Talk:Amsterdam, New York/Archives/2012

Older comments

Whoever tried calling mayor Joseph Emmanuelle a "Plageerizer" (sic) needs to learn to spell before they should be making any edits, especially libelous ones. --starX 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing against Josh Beekman, I certainly wish him the best, but I think it more proper to list him as being famous when he goes pro. --starX 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly if Amsterdam is COMPLETELY surrounded by the town of Amsterdam, but I do know for certain that ALL cities in NY are separate from towns and are not WITHIN towns. So I changed the wording of from "Amsterdam is within the Town of Amsterdam" to "is surrounded by". Could someone with a map in front of them clarify if other towns touch the city?

Notable Amsterdamians

Hello I am from the capital district area and I feel the railroad is important enough to be in the article about amsterdam!!! but when ever I put something about the railroad in it is deleted!!! please stop deleting It!! now the Amsterdam page is protected!!! WOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainamtrakcsx (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Why I have reverted the addition of Rob Millan to this list: I don't Rob Millan from Adam, but no reference is cited, and neither of the Rob Millans (both likely to be from Amsterdam) at http://www.robmillan.com/aboutus.htm looks notable to me, and I can't find any others in Google... --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!- citation added. Dr. Millan had consulted several key local politicians before going on to consult current Gov. Spitzer and Senator Hillary Clinton; has since moved onto thw prestiguous London School of Economics; a real gem in a city that has seen much better days.Dryamaka (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Entry removed for Todd Cetnar. Cetnar's 'notability' in a professional manner exists in England alone. Actually, local 'fame' is rather lackluster. An assistant college basketball coach is hardly any means for notability. Dryamaka (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Todd Cetnar is not 'notable' enough, certainly on the professional level. Listing removed Dryamaka (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's notable enough to have an article, he's notable enough for a link in a local article. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Perhaps his article needs to be deleted? --starX (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed listing for Todd Cetnar- sorry but there really isn't anything worth denoting an entry. A local boy who goes to Europe for a season or two then comes back and coaches (again, for a searon or two) isn't recognizable. The fact that his father was a well-known gym teacher isn;t enough to denote an entry. Who will be next with an entry? My 4th grade gym teacher? My 1952 Chevy? My pet terrier?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cetnar removed onec again- seriously- not notable enough, sorry and no offense. Even the article on him (probably written by he himself) states his 'career' was short-lived in the UK. And if this is the case, leave the notability for the UK, not for Amsterdam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.94.13 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing his entry before we come to a consensus. If he satisfies notability criteria to have an article, surely he is notable enough for this article. If you feel he is not notable, then take the argument to Talk:Todd Cetnar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article is deleted, then nobody will object to his removal to the list. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing Cetnar. I'm confused as to why there is eve such a long discussion regarding this- remove it, simple. I mean, with all due respect, I'm not sure this person should even be listed with their own article, which would completely and totally negate Bahamut0013's argument 'he satisfies notability criteria to have an article, surely he is notable enough for this article' because perhaps he isn't even worthy of that much. Let's see what we have: a person, with only collegiate-level experience in basketball in the US, who coached at a local liberal arts school for a year and does what now? If he played pro basketball in the UK, then perhaps he should be listed as a former player for the UK team's roster, but 'notable' in the US? Hardly. 'Noteworthiness' is probably limited to just Amsterdam itself, which is certainly not worthy of an article or placement as 'notable resident,' especially when you consider the other residents hold national-level recognition (actors/actresses, politicians, etc.).65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing discussion from a talk page is generally not acceptable under all but the rarest circumstances--these pages are a record, and are sometime (I daresay often) useful in the future for various purposes. Even though you may think the discussion is useless, you must not delete any portion of it. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more details.

And like I said, if you feel Cetnar is not notable, take it up on that article or in a formal deletion discussion. Debating it here is pointless; if there is consensus for his notability elsewhere, then there is really little reason why he isn't notable here either. In any case, Amsterdam is not such a large city that we are swamped with famous people, and until the list starts getting very long (not likely any time soon), I wouldn't be particularly picky about who is and isn't notable "enough". If they are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia (and I mean genuinely notable, not just some crap that somebody made up one day, that ought to suffice for now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the content- I merely commented in the discussion on how it should be removed- read more clearly next time. (Is it me or do people seem to just plead Wikipedia 'rules' when they have no other excuse to use?).65.215.94.13 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be reading more closely: I never said that you did in my previous comments, even though you HAVE done so several times: first second & third, and removed your own signature (any particular reason for that?). Citing a policy is certainly not pleading an excuse: these rules and guidelines are there for a reason; and if you take offense to me directing your attention to them, then perhaps you should demonstrate some sort of understanding of them. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

These 'rules'...exactly why more and more academic institutions are banning the Wikipedia domain from being accessed on campus. Enough said :)65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave the entry out- period. If I see it again, it will be marked as vandalism and the user(s) will be warned. It is getting almost painful to have to go in here several times daily to fix this section up.69.204.225.103 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that there have been a number of editors who have re-inserted it and not posted here, I would say that there is no clear consensus that his name should be removed. Vandalism is not covered by this circumstance... in fact, I'd dare say your continuous removal is more disruptive and closer to the definition. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, If I may, I have lived in Amsterdam my entire life and have no idea who this person is to be honest. I vote for removal.65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal knowledge (or lack of knowledge) on the part of Wikipedia contributors is original research that does not play a part in determining a topic's notability. Apparently this is someone who achieved some notability (per WP:ATHLETE) after leaving Amsterdam. --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Athlete? Seriously? Do you people just make things up as you go along just to satisfy what you don't know? You've never stepped foot here, nor do you know about the prank that this is in regard to. You're perpetuating it only adds more proof to the whole point of the prank that is basically how Wikipedia is a poor source for anything, especially when people add rules, make them up, claim to adhere to them, etc.65.215.94.13 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:ATHLETE, I suggest that you take your comments to the talk page for that guideline. (A discussion here on the talk page for Amsterdam will not have useful results.) If you are alleging that the addition of Mr. Cetnar's name to this article (or perhaps your repeated deletions of his name) is a "prank," perhaps you would consider explaining what you are talking about, rather than making uncivil remarks about other users. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in Amsterdam most of my life, up until I joined the military a few years ago. I've never heard of you before. I suppose that by your logic, you don't exist. Do you see how your argument is a logical fallacy?

And I will mention that none of our policies are "made up", and every single one we have cited here has existed long before you made your first edit (you can verify this by looking at the page histories). The policies and guidelines we are attempting to uphold here are precisely what gives Wikipedia credibility. Without them, it would be a collection of fads, pop culture, vandalism, crap that teenagers came up with one day, and our only featured articles would be Pokemon characters and Family Guy.

If you have a problem with WIkipedia's reliability, then why are you fighting so hard to have this entry removed? I doubt very much that you are familiar with every single other name on the list... In fact, I have a suspicion that your interest is not at all related to Cetnar's notability. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Education section

Changed description for Amsterdam High School. AHS is in the Town, not the City, and should be reflected as such. Dryamaka (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd create a single article about "Amsterdam, New York" and discuss both the City and the Town within that one article... --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fulton-Montgomery Community College is NOT located anywhere near the City of Amsterdam- submission deleted.Dryamaka (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's nowhere near Amsterdam... --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the best way to improve the "Education" section of this article would be to supplement (or replace) the lists with narrative about education in and around Amsterdam. (After all, an encyclopedia article would not normally consist of a collection of lists.) For example, say that public schools are operated by the Greater Amsterdam School District, describe the geographic area covered by the GASD and the district's governance, and provide descriptive information about the individual public schools. Regarding Fulton-Montgomery Community College, would it be accurate if the article identified it as the community college designated to serve students and employers in Amsterdam (although it has only one campus, located in Johnstown)? See Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Goshen Central School District, District of Columbia Public Schools, and Minisink Valley Central School District for examples (none of them ideal) of how other public school systems have been documented in Wikipedia. The only featured article about a "normal" U.S. public school seems to be Plano Senior High School -- that also could be a good source of inspiration. --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Town vs City

I don't know exactly if Amsterdam is COMPLETELY surrounded by the town of Amsterdam, but I do know for certain that ALL cities in NY are separate from towns and are not WITHIN towns. So I changed the wording of from "Amsterdam is within the Town of Amsterdam" to "is surrounded by". Could someone with a map in front of them clarify if other towns touch the city?

I actually live in the "town" of Amsterdam, and can tell you for a fact that, although the city doesn't "touch" the town, it is a part. (Citizens in the city recieve representation in the town government.)Malomaboy06 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Malomaboy06- you're misunderstood. The City is a totally separate entity of the Town. They each have their own governing bodies (City has a mayor; town has a supervisor). The city has aldermen, one from each of the five wards, which meet at the city level (Common Council) which meets with its mayor. The town has its legislators which meet with the supervisor- so they are not a 'part' of each other, as you describe. And yes, the city and town do in fact touch one another (at Route 30, Route 67, Route 5 east and west, etc.) And no, the citizens of the city do not receive representation in the town. The city has one supervisor for each of the five wards which meet at the county level with with county board of trustees. The town has only one presentation at the county level- the supervisor. In reality, the only thing the town and city have in common is a name.

The town consists of itself, PLUS Ft. Johnson, Hagaman, Cranesville, Tribes Hill, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryamaka (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I would be the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article, and I would be happy to lend a hand if you want some advice on how to improve this article; just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you promptly. --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayors

Changed the term length for Mayor Emmanuel. Since terms are started on 1/1 and end on 12/31, the term appears to be 3 years when in fact all Amsterdam mayoral terms are 4 years. So, Emmanuel was actually in office from 1/1/04 - 12/31/07, to total 4 years, and not 2004 - 2008 as the previous selection had.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

False Information Regarding Mohawk

I removed information regarding a section of the introduction paragraph stating Amsterdam is the only city in New York divided by the Mohawk River, since Utica is also a city and is also divided by the same river as the official Utica city map shows:

http://www.cityofutica.com/pdf/census_tracts.pdf 69.204.225.103 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cemeteries

Greenhill Cemetery was the only cemetery on the list to actually be in the city. The rest listed are in the town.207.38.156.111 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Saint Stanislaus Cemetery is within the city limits. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually in Fort Johnson on Steadwell, behind St Mary's Hospital (city) and beyond the border. Signs on Steadwell indicate city limits followed by the cemetery to the left/wester side of the road.207.38.156.111 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then which cemetary is the one right next to the school/church? bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If the church you're referencing is St. Stan's, then the answer is Greenhill Cemetary across the street.63.118.154.72 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mayor change

In the last couple weeks, a pair of IPs (24.97.19.36 and 67.240.83.183) have changed the first Mayor of Amsterdam from John Carmichael to Alex hard (1st 2nd 3rd 4th). The 2nd time, the IP listed him as a member of the Whig Party; since it didn't exist in 1885 (and the possibility that "Hard" may just be a crude pun), I'm inclined to believe that the edits are either vandalism or factually inaccurate. I'd like to see a reference for these persistant changes. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Clara Bacon is no longer a school and therefore should not be included in the list of schools. That's like saying all the cities, towns, and villages in Vermont should be included in the same list for New York since Vermont was once a part of that state. Sorry if logic isn't your forté, but you should familiarize yourself a bit with the goings-on in my city and yield to those who know what they're talking about.

The same applies to the Catholic schools section, which still lists school that are defunct: St. Stan's and Scully, the latter having been closed about 25 years now. Again, these schools no longer serve their purpose or function in that capacity and therefore should NOT be included on this list. 96.239.94.159 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a local Chamber of Commerce brochure about the city. Accordingly, the past, including the names of closed schools, is a valid part of the contents. Instead of deleting information about the closed schools, could you add sourced information about these schools, including when they closed? Prose is generally preferred to bulleted lists. If you are not comfortable adding it to the article, consider supplying your information here. --Orlady (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No one said anything about a Chamber of Commerce brochure, and I'm not sure why that was used as an argument. This is based on fact; not non-facts, like buildings that are no longer used as schools included in a list of...schools. There are several other former schools in Amsterdam (which you would know if you lived there), namely: Theodore Roosevelt Junior High School, Walter Elwood Elementary School, Vrooman Avenue School, etc., all of which have either been converted to other use, or demolished; and yet no mention of those?63.118.154.94 (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So why not add those schools to the list? Add content; don't delete content because other topics aren't included. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding for the sake of adding? That's no defense; that's just adding ad nauseum. My argument works better: that CLOSED schools should not be added to a list of OPEN schools. Continue and I'll report as vandalism.96.239.94.159 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see: when you see a stronger argument come against your weak one, you simply add a partial edit block. That's not very 'encyclopedic' now is it?Tatumstevens2 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The history of the city is very relevant and encyclopedic. The education section doesn't say "open" anywhere on it, and it doesn't imply that only currently open schools are in the list. Simply put, the fact that they are no longer in operation does not mean that they should be removed from the list. If you feel that it's incomplete, simply fix it instead of deleting what is there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about history? This is an 'encyclopedia', not a history lesson. The list doesn't need to specifically say 'open', and it is unclear as to why you would need so much of a literal and blatant header to indicate that. If you want to add something historical, start a new section for closed schools perhaps? Tatumstevens2 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone care to answer the question of how 'The history of the city is very relevant and encyclopedic' WITHOUT answering with just another Wiki page or 'rule' (which itself is probably just made up)? Legitimate answers only and for constructive purposes. Tatumstevens2 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The arguments presented by Bahamut0013 and Orlady are weak at best, and offer absolutely no answer to the question of 'why', versus simply 'just add information, even if totally irrelavent, if only just to refuse to accept defeat.' From the history of this article, it appears one or both also thought Amsterdam was chock-full of cemetaries (which I had to correct several months back, as there is only one), had no issue in double-checking that FMCC was in the city (which when corrected, again by me, was also left in, which raises the question of 'Do you really consider yourself an editor if you aren't verifying information?') and that the city lies 'on the banks of the Mohawk. Neither are able to answer the question of '[[should] all the cities, towns, and villages in Vermont should be included in the same list for New York since Vermont was once a part of that state.'? Tatumstevens2 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note on sockpuppetry

Participants in this discussion should be aware that using multiple accounts, or using both anonymous IPs and registered accounts to create an illusion of support is a form of Sockpuppetry. WP:Sockpuppetry states:

Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.

--Orlady (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)