Talk:Dipendra of Nepal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
"It is widely believed that Dipendra assassinated family members because of anger over a marriage dispute, which is a fake story."
There is no evidence that it is a fake story. The reference is just an opinion piece, whereas, there is "wide belief" that Dipendra assassinated his family members.
[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)
- Some eyewitness accounts cited by the BBC seem to indicate he used several different weapons [2]. But those are just eyewitness accounts.
- That's part of the problem here. Reliable sources are hard to come by, because the official gov't account was intentionally vague (it was obviously an embarrassment as well as a tragedy, so you can't much blame them for keeping mostly mum beyond the most basic facts). There are lots of eyewitness accounts, and then of course speculation from those with an ax to grind. --Jaysweet 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It was an assault rifle, not a machine gun EamonnPKeane 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My Overhaul
Did a big overhaul on this article. Namely:
- Cleaned up intro and moved conspiracy-related innuendo from there down to Conspiracy Theories section
- Added numerous {fact} tags (though more are needed) for allegations that really really need a source
- Split conspiracy theories off to a separate section to avoid confusing the reader as to what is "believed by the Nepali people" and what is the official account.
- A little bit of rearrangement to try and present a balanced and coherent POV in regards to the theories.
What still needs done:
- I have zilch for sources. Does anyone have maybe some Nepalese sources to try and verify some of this stuff?
- As a result, I resorted to weasel words in a few cases ("Many believe," etc.) because I just don't know who is alleging what. I tried to retain the spirit of the original article, but it was impossible to do that without using some weasel words. That needs fixed once we have sources.
--13.12.254.82 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- D'oh, I wasn't signed in. Well, I was 13.12.254.82, so I'll be responding as that now :D --Jaysweet 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Class, C Class
Maybe this is blatantly obvious to anyone else, but what are these classes about? I think this requires explanations or a link to explanations Refdoc 09:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I found a link explaining it, but unfortunately I am due to go to a meeting right now so I can't distill it down. Anyway, this is copyrighted text, so don't cut-and-paste, but it could be paraphrased:
The modified Rolls of Succession contained three schedules: "A" class Ranas were the direct, legitimate offspring of Ranas, who could dine with any high-caste Chhetri family; "B" class Ranas usually were born of second wives and could take part in all forms of social interaction with high-caste Chhetris except the sharing of boiled rice; and "C" class Ranas were the offspring of wives and concubines of lower status with whom interdining was forbidden. The "A" class Ranas could fill the highest positions in the army or civil administration, but "B" or "C" class Ranas at that time could only reach the level of colonels in the army and could never become prime ministers.
