Jump to content

Talk:Amsterdam

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Krator (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 5 June 2008 (→clarify me: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAmsterdam was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 20, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:1911 talk

Template:V0.5

Lead Image

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keizersgracht
Prinsengracht
Herengracht

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.

Lead text

--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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You got the Antwerp source! No surprise about the lack of New York data. Iterator12n Talk 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Transportation section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think a new article is a good idea. – Ilse@ 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reasons for deletion paragraph from lead

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)[reply]

Population

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

merger: Mokum to Amsterdam

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)[reply]

I agree. Slightly reworked material could be put in the Name section of the Amsterdam article. Iterator12n Talk 05:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Mokum is Amsterdam, so there is no need for two articles. gidonb 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. -- P199 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mokum on Wiktionary. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government or administration?

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)[reply]

Global city??

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

First picture

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've just tried a couple more. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Symbols & Transport

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nationality is not culture

"......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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What about "The in nationalities/cultures least homogeneous town on Earth? " James Blond (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Toooo much. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity

".....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)[reply]

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

Known for...

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Demography

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks, I'll copypaste it to da:wiki. Santac (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal

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)[reply]

elevation

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)[reply]

Joshua Hepi is so good looking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.104.17 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Section

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.

Photo of a canal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Capital of Netherlands

If the Hague has the Netherlands government why isn't it the capital? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Changes

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. Tomeasytalk 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hejsan Lova, I changed the photographs as you requested. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement

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)[reply]

P.S. Is it not time to upgrade the article to a A-status?

Failed good article

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)[reply]

Referencing

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)[reply]

Tone

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)[reply]

Canals -> City Planning?

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)[reply]

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

Good Article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

clarify me

"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. Tomeasytalk 11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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? Tomeasytalk 11:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in a canalside house in Amsterdam, so yes, I do know it. :) User:Krator (t c) 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amsterdam&oldid=217287897"