I had a look at the two Wikipedia pages. I usually also like Wikipedia: since everything is scrutinized by both camps, it's difficult to lie and everything needs to be sourced.
But I noticed something surprising at the beginning of the page. The two pages start with a "Political philosophy" section (which is a very good idea). But for Clinton you get to read at length what SHE says about her political philosophy, while for Trump you only get to read what OTHERS (almost exclusively opponents!) say about it. It's not like no-one noticed -- the title are actually "AS DESCRIBED BY HERSELF" for Clinton, and "AS DESCRIBED BY OTHERS" for Trump!
And now, we get unsuspecting TimDerTurm reading that "Columnist Walter Shapiro and political commentator Jonathan Chait describe Trump as authoritarian.", and reporting it in the forum. He might have read "Columnist X and political commentator Y describe Clinton as military interventionist." if the two pages were constructed in the same way. But he did not because for Clinton he only got to read what she herself says about herself!
That shows the limits of Wikipedia alleged neutrality.
@JacquesD #41 read the summary: "... Trump has described his political positions in various ways over time ..."
i think its just a cosmetic thing to have something in the summary.
@Frapator #40 agree. Trump will be no c-alternative. He will just use the system to make things simpler for his corporations: build streets with them, lower taxes for them and remove environmental regulations for them.
You're not making sense. The summary doesn't contain any description of Trump's general political stance -- it just suggests he has none, which is ridiculous. Nor does the page on Clinton contain a page-long description of her general stance by opponents as Trump's page does. If you can't see the asymmetry even after I have shown it to you, then you are blinded by your bias.
@JaquesD If Trump gives no philosophy of his own (correct me if im wrong, any quotes?), what do you expect Wikipedia to write? Someone saying this today and that tomorrow does not fit Wikipedias relevance standards. They always react like this, i had this a few times in other lemmas i worked on in the wikipedia. The standard reaction is 'well, lets wait until there is something clear.'
If Trump publishes a written definition of his political philosophy (or eg. holds a keynote address about it) and gives the impression that this has been his political POV since long, that it is now and that it will probably still be in a while, then dude, be sure, it is in the wikipedia tomorrow. Wikipedia needs relevant sources, thats one of their rules as encyclopedia.
Regarding the Clinton page and what other people say about her philosophy, you are right - if you have relevant sources. But also consider: Wikipedia is more interested in what Clinton/Trump say about her/his political philosophy THEMSELF. Only if nothing of relevance has been sayed, like probably in the Trump case (again, correct me if im wrong), quotes by others are used. Also, if someone, eg. Trump, tells illogical things, it is also 'enriched' with quotes by others which talk about these inconsistencies. Thats Wikipedia. You will see that this is also done in the Clinton article.
Without having checked it, im sure, that in the beginning the headers "as seen by others" and "as seen by herself" didnt exist. These headers were added when the Trump people (correctly) protested. But again, its Trumps fault and not Wikipedias. He is not specific about his goals. BTW a key attribute of a populist.
No nation deserves a president like Trump but he is touching some bad developments in US-politics e.g. corruption among the political establishment, military operations leading to total chaos (Irak, Afghanistan, Lybia etc). It´s obvious that the US all the time is looking for total domination on this globe for their own interests. It is time for a change and new balance world wide.
SamuelCaplan #39
I never would have guessed it, but I think that's exactly how people in the U.S. feel about NAFTA, that it was good for big business but hurt working people.
I'm affraid no clear leader leads to 3rd world war.
hahahahah Frapator haaaaaaaahahahhahaah
