation has no relevance to meritocracy, except in so far as most meritocracies, but also many non-meritocratic systems, accept it.
 * 3) The military: there's no explanation as to why the 'limitation' by government has any effect on its meritocratic nature, nor any explanation as to why it should be counted bureacratic.
 * 4) What was removed (with no explanation) was pefectly adequate. It could doubtless be improved (what couldn't?), but this is no improvement. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:58, 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 Civility. If you need help with it, I would be happy to explain it. Until then, I hope it teaches you something. Ereinion 01:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm interested that you feel that heavy sarcasm counts as civility, but let it pass.
 * I've given my reasons for reverting the article; you seem to have no relevant responses, so I assume that you now agree. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Han Fei Zi?
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)

Clarify description vs. rhetoric
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.

Description of Youngs book
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.

Joseon Dynasty (Korean, 1392-1910)
A society high on Confucianist philosophy, seems almost like the schoolbook example of a meritocracy society to me.

Elements of meritocracy in other sytems
I think its worth mentioning. Might help prevent thing like those arguments of the U.S. constitution from wasting space..