Talk:Amsterdam/Archive 2

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)

The church is De Duif at the Prinsengracht number 756, near Rembrandtplein, which is clearly not the Jordaan. Apart from this, I'm not sure whether this image is representative of the skyline of Amsterdam, because almost all you can see are trees. If I can find one, I would like to replace it with another good quality image of the skyline of Amsterdam. – Ilse@ 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam doesn't really have a clear skyline. Some canal houses (The Gouden Bocht preferably, or around the Reguliersgracht) would do, but personally I'd prefer a landmark. (see London and Paris) The Rijksmuseum or Centraal Station (w/ Nicolaaskerk) would be the best for that, mainly because the Zuidas and Rembranttoren are awful. All current images of those two places on Wikipedia are not of sufficient quality. Alternatively, the Paleis op de Dam could be a good lead image, but it will be very hard to get a good image of that without lots of people, hot dog carts and living statues in the shot. Perhaps from Kralsnapolsky? --User:Krator (t c) 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much for the Rijksmuseum or the Centraal Station. The Paleis op de Dam or the / Scheepvaartmusuem I think would be the best choise. Chardon 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find a free image of the Paleis op de Dam. --User:Krator (t c) 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the following CC licensed images on Flickr: [1] [2] [3]. These were the only well-sized pictures available under CC without disturbing objects in place, good sky in the background (always lousy weather around here...) --User:Krator (t c) 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I like these images, but in my opinion they are more appropriate for the article about the Royal Palace than as lead image for Amsterdam. – Ilse@ 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Little problem, the images can only be used noncommercially, so they can't be uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons... – Ilse@ 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Amsterdam doesn't really have a landmark building like the Colloseum in Rome or the Eiffeltower in Paris. The Paleis op de Dam is the best we have as a recognizable landmark. I agree that when people think of Amsterdam the Paleis will not be the first thing on their mind (the first thing I think would be the canals). However if that is the case we might just as well keep the present picture. Chardon 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the idea of keeping the Prinsengracht picture. Canals are THE landmark of Amsterdam. The water should not become incidental to things like the Westertoren, however beautiful themselves. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:47, 27 August 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)

  Done --User:Krator (t c) 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of the use of "famous" or a synonyme, I think the sentence should be rephrased. In my opinion it is better to state Amsterdam has canals than to say it is famous for having canals. Instead of the referencing of the comparison with Venice with links to various tourist websites, I believe it is better to state that tourist websites generally make such a comparison or that the Encyclopædia Britannica does so. – Ilse@ 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I found renown (initially misspelled, even) a better word to use than famous, because it just implies that the subject (Amsterdam) is often connected or remembered by whatever it's renown for (canals), instead of famous, which is also a positive and associative word. Just stating that the canals exist (i.e: "The city centre of Amsterdam has many canals") does not explain why the canals are especially notable. Deventer has canals too.

Writing "according to tourist websites" or "according to Encyclopaedia Britannia" is unnecessary use weasel words. This is not a controversial issue, and a good illustration of what Amsterdam is like for someone unfamiliar with the subject. --User:Krator (t c) 19:28, 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)

There is a problem with the ranking in nationalities. The cited newspaper article doesn't even give a hint of where it gets its information from. Given a normal propensity for parochial reporting, the data should be suspect - at least until we hear about the underlying source. The other thing that makes me hesitate is the implication that New York knows its precise number of nationalities. Remember, American cities don't have the kind of civil administration ("de burgerlijke stand") that is found in countries once ruled by Napoleon - not to mention the deplorable state of the immigration service and its administration. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you are living (part time) in the Netherlands, but it was all over the news, on every channel. And I've looked it up on the website of Amsterdam, and such a list does exist (so the number for Amsterdam has a source, see below). But I agree that it is an interesting thing what you are saying. Perhaps the list only counts the 'official' nationalities (the former nationalities of those who came to the Netherlands/ Amsterdam). As I understand, being illegal in the United States is way easier than it is in the Netherlands. And if you become a US-citizen, than you don't have another nationality, you just are a US-citizen. And to make things more complex, if what you say is true, than that means that the US doesn't even keep track of where it's population is from. So it could be that, for an example, London, Toronto of New York have far more nationalities, but that they aren't keeping track on them, not as the Netherlands/ Amsterdam does. But since Amsterdam keeps track, it is, in this list anyway, officialy number one. And do note that even if it is only one person, it is another nationality living in the city. And on the other side: why would it be so strange that Amsterdam is in the top 3? It has been a multi-cultural city for centuries, and it keeps track of all the nationalities (see: Nationalities in Amsterdam from the website of Amsterdam. --Robster1983 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Through its decennial census, the US keeps track (among other things) of ethnicity - which of course is not the same as nationality. On another note, I think it is a bit silly to attach a lot of value to a statistic where a single individual can change the count in question. More than anything else the newspaper article and the website highlight the extreme perfection of Amsterdam's civil administration - now here we're talking about a REAL Dutch trait! something to be proud about, for sure. (BTW, I may have suggested too much credit going to Napoleon, and not enough to the natural tendencies of the Dutch in these matters. For example, Peter Stuyvesant kept incredibly detailed town records for Nieuw Amsterdam, many of them preserved, and now stored in Albany, NY for translation and research.) (The precision and accuracy of a civil administration can work against society too, see for example the Dutch experience in WW II.) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (on several points). I find this discussion very interesting, so I started to search the internet (not as hard as I could, but still) and Wikipedia, and I found some interesting things. For example: London didn't call it's city 'multicultural, cause it's the city with the most nationalities', but 'multicultural, for there are more than 300 languages spoken in the city'. That's something else than having the most nationalities (for an example, if one man from Sneek was to live in London, and a girl from Leeuwarden, both speaking Dutch and Frisian with each other, than you would have two languages spoken, however, still one nationality. The thing said most about New York and Toronto (Miami also btw), is that they have 'the highest percentage of people foreign born'. So that's also something else than 'having the most nationalities'. But besides that, if you would have 75% people in your city that are foreign born, with 25% born in Mexico, 25% born in Russia, and 25% born in Turkey (I know, strange example, just to illustrate), than you still would have 3 nationalities living in your city. Furthermore: I assume that the Dutch news has his sources, and will not just throw any newsitem on the cable, internet, ether, and teletext.

