FactsInHistory

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've had to revert your recent edits to Bill de Blasio because they appeared to violate our general policy of NPOV. Although everyone is encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing to this encyclopedia. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for subsections logically as he was doing both concurrently. Doing so only interrupts the natural chronological flow. The only thing it does is put undue weight to his activity with the Sandanistas (much like your initial edit of adding a controversy section). As the policy says " Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Also, the Sandanistas are not identified as Communist and putting that in a title is not NPOV. - Maximusveritas (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I plan to familiarize myself more with the rules and policies. I think because of my initial post, it may be coloring your perception of all my subsequent edits. I look forward to making meaningful contributions that benefit the community at large. I disagree with you that Sandinistas are not Communists. I know their political affiliation is not listed in their Wikipedia page, but it's fairly well-known. http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=249 To hide that fact would be misleading.FactsInHistory (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That refers to when the organization was starting out, not to when de Blasio was there. And this was definitely disputed at the time as Reagan was trying to call them communists in order to tie that fight to the larger Cold War, while Democrats rejected that. There is an actual Communist Party of Nicaragua as well as a Nicaraguan Socialist Party. Regardless, the bigger issue is breaking up the section for no good reason. You could title it a less contentious title and it would still be a problem. There's no point in us arguing any further though. We'll see what other editors on the article have to say about it since we generally go by consensus here. The guidelines can only say so much. It takes time to really get an understanding of what makes something encyclopedic and neutral. - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)