Talk:Amsterdam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments for details.

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Drugs 2 Terminology 3 Link Removals 4 Superfluous Construction Info 5 Public Transportation 6 Wiki-links 7 Tourist Attractions 8 Motto's Historical Anachronism 9 Organization & cutting down to size 10 Link suggestions 11 Amsterdam's "Hipness" surpassed by Rotterdam? 12 Commercial Link 13 'Wandering Idiots' 14 Size 15 Languages 16 refactoring 17 Flag orientation 18 Length 19 image left or right? 20 Donating my Flickr photos 21 famous citiziens 22 Geography 23 Public transport 24 A comment 25 Weather external link 26 Geography II 27 New Amsterdam 28 Bicycle brakes 29 Famous citizens 30 Academia 31 Conrad quote 32 Biggest city 33 History 34 Population 35 Post WWII History 36 News from Amsterdam 37 Painting of the Amstel river 38 Amsterdam as capital 39 leaning buildings 40 Notability of Residents 41 Complement EU 42 Tourist attractions/nightlife sí, Rijksakademie no? 43 Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten 44 A 45 Lead Image

[edit] Drugs

is it allowed to smoke weed in amsterdam? i dont seem to find any info on dat :\ --84.47.112.56 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

you should read wikitravel on that. It is allowed but remember it is concerned to be very rude to cause inconvenience to others.

It's actually not legally allowed to smoke weed in Holland (Amsterdam). Cannabis is still a forbidden substance under Dutch law. However the official policy (so not in a legal but a political sense) on softdrugs is to allow it (gedoogbeleid). This policy is that you can smoke weed in 'coffeeshops' (SO NOT ON THE STREET!!). The policy for coffeshops is also called the no- AHOY policy: no Advertising, no Harddrugs, no Overlast (crime) and no Youth.

I love in Amsterdam and I can't imagine the police bothering about someone smoking in the street. Indoors is a different matter. Of course coffeeshops (of this kind, so not 'coffeehouses') are ok, but in a cinema you can assume you'll be asked to leave if you're 'caught'. In bars, well, use your judgement. Or simply ask. DirkvdM 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean I live in Amsterdam. Cute typo. DirkvdM 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it true they recently banned coffey shops from selling weed?

See, the article lists Montreal as a sister city, but frankly it should be Vancouver. Am I right? Am I right? Okay, I'm done here. Zweifel 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia Amsterdam page says Montreal. If you have evidence that this is wrong let us know. Chardon 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

u fool he said vancouver because of their lax drug laws...lol

Eskimo humour.. hilarious.. eh Chardon 10:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands (although the actual seat of government is in The Hague)

This is what the Dutch always say, but usually "capital" just means the seat of government. Capitals are sometimes boring places full of politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers, e.g., Sydney is not the capital of Australia. --195.149...

I would disagree. "Capital" does not mean major city, that is true. But Amsterdam is declared as the capital in the Dutch constitution, while The Hague is "only" Seat of Government -- in contrast to Australia. By the way, after German re-unification in 1991, Berlin was declared capital, but became seat of government only after the administration finished moving there a few years ago. --UsagiYojimbo 11:47 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Link Removals

Moved from article:

To be done: Bijlmerbajes - Bijlmerramp - Amsterdam Sail - architecture - monuments - annual events - more on population - famous Amsterdammers -- Viajero

I restored the link. --Patrick 11:51 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Superfluous Construction Info

• I commented out a couple of lines, which seem superfluous and/or in need of elaboration.
• Isn't it a little early to be talking about the North/South Line? -- Viajero 09:36 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As practical info for passengers it is premature, as a big project going on right now it is not at all. --Patrick 09:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Can we move the list of Stadsdelen to the end? --Viajero

Better not, it is core info, and the rest of the article sometimes refers to them. --Patrick 09:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, how about a separate section, Municipal organization or something? --Viajero 10:45 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is not just a political subdivision, but these are well-known quarters. If you are going to add a lot about the quarters you can make it a separate section. --Patrick 11:51 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I think they need some description, will think about it. --Viajero 11:33 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Public Transportation

Another thing: section public transportation seems too much like tourist info, not enough like encyclopedia entry. What do you think? --Viajero 11:33 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this is encyclopedic info and do not think anything of it should be deleted, but if you want to add other aspects of public transport in Amsterdam, go ahead. --Patrick 12:18 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but the paragraph after the bulleted information reads too much like a Lonely Planet Guide to me --Colin Angus Mackay 21:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess I mean not so much the information itself but the way it is presented. Just a listing, no description, discussion. Anyway, I have some ideas which I will try to incorporate late this week. -- Viajero 13:47 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the bulleted list is fine, it is the paragraph that follows it that is providing tourist "advice". --Colin Angus Mackay 21:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I changed it. --Patrick 23:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-links

