Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jgallaga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Recentism and undue

The article mentions resurgence in 1970's in academia and implementation in 1980's by Reagan and Thatcher followed by a jump to the 2008 correction and recession. In actuality, there were many long growth spurts followed by short corrections that are missed entirely. The growth from 1982-1991 which drove the collapse and opening of the Soviet republics to capital markets (with the recession/correction leading to Clinton's election). The internet commercialization, which was fought by socialist economic models which wished to keep the internet free from ads and commercialization vs. Friedman style open market where the internet is used to sell products (tax free at the start). It drove the growth of the internet from 1992 to 2000 with the dot com bust and correction. Modest growth again occurred with free trade pacts until 2007-2009 bubble and resumed modestly until 2014 (china grew at double digit pace and they continued to open markets, Europe and thee U.S. was flatter with Keynesian stimulus). Local corrections in Europe and USA (particularly a shift from manufacturing to service economies) were more than offset by gains from opening capitalist markets in former USSR, China and India. None of this seems to be covered and it's an issue to jump from Reagan/Thatcher to 2007 market correction without noting all the growth in between. neo-liberal economics did not end corrections, nor intended to end them, only soften them and that is the primary difference from the unregulated open markets. We say this but don't provide all the details or history. There is also little mention of non-capital markets in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela that resisted change to capital markets as well as the result of stimulus/keynesian spending in Greece and Spain as pushback to austerity. Per UNDUE, a number of areas, particularly criticism without countering views need to be trimmed or they need the countering views. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is much room for improvement in the article. I have already trimmed a great deal and have not ventured as of yet into trimming sourced material in the criticism section, although I have removed a good deal of unsourced or poorly sourced material. So long as you can present reliable sources (see WP:RS for the addition of the suggested material, I encourage the additions, as well as changes leading to a more uniform format for, what is still, a fragmented article structure. If I can be of help feel free to let me know. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be lots of overlap and confusion with Mainstream economics and Neoclassical synthesis. Not sure how this article fits and how it lives in a bubble. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Some of this may be problems with those other articles. It's not immediately clear that Neoclassical synthesis would survive a merger discussion. Some of this may also be content in this article that might better be served by being move to related ones. The current extensive treatment of the IMF in particular may be better off on the main article. (Although it is noted that nearly a third of that article itself is made up of criticism.) TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I didn't write that clear enough. Mainstream economics and Neoclassical synthesis are pretty much the same thing according to our article and Neoclassical synthesis is the term coined by yet another economist. They are considered to be a Keynesian approach to economics. The criticism in Mainstream economics points at 2007 recession. So does this article but it seems difficult to reconcile that unless "Neoliberalism" is "Mainstream economics." This article, "Neoliberalism", doesn't seem to have any reference as to how it's similar or different from any other modern economic thought and appears to be a lot of synthesis to create a conclusion of failure attributed to specific people rather than a well sourced article on an economic theory that can be compared to others. Furthermore, economists like Krugman call the revival of market economies espoused by Milton Friedman as "neoclassical." There's just lots of synthesis that isn't matching sources that don't require synthesis. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I will strongly object to sourced materials being arbitrarily purged from the article because of bullshit claims of undue. I've spent too much time defending this article from right-wing attacks to see it demolished now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: No on is talking about arbitrarily removing sourced information. However, having more than a third of the article taken up with criticism suggests that there may be legitimate WP:UNDUE issues. Even more so when close inspection thus far has revealed a trend of WP:OR either based on no sources, or "based" on sources that have little to nothing to do with the content it's used to support.

Without actually removing any references, there can probably be a good deal of conciseness to be had simply by writing an actual encyclopedia article rather than a borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of what particular individuals said. There is quite a bit of:

Sam Smith said in 2004 that the sky was likely blue and this has been a well established fact for some time. Sarah Sue wrote pointing out that the sky is blue most of the time but often displays reddish hues during the dawn and dusk periods. Steve Stephens et al. conducted a meta analysis of skies and...

When all of this could just as easily be said by something similar to "there is widespread scholarly agreement that the sky is blue."

All in all there is a lot of area for improvement, much of which is going to take careful considerations of sourcing and presentation. I don't see any right wing extremists here, and I'll be first in line to rebuff them when there is, but that doesn't mean the status quo is ideal. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: That's a serious case of WP:OWN if that's how you view the article. Paul Krugman disagrees with the synthesis that is occurring in this article. I don't think he is attacking you nor do I think he is right-wing.. This article can't exist as a walled garden of synthesized views and criticism independent of actual economic theory. This article isn't the only one, either. It seems pretty silly to have multiple articles of differing views all conclude that the most recent downturn is the fault of all the other views. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Paul Krugman a wikipedia editor? (kappa) TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As Uncle Milton would have said: "We are all Paul Krugman now." --Paul Krugman (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A great deal of materials, with reliable sources, have already been purged from the article's criticism section (for example, all the materials from "The Rise of Neoliberal Feminism" were purged, which is a scholarly source by the way: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09502386.2013.857361). And recently there has been a concerted effort to purge all materials relating to the Clinton Administration [1][2], including long standing and reliably sourced materials, some of which I restored[3]. And right wing vandals have made their views known [4]. There is know doubt that many legitimate wiki editors also harbor such sentiments, and if you look at the article's edit history or talk page archive, you'll see that I've had to go to the mat more than a few times over the last two years to prevent them from diminishing the article for political purposes. While I do not make any claims of ownership over the article, I do have a serious problem with editors removing materials because they disagree with the content, which indeed has been the case here on multiple occasions, and given that I have added much to this article in terms of reliably sourced scholarly materials, I will defend such material from being removed unless there is a good reason to do so. That being said, I have nothing against Timothyjosephwood's suggestion of retaining sources but consolidating materials for conciseness. However, the problem with the example that was given is there are three separate sources making similar statements, and replacing their statements with "there is widespread scholarly agreement that the sky is blue" would probably require a citation that makes this exact claim, no? Otherwise an editor could tag the content with WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant was to summarize the sources and then reference them together, rather than reference them each individually with a sentence about each one. TimothyJosephWood 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have restored and modified some of the reliably sourced materials arbitrarily deleted without good reason and placed them an a more appropriate location. Please consider moving such material and modifying them, rather than simply purging them. Thank you.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering I've deleted literally half the article over the past 72 hours, if one paragraph was all that needs re-added, I figure that's an acceptable error rate. Also, the material makes considerably more sense now that there is a section on the US.

The good news is that I'm pretty sure I've trimmed everything that can be justifiably deleted. Everything seems well sourced. There's a logical flow to the article. All maintenance tags have been addressed and removed. I think most of the heavy lifting is done.

