This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm not sure this image is of the Jordaan neighbourhood. Particularly the church like building in the back makes me think of other locations. I'll try to bike around a bit and find the exact location, but if anyone else knows, that'd be great. -- User:Krator ( t c) 09:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Further thinking about this subject made me ponder about both the Westertoren (+canal) and the Montelbaanstoren (with Zuiderkerk in the background, + canal) as images, because there'll be a canal on there. Thoughts? -- User:Krator ( t c) 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can use some of my pictures in the article. They are a good representation of what the city is like. Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was born an raised in this city, so if you have any questions about Amsterdam, don't hesitate to ask. It's true we don't have a prominent landmark in Amsterdam. Most famous are it's canals as you have mentioned above. The closest thing we have to a famous landmark is the Paleis op de Dam. The Westerkerk would also do. But even those to monuments are not well known abroad. You could best use a photograph of one of the four major canals (Herengracht, Keizersgracht, Prinsengracht and Singel). If you need a good photograph of the Paleis op de Dam, just ask me. I'll make one for you in the next couple of weeks.
I saw pages of many cities like Zürich,Bergen,Sydney or NY and the all have a collage of many pictures!that's really nice!does anybody know how to do this because it's really beautiful and it would be wonderful to have many pictures on the same time!please if somebody can do that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.62.221 ( talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
--Please check the history of the canal belt as written in this section. The Heren-, Keizers-, and Prinsengrachts were all built at the same time in a counter-clockwise direction (with a long pause after completing about 1/3 of the semi-circle), and so do not represent city boundaries at different times. The canal within these three, the Singel, was, however, the previous boundary before the canal belt was constructed. See, for example, Geert Mak's history of Amsterdam.
User:Krator, you have done some good work. I have some comments that might help to further improve the article. Althought the fragment in the lead about the canals is based on the Encyclopædia Britannica, I think it is not neutral. Words like "famous" should be omitted in an encyclopedic text and the comparison with Venice should be sourced to whom compared the two cities. – Ilse @ 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a little section about Amsterdam being ranked #1 as having the most nationalities in both the Netherlands, as well as in the world. I thought a small section in the lead text was appropiate. I also added a (little) larger section about this subject in the section of 'Demography'. -- Robster1983 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I copied Amsterdam's entry from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 edition to /Britannica for convenience. It mostly describes specific places, but that might be useful anyway. -- User:Krator ( t c) 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the section changes I made recently were reverted, so I'll display my reasons here before reverting again:
Removal of the international section: This section will never be able to be more than a small stub section, unless Amsterdam builds four more airports and becomes a major hub in space transportation (no). Small stub sections clutter up the table of contents and take unneeded white space for headers etc.
Section naming: Better (and nicer) titles than interregional and local can probably be found - maybe two synonyms for "Inside the city" and "From/to the city". Some Brit must have thought up words for that. Note that regional is a bad title because the meaning differs from National, which the bulk of the section describes (freeways, railways). Regional refers to transportation within the Amsterdam region, which part of the local section describes (bus and metro are regional, and the tram to Amstelveen).
Order of sections: The interregional section was placed before the local section, because the latter uses information from the former, notably the importance of the central station and the explanation on freeway connections. An order from large scale to small scale seems logical too for Wikipedia readers - "how do I get to Amsterdam" and then "how do I get somewhere within Amsterdam". Only a small percentage (those living in Amsterdam) will be interested in the reverse order - "how do I get out of Amsterdam" and then "how do I get somewhere else".
-- User:Krator ( t c) 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Done - comments? - I just removed all subsections, made transportation in Amsterdam, and changed the pictures here so that the two aren't 100% the same. The only difference in information is currently the sections and one paragraph about the history of the Amsterdam metro -- User:Krator ( t c) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I added "large" to the opening sentence: "Amsterdam is one of the most bicycle-friendly large cities in the world." Most - if not all - dutch cities have a markedly better (safer) bicycle infrastructure than Amsterdam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.152.115 ( talk) 14:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some other reasons I think the section should be deleted:
But the main important reason for the deletion is that the paragraph is not summarizing anything section in the article. The canals are already mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. If any paragraph like this is included in the article, it should be in the geography section. – Ilse @ 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Why all these different and misleading numbers? The urban area has a population of 1,021,870 inhabitants ... the urban area has a population of 1,354,000 inhabitants ... the metropolitan area has a population of 2,191,259 ... It's growing by the minute as we're reading?
Since the Mokum article indicates that it is primarily a nickname for Amsterdam, I recommend merging the information to this article. I can't see a real reason to keeping the info in a separate article. Dr. Cash 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal for merging. I have rewritten the article to reflect that Mokum is more than only the nickname of Amsterdam. – Ilse @ 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Mokum is possibly a Wikitionary candidate, but I'm not sure it is appropriate as a standalone Wikipedia article. Decent work has been done on it, but it still appears to be no more than a definition of the word. The nickname link in the Amsterdam article could be made to go to Wikitionary - though Wikitionary tends to have less information than a Wikipedia article. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 10:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Mokum on Wiktionary. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In the sentence "In any case, the seat of the government, parliament and supreme court of the Netherlands is [....]" (section: History, sub-section: Capital) I am tempted to replace government with administration. The foreign reader, steeped in Montesquieu etc., may look at the present sentence and note that government embraces parliament and judiciary. On the other hand, the average Dutch reader sees regering and parlement as two disjointed entities. Anybody with strong views to keep government? Iterator12n Talk 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I’m not so sure about weighing down the article with some theory from some university professor – and in the introduction of the article to boot. Besides, there are several points of view regarding globalism whatever. Anybody violently opposed to dropping “global city?” -- Iterator12n Talk 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
At the top of the article, I liked the Prinsengracht picture better than the one that there is now. In no way can de present picture be described as showing the “majesty” of the Amsterdam canals – while the Prinsengracht picture did. Thoughts before we get into an editing war? -- Iterator12n Talk 16:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Even though people put info boxes in the lead section the guideline: Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#Design_and_usage is that the boxes go in the main body or in the most appropriate section (which might in this case be Amsterdam#Government). There is the possibility of putting an infobox in the lead section "in the most compelling of cases" - and that, to my mind, might be when there are no appropriate images to use in the top right, or when the article is dealing with an abstract topic - or is part of a related series. There are a number of reasons why infoboxes are not encouraged in the lead section - part of which is that they can overrun into the section below. Also, not everyone has the contents box displayed, which can mean the box will further displace the main body. When editors are editing with the box showing, they may not take into account the impact of the box for those who don't display it. There are other reasons as well. General aesthetics, etc. We can have a discussion on which image may be best used in the lead section, and if that fails we could consider putting the infobox back up there. But bear in mind, that someone else may come along and move it back out again unless we provide a compelling enough reason! SilkTork * SilkyTalk 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the new symbols section. Neater and tighter and yet more inclusive with the flag as well. When there's a break out into a new article there is no need to have so much detail in the section that remains in the parent article, so it's appropriate to shorten the section in the parent article down to the essentials. I've been looking at the Transportation in Amsterdam article and wondering what can be done with that. At the moment it's about the same as the transportation section in the parent article. Any edits to the one should also be done to the other, and that's duplicating work. It really needs to be a bigger, more detailed article - otherwise it's more work than it's worth to update two articles to end up saying the same thing in the same amount of space. I looked at the Amsterdam Metro to see if that could be merged in, but that's a decent sized and quite decent article which is better left to develop as a standalone - though elements of the metro article could be summarised in the Transportation article. There's very little on the tram system - other than a standalone article on Tram line 5, so something could be done on that. I'd rather see Transportation in Amsterdam developed rather than simply redirected back into the parent article - or left to wither on the vine. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"......743,027 inhabitants, which includes 177 different nationalities, making Amsterdam the most multicultural city in the world."
There's a conciderable difference between nationality and culture. When in a town persons of 177 different nationalities are living, this doesn't mean, that there are also 177 different cultures present. Often several neighbouring countries have the same kind of culture. From this point of view it's the most multi-national town, not the most multi-cultural. James Blond ( talk) 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
".....and is part of the conglomerate metropolitan area Randstad, with a population of 6,659,300 inhabitants."
wich is part of the Netherlands with 16 milion inhabitants,............. 6,5 bilion inhabitants. James Blond ( talk) 12:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"The city is known for its historic port, the Rijksmuseum, the red-light district (de Wallen), the liberal coffeeshops, and the canals"
What's so special about the red-light district? Isn't there one in many cities? Coffeshops in fact are soft-drugs shops. No packages of coffee available there. James Blond ( talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The references for the number of inhabitants in the different years doesn't work. Ref# 24, 26, 27 and 28. The links takes you to the main page of Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie not a specific page that lists the number of inhabitants. I've tried to find the pages that does list the numbers, but was not able. Maybe someone else is?
Ref 24: [9]
Santac ( talk) 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "liberal" as an addj. to coffeeshops should be removed. Although Amsterdam (as The Netherlands in general) is known for its liberal policies, these are not restricted to coffeeshops (and drugs) only. Or should we also state the "liberal red light district"? 145.7.182.14 ( talk) 10:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I read and then searched the article for elevation information, but didn't see it. Is it there? — EncMstr 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Joshua Hepi is so good looking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.104.17 ( talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an Off-the-Brochure Travel Guide from Peter Greenberg that may be useful to build out a travel section or an external resource.
Hi.. I noticed that this photo of mine has been removed from the article. I'm okay with that as the replacement photo is also quite good, but I do feel that it is a good photo (and so do others as it is a featured picture, now without a home. I do think a home could be found for it here somewhere. I'd place it in the Canals of Amsterdam article but as it is categorised by name, and I don't know exactly which canal it was that I took the photo from, I can't really include it there, so I'm asking for your assistance to place it appropriately, and edit the image detail to specify the canal, if you're able to identify it from the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Hague has the Netherlands government why isn't it the capital? 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the reason I put it on three different articles is so it would have more chance of being notised. Secondly, the capital article says that the capital is the center of government. The hague is that, not Amsterdam. Thirdly, Dutch law has nothing to do with the definiton of capital. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the constitution doesn't define capital. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So your sugesting that almost all the world's dictionaries are wrong on something they agree on? 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You havn't answered the qustion. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I made some major changes to the article since being a Amsterdammer myself and knowing a lot about the city. I created/changed/expanded the following parts: - Lead image - Other images - History (part WW2 - now) - Economy (addition) - Retail (addition) - Religion (change) - Culture (completely rewritten Art, created performing arts, nightlife, festivals) - Tourism (addition) - Transportation (small addition) - Education (small addition) I hope you like, what I have done. Massimo Catarinella ( talk)
Hello everyone, I rearranged parts of the article. I wrote a new part on Geography and combined it with Climate. I further placed the information that used to be under Geography under the new headline Cityscape and combined it with a new part on Architecture. I hope you like it! Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Is it not time to upgrade the article to a A-status?
Hi, I've been reviewing the article, and unfortunately, I am going to fail it. There are small issues with the tone, but there are whole sections that go without referencing, which is too big of a problem to put it on hold for. The article easily passes 3, 5, and 6, and it passes 4 as well. I sincerely hope that we can soon pass this as a good article. Some closer suggestions below. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The Economy section only has one reference, and there should really be more. For example, basic claims like "Though many small offices are still located on the old canals, companies are increasingly relocating outside the city centre." needs a citation, but there should be more there.
The whole of religion needs better referencing, and the same goes for culture. Some sections or subsections are well referenced, but others are severely lacking.
There may be some issues with original research as well, but lacking the references, I can't really judge that at the moment. For example, "Those nights in the Paradiso are popular with students." and other issues in the nightlife section. ( WP:OR) Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For example: "Amsterdam has a world-class symphony orchestra, the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, the home base of which is the Concertgebouw across the Van Baerlestraat from the Museum Square." sounds promotional, and the wording (Home base) could be more encyclopedic. This is the case in several places.
Other examples: 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Education, Sports (mainly copyediting), and History (for example "When demolitions reached the Nieuwmarkt riots (Nieuwmarktrellen) broke out. People rebelled against the city's government, because they had become furious of the demolitions they saw."). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the section named "canals". Maybe it's too detailed for this article, and part of it should be moved back into the "Canals of Amsterdam" main article. Currently, the article discusses only fragments of city planning, and the canals are part of that. So, what about renaming the section "city planning" and write some about that? Canals are the 17th century component of the city planning, and it would be possible to discuss Sarphati in the 19th century, the 20th century "Nota's ruimtelijke ordening" with their groeikernen, urbanisation and sub-urbanisation. User:Krator ( t c) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I renominated the article as a candidate for the good article position. Since its last nomination, the article has been greatly improved. The article has been expanded, cleaned up, its tone changed and it now contains twice as much as references. Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"After 1656, with the canals in the southern sector also already finished for some time, building in that sector too was started, although slowly".
My ambition is to improve the prose of the article. Accordingly, I reformulate many statements or whole paragraphs. Necessarily, I have to understand them in the first place, which is not the case here. Can anyone, perhaps the original editor, explain the meaning as precisely as possible? Specifically, I am wondering, what kind of building was started, while the sector was already finished.
Tomeasy
talk
11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Amsterdam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Citations
Overall copy and Wikipedia:MoS problems
Lead
History
Geography and climate
Cityscape and Architecture
Government
Economy
Demography
Transport
Education
Culture
Overall, this article is a starting point for what could be a great article. It is not yet ready for GA status and will require heavy copy editing, source citations, and an overhaul in the prose. Good luck! Best, Epicadam ( talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
weed is legal there many people make hash brownies or space cake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.76.60 ( talk) 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The image KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam. Thank you. – Ilse @ 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Royal Dutch Shell is not headquartered in Amsterdam but in The Hague and London, therfore I will remove this statement from the opening paragraph. Knijert ( talk) 11:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new section. Completely unsourced at the moment - sorry about that! I will start digging up some references. I think it's important we talk about housing, because Amsterdam is quite unlike other cities in this regard and it will cause many people problems; we would do a good thing to provide some information on this subject. Toby Douglass ( talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just rolled back two edits by 84.136.90.225 which were patent vandalism. CultureDrone ( talk) 11:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"The first known record of Amsterdam is 27 October 1275, when the inhabitants of a late 12th century fishing village" Is this a mistake? Does the record show the inhabitants had been there for a century, or should that read "13th century" or simply "the inhabitants of a fishing village". ? Rbakker99 ( talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The image RedLightDistrictAmsterdamTheNetherlands.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-light District. Thank you. -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Krator, re. yr recent edit of Amsterdam's history: I read the nu.nl article, Ons Amsterdam's September index doesn't show de Bont's article, anyway, from reading nu.nl it seems that de Bont comes to a conclusion rather than having primary evidence of settlement around 1000. Caution seems to be in order. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"De Wallen, also known as Walletjes or Rosse Buurt, is the largest and best-known red-light district in Amsterdam,"
So there are more than one such districts? How many, which ones, and who elected this one the best known? By the way, this item is part of the section about Culture. Wouldn't it fit more in a special section about Non-culture? After all a lot of things, undignant to humanity happen there. In most other places therefor these districts are treaten as an unevitable evil and not proudly presented as one of the city's main tourist attractions. They are known to be centres of criminality, such as women slavery. VKing ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are more of such districts. The Wallen is the largest of them and best know, but a couple of alleyways in another part of the city's center form the "Singelgebied" and a couple of streets and an canal (Ruysdaelkade) in an southern part (Pijp) of Amsterdam form another red-light district. The Wallen is one of the most visited tourist attractions in Amsterdam and world renowned, so yes, in is the best known one. Just take a look in a random travel guide. I agree with you that it shouldn't be in the culture section. Of course, the area has it troubles with criminal activity, human trafficking and exploitation of women, but overall it offers women a save and healthy environment to work in. They have their own union, access to public health organizations and they have a special alarm system to warn the police if necessary. So yes, we are proud of how we deal with this problem, unlike other countries were prostitutes are regularly killed, go missing, have HIV without knowing or are all a victim of human trafficking. We even get foreign governments coming to our country to look at how we deal with this issue. So, we will still proudly present it as a tourist attraction. Btw, a lot of women working in the Wallen-district are a prostitute on voluntary basis.-- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 15:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of the numbers in the discussion of the Holocaust and Amsterdam are not quite right. The number of survivors of the roughly 100,000 deported Dutch Jews indeed was about 5,000 but that is not the total number of survivors. About 30,000 Dutch Jews avoided deportation, usually by "onderduiken", of which about two thirds survived. However, this article is about Amsterdam, not about the Netherlands. More relevant is that before the war there were about 80.000 Jews living in Amsterdam of which about 20% survived. The ghetto suffered in particular. If there is no disagreement I will insert those numbers with a citation 169.232.156.183 ( talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I heard the bicycle infrastructure was mostly constructed in the 1980s? It would be illuminating to have more details on the history. -- Beland ( talk) 17:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm a little confused about this. The last line of the education section states, "Most secondary schools in Amsterdam offer a variety of different levels of education in the same school.[citation needed]".
I live in Amsterdama and know the statement is true, but I don't know what kind of citation is acceptable for this sort of thing. Nearly all schools in the Netherlands offer different levels of education in the same school, and that is implied in the wiki-entry on Education in the Netherlands. I'm starting to read the guidlines on it now, but was hoping I could get a quick answer to whether it is acceptable to use another wikipedia entry (for instance the
Education_in_the_Netherlands as a citation for this particular statement)?
Kantvelink (
talk)
00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It reads....
When I read it I get this garganchuan, splitting, headache. Could someone give a shot at fixing this one up?-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a box showing population growth, but it is entitled 'Demographic evolution of Amsterdam between 1300 and 2006', where it ought to be more appropriately entitled 'Population growth between...'
Demographics is a term usually describing to segments of populations. But, I can't figure out how to change it.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A little input on this please. Sister cities I am familiar with. Connecting cities is a new term to me, and I am not sure how the person sourced this.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The text lists Los Angeles as a sister city of Amsterdam, but neither the Wikipedia page nor the official page (lacity.org) of Los Angeles lists Amsterdam. I could not find an official source from the city of Amsterdam on the topic. I hear they are, or were, reevaluating their "sisterships". Also, the Wikipedia entry for Brasilia lists Amsterdam, but not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GilHamiltonTheArm ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The composite image in the infobox is only showing canals in the city center and flowers that could be photographed anywhere. Perhaps a more diverse image of characteristic sights in Amsterdam could be composed. Here is a first attempt:
Rubenescio ( talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It's fine with me if you change the lead image, as long as you leave the picture of the Keizersgracht in there (as you have done), since it is a FP. The current lead image is only temporary as I've been meaning to change it soon with more diverse images from Amsterdam. The weather isn't helping though, so I can't take the picture anytime soon. -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good reasoning. Ahhh Amsterdam School not Amsterdam School. I get it. I have a piece of lawnmower lodged in my brain. Putting sun in a Holland pic is like putting lava an Antarctica pic, ha ha. But, hey, it's Vondel. I have to agree. ING - makes good sense now. Non-touristic - true. Who wants a brochure pic on Wiki? I'm on board. Now, when you're done, maybe you could try Animal and do that one too. No birds, reptiles or fish. Just a squid, a jelly, two bugs and a tiger. Good work. Cheers!-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Vondelpark image was looking a little hazy. I retouched a version of it which you may like better. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Great lead image you've created. I'll try and reshoot the images later on, so that they will be of a better quality. -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea to make a plan for the pictures - I suggest to bring in a picture from the district around Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ - Passengers Terminal- new Public Library - Nemo Museum, maybe also the Central Station. This spot is beautiful, filled with both history (harbours, warves, warehouses, labourer-neighbourhood) and innovation (housing, music, library, technical museum). 213.46.208.49 ( talk)
Currently, the economy section has a picture of the Omval (Rembrandtoren etc.). I think it would be better to change this to a picture of the Zuidas, since it is now the most important economical centre of Amsterdam. I haven't found any good ones on Wikipedia, but I found a good one on Flickr that could be used (CC2.0, attribution / non-commercial). You can find it here. Cocytus Antenora ( talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The statements in the article section Economy: "Amsterdam is the financial and business capital of the Netherlands.[53] Amsterdam is currently one of the best European cities in which to locate an international business. It is ranked fifth in this category and is only surpassed by London, Paris, Frankfurt and Barcelona.[54]" can not be found in the sources. Source 53 is a PR-page of the Amsterdam City Council. Please correct who wrote it. 213.46.208.49 ( talk)
The entry on sport is relatively small and offers a narrow perspective - a few sportclubs are mentioned without clear relevance. Sport plays an important role in Amsterdam city life, measured in participants, and historically as part of the "zuilen-systeem. It is attractive for many people from the "mediene" -Amsterdam slang for "everything outside of Amsterdam"- and has two landmark buildings of architectonical importance. I propose to give sport a separate (kick-ass) section, or reorganize/rename the section "culture and entertainment" - suggestions ?
The section could start with some history (Olympics in 1928- first time women participated, first time Olympic flame was lighted, Olympic Stadium), something about the way the city supports sport, how many people are involved in Amsterdam sportclubs, and the division of clubs according to the Dutch "zuilen-systeem". and some int. famous Amsterdam sporters (Johann Cruijff -soccer; Bettine Vriesekoop - tabletennis; Marit van Eupen - rowing) A few important ocassionally held sport-events could be mentioned like: Champions Trophy Hockey (2001 2003)- World Cup Baseball (2005) - European Championship Gymnastics (Turnen in Dutch) - World Cup Squash (2004, 2009) - Davis Cup Tennis 2006 - World Cup Rowing (2007); and the sportclubs with international relevance, f.i. Ajax soccer, Amsterdam hockey, Nereus rowing. A piece about regular big tournaments and matches could close the entry: f.i. "Jumping Amsterdam" - hippic; "Amsterdam Marathon" - running; "Head of the River Amstel" - rowing; "Zesdaagse van Amsterdam" - indoor cycling; "Ben Bril Memorial" - boxing; Holland Beker Regatta - rowing. People events are: "WK Amsterdam" - football multiculti; "Dam tot Damloop" - athletics/running with over 30.000 participants - and iceskating everywhere as soon as there's ice on canals, rivers and lakes. A pic of happy skaters would be nice.
Were shall we put Sinterklaas ? a small part with a picture and some text. It's a very important Dutch cultural event that is celebrated in some other countries as well, but not that extensive. Each year Saint Nicholas lands mid November with a boat in Amsterdam, near the Sint Nicolaas Church, travelling from Spain and returning after his birthday on December 6. There is a large piece in en.Wikipedia on Sinterklaas, so that doesn't have to be doubled. 213.46.208.49 ( talk)
should it be mentioned in the small overview that there are plans by the municipality to get rid of at least most of the prostitution and sex shops to halt criminals? Mallerd ( talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When was Amsterdam liberated from the German Forces? 80.31.154.3 ( talk) 07:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to write a treatment about Wally Van Hall. A dutch man who saved many thousands of lives during the hunger period in Holland of 1944-1945 . He was shot only just before the war ended.
I found this litle gem on my talk page, hidden in a few edits:
Chardon. You asked me to explain why the link I added was not spam and said that it being "written by a pro is not a reason. you must do better". Excuse me?!?! Who on earth do you think you are to demand I must 'do better' and justify myself to you? This is an open source page not Chardon source page incase you hadn't noticed. I think your ego is clearly over-inflated.
And you obviously read (because of the 'pro' reference) my talk about this with Marek.69 which explains the reasons why this is a really useful site for visitors. Along with the Dutch one which you also keep deleting (Tourism in Amsterdam) which I have nothing to do with. However, having lived here for 17 years, worked on the best travel publications to the city and speaking Dutch, I can see that's also a very useful site for visitors. I would ask YOU to let ME know exactly why you think my website is spam? Especially when I don't have any advertisments on my site (doh Chardon!). And neither does the independent Tourism in Amsterdam site either if you had bothered to look. But it's obvious, as a soi-disant authority on Amsterdam, you clearly don't understand Dutch. Unlike me, you obviously don't live here as you would know my site has been going for 10 years, it evolved from the magazine I published called Shark (which is in the City Archives) and is very well respected – especially for its source of daily-updated events.
Please stop deleting my link. You have absolutely no right. But if you persist I will just keep undoing. I'm online all the time so it's no bother for me... Wikiamsterdam (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's nice that someone wants to share his knowledge with the world but I doubt that posting his website on wikipedia is the way in which the world wants to know about this. Chardon ( talk) 18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote this 'litle' [sic] gem' on your talk page and I was fully justified in doing so. I did so after you repeatedly ignored my requests not to keep on deleting what is a perfectly valid, extremely useful and popular website on Amsterdam. You have still to let me know exactly WHY you think it is spam...
It's also rather funny because you've made yourself look like an absolute idiot here because you have obviously NEVER visited the website (so how can you say it's spam?). If you HAD visited the website you would know that I am a woman not a man!
This is the website in question here. Perhaps others with a modicum of intelligence and reason will be able to see it's not spam: www.underwateramsterdam.com
-- Wikiamsterdam ( talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oddly, I actually published a booklet similar to your site called Amsterdam Underbelly. This was years ago. Lots of hot tips like museum student passes, squat restaurants, hidden parks, coffee shops with chillouts etc.
The thing is, Amsterdam article is a biggy and only External links that are .gov and the like can really exist there. There are loads of sites similar to UnderwaterAmsterdam that would rush in if one stuck. I like your site, and although it is not filled with ads, it is still a .com kind of thing. If consensus keeps it out, please don't feel bad. "Harsh tokes" as they say. Your last post was civil and we all appreciate that. That's the way to go. I understand you were upset because when you first put the link in, it just got zapped. The best you can do is to present your argument here accept the outcome. And if you think this is the 'Big Battle of the External Links', try the pharmaceutical articles. Keep up the good work!-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand I'm not perceived as being neutral with UnderwaterAmsterdam being my site. But a couple of things: 'promoting' is not the best choice of word when used in combination with my website. I am promoting Amsterdam – not my site. I want my site included neither for personal gain nor to boost visitors to my site; it's purely out of wishing English-language visitors to the city to have the best possible experience. The same reason I actually made my site in the first place and – ten years on – continue to maintain it on a daily basis. I was even recently asked to be an 'Amabassador' for Amsterdam by the government-run tourist site iamsterdam.com based purely on my reputation for tirelessly promoting the city.
As for 'pushing so hard' for its inclusion, my strength of feeling isn't due only to the fact that I think it should be in there but because of it getting repeatedly deleted and marked as spam. And then I myself was called a 'spammer' which is most insulting.
I should also point out that I sent an email on 24 May to www.binnenstadamsterdam.nl after I saw that a link to their site had been deleted from the Amsterdam page as I think that's another good source of information (albeit in Dutch). So it's not just about my own site I care about actually. As I also said above: "What is actually wrong with having a few more decent external links for Amsterdam which aren't just the .gov/commercial tourist sites?"
At the end of the day, if my site had got zapped and it had been done so in a friendly manner (not marked as 'spam') and there was a valid reason for it, I would have accepted that. I understand it's good that someone edits this page, removing what is inappropriate but, in my opinion, Chardon is over-zealous and rude. Even the fact that he posted my note to him which I had put on his Talk page here (and under 'Spammer?') shows a rather immature, childish streak in him. It was 'hidden in a few edits' on his talk page because I had written it in a moment of frustration and then regretted being rude, so I removed it. It was very poor show on his part to post it here so publicly.
Anyways, I'm also interested to know of others opinions on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiamsterdam ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the Port of Amsterdam should be mentioned in the sections Economy and Transport. Rubenescio ( talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the W'pedia style to use American pronunciation? The current rendering is rhotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 ( talk) 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
omg the best place ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.28.235 ( talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As an Amsterdam citizen I really have my doubts about identifying the Damrak as Amsterdam's "main street". A case could be made that the whole concept of a main street doesn't really apply to cities like this. But if a city has to have one, I think the Kalverstraat or Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal are better candidates. Junuxx ( talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm not sure this image is of the Jordaan neighbourhood. Particularly the church like building in the back makes me think of other locations. I'll try to bike around a bit and find the exact location, but if anyone else knows, that'd be great. -- User:Krator ( t c) 09:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Further thinking about this subject made me ponder about both the Westertoren (+canal) and the Montelbaanstoren (with Zuiderkerk in the background, + canal) as images, because there'll be a canal on there. Thoughts? -- User:Krator ( t c) 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You can use some of my pictures in the article. They are a good representation of what the city is like. Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was born an raised in this city, so if you have any questions about Amsterdam, don't hesitate to ask. It's true we don't have a prominent landmark in Amsterdam. Most famous are it's canals as you have mentioned above. The closest thing we have to a famous landmark is the Paleis op de Dam. The Westerkerk would also do. But even those to monuments are not well known abroad. You could best use a photograph of one of the four major canals (Herengracht, Keizersgracht, Prinsengracht and Singel). If you need a good photograph of the Paleis op de Dam, just ask me. I'll make one for you in the next couple of weeks.
I saw pages of many cities like Zürich,Bergen,Sydney or NY and the all have a collage of many pictures!that's really nice!does anybody know how to do this because it's really beautiful and it would be wonderful to have many pictures on the same time!please if somebody can do that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.62.221 ( talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
--Please check the history of the canal belt as written in this section. The Heren-, Keizers-, and Prinsengrachts were all built at the same time in a counter-clockwise direction (with a long pause after completing about 1/3 of the semi-circle), and so do not represent city boundaries at different times. The canal within these three, the Singel, was, however, the previous boundary before the canal belt was constructed. See, for example, Geert Mak's history of Amsterdam.
User:Krator, you have done some good work. I have some comments that might help to further improve the article. Althought the fragment in the lead about the canals is based on the Encyclopædia Britannica, I think it is not neutral. Words like "famous" should be omitted in an encyclopedic text and the comparison with Venice should be sourced to whom compared the two cities. – Ilse @ 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added a little section about Amsterdam being ranked #1 as having the most nationalities in both the Netherlands, as well as in the world. I thought a small section in the lead text was appropiate. I also added a (little) larger section about this subject in the section of 'Demography'. -- Robster1983 10:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I copied Amsterdam's entry from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 edition to /Britannica for convenience. It mostly describes specific places, but that might be useful anyway. -- User:Krator ( t c) 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the section changes I made recently were reverted, so I'll display my reasons here before reverting again:
Removal of the international section: This section will never be able to be more than a small stub section, unless Amsterdam builds four more airports and becomes a major hub in space transportation (no). Small stub sections clutter up the table of contents and take unneeded white space for headers etc.
Section naming: Better (and nicer) titles than interregional and local can probably be found - maybe two synonyms for "Inside the city" and "From/to the city". Some Brit must have thought up words for that. Note that regional is a bad title because the meaning differs from National, which the bulk of the section describes (freeways, railways). Regional refers to transportation within the Amsterdam region, which part of the local section describes (bus and metro are regional, and the tram to Amstelveen).
Order of sections: The interregional section was placed before the local section, because the latter uses information from the former, notably the importance of the central station and the explanation on freeway connections. An order from large scale to small scale seems logical too for Wikipedia readers - "how do I get to Amsterdam" and then "how do I get somewhere within Amsterdam". Only a small percentage (those living in Amsterdam) will be interested in the reverse order - "how do I get out of Amsterdam" and then "how do I get somewhere else".
-- User:Krator ( t c) 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Done - comments? - I just removed all subsections, made transportation in Amsterdam, and changed the pictures here so that the two aren't 100% the same. The only difference in information is currently the sections and one paragraph about the history of the Amsterdam metro -- User:Krator ( t c) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I added "large" to the opening sentence: "Amsterdam is one of the most bicycle-friendly large cities in the world." Most - if not all - dutch cities have a markedly better (safer) bicycle infrastructure than Amsterdam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.152.115 ( talk) 14:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some other reasons I think the section should be deleted:
But the main important reason for the deletion is that the paragraph is not summarizing anything section in the article. The canals are already mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. If any paragraph like this is included in the article, it should be in the geography section. – Ilse @ 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Why all these different and misleading numbers? The urban area has a population of 1,021,870 inhabitants ... the urban area has a population of 1,354,000 inhabitants ... the metropolitan area has a population of 2,191,259 ... It's growing by the minute as we're reading?
Since the Mokum article indicates that it is primarily a nickname for Amsterdam, I recommend merging the information to this article. I can't see a real reason to keeping the info in a separate article. Dr. Cash 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal for merging. I have rewritten the article to reflect that Mokum is more than only the nickname of Amsterdam. – Ilse @ 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Mokum is possibly a Wikitionary candidate, but I'm not sure it is appropriate as a standalone Wikipedia article. Decent work has been done on it, but it still appears to be no more than a definition of the word. The nickname link in the Amsterdam article could be made to go to Wikitionary - though Wikitionary tends to have less information than a Wikipedia article. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 10:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Mokum on Wiktionary. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In the sentence "In any case, the seat of the government, parliament and supreme court of the Netherlands is [....]" (section: History, sub-section: Capital) I am tempted to replace government with administration. The foreign reader, steeped in Montesquieu etc., may look at the present sentence and note that government embraces parliament and judiciary. On the other hand, the average Dutch reader sees regering and parlement as two disjointed entities. Anybody with strong views to keep government? Iterator12n Talk 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I’m not so sure about weighing down the article with some theory from some university professor – and in the introduction of the article to boot. Besides, there are several points of view regarding globalism whatever. Anybody violently opposed to dropping “global city?” -- Iterator12n Talk 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
At the top of the article, I liked the Prinsengracht picture better than the one that there is now. In no way can de present picture be described as showing the “majesty” of the Amsterdam canals – while the Prinsengracht picture did. Thoughts before we get into an editing war? -- Iterator12n Talk 16:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Even though people put info boxes in the lead section the guideline: Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#Design_and_usage is that the boxes go in the main body or in the most appropriate section (which might in this case be Amsterdam#Government). There is the possibility of putting an infobox in the lead section "in the most compelling of cases" - and that, to my mind, might be when there are no appropriate images to use in the top right, or when the article is dealing with an abstract topic - or is part of a related series. There are a number of reasons why infoboxes are not encouraged in the lead section - part of which is that they can overrun into the section below. Also, not everyone has the contents box displayed, which can mean the box will further displace the main body. When editors are editing with the box showing, they may not take into account the impact of the box for those who don't display it. There are other reasons as well. General aesthetics, etc. We can have a discussion on which image may be best used in the lead section, and if that fails we could consider putting the infobox back up there. But bear in mind, that someone else may come along and move it back out again unless we provide a compelling enough reason! SilkTork * SilkyTalk 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the new symbols section. Neater and tighter and yet more inclusive with the flag as well. When there's a break out into a new article there is no need to have so much detail in the section that remains in the parent article, so it's appropriate to shorten the section in the parent article down to the essentials. I've been looking at the Transportation in Amsterdam article and wondering what can be done with that. At the moment it's about the same as the transportation section in the parent article. Any edits to the one should also be done to the other, and that's duplicating work. It really needs to be a bigger, more detailed article - otherwise it's more work than it's worth to update two articles to end up saying the same thing in the same amount of space. I looked at the Amsterdam Metro to see if that could be merged in, but that's a decent sized and quite decent article which is better left to develop as a standalone - though elements of the metro article could be summarised in the Transportation article. There's very little on the tram system - other than a standalone article on Tram line 5, so something could be done on that. I'd rather see Transportation in Amsterdam developed rather than simply redirected back into the parent article - or left to wither on the vine. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"......743,027 inhabitants, which includes 177 different nationalities, making Amsterdam the most multicultural city in the world."
There's a conciderable difference between nationality and culture. When in a town persons of 177 different nationalities are living, this doesn't mean, that there are also 177 different cultures present. Often several neighbouring countries have the same kind of culture. From this point of view it's the most multi-national town, not the most multi-cultural. James Blond ( talk) 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
".....and is part of the conglomerate metropolitan area Randstad, with a population of 6,659,300 inhabitants."
wich is part of the Netherlands with 16 milion inhabitants,............. 6,5 bilion inhabitants. James Blond ( talk) 12:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"The city is known for its historic port, the Rijksmuseum, the red-light district (de Wallen), the liberal coffeeshops, and the canals"
What's so special about the red-light district? Isn't there one in many cities? Coffeshops in fact are soft-drugs shops. No packages of coffee available there. James Blond ( talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The references for the number of inhabitants in the different years doesn't work. Ref# 24, 26, 27 and 28. The links takes you to the main page of Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie not a specific page that lists the number of inhabitants. I've tried to find the pages that does list the numbers, but was not able. Maybe someone else is?
Ref 24: [9]
Santac ( talk) 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "liberal" as an addj. to coffeeshops should be removed. Although Amsterdam (as The Netherlands in general) is known for its liberal policies, these are not restricted to coffeeshops (and drugs) only. Or should we also state the "liberal red light district"? 145.7.182.14 ( talk) 10:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I read and then searched the article for elevation information, but didn't see it. Is it there? — EncMstr 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Joshua Hepi is so good looking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.104.17 ( talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is an Off-the-Brochure Travel Guide from Peter Greenberg that may be useful to build out a travel section or an external resource.
Hi.. I noticed that this photo of mine has been removed from the article. I'm okay with that as the replacement photo is also quite good, but I do feel that it is a good photo (and so do others as it is a featured picture, now without a home. I do think a home could be found for it here somewhere. I'd place it in the Canals of Amsterdam article but as it is categorised by name, and I don't know exactly which canal it was that I took the photo from, I can't really include it there, so I'm asking for your assistance to place it appropriately, and edit the image detail to specify the canal, if you're able to identify it from the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Hague has the Netherlands government why isn't it the capital? 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the reason I put it on three different articles is so it would have more chance of being notised. Secondly, the capital article says that the capital is the center of government. The hague is that, not Amsterdam. Thirdly, Dutch law has nothing to do with the definiton of capital. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 07:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the constitution doesn't define capital. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So your sugesting that almost all the world's dictionaries are wrong on something they agree on? 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You havn't answered the qustion. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I made some major changes to the article since being a Amsterdammer myself and knowing a lot about the city. I created/changed/expanded the following parts: - Lead image - Other images - History (part WW2 - now) - Economy (addition) - Retail (addition) - Religion (change) - Culture (completely rewritten Art, created performing arts, nightlife, festivals) - Tourism (addition) - Transportation (small addition) - Education (small addition) I hope you like, what I have done. Massimo Catarinella ( talk)
Hello everyone, I rearranged parts of the article. I wrote a new part on Geography and combined it with Climate. I further placed the information that used to be under Geography under the new headline Cityscape and combined it with a new part on Architecture. I hope you like it! Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Is it not time to upgrade the article to a A-status?
Hi, I've been reviewing the article, and unfortunately, I am going to fail it. There are small issues with the tone, but there are whole sections that go without referencing, which is too big of a problem to put it on hold for. The article easily passes 3, 5, and 6, and it passes 4 as well. I sincerely hope that we can soon pass this as a good article. Some closer suggestions below. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The Economy section only has one reference, and there should really be more. For example, basic claims like "Though many small offices are still located on the old canals, companies are increasingly relocating outside the city centre." needs a citation, but there should be more there.
The whole of religion needs better referencing, and the same goes for culture. Some sections or subsections are well referenced, but others are severely lacking.
There may be some issues with original research as well, but lacking the references, I can't really judge that at the moment. For example, "Those nights in the Paradiso are popular with students." and other issues in the nightlife section. ( WP:OR) Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For example: "Amsterdam has a world-class symphony orchestra, the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, the home base of which is the Concertgebouw across the Van Baerlestraat from the Museum Square." sounds promotional, and the wording (Home base) could be more encyclopedic. This is the case in several places.
Other examples: 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Education, Sports (mainly copyediting), and History (for example "When demolitions reached the Nieuwmarkt riots (Nieuwmarktrellen) broke out. People rebelled against the city's government, because they had become furious of the demolitions they saw."). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the section named "canals". Maybe it's too detailed for this article, and part of it should be moved back into the "Canals of Amsterdam" main article. Currently, the article discusses only fragments of city planning, and the canals are part of that. So, what about renaming the section "city planning" and write some about that? Canals are the 17th century component of the city planning, and it would be possible to discuss Sarphati in the 19th century, the 20th century "Nota's ruimtelijke ordening" with their groeikernen, urbanisation and sub-urbanisation. User:Krator ( t c) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I renominated the article as a candidate for the good article position. Since its last nomination, the article has been greatly improved. The article has been expanded, cleaned up, its tone changed and it now contains twice as much as references. Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"After 1656, with the canals in the southern sector also already finished for some time, building in that sector too was started, although slowly".
My ambition is to improve the prose of the article. Accordingly, I reformulate many statements or whole paragraphs. Necessarily, I have to understand them in the first place, which is not the case here. Can anyone, perhaps the original editor, explain the meaning as precisely as possible? Specifically, I am wondering, what kind of building was started, while the sector was already finished.
Tomeasy
talk
11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Amsterdam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Citations
Overall copy and Wikipedia:MoS problems
Lead
History
Geography and climate
Cityscape and Architecture
Government
Economy
Demography
Transport
Education
Culture
Overall, this article is a starting point for what could be a great article. It is not yet ready for GA status and will require heavy copy editing, source citations, and an overhaul in the prose. Good luck! Best, Epicadam ( talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
weed is legal there many people make hash brownies or space cake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.76.60 ( talk) 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The image KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam. Thank you. – Ilse @ 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Royal Dutch Shell is not headquartered in Amsterdam but in The Hague and London, therfore I will remove this statement from the opening paragraph. Knijert ( talk) 11:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new section. Completely unsourced at the moment - sorry about that! I will start digging up some references. I think it's important we talk about housing, because Amsterdam is quite unlike other cities in this regard and it will cause many people problems; we would do a good thing to provide some information on this subject. Toby Douglass ( talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just rolled back two edits by 84.136.90.225 which were patent vandalism. CultureDrone ( talk) 11:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"The first known record of Amsterdam is 27 October 1275, when the inhabitants of a late 12th century fishing village" Is this a mistake? Does the record show the inhabitants had been there for a century, or should that read "13th century" or simply "the inhabitants of a fishing village". ? Rbakker99 ( talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The image RedLightDistrictAmsterdamTheNetherlands.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-light District. Thank you. -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Krator, re. yr recent edit of Amsterdam's history: I read the nu.nl article, Ons Amsterdam's September index doesn't show de Bont's article, anyway, from reading nu.nl it seems that de Bont comes to a conclusion rather than having primary evidence of settlement around 1000. Caution seems to be in order. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"De Wallen, also known as Walletjes or Rosse Buurt, is the largest and best-known red-light district in Amsterdam,"
So there are more than one such districts? How many, which ones, and who elected this one the best known? By the way, this item is part of the section about Culture. Wouldn't it fit more in a special section about Non-culture? After all a lot of things, undignant to humanity happen there. In most other places therefor these districts are treaten as an unevitable evil and not proudly presented as one of the city's main tourist attractions. They are known to be centres of criminality, such as women slavery. VKing ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are more of such districts. The Wallen is the largest of them and best know, but a couple of alleyways in another part of the city's center form the "Singelgebied" and a couple of streets and an canal (Ruysdaelkade) in an southern part (Pijp) of Amsterdam form another red-light district. The Wallen is one of the most visited tourist attractions in Amsterdam and world renowned, so yes, in is the best known one. Just take a look in a random travel guide. I agree with you that it shouldn't be in the culture section. Of course, the area has it troubles with criminal activity, human trafficking and exploitation of women, but overall it offers women a save and healthy environment to work in. They have their own union, access to public health organizations and they have a special alarm system to warn the police if necessary. So yes, we are proud of how we deal with this problem, unlike other countries were prostitutes are regularly killed, go missing, have HIV without knowing or are all a victim of human trafficking. We even get foreign governments coming to our country to look at how we deal with this issue. So, we will still proudly present it as a tourist attraction. Btw, a lot of women working in the Wallen-district are a prostitute on voluntary basis.-- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 15:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of the numbers in the discussion of the Holocaust and Amsterdam are not quite right. The number of survivors of the roughly 100,000 deported Dutch Jews indeed was about 5,000 but that is not the total number of survivors. About 30,000 Dutch Jews avoided deportation, usually by "onderduiken", of which about two thirds survived. However, this article is about Amsterdam, not about the Netherlands. More relevant is that before the war there were about 80.000 Jews living in Amsterdam of which about 20% survived. The ghetto suffered in particular. If there is no disagreement I will insert those numbers with a citation 169.232.156.183 ( talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I heard the bicycle infrastructure was mostly constructed in the 1980s? It would be illuminating to have more details on the history. -- Beland ( talk) 17:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm a little confused about this. The last line of the education section states, "Most secondary schools in Amsterdam offer a variety of different levels of education in the same school.[citation needed]".
I live in Amsterdama and know the statement is true, but I don't know what kind of citation is acceptable for this sort of thing. Nearly all schools in the Netherlands offer different levels of education in the same school, and that is implied in the wiki-entry on Education in the Netherlands. I'm starting to read the guidlines on it now, but was hoping I could get a quick answer to whether it is acceptable to use another wikipedia entry (for instance the
Education_in_the_Netherlands as a citation for this particular statement)?
Kantvelink (
talk)
00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It reads....
When I read it I get this garganchuan, splitting, headache. Could someone give a shot at fixing this one up?-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a box showing population growth, but it is entitled 'Demographic evolution of Amsterdam between 1300 and 2006', where it ought to be more appropriately entitled 'Population growth between...'
Demographics is a term usually describing to segments of populations. But, I can't figure out how to change it.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A little input on this please. Sister cities I am familiar with. Connecting cities is a new term to me, and I am not sure how the person sourced this.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The text lists Los Angeles as a sister city of Amsterdam, but neither the Wikipedia page nor the official page (lacity.org) of Los Angeles lists Amsterdam. I could not find an official source from the city of Amsterdam on the topic. I hear they are, or were, reevaluating their "sisterships". Also, the Wikipedia entry for Brasilia lists Amsterdam, but not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GilHamiltonTheArm ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The composite image in the infobox is only showing canals in the city center and flowers that could be photographed anywhere. Perhaps a more diverse image of characteristic sights in Amsterdam could be composed. Here is a first attempt:
Rubenescio ( talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It's fine with me if you change the lead image, as long as you leave the picture of the Keizersgracht in there (as you have done), since it is a FP. The current lead image is only temporary as I've been meaning to change it soon with more diverse images from Amsterdam. The weather isn't helping though, so I can't take the picture anytime soon. -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good reasoning. Ahhh Amsterdam School not Amsterdam School. I get it. I have a piece of lawnmower lodged in my brain. Putting sun in a Holland pic is like putting lava an Antarctica pic, ha ha. But, hey, it's Vondel. I have to agree. ING - makes good sense now. Non-touristic - true. Who wants a brochure pic on Wiki? I'm on board. Now, when you're done, maybe you could try Animal and do that one too. No birds, reptiles or fish. Just a squid, a jelly, two bugs and a tiger. Good work. Cheers!-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Vondelpark image was looking a little hazy. I retouched a version of it which you may like better. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Great lead image you've created. I'll try and reshoot the images later on, so that they will be of a better quality. -- Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea to make a plan for the pictures - I suggest to bring in a picture from the district around Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ - Passengers Terminal- new Public Library - Nemo Museum, maybe also the Central Station. This spot is beautiful, filled with both history (harbours, warves, warehouses, labourer-neighbourhood) and innovation (housing, music, library, technical museum). 213.46.208.49 ( talk)
Currently, the economy section has a picture of the Omval (Rembrandtoren etc.). I think it would be better to change this to a picture of the Zuidas, since it is now the most important economical centre of Amsterdam. I haven't found any good ones on Wikipedia, but I found a good one on Flickr that could be used (CC2.0, attribution / non-commercial). You can find it here. Cocytus Antenora ( talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The statements in the article section Economy: "Amsterdam is the financial and business capital of the Netherlands.[53] Amsterdam is currently one of the best European cities in which to locate an international business. It is ranked fifth in this category and is only surpassed by London, Paris, Frankfurt and Barcelona.[54]" can not be found in the sources. Source 53 is a PR-page of the Amsterdam City Council. Please correct who wrote it. 213.46.208.49 ( talk)
The entry on sport is relatively small and offers a narrow perspective - a few sportclubs are mentioned without clear relevance. Sport plays an important role in Amsterdam city life, measured in participants, and historically as part of the "zuilen-systeem. It is attractive for many people from the "mediene" -Amsterdam slang for "everything outside of Amsterdam"- and has two landmark buildings of architectonical importance. I propose to give sport a separate (kick-ass) section, or reorganize/rename the section "culture and entertainment" - suggestions ?
The section could start with some history (Olympics in 1928- first time women participated, first time Olympic flame was lighted, Olympic Stadium), something about the way the city supports sport, how many people are involved in Amsterdam sportclubs, and the division of clubs according to the Dutch "zuilen-systeem". and some int. famous Amsterdam sporters (Johann Cruijff -soccer; Bettine Vriesekoop - tabletennis; Marit van Eupen - rowing) A few important ocassionally held sport-events could be mentioned like: Champions Trophy Hockey (2001 2003)- World Cup Baseball (2005) - European Championship Gymnastics (Turnen in Dutch) - World Cup Squash (2004, 2009) - Davis Cup Tennis 2006 - World Cup Rowing (2007); and the sportclubs with international relevance, f.i. Ajax soccer, Amsterdam hockey, Nereus rowing. A piece about regular big tournaments and matches could close the entry: f.i. "Jumping Amsterdam" - hippic; "Amsterdam Marathon" - running; "Head of the River Amstel" - rowing; "Zesdaagse van Amsterdam" - indoor cycling; "Ben Bril Memorial" - boxing; Holland Beker Regatta - rowing. People events are: "WK Amsterdam" - football multiculti; "Dam tot Damloop" - athletics/running with over 30.000 participants - and iceskating everywhere as soon as there's ice on canals, rivers and lakes. A pic of happy skaters would be nice.
Were shall we put Sinterklaas ? a small part with a picture and some text. It's a very important Dutch cultural event that is celebrated in some other countries as well, but not that extensive. Each year Saint Nicholas lands mid November with a boat in Amsterdam, near the Sint Nicolaas Church, travelling from Spain and returning after his birthday on December 6. There is a large piece in en.Wikipedia on Sinterklaas, so that doesn't have to be doubled. 213.46.208.49 ( talk)
should it be mentioned in the small overview that there are plans by the municipality to get rid of at least most of the prostitution and sex shops to halt criminals? Mallerd ( talk) 08:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
When was Amsterdam liberated from the German Forces? 80.31.154.3 ( talk) 07:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to write a treatment about Wally Van Hall. A dutch man who saved many thousands of lives during the hunger period in Holland of 1944-1945 . He was shot only just before the war ended.
I found this litle gem on my talk page, hidden in a few edits:
Chardon. You asked me to explain why the link I added was not spam and said that it being "written by a pro is not a reason. you must do better". Excuse me?!?! Who on earth do you think you are to demand I must 'do better' and justify myself to you? This is an open source page not Chardon source page incase you hadn't noticed. I think your ego is clearly over-inflated.
And you obviously read (because of the 'pro' reference) my talk about this with Marek.69 which explains the reasons why this is a really useful site for visitors. Along with the Dutch one which you also keep deleting (Tourism in Amsterdam) which I have nothing to do with. However, having lived here for 17 years, worked on the best travel publications to the city and speaking Dutch, I can see that's also a very useful site for visitors. I would ask YOU to let ME know exactly why you think my website is spam? Especially when I don't have any advertisments on my site (doh Chardon!). And neither does the independent Tourism in Amsterdam site either if you had bothered to look. But it's obvious, as a soi-disant authority on Amsterdam, you clearly don't understand Dutch. Unlike me, you obviously don't live here as you would know my site has been going for 10 years, it evolved from the magazine I published called Shark (which is in the City Archives) and is very well respected – especially for its source of daily-updated events.
Please stop deleting my link. You have absolutely no right. But if you persist I will just keep undoing. I'm online all the time so it's no bother for me... Wikiamsterdam (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's nice that someone wants to share his knowledge with the world but I doubt that posting his website on wikipedia is the way in which the world wants to know about this. Chardon ( talk) 18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote this 'litle' [sic] gem' on your talk page and I was fully justified in doing so. I did so after you repeatedly ignored my requests not to keep on deleting what is a perfectly valid, extremely useful and popular website on Amsterdam. You have still to let me know exactly WHY you think it is spam...
It's also rather funny because you've made yourself look like an absolute idiot here because you have obviously NEVER visited the website (so how can you say it's spam?). If you HAD visited the website you would know that I am a woman not a man!
This is the website in question here. Perhaps others with a modicum of intelligence and reason will be able to see it's not spam: www.underwateramsterdam.com
-- Wikiamsterdam ( talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oddly, I actually published a booklet similar to your site called Amsterdam Underbelly. This was years ago. Lots of hot tips like museum student passes, squat restaurants, hidden parks, coffee shops with chillouts etc.
The thing is, Amsterdam article is a biggy and only External links that are .gov and the like can really exist there. There are loads of sites similar to UnderwaterAmsterdam that would rush in if one stuck. I like your site, and although it is not filled with ads, it is still a .com kind of thing. If consensus keeps it out, please don't feel bad. "Harsh tokes" as they say. Your last post was civil and we all appreciate that. That's the way to go. I understand you were upset because when you first put the link in, it just got zapped. The best you can do is to present your argument here accept the outcome. And if you think this is the 'Big Battle of the External Links', try the pharmaceutical articles. Keep up the good work!-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand I'm not perceived as being neutral with UnderwaterAmsterdam being my site. But a couple of things: 'promoting' is not the best choice of word when used in combination with my website. I am promoting Amsterdam – not my site. I want my site included neither for personal gain nor to boost visitors to my site; it's purely out of wishing English-language visitors to the city to have the best possible experience. The same reason I actually made my site in the first place and – ten years on – continue to maintain it on a daily basis. I was even recently asked to be an 'Amabassador' for Amsterdam by the government-run tourist site iamsterdam.com based purely on my reputation for tirelessly promoting the city.
As for 'pushing so hard' for its inclusion, my strength of feeling isn't due only to the fact that I think it should be in there but because of it getting repeatedly deleted and marked as spam. And then I myself was called a 'spammer' which is most insulting.
I should also point out that I sent an email on 24 May to www.binnenstadamsterdam.nl after I saw that a link to their site had been deleted from the Amsterdam page as I think that's another good source of information (albeit in Dutch). So it's not just about my own site I care about actually. As I also said above: "What is actually wrong with having a few more decent external links for Amsterdam which aren't just the .gov/commercial tourist sites?"
At the end of the day, if my site had got zapped and it had been done so in a friendly manner (not marked as 'spam') and there was a valid reason for it, I would have accepted that. I understand it's good that someone edits this page, removing what is inappropriate but, in my opinion, Chardon is over-zealous and rude. Even the fact that he posted my note to him which I had put on his Talk page here (and under 'Spammer?') shows a rather immature, childish streak in him. It was 'hidden in a few edits' on his talk page because I had written it in a moment of frustration and then regretted being rude, so I removed it. It was very poor show on his part to post it here so publicly.
Anyways, I'm also interested to know of others opinions on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiamsterdam ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the Port of Amsterdam should be mentioned in the sections Economy and Transport. Rubenescio ( talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the W'pedia style to use American pronunciation? The current rendering is rhotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 ( talk) 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
omg the best place ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.28.235 ( talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As an Amsterdam citizen I really have my doubts about identifying the Damrak as Amsterdam's "main street". A case could be made that the whole concept of a main street doesn't really apply to cities like this. But if a city has to have one, I think the Kalverstraat or Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal are better candidates. Junuxx ( talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)