My point is: I think that this 'fact' should stay. However, I am intrigued by this matter, and I am planning to send an email to one (or more) editorial office of the Dutch news, just to ask where they got that news from. --Robster1983 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See where the newspaper (or for that matter the town administrators in Amsterdam) got the New York data. Re. "[they] will not just throw any news item on the cable," you have more confidence in news organizations than I do. With the financial problems of news organizations in general, you won't find many (or any) fact checkers among editorial staffs anymore. These days, much of the "news" originates from press releases generated by organizations with one vested interest or another. The news agencies re-phrase the press releases and add some easy comments. The news outlets may add some more veneer, but that's it for 4/5th or 9/10th of the news. Anything that would take digging (such as interviewing sources in Amsterdam and New York, to see where the truth lies) is too expensive and therefore out. Having read the Trouw article, I speculate that in this case the press release was issued by the city of Amsterdam, went through the ANP agency and then reached the several outlets. News outlets gladly take an article like the nationalities one because it's feel-good stuff, it balances the bad news. Let's hear what you find. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly OT: It’s inviting to generalize the nationalities subject, a bit. I think that foreign nationalities are of interest to relatively small nations, because of the many other nationalities immediately around them. For large countries (China, America, etc.) the issue of foreign nationalities is less visible because the seemingly endless extent of one’s own nationality - the issue is more or less mute. For America in particular, there are also the substitute issues of race and ethnicity. For France, it’s often a matter of how much the French language is spoken. I would not be surprised if Paris proudly reports each year that x percent of the foreign residents speak the French language - I know the French count French speakers on UN conferences etc. and then report that they are in the majority. On the other hand, in the Amsterdam stats I couldn’t find a number for its foreign residents that speak the Dutch language. In sum, everybody his own pre-occupation. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just send an email to the biggest newsstations of the Netherlands (NOS (public) and RTLnieuws (commercial). The email goes as followed (in Dutch, of course):
Hoi, ik heb een vraag: op Wikipedia.org ben ik in een discussie verwikkeld m.b.t. Amsterdam. Het gaat dan om het nieuws dat 'Amsterdam, wereldwijd gezien, de stad is met de meeste nationaliteiten'. Ik heb aangevoerd dat dit gegeven veelvuldig op het Nederlandse nieuws was, terwijl anderen zich afvroegen waar het nieuws dan z'n bronnen vandaan haalde. Zou ik mogen vragen waar jullie dit nieuwsfeit vandaan hebben? Dat Amsterdam 177 nationaliteiten heeft klopt, maar waar hebben jullie de cijfers van bijv. Antwerpen en New York vandaan? Op internet zijn er nl vele discussie's gaande dat steden als bijv. London, New York, Miami of Toronto meer nationaliteiten hebben.
Zouden jullie kunnen/ willen zeggen waar jullie dit nieuws vandaan hebben? Kan het gecontroleerd worden?
Bij voorbaat dank, met vriendelijke groet, Rob .....
In short, the email says that on Wikipedia (and on the internet in general) there are some questions about the numbers that are presented (cause on several internetforums there is a debate whether cities like Toronto, Miami, New York or London haven't got more nationalities than Amsterdam). I asked both newsinformers where they got the news from, where they got the statistics from New York and Antwerp from, and if it can be checked. Hopefully I get a response. I let it know on this talkpage! Ow, yes, and I wondered: what means OT? :-s --Robster1983 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OT, Off Topic. BTW, here is a helpful place for acronyms and abbreviations. It even lists Haagsche Tramweg-Maatschappij for HTM. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It took a little more time than I hoped, but here is some more info: I contacted two newsinformers in the Netherlands, one of them replyed (RTLnieuws), saying that they probably had the news form the ANP (Dutch press-agency). They recommended me to contact them. So I did. The ANP didn't know a thing, and the recommended me to contact the municipality of Amsterdam. So I did that also. And finally, I got a response which was more helpful. The numbers from Antwerp are from the civil registry of the larger Antwerp area. The exact source is: Groot Antwerpen, Burgerlijke Stand en bevolking. Jaarverslag 2005. Databank Sociale Planning pp. 46-49. For New York, Amsterdam contacted a press-official, but, as was told on this talkpage, New York doesn't have a list of people and their nationalities. So that press-offcicial recommended Amsterdam to go to www.popcounsil.org. It is also possible to email them (see their website), but I stopped there, for I was totally knackered of contacting. Robster1983 16:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You got the Antwerp source! No surprise about the lack of New York data. Iterator12n ^Talk 18:50, 9 September 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 started to read that and noticed that it was making some shocking errors ("Each of these canals marks the line of the city walls and moat at different periods.") so it cannot be fully relied upon as a source. Seems strange to be saying that the Encyclopaedia Britannica can't be relied upon, but it's understandable given that there's been nearly one hundred years of research and study since then. I would suggest any information taken from that article is checked before being used. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:13, 9 October 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)

