Talk:Dipendra of Nepal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Re: Conspiracy Theories

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: was he really king? i don't think so. 218.101.69.207 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dipendra was King, right from the moment his father died. GoodDay 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King? 

message: --Greasysteve13 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did he kill them? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My Overhaul