Talk:Discrimination of excellence

NPOV issues

This article seems awfully one-sided. Honestly, it seems like something Ayn Rand could have written. It could use competing perspectives, including from socialists, green politicians, degrowth advocates and others who question the value of excellence and overachievement, argue that society should not have elites, or argue that “discrimination” (if it can even be called that) against overachievers isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As an American, I find the idea that overachievers should be a protected class to be absolutely ridiculous, and yet this article promotes that viewpoint uncritically. It’s a total travesty and a disgrace to what should be an impartial encyclopedia. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:EEBF (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia has leftist bias and if one questions it, they get told that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be politically neutral. Do you have a problem with that or only with the few articles that don't have such bias? 159.205.25.255 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Enforced political neutrality can lead to Overton window effects, where one prioritizes toeing the middle ground rather than presenting factual information. For example, presenting factual information on the 2020 US election and the subsequent coup attempt would be described by a certain group as "lies" without any evidence to support that claim. Political neutrality could in that case be argued to require treating two views of the issue - in this example one based on facts and another on assertions made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - on equal footing. I reference this not in connection to this article, but as a clarifying example. Someone with deeper knowledge of Soviet history than me could probably construct an example where some on the contemporary far-left would consider facts to be "lies".

Prioritization of clear statements of fact does not mean that an article is biased. In contrast, as the previous commenters have noted, this article demonstrates clear bias in both how it presents the issue and in its failure to present competing views on an issue which is controversial not only among laypeople, but among experts. 2607:F6D0:D:3501:0:0:0:2E (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's because reality has a liberal bias. This article is poorly written. I agree with the original comment in that it should be reviewed and possibly deleted entirely. 216.71.196.141 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Poorly written

And poorly sourced. Practically incoherent and unreadable. It appears to be some version of a monograph or manifesto inspired by perhaps a Randian advocate. This article should be removed until rewritten or simply permanently deleted as unnecessary. 151.200.18.42 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I second this. As of now, the article is almost entirely USA-focused and makes multiple vast and poorly founded claims. Not the mention the pervasively low prose quality, extreme bias, and poor structure. Sverte (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Prefer improving sourcing and improving writing and removing poorly founded claims, adding section on criticism. HudecEmil (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

significantly rewrote, added new references, globalized HudecEmil (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Fourth, this is not a commonly used term, seems like something someone made up. At least Tall Poppy Syndrome is something that is well known in that region, we've never discussed anything like this. Also ignores the fact that Colleges need things like legacy students and athletes for things such as more revenue — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJX74 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)