• In the list of world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic, Schiphol is the third busiest. For other international transportation, see subsection International.
• Randstad can be seen as the Amsterdam region, but national transportation would maybe be a better name for the current regional section.
• The order local – regional – national – international is the most logical order. – Ilse@ 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking at several featured cities (Vancouver, Hongkong), I think this section is too large. We should strive to have zero subsections. --User:Krator (t c) 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a new article is a good idea. – Ilse@ 20:15, 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:

• The claim "renowned" has no source and is not an encyclopedic word.
• The claim that there are three principal canals has no source. One could argue there are more.
• The claim "has been compared with Venice" is backed up by many sources, but it is an empty statement.

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?

A combination of bad edits (the Amsterdam metropolitan area, the one numbering 2m+ people, does not exist) and drugs related vandalism means that old and new versions were combined and mixed. I will attempt to fix this. --User:Krator (t c) 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The main reason why the number of inhabitants is so confusing is because there are some changes made by the national and local governments. Over the past 10 years 6 regions are named with even more names. 3 regions are outdated by name (Amsterdam metrop. aggl. - 1,013,147 - 01-01-2003 CBS) or area (Greater Amsterdam: 1.213.755 - 01-01-2007 CBS)(Urban Region Amsterdam: 1,468,122 - 01-01-2006 CBS). Only the by name outdated Amsterdam metrop. aggl. is interesting because this area is a continuous build up area. Figures higher than that have green farmland areas between them. Building there is restricted by both national and local governments (all green zones or airport restricted areas).

There are now 3 types official regions used in Amsterdam:

1. Municipal Amsterdam (official name: Gemeente Amsterdam) - 743.104 inhabitants

2. City Region Amsterdam (official name: Stadsregio Amsterdam) - 1.364.422 inhabitants (this region has a form of city council)

3. Amsterdam Metropolitan Area - 2.200.046 inhabitants (it's former name was Noordvleugel Randstad) - conferences with all municipals present.

All numbers are from CBS and O+S on 01-01-2007. These are all clear areas. Sources can be provided for the names, numbers and areas.

Snt-orange (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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 agree. Slightly reworked material could be put in the Name section of the Amsterdam article. Iterator12n ^Talk 05:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Mokum is Amsterdam, so there is no need for two articles. gidonb 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merge. -- P199 15:37, 3 August 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)

'm not opposed. I put it in because I saw it in the New York City article, and that is a featured article. It seemed like a quick and easy way to get across the importance of Amsterdam as a major world city, not just a local city. The global city link was added after the New York article was given featured article status so it may not be a widely approved link, and if you feel the term is contentious, then I have no problems with it being removed. I have no objection to your editing the article, even it mean altering or removing something I have done. I like and trust your edits. No editor likes reverts, but collaborative editing is great, even if it means that one's own edits sometimes get altered or deleted for something better. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Krator just mentioned the London article, so I went over to have a look at it and I noticed that it also has the global city reference and link. I've had a look and the other global city articles mention it and link it. Amsterdam is out of step with the other world or global cities. Either all the other articles are wrong or Amsterdam is wrong. Since Iterator brought up the notion that the concept is from a University dept, and may not have sufficient authority for a Wiki article I also had doubts. So I did some quick research and found the phrase that Amsterdam is a global city used by a variety of reliable sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc, and the term was coined by a Dutch woman Saskia Sassen, rather than Loughborough University. As Wiki is the neutral collecting of reliable knowledge, and this term is authoritative and widespread with sufficient reliable sources, I'm not sure we can keep it out. We should put it in - however, if there are reliable and well sourced counter arguments to the term and to the inclusion of Amsterdam in the term, then we can (and must) include those as well. Is that fair? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You aren't going to find scholarly dismissal of one professor's pet theory. It isn't verifiably wrong, but verifiably wrong isn't the criteria for whether it rates being mentioned in the lead in to an article about every city. This places undue weight on a pet theory. I know wiki editors look for something to indicate that a city is a generally recognized world leading city, without using weasel words.Kevinpet (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (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)

I tried the Prinsengracht picture first, but when looking at the preview it seemed rather short, so I popped the current one up there. Give it a go and see what you think. My feeling is that we need a larger picture up there in the lead section. If that doesn't work, then perhaps we can go back to having the infobox up there as a "compelling reason"! I also liked the current lead image down in the Canal section better than the Prinsengracht image. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the two images, the Prinsengracht is more attractive, but the current lead one does seem to be more typical of Amsterdam. Hmmm. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried a couple more. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:33, 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)

Maybe pull the definition section up like in London, and put the infobox there. That's something I could live with. The old lead image is superior to what is there now in my opinion, too. User:Krator (t c) 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the definitions section yesterday when I was doing some edits on Geography and wondering where Definitions would be best place - in administration or geography? I had thought the definition was about the administration of an area - defining the administrative responsibility, though it can and does overlap with an understanding of the physical geography. However, whichever section in which it best belongs, it probably doesn't belong in the first section which by convention, consensus, guideline, logic and expectation is the History section. While I see the sense and logic in having the Infobox in the same section as Definitions, I don't see Definitions as being a legitimate primary section, nor that the Infobox should be moved so far down to meet Definitions that it effectively vanishes from sight.

