Its not hard to know a good deal when you read their own writing. You should give that a try sometime before posturing as an authority
During the 1980s I subscribed to Commentary Magazine, the flagship of neoconservatism. Granted you may not have been born yet.
I don’t recall them ever posting a “classical neocon definition” but what would Podhoretz et al know compared to your favorite little Britannica article.
Commentary was a good deal different than Reagan’s favorite read, Human Events. Neocon writers ranged from a former president of the Young Socialist League to Cold War Democrats disgusted with the McGovern and Carter wing
What they had in common was an activist foreign policy with a liberal domestic agenda.
That Britannica article is way off base, it makes neocons sound almost like hard core conservatives.
How many neocons have lent support to or joined the Democrats in the last 15 years or so?
I see names that were affiliated with the GOP that now support the American left, and some were saboteurs before they left.
I read nearly every issue of The Weekly Standard, almost from the beginning until it closed. (Being a bookworm I was in a bookstore that carried it at least once a week.) I don't remember it being all that "liberal" on domestic issues, which is why I picked out the Britannica article when I needed a definition that could be posted online. YMMV, perhaps influenced by the vicious hatred of Neocons on this forum? In any case I'm not allowed to call myself Conservative, since the forum has redefined Conservatives as being required to be knee-jerk Isolationists.