Talk:Dipendra of Nepal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Dipendra as Crown Prince
the first line is wrong it says he was crown prince from 1 to 4 June 01, but he was king for those days, and crown prince until the big day according to the timeline at the bottom of the page, he was crown prince from 1972
[edit] Godhood and Education
Line added by 62.253.247.66 moved from article :
"School legend holds that he was excused compulsory chapel after his 18th birthday, on the grounds that he then became a god himself."
- Can you provide source of this information ? Jay 07:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's mentioned in an article from the Irish Examiner: "At Eton, he was reportedly excused from chapel when he turned 18. According to Nepali tradition, the prince effectively became a god on his birthday and he could not be seen worshipping another." [1] --Metropolitan90 July 6, 2005 06:33 (UTC)
[edit] A name wrong
Just out of interrest I noticed that a name in the wounded list was completly wrong, there was no "Ketaki Singh" present, but rather "Princess Ketaki Chester" was.
[edit] Re: Conspiracy Theories
I think there should be more information on the supposed Conspiracy theories
I think there are no 'supposed' conspiracy theories when it comes to this case which I feel it to be very biased. It seems to me like this tragedy was taken at face value and very nicely swept under the rug never again to rear its ugly head to expose what really happened. It is very clear that King Gyanendra is suppressing the truth and that being Dipendra did NOT shoot his family. The survivor's accounts cannot be entirely taken to be the gospel truth considering the circumstances. Think about it.
- If you have something to cite, then post it. Just remember the no original research policy. --(Mingus ah um 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Regardless of who did it...the theory of Gyanendra doing it emerged on the streets. It is just talk, nothing else. Gyanendra became king, and therefore he was suspect. The people who claim that Gyanendra was responsible forget the fact that his wife damn near died on that day. They also forget that fact that this so-called plan could have easily failed.
My point...Dipendra allegedly committed the massacre...more than likely...but no absolute proof. The idea that Gyanendra did it is even less likely.
[edit] POV
This article reads like a press release from the royal family. I don't think anybody actually believes that Dipendra was behind the massacre. The litany of [by no means far-fetched] conspiracy theories needs to be included here. --AStanhope 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Who else? He killed them didn't he? Or are you hinting at some conspiracy theory that it's a government ploy or something?
- Astanhope: I would be interested to see a link to an article written by any major news source which has questioned Dipendra's role in the massacre. English citations would be prefered (as this is the English wiki page), but any article can be translated. --(Mingus ah um 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC))
[edit] King?
was he really king? i don't think so. 218.101.69.207 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Dipendra was King, right from the moment his father died. GoodDay 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How did he kill them?
--Greasysteve13 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
With a machine gun that fires several bullets at a time.
[edit] Opening Paragraph
The second sentence of the opening paragraph is very unclear:
"Dipendra was also mortally wounded, by a handgun shot to the left side of his skull; however he was right handed, according to the maid of the queen's mother."
It says "however...", but it doesn't show this in opposition to any other statement. I assume it is trying to refute claims that the gunshot wound was self-inflicted. If that's the case, say so. Otherwise, why is it here? (And how about some sources??)
Also, from what I've read (I'm by no means an expert, just casual visitor to this page) it sounded like he was using some sort of machine gun in the attack. This could conflict with the self-inflicted handgun wound, but then again it's possible he had a sidearm in addition to the machine gun.
On another note, this entire article is very short on sources.
--Slaunius 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