I quite like Image:Along the canal Crop.jpg as it shows the Amsterdam merchant houses that are such a feature of the city, along with a canal and boats which are also a feature, and the whole has a calm and sedate air which gives a feel for the place. However, take a look in Commons to find another one which you feel fits better. We have some nice images there - and I haven't looked through all of them. I looked mainly at images with canals! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:33, 11 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)

Check. The Coat of arms of Amsterdam article still needs a slight adjustment re. the crown business. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 14:32, 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)

Agreed. Anyway, that sub-sentence smells pretty provincial, and I wouldn't call Wanted in Europe a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. The multi-whatever point was discussed a couple of months ago and I'm surprised that it found its way back into the article. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What about "The in nationalities/cultures least homogeneous town on Earth? " James Blond (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Toooo much. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:32, 6 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)

I do not understand the above point. Could you please further explain it? User:Krator (t c) 12:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The main objection against mentioning a "metropolitan area" in an encyclopedia is, that it is not a formal entity. James Blond (talk) 12:56, 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 red light district of Amsterdam is generally considered as a distinct feature of the city. Indeed coffeeshops sell soft-drugs (marihuana and hasj) but usually also offer coffee, thee and other beverages. They are not allowed to sell alcohol. 145.7.182.14 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is Coffeeshop, not soft-drugs shop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.36.113 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (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)

I added archive URLs. Apparently they moved their website when they moved to the new building (which I still have to visit... ) User:Krator (t c) 11:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copypaste it to da:wiki. Santac (talk) 08:00, 21 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.

• Off-the-Brochure Travel Guide - Amsterdam by Peter Greenberg Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpalmer22 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'd say place it at the top on "Canals of Amsterdam". It's the Prinsengracht, btw, so you can caption it with "Canal houses along the Prinsengracht". User:Krator (t c) 15:35, 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)

Please read the whole article Capital. User:Krator (t c) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason you posted this on the Hague, Netherlands and Amsterdam. The answer is the same; Wiki on capitals does not say it is ALWAYS but ALMOST ALWAYS the case, and even if it were saying ALWAYS, wikipedia does not influence Dutch law. This whole discussion is therefore moot. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 9 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)

Who has anything to say about definition of capital if not a country itself? In the Dutch constitution it states that Amsterdam is the capital, Wikipedia is not a better source than that. Arnoutf (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the constitution doesn't define capital. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No it says that "Amsterdam is the capital". Any definition of capital should accomodate for that, otherwise the definition is wrong. Arnoutf (talk) 10:54, 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)

I say that the Oxford Dictionary of English is right; and that dictionary does not agree with your ideas. Arnoutf (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You havn't answered the qustion. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I provide an authoriative dicitionary of the English language that has a different definition, showing that not "almost all dictionaries" have that defintion and that therefore your question is flawed and cannot be answered. Arnoutf (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer answer on this page as there is major overlap in this discussion with that on The Hague and The Netherlands. I will only respond to subsequent remarks on The Netherlands talk page.Arnoutf (talk) 08:27, 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)

You have added a considerable amount of information, which is in big parts relevant and therefore an enrichment to the article. I absolutely appreciate your efforts. Just some smaller comments:

• On the talk page, use four tiles to sign your comments. You probably know this anyway...
• Also, you might already be aware of the fact that edit summaries are strongly encouraged, at least on the main content pages.
• What you seem not to know is that there is a button Show preview, since you make up to 20 consecutive edits for one change. Using this button significantly improves the functionality of the history/diff page and reduces the amount of required hard disc space to save all versions.
• I think it is necessary that editors revise the style of the huge text that you've introduced. This, however, is a normal procedure in respect of the huge amount of fresh prose. I have done so here for the retail part that you've edited and I think the other parts need similar attention, too. I hope you also appreciate this effort. Tomeasy_talk 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Massimo! I also appreciate your work a lot, and I also agree with Tomeasy. But did you notice there are two photographes of the Keizersgracht, both taken by night? I think you should choose the one you like best, and remove the other one. By the way, you take beautiful photographes. Grazie! Lova Falk (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. I absolutely don't mind, that you revise the the style of the texts I introduced. It only helps creating a better article. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hejsan Lova, I changed the photographs as you requested. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sounds good. Don't forget the Plan Berlage. :) Chardon (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is to detailed, but we should rename it city planning and we should write some more about it. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I inserted Uitbreidingsplan Berlage. I am still not done however since this is only Plan Zuid and there is also a Plan West. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:38, 28 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)

I've reordered the sections to fit with conventions of most other city articles, and standardised the image sizes. I think Cityscape (expansions of the city) could be summarised and the bulk of it moved to its own article. --Joowwww (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the latter, the expansions of the city is an integral part of the article and very important to note. Perhaps it could be better integrated into the history section though. User:Krator (t c) 11:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I only moved the info as it was too much detail for a summary article, of course a paragraph leading to it should be put in somewhere. --Joowwww (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the expansion of Amsterdam should become a separate article with a small summary in the Amsterdam article Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a summary for the Expansion of Amsterdam article. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:50, 5 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)

The canals of Amsterdam where built in previously unbuilt areas that were often bog-like. First, these areas had to be made suitable for building. The canals were made during this process of cultivating the land. After the canals were made, the houses on (as in, besides) the canals were built, which apparently started in 1656. User:Krator (t c) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense and, actually, I also thought in this direction. Do you know it is like this, or are you just giving your obvious interpretation? Tomeasy_talk 11:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in a canalside house in Amsterdam, so yes, I do know it. :) User:Krator (t c) 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, then I will remove the tag and clarify the content. Tomeasy_talk 11:52, 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

• Anywhere where citations needed marked on the actual article with the {{fact}} tag.

