This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
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
"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)
Metropolitan90, 15 years later... the tcm.ie website is no longer there, and it is now irishexaminer.com. A search for Dipendra lists some articles, but I did not find mention of the legend. - JayTalk 09:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a New York Times article that said the same thing: "After his early education in Katmandu, Dipendra, like his father, went to school at Eton in Britain. There, he was reportedly excused from chapel when he turned 18. According to Nepalese tradition, the prince in effect became a god on his birthday, and he could not be seen worshiping another." As this was an Associated Press article, I wouldn't be surprised if the since-lost Irish Examiner article was drawn from the same source. --Metropolitan90(talk) 19:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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))[reply]
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.
The conspiracy theories have no basis in fact. Unlike the assassination of Kennedy, for which there is evidence to support the various conspiracy theories, there is no evidence that the logical and obvious explanation for this massacre is not correct. The conspiracy theories belong, at best, to a separate chapter, not in the introduction.101.98.175.68 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
I don't think that anyone actually believes that Dipendra was not behind the massacre. He carried the weapons, he fired them, he was seen by many people, he shot himself. What more evidence is required?101.98.175.68 (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
It was an assault rifle, not a machine gun EamonnPKeane 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
It sure looks like Wikipedia just flat out made this "fact" up. This isn't claimed in any of the sources currently in the article (it MIGHT be in the "permanent dead link" but I doubt it, that's a random contemporary news article anyway). It should be cited (to a good, strong source) or removed, and all of the related articles updated as well so that Wikipedia isn't just inventing some phantom kingship. I find the idea that anybody considered Dipendra king, or he was coronated or given any official sanction while in the hospital, highly unlikely, and even if he was, that needs to be sourced. SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See this BBC news report from 2001: "Under the constitution, the privy council has named Crown Prince Dipendra king, but he remains in a coma in hospital after turning the gun on himself." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AzureCitizen, thanks for digging up that link. I've updated the current link in the article. That said - do we have any non-contemporary sources on this? It's a single sentence in passing. Every later source I've checked still refers to him as "Crown Prince Dipendra". Even if the council made that decision, it's not clear that anything actually came of it. I doubt the current government of Nepal wants to opine on the matter, being a republic. None of the sources in Google Books search seemed to claim Diepndra was king. It's quite a claim to rest on a passing line in a single news article IMO, for all that I recognize sourcing is a bit spotty in general for Nepalese topics... SnowFire (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the article again, then saw your edit here. Yep, it's a single BBC article, although the BBC is a good strong source. My mind isn't locked down on this, and I might do some further digging to see what I find. Let me ask you this first though: You do not doubt that the privy council actually named him King, correct? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another BBC report four days later: "...said the gunman had been the late king's son, the then Crown Prince Dipendra, who was briefly monarch as he lay in a coma with severe bullet wounds. He died on Monday."
ACNN article six days later: "He fell into a coma, but was named king as the natural successor to his father -- despite being the prime suspect in the killings."
AWashington Post article from the day of Dipendra's death: "The council confirmed that King Dipendra, the former crown prince whom officials privately blame for shooting his parents – the king and queen – and other members of the family before turning a gun on himself Friday, had died early Monday. ...A funeral for the late King Dipendra was expected later in the day."
It's crazy stuff (by western standards of government), but it looks like he really was king for three days, probably the shortest reign ever in Nepal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I do agree that the privy council named him king, but I guess my point is that even something like this isn't always sufficient to actually say someone was king. I'm sure some council named Edgar Ætheling king after the Battle of Hastings, but for all intents and purposes he wasn't actually king, although thankfully we have extensive English language sources on that matter. Someone claiming Birendra wasn't the king would see an absolute mountain of sources that disagree; Diependra still has a scratchy record on this, just some news articles. I think that at the very least, he should be introduced and referred to as Crown Prince throughout the article, as that's what sources usually refer to him as, even the sources that say he was named king.
I also think that we should be parsimonious about sticking to the source's phrasing and am not really a fan of the new lede - the BBC article just says "Under the constitution, the privy council has named Crown Prince Dipendra king." Nothing about being required to do so. Seems equally plausible to read that as "the constitution gives the privy council the right to name a new king after the previous king dies" and they picked Dipendra for whatever reason (keeping to the official line at the time about the deaths being due to accidental automatic weapon fire?).
That said, thanks for looking into this! SnowFire (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a surreal and unusual situation, isn't it? I'll remove the words "was required to" so that we stay faithful to the source. I have a law background (J.D., practice, etc), so my guess is that the Nepalese constitution probably just says that the first born son of the king becomes the new king immediately upon the death of the old king, without any disqualifiers or provisos about rampages with an assault rifle. Embarrassing as it was, I think they were forced to follow their constitution. You could certainly be right too in your observation that towing an official line about the deaths being accidental might have been very important politically for the first 72 hours, then an immense sense of relief when he naturally expired. Suppose he had recovered instead -- technically, Nepal has treason laws with regard to publicly speaking out against the monarch. With regard to whether he's called "King" or "Crown Prince" or "former Crown Prince" in the rest of the article, I have a simpler solution: He can just be referred to as "Dipendra". Sound good? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer, eh? Matters of royal succession are truly areas where there is a government of men, not of laws. Frustrating! :) SnowFire (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