Patrick, for my tastes this page is becoming over-wickifyied:

• beach,
• theater,
• city hall,
• performance

don't seem to me to be terms that should be linked. They are not concepts of particular relevance to the topic of Amsterdam; just common English words. -- Viajero 09:38 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything wrong with these links. If you do not find them useful, simply do not click on them. They do not do any harm. If someone argues that he/she does not find it worth the effort to put these links I respect that (as long as they are not deleted). The term beach is relevant for Amsterdam, otherwise it would not have been mentioned. Now that it is mentioned somebody may decide that he/she wants to read about those in general. The link shows that there is an article on beaches and makes it also convenient to go there. --Patrick 09:55 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist Attractions

Patrick, you consider Madame Tussaud's on the same par as the Rijsmuseum??? Like maybe we should also include Hard Rock Cafe and Planet Hollywood and other commercial junk culture... and for that matter Casa Rosa... Perhaps you'd like to list all the Burger King's as well...

PS: I am sorry to have marked the last changes minor; you are quite right. -- Viajero 16:22 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is one of the tourist attractions of Amsterdam. You seem to be interested in Amsterdam, then please concentrate on additions and corrections, instead of from time to time arbitrarily deleting things you are less interested in! --Patrick 16:40 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Readers who visit this page seeking information on Amsterdam as a city, rather than a tourism destination, can't fail to note the emphasis on the latter in the language here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and signficance of content is an editing focus. Please note my comment of today's date, below. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto's Historical Anachronism

I deleted 'The three Xs -St Andrew's crosses- represent the three virtues of the city: Valor, Resolution, and Mercy. '

I assume whoever wrote this is referring to the motto carried in the Amsterdam coat of arms. (Helhaftig, Barmhartig, Vastberaden) This motto was granted to Amsterdam by Queen Wilhelmina in 1947 in recognition of Amsterdam resistance efforts during WWII. Since the flag dates back far earlier, it is very unlikely that the crosses would refer to this motto. -- viezeric 13:01 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've read, but can't remember where, that the three crosses represent the three things that have been the greatest threats to Amsterdam throughout the ages: Fire, Water and The Plague.

Helhaftig will probably be heldhaftig. This sure is a freudian mistyping, especially relating WWII. (Helhaftig = like hell; heldhaftig = hero-like). -DePiep 14:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organization & cutting down to size

I'm done editing. I've left most of the content as I found it (and added only a few lines here and there to make things more clear) but the page is now very long. Maybe we could open separate entries for Amsterdam (history) and Amsterdam (tourist information)? And I think most information about the administrative changes in the 80s and 90s could be deleted. (or put in a seperate entry Amsterdam (administrative changes) )We should aim for something like the nl.wikipedia entry for amsterdam. Add categorys like geography, administration, economy, demograpics etc etc These could all be relatively short. When I've time (maybe during the holidays I'll have a look at it.) PS we should remove all links to tourist information. It is hard to explain why some links are allowed and others not. One guy at least seems not to understand :) (I'll go and delete them now) --Chardon

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Amsterdam article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Amsterdam}} to this page. — --LinkBot 10:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Amsterdam's "Hipness" surpassed by Rotterdam?

I am a bit confused by this statement located under "Nightlife". Although definitely a POV from the poster, if it is based on a scientifically gathered popularity poll conducted of Dutch citizens it is otherwise improbable that Rotterdam is more "hipper" than Amsterdam from an International POV. --BourbonKing

A few years ago there was some talk in the Dutch media about the difference between Amsterdam and Rotterdam nightlife. Their conclusion was that Rotterdam had the better clubs and scene. I think that was what the original contributor had in mind. --Chardon

Well, which place is 'hipper' is not very NPOV, I'd say. --JimmyShelter 08:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the sections Populair Culture & Nightlife should be merged. The venues mentioned in the populair culture are part of the nightlife. --JimmyShelter 09:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anyway, I'm not that happy with tourist information on this page. It would be better to have it as a seperate article (or just tremove it completely. We have the amsterdam travelwiki link, which is a thorough article about the tourist attractions of amsterdam) Something completely different: For Egil who edited amsterdams geo location and others: from kstars (http://edu.kde.org/kstars/) the exact geographical location of amsterdam is: lon 04 51 59.00 lat 52 20 59.99 :) --Chardon

Lately (2005) all magazines and experts agree Amsterdam is back when it comes to nightlife. Amsterdam had a difficult time after closing clubs like Roxy and iT!, but in 2004-2005 many new clubs have opened their doors. Now there is no doubt Amsterdam is Clubbing city nr. 1 in the Netherlands.

I moved the nightlife section from the Tourist information to the Culture section. Maybe we can move the 2 remaining parts under Tourist Information to another place too. JimmyShelter 23:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The crime paragraphs could be part of an 'Amsterdam and the law' section (number of police, courts, mentioning mayor is head of the police, the 'driehoek' (how to translate that in English :-) ) etcetc. The food section, I have no idea. Just remove it or give it a seperate article.

Unfortunately I don't have much time right now and since I don't have all the information at hand to write something like that it, would be a too big undertaking for me. Same goes for a 'health' section. --Chardon

[edit] Commercial Link

JimmyShelter, anon IP, do you mind discussing the editwar over the proposed link to the travel site, rather than just endlessly reverting without any attempt at a conversation? --Improv 16:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the wikipedia link guidelines nor could I find quickly a link to such a guideline so I just use the: wikipedia is an 'encyclopedia' policy. People come to the Amsterdam article to read about Amsterdam and gain some knowledge. They do not come here to book a hotel (at least I hope they do not :) ). Anyway, the removing is always done with a comment, the adding from a anon ip and no explenation. --Chardon

Chardon is right. Besides the only action from one one the anon ips is adding this commercial link. I'm not expecting the anon ip to chime in on this talk page. --JimmyShelter 09:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reason I wanted some kind of note is so that if we eventually need to take some action to get the anon IP's attention, and we later go back to look at why whatever we did was done, we can easily find it documented here. As for now, I'm going to add a HTML comment to the section telling the anon to come see the talk page and chime in. --Improv 14:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Finally found out why I couldn't insert a link to my site Amsterdam Hotspots. I'm not really sure how to add a comment here, but I'll try my best. It seems you feel Amsterdam Hotspots is a commercial site, and furthermore it seems that 'commercial sites' do not deserve to be mentioned. Amsterdam Hotspots is an online guide to Amsterdam which covers pretty much the same topics as any printed guidebook, the difference of course being that the information is always up to date, and that it is possible to interact with other visitors to the site. If you think the site is about hotel bookings only, please take some time to browse the site, you will find that it gives a comprehensive overview of things to do in Amsterdam, for visitors and residents alike. As such I think it would deserve to be mentioned on the Wikipedia page about Amsterdam. It's not possible to determine beforehand what kind of info visitors to this page are looking for, is it? If the site was about hotel bookings only I could understand you banning the site, but in reality the hotel bookings facility is a really minor portion of the content. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this... [62.195.252.195 5 April 2005 11:41]

Sorry for the long delay in answering your questions.. I just saw your comments today. The reason why I delete the link is just as you say: Amsterdam Hotspots is a webpage with touristguide information. I think Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of information. Chardon

I thought I saw something about the setting up of a tourist-guide book wiki about a month or so ago, but now I cannot find any reference to it. Either I was mistaken, or it was a dead project idea that has floated off somewhere. Personally, I thought it would be an excellent idea because there are a number of entries here in wikipedia that verge on being mostly tourist information. --Colin Angus Mackay 11:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my previous comment. There is a www.wikitravel.org website that was set up by wikipedian's using the same software. There is also a template {{wikitravel}} that can be inserted into Wikipedia articles to link to Wikitravel. More details here. --Colin Angus Mackay 11:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Wandering Idiots'

Amsterdam has a lot of homeless psychiatric patients (zwerfgekken). I say this is a result of government policy. A quote to support this view:

"Je kunt de toename van het aantal zwervende psychiatrische patiënten in stad en land voor een groot deel verklaren uit het beleid. Dat is erop gericht de rol van de psychiatrische klinieken te verkleinen. Maar beleid- makers en financiers lijken zich over de toename van de 'zwerfgekken' te verbazen en zoeken de oorzaak bij een veranderende samenleving. De oplossing die ze kiezen is de rol van de klinische psychiatrie nog verder te verkleinen, wat natuurlijk averechts werkt. De vraag is wie er voor de echte gekken zorgt. Er moeten meer plaatsen in klinieken komen voor die laatste groep." -G.R. Van den Berg, directeur behandelzaken van het Psychiatrisch Ziekenhuis Amsterdam. --Prater 10:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Well, as a family member of a former psychiatric patient I know how hard it is to get someone commited against their own will. A large share of the 'zwergekken' are people who could be helped, but don't want to get help. I'm not fond of the current government policy, but to just blame it on them isn't completely fair. Maybe the text should be changed to include both explanations? --JimmyShelter 10:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's not government policy or a lack of funding that is to blame but new treatment (well not really new. It started in the 70s) methods for psychiatric patients. If I remember correctly the present situation is that the mayor has to sign an order to lock someone up against his/her will. Last year a new center was opened where people could be held and treated for a short period of time. It had to close again soon after it opened because of fire regulaions? or something like that (I don't remeber the exact details).

It could be part of an paragraph about Amsterdams health system. (hospitals, huisartsen (general practioners), GG&GD etcetc. We miss something like that. --Chardon

Hmmm, I think that this is not a specific problem of Amsterdam per se but of national health policy. I agree it should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I am not sure where. Pehaps history of the Netherlands or the government (Ruud Lubbers?) which implemented the changes?... -- Viajero 18:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Size

This is a big article and I think we should be carefull that it shouldn't get to big. Let's not add all kinds of factoids, trivia etcetc (though they may be interesting to know) that makes it difficult to learn something about Amsterdam. I would certainly give some sections seperate wikipedia entries. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it good. Eugene showed us the way how to do it. --Chardon

[edit] Languages

A note on what languages are spoken and their popularities might be useful. -- Maru Dubshinki 01:36 PM Friday, 01 April 2005

The number of nationalities is mentioned. That should cover the number of languages. This page already has to much detailed information and I don't think adding will make this page more readable. What it needs is a good edit :) --Chardon

I was really thinking more along the lines of 'If you ask a random person in Amsterdam, what is the likelihood they speak X?" where X is the would-be tourists language. -- Maru Dubshinki 08:52 AM Saturday, 02 April 2005

Well that is another problem with this page. It is to much a tourist guide and not enough an encyclopedia article. --Chardon

I agree with Chardon; this article needs a thorough cleanup. One option would be to simply delete the tourist info and/or trivia as it belongs elsewhere on the Web (my choice). Another would be to move it to Amsterdam tourist information. Thoughts? -- Viajero 16:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] refactoring

Partly inspired the Dutch article, which I thought was cleaner and better organized, I have refactored text to History of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (municipality), and Talk:Amsterdam/tourist_info, the latter for discussion. -- Viajero 17:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well done --chardon

I think the article could now use a succinct overview of current issues, such as the housing shortage/kraakbeweging, multicultural conflicts, autolauw policies, straatgekken, and so forth. --Viajero

I think you mean autoluw ;-) -DePiep 14:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag orientation

I think the three-crossed-bar should be upright (now it's horizontally, see the first picture). Or is there a official coat of arms, showing so? More official then what is shown halfway this article? I propose to put it upright, bar vertical. -DePiep 14:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The flag, as depicted in the article, is correct. See, for example Flags of the World. The coat of arms has a vertical bar, the flag has a horizontal bar. Eugene van der Pijll 16:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This article is not long at all. The Rotterdam article is quite a bit longer. Rotterdam has more than 100,000 people less than Amsterdam and it is commonly reffered to as The Netherlands' second city. I read parts of the discussion page , and it seems that there used to be a Tourist Attractions section. What ever happened to that? I know there is a lot more information about Amsterdam. I hope people will be willing to help me extend this article. Thank you. - Big Brother is Watching 4:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better if you write a seperate article Amsterdam (tourist attractions) and not post links (even to the official vvv site) to sites that are trying to make you spend money in Amsterdam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tourist guide. More, this site is not intended as a free advertisment spot for hotels and bars in Amsterdam. If they want costumors they can find other ways of getting them. chardon

I'm not sure what gave you the misconception that I want to turn this into some kind of advertisement for Amsterdam, or for hotels and bars trying to reach "costumors". I was just using the Tourist Attractions section as an example as to how to make the article better. Also, I don't see any problem with having the VVV site there. It's not like the people who made www.amsterdam.nl don't want you to spend money in Amsterdam. So why don't you delete that too? Also, you can list tourist attractions without it being an advertisement for some company or other. As for making a separate page for Tourist Attractions, I like having all the information in one place, rather than spreading it out in to different pages. But that's just me. If you would like to create a page like that, go ahead. -Big Brother is Watching

Museums and 'things to do' in Amsterdam are mentioned in the text. No need to do more. chardon

[edit] image left or right?

The coat of arms was on the right and Viajero then put it left with [[Image:Wapen amsterdam.jpg|frame|left]]. This this looks ok with Mozilla, but not with Konqueror (partly overlapping the text). On the right it was ok though, just not in a logical place (too far down because of the images above it). DirkvdM 08:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Does this problem occur with all left-aligned images on Wikipedia or just this one? -- Viajero | Talk 12:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Using Konqueror 3.4.2 the image does not overlap the text. Nor does it with Opera 8.01. I'm using Wikipedia style 'Keuls Blauw'. Chardon

[edit] Donating my Flickr photos

All the photos in my Flickr account are Creative Commons-licensed so feel free to use them on Wikipedia. I'm too lazy to add the photos myself, so I'm leaving it up to you guys. http://flickr.com/photos/kentwang/tags/amsterdam/

Kent Wang 12:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] famous citiziens

I wouldn't say football players but soccer players, since football is usually referred to american football.

kind regards kaschni

In the US, yes. But the world is bigger and in the Netherlands they're called football players. If not specified, football usually means association football. DirkvdM 07:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

How about a section on the geography of the city? - BIG BROTHER

good idea Chardon 08:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Or the geology? The soil and water have had a very strong impact on the development of the city (swamp > canals > ships > international trade > wealth). DirkvdM 07:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public transport

There seems to be some disagreement about the number of tram and metro/light rail lines in Amsterdam. I always thought there was one (the line to Amstelveen). However the website of the gvb doesn't mention light rail at all (http://www.gvb.nl/overgvb/feitenencijfers/vervoerscijfers.html). Perhaps we should reflect this in the PT section and give Amsterdam 4 metro lines.

The carriages may look different, but they run on the same tracks (except for the Amstelveen extension, which only gets trams I believe). The question is what a line is. Is it defined by the carriages, the routes, the tracks or the usage? There are four routes, one of which is a 'lightrail', but it runs over metro tracks for more than half the way (I don't know if a metro could run on a lightrail track; the name suggests otherwise). From the track point of view one could say there is an almost complete circle with two branches (of which one forks once more). And from the usage point of view there is no distinction between metro and lightrail. I'm not sure, but I suppose the routes define a line. So then there there would be 3 metro lines and 1 lightrail line, although the gvb map doesn't make that distinction. But the article states there are 2 lightrails. I have no idea what might be meant by that. DirkvdM 07:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of my comment seems to have disappeared. I meant to say that I always thought there are 3 metrolines and 1 lightrail line. Like you I have no idea what the second lightrail line could be (perhaps the new tram to IJburg?). Anyway I suggest we follow the GVB and give Amsterdam 4 metrolines and no light rail lines. It was mostly a political decision anyway to call the line to Amstelveen light rail as a consequence of the problems during the building of the first 2 metro lines.

The tram (which is a tram...) to IJburg is mentioned separately, but that can be caused by different editors. I'd say the '2 lightrails' can go. And if the metro could run on the Amstelveen line I'd agree with you about the 4 metro lines. But it doesn't (I believe) and if it can't that means the lightrail is really different. Then again that's a rather technical distinction. What about '4 metro lines, one of which is a lightrail'? DirkvdM 07:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The old metro carriages used on line 53 and 54 can't use the track to Amstelveen. They are to wide. The 'new' carriages for line 50 can use the track to Amstelveen. I think they only called this line a sneltram for political reasons and not for any technical differences (except platform width and third rail/overhead power) from the original metro. The gvb website suggests that after 15 years Amsterdam is ready to call a spade a spade (metro a metro :-) ) Chardon 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As the Rapid transit article says, metro tends to imply totally independent from other traffic, so without level crossings, which this tram has.--Patrick 22:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A comment

For one of the world's most well-known cities, this article could be brought to a higher standard. If I have time I'll come back to edit. Where's the Amsterdam pride? :) Seriously, there's no reason this should'd be feature article quality! --Dpr 07:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather external link

To quote "wikipedia is not a travel guide so link to weather is unnecessary". I disagree. I know it's not a travel guide but it is just convenient to have it linked. Besides, I compared other featured articles about places like Chennai and Seattle and they all seem to have a link too. The google maps removal I agree of course. I didn't realised the coördinates was also a link. Garion96 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked fhrough the list of featured articles on cities, and my impression is that most of them do not have weather links. In fact, of the two that you point out, Seattle did not contain a weather link at the time that it gained featured status. Anyway, regardless of whether other articles include such links or not, I would argue that such a link is outside of the types of external links suggested at WP:EL. JeremyA 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the mistake. Without it I might never have noticed the coordinates-link. :) DirkvdM 07:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree, but I also don't think it's THAT important. What about a link which gives a little bit history overview of the weather in Amsterdam, instead of just the current weather. That would make even more sense. IMO of course. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, if you can find such an overview. DirkvdM 06:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography II

I know I've already suggested a geography section, but this time I'm serious and I plan following through this time. Some help would be appreciated. I'm sure there are people working on this article who know a lot more about Amsterdam's geography than I do. - BIG BROTHER 1/12/05 21:50 GMT

[edit] New Amsterdam

Why mention New Amsterdam (New York) on the Amsterdam page? NY has nothing to do with Amsterdam except it's old name. People wanting to know about Amsterdam will learn nothing when you tell them the old name of NY was New Amsterdam. I can understand why the NY page has a mention about New Amsterdam but it has no place on the Amsterdam page. Further the mention of NA was placed in the history section next to 4 or 5 other examples of Dutch colonial expansion. It adds absolutely nothing to this article. Chardon 16:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They're linked, so it makes sense to ...link them. I don't especially care where it's put (See also would be fine), but I think it's informative to have it mentioned. ¦ Reisio 23:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way are Amsterdam and NY linked? I don't see a link. There have been many other New Amsterdams and Nieuw Amsterdams. Should we mention these as well? I don't think so. We should keep the article focused on Amsterdam.Chardon 10:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way are Amsterdam and NY linked?

One was named after another.

There have been many other New Amsterdams and Nieuw Amsterdams. Should we mention these as well?

Nah, I think the New Amsterdam article should probably take care of that. ¦ Reisio 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought a link means a compelling reason to mention something. The fact that NY was 350 years ago called New Amsterdam might be compelling to the NY article I doubt many people reading the Amsterdam page would want to know that. It's just trivia. We have to make a selection what gets on this page and what stays off (read earlier discussions on this talk page). There is only a limited amount of space. Chardon 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is? :p How much space is that? ¦ Reisio 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not too much and not too little :P. The amount of space is limited by the attention span of the reader. If there is too much information he will stop reading, if there is too little he will have learned nothing. Perhaps you can create an Amsterdam (trivia) page where this sort of stuff gets mentioned.Chardon 06:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my bad - I just didn't realize that Wikipedia's goal was to present as little information as possible to better serve people with a few seconds to read. :p ¦ Reisio 08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the goal is to present the information in such a way as to make it easiest for the reader to understand what Amsterdam is. Adding nformation about NY doesn´t make it easier so it shouldn´t be on the Amsterdam page. Chardon 09:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Chardon here. It's kinda hard to tell whether Reisio is being ironic in saying that the American New Amsterdam should get a special mention here, and the other New Amsterdams specifically not be mentioned here. Even if you are joking, Reisio, there's too much of this on WP for it to be really funny... JackyR 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

PS It woz me wot added the Conrad quote. If you feel it unbalances the piece (which I kinda think it does) pls feel free to cut - I'll make a link to Wikiquote shortly and make it more subtly available that way. :-) JackyR 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I cut it. :). I like a link to wikiquote better. Chardon 06:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bicycle brakes

Hi there, just been to Amsterdam and I was shocked by, in this order: 1. The amount of bicycles, 2. Bicycles travelling at high speed, 3. No brakes on most bicycles! Is that right? I checked, and they did not have pedal-brakes either! What's going on?!? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 07:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From personal experience I can tell you that bikes in Amsterdam do have brakes. However Amstedam bikers don´t brake for tourists giving the impression that bikes don´t have brakes. Chardon 12:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what kind of brakes are we talking about? Because I couldn't see any brake levers (on ~70% of bikes) and the pedals were clearly moving independently from the wheels, which is not what happens with pedal-style brakes. PizzaMargherita 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you saw pedals - not - moving, or moving a bit backwards. Sometimes back-pedal brakes require backpedaling about a quart-evolution. 70% of bikes would be right for the back-pedalling-type. As a life-long inhabitant I feel at ease assuring you: your observation is erroneous or highly atypical.

[edit] Famous citizens

Vincent van Gogh was not from Amsterdam and, according to their respective articles, neither are the Van Halen brothers - who I'm surprised to hear are Dutch.Rooseboom 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Van Halen Bros are Dutch allright, but not from Amsterdam. Van Gogh stayed in Amsterdam for a short period, but calling him a famous Amsterdammer seems out of proportion. And when you ask people in the streets, I am sure 99% of them never heard of Carlo Boszhard, Ernesto Hoost, Karel Miljon and Elisabeth Esselink.
--Koppedia 10:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should establish some criteria to who gets on the list. I propose famous Amsterdammers must be:

• dead
• born in Amsterdam and/or lived most of their lives in Amsterdam
• known by an international audience Chardon 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is absolutaly necesary to die before becoming famous.
--Koppedia 10:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Johan Cruijff should for instance be there. It might be handy to have a maximum on it. Or just remove it, it seems too easy for people to add their favorites on it. Like Elisabeth Esselink. Garion96 ^(talk) 15:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The dead criterium was to keep footballers and pop singers from the list. Johand Cruyff should be on the list though. Perhaps a combination of criteria and a maximum number (let's say 10) is better? Chardon 09:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it likely that Amsterdam has only 10 famous people (or Wikiable people)? Surely just let the list grow and spin it off to a separate article when it gets large enough? JackyR 14:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need to define specific criteria. If anyone feels that someone doesn't deserve to be on the list, the best thing to do is to list it on the talk page and we can get consensensus about it here. jacoplane 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The decision to add or delete someone to the list of famous amsterdammers is always based on criteria. Better to have clear guidelines for adding or deleting a name or we will have the same discussion over and over again. There are more then 10 famous amsterdammers but should there be more then 10 on this page? I agree with you that if the list gets to big it wuld be better to create a seperate page for the subject. How many is to many is open for discussion. I picked 10 because it's a nice number, not for any particular reason. Chardon 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academia

the information about the Sweelick Conservatorium must be updated since it no longer exists. It is called Amsterdam Conservatorium and also belongs to the Amsterdamse Hogeschool voor de Kunsten. http://www.ahk.nl/ http://www.cva.ahk.nl/

[edit] Conrad quote

I've added a lk to the Conrad description of Amsterdam. I dare say people will move the ref around! Unfortunately, one place it really can't go is in one of those nice Wikiquote ref boxes, because there's no WQ page on Amsterdam, and current WQ style is to try to keep themes on author pages. So instead you may want a subhead in this article like "Literary references" or "Amsterdam in books and films". JackyR 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest city

A while ago, at wikipedia.com, someone wrote: "In the 17th century Amsterdam was the biggest city of Europe." This is not correct, I've looked this up in a well- known book about the history of The Netherlands. This book says that in the 17th century Amsterdam was the biggest city of the whole world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.211.62 (talk • contribs) . 14:59, 8 May 2006

[edit] History

Perhaps one should remember Canadian intervention in the liberation of Amsterdam in the final days before V-E day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.30.23 (talk • contribs) . 19:39, 11 June 2006

[edit] Population

I have just made this to show the popluation increase visually, what do people think?

Joss 08:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice graph but was does it add to what we already have? Chardon 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did it to see the increses cause i couldn't see if it was a slow constant increase and a increse that has definate increses and sudden stops like it does. Without i feel it is very hard to see the not uniform increse. What do others think? Joss 10:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the text and table are clear enough; moreover, the graph will take up a lot of space. Piet 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the graph really helps. 213.84.44.254 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post WWII History

The history section ends with the second world war, something must have happened since? Piet 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is the History of Amsterdam page, but you're right: It would be better to have a paragraph here. Feel free to contribute. Chardon 06:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News from Amsterdam

Perhaps this external link might be considered for inclusion: http://www.nieuwsuitamsterdam.nl/english.htm. A regularly updated site dealing with political, social and cultural issues related to Amsterdam.--Dirkk 08:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No links to news sites. They don't add anything to the Amsterdam page. Chardon 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Painting of the Amstel river

It doesn't make sense to me, using a painting by one of Wikipedia's users to depict the Amstel by night. If anyone can convince me otherwise, great, but I am planning to remove the picture from the Amsterdam page. Wikipedia ain't no art gallery. So, does it make sense to have a picture of the Amstel river by night?

- Claire

Other then that it's a nice painting and that it has been on the Amsterdam page as long as I remember there is no reason why this picture should be shown and not something else. If it goes or stays, is fine with me. Chardon 16:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amsterdam as capital

I'm wondering - is there any story as to why Amsterdam is the officially designated capital of the Netherlands, in spite of the fact that it has never been the seat of government, and was never intended to be? Ever since the Dutch Republic was established in the 16th century, the seat of government has been at the Hague. Why so much hating on the Hague? It's bad enough to be the seat of government and not the major city. It must seriously suck when you're not even called the capital, in spite of having been the seat of government for more than 400 years. john k 00:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To put one thing straight first: Amsterdam has been the seat of government once, between 1808 and 1810 King Lodewijk Napoleon made Amsterdam his seat of government and capitol. An important reason for the role as capitol of Amsterdam is that this is the city where the king gets crowned. There are several other reasons for Amsterdam as capitol, but I can assure you none of them is hatred agains The Hague. The whole thing is not an issue in The Netherlands. Lomedae ^talk 00:54, August 3, 2006 (UTC)

It was never the seat of government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Nor of the state which existed between 1581 and 1795, the United Provinces, nor of the state which succeeded it, the Batavian Republic. It was very briefly the capital of the very short-lived Kingdom of Holland. It seems to me that my version was more true than false. I will change it, though. john k 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leaning buildings

Photo-caption: Leaning buildings are common in Amsterdam due to settling of the soft ground and fill underneath.

Rather stange the buildings would always lean forward. The reason i know is that while most 'grachtenpand' (canal-buiding) were storage-houses for trade, they all had a 'hijsbalk' (crane) on top. To operate the crane it would be very difficult if the building were reclining or straight. So they build them leaning forward. regards Aleichem 10:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Residents

I note that someone (I didn't catch the name) removed an entry from the list of famous Amsterdammers. I wish to point out what it is that is being done with this list, and all the others I am working on.

What I am doing is basically adding the name of every person, whether or not they already have a page, from a biographical dictionary I have before me to the list of residents of his area of birth. By definition, every person from this book qualifies as importance enough for their own article. In this case, however, that article has yet to be created. That, however, does not mean that they are not "important" enough to have their own article, simply that it has not yet been created. I will also be adding the names of every other resident from this book and its successor volumes, whether they have an article already or not, to the lists here and elsewhere. If, as I think likely, it means that some of these lists will probably become so long that they require their own page, it's probably better having it as a separate page including a section of minimal stub data on those who do not yet have their own pages than having a huge number of separate stubs with only a sentence or two of content. Also, by having them on the resident page or section, it makes anyone who sees the entry, most of whom will probably be interested in the town to some degree and have access to info about the town and its people, see that a page does not yet exist for this person and possibily stimulate them to create a separate page, probably with more data than I have available to me from my source. Also, I call to mind that, in accord with wikipedia guidelines, those entries actually had specific individual references.

Clearly, the individuals who have been removed do qualify as important enough for their own articles; they just haven't gotten them yet. And, if the only real data available on them is the minimal data I presented, we might be better off if that data were included in a short list, rather than having an ever expanding proliferation of mini-stubs. I sincerely hope that the person who saw fit to remove the individuals from the list reconsiders that action. If s/he does, I believe that they will reach the same conclusion I did, that they do qualify at least for reference in the list. I shall continue to add details and reference for the names on this list for a while; however, I may reconsider that in the near future at any time if this kind of summary judgement continues. I sincerely await a response. Badbilltucker 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically we would end up with a list of notable people born in Amsterdam? Wouldn't a category be better for that? Personally I don't find it necessary to have such a list. Even in this article I don't find it really necessary, but at least the list is small and is (should) only be for really notable people born in Amsterdam. Rembrand for instance. Not for every person born in Amsterdam who has (or should have) a wikipedia article. Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer Rembrandt not to be in a list of notable people born in Amsterdam, if you don't mind... Eugène van der Pijll 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....oops? :) Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just saw there already is a category for this. Category:People from Amsterdam. Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the People from A'dam cat, and I agree with Garion96 that this list be removed because the category is a good replacement. C mon 20:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The people added by Badbilltucker are not famous so should not be on the Amsterdam page in the ´Famous Amsterdammers´ section. That is not to say that they shouldn´t me mentioned in Wikipedia, just that the Amsterdam page is not the appropriate place. Chardon 07:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complement EU

On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added an entry for the European Union. [1] According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history... ... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique... ... the EU ... has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.

I might add that EU citizens have EU- numberplates, -passports, drivinglicense, the EU institutions, and regular election. I hope you support the small extension I made... all the best Lear 21 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose here as the other places where this has been suggested, see also: Template talk:Infobox City Poland and the templates for Greece and Portugal. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist attractions/nightlife sí, Rijksakademie no?

I'm seeking information on the Rijksakademie for an article I'm editing on the WWII-era artist Jan Budding. Instead of headings for Amsterdam's Culture and perhaps Education, I find the above.
Content aside, I suggest this page would benefit from further editing to rectify its headings, to enhance its character as an encyclopaedia article rather than a promotional for tourism. I note there's already a separate page for Amsterdam Tourist Attractions, prominently linked here. -- Deborahjay 11:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[NB: I corrected the spelling per a :nl: dictionary, and am subsequently posting an additional, separate query.] -- Deborahjay 11:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rijksakademie van Beeldende Kunsten

There's a page for the Rijksakademie [sic] in Amsterdam, that requires further editing -- including a translation of its full name into English. I've done some preliminary work on it; would appreciate assistance there, as well as a mention included on (and linked from) the Amsterdam page under some suitable future heading, e.g. Culture or The Arts?. Thanks! -- Deborahjay 11:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A

I think something should be added about the famousness of this country because it is the only country in the world that begins with the letter A.

It isn't a country, it's a city. 213.84.44.254 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)