Overall copy and Wikipedia:MoS problems

• Entire sections of the article are somewhat oddly phrased. It's difficult to pinpoint specific areas but the article as a whole lacks a certain flow. I've tried to mention the awkward phrasing in my comments below, but it appears to be a more generalized issue. I'm not sure if this is as a result of translations from Dutch sources but the article is very choppy... parts of the text that feature long strands of simple sentences can be combined and made into more reader-friendly complex sentences. For example, instead of "The Rijksmuseum possesses the largest and most important collection of classical Dutch art. It opened it's doors to the public in 1885. It collection consists of one million pieces of art." How about... "The Rijksmuseum opened in 1885 and has a collection of one million pieces of art, including some of the most important examples of classical Dutch painting." This is just one example of many areas that can be improved.
• Make sure that citations follow after punctuation
• Write out acronyms in their first instance

Lead

• What does of 175 nationalities mean? Perhaps its best to just say "cosmopolitan"?
• How can a metro area have 1 or 1.5 million people? Unclear. Please choose a metric, preferably a Dutch gov't/EU standard.
• Is the "global city" fact worth a mention? Not sure of consensus on issue.

History

• Overall issues: The history section seems largely incomplete and mentions items of dubious historical importance when there are probably more significant events in the history of Amsterdam that could be mentioned. For example, how did the Netherlands/Amsterdam come under Spanish control in the first place and then what was Amsterdam's role in turning the country back into a kingdom? how did WWII end, when did the Nazis leave? what happened to the city's economy post WWII? did Amsterdam have a significant role in the formation of the European Union? Extremely important events are entirely left out!
• "The first known record of Amsterdam is 27 October 1275, when the inhabitants of a late 12th century fishing village, who had built a bridge with a dam across the Amstel, were exempted from paying a bridge toll by count Floris V." Awkward. Split up in necessary.
• Bad: Local Romance Better: Local legend ... needs citation
• Explain confusion between 1300 or 1306 for city's founding
• Bad: alteration to the protestant faith Better: Protestant reformation
• "the tenth penny" what is that?
• Bad: hotbed (too conversational) Better: global center
• Why is "North Sea Canal" italicized?
• Good idea to introduce historical figures with a very short title... such as "novelist Joseph Conrad"
• "In 1906, Joseph Conrad gives a brief description of Amsterdam as seen from the seaside, in The Mirror of the Sea." Why is this important?
• "Germany invaded the Netherlands on 10 May 1940 and took control of the country within five days of fighting." Might want to indicate that this was at the start of World War II
• Don't use just "metro" as it is more of a commercial name - use "rapid transit system" instead
• "Therein, people expressed their fury about the demolitions accorded to the restructuring of the city. As a result, demolitions were ceased, the highway never accomplished, and only the metro was finished. Only a few streets remained widened." Awkward.
• Bad: "success of this struggle" better: "city's revitalization"
• The entire last paragraph (almost) isn't so much history as it is about the cityscape... the only piece that should be mentioned here are the riots

Geography and climate

• Use the term "IJ bay"
• Might want to mention something more about the dikes here... they are a significant piece of Amsterdam's geography, not just its cityscape.

Cityscape and Architecture

• The first paragraph is, for lack of a better term, a total mess. It attempts to provide written locations of areas when that is probably best left to a map unless, of course, the relative positions to one another is somehow important. Better would be to describe those areas...
• "when immigration was at a height" -> when immigration was at its height
• "most outer" -> outermost
• The canal section is also awkward. It's good to know which canals are present, but why were the canals built in the first place?
• "The first one to do so was Samuel Sarphati." mention who this guy is

Government

• "Amsterdam is usually understood to be the municipality of Amsterdam." what?? you mean "The City of Amsterdamn is usually understood to be within its own national municipality of Amsterdam"?
• I'm not sure the section about populations is as much a government issue as it is about demographics
• Might want to say right off the bat that while Amsterdam is the "constitutional capital" it is not the seat of government, then go on to explain how/why that is the case.
• "Second is the Imperial Crown of Austria — in 1489, out of gratitude for services and loans, Maximilian I awarded Amsterdam the right to adorn its coat of arms with the king's crown, in 1508 replaced with Maximilian's imperial crown when he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor." Whoa. Extremely awkward.

Economy

• This section has very poor prose. There is some unrefined phrasing (like using the phrase "a lot of" instead of "many") and some sentences lack verbs such as: "Last the area surrounding Amsterdam Amstel railway station."
• Tourism section: "The origin of tourists visiting Amsterdam is largely European: 74%. The growth in recent years can be attributed to an increase in the number of visitors from Europe too." What??
• Is the retail section absolutely necessary here? Are these a major economic component of the city or tourist draw?

Demography

• Much of this section include information that would probably be best left to city's history such as information about the reformation in the Netherlands. It also appears that certain pieces of information, like the riots, is unnecessarily repeated here.
• Perhaps information in this article could be best left to an expanded main article on the demographics of Amsterdam, leaving only current demographic data such as total population, ethnicity, religion, etc.
• "One of the principal architects behind the city's Catholic churches, Cuypers, was also responsible for the Amsterdam Central Station and the Rijksmuseum, which led to a refusal of Protestant King William III to open 'that monastery'." Is Cuypers a person or place? What is "that monastery"?

Transport

• Is it important for us to know exactly what types of bikes are used in Amsterdam?
• "Public transport in Amsterdam mainly consists of bus and tram lines, operated by Gemeentelijk Vervoerbedrijf, Connexxion and Arriva." Private companies?
• There are too many trivial tidbits and sentences that don't really say anything like "Many other stations exist in the Amsterdam urban area." That is a totally useless sentence. If the stations are important, they should be mentioned.
• Original research appears to be largely present here.

Education

• Again, more juvenile writing such as "The same goes for secondary education." Section needs heavy revisions to better prose and flow. Section also seems like it is almost entirely original research.
• The reference provided doesn't say anything about the university having the coffee plant that started the "coffee culture"... considering that coffee is a tropical plant, I doubt that it originated in Amsterdam...
• "In addition to these schools based on distinct beliefs there are public schools." perhaps those should be mentioned further?

Culture

• First off, the section seems to be too large, in comparison with the others. Consider splitting or moving into its own main article.
• The section's "lead" is just a jumble of facts with no real flow. Can be seriously improved by moving each piece of information into their respective subcategories.
• "During the later part of the 16th century Amsterdams Rederijkerskamer (Chamber of Rhetoric) organized contests between different Chambers in the reading of poetry and drama." Is this the first instance of culture in Amsterdam??
• "In 1638 Amsterdam got its first theatre." okay... which one?
• "Opera could be seen in Amsterdam from 1677, first only Italian and French operas, but in the 18th century German operas." Where? By who?
• "The metronome, one of the most important advances in European classical music was invented here in 1812 by Dietrich Nikolaus Winkel." Perhaps there's a better place for this bit of trivia?
• Museums: Do none of those museums have associated wikipedia articles that can be linked??
• "A parking garage can be found underneath the square, as well as a supermarket." This is important to the culture of Amsterdam how?
• "This building, known as the performance wing, was designed by a Japanese architect." okay? who? if it's important, mention him or her otherwise leave it out
• "Het Muziekgebouw aan 't Ij is a new concert hall, which is situated in the Ij near the central station. Its concerts are mostly modern interpretations of classical music. Adjacent to it, the Bimhuis, a concert hall for Jazz music, is located." Another example of extremely choppy writing.
• The Night life and festivals section is heavy on OR. Needs to be improved with valid sources.
• "You can sit down in a old fashion cafe, which are called a bruin kroeg by Dutchmen. These bruine kroegen contain a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere and the interior is lit with dim lights. You could also choose to sit down in one of the many trendy, stylish new cafes Amsterdam has to offer. These cafes are more sought after by a younger crowd, who drink cocktails or mixed drinks. Most cafes have terraces in summertime. A common sight on the Leidseplein during summer is a square full of terraces packed with people drinking beer or wine." What? how is any of this important or unique? Certainly, many cities in Europe have a cafe culture such as this...
• "A example of a discothèque near the Leidseplein is the Jimmy Woo. This is a trendy club were you have to be on the guest list to get in." Any and all pieces of information like this have go to go. Pronto. What is definitely not needed is a list of Dutch clubs, bars and movie theaters. If anything, mention should be made about Dutch music, especially modern techno, trance, etc. which is world-famous, not just a list of clubs.
• "Amsterdam is a city of festivals. In the last year alone there were 140 festivals in Amsterdam.[101] Famous festivals in Amsterdam are the events taking place during Koninginnedag, Amsterdam Gay Pride and the Uitmarkt. On Koninginnedag, hundreds of thousands of people travel to Amsterdam to join the inhabitant to celebrate and party. The entire city will be overcrowded with people who are buying products from the freemarket or visit one of the many music concerts. It is held on the 30th of April.[102] During Gay Pride, there is a very long parade of boats with extravagant people floating on Amsterdam's canals and there are various events taking place in the city elsewhere. It is held in August.[103] Finally the Uitmarkt is a cultural event which lasts three days. It consists of many podia with a lot of different artist on them, like musicians and poets. It is held in late August.[104]" Wow. In need of extreme prose overhaul
• Fashion subsection: Is this necessary? I don't recall Amsterdam being a major world fashion capital, nor even a European fashion capital...
• Red light district and sports sections are complete OR.

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)

Thanks for all this serious, timeconsuming work213.46.208.49 (talk)

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)

The way it was sounds more like a political pamphlet than an encyclopedic section. Can be put back if rephrased thoroughly to stick to facts only. −Woodstone (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political pamphlet? I live here and I've described the situation. It is crazy, but that's because it is crazy. Can't say I'm impressed that you just took the whole section out. That's not bold, that's obstructive. I don't see you have grounds for this - the section needs to provide citations but apart from that it should go back in. Toby Douglass (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also just notice your deletion comment about the section not being factual. It'd agree with a comment that it's not *cited*, but I totally disagree it's not *factual*. The whole thing is a series of factual assertations. Exactly what were you thinking of as being non-factual? Toby Douglass (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can say that it is mostly factual, but also non-encyclopedic, and opinionating. The housing situation in Amsterdam doesnt' differ much from housing in the rest of the Randstad. Still, it might warrant a section of it's own. Just as long as it is written from a neutral point of view. As someone upset with the housing situation in amsterdam, it could be hard for you to write from a neutral point of view. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think you may be projecting an opinion on to me - I think the situation is crazy, which it is, because it's an entirely artifical Government induced problem, but I'm not upset. Describing a profoundly broken situation as profoundly broken does not mean you take it personally. Regarding Raanstad; I know in Amsterdam rent increases are held by law to a rate below inflation, which is one of the reason there is almost no rental market and also why prices are so high when a property goes on the market (the landlords are anticipating future low annual increases in rent). I don't know if this is true outside of the city, so I can't yet comment if Raanstad is in exactly the same situation as Amsterdam. I believe mortgage income tax relief is nation-wide, so it will apply everywhere. Assuming Raanstad rents are constrained in the same way as Amsterdam, then my statement needs to cover Raanstad, not just Amsterdam, as compared to everywhere else in the world (except perhaps NYC, which is similarly crazy since they also have State intervention in the market). Toby Douglass (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Crazy" is certainly an opinion, as is profoundly broken. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of which were present in the *article*. I certainly have an opinion but it is only a problem if it is present in the article. Toby Douglass (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All stated regulations are on national level, as is evident from the given references. Therefore, the section does not belong in the Amsterdam article. Furthermore, the description is one-sided. There is also a non-regulated segment (according to the reference for rentals above €604.72). −Woodstone (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The regulations are indeed national - so I concur that if it was purely a discussion abuot them, they should be in the Netherlands article. However, there is stuff here about local prices and conditions specific to Amsterdam (e.g. 75% of the rental stock in the city belongs to Housing Associations). I think it's difficult to discuss Amsterdam specific conditions in this matter without referring to the national regulations which are the background for the particular conditions in the city. Perhaps the national stuff should go into the Netherlands article, and a reference to that exist here in this section for the city, and then there can be Amsterdam specific material. Comments?

BTW, those references you refer to - that rewrite of the article with the references was done after I wrote the comment in reply to Martijn.

Oh - also - you say he description is one-sided. In what way? Related to this, you said earlier it was non-factual, which I didn't agree with and questioned on the basis the it was purely factual (but certainly uncited), but you've not explained what you were thinking of. Toby Douglass (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice changes on the section, Woodstone, particularly correcting the figures for the mortgage repayments. Toby Douglass (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The housing market in Utrecht is on smaller scale very similar on most parts. But also other examples could be given. It fits more in a Dutch housing market section. Snt-orange (talk) 23:57, 22 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)

1275 was the first time Amsterdam was named in the records we know. The village itself is older, as is proven by archeologists. Snt-orange (talk) 14:45, 23 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)

Until other reliable sources come with counterclaims I suggest we go with this. User:Krator (t c) 19:12, 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 citation169.232.156.183 (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....

The increased influx of the many religions and cultures after the second world war undergo threat of growing difficulty to ensure co-existing in good neighbourship. "Leven en laten leven" or "Live and let live" summarises the Dutch and especially the Amsterdam open and tolerant society.

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)

• When I read that you have spelled 'Gargantuan' : 'garganchuan', I too get a splitting headache. (no comma between splitting and headache). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.173.39 (talk) 19:25, 15 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)

Removed.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 19 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)

Good pic! Good plan! My two cents: Nix the school or replace it with some sweet Amsterdam gable roof action. Think iconic/emblematic images. Crop a weeny bit of sky off the palace image. Nix ING. Less white space between the images means more image. I like the Red Light skinny tall pic. Maybe more of those tall ones next to one another showing secondary attractions like coffeeshops, Red Light, etc and um....okay. I'm all out of ideas. Love it! Oh yeah, and good call on zapping the flowers. Ship that image directly to poppy article. I'm sure those guys can fit it in there somewhere. Stupid poppies.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make the composition suitable for an encyclopedia instead of a tourist guide. So I would like to see not merely the historical city center, coffeeshops, and the red light district, but some additional sight from the city too. Some explanations of what is in the photos:

1. Dam Square, with the Royal Palace (Amsterdam) and Nieuwe Kerk (Amsterdam)
2. Canals of Amsterdam, in particular Keizersgracht with bridge and canal houses
3. Amsterdam School, in particular Het Schip
4. De Wallen, with red lights and people walking by the windows
5. Vondelpark, with water, grass, and people in the sun
6. Modern architecture, in particular ING House at the Zuidas

Picture 1, 2, and 4 are in the historical city center. So the third picture is not showing an Amsterdam school but the characteristic architectural style Amsterdam School and the building Het Schip in particular. The old canal house gables are already shown in the second picture, and a landmark building from the same period in the first picture, so I think it would be superfluous to add more of that. I would like to see some modern buildings in the composition, hence the the sixth picture of the ING House, but any characteristic modern building would do instead.

The white between photos is from the wikitable I used and should be removed completely or made black like in the current composition File:VariousPhotographsOfAmsterdam.jpg and in File:NYC Montage 8.jpg. Cropping seems a good idea too. Rubenescio (talk) 23:21, 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)

I think the colors of the retouched Vondelpark image are to strong, so I have used the original version for this image: File:Sights in Amsterdam.jpg. Thanks for the support! Rubenescio (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the park image as is. Can't tell you how many beers I have drank on that very spot -- the best spot! Colours? Too strong is right. I'm a colour freak. No sweat. You should see Haikou. Say goodbye to your retinas. Anyhow, pic looks lovely. One comment. Second row - Swap current for narrow-wide-narrow -- for balance' sake. (can one use an apostrophe there?) Lovely work. We appreciate your time and effort. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the order of the images as you suggested. Rubenescio (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's gorgeous!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:31, 12 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)

• I've inserted a panorama of the Zuidas. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

hello Massimo, the picture-size disrespects the article's format - can you please correct ?.

hello Cocytus, what brings you to the statement the Zuidas "is now the most important economical centre of Amsterdam." ? note 1: the real estate fraud case ([10]), note 2: ABN AMRO and ING, with headquarters on Zuidas, brought huge economic losses for the Dutch people

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)

Perhaps posting that here isn't appropriate. Let's keep this civil and seek consensus. How a few of us visit the site and decide if it's right for inclusion. I'm cool with the outcome whatever it be.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:33, 23 August 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)

I really don't see ads. I see useful information. I am not sure if it qualifies for External links, but it doesn't look like spam. Please correct me if I'm wrong.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is useful information it should be added to the Amsterdam wikipedia page,not a link to somebodies vanity site. There are dozens of sites like this and there is no reason why his should be honored with a link on wikipedia. Particular since he wasn't forthcoming with the fact that its his own site that is being promoted. Chardon (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Anna :) --Wikiamsterdam (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And Chardon. I wonder why you're still saying 'his' site? What part of 'I am a woman not a man' don't you understand?

Furthermore, I have never hidden the fact that it is my own site. I added the link because I genuinely thought it would be very useful for visitors to the Amsterdam Wikipedia page. There are indeed 'dozens of sites like this' but they don't tend to be independent, written by professional travel writers like myself, be up-to-date or free of ads...

In a Dutch-speaking capital, UnderwaterAmsterdam.com is widely renowned for being a fantastic source of English-language information – particularly as an events guide. Every day, I add exhibitions, parties, music gigs, opera, ballet, gay events etc to its daily What's On database – as well as annual events and upcoming gigs (which I also relay via Twitter). All the major venues/organisations – Mojo, Melkweg, Paradiso, Tropenmuseum, Hermitage, Van Gogh Museum, Rijksmuseum etc etc – know me well and send me their events information. So who are you to deny this information being shared? Isn't that the ethos of the Internet?

I work on UnderwaterAmsterdam in what little free time I have for no money at all (in fact, I pay out money for the hosting). I do it because I love this city and out of a genuine desire to help visitors out. If you actually bothered to look at the site, I think my motivation permeates the pages.

I have nothing to gain – monetarily, egotistically or otherwise by adding this site to the Amsterdam page. When I first added it, I had no idea that this would cause such a problem and I'm frankly insulted I have to had to justify myself – and that you have removed my website repeatedly over the past few months, citing 'spam'. --Wikiamsterdam (talk) 23:53, 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)

Firstly, I should point out that I only became (uncharacteristically) 'uncivil' in my posts after Chardon repeatedly removed my link and responded to my asking him not to, by saying 'Don't be silly'. The posts up here were borne of months of frustration at his immature reply and his not even having the decency to explain why he thought my site was 'spam' – let alone even bother to look at it... In fact, it's rather unbelievable he still hasn't.

Secondly, I do understand that there are a lot of sites similar to Amsterdam but UnderwaterAmsterdam is one of the best known and loved here in the city. And surely editors' time on the Amsterdam page would be better spent weeding out those similar sites that aren't that good than keeping on deleting one which is actually very suitable for Wikipedia? What is actually wrong with having a few more decent external links for Amsterdam which aren't just the .gov/commercial tourist sites? Also I wouldn't say my site is a '.com kind of thing' by any stretch of the imagination. I just got a .com because it's the easiest one for people to remember. It's not a start-up or a commercial site at all.

I'm all for democracy and discussion and thank you for taking the time to respond properly but if the outcome is that my website is zapped I will feel bad. Of course. And I will think that Wikipedia is doing a great disservice to visitors to Amsterdam (and as an authorative source on the city). I've lived here for 17 years. I still do. I live and breathe the city, I work as a travel writer and keep up-to-date with what's going on here. I could have been a useful contributor to this page which was why I joined. But, regardless of the outcome re my link, I am completely put off contributing if it's always going to be this much hassle...

Thanks though for your reply and for considering the inclusion of my site. I don't know Amsterdam Underbelly as it may have been before my time but it certainly sounds like my cup of tea. I am also great friends with Joe Pauker who wrote the Get Lost Guides to Amsterdam which you may know as they also delved into the city's underbelly... --Wikiamsterdam (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems is that you are not neutral. It is your site and you are promoting it. If it were not your site, you might not feel so strongly about its inclusion and be pushing so hard.

I stopped publishing Underbelly years ago because I moved out of the country.

What I meant by ".com" is a generalization. Your site certainly feels like a .org site, if you know what I mean. But I have refrained from making a judgment on whether or not it should go into the article.

Please don't be put off by this experience. A lot of what Chardon does is revert edits that are inappropriate. That is a good thing. Wikipedia needs that. Maybe you are taking it personally because it is your site, not because it is your edit. After all, if you found Discover-Lovely-Nairobi.com and added it to the Nairobi article, and then it got zapped, you would probably just move on and not care as much as you do in this case.

I suggest that others reading this visit the site and weigh in with an opinion.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:22, 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 agree that there is room for more External links. That's what it's there for. Also, putting what you wrote on Talk here does not seem appropriate, especially with the "[sic]" pointing out your error. We all make mistakes. I do...plenty. So did Chardon in this thread referring to your site as "...somebodies vanity site...". I think Chardon meant "somebody's".

Anyway, this thread has gone on for a long time. Perhaps we should vanish into the background and see what others say. Give it some time. Lets seek each others' understanding and respond to rudeness with politeness. All the best to you both. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 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)