Talk:2009 attack on the Dutch royal family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Dudes, how is this wikipedia worthy?? It's a news item, not an article that should be featured on wikipedia. Maybe as a small subsection in 'Monarchy of the Netherlands', but jeez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.108.86 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If there was an assassination attempt on Barack Obama under similar circumstances that had the same consequences, there would almost definately be an article on it.

--TardisShell (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or think of the Reagan assassination attempt... Yintaɳ  20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's a significant historical event. Jerkov (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Dudes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.204.114 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

Is this a specific crime in Dutch Law? Ricardo Monteiro (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to NOS (dutch) the suspect is charged under a (normally rarely used) article 108 of the Criminal Law which deals with attacks on the head of state. Rpvdk (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, though technically an attack against the Crown is punishable under article 92 of the penal code. Article 108 is part of the criminal code, book two, title two "concerning felonies against the Royal dignity". Punishible with up to 15 years of imprisonment against anyone who attacks the Crown's consort, the presumed heir of the Crown or the Heir's consort. Punishable with imprisonment for 30 years or life if death follows or if deliberat. Occasionally it's also one of the few crimes in the Netherlands who's mere utterence is a felony in itself (thus without the usual prerequisite of actually having made preperations for the crime).Egishnugal (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Family - Royal family - royal family[edit]

As far as I can tell "Royal family" appears to be the correct English/American capitalization. Is that correct? The article currently carries different versions. Yintaɳ  09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at royal family, and then focus on the most widely known and likely most edited royal family, we see British Royal Family. But there does not seem to be a clear convention however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That difference is pretty easily explained though, just notice the difference between a god (as in any god) or God (specific). So I'm quite sure the first letter should be Capitalized, if we'd follow the dutch (and british) example the second letter should also be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.118.151 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, thanks. Yintaɳ  13:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Should it be 2009 attack on the Dutch Royal Family? –Howard the Duck 15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

One thing (speaking from my own curiosity) that I'd like to see brought out in this article is just how much in danger is the Dutch Royal family in danger from attacks like these? In other words, what is the general Dutch public opinion towards their Royal family? My impression is, as an outsider, that like practically every European country, in the Netherlands their Royals are widely viewed favorably if not treasured. (Well, at least those members who stay out of politics & controversy.) Even anti-monarchical groups simply want to remove them & replace the crown with a republican form of government -- not kill them off. So unless there is a dark underside to the Dutch psyche that is kept hidden from the rest of the world, is it safe to conclude that this is widely seen as the act of someone with personal or mental troubles? -- llywrch (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is opinionating and somewhat difficult to do in a Wikipedia article. Speaking personally however... Yes the royal family is generally loved and is almost a sort of "tradition" in its own. There are no indications that anyone but this person were involved of aware of this attack, and it is known the attacker has recently lost his job (he was working night shifts in "security"). He was also losing his apartment due to financial issues apparently, so that might have attributed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is difficult, but it can be done. (For example, did any of the Dutch media describe the attack as "shocking"? That would help to define the context in an NPOV way.) But the strategy I would recommend in this case is for Wikipedians fluent in Dutch to be alert to any verifiable sources which discuss this very point, then add it to the article. And until then, I feel TheDJ's response here is sufficient; anyone who wanted a sanity check on whether this act was truly bizarre & out of the ordinary has it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, there's no hardcore anti-monarch organisation in the Netherlands; atleast, none willing to go so far as assassination. It's most likely the work of the individual who perpetrated the attack, rather than a group; and could be totally unmotivated by anti-monarchism, such as when John Hinckley attempted to Assassinate Reagan in order to impress Jodie Foster. Anyway you look at it, it's speculation for the moment; so untill any further information comes forward on his motivation, we're in the dark as much as the article. 92.11.148.153 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the media (and Wikipedia's) treatment of this as an "attack" on the royal family is a misleading exaggeration. You can't kill people on top of a bus by driving a Suzuki Swift into its side. This was not a serious attempt to kill the queen, but just some angry lunatic wanting to commit suicide on live tv. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator's background/ethnicity[edit]

Not that I'm implying that race has anything to do with it, but I'm sure most Dutch are wondering his ethnicity. "Dutch national" is meaningless.

Does anyone have any information on his ethnic background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.194.221 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Dutch know. 38 year old white/blond male. As plain as they get. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, "Dutch national" isn't meaningless at all and his ethnic background is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant in this case. It doesn't appear to have been a racially motivated attack (and if it was, we'll never know now) so caucasian, black, red, green, purple.... doesn't matter. And no, he doesn't appear to have been a religious extremist either. Just your ordinary Dutch guy. Until yesterday, at least. Now he's probably the most hated dead man in the Netherlands. Yintaɳ  16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm an outsider, I would think the media and public reaction would be quite different if Tates had been a visible minority. But none of that is relevant to this article. Alexthepuffin (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggested some background info because it would improve the article. Whether you like it or not, race and ethnicity is significant to most of the readers. If he's white, then the article should say he's white if you want to dispel any rumors about him being an immigrant. Why not include the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.194.221 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't include it for the reasons I mentioned above. If you want to add it, go ahead. There have never been rumours that he was an immigrant, though. (Besides, immigrants can be white too.) Yintaɳ  05:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victims[edit]

Has a list of names of the victims been released yet? I admit this has nothing to do with the article, but I have friends I cant reach who live in that town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.223.108 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any names. So far the only available info appears to be "four men, two women". If you can read Dutch, keep an eye on www.apeldoorn.nl (the site of the town), they're updating a lot at the moment. I don't think it's usual to publish lists like that, though. Usually they'll just inform the relatives, if I'm not mistaken. But don't take my word for it, I could be wrong. Yintaɳ  19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No airbag[edit]

It was noted by Umberto Tan that there was no airbag in the car, which corroborates that he did not care about his own survival. Maybe worth mentioning at some point. Unfortunately I don't know if there's a text source, but it was mentioned on RTL Boulevard. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His car was 16 years old wasn't it ? Not all cars had airbags yet back then. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DJ, you've just proven yourself smarter than the entire RTL Boulevard team. Nice one! Yintaɳ  20:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speech by HM the Queen[edit]

My opinion is that the speech in Dutch should be quoted as these were the Queen's actual words, followed by the English translation thereof for the benefit of non-Dutch speaking readers. I appreciate that this goes against WP:USEENGLISH but feel that WP:IAR overrides in this case. As this may be controversial I'd like to see what the consensus is rather than being bold and adding it. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it's an accurate translation so I don't really see the point. Why not a link to the Dutch Wikipedia for those who want to read the original Dutch version? Yintaɳ  21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for the "convention" on this, but haven't been able to find anything definitive. However, in general we don't have foreign language in english articles unless really required. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'v asked for guidance on Wikipedia talk:Quotations —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Queenday[edit]

Will there be a part on the future of Queensday as a national holyday in the Netherlands and the overall impact on Dutch society? It is a very hot topic as of now since it is a very well celebrated holyday in which the entire country anually participates in with much pleasure. 86.89.146.118 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A significant majority of the Dutch people don't want to change the nature of Queen's Day, although there will probably be more security from now on. There already was when the Queen visited Amsterdam as part of the World War II remembrances on May 4 and 5. Jerkov (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro in bold[edit]

Standard Wikipedia guidelines state that the subject of the article should be in bold. Like in the article on Queen Beatrix:

Beatrix (Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard; born 31 January 1938) has been the Queen regnant of the Kingdom of the Netherlands since 30 April 1980, when her mother, Queen Juliana, abdicated.

Right now, the article lacks such a bold intro. Perhaps a rephrasing is in place, right now it doesn't work. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLDTITLE "However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't familiar with that guideline. Thanks for clearing that up. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gidonb changed it in the mean time. I'm not sure I like it. It reads unnatural in my opinion, nor is the current title as "accepted" as a namesake as something like the September 11 attacks for instance. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I like it somewhat better. In my personal experience, most articles begin that way. Eventhough guidelines say otherwise, it seems a bit off without a bold title. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The clarity of the article is increased by following our guideline. Would the title of the article change, then the text in bold should also be changed. gidonb (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern times"[edit]

First attack in modern times is rather vague. When was the last attack? Willem the Silent, of course, but have there been any more recent? Rmhermen (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last known attack was in the 1600's. Indeed, on William the Silent. But the last known "incident" was back in the early 1970's when some madman ran up the stairs at the defilé and began waving at the crouds together with the royal family... indeed this is the most serious thing that has happened in ages... 86.89.146.118 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last known serious attempt was actually in 1940 when German paratroopers briefed for an abduction attempt. The raid was aborted when their plane crashed on take-off. I've added this to the article but for some reason, it was deleted as "vandalism".139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because you did not give a "source" (where did you get the information from?)... If you add a source to your statement it can stay. 86.89.146.118 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The raid is mentioned in several sources. One is here: http://www.combatreform.com/dayofparatrooper.htm German soldiers were from the 22nd Airlanding Division; their Ju-52 transports apparently crashed on rough terrain or were shot down and the mission was scrubbed. There is tangential information (unsourced) already on WP here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Netherlands_(1939-1945) which mentions that "A German airborne landing at The Hague, intended to capture the Dutch royal family and the government, failed, and about 1,000 of the paratroopers and airlanding troops that had not been killed were captured and shipped to Britain." Interestingly, though, no source is given in that article, either.
The first source reads:
The operation fell into two parts, in the north, Von Sponeck's division was to seize the airfields at Valkenburg, Ockenburg and Ypenburg by parachute assault, then airland two Infantry regiments which were to enter the Dutch capital, seize the royal family, government and High Command in the hope of ending organized resistance or, at any rate disrupting defense plans South of Rotterdam, Student's division was to land by parachute at battalion or company strength to seize crossings over the major water obstacles that protected Fortress Holland's southern flank Simultaneously, an infantry regiment would airland at Waalhaven near Rotterdam to provide a reserve. Theirs were the tasks of holding open a secure route into Rotterdam for Von Kuechler's panzers, blocking any French relief force coming up from the south and preventing movement of Dutch reserves...
North of Rotterdam, Von Sponeck's 22nd Division was having a tough time...Junker 52s sank to their axles in the soft mud and stuck; further waves could find no space to land and turned back...At Ypenburg, 11 of 13 Junkers carrying the first assault company of the 65th Regiment were shot down In flames by anti-aircraft artillery, General von Sponeck was due to land here. Seeing the chaos below, he flew on to Ockenburg. But there the same grim picture unfolded- an airfield strewn with the wrecks of aircraft... Pilots put down wherever they could, on sand dunes, highways and small fields. The shock effect on the Dutch nervous system was considerable, and rumors spread like wildfire, the attackers had done damage, but not an infinite amount. The planned action inside The Hague never materialized, and the Division was forced onto the defensive...
FWIW.68.145.135.240 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources:
68.145.135.240 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it[edit]

How can this guy possibly have hoped to kill, or have a good chance of injuring, the royal family by driving his car into a open topped bus with the royal family on the top deck? Are the authorities sure the royal family was the target, rather than the crowd? Blue Dollars (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the police the last thing said by that guy to a police officer was that the Royal family was his target.

Unfortunatly we'll never truly find out because he died of his injuries.Jarkeld (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Tates ever say anything to anyone before the attack about wanting to be infamous, intending to target the Royals, or having a hatred for them? That's the only way we will ever know any more about his intention and motive. It seems certain he intended to drive his car into the bus, and probably realised that such a collision would not have killed anyone on board. However, had he driven into the bus, the attack would have received significantly more media coverage that it did as it was, which was likely part of his plan. Receiving attention from the media and general public was perhaps his main goal. He may have used the high profile of the Royals and the Queen's Day celebrations as a means to gain such international attention, rather than having any personal hatred against any member of the Royal Family. The man who shot Ronald Reagan had nothing against him personally, and had previously planned to shoot Jimmy Carter when he was president, but changed to Reagan when he took over the Presidency, as he knew that shooting the current President receives more media coverage than shooting an ex-President. Best name (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon(s)?[edit]

The article states that there were no explosives in the car. However, the article mentions nothing about whether or not he had any weapons on him or in the car. It is a relevant point: if no weapons were found, the article should state that. Best name (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if mentioning everything thas was not in the car (and wasn't even rumoured to be in the car) is a good idea. There was only a rumour about explosives, nothing else was ever mentioned. Yintaɳ  09:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are so many things that were not in the car... gidonb (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible explanation[edit]

Could the car driven by Karst Tates possibly have been a Toyota Prius? Shawn99999 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentiones the vehicle used in the attack as a Suzuki Swift of an older generation. Why would it be a Prius if it's known it isn't? What would that explain? And can't this be removed from this discusion page?
Probably somebody trying to be funny given the news about Toyotas with accelator pedal problems. The attack was shown on live TV so plenty of images can be found on the internet, old model Suzuki Swift is accurate. Rpvdk (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2009 attack on the Dutch royal family → 2009 attack on the Dutch Royal Family — Royal Family is spelt with capitals preceding. See British Royal Family, Norwegian Royal Family, Swedish Royal Family. It is generally spelt without caps to refer to "a royal family" but with caps to refer to "the [x] Royal Family". SpeakFree (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the nominator's reasoning. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nom makes a good case. Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2017 Page Move[edit]

I've moved this page back to the original capitalisation. The RM discussion above referenced British Royal Family, Norwegian Royal Family and Swedish Royal Family however these are now all redirects to 'X royal family'. If anyone objects to this, I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but it would be good if we could leave it here until the end of April 30, 2017 as it is referred to on the main page using the low-case version. GoldenRing (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 attack on the Dutch royal family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR[edit]

This old revision of the article shows it was originally in British English. Per WP:RETAIN, it should still be. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Photo of mortally injured man[edit]

I think there should be a warning at the start of the article. That photo is very explicit and could offend people. --190.215.230.204 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to remove it. "However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar, horrifying, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images Avocadohead (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent widespread vandalism of similar cars[edit]

After this attack there was a wave of vandalism directed at black Suzuki Swift cars in the Netherlands (the type used by the perpetrator). "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?" By Frans de Waal (middle of Chapter 6: Social Skills) Historian932 (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_royal_family&oldid=1221023234"