Talk:Vondelstraat riots

Tank

Hi anonymouse editor, I don't doubt you are correct about it not being a tank, but the source does say it was a tank used. Therefore you need to back your claim with a new citation in the article. Help:Editing will explain if you don't know how and/or I can assist. I know it's annoying when you know the truth and the source says otherwise, but imagine what would happen if everyone added their truth to wikipedia. Mujinga (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have provided citations as part of my edit. I have provided documentation of the specific vehicle type. I have provided the name of unit the crew served under (41st armoured engineering battalion). I have explained the linguistic confusion between the Dutch term "genietank" (armoured engineering vehicle) and the word "tank" (armoured combat vehicle with a large calibre gun designed to engage other armoured vehicles, fortified positions, or infantry). They are not tanks, they are armoured engineering vehicles. 194.13.133.3 (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi various IP addresses and Weirdly Spherical Lump of Coal, I'm assuming you are all one person editing here and at Squatting in the Netherlands. Look, we need a source for what you are saying to link a specific military vehicle to the riots, you can't prove it by inference - that's not how an encylopedia works. I'm trying to think of a compromise here, can we say that it's a military vehicle and leave it at that? A tank is a military vehicle so we are sticking to the current source, if you want to be more specific you'll have to provide a citation which says the 41st armoured engineering battalion used X at Vondelstraat. Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am a separate person from the anonymous editor. I noticed the inconsistency between the Squatting in the Netherlands page and this one, and after looking at the sources the anonymous editor provided I agreed that the vehicle pictured in the video was not a tank, since it was equipped with a metal blade like a bulldozer. I lack the knowledge to identify it as a more specific model of vehicle, which is why I only edited the Squatting in the Netherlands page to say “armored engineering vehicle”. I also don’t have the expertise to either back up or dispute the anonymous editor’s points on the model, but I agree that the vehicle in the video meets the definition of an armored engineering vehicle. Since the video was indeed reported and can be cited as a primary source, I don’t think it is proof by inference, just evidence based on a visual source rather than a written one. Weirdly Spherical Lump of Coal (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Which video do you mean please? And what definition of armoured engineering vehicle? Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

In the listed source Andere Tijden (NPO, 3 March 2000, timestamp 16:34), Major Tom van Erp specifically states that he mustered "genietanks," which translates into English as "armoured engineering vehicles." To call them "military vehicles" would be unnecessarily ambiguous. Let's call them what they are: armoured engineering vehicles. ~2025-32544-87 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you point me towards the definition please? Also don't delete sources. The picture caption at wikicommons says it's a Mobiele Eenheid vehicle, so you might want to change that?

In contrast, the edit over at Squatting in the Netherlands is fine by me. Mujinga (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The source is an interview with Major Tom van Erp for the television programme Andere Tijden (3 March 2000, timestamp 16:34, accessible at https://anderetijden.nl/aflevering/672/De-Vondelstraat, which I had listed as part of my edit). His precise words are "ik kreeg alleen de opdracht 's nachts om zo snel mogelijk genietanks, waarvan we er een hier op de achtergrond hebben staan, naar Crailo te transporteren." Translation: "At night I was given the task to deploy armoured engineering vehicles, of which there is one behind me, to Crailo as quickly as possible."

A tank is "an armoured vehicle with a large calibre gun designed to destroy other armoured vehicles, fortified positions, or infantry."

An armoured engineering vehicle is "a heavily armored, tracked or wheeled vehicle equipped with engineering tools and equipment to carry out construction, demolition, repair, recovery, and obstacle-clearing tasks under combat conditions."

The vehicle in question is the Pionierpanzer 1 which does not have a main armament, but is equipped with engineering tools (a dozer blade and a crane). Its battlefield role is performing engineering tasks. It is not a tank, because it is not designed to engage armoured vehicles, fortified positions, or infantry.

"Mobiele Eenheid" is the name of the riot control branch of the Dutch police force. At Vondelstraat, the ME used M113 armoured personnel carriers (painted blue) which is what the text under the linked photograph refers to. As part of the effort, the ME called on the assistance of the 41st Armoured Engineering Battalion (Royal Dutch Army) stationed at Oirschot, where Major Tom van Erp was a commanding officer. They supplied the armoured engineering vehicles in question.

News outlets at the time referred to them as "tanks," but that is due to ignorance. By the account of Major Tom van Erp, the commanding officer that day, they were armoured engineering vehicles.

I have supplied you with the relevant sources, I have provided you with documentation, I have given you the relevant definitions, and I have explained to you why this error arose in the first place. The police used armoured engineering vehicles; they did not use tanks. ~2025-32635-55 (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I see i will have to speak more plainly. You need to back what you are saying with sources rather than telling how it is according to you. As before, please do not delete sources, please provide better ones. Hopping between accounts gives you less legitimacy. Mujinga (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I gave you a source: the first hand testimony of the commanding officer and driver of the actual vehicle. ~2025-33133-90 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I will escalate if necessary. ~2025-32635-55 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Submitted to third opinion DoveDuckDog (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: Technical decline: there are clearly more than two editors actively involved in this dispute. 3O is generally for requesting a third opinion. If the multiple editors involved in this discussion cannot reach a consensus on how to proceed, anyone is welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Addresses used so far by the person or persons wanting to add specific vehicle information Mujinga (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• ~2025-32544-87
• Weirdly Spherical Lump of Coal
• 194.13.133.3
• 2001:1c08:289:9200:243f:fe46:7c55:ce07
• 2a09:5e41:725:680:88e4:60aa:bf88:ba1b
• 2001:6c8:ff04:bf33:5d05:bbcc:d2df:e26c
• 2001:6c8:ff05:2a37:e507:d6cd:6232:38ed
• 2001:6c8:feb0:d4b3:138:7ad0:a88d:409e
• ~2025-32635-55

Moving forwards

~2025-32635-55p lease stop removing referenced information. You don't seem to understand how wikipedia works and unfortunately you do not want to learn. If you want to put armoured engineering vehicle instead of tank, go ahead and do it, but pbe aware in your recent edits you are repeatedly removing references which is not cool. Further, you are confusing original research with citations, which need to be in the text. Mujinga (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have amended the text in a way that preserves all the original sources, and includes the quotation by Major Tom van Erp to justify the use of the term "armoured engineering vehicle." Original research plays no role. Are you satisfied with these changes, or is there anything you would like me to change? ~2025-33681-50 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)