Talk:Myth of meritocracy

Neutrality of article disputed

This article in its present form is not neutral and should be removed. 2001:B011:3800:5AF9:54BD:714C:2109:B450 (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2001:B011:3800:5AF9:54BD:714C:2109:B450, always happy to hear how an article can be improved. Can you expand upon where or how the artice is not neutral? Without specific ideas, I wouldn't know where the problem might be. If you, or other editors, discuss a non-NPOV here, I'd be happy to try working on any problems identified, If no-one comments by, say, the end of June, I will feel justified in removed the neutrality dispute banner you added. Hope to hear from you. 49.177.73.238 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@2001:B011:3800:5AF9:54BD:714C:2109:B450: P.S. One- or two-word summaries, something like "comment" or "NPOV dispute" are fine. 49.177.73.238 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - First of all I know from personal experience, whether it's here on Wikipedia, or out there in the workforce that meritocracy is in fact a myth. Two things can be true at the same time though, sometimes people born into tremendous wealth and privilege DO work hard sometimes, but that's a correlation/causation fallacy. Hard work is just something that happens to temporarily overlap with success some of the time, it doesn't explain why so many people who are rich just collect passive income without doing any work, and it also doesn't explain why so many hard-working people are still poor anyway.

But who does explain it are people like Nick Hanauer who tell more of the truth about capitalism. In his now banned Ted Talk: "Beware, Fellow Plutocrats! The Pitchforks are Coming" he explains: "Let's be honest: I am not the smartest person you've ever met. I am certainly not the hardest working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all, I can't write a word of code. Truly, my success is the consequence of spectacular luck. Luck of birth, circumstance and timing." Ted Talk still available on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8 and Ted here: https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en Jester6482 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Should be deleted

This article is unnecessary. Any criticism of meritocracy belongs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy. This article is essentially "Criticism of Meritocracy," in the spirit of "Criticism of Socialism/Capitalism" but meritocracy does not have criticisms frequent or diverse enough to warrant a dedicated article. The article awkwardly begins "Myth of meritocracy is a phrase..." "Myth of meritocracy" is not a common or important enough phrase to get its own article.72.66.112.80 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not a good suggestion because wikipedia has a track record of not allowing discussion of "contentious topics" on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Snowball clause since any challenges on the Meritocracy page wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being left up instead of archived and/or removed, no need to attempt such a change. When talk pages become so heavily restricted to the point of censoring any criticisms, the ONLY way left to be neutral is to have multiple articles (this one already WAY less likely to be seen than than "Meritocracy" page, so Wikipedia's overall bias is already in your favor) Jester6482 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)