Talk:Maastricht

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements 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.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Maastricht is not the oldest city of the Netherlands. The discussions on this subject concluded a couple of years ago that Nijmegen is the oldest city in the Netherlands.

Discussions like this never conclude. It depends a lot on what you mean by "city" and whether the present-day city is truely a continuation of the ancient settlement.
Discussions indeed came to no conclusion, but it is clear what the arguments are. Nijmegen was the first with Roman city rights; Maastricht the first with Medieval city rights. I incorporated this in the article. Piotr Kapretski 13:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maastricht is the oldest city and not else! Nijmegen maybe got the Roman city rights title first, but Maastricht was founded much earlier and was a city much earlier! By the way; this is an endless discussion in the Netherlands ;-)

Contents

[edit] Autonomous area?

I seem to recall there was an area near the present German-Dutch-Belgian junction that was forgotten by the Congress of Vienna and thus was not assigned to any state until the treaties after 1918. Was it Maastrict? If not where was it and what was it called? --StanZegel 07:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it was Neutral Moresnet, near the Dutch-Belgian-German three-country border point, and between the Belgian village of Moresnet and the Dutch village of Vaals. Some 5,000 people lived there by 1900 and it was a refuge for free-thinkers. Maastricht has been in the Netherlands ever since 1815 and as an enclave within Belgian area from 1830-1839.--Caesarion 14:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

The photograph of the Maasticht skyline [1] is a nice photograph, but not very illustrative of Maastricht. The skyline-idea could work quite well, though. Maybe next time I'm in town I'll take one. DirkvdM 19:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verify

Could someone verify if anything in Berg en Terblijt is correct, and if so, clean it up a bit. I don't know enough about it or the language to improve the article. Thanks - Taxman Talk 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

I think it would be useful to have one of those bars at the top of the page that read: "This article refers to the city of Maastricht. For the political treaty, click here." [That's how I got to this page, lol] I don't know how to set that up, though, could someone help me out? Nicolasdz 11:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of Arms Maastricht.gif

Image:Coat of Arms Maastricht.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


>> I think this is fixed now, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.86.112 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

This article has been vandalised by RayleneWauda; it could also simply be mistakes made by him/her as a newcomer. The point is that the article has been partially deleted. Since I'm not really THE specialist on undoing these type of things I could use some help. Thank you LightPhoenix 15:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, "85.146.180.205" for your help! LightPhoenix 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Euro-tops

The following text has been reverted without any argumentation on 9-19 by an anonymus.

"As a matter of fact it was the initial version, that was signed here; the definite version was signed in Dublin. By the way another European Top Conference had been held in this town some 6 years earlier. It is known to be the one, that ended in as good as all present statesmen and -women having been affected with the Salmonella bacterium, which gave them the opportunity to frequently found out, how good the locally produced toilets of a more or less well known brand function."

Like to know, what was the argumantation to remove this information? James Blond 04:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airplane noise

When some thirty years ago there were protests from villages in it's direct neighbourhood against the planned developement of a very small air-port at Beek, to a bigger one, in Maastricht, which town is nearby, but in a distance, where it doesn't have any noise problems, according to a regional newspaper, there were reactions like: "If the citizens of Maastricht in this way can get an opportunity to travel to Mallorca directly (without first having to travel to Schiphol), than of course protests from a farmersvillage like Ulestraten can not be regarded to be of any importance". According to this (Dutch) website, [2] by now the inhabitants of Maastricht, are more and more concerned about the developement of the air-port at the (small) village Bierset (Belgium) to "another Schiphol". According to local protestgroups, airplanes are "not only bad for health of inhabitants of surrounding places, but also polluting and contributing to the greenhouse-effect". In case insiders can confirm, that this item has been in newspapers and/or other media already, so that sources are available, it could be mentioned in this acticle as well. James Blond —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) You know, I never see or hear airplanes, but early, really early every morning a plan passes over my apartment. Often loud enough to wake me up. So, yeah, it bugs me! Of course, that qualifies as "original research". 84.198.11.132 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I think there should be a section on Maastricht's straqnge demographics. Because it's such a student town, there are thousands of kids (mostly 20 to 25, they start late around here), especially in the inner city. In my neighborhood, Buitenwijk Zuid-West, there are lots of old people. I'd say mostly over 60. Few children in the whole city, and few middle-aged. Thing is, I don't have any reliable source. Just my observation. Worth looking into? The Nederlandse wiki committee calls this article a "Start" after all, so it seems more information would be good.

[edit] History

In the History section, subsection "Part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands", it reads "despite being geographically and culturally closer to Belgium". The geographical statement seems obvious, but how is the cultural argument supported? It seems a rather vague statement to make, so unless it can be supported by evidence I suggest to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.86.112 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)