This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neoliberalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Politics: Libertarianism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Top-importance). Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Trade Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Neoliberalism (61 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 20,854 20,854 625 625 Terminology 19 21,271 0 1,450 Origins 4,164 4,164 395 395 Current usage 17,088 17,088 1,055 1,055 Early history 21 8,370 0 774 Walter Lippmann Colloquium 4,014 4,014 328 328 Mont Pelerin Society 4,335 4,335 446 446 Post–World War II neoliberal currents 4,064 102,416 456 6,143 Germany 6,293 6,293 580 580 Latin America 1,238 54,802 11 3,036 Chile 25,880 25,880 1,164 1,164 Peru 16,827 16,827 884 884 Argentina 3,073 3,073 310 310 Mexico 6,535 6,535 570 570 Brazil 1,249 1,249 97 97 United Kingdom 2,231 2,231 150 150 United States 13,061 13,061 719 719 Asia-Pacific 627 15,497 47 956 China 1,969 1,969 87 87 Taiwan 489 489 33 33 Japan 1,729 1,729 147 147 South Korea 591 591 33 33 India 940 940 43 43 Australia 5,278 5,278 256 256 New Zealand 3,874 3,874 310 310 Middle East 3,466 3,466 117 117 International organizations 1,462 1,462 79 79 European Union 1,540 1,540 50 50 Traditions 17 12,170 0 645 Austrian School 4,995 4,995 214 214 Chicago School 1,980 1,980 183 183 Washington Consensus 2,758 2,758 122 122 Geneva School 2,420 2,420 126 126 Political policy aspects 712 11,912 62 527 Economic and political freedom 2,102 2,102 192 192 Free trade 7,173 7,173 115 115 Monetarism 1,925 1,925 158 158 Criticism 7,240 90,934 134 3,778 Market fundamentalism 12,538 12,538 603 603 Inequality 13,824 13,824 509 509 Right-wing populism and nationalism 3,147 3,147 150 150 Corporatocracy 4,915 4,915 345 345 Mass incarceration 11,579 11,579 510 510 Financialization 1,827 1,827 142 142 Globalization 2,512 4,212 101 170 Economic nationalism 1,700 1,700 69 69 Imperialism 4,357 4,357 301 301 Global health 7,805 7,805 231 231 Environmental impact 8,567 8,567 495 495 Religious opposition 2,907 2,907 62 62 Political opposition 6,313 6,313 40 40 Repression of worker's union 1,703 1,703 86 86 See also 1,500 1,500 0 0 References 30 7,784 0 0 Sources 7,754 7,754 0 0 Further reading 22 21,278 0 0 Summaries and histories 5,491 5,491 0 0 Criticisms 11,117 11,117 0 0 Other academic articles 4,648 4,648 0 0 External links 2,339 3,211 0 11 Online lectures 872 872 11 11 Total 301,700 301,700 13,953 13,953

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Institutional Revolutionary Party#:~:text=The Institutional Revolutionary Party (Spanish,, PNR), then as the|PRI]] The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The "short description" should be changed, it is not neutral and accurate for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. I think it is an ideological bias against neo-liberalism itself. Of course neo-liberalism is a socio-econonic ideology but it is not a pejorative term in and of itself, it is only pejorative for those with left-wing political and economic views.

Neutrality, please. 87.18.153.78 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I consider neoliberalism to be much more of a term vs an inherent distinct topic. I don't have expertise on the main uses of the term to comment on your post. Except in cases where it is slam dunk obvious / uncontroversial, I consider very short descriptions of anything (e.g. "short descriptions", classifications and infobox info) to be inherently problematic so I tend to avoid them or put little faith in them. But if we have to have something, what is the main common use of the term? Do person who support what falls under "neoliberalism" use the term in a positive sense, or is it primarily used pejoratively by persons who oppose it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The term is very much a pejorative term, but we also discussed this at length and the post 1970s language had the fullest consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the absolutely best, and still only 44 characters (targeting the ideal sub-40 area, but over 4 is not bad at all) language for the short description on this article is, "Post-1970s-era socioeconomic pejorative term". This includes the previously discussed time frame for which this term is most used, as well as the socioeconomic aspect of the term, the actual fact that it is a "term" as @North8000 mentions, and then the pejorative connotations which are essential and intrinsic to the term and its use. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done — changed to Post-1970s socio-econonic ideology. Peaceray (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Undone. The "pejorative term" aspect of the short description was the most solidified of all aspect of prior discussions. If the language of the short description is going to further change, we can discuss that here again (after reviewing prior discussions exhaustively had below), but the "pejorative" component was quite deeply established. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 12 — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking over the comments in the archive above, I fail to see any consensus for the inclusion of "pejorative" in the short description. It looks like an even split to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We could run an RfC if you think that would help to clear up any confusion on the matter. It does appear to come back fairly often as a question. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Might be a good idea.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

How do you suggest we word the RfC question? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it should ask editors which version is preferable: A: "Term for post-1970s capitalism", or B: "Pejorative term for post-1970s capitalism".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be more generally specific about whether or not to use "pejorative", because at least to me, that is the only part of the SD that I currently think makes sense. I am not edit warring the rest, but frankly it does not appear to me to be supported by the best sources whereas pejorative certainly is. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would disagree, as the majority of academic sources in the article make no such distinction. Only a small minority of sources describe the term as a pejorative. It is also described in some sources as the term most widely used in scholarship on the subject of the societal transformations that resulted from market-based reforms of the 70s and 80s and especially after the Cold War, which no one disputes occurred. If "pejorative" must be mentioned in the SD, that it is "widely used in scholarship" should also be included per NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Is the term Neoliberalism "most often used perjoratively" or is it "primarily employed to delineate the societel transformation resulting from market-based reforms"? Mattrue2020 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It can be both according to cited sources. It is, by far, the most widely used term in scholarship to describe the sweeping market-based reforms starting in the 1970s and the societal consequences of such reforms, but it is sometimes, but not always, used by critical scholars in a pejorative way.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't like that the article treats "neoliberalism" as objective fact. I think the language in stuff like the lede should be toned down a bit and stuff about the criticisms of it as a useful concept need expansion. We need more emphasis on the fact that it's a term generally not used in fields like economics, for instance.

Here are some good highly-cited sources on the topic (the Boas/Gans-Morse one is already used):

• Venugopal, Rajesh. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society
• Dunn, B.. (2016). Against neoliberalism as a concept. Capital & Class
• Storper, Michael. (2016). The Neo-liberal City as Idea and Reality. Territory, Politics, Governance
• Boas, T.C., Gans-Morse, J. (2009). Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan. Studies in Comparative International Development
• Flew, T.. (2014). Six theories of neoliberalism. Thesis Eleven

Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Firstly, no one seriously disputes that the global economic system shifted as a result of pro-free market reforms starting in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 90s with the end of the Cold War. The dispute was over what term was best to use to describe this phenomenon. Neoliberalism indeed started out as a term used primarily by scholars critical of these market based reforms, but as myriad sources in the article point out, including the Boas 2009 source, neoliberalism became over time the term most commonly used to describe these phenomena.

Secondly, it seems the debate over this term has subsided in the late 2010s and especially by the 2020s, with IMF publications using the term to describe market based reforms and free market think tanks like The Adam Smith institute also embracing it. For example, I noticed all of the sources you included are at least 10 years old. Post 2020 sources like Gerstle 2022 openly proclaim it is a legitimate term.

Thirdly, I believe there is adequate coverage of this, not only in the lead paragraph but also in the terminology section where the debate is widely discussed. The lead as it is now took a lot of consensus building over several years to prevent constant edit warring over this. That being said, I would have no issue with including some or all of those sources in the aforementioned section. C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Several points. Firstly, I'm not sure that "no one seriously disputes that the global economic system shifted as a result of pro-free market reforms starting in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 90s with the end of the Cold War", or to what extent this constitute an "ism".

Secondly, "neoliberalism became over time the term most commonly used to describe these phenomena" - If this is the case, then surely you can point to its widespread use in economics journals. I believe you misread Boas and Gans-Morse on this point - they are specifically arguing that the use of the term indicates one's opinions on the underlying concept.

Thirdly, I don't see the relevance of Gerstle 2022. Is it supposed to trump any source published before 2022?

Fourthly, I don't think there is adequate coverage. Those who think it isn't a useful term get only two sentences, which are followed by several sentences defending the term. I think we need a bit more so readers can understand the arguments against the term. In particular I want to see the bits in Venugopal 2015 (pages 15-17) about the term's absence from economics to be included.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The notion that capitalism has changed since the 1970s is hardly controversial (See Capitalism 3.0, p. 186). I'd be surprised if anyone could seriously dispute that social democratic/Keynesian economic models have been reduced or supplanted by pro-market based policies and reforms throughout the Western world in the late 20th century. We even see this in Scandinavian countries, the most robust social democracies, with inequality growing there. And with the end of communism as a global alternative it quickly became a global phenomenon, with radical pro-market reforms taking place in the former socialist bloc and even in China under the CPC in the late 1990s and 2000s.

I'm not referring to just economic journals but scholarship across the board. It is not too surprising that the term is more widely used by historians, anthropologists and others in the humanities and social sciences and not so much by mainstream economists, given that the term itself has its origins among critical scholars of pro-market reforms and most mainstream economists are unabashedly pro-capitalist. Regarding the Boas and Gans-Morse, it explicitly states that this term is the most widely used and has supplanted other terms with a similar meaning to describe the same phenomena:

"Neoliberalism is now 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."

The relevance of the Gerstle source is merely providing an example of more recent scholarship, from a prominent historian, which describes the term as legitimate and as evidence that the debate over this by the 2020s seems to be waining. I never said it trumps any source before this time.

I disagreee and believe that the coverage is adequate given it is a clear minority of cited sources from the 2010s which claim the term is nothing more than an ad hominem, a pejorative or oppose neoliberalism as a concept. WP:UNDUE would definitely apply here. Even a quick google search of "neoliberalism" in AI mode fails to mention anything about this dispute over the term or that it's just a pejorative. Nevertheless, I would not oppose including those sources in the article in the appropriate section on the debate over the term, such as the last several paragraphs of the Current usage sub-section of the Terminology section, although looking over it it is clear to me this debate is adequately covered. Regarding the lead, I would not object too much to including a brief comment about it being largely absent from economics journals, based on the Venugopal source, but would oppose a significant rewrite in this direction as the lead now reflects the consensus built over several years of debates on this very topic, which can be reviewed in the archives.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the historical shift toward market-oriented policies since the 1970s is well documented. However, several widely cited sources distinguish between the existence of that policy shift and the analytical usefulness of the term "neoliberalism". Those two things are separate matters.

Many of the sources currently used for the definition appear to come primarily from fields such as geography and sociology. In other disciplines, particularly political science, political economy, and economics, the concept is often discussed differently, with greater emphasis on its contested and heterogeneous character. Multiple widely cited sources discuss the conceptual problems with the term. Including this literature would not constitute undue weight but rather improve balance.

The proposed sources (e.g. Venugopal 2015; Dunn 2016) could be useful for expanding the discussion in the terminology section regarding the conceptual ambiguity and contested nature of the term. After this is done, it would be good if the article summarizes these critiques in the lead section. PJ Geest (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Including further critiques of the term in the lead would open the door to include those who argue that it is a legitimate term. That the term is seen by some as problematic is already represented in the lead. Adding more criticisms and rebuttals would only serve to start new edits conflicts and bloat the lead into a mess. This was a big problem several years ago and the article has been stable since consensus was eventually established on talk. Any inclusion of new material on this in the lead would have to be succinct and balanced, and perhaps should be discussed here prior to implementation. I did recently add some material from Venugopal to the lead per the other editors comment above and the sources he listed in the appropriate section. C.J. Griffin (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@C.J. Griffin I think improvements to the article can happen as long as they are in line with the guidelines. Maybe there are very reliable sources which are more reliable compared to current ones. In that case more reliable sources can be added to the lead or replace less reliable sources. But I agree it is better to improve things in a gradual way for the lead and not rewrite the lead completely without some discussion on the talk page. PJ Geest (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have nothing against improvements to the article, but I would vehemently oppose deleting so-called "less reliable" sources and corresponding material for a different set of sources that pivot the article in a different direction, similar to what happened over the last several years. The sourcing of the article is primarily academic or popular works by academics, including the lead, and the sources presented above in the OP I would not consider superior to what is already present now. That being said I have nothing against including some points here and there, or a "few tweaks in wording" as North8000 put it (I reiterate I added the Venugopal 2015 source myself, with tweaks in the wording). This is why I think, and I'm happy that you agree, that any proposed sweeping changes should definitely be brought here first to avoid edit conflicts. C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that, with a few glaring exceptions (such as the first sentence) the lead sort of does what you advocate. We should recognize that "Neoliberalism" is a word in the English language and not necessarily a distinct and defined topic. I think that in reality the term is a lens for viewing and naming a vague wide range of economic policies and approaches. I think that a few tweaks in wording that clarify this (shifting towards acknowledging that we are covering a term, not a distinct defined topic) would help much. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The current lead notes that the term has multiple competing definitions, but it does not summarize the main categories of definitions identified in the literature. For example, neoliberalism as a political ideology, a policy program, a form of governance, a label for particular policy regimes in specific historical contexts, or other main categories. PJ Geest (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

No disagreement there. My answer limited to / only in the context of the concern expressed in the OP. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would not oppose including material that elaborates on these categories in the lead. C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

To response to C.J. Griffin's points:

"The notion that capitalism has changed since the 1970s is hardly controversial (See Capitalism 3.0, p. 186)." - I'd prefer a source that isn't clearly partisan.
"I'd be surprised if anyone could seriously dispute that social democratic/Keynesian economic models have been reduced or supplanted by pro-market based policies and reforms throughout the Western world in the late 20th century." - are you making the argument that the direction of travel in all countries at all times has been away from "social democratic/Keynesian economic models" and towards "pro-market based policies and reforms"? Furthermore, "neoliberalism" is often conceptualised as something much more than free-market policies.
"We even see this in Scandinavian countries, the most robust social democracies, with inequality growing there." - Inequality = Neoliberalism?
"I'm not referring to just economic journals but scholarship across the board." - Your next sentence indicates why I consider economics journals important here.
"It is not too surprising that the term is more widely used by historians, anthropologists and others in the humanities and social sciences and not so much by mainstream economists, given that the term itself has its origins among critical scholars of pro-market reforms and most mainstream economists are unabashedly pro-capitalist." - Well, this is part of the problem. You appear to effectively be treating economics as an inferior field to history/anthropology/etc. Surely that a field closely connected to the subject does not use the term is a key fact? Without it this article is essentially a POVFORK.
I'm not sure how Gerstle 2022 is meant to indicate that "debate over this by the 2020s seems to be waning".

I agree with everything PJ Geest says. I am willing to settle with minor changes to the article but believe the article must contain information about the term's unpopularity in economics. I think C.J. Griffin's edit is a good start but I don't like the implicit connection between "free-market proponents" and "economics journals".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

"I'd prefer a source that isn't clearly partisan." Dani Rodrik seems pretty mainstream to me. And he's an economist!

"are you making the argument that the direction of travel in all countries at all times has been away from "social democratic/Keynesian economic models" and towards "pro-market based policies and reforms"?" Absolutely. Myriad sources point that the direction of the global economy, with few exceptions, has shifted away from socialism/social democracy as more countries embraced market-oriented reforms as a result of capitalist globalization following the end of the Cold War. Policies associated with the "Washington consensus" were strongly advocated by U.S.-backed institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

"Inequality = Neoliberalism?" Yes and no. Inequality existed before neoliberalism of course, but the implementation of neoliberal policies over the last several decades, including deregulation, privatization and especially austerity, is strongly associated with increased levels of inequality. The U.S. is a perfect example. Tent cities and mass homelessness mostly disappeared during the height of the Keynesian era, but rapidly reappeared during the Reagan era and beyond (Don Mitchell, 2020, p 63). Meanwhile on the flip side the wealth of the rich as increased exponentially.

"Furthermore, "neoliberalism" is often conceptualised as something much more than free-market policies." Agreed.

"Well, this is part of the problem. You appear to effectively be treating economics as an inferior field to history/anthropology/etc." Not necessarily. Like I stated above the term is limited in its use by most mainstream economists so that kind of limits their coverage in an article on the topic.

"I am willing to settle with minor changes to the article but believe the article must contain information about the term's unpopularity in economics. I think C.J. Griffin's edit is a good start but I don't like the implicit connection between "free-market proponents" and "economics journals"" On its face I have no real issue with any of this. But like I mentioned already any sweeping changes, especially regarding the removal of reliably sourced material or significant changes to the lead, should be discussed here first as this article as it exists now is based upon consensus reached here on the talk page over several years. The WP:ONUS is on those editors who are seeking such changes.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Dani Rodrik seems pretty mainstream to me. And he's an economist!" - I didn't say fringe, I said partisan.

"Absolutely. Myriad sources point that the direction of the global economy, with few exceptions, has shifted away from socialism/social democracy as more countries embraced market-oriented reforms as a result of capitalist globalization following the end of the Cold War. Policies associated with the "Washington consensus" were strongly advocated by U.S.-backed institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. " - This is an extremely strong claim, and I wonder if you can provide quantitative sources for it.

"Not necessarily. Like I stated above the term is limited in its use by most mainstream economists so that kind of limits their coverage in an article on the topic." - See my comment on this essentially making the article a POVFORK.

"any sweeping changes, especially regarding the removal of reliably sourced material" - I didn't say anything about removing material.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@C.J. Griffin, Can you explain why you think this work by an ethnographer/gender theorist ought to be cited for the sentence "According to multiple scholars the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have facilitated the rise of neoliberalism in the United States, the United Kingdom and around the world."? It's sandwiched between 3 works written by historians and published by 3 of the most prominent academic presses. I think WP:BESTSOURCES applies here, and I don't think this questionably neutral (and certainly lower-quality) cite is needed for that sentence. DiodotusNicator (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kristen Ghodsee is a scholar who specializes in post socialist Eastern Europe and has written multiple books on the subject, many published by academic publishers including Duke University Press. Given the notability of the author and that this is a published work and not a post or a blog on some website, I do not agree with your characterization of the book as a low quality source. C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was a low-quality source, I said it's a lower quality source than the cites it's sandwiched between. I notice you avoided commenting on the neutrality of the source - I suppose that's because the bias is obivious? DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Almost all sources have some kind of bias to one extent or another, and yes this source has a bias. Nevertheless, I don’t think this source should be removed as a “lower quality” just because it has a provocative title and was published by a popular publishing house instead of an academic one. The book was notable enough to have its own Wikipage, so there is that. Given the material begins with “According to multiple scholars” it seems appropriate to include 4 or more who are commenting on this topic.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that it is an anthropological work, by an ethnographer, focused on arguing that socialist societies produce better outcomes for women. Compared to works of economic history which specifically focus on the topic of neoliberalism, it is an objectively lower-quality source to be using for such a statement. To clarify, I'm not arguing the book is a low-quality source by itself, my point is that the cite is dubious next to the others - again, per WP:BESTSOURCES. Three is also "multiple scholars". DiodotusNicator (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ghodsee is well positioned to be a source on this material. In fact, considering she lived in Eastern Europe for a time and witnessed some of these changes firsthand and interviewed people who lived through them, she is perhaps an even more qualified source on this. Much of what she writes about is the economics of post-state socialism and the impact it has had on the population of Eastern Europe and Russia, with a special emphasis on women. As an example, she co-authored “Taking Stock of Shock: Social Consequences of the 1989 Revolutions. (Oxford University Press, 2021) which looks at the social impact of the transition to neoliberal capitalism in post-socialist societies. Not only that, but the crux of the source in question is economic, hence the subtitle “And Other Arguments for Economic Independence” . C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

In fact, considering she lived in Eastern Europe for a time and witnessed some of these changes firsthand and interviewed people who lived through them, she is perhaps an even more qualified source on this.

I'm confused by this reply, especially this bit. We are discussing the sentence "According to multiple scholars the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have facilitated the rise of neoliberalism in the United States, the United Kingdom and around the world."

If the source was being cited to make claims regarding the specific topics you mention, there would be no issue. It's being cited for something else though. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was making the case that Ghodsee is more than qualified to be used as a source on the economics of neoliberalism and its consequences, in response to your comment “Compared to works of economic history which specifically focus on the topic of neoliberalism, it is an objectively lower-quality source to be using for such a statement.” And the former USSR/Eastern Bloc countries were ground zero for the global transition to neoliberalism in the 1990s. C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not about Ghodsee's qualifications. The "Bookends to a Gentler Capitalism" article and two academic books focused entirely on the rise of neoliberalism are straightforwardly better sources to be citing for a statement on the rise of neoliberalism than "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism." If you don't agree, there's nothing more to discuss.

the global transition to neoliberalism in the 1990s.

Bluntly, this means nothing other than a signal of your POV, as I see that other editors have already attempted to explain to you. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’m not arguing that they aren’t better, my argument is that the Ghodsee source is still a reliable source that should not be arbitrarily deleted just because it isn’t a top tier source (i.e., one published by an academic institution). I included the quote to show it directly pertains to that last lead paragraph and because it drives the point home. That so called POV statement “the global transition to neoliberalism in the 1990s“ is on par with what the other three sources are saying. That global capitalism became a thing after the Cold War seems to be the consensus view to me, and hardly controversial.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply