Right, that it is compatible to itself does not sound particular noteworthy. Lots of language eco-systems have that. That's also why many languages (like C, C++, JavaScript, Java, Ada, Common Lisp, ISLISP and Scheme) have actual language standards with, where there is a high focus on protecting investments.
I'm not submitting "Clojure and the ecosystem focuses on being backwards compatibility" as a new HN story. I'm simply adding additional information to your "Clojure was designed with no backwar(d/t)s compatibility" statement which could be read as "Clojure core/libraries break their own API interface all the time" (like in the JS/NPM ecosystem) which is simply not true.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is unique in Clojure, simply making sure that others who read your comment don't read it the wrong way as it was a bit ambiguous.
The context is very clear the comparison to other languages, when it is clearly the fact that Clojure was designed with no backwards compatibility to these mentioned languages. It was not a matter of a list of things on that page, but the break with the prior languages was much more radical.
The 'correction' you made is an entirely different issue.
Standards come about to address compatibility problems, and standards bodies are committees where reps of divergent implementations settle on compromises (or sufficiently vague langugage) to get some compatibility. Python, Clojure, C# etc don't need standards since there haven't been problems wtith competing incompatible variants of the languages out there.
