Talk:Norodom Monineath

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Norodom Monineath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070709041307/http://www.kambodscha-botschaft.de:80/king.html to http://www.kambodscha-botschaft.de/king.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This blurb rests on two citations from a single book, written by an Amerikkkan millionaire from Phoenix...or is it Manhattan? Anyway, if the section is to be kept defamatory by order of (?), then there should at least be more and higher quality references to bolster these exceptional claims. 76.69.87.99 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not defamatory nor exceptional. They would only be "defamatory" and "exceptional" if the article claimed that these allegations were true. As it stands, the article does not claim they were true. It simply records allegations which attracted a attention, without claiming that they were true or false: it is neutral. Such neutral recording of information (in this case, information about allegations) is relevant in all biographies of public personalities in a neutral encyclopedia, and no article should be written as hagiography. It should merely neutrally record and note relevant information, which indeed the article does. The fact that you chose to use such big and dramatic words about neutral recordings of allegations does not speak in favor of neutrality, which must always be guarded. The article state, for example: "They claimed that she had advised Sihanouk to introduce the unpopular state casino, which was at the time viewed as a symbol of national decadence,[6] and alleged that she, her mother Madame Pomme and her brother Oum Manorine contributed to corruption by promoting proteges to lucrative offices". Now, to any person with neutrality as their ideal, this is as neutrally written as it can get: it does not claim that she promoted proteges to lucratice offices; it notes that her oponents claimed that she does. If it said "She promoted proteges to lucratice offices", then if would indeed be "defamatory" and "exceptional"; it would be slander and an insult. But the article does not claim that, it merely notes that she was accused of doing this, which is hardly the same thing as actually having done this, particulary as the accusation comes from her enemies and are obviously a part of a smear campaign, which is highly relevant to mention. Now, either this is an language issue; or you do not understand the neutrality principle; or your description of it is consciously incorrect.--Aciram (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you actually learn what POV means on here. For that matter, you verbose putz, you might also check out "weasel words". I mean, you sure are adept at employing them! 76.69.87.99 (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "1955-1970"