Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 9

The article said it first appeared in 1938, but OED clearly gives examples of it appearing before, the first time in 1898. Google scholar gives hits of the term before 1938 in English, German, and French. Perhaps with its current meaning, it was first used in 1938. But how did Gide mean it in 1898? (Indeed, in the book The Road from Mont Pélerin, they quote a wiki-editor conversation/argument, and somebody points out Gide used it in a pejorative manner, and it seems Gide was using it in a different sense.)

Also: "The German scholar Alexander Rüstow coined the term "neoliberalism" in 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann.^{[1]: 12–3 [2][3]}" Despite these three citations, one being from a Australian institute/thinktank paper and one (Casino Capitalism) giving the wrong page number, I am not convinced that Rüstow did coin it or, at least, we need better sources. From the first citation (ie the aforementioned book): "Louis Rougier, the French philosopher, was quite taken with the book and organized a conference in Lippmann’s honor, the eponymous Colloque Walter Lippmann, in Paris in 1938 (see Denord, Chapter 1 in this volume). Fifteen of those who were invited (including Raymond Aron, Louis Baudin, Friedrich August von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Michael Polanyi, Wilhelm Röpke, and Alexander Rüstow) would subsequently participate in the founding of the MontPèlerin Society nine years later (Walpen 2004a, 84f., 388, 391). Besides debates over the dangers of collectivism and the pitifully weak state of liberalism, they wrangled over the tenets as well as the designation of a renewed liberalism. The term neoliberalism triumphed against suggestions such as néo-capitalisme,libéralisme positif, libéralisme ocial, and even libéralisme de gauche (Walpen 2004a, 60).Improbable keeler (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "liberal" derives from the Latin and was used in Middle English. Universities taught "liberal arts" for example. But it only achieved its current meaning as a political term in the early 1800s, although of course liberalism dates back further. Political movements are allowed to emerge before the language has selected a term to describe them. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lead for Liberalism does not devote 75 to 90% of the lead writing about early use of the term, because it is tangential to the topic. TFD (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest moving some of the lead to the main article. Improbable keeler (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we just drop names of various academics in the article, as though they are common knowledge? I read this article and scratch my head, should I know who Boas is? Or Jones? Sure, I can look at the citations, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but this reads like a textbook from humanities. Improbable keeler (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Some editors here insisted on attribution to the authors in these particular cases a while back I think, which is why they were added. Simply adding "some scholars" or "other scholars" can be reverted as WP:Weasel words if editors insist on it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is a "huge movement", to coin it in modern words, and there are allot of noteworthy (atleast in sense of their relevance for wikipedia) academics, politicians and scholars who are part of it. You wouldnt want the article Christianity only mention God, Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Apostle, would you? --Kharon (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

True: "Some scholars" can always be interpreted as weasel words. But surely if you back up the "some" with a couple of citations, you'd be forgiven for using "weasel words". (Funny, in French you have to say "some" in front of the noun or it's implied that you mean ALL, unless a number is specified.) Back to my point, if the academic has his or her own Wikipedia article, then we can use the full name -- I made one such change. Even an article on physics or communism wouldn't introduce Einstein or Marx by their last names only. Improbable keeler (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article, perhaps, has a slight US-Britain bias -- that may be so because most of the (social science) scholars come from these countries. The articles focuses on the implementation of neoliberalism polices by Reagan and Thatcher, but little mention of Australia/NZ Labour/Labor parties implementing the same policies (economic rationalism or Rogernomics, which then later inspired Tony Blair's Labour party (so called New Labour) to adopt similar policies. (There is a small section on Australia). Then there are the Rhine-capitalism/ordoliberalism models in Germany and Austria. Improbable keeler (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ordoliberalism is something different and its orginates from german freiburg school. Neoliberalism was in huge parts "founded" on Friedrich August von Hayek's ideas, who had a huge reception in Britain and the United States. It is no coincidence, to close the historic circle you started drawing, that Reagan and Thatcher strongly refered their worldview to Hayek's. Therefor ist not bias, its simply the origin, as Ordoliberalism alike doesnt have a "german bias". Ordoliberalism is simply is as european and german as Neoliberalism is english and american.

Ofcourse you are right that for example Australia has adapted Neoliberalism. Probably similar as many european states have adapted Ordoliberalism, tho that fact is a bit hidden inside what is known as "social market economy" today.

Dont missunderstand me, thats the reasons i dont see a "bias" in the article. I agree that the adaption of Neoliberalism in other countries could use much more space in this article. Feel free and very welcome to extend the section on Australia. --Kharon (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The UK and U.S. rightly have prominence because that is how neo-liberalism spread to the world. China and Chile deserve greater mention since the neo-liberal experiments there preceded the UK and U.S., while New Zealand deserves prominence because the of the sweeping extent of the reforms. Otherwise, I do not see that we should have a section on each and every country influenced, which would add over 100 new sections. I don' see for example why Australia should be expanded. It would be different if this were an Australian encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@TFD Sure. Not 100 sections. But I would argue that the Australia/NZ sections need expanding/creating as these policies changes were implemented in the 80s, when neoliberalism took off, by Labor/Labour parties, which offers a different perspective on the history of (neo)-liberal economic ideas, for example, they are not only endorsed by conservative politicians (or think tanks for that matter). But, no, we don't need to create a section each time a country decides to adopt some or all economic ideas that are in agreement with neoliberalism.Improbable keeler (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism has influenced almost every government in the world and there are well over 100 countries in the world. Why do you think Australia should be singled out? Australia and NZ are btw separate countries, there is no reason why they should be combined. TFD (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the term "neoliberalism" is not frequently or widely used in economics, as opposed to (other) social sciences. Can anybody recommend me some economics books -- ie books on economics written by economists -- where they use it? A quick search of The Economist website returns a few pages, but many seem to be written by the same American blogger.Improbable keeler (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook of Neoliberalism, The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism, The Crisis of Neoliberalism are just a few academic books written by (or have contributions from) economists that come to mind.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already looked at that first book "The Handbook of Neoliberalism", and the editors don't seem to be economists -- not located in economics departments. I checked out a couple of writers, for example, the ones at University of Sydney. Again, not in economics departments. Can you be more precise which of them are economists? The books seem more like history or philosophical books observing the rise of policies considered "neoliberal" and the effects, but not actually economics book ie they seem to lack economics. The second book seems to be written by an economist, but he's using the term "neoliberal capitalism". The third book is written by researchers at CNRS, but CNRS is a science centre - do they do research on economics? Improbable keeler (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Gérard Duménil is a political economist. He is also a contributor to The Handbook of Neoliberalism. Given here are literally scores of academics who contributed to this thing, I'd be surprised if he's the only one.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I read that too on one or two (unverified) websites. I guess Gérard Duméni can call himself anything he wants, but it doesn't necessarily make his book or work "neoliberalism" economics. There's probably some people, trained as economists, who have written books using the term, although none, except a researcher at a (social) science centre, can be found. Some concepts and terms are used more by researchers in disciplines outside of their original fields, for example, very few books by Marx or on Marx are sold in economics departments, while other fields cite his work and ideas a lot. Similar things could be said about Freud. My point remains that these "neoliberalism" books are not standard economics books, which is not diminishing their academic integrity, but it's to say the term "neoliberalism" is used rarely in economic circles. Improbable keeler (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Improbable keeler: you will not find said reference because economists working in economics departments are working on Positive economics. While neo-liberalism is a term used in a normative sense. There is no such thing as neoliberal economic theory. There is a set of ideas and policies which might be labelled as neoliberal, (for example normative prescriptions surrounding the positive model of Comparative advantage), while other ideas would be described as anti neo-liberal (for example the normative prescriptions surrounding the positive model of negative externalities). Economics as you describe it (the social science being taught in most economics departments) avoids the term precisely because it lacks precision and gives the impression that there is a set of ideas which unequivocally point towards the same policy recommendations and blurs the line between theory, policy and ideology which brings unnecessary complications to the advancement of a positive social science. Dryfee (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Dryfee:, thanks for that. Indeed, what makes it hard to find reliable citations is that it's a term about economic policies, ideas, trends etc used mostly by non-economists in other fields. This happens in academia in general. For example, there are ideas from quantum mechanics, physics etc, being (mis)used in other academic fields. While we're all for interdisciplinary work, it sometimes makes it hard to know what is good research and what is just opinions, as one has to be an expert in two of the fields. Improbable keeler (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the problem is that neoliberalism is an umbrella term for a broad set of policies and ideologies, and therefore it is not very useful in a setting characterised by formal mathematical definitions (such as economics). Dryfee (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Four Deuces removed most of the lead saying "Lede is supposed to summarize the article - move earlier uses to separate section". Srich32977 agrees but Kharon and I both disagree. I think that the content removed contained very notable information about neoliberalism in different time periods and different regions. The lead is currently four medium-sized paragraphs long, which is in line for an article of this size. If you think it should be trimmed a bit, I suggest discussing on here and we can reach an agreement. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Did not "remove" but "moved" to next section. TFD (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." There is no reason to devote 75% of the lead to how the term might have been used before it became used in the sense of the topic of this article. If any of the earlier uses were notable, which they are not, then you can create separate articles about them, per disambiguation. For any readers - and I doubt there are any - who come to this article to read about earlier uses of the term, they will not suffer because it is separated out from the lead by a section header.

TFD (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

75% is definitely excessive. If anything, one paragraph could easily and succinctly sum up the history of the term. The excess could be integrated into the Terminology section. It might be time for another RfC.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not 75% about linguistic history. That is an exessive missrepresentation and the way this is repeated and HEADLINED here rises the question if you are exessively influenced by neomodern (fake) news-narratives and latest election battles.

The lead clearly isnt small and it does go into detail but this seems appropiate to the controversial nature of the lemma. If you compare it to lemmas similar controversial and meaningfull for alot of people, like for example Islam, Climate change denial, Hillary Clinton or Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, you will find similar and even longer leadin sections.

As already pointed out many times here (check the archiv) the description of meaning, including the change in that, is very important for this lemma and it should be agreed on that it is essential for every article, the more controversial the more important, to "get this right" from start! This is not some part someone bloated up some years ago and noone else cared, this is a consensus that was fought hard for with many excellent and many enthusiastic authors. Therefor we can not accept big changes here unless everyone goes along with it. Obviously there is no agreement for the latest changes. Personally i found the arguments brought forward very weak from start and as i have shown with mentioned other articles now also flatout wrong. --Kharon (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not how long the lead is but whether 75% should be devoted to earlier uses of the term. Your position is that this is appropriate because the term is controversial. But rather than say that you want to prove it. Who cares that in 1898 an Italian economist referred to the ideas of another Italian economist as "Neo-Liberal" and it was translated into English that way? Why do just say that the term had been used before it achieved its current meaning in the early 1980s? We don't spend 3/4 of the lead on the city of Boston explaining earlier uses of the term, in fact it is not mentioned at all until the second sectin. TFD (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, its not 75%. Again it was consensus to be part. Again this is a controversial lemma - the article for Bosten is probably not (im to tired with you to check your random article comparrisons anymore). --Kharon (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 --Pass3456 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's probably more. It's three out of four paragraphs of the lead. TFD (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the third paragraph could be moved to section 1.1 Terminoilogy - Origins and the fourth could be a link from Origins to Current Usage. Dryfee (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont see any need. Most readers of such huge articles shurely dont even notice the lead in is big. Most come here with selective Questions about an specific topic and thus they jump to the index and into some chapter right away. It mainly seems a question of style to the few here that want it changed. Atleast there where no complains about something being wrong, biased or badly sourced in the lead until now. --Kharon (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not that the lead is too long, but that most of it is related to tangential stuff - how the word was used by different writers before it current use. You are spending 75% of the lead discussing 1% of the topic. Why do you think that much space should be devoted in the lead? I suspect it is passive resistance. You don't like the topic and want to say "it has no real meaning" by adding this info first. TFD (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that this sentence in the lead is too bias (both in a North American/Atlantic and ideological sense): The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Some of the policies, but not all, most probably led to the financial crisis. Lightly regulated financial industry? Yes. Free trade. No. Privatization in of various industries? Not likely. Also, the crisis was built upon the back of government-enabled mortgages, during the 90s under the Clinton administration, which is against neoliberalism, and then the trading of CDOs, based on American mortgages, only got popular, I believe, in the 2000s, so to say that it was caused by policies implemented in the 70s is a stretch. This bias and lack of clarification in the article is, I would argue, due to citing mostly social science researchers not working on (or trained in) economics or finance.Improbable keeler (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The crisis definitely started in the US, so you could argue only the polices implemented there matter, but its effects were felt across the Atlantic. But the crisis largely didn't affect Poland or Brazil, who have been implementing such neoliberalim policies, or most of Asia or Africa. Australia also implemented neoliberalism policies in the 80s, by first deregulating its financial industry, but did not suffer the financial crisis -- for six or so reasons (one of them being a floating dollar, which is in line with economic liberalism). (The financial crisis should be called the "North Atlantic crisis" as it only affected those countries (and slightly New Zealand, which implemented neoliberalism policies in the 80s), but nobody does call it that.) France, which does poorly in the so-called economic freedom rankings by various institutes such as the Heritage Foundation (by the way, can we cite them? Or are they pushing an agenda?), suffered the financial crisis (and arguably has not recovered from it, while the US has bounced back much better). Also, I thought the policies were implemented in the 1980s in the US and Britain (Yes, Thatcher came to power 1979, but she didn't achieve that much in her first year.)Improbable keeler (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank which is clearly pushing an agenda, a neoliberal agenda at that, and is largely funded by corporations and others who would benefit from the implementation of neoliberal policies. First you insert political rants from Reason, FEE and other reactionary sources, now you wish to include corporate-funded propaganda dressed up as pseudo-scholarship from this despicable think tank... Quite telling! This from its Wikipedia article: Charles W. L. Hill, after discussing the international shift toward a market-based economic system and Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index, said "given that the Heritage Foundation has a political agenda, its work should be viewed with caution."^[1] And regarding the sentence on the financial crisis, I'll reiterate what I stated above: At least three of the other sources following that sentence were written by economists (i.e., Marc Lavoie, Gérard Duménil and David Kotz). All five are academic sources published in peer-reviewed journals or by university presses, so I don't see a problem here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's not a measured response. Nice rant. I clearly hit another button. Nice touch with the struck through text, by the way. I didn't insert political rants; I cited Reason magazine articles, not knowing you and others were against them (but not against Foreign Policy). I didn't want to cite some "despicable think tank", because I knew, based on your other measured responses, you'd be against it. Still, got a reaction out of you, which was not my intention. By the way, this article already cited papers by other libertarian think tanks (but I guess you hadn't noticed that, too busy removing new citations to notice the old ones). Quite telling of what, by the way? Tell me: I want to hear some more angry words while you try to guess something about me. Improbable keeler (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a few things, and the you basically just focused on what my remark about the Heritage Foundation (which, by the way, was intended as a joke - of course I knew you would be against it, after your remarks on Reason magazine), without addressing my other points. By the way, can we cite the Fraser Institute? (You know, a non-American think tank.) I already knew that Heritage Foundation's work should viewed with caution -- I actually read that in an economics book. --Improbable keeler Improbable keeler (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to my main point, I think the article is bias in that sentence, despite what many social scientists may think and a couple of self-describe economists. I'll of course look for sources for my claims. That's why I chose to raise my points here first, before just editing the wiki article, because you would no doubt delete the new citations, without checking the ones already existing in the article. I don't plan to remove the claims that you have no problem with, just to let another voice be heard (by actual, practicing economists who publish in mainstream economic journals).-- Improbable keeler (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My responses are as measured as they need to be, given the debates waged here over the last few years with ancaps, libertarians and other proponents of "free market economics" who have been seeking to diminish the concept of neoliberalism in this article as nothing more than a fiction invented by the left; as a pejorative, a label, an insult and on and on, so readers leave with such an impression, when a plethora of scholarship says it is much more than that: a political and economic paradigm shift which occurred incrementally since the 1970s, and can be held responsible for all kinds of social, political, economic and ecological problems. Even neoliberal IMF economists are starting to understand this, but I digress. This view is already given its due weight in the article; my opposition is in adding even more, which violates NPOV. And some of the sources you added were clearly libertarian political rants, such as this one from FEE on "the left's eternal boogyman". LOLOL! Pretty much sums up what I have been saying here all along, doesn't it? Oh, and I should have been clear before. Per WP:Biased, if you cite The Heritage foundation or Fraser Institute (another controversial neoliberal advocacy think tank, imagine that?), then proper attribution to the source will have to come with it, given that they are not peer-reviewed scholarship or fact-checked news media sources, and that they exist solely to push an agenda and nothing more. Oh, and you keep diminishing the cited economists such as Marc Lavoie, Gérard Duménil and David Kotz, as "delf-described." Are you saying they are not actual economists? Well, in my view, at least their work is peer-reviewed scholarship, as opposed to the corporate-funded "think tank" propaganda you seem to prefer.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's start by giving credit where credit is due. The heritage foundation is indeed a biased source. However, Marc Lavoie is a Heterodox, Post Keyensian Economist. I'm not saying they he is not an economist I am saying he is an economist working in the fringe. "Heterodox" means outside mainstream. Gérard Duménil is a political economist inspired by Marxism. Again not mainstream and likely a critic of mainstream economics, Kotz is a member of the "Union for Radical Political Economics" which really sounds non-mainstream. It is untenable to argue that these sources are less biased than the heritage foundation. I would say that the statement should be supported by mainstream thought in order to put it the first paragraph of the article. I am deleting it until sources from journals appearing here, or a classified as A or better here or having a grade of 0.6 or better here are provided Dryfee (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of the sources is what is pertinent here. The sources following that statement all constitute peer-reviewed scholarship, with some published by well respected university presses. This is sufficient in my view, so I'm restoring the consensus version.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a peer reviewed journal on creationism, peer review does not mean mainstream, or consensus. I am reverting your change until you provide reputable sources. Dryfee (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

So, academic works published by Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press are not reputable sources? Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Please find consensus for removing long standing, reliably sourced materials before reverting again.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no academic consensus as to the entire causes of the financial crisis, Obstfeld and Rogoff argue that it might have been caused global imbalances, Acharya et al. argue that it was because of systemic fragility due to financial integration of markets, Diamond and Rajan attribute it to a complex set of conditions including (but not limited to) low interest rates, lack of information from credit rating agencies, complex security valuations systems, and more. Laux and Christian attribute some responsibility to fair value accounting practices, while Bob Shiller argues that it was caused by a real estate bubble, and had little to do with financial regulation (or de-regulation). So in essence there is no consensus among experts in the subject and claiming that "some researchers feel like neoliberalism is to blame" does not inform the reader about anything useful. The sentence lacks precision. What part of neoliberalism caused the crisis? Free trade? expanded economic freedom? low taxes? a small government? reduced government spending? the fact that banks are not owned by the government? WP:WBA states that "the opening paragraph should summarise the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows. Perhaps it should be moved under the section of criticism, where we could add it as a subsection about the financial crisis. As it stands now, it is a vague statement and, more importantly, completely disconnected with the rest of the article which makes no further reference to the crisis. Dryfee (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It does. But there is a difference between a publication claiming peer review and it being accepted in the mainstream. It's similar to fact-checking. Just because a UFO magazine claims fact-checking doesn't mean we start questioning Reuters. If you want to know if a publication is peer-reviewed as understood in policy, then post a question at WP:RSN. I would point out you are wasting other editors time when you start arguing for the equivalency or academic publishers and creation science websites. If you really don't know the difference, you shouldn't be here. And if you using arguments you know are disingenuous you shouldn't here either. TFD (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not wasting anybody's time. I am an expert in the subjects of financial crises, monetary policy and economics more generally. It is not disingenuous to claim that sources self described as heterodox, post-Marxist or post Keynesian are not representative of the academic consensus -regardless of them being published peer reviewed journals- and therefore they should not be in the first paragraph of the article. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm trolling here, but I am not. I am interested in preventing Wikipedia spreading opinions or far fetched hypothesis as facts.Dryfee (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been 5 days without an answer to my points. I'm going to delete the sentence again to draw attention to this discussion per WP:BRD. Dryfee (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I will restore it as there is no consensus on the talk page for the removal of long standing, reliably-sourced materials.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree there is no consensus, but you haven't answered any of my points or engaged in debate. You only come here whenever I delete, so I deleted to incite discussion. Please address my points,, there will be no consensus if the only discussion we have is "I'm reverting because it has been longstanding".Dryfee (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If no one else feels like addressing what you feel is a pertinent issue, then perhaps you are the only editor here who thinks it should be addressed. If you wish to press further, then start an RfC on moving that statement you have a problem with to a different section of the article instead of reverting again and again. To your point about the statement being disconnected from the rest of the article, I would argue that there is discussion in the Global health sub-section about IMF economists linking neoliberal policies to rising inequality and worsening financial crises in a paper which is considered by some to be groundbreaking . If anything, it buttresses what "heterodox" economists and academics in other social sciences have been saying for some time. And the statement in the lede you dispute doesn't claim that there is some consensus on the issue in the first place, but that some academics have made these claims.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Surely there is a further consideration, beyond adequate sourcing- that of balance? If you want to ascribe the financial crisis, even if only in the view of some academics, to Neoliberalism, then in the interest of balance there should be a description of other views, such as the role of the abolition of Glass-Steagal (sp?), or Brown's comprehensive changes to bank regulation in 1997. (Which don't seem to feature at all in the article on the financial crisis. That's a strong indication of bias in that article, unless I've skimmed it too fast and missed some stuff). If introducing some balance by referring to other explanations for the financial crisis ends up making the lead clumsy, then shorten it, but not at the expense of balance.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The abolition of Glass-Steagal and Brown's deregulation were both neo-liberal initiatives. I don't think many sources would say that economic policy and the regulatory environment had nothing to do with the crisis. TFD (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Brown's fiasco of financial regulation was a power-grab, not a neo-liberal initiative. And while the range of changes in the US had some major NL elements, the resulting regulatory landscape was not exactly out of the NL playbook.

Gravuritas (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I added that the term "neoliberalism" is considered a term of abuse and value to some. Improbable keeler (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your additions per WP:BRD because they appear to go against the recent RfC (below). They are also poorly sourced. Blogs from The Economist and the libertarian rag Reason are not good sources for such contentious additions to the lede. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That partly explains that, but they were not all blogs from The Economist. Also there is one citation saying that advocates of neoliberalism avoid the term "neoliberal", while Milton Friedman used it -- wasn't he an advocate?Improbable keeler (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with C.J. Griffin - the previous version was better. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

An academic source would be much better than a blog. Sources matter. You should not do a simple google search and then immediately put anything you find interesting into the lede of a Wikipedia article. I'm sure one or more of the academic sources already cited here might address Friedman's use of the term. Look through them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I got a citation of Milton using the term "neoliberalism". Improbable keeler (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As for the Rfc, I was unfamiliar with this concept. Does that mean I cannot write that some -- maybe not all -- people consider the term as an insult, even if I found citations? I found one in a published magazine. Supposedly I can't use magazine blogs by writers of working for said magazine.Improbable keeler (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is already noted more than once in the article that the term is used as a pejorative and used by critics, which is why these additions could be considered WP:undue. The relevant discussion can be found below. In fact new discussions such as this one are to follow existing ones, and not be posted at the top of the talk page. Perhaps if you would have done this you would have realized these issues have been widely debated already, with an emerging consensus. I highly doubt given the results of the last RfC that a new consensus will form around your proposed additions on the term being considered an "insult." The Friedman issue is another matter. If a WP:RS says Friedman used the term, then perhaps this could be added to the article. EDIT. I see this has been done. Looks good.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I doubt too that a new consensus will form with just one citation, saying that some consider it as an "insult" or "term of the abuse". Here are some more citations: from the Freeman magazine^[1][2], from Reason magazine^[3][4] where the word is considered pejorative or abuse. I don't read these magazines, but they should be citable, surely, if Guardian articles are. I'll find some more citations and think of a good spot where to put them in the article. I am open to suggestions.Improbable keeler (talk)

The Guardian citation in the lede you are referring to is not used to make a contentious point, but merely to pinpoint a specific date the term came into existence. Swapping this for an academic citation would be fine by me and appropriate. This is very different from the way the blog sources you wish to introduce will be used. And this still does not address the issue of undue weight. How many times must it be mentioned that the term is used as a pejorative or used by critics? Adding it is also an "insult" is merely POV-pushing in my view. No point in beating a dead horse.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize the point was contentious. I'm not citing blogs anymore -- I'm citing website versions of magazine articles. (I could just remove the URL and they would be physical magazine articles, if this is a problem) I never wrote the word "insult" did I (on the article page)? Thought I wrote "term of abuse" but no matter. You say that in the article it's written that the term "neoliberal" is sometimes used in a pejorative way. Can you show me where exactly? I've first read the phrase "POV-pushing" today -- I saw you used it on this talk page before. Improbable keeler (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article then before adding to it? It says as much in the current usage section of the article. It is already noted in the lede it is used by critics and one with negative connotations. Again, undue wight is given to this POV by adding more on it being an "insult" or a "term of abuse". And those citations were horrid. I removed the polemical citations you added to the lede and the Guardian column.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I did read it. But I missed the term pejorative on first reading. It's an article with many citations, but I think it's still pushing a certain POV. How are the citations polemical? They're just different views. Not having different views would be pushing-POV in my view.Improbable keeler (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you can't see that those were non-academic, polemical sources from organizations/publications pushing an agenda, then I don't know what to tell you. These certainly do not belong in the lede of this article. Bottom line is that the view that the term is merely a pejorative and used by critics is already well established in the article. The consensus here appears to be that enough is enough and no more on this is needed, given the results of the last RfC. EDIT: citation spamming (especially unreliable, POV-pushing citations) is not a constructive way to edit this article. Someone should revert this edit.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I never said they were academic articles. Of course they are non-academic. But is there a rule against using magazine articles? You used the word "polemical". And the "polemical" sources are pushing agendas? That doesn't really mean much. Many sources, academic or non-academic, are "pushing an agenda", unless I have failed to understand that phrase.Improbable keeler (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, by the way. Improbable keeler (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed or fact checked sources with bias are not an issue, so long as proper attribution is added. What you added were not just biased sources, but also sources from publications which clearly exist to push an agenda (in other words, not an academic publisher or a mainstream news organization), and are not peer-reviewed or fact checked. Such sources, if used on wikipedia, require at the very least proper attribution, and of course your citation dump (inappropriate in and of itself) offered none. This also fails to adhere to NPOV given this issue of the term as a pejorative is already given its due weight with reliable sources, which I have discussed ad nauseum. It should be reverted immediately.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am confused about what you call "mainstream news organization" and "publications which clearly exist to push an agenda". So it's OK to cite a Foreign Policy article (circulation 100 thousand) in the lead, but not one from Reason Magazine (circulation 50 thousand) penned by a Nobel prize winner? The Economist, which I also cited but you removed it, is a mainstream news organization -- it would take you 10 minutes walking in Paris or Berlin to find a copy on sale. And yet you removed my citation of one of their articles -- I cited both a blog entry and an article. I or others would be forgiven in thinking that any source that doesn't agree with your POV is POV-pushing or agenda-pushing. Is there a list of "mainstream news organizations" we are allowed to cite? I removed a two of the citations, but kept two -- we don't want a "citation dump" -- what is a "citation dump", anyway? 4 citations (when I do it) is a citation dump, but the second sentence of the lead has eight citations. Improbable keeler (talk)

I see the writer of the cited Foreign Policy article in the lead is the author of "The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism". No agenda or POV pushing there. Perhaps I should remove it. I wonder how you missed such a citation of an article obviously pushing an agenda.Improbable keeler (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Policy magazine does not exist to exclusively push some ideological agenda, unlike Reason Magazine or that Foundation for Economic Education think tank. Also, unlike the sources you included in the usage section, the article that appeared in Foreign Policy is not some hysterical political rant, but a report on the IMF using the word in their analysis. I attempted to provide attribution to these citations per wikipedia policy (WP:BIASED), but you reverted. Such biased sources require attribution so as not to be using wikipedia's voice, or be removed. So as you can see, it has nothing to do with any US bias on my part, but the citations you included, which are both self-described libertarian organizations based in the US.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Policy may not push a particular agenda, but I dare say the article's author does. So The Economist is OK. Reason is an American libertarian magazine (I don't think it's a libertarian organization, but I guess it depends what you mean by 'organization') the article was written by a South American, with strong ties to Europe, who writes (at least in Spanish) about gay rights -- not what I would call "the Right".  It doesn't mean anything to me (and many others) to say "the Right". There are sizable (and very scary) political movements in Europe and elsewhere which I would call right-winged, but they are very against neoliberalism polices, as described in this article. Improbable keeler (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Point of talk-page style: New sections should be placed at the bottom of the page and when indentation makes text very narrow, it should be outdented. Articles in Reason etc. are not reliable for facts, per "News organizations". Sources of course do not need to be neutral, but they need to be reliable. Most peer-reviewed articles for example are not neutral, that's why they are written, to present and defend an opinion. But the editorial process demands that the facts are presented fairly and fully, as opposed to publications like Reason where facts can be distorted or cherry-picked or just plain wrong. Mario Vargas Llosa's Nobel Prize, btw was in literature, not economics. Also, the term is not strictly about economics but is a political paradigm that among other things relies on monetarist economics. I would point out that John Locke and Adam Smith never called themselves liberals, yet they are considered leading liberal theorists. Although the word liberal existed it was not applied to politics until the early 1800s when it was a term of abuse. TFD (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Vargas Llosa's prize was of course in literature, I never said he was an economist, but it has become clear to me that we don't need to cite economists for this article.Improbable keeler (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And yes, Adam Smith was around before the word "liberal" caught on in English. I didn't know it was originally used as a term of abuse. Funnily enough, "libérale" is still used today in French, I would argue, as a term of abuse, much like "neoliberal" is used in English in some circles -- although I have to find an academic article supporting that claim. Improbable keeler (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I cited Reason magazine as I saw other magazines had been cited. I am still testing the water here to see what's acceptable. I've already discovered mistakes in some of the old citations, but any new ones added by me seem to be heavily scrutinized. And yet wrong citations remain unchecked. Improbable keeler (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You should read "Reliable sources" and "Neutrality" to find out what is acceptable. You can also search the archives at the "Neutral point of view noticeboard" for discussions on specific publications. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should use the same types of sources that one would use for writing academic textbooks. Generally an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal by a professor specializing in the subject would be more reliable than an opinion piece in a popular magazine by someone who has no qualifications in the field. Your user page says you did research in mathematics. When you used sources for articles did you give preference to academic papers and books or did you prefer to use opinion pieces by well-known writers of fiction? TFD (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. In every other Wikipedia article I've edited or written, of the hundreds of citations I've inserted, every single one has been of a peer-reviewed article or textbook. (I regularly publish academic articles.). But, based on the current state of this article, I thought that the standards were clearly lower, citing opinion pieces from Guardian newspaper (although a "mainstream news organization", it routinely publishes opinion pieces with an agenda), Foreign Policy, or from a book called "Casino Capitalism" (no agenda there, also the page number was wrong), and that's just from first 5 or so paragraphs of the article, so I assumed that magazine articles were OK. I've read before the articles on "Reliable sources" and "Neutrality", but of course I can read them again. Also, you wrote "a professor specializing in the subject would be more reliable", I tried to raise that point earlier. I know that neoliberalism is a term or label used primarily in the social sciences, but it's generally not an economics term (today), and I feel that the article doesn't stress that in the lead (the best it does is "free market advocates avoid the term") - I guess I have to find a citation backing that. The academics writing on "neoliberalism" seem to be generally by non-economists. That's OK, of course, as you already pointed out it's a term used outside of economics, but when the claims are made, for example, that the financial crisis caused by neoliberalism, surely they should be from an economist, and not from a book by a researcher (eg political scientist Manfred Steger) who publishes academic papers in another field. (But the escape clause here, I guess, is that it does say "some scholars" so that could mean any researcher in any field saying they think that.) Thanks again for your responses -- they are much more measured than those of C.J. Griffin (and a quick look around shows I'm not the only who has endured them).Improbable keeler (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinion pieces or not, these are still more reliable coming from a news organization which has won the Pulitzer prize than organizations which solely exist only to push an agenda, like FEE or Reason. Steger's research is primarily on globalization, which makes it relevant to the issue of the financial crisis. Now if his research focused on Art History or something then maybe you would have a point. At least three of the other sources there were written by economists (i.e., Marc Lavoie, Gérard Duménil and David Kotz). All five are academic sources published in peer-reviewed journals or by university presses, so I don't see a problem here. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize? So it has to be American new organizations? American bias. The Reason piece was by a South American (You know, that place where neoliberals go to raid and plunder) Nobel Prize winner in literature. Surely that gets credit. But you've already made your point. I think the Foreign Policy citation should be removed. --Improbable keeler (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC) So Dissent Magazine OK? Could they possibly be pushing an agenda? Also, have they won a Pulitzer prize?

See Gary Browning, "Contemporary Liberalism", Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present, Sage Publications (2000), p. 155: "Neo'liberalism set the political agenda, devised the rhetoric and determined the policies of western states for most of the 1980s." The term is used throughout this standard textbook without any hint it is controversial or meaningless. The only criticism I find is from articles in U.S. New Right editorials, the same place we find criticisms of climate science, evolution, homosexuality, atheism, Muslims and all the other bogeymen of this narrow fringe. While we certainly should have articles about how the fellows of the Ludwig van Mises Institute or the Heritage Foundation view the world, it is not useful in writing articles about other topics.

Readers expect to find in articles here what they would find in a standard textbook. If they want to find a libertarian spin on topics they can go to Conservapedia or lots of other websites set up to provide alternative opinions about these things. Similarly, if they see revolutionary Marxism or radical Islam or even shape-changing reptiles as the best explanations for reality, there are sites that cater to them.

TFD (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@TFD: I think we are in agreement here. I don't want to have a libertarian, as they say in the US, spun article. I just wanted to express two things: the term is vague/varying to some and, to others, a term of abuse. Countries like Canada, NZ, Australia or even Denmark have implemented and endorse most, if not all, of the defining characteristics of "neoliberalism" mentioned in the lead. But I wonder how many people in those countries would like be called "neoliberal"? Improbable keeler (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We are not calling anyone neoliberal. We call them liberals, conservatives, socialists, Christian cemocrats, communists, or whatever party they belong to. But we correctly say they are following neoliberal policies just as 50 years ago most of them followed social liberal policies, 100 years ago they followed neo-classical liberal polices and 200 years ago they followed classical liberal policies. As you said, modern governments have endorsed neo-liberal policies, so what is your argument? TFD (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dryfee: for making my point, by digging up the background of these so-called "economists". Every field has researchers who go against the mainstream trends. Perhaps economics suffers this problem more as it's an issue that affects most if, not all, and there are also many vested interests. Nobody cares when a couple of mathematicians or physicists in the fringe claim all of mathematics and physics is flawed or based on a lie (and this happens often enough). Improbable keeler (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text offers several definitions that allow it to be a bit more neutral. Furthermore, by giving definitions such as direct links, it allows us to further understand the concept of Neoliberalism from a textbook perspective. Some improvements that could be made are that the article offers a more philosophical approach by linking and commenting on how this type of economies might improve or deteriorate the freedoms of citizens. Also, how leaders continuously help or maintain their positions to see these freedoms being helped or lowered. Sarias19 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is this included in the opening paragraph as though it was in opposition to the "Keynesian consensus"? A key part of that consensus was the drive to free trade, as symbolised by the GATT signed in 1947. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CE9:E200:A5D4:8195:47C:6CBD (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What you describe as pointed out in opposition to Keynesianism lies entirely in your own sight. Anyone, given he/she has a tiny interest in politics, knows how frequent liberals, nomatter what branch of them, put emphasis on free trade. Infact it seems to be their holiest living cow, born, raised and send to us by none less than Goddess Freedom herself. Never seen any Keynesians not stopping to talk about it. Anyway, the article is about Neoliberalism, not Keynesianism and there is no distinction or "as though it was in opposition" here. --Kharon (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What nonsense. The opening paragraph describes neoliberalism as constituting a paradigm shift away from the Keynesian consensus that dominated after 1945. The GATT was a cornerstone of that. You seem more anxious to score an ideological point than to have a good article. There is zero evidence to suggest that advocacy of free trade represents a shift away from the Keynesian consensus and it is a mistake pure and simple to suggest that is in the very opening paragraph of this article. Whether you like free trade or not has nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CE9:E200:5160:3C7E:BF5A:9EF9 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no doubt about the neoliberal part but i dont see good reason to use Keynesianism as historical hinge to describe Neoliberalism. So i cut the disputed sentence out because its disputed here jet does not have any important content.

I move that sentence here for the moment: --Kharon (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I restored the sentence to the article, and added qualifying comments to emphasize unrestricted free trade based on sources. We go by what sources say here. WTO has supplanted GATT in the neoliberal era, so this is a non-issue as far as I am concerned.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The description I think is wrong. Keynesianism gave way to monetarism, but the paradigm shift was away from social liberalism, that is, the view that government should protect positive rights in addition to negative rights. Keynesianism was favored by social liberals because it promoted full employment, but social liberalism predated Keynesianism. And monetarism did not reverse Keynesianism, it merely adjusted it: there was no return to the gold standard. TFD (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)