It could probably use better images still, and I'll look into that. I wouldn't be opposed to a lead rewrite if anyone wants to take the "lead" on that. But overall the article could probably pass at least a B class review in its current state. TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit the article does look better. There was quite a bit of unsourced material that needed removed, and I don't see any other RS-material that was deleted which should be considered for restoration and modification.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

US Section

@Rjensen:, @C.J. Griffin:

I'm going to go ahead and start this discussion here before it turns into a full on edit war. It's not the end of the world if this stays in or out the the article while it's hashed out. It's probably best to stop reverting now, regardless of who wins temporarily, and hash the issue out to find a permanent solution. The section on the US is a bit lacking anyway and maybe we can find ways of improving it.

So...What does the source actually say/not say? Are there other WP:RS that address this issue and corroborate/refute the source? TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In recent weeks, User Rjensen has been relentlessly purging any reference to the Clinton Administration in this article, for some odd reason, including long standing, reliably sourced materials. In this case, given that it is a reliable source, I believe the removal is unjustified. And no, it's not hard to find other sources on the Clintons and their neoliberalism. I just found this after a quick google search: Democratic Primaries in the Shadow of Neoliberalism--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Griffin needs to find a better source. this source will not pass a high school class. This is a book by Saltman on education policy by a specialist on US education policies who has never written on foreign policy or international trade or healthcare -- he tosses out one short paragraph on p 109 & cites no sources. Saltman wrote: "The Clinton Administration embraced neoliberalism by pursuing international trade agreements. It would benefit the corporate sector globally. Domestically, Clinton fostered such neoliberal reforms as the corporate takeover of healthcare in the form of the HMO, the end of welfare protections, and the implementation of Workfare to insist that everyone prove himself or herself productive. Ultimately, these policies have proved disastrous for the most vulnerable citizens. For example, more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance and minimum wage and union protection was undermined by those forced into workfare. p 109 from amazon.com Somebody inserted China in there but Saltman never mentions China. This paragraph is a partisan screed that's not a RS on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way HMO's were Nixon's policy from 1973-- see Health maintenance organization -- Clinton was not involved. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The book was published by Routledge, an academic publisher, so it qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. That's the bottom line. Your comment that the source will not pass a high school class doesn't really mean anything. The link I provided above, by scholar David Coates, corroborates the material from the book. That the Clintons embraced neoliberalism is well known, as the article lays out. I see no reason for the relentless purging of this fact from the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that it is partisan isn't necessarily a deal breaker, since there is ample sourcing to establish that the term is often used pejoratively.
• The fact that the work is mainly about a different/more specialized topic makes it a bit WP:CHERRYPICKish...But, that doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate as a supporting/secondary source that is mainly about 90s neolibs in the US.
• So the question is, if we rewrite using it as supporting, and relying mainly on someone like Coates above, what do we get? (Hint: This would be a good time to propose a replacement paragraph.)TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Doing a google books search I found these: [5], [6], [7]. These are all academic publications, and there are still others... Perhaps these could be used for a rewrite of the paragraph so it's not based on one source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and since you seem to be the proponent of keeping some form of the content, I suggest you submit a first draft for discussion. Things tend to work better when you can scrutinize actual proposed text and reach some sort of middle ground. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

good idea. get good RS and rewrite is the solution. Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I did a very quick rewrite of the section based on some, but not all, of the new sources presented here. It still needs work but I believe is better than the previous material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I did some general switching around to tone down language. It still reads a bit like a criticism section, more so than I would prefer. Also, I expanded the Clinton part with the actual legislation to replace vague-ish references. So I split Reagan and Clinton into two paragraphs. Unfortunately this separated Reagan from his source, so that needs to be fixed. It would also be nice to address particular legislation in that paragraph too. Admittedly I know less about Reagan than I do Clinton. (I'd never even been to America when Reagan was president.)

I haven't gotten deep into the sources themselves, so no comment on that yet. More forthcoming. TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is cherry-picking. If you want a source that says Clinton pursued neoliberal policies, you will find one. But it is better to start with a book on neoliberalism so that we can write about Clinton according to his significance to the topic. Note too that neoliberalism entered a new phase under Blair and Clinton, something which would not be important to the subject matter of the source. Also, it is questionable whether the shift to neoliberalism was dictated by electoral politics. Many neoliberal policies, Rogernomics is a primary example, were not included in party platforms. Another issue is that the U.S. never had developed a significant welfare state or had extensive government owned corporations and extensive regulation compared with other Western countries, so the reforms were less extensive. TFD (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Saltman might be a reliable source, however the text quoted seems to speak of the effects of Clinton's policies on the present day of its publication. It says "Americans have no health insurance", not "Americans had no health insurance". When was this text written or published, and at what distance from Clinton's presidency? Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton does not neglect ecological issues?

Certainly some partisan forces would doubt that statement, and more than enough sources will ensure you of that.--Mathmensch (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And I did not even say anything about the militarism. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The article does not say that neoliberals neglect ecological issues or are militarist. Nor does it say that Bill Clinton was a neoliberal and says nothing about his ecological record or militarism. TFD (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"The neoliberalism of the Clinton administration". I claimed nothing about Bill Clinton's record, but the assertion that his (or rather, that of his administration) form of neoliberalism was free from neoconservative neglect of ecological issues is disputed. Or do you refer to the article that is cited as a source of the given statements? Unfortunately, I do not have access to that. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the section. No page no is cited for the source and the statement is questionable. Just remove it. TFD (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No qualms here. I've already removed about a third of this article. Got bloated over time and wasn't terribly well maintained. TimothyJosephWood 22:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Look again, TFD. The page numbers are there (50-1), and there is even a link provided in the citation to confirm what the source says.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no page 50-1 in the book. If it means pp. 1-50, then that's most of the book and little better than having no page no. When I click the link a get a description of the book, not any supporting text. Here is a link to p. 50. No mention of ecological issues. TFD (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"50-1" means pages 50 and 51. Scroll down to page 51 and you'll see it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Critique of the Terminology Section

There is mention of current usage of neoliberalism in the origins section, which makes the whole terminology section repetitive and unclear. There need to be edits made in this section to add distinction and clarity. The structure of the current usage section should also be revised. Maybe having the bullet points first and more elaboration following? Also, I believe the amount of information in this section should be reduced to a more concise summary. In addition, it seems unnecessary to have two longish paragraphs dedicated to discussing how the definition of neoliberalism has changed and been contested when the bulk of this information can be elaborated on in the terminology section. I also believe that the viewpoints from this source are overrepresented in the terminology section and the article as a whole. After reviewing the source, the claims asserted from the source may not be deployed in the most efficient and concise way in the article. Toothlessk (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

addition: green neoliberalism

I'd like to add some infos about green neoliberalism. What would be the place to do that? Should I put it somewhere in this article or make a new one? T.br273 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hayak's views in contrast witj Keynes in the development of neoliberal thought.

In reference to the Monte Pelerin Society section, referencing the contrast between Keynes and Hayak would augment the discussion of Neoliberalism. Keynes, representing the welfare state and economic planning aspect of capitalism, was the main philosophical contrast to the free market capitalist ideals Hayak and Friedman share. The section could be more helpful in explaining the intellectual background, as the thinkers who gathered at the meetings often shared an ideal about the market as a force of nature that cannot be controlled.

Hayak notes "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." This directly contradicts Keynes's ideas about protecting citizens from the dangers of the market through regulation. Hayak and Keynes battle of ideas is an important contrast to note when discussing the history of neoliberalism. Nwoeppel (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 9/25/16

Mont Pelerin Society is an international organization composed of economists (Hayek was one of the founders). The society advocates for freedom of expression, free market economic policies, and the political values of an open society. The members see the Society as an effort to interpret in modern terms the fundamental principles of economic society as expressed by those classical economists, political scientists, and philosophers who have inspired many in Europe, America and throughout the Western World felicetsai (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 10/6/16

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicetsai (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC) 

RfC: Is Neoliberalism a label or not?

The consensus is against defining neoliberalism as a label in the lead. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Neoliberalism defined as a label in the lede? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support The Dictionary of the Social Sciences by Oxford University Press defines Neoliberalism as a political label, the other sources brought by the opposition indicate it is so (see messages 01:32, 20 October 2016 and 15:16, 20 October 2016). DagonAmigaOS (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose It is already elaborated upon in the second paragraph of the lede and in the Current usage sub-section that Neoliberalism is both a term used widely in scholarship, much more so than any other term (such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and "market reform") to describe the paradigm shift in the 1970s and 80 away from Keynesian welfare state liberalism toward "market-oriented reform policies" AND a pejorative term used by critics of free market reforms, and that those who embrace free markets do not use the term. Sources support this. But for some reason this is not enough. Dagon wishes that the very first sentence of the article omit the former position but include only the latter (that its only a label, or an epithet, or something used by critics of the free market), which is highly undue. The article as it exists now is NPOV. Adding this to the first sentence, even before it is explained what Neoliberalism means, is highly POV, and therefore against Wikipedia policy. This has been attempted time and again (with some of the same POV-pushers on this issue from the last couple of years trying it again, in addition to single-purpose, anonymous IPs attempting the same thing (here, here and here), which I find highly suspicious as this also happened before) by those who wish to push their POV that Neoliberalism is only some epithet used by leftists and not a major concept used in scholarship and elsewhere, and is now largely the common name used to describe this aforementioned paradigm shift (which Dagon has not suggested a replacement term for btw, see discussion above). Hell, even the neoliberal IMF is starting to use the term to describe policies which critics have derided as neoliberal for decades. This is clear evidence of the widespread acceptance of the term to describe this phenomenon.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is about the concept not the term. All words describing political ideology (liberal, conservative, etc.) are labels. Some editors have suggested it is a meaningless epithet, but reliable sources see it as a meaningful concept to describe market-driven reforms that gained almost global acceptance from the late 1970s. TFD (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not seeing an actual text proposal here or reason so 'no'. Otherwise I'll comment that it's a term, member of terminology categories, and the article body is a deep history of meaning as a term, so 'term' seems best. Use in recent times of the term as a label of criticism is a subset of it's overall usage and seems covered in the final para of the lead and within the article somewhat. I think the article is clear enough about what it was and the sequence and modern use (someimes) as a criticism. But it could be clearer on what is the current meaning by folks espousing neoliberalism (or that it is defunct), and what is the pejorative usage meaning. You might also compare this to another 'ism' term that's developed common usage as critique Darwinism. Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:NPOV different views should be presented according to their weight/importance. I also think the body should then present the different views.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment The body of the article already includes these different views, as does the second paragraph and last paragraph of the lede. You can see my first posting in the discussion thread below for examples of this. Adding what the OP wants to the lede would, IMO, violate NPOV by giving undue weight to views already given their due weight in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Agree with Markbassett - hard to agree without seeing proposed verbiage. Post proposed language and I'll revisit.Timtempleton (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with arguments of TFD, that all political terms are sometimes labels, but unless the term lacks meaning to broadly describe certain policies and ideologies, it is neither primarily, nor solely a label. The lead already makes clear that the term is not often used as a self-description, and is questioned by some. That also is not uncommon, for advocates of a particular position to use more-specific, more cosmetic, or otherwise different self-descriptors. Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (summoned by bot) - it's a concept or perhaps a theory, and I don't think describing it as a label as opposed to one of those things is particularly helpful. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (summoned by bot) - The history is too complex to reduce it to "it is a label," as is well reflected in the current lead section. Saying "it is a label" ignores that Milton Friedman preferred and used the label himself. Moreover, the Oxford source, so heavily relied on here, links to another Oxford dictionary that doesn't call it a label in the lede.. There are scores of sources that use it to discuss a particular policy set and many sources that reject it as a label or strawman, as outlined here. The intro section should cover the history and refer to this ongoing debate, but should the lede sentence define it as a label, and thus read something like "neo-liberalism is a political label"? No, that reduces the complexity, ignores the more complicated history, and appears to be taking sides in the debate. (As an aside, however, putting the financial crisis in the first paragraph seems more than a little odd, given that even its critics would say the theory had far bigger impacts over the proceeding 30 years.) Chris vLS (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Threaded discussion

• The Dictionary of the Social Sciences by Oxford University Press defines Neoliberalism as a political label. C.J. Griffin supported his position that Neoliberalism is not a label but a term widely used in the scholarship with the source Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan. If you read that source though you will see that it is indeed an anti-liberal slogan, a label that is used mainly by critics of the Free Market as I demonstrate with copy-paste in my message 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC). I asked for further sources which he brought but again if you read them they support that it is a label used by critics of the Free Market, a description applied from the outside. (read my message 15:16, 20 October 2016) DagonAmigaOS (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • By definition a "label" is a word or words that describes a concept. In that sense every article title in Wikipedia is a "label." My objection is that use of the word is innuendo, it says there is something suspicious about the word or concept without telling us what. What is it that you think we should be warning readers about and can you think of any wording that would make that information explicit? TFD (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • My objection is too that the word term has an innuendo, deceptively implies that it is a widely accepted term in the Academia with an exact meaning which is not the case. If you read the sources brought by C.J. that supposedly support this you would see that it "is employed asymmetrically across ideological divides... contemporary scholars who are critical of these concepts use neoliberalism, while those who evaluate them favorably employ other language" and its "meaning... is often not defined at all" and "is effectively used in many different ways, such that its appearance in any given article offers little clue as to what it actually means". As I showed in my message 01:32, 20 October 2016 from the source brought by C.J. it is a word used specifically by critics of Free Market, it has a wide acceptance amongst the critics of the Free Market. Using the word label is a shorter version of saying "Neoliberalism is a term used by critics of the Free Market to describe...." + it is more accurate because a label is something you attach to others while those others do not identify by that word, C.J. source points it is so: "virtually no one self-identifies as a neoliberal, even though scholars frequently associate others—politicians, economic advisors, and even fellow academics—with this term" DagonAmigaOS (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
      • And the article pretty much already tells readers this, and in the lede I might add. I quote: "Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal". So what is your problem? Here are some more quotes from the article relevant to this discussion (with emphasis added): "It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas." "According to Boas and Gans-Morse, neoliberalism is commonly used as a catchphrase and pejorative term, outpacing similar terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and "market reform" in much scholarly writing.[3] Jones, a historian of the concept, says the term "is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises." So as you can see, the article already has pretty much everything you've been asking for, with the exception of putting "label" in the very first sentence before the term is even defined, which is highly undue and, as TFD explains above, pointless innuendo. As I have stated before, I'm even willing to expand on your point where it is relevant, by adding to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede "critics of market reforms" instead of just "critics." But I imagine this still would not be enough. [EDIT] Or how about this: "The term has been used since 1938[15] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences who are generally in opposition to post-Keynesian market reform policies.[16][17] Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal".[18]" --C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It is tendentious anyway to describe opponents of neoliberalism as opponents of the "Free Market." Is a Mexican peasant who loses his farm because of competition from U.S. subsidized corn really an enemy of free markets? TFD (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

True, it is also worth noting that most critics of neoliberalism are not attacking the "free market" in general, but the free market reforms of the post-Keynesian era, in particular fiscal austerity and financial deregulation. This is why it would be inaccurate to describe neoliberalism as "a term that only free market critics use" as Dagon suggested earlier.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You see guys why it is a label without an exact meaning, everyone attaches to that word everything he dislikes. Most people and scholars when they refer to Neoliberalism they mean a supposed radical laissez-faire "fundamentalism" but now you say that protectionism is part of this free market radicalism?! I also want to refer that according to most critics Milton Friedman is a neoliberal, IMF it is also neoliberal, the World Bank ditto according to them, but there is a problem, Friedman was against existence of IMF and the World Bank, in general this label does not make sense whatsoever, you can find a lot of sources that refer to this problem of contradictory statements and ideas surrounding that word. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Friedman opposed the IMF and the World Bank is not at all relevant. What is relevant is that Friedman, the IMF and the World Bank (and lets not forget the WTO) have all pushed for market-based reforms (such as privatization, fiscal austerity, financial deregulation, "free trade", etc) to one extent or another. These reforms, which have been ubiquitous around the globe in the post-Keynesian era, and the ideology behind them form the crux of neoliberalism, which has become the commonly used term for this current economic paradigm. Even IMF researchers are now employing the term to critique their own policies and agenda, which is huge.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is dispute over the definitions of most political terms. Angelo S. Rappoport's 1924 Dictionary of Socialism of socialism for example identifies 40 definitions. Samuel P. Huntington in his classical essay "Conservatism as an Ideology" (1957) identifies three definitions of conservatism. Liberalism too is a disputed concept, with some writers saying that it is anachronistic to refer to anyone as a liberal before the term was developed, i.e., before c. 1800. The definition of fascism too has been hotly contested. While neoliberalism has some of the same problems as a concept, it is much more clearly defined than any other ideology. TFD (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neoliberalism as a label in the lede

Hello, I'm a liberal in the European sense, as most of you will already know there is a dispute over Neoliberalism if it is an actual ideology or just a label. If you have noticed there are no individuals that identify as Neoliberals that come to the wikipedia to defend Neoliberalism as being a distinguished political or economic ideology. Nor are there any original works (from Neoliberals that is) that use that name and clarify what Neoliberalism is. It is used almost always by critics or some independent scholars that adopt it. The edits for or against being a label it is mostly done by classical liberals and left leaning people. If there is a classical liberal amongst us that considers that neoliberalism is not a label for Free Market economics he or she should come forward even though I doubt there is one, I'm well aware of all the economic liberal schools of thought and I know there is no such thing as Neoliberal ideology as it is described by left leaning people.

These things point that neoliberalism is a label for Free Market economics but since we are in Wikipedia we must provide a reliable source to prove it. From the Dictionary of the Social Sciences by Oxford University Press - "A political label with multiple meanings, neoliberalism is primarily associated with the goal of reducing the role of the state" I propose to change the lede in order to reflect what this reliable source says to:

"Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] is a label that refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 "

If there are no objections I will proceed to make that change, please give your feedback if you have any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DagonAmigaOS (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I object vehemently to the inclusion of neoliberalism being just a label in the very first sentence of the lede. Over the past few years, those who hold libertarian/ancap views have attempted numerous times to insert this or something similar into the very first sentence to immediately marginalize the term. Edit wars have ensued because of this. Fact of the matter is there are just as many reliable sources that describe it as a political ideology and an economic philosophy, but these descriptors are not included in the first sentence of the article. What this is is a sly attempt at POV-pushing under the guise of citing reliably sourced materials, and to allow this in the very first sentence of the article is particularly obnoxious. Is it not enough that it is described as a term used by critics in the second paragraph, and that the proponents of ""free market" economics rarely use it to describe themselves? As such, adding this to the lede constitutes undue weight, whether it is reliably sourced or not. This right-wing POV pushing regarding inserting such descriptors in the first sentence of the lede when there is already sufficient materials pertaining to their concerns a paragraph later has got to stop.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by the contents of your user page, which seems to explicitly encourage economic advocacy -- I'm not sure that you're a strict adherent to NPOV yourself. It might be better to have someone other than C.J. Griffin arguing this side. 173.228.89.34 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"Over the past few years, those who hold libertarian/ancap views have attempted numerous times to insert this or something similar into the very first sentence to immediately marginalize the term" have you ever wondered why? Why do you think Free market proponents do that? Honestly. They have a beef with Neoliberals and they want to marginalize them? Why Neoliberals don't ever come here to defend their ideology of being changed to label and there are always left leaning people to do that? Where are they? Are they ghosts? Are they such a minusculous minority of the liberal family that we may never see a Neoliberal come here to partecipate in the "edit wars"? I thought it was "the dominant ideology shaping our world today" as per David Harvey. Kinda strange don't you think? "there are just as many reliable sources that describe it as a political ideology and an economic philosophy" I bet they do not contain neoliberal references inside them (books etc from neoliberal ideolgues that describe their ideology). Strange isn't it? Do these sources have references inside them to original works or they just assert that there is an ideology called like that? Where are the original works of neoliberal ideologues? Ghosts again? A ghost ideology that we only get to know its existance by its opponents? You ask isnt it enough that it is mentioned "proponents of free market" economics rarely use it to describe themselves". Really rarely? Because as far as I know it is not just rarely and certainly it isn't rarely here in the Wikipedia as surely you know, it's more likely never. In fact it should be mentioned that they oppose it as being a term and consider it a label as you would have noticed over the past years. All these things that I said are not POV they are objective reality. Really we never see here Neoliberals defending neoliberalism as a term, really we never see cited an original work of a Neoliberal where he explains what Neoliberalism is, really it seems to be a ghost ideology. Denying to accept the reliable source I mentioned is left-wing POV driven I suspect. I think it is time to leave left and right biases and look the objective reality, use our logic and decide if it is an actual ideology or just an umbrella label for all the economic liberal ideologies as the Dictionary of the Social Sciences by Oxford University Press says. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Classical liberalism supported the gold standard, no welfare and government spending 10% of GNP. Neoliberalism supports fiat currency, welfare and government spending 50% of GNP. What neoliberals believe today is not what classical liberals believed c. 1830-1848. What do you think the new liberal paradigm should be called. TFD (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a great question, given that recent scholarship makes it quite clear that neoliberalism is far and away the term most used to describe the current economic paradigm, this post-Keyensian new liberalism ushered into the world by Friedman, Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan et al., even if its proponents refrain from using the term themselves (although the IMF has recently started using it). The Boas/Gans-Morse source makes this quite clear: "Neoliberalism has rapidly become an academic catchphrase. From only a handful of mentions in the 1980s, use of the term has exploded during the past two decades, appearing in nearly 1,000 academic articles annually between 2002 and 2005. Neoliberalism is now a predominant concept (emphasis mine) in scholarly writing on development and political economy, far outpacing related terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus, and even market reform." Given that scholars routinely use the term, and now even some proponents are embracing it, it becomes even more problematic to simply dismiss neoliberalism as a mere label, as DagonAmigaOS insists the article should do by the fourth word.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I also oppose putting label in the lede. I agree with Griffin its a very popular term in academia, but the article captures that its gone in and out of popularity.Frederika Eilers (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin have you actually read the Boas/Gans-Morse source you reffered? It says «In each instance, only free market critics used the term; pro-market scholars always employed other language, such as using the phrase “contemporary liberal authors” to refer to economic theorists that a critical scholar had labeled “neoliberals” ... In the conclusion, we maintain that for neoliberalism to be of analytic rather than rhetorical value for social scientists, it must be imbued with substantive meaning as to what is new or distinct about this form of liberalism» The TFD definition proves that it is a label without an actual meaning. By his definition that "Neoliberalism supports fiat currency" we should remove the entire section of the Austrian School in this page and the Chicago School since they do not support "welfare and government spending 50% of GNP." So does anyone has a more reliable source than the Dictionary of the Social Sciences by Oxford University Press ?

Certainly advocates of neoliberalism call themselves different things: New Labour, New Democrats, "one of us," conservatives, liberals. But the policy, "Article titles" requires us to chose the most commonly used term. You say the concept is meaningless. No one could argue that there has not been a paradigm shift in government policy particularly following the elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Also, Austrian economics does not play a role in neoliberalism, Hayek's influence was his polemical writing, neoliberals adopted Friedman. I never said that he advocated spending 50% of GDP on welfare, but that neoliberal governments spend 50% of GNP on all programs. U.S. government spending is lower than other developed nations, but no attempt has been made to return it to bring it below 10%, as it was in 19th century.

So is your point: (1) that the paradigm shift since the late 1970s is a myth or (2) that there is a term for it more commonly used than neo-liberal?

TFD (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is that either we use C.J. Griffin's source and we change the lead to «Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] is a term that only free market critics use to refer primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 » or my source and change it to «Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] is a label that refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7» If you have other sources more reliable in order to keep it the way it is then please write it here to contribute to the discussion. btw Friedman's economics do not support 50% on government spending of the GNP so by that definition Friedman is not neoliberal. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I recommend option 1 use C.J. Griffin's source... In my reading it's a term that people called neolibs do Not use and the article should say that in case readers think it's a neutral term. Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer, "Neoliberalism" is 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. The term is more often used by opponents." We are writing about an accepted concept. Note that most political terms were developed by opponents or retrospectively including Whig, Tory, liberal, classical liberal and in the U.S. conservative. Note the definition in Collins: "a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc." There is no qualification that neo-liberals do not use the term or suggestion that the concept is meaningless. Note that the previous paradigm, welfare liberalism (among other terms), was never used by proponents either. Churchill and Eisenhower never called themselves welfare liberals but each accepted the post-war consensus for increased government welfare services. TFD (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"The term is more often used by opponents." don't you think it is an understatement given the "edit wars" here and what the C.J. Griffin's source says? "We are writing about an accepted concept." By whom? Because as we saw in the previous messages "In each instance, only free market critics used the term; pro-market scholars always employed other language". "Note that most political terms were developed by opponents or retrospectively" yeah because the proponents in the end adopted the term or they do not exist anymore to defend themselves which is not the case now. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room, namely that this is covered in the second paragraph of the lede. This apparently is not enough for some radical libertarians. Adding this is therefore undue. However, if TFDs version is accepted, it must be stressed, as both he and myself have been doing throughout this thread, that it is widely used in scholarship, more so than any other term pertaining to the paradigm shift which took place in the 70s and 80s, making it a real concept and not just some political label used by socialists to be immediately dismissed by causal readers of the article, which is the goal of these libertarians I believe.C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not represent the academic community and libertarians are over-represented among them. Similarly articles on evolution, climate change and 9/11 are targeting by opponents. Libertarianism has only a very small representation in academic writing. Some libertarian websites have complained about the term neoliberal, although recently they too have started using it. See for example "Why Austrians Are Not Neoliberals" or "Mises Against the Neoliberals" on the LvMI website.

But the source you quoted says which scholarship uses widely that term, it is the scholarship that is critical to the Free Market and makes it clear that the scholarship that is pro free market does not adopt that label. So what do we do now? And the last comment up here shows how confused are the non pro free market people who push for neoliberalism as a neutral accepted term, he says that the Mises Institute adopts that label in those articles! He didn't even read them, especially the Mises Against the Neoliberals shows what Neoliberalism was at the time of Mises, a statist ideology which the liberals opposed! In the article says literally that Mises regarded Neoliberals "hardly better than the socialists he had fought all his life" See the origins section on the wikipedia page for more info on them. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confused. Neoliberalism is not "free markets" opposed by statists but a system that requires a strong state to protect free markets. For example, NAFTA allows subsidies to U.S. sugarbeet growers, price supports, import tariffs and quotas for U.S. sugar, while prohibiting Canada from imposing tariffs. That's not free trade as envisioned by Adam Smith. Anyway, who are these neoliberal writers that object to the term? Can you name any outside libertarian writers? TFD (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not accurate. They discuss the usage of the term by contemporary scholars, but they do not distinguish those who are pro- or anti- "free markets" (See Fig. 1 in: https://www.scribd.com/document/120414378/Neoliberalism-From-New-Liberal-Philosophy-to-Anti-Liberal-Slogan). What should we do? Why do anything? As I have pointed out time and again, the second paragraph of the lede of this article already makes the point that it is a term used by critics and rarely by those who advocate for neoliberal policies. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD who are the the neoliberals who do not object the term? how exactly subsidies protect free markets? That is contradictory. And why do you need a strong State in order not to impose tariffs? And as far as I know critics of free markets that use the word neoliberalism they mean a supposed extreme turbocapitalism with gloves off, radical laissez-faire market fundamentalism etc. not a statist ideology. C.J. Griffin please read your source and you will understand why it so hard for me to understand why you push neoliberalism as a neutral term. "Based on a content analysis of 148 journal articles published from 1990 to 2004, we document three potentially problematic aspects of neoliberalism’s use: the term is often undefined;' it is employed unevenly across ideological divides; and it is used to characterize an excessively broad variety of phenomena." - Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Any controversies over the neutrality of the term are already dealt with, as I have stated numerous times including in my last posting. Let me quote it for you:

The term has been used since 1938[15] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[16] and critics.[17] Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal".

You continue to ignore this because you want your POV-pushing to be inserted into the very first sentence of the article. This would violate WP:NPOV. The consensus version, in my view, addresses the concerns of frothing-at-the-mouth market fundamentalists while retaining its neutrality.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not my POV, it is what my source (that is a label) and your source (a term used only free market critics.) are saying, basically they say the same thing only with other words. How do we resolve this if not with sources? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you a troll or something? It's not my source, it's one of many sources cited in the article, and in fact cited in the very passage I quoted above which apparently is invisible to you or something. It is really quite baffling. There is nothing to resolve here, given what the passage says. This is all becoming irrelevant anyways, as it appears the discussion here is not going in your favor.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

by yours I mean as the source you presented in our discussion to support your view. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"how exactly subsidies protect free markets? That is contradictory." It may be contradictory, but it does not need to be consistent. Under NAFTA, the U.S. subsidizes corn which it exports to Mexico tariff free.[8] TFD (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry still I can't understand how subsidies are part of hypersuperultra laissez-faire, free market fundamentalism, gloves off turbocapitalism aka neoliberalism. As to our discussion I can't see how the source that C.J. Griffin brought into the discussion, supports his thesis that we should not make it clear in the lede that Neoliberalism is a term that is used mainly by the opponents of Free Market. Taking into account that says «neoliberalism is employed asymmetrically across ideological divides: it is used frequently by those who are critical of free markets, but rarely by those who view marketization more positively.... While recognizing that a future consensus definition of neoliberalism must be the product of the type of debate that is currently lacking... First, neoliberalism is used asymmetrically across ideological divides, rarely appearing in scholarship that makes positive assessments of the free market... In the present-day study of political economy, the term neoliberalism is most frequently employed by those who are critical of the free market phenomena to which it refers.... One compelling indicator of the term’s negative connotation is that virtually no one self-identifies as a neoliberal, even though scholars frequently associate others—politicians, economic advisors, and even fellow academics—with this term... Asymmetric use of neoliberalism was also evidenced by the language that critics and proponents of the free market used when engaging each other in debate... When referring to free market policies, ideologies, or paradigms, contemporary scholars who are critical of these concepts use neoliberalism, while those who evaluate them favorably employ other language... The asymmetric use of neoliberalism in present-day scholarship clearly shows that it is value-laden, albeit with a negative normative valence... For the concept of free-market policies, critics prefer the term neoliberal, while proponents refer to “orthodox policies” or other synonyms invoking the mainstream nature of these reforms. To refer to the concept of a free-market paradigm, proponents use the term “neoclassical” instead of neoliberal. For the concept of a free-market ideology, those who espouse such views typically prefer the unqualified term “liberal.... While the normative valence of the term neoliberalism is clearly negative, each of the underlying concepts to which neoliberalism can refer has a contested normative valence... Those who use neoliberalism, however, participate in only one side of this debate... The result is that neoliberalism has become a conceptual trash heap... We are clearly concerned that the failure to use common terminology when discussing free markets circumvents meaningful academic debate... But academic use of neoliberalism is problematic in an entirely different way: its meaning is not debated, and it is often not defined at all... » all these plus what it says the other reliable source I brought into our discussion "A political label with multiple meanings, neoliberalism is primarily associated with the goal of reducing the role of the state" - Dictionary of the Social Sciences by Oxford University Press lead me to propose this change: "Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] is a term used mostly by critics of Free Market that refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.". I think these two reliable sources support it so if you disagree bring other more reliable sources or tell us why they do not do that. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If a word has multiple meanings, then we select one definition per WP:DISAMBIG. The topic of this article is the paradigm that emerged by the late 70s. Next we have to find a title for the article and we have followed WP:COMMONNAME. The problems you find with a definition are no different from those encountered with socialism, conservatism, liberalism and fascism. Your source by the way does not say the term is use by free market opponents.[9] Are you saying that the publisher OUP opposes free markets? It uses the term throughout the book. TFD (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeap I don't say that the definition should be one of the center-left ideologies that were actually called Neoliberalism by everybody back then. It should be what the left-wing started and not liberals to call it is and predominantly still does as per C.J. Griffin source. As for my source it says it is a label, a label is something you attach to somebody which is consistent with the former source that said "One compelling indicator of the term’s negative connotation is that virtually no one self-identifies as a neoliberal, even though scholars frequently associate others—politicians, economic advisors, and even fellow academics—with this term". So any other sources or an interpretation of these sources? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It makes no sense to insert disputes about who uses the term in the first sentence as it would confuse readers. As it exists now it is strictly the definition and that is how it should remain per WP:NPOV. I propose expanding the second paragraph to say the following:

The term has been used since 1938 but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s and is now a predominant concept in scholarship and is widely used by critics of Free Market reforms. Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal".

This should resolve the issue and conform to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We confuse readers by treating it like an ordinary noncontroversial term of the sort a student can use in a paper or exam without thinking twice. Rjensen (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"It makes no sense to insert disputes about who uses the term in the first sentence as it would confuse readers." ok so we better use the "Neoliberalism is a label that refers to etc" because the source dictionary of Social Sciences from Oxford Press says it is a label and the other source you brought into the discussion corroborates that. Some things are labels and Neoliberalism according to these sources appears to be one. I don't get how it is NPOV to go against the available reliable sources. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A label is "a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc."[10] Every article could use the term. "The Moon is a label that refers to Earth's satellite" etc. There is no particular reason to use the word in the first sentence. A Google scholar search for "neoliberalism" has 199 thousand hits,[11] while "neoliberalism"+"label" returns only 26.5 thousand hits,[12] showing that most sources on neoliberalism do not find it necessary to say it is a term. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The article is about the concept, not the word. You have made it very clear that you do not like the word, although you have not provided a better name for this article. TFD (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your search in the google scholar does not prove your point, of course they wouldn't repeat in every phrase the word label attached to neoliberalism and not all the articles deal of what is exactly Neoliberalism (in fact what the source of C.J. says is that it is often undefined). On the other hand we have two sources where the first deals specifically with Neoliberalism as a concept and the second is a dictionary of Social Sciences which defines Neoliberalism. I do not propose another name for neoliberalism I only indicate what the sources suggest it is, a label. I don't know if somebody could interpret them otherwise, but if you can do it please do, or bring a more reliable source. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is a label. So are the titles of every article in Wikipedia. But we are writing about the concept, not the word. Here is how a standard polisci textbook describes the subject: "The New Right rose to prominence in the 1970s....However, the one unquestionably essential and the dynamic element is what is best characterized as 'neo-liberalism.'"[13] On page p. 204 under "Updating classical liberalism," it says, "Neo-liberalism is a modernised version of classical or laissez-faire liberalism." No mention that it is a label or that advocates do not like the term. TFD (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

it is a label but not in the sense you mean it, "labelling is often intended to highlight the fact that the label is a description applied from the outside, rather than something intrinsic to the labelled thing... Giving something a label can be seen as positive, but the term label is not usually used in this case. For example, giving a name to a common identity is seen as essential in identity politics." The concept has a definition, an encyclopedia differs from a dictionary because it goes more in depth but the lede essentially is the definition a dictionary would give, we have a dictionary source that defines it as a label and another source that supports that Neoliberalism "is a description applied from the outside". Please read my comment (21:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)) where I demonstrate this with the source of C.J. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me try yet again to explain why your proposed version violates NPOV: you are inserting your viewpoint into the very first sentence that neoliberalism is merely a political label used by enemies of "free markets" by citing some blurb from a dictionary while ignoring all the other materials from countless reliable sources on the fact that it is not just a label, but also, to quote yet again "my" source you keep bringing up, "a predominant concept in scholarly writing on development and political economy, far outpacing related terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus, and even market reform." Inserting that it is just some label (to be dismissed outright by readers of course) while omitting that it is a predominant scholarly concept, and thus the WP:COMMONNAME for the paradigm shift in the 70s and 80s, gives outrageously undue weight to the notion that it is merely an epithet used by leftists who don't like "free markets." Is it starting to sink in yet??? This is why the current consensus version adheres to NPOV: it doesn't omit one for the other, but mentions them both in the same sentence (although it should be expanded to say "critics of free market reforms" or something similar to that like I proposed above). As far as placing this in the very beginning of the article, well it used to be in the very first sentence, but editors rightly decided it would be confusing to readers to include all of this before even getting to the crux of what neoliberalism means.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I call it CJ. Griffin source, I explained what I meant by that. If you read the article that you think supports your POV you would get why it is not just my POV but it is what the two sources indicate. It explains where this predominance comes from «neoliberalism is employed asymmetrically across ideological divides: it is used frequently by those who are critical of free markets, but rarely by those who view marketization more positively.... While recognizing that a future consensus definition of neoliberalism must be the product of the type of debate that is currently lacking... First, neoliberalism is used asymmetrically across ideological divides, rarely appearing in scholarship that makes positive assessments of the free market... In the present-day study of political economy, the term neoliberalism is most frequently employed by those who are critical of the free market phenomena to which it refers.... One compelling indicator of the term’s negative connotation is that virtually no one self-identifies as a neoliberal, even though scholars frequently associate others—politicians, economic advisors, and even fellow academics—with this term... Asymmetric use of neoliberalism was also evidenced by the language that critics and proponents of the free market used when engaging each other in debate... When referring to free market policies, ideologies, or paradigms, contemporary scholars who are critical of these concepts use neoliberalism, while those who evaluate them favorably employ other language... The asymmetric use of neoliberalism in present-day scholarship clearly shows that it is value-laden, albeit with a negative normative valence... For the concept of free-market policies, critics prefer the term neoliberal, while proponents refer to “orthodox policies” or other synonyms invoking the mainstream nature of these reforms. To refer to the concept of a free-market paradigm, proponents use the term “neoclassical” instead of neoliberal. For the concept of a free-market ideology, those who espouse such views typically prefer the unqualified term “liberal.... While the normative valence of the term neoliberalism is clearly negative, each of the underlying concepts to which neoliberalism can refer has a contested normative valence... Those who use neoliberalism, however, participate in only one side of this debate... The result is that neoliberalism has become a conceptual trash heap... We are clearly concerned that the failure to use common terminology when discussing free markets circumvents meaningful academic debate... But academic use of neoliberalism is problematic in an entirely different way: its meaning is not debated, and it is often not defined at all... » I really can't see how someone could spin all this to demonstrate it is not a label as the dictionary says, that is "a description applied from the outside". DagonAmigaOS (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have clearly stated my problems with your proposals in my last post. However, you have failed time and again to address the point that what you want it largely in the lede of the article, and my above proposal would make it even more so. I'm sick of going around and around with you. Stop telling us again and again about what two cherry-picked sources say like a fucking robot and explain why this (The term has been used since 1938 but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s and is now a predominant concept in scholarship and is widely used by critics of Free Market reforms. Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal".) is not good enough for you!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's look an example. The Democratic Party is labelled the Democrat Party by their major opponents. Accordingly we have one article about the label, which explains how the term is applied and one about the topic, which is a major political party in the U.S. If you want to write a separate article about neo-liberal as a term, go ahead. But this article is about the concept. If you have evidence it is not a concept, then please provide it. If you think there is a better name, please say it. TFD (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD Democratic Party self identifies as such, there are no neoliberals that do that, read the above paste. TFD and C.J. did you read what I pasted above? Is that what you get from that? that Neoliberalism is just " a predominant concept in scholarship" because to me it is crystal clear -given the above- that it is a predominant concept in the scholarship critical to Free Market. I did not cherry picked two sources, one is "mine" and one is "yours" and both indicate what I say, I repeatedly said bring other more reliable sources or give us another interpretation of what is stated in the available sources. If you can't spin the above findings then it should be changed from just scholarship to mainly used in scholarship critical to Free Market. That way it reflects reality and does't pass a POV. "Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] is a term used mainly by critics of Free Market to refer to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7" <- this is more accurate description, no POV, just what the sources indicate it is. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What you posted above is a copy and paste from one source. Given that there are literally scores of scholarly sources cited in the article, among other WP:RS, such as some mainstream media sources, it is utterly irresponsible to base the entire lede on two sources that, YES, you are cherry picking from to push your point of view which, again, violates WP:NPOV. You are even cherry picking material from my proposed additions in your last posting while ignoring the rest! Let me give you a few examples of reliable academic sources from the article, which are published by peer-reviewed academic publishers or University Presses, that are not relentless polemics and do not brand neoliberalism as an epithet: For Business Ethics (Routledge, 2005) This one in particular is important, because it has been widely used in University-level Business Ethics courses. What does it say about Neoliberalism?

"Neoliberalism represents a set of ideas that caught on from the mid to late 1970s, and are famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States following their elections in 1979 and 1981. The 'neo' part of neoliberalism indicates that there is something new about it, suggesting that it is an updated version of older ideas about 'liberal economics' which has long argued that markets should be free from intervention by the state. In its simplest version, it reads: markets good, government bad."

Did you get that? A set of ideas, NOT a label or an epithet used by critics. Here are some others: Neoliberalism: The Key Concepts (Routledge, 2015), Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford University Press, 2010) and Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics (Princeton University Press, 2012). Then there are the sources that TFD informed you about, such as this one, that do not characterise neoliberalism as an epithet or label, which of course you ignored. This is why the consensus is not in your favor. You are only choosing sources that buttress your POV that it is merely an epithet, while ignoring all the others that contend it has become much more than that. Even the IMF, which has described neoliberalism as an epithet in the past, is now referring to its very policies as part of the "neoliberal agenda." Why? Because it is now the term MOST used in all scholarship (and not just that of leftist critics) for the "free market" reforms starting with the paradigm shift in the 1970s and 80s. This is why my proposed additions reflect what most of the sources say, while yours reflect just what some of the sources say (two to be exact). This is why the emerging consensus in this threat is not in your favor. This is why your proposed additions will never see the light of day in this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeap it is from the source that you brought into the discussion to defend that it is not a label as it says the source from the Dictionary of Social Sciences by Oxford Press. It corroborates my source. I did not cherry picked two sources, I brought one source, you brought another and it turns out it confirms that neoliberalism is a label. I asked for more sources if you have doubts in order to reach a consensus, you brought others, good. Let's see what "For Business Ethics" says exactly before your quote, it says "This set of economic claims is often known as 'neoliberalism' ". Often known is not exactly a confirmation of your view or is it? I think if you read your other source you will understand why he says often known. Lets see the source "Neoliberalism: The Key Concepts". It says " 'Neoliberalism' has become a popular but problematic term… Let me say at the outset that the purpose of this book is not to engage in defining ‘neoliberalism’ there is no way of neatly encapsulating what has now become a kind of catch-all expression or ‘explanotary catholicon’" Sounds like the things I copy pasted from your first source -> "But academic use of neoliberalism is problematic in an entirely different way: its meaning is not debated, and it is often not defined at all". Let's proceed with the Business Ethics source: "From the 1980s, in the hands of scholars and social activists who took a different view of capitalism, the term neoliberalism came to mean something else." again sounds like the Boas paper -> "We show that neoliberalism has undergone a striking transformation, from a positive label coined by the German Freiberg School to denote a moderate renovation of classical liberalism, to a normatively negative term" and it confirms it is scholars that took a different view of capitalism who use that term. But let's continue with the Business Ethics source: "At times, efforts at clarification are made more difficult when scholars slip into clichés and tropes… It is for that reason that entries in Neoliberalism: The Key Concepts are careful to avoid essentialising neoliberalism as a single project which is necessarily designed in advance. Instead, I prefer to use the notion as a broad label or a ‘descriptive shell’ to denote changes that have occured within capitalism since 1970s" your source prefers to use Neoliberalism as a broad label, just like in the dictionary. What about the other source " Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction" It says "The term was first coined in post-World War 1… by scholars affiliated with the ‘Freiburg School’ to refer to their moderate programme ..By early 1990s, however, left-leaning critics of market reform in the global South had imbued ‘neoliberalism with pejorative meanings". Let's see the other source "Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics" it says "“The term has become divorced from its complicated and varied origins. It is often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recuring financial crises” and “As political scientist Rachel Turner has pointed out, the term neoliberalism is used with lazy imprecision in both popular debate and academic scholarship." and I may add to the discussion the Turner source of this Masters of the Universe source you mentioned. "Neo-Liberal Ideology History, Concepts and Policies". It says "Although the ‘neo-liberal’ label may be ubiquitous in contempo- rary political discourse, its exact ideological form remains unclear.... One of the most fundamental problems in applying the label ‘neo-liberal’ to specific individuals and movements is that most neo-liberals reject the term, preferring the label ‘liberal’ instead.... ". All the sources point that the definition the dictionary gives is accurate. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a WP:RFC might be necessary to resolve this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, how do we do that? Do you know the procedure? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I read the procedure, you prefer me to request for comment or you will do it? I'm fine with both options. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Go for it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the writers who used the term neo-liberal in the 1980s may not have been aware of its earlier different use in the 1930s. But it has become a standard term to refer to the paradigm that replaced welfare liberalism. And of course there are disagreements over exactly what that paradigm includes, just as there was disagreement over the earlier paradigms (and even the names) of welfare liberalism, classical and neoclassical liberalism and whiggery. TFD (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)