From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Dutch municipalities (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

When we say that Nijmegen is a city of 150,000 does that include the other towns in the municipalty? Or should this be "Nijmegen is a municipality" not a city? Rmhermen 14:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that this was a bit unclear, I changed it. - Patrick 14:42 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

WWII History[edit]

I added the casulty count from the US bombing and slightly reworded the para. It would actually be nice to have a subsection on WWII history. The current paragraph should at least be split into 1) Invasion 2) Bombing 3) Market Garden and any other notable incidents. Numbers from (over 750 - I've also seen 800 quoted). The bombardment was not an error. The pilots said after landing they had bombarded Nijmegen. They knew it. See 'Nijmegen '44. Verwoesting, verdriet en verwerking' author Joost Rosendaal — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


The article presently states: "It has been contended that in the 8th century Emperor Charlemagne built a castle in Nijmegen. Research has demonstrated that it is a historical fallacy.". However, German wikipedia states that Charlemagne built a castle from the deserted castellum in 777, and Dutch wikipedia states that Charlemagne built the castle in 770, and Louis the Pious had a conference there in 830. I would like to know which statement is right, and what research is referred to. Markussep 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is "general knowledge" that he built a castle in Nijmegen. nl:Karel de Grote has an external link at the bottom to a "highly controversial" theory of Albert Delahaye that several events from early Dutch history in fact took place in Flanders or the north of France.
The location of Charlemagne's castle is known to be "Noviomagus". According to Delahaye, this also refers to the town of Noyon, which is close to the birth place of Charlemagne, and a more logical place for him to build a castle early in his life.
I have heard of this controversy before; I don't think his theories are widely accepted. The scale of his claims makes them quite hard to believe. -- Eugene van der Pijll 11:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I read some of Delahaye's statements, it all seems pretty paranoid to me. The statement about continuous flooding and lack of human activity in the region between the 4th and 11th century (as presently in the article) seems far fetched to me as well. Better change it to something more widely accepted. Markussep 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I disagree with Delahaye's conclusions, I agree that there is no evidence for the claim that Charlemagne actually built a palace, or ever resided in Nijmegen. There has been no or very little archeological research on this site, known as Valkhof. I also found on the dutch version of this page Charlemagne's name in the list of famous people from Nijmegen. As with it's Roman past, in my view, these popular historical claims have little scientific foundation. Wvdc 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the line "Due to climate changes that caused continuous flooding there was, during the time-span between the 4th century and the 11th century, hardly any human activity in Nijmegen or its region" as there really isn't any evidence other than the decline of Nijmegen to support this theory. Speaking against it, however, is the fact that Nijmegen lies at an altitude of about 30m above sea level - that's some serious flooding Delahaye is suggesting.
Delahaye is full of shite. He's mixing up facts, and making up his own ideas to fill the gaps... I know a few people who work for the Archaeology department, and we've been discussing this issue many of times, the general consensus among city archaeologists is that there's been constant activity around Valkhof Hill, but, indeed, the old roman city in what's now called "Waterkwartier" did get abandoned because of an increase of water flowing through the Waal River in the 5th- 8th century. (The major Rhine outlet shifted from Nederrijn - Oude Rijn to Waal in this period) City archaeologists believe, that because of this, the town centre was moved to what's now the "Westelijke Benedenstad" around the Lange Hezelstraat and Bottelstraat, which is at 13-15 meters ASL, instead of 9 meters ASL for the old Roman town. The problem with this, though, is that Valkhof Hill is protected, and they're only allowed to excavate there if there's ever going to be some construction of some kind. (which is why some archaeologists wouldn't mind the Donjon), and the Westelijke Benedenstad has had 1000-1600 years of constant habitation, so the soil up to a depth of about three meters is disturbed to the point it's unusable. Although there is general consensus among city archaeologists that Nijmegen has existed through the dark ages as a centre of population, they also believe it was a small one compared to Roman times, or post-9th century Nijmegen. The population probably never exceeded 500 in this period. Clint.hotvedt 09:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
May I refer you to the book in 3 parts: Nijmegen. Geschiedenis van de oudste styad van Nederland. Forget Delahaye. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Delahaye is not taken seriously by any respected historian. Let's keep his crazy theories out of this article. Venetian 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oldest city?[edit]

In 'History' it reads:

   Nijmegen is celebrating its 2000 year existence in 2005. With
   its history going back to the 0's it is considered the oldest
   city in the Netherlands. In gaining this qualification, it has
   competed with the city of Maastricht.

The 'dispute' over which city is actually the oldest is not quite settled yet. It appears to be a question of definition whether Maastricht or Nijmegen is the oldest city in the Netherlands. Perhaps it would be better to reflect this 'unresolved' status in this article as well?

That is not necesary since Maastricht recognized some time ago Nijmegen was elder. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No where in the article does it mention why they believe the city was founded in the year 5 CE (or AD if you must insist, though i prefer you didnt). Did they just randomly decide on the year 2005 for their 2000th anniversary? The article states when they recieved their roman city rights, but that was later than the year 5 CE, and it seems there were settlements before 5 CE according to history as well. What is up? Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Nijmegen got city rights in 105 CE, but for the Batavians Nijmegen was already their main centre for about a century. The official slogan in 2005 was "city since 1900 years, urban life for 2000 years". Of course, this is somewhat arbitrary, because it could've just as well have been 1992 or 2009 years back in 2005. And when one counts "urban functions", Maastricht predates Nijmegen by at least 350-400 years, but if one counts continuous habitation Nijmegen wins it from Maastricht by at least 400 more years. As far as I know, the official consensus is that Nijmegen is the site of longest continuous habitation, since 900 BCE, or 2900 years (as long as one leaves Delahaye's shite out), Maastricht is the longest-serving "urban centre" at around 2300-2500 years, and Nijmegen is the oldest "official" city, of which official records exist, at 1904 years at september 2009. Clint.hotvedt (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


"Building: The Erasmus Tower, famous for its architecture. The Taipei 101 was based upon the architecture of the Erasmus."

I hope someone can provide a source, because it sounds ridiculous. --Venetian 00:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms[edit]

Can someone add the coat of arms that seams to be deleated? It's public domain (Gezien de regelgeving kan de afbeelding als publiek domein worden beschouwd, evenals reproducties van het wapen). -- 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Djcj 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dialect spoken in area[edit]

Would it be possible for someone to write a little on this page about the dialect spoken in the area. I quote from Wikipedia's Zuid-Gelders
Zuid-Gelders (E: South Guelderish), or (G:) Kleverlãndisch (E.: Kleverlandish, from Land of Cleves), is a dialect of the Dutch language that is spoken on the edge of the Veluwe country, around Nijmegen, in the Bommelerwaard, and other neighbouring areas in the Netherlands. Among the local variants of Zuid-Gelders spoken in the Netherlands are Zevenaars, Waals and Nijmegens.
--Brenont 19:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

'Sister cities'[edit]

  • Isn't sister cities a (too) literal translation from Dutch and shouldn't the English twin town (/cities) be used, instead?

"Sister cities" is the term used in at least parts of the United States, in my experience and also according to Twin towns and sister cities. Knile (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


You might notice the metropolitan population is off by about 50,000. Reason i've given this figure is because i've included the municipalities of Cuijk, Grave, Kranenburg and Elten in the Metropolitan area. These four municipalities have extensive commuter traffic to Nijmegen (Cuijk, Grave and Kranenburg) or Arnhem (Elten), and could be considered a part of the Metropolitan area, even more so than Doesburg, which is in Stadsregio KAN. Clint.hotvedt 13:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifying History[edit]

I just noticed the history of this article contains a lot of facts with wiki links to other pages. I'm not sure what the WP policy is, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to add sources to back up that information regarding the history. Deganveranx (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


There are some problems with the section on climate.

The statement about the lack of north-south mountain ranges seems a bit dubious as I don't think it would create such a local effect, but as I don't know much about that I'll keep it for the moment.

The statement "a Weather Underground station in Nijmegen-Dukenburg reached a high of 38.7 °C (101.7 °F)" is unsourced (for obvious reasons, if the measurements were officially published it wouldn't be underground) and sounds like original research, possibly by the owner of said Weather Underground station. My thermometer happened to be 2 km further north and recorded 38.0 °C that day, so it sounds plausible. KNMI doesn't consider these data for obvious reasons, as the quality cannot be guaranteed.

That record minimum, with -8.5 °C it was indeed one of the coldest nights in recent history in Nijmegen, although the next night was -10.5 °C and 2 January 1997 was -16 °C (all original research, -18.7 °C at closest official station Volkel), so I don't think it warrants mentioning.

The table is sourced from a book, which I happen to have in my possession. It does not mention temperatures or sunshine hours precisely as those aren't officially measured in Nijmegen (but contains interpolated maps to allow reasonably accurate numbers to be quoted), whilst the precipitation numbers in the book differ from the ones in the table. Per WP:OR I won't put in my own (reasonably accurate) averages and extremes, but I will replace the currently quoted numbers by the ones given in the Klimaatatlas van Nederland, normaalperiode 1971–2000, using the nearest official station's data (which is Nijmegen for total precipitation, Deelen for sunshine and Volkel for everything else).

PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that your conclusions are fair. It is good to see you updated the table with well sourced information. You might want to use ref-tags to create a full citation. It is good you included all the information provided here in the text as well. Keep up the good work! CRwikiCA talk 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Weather Underground is a perfectly respectable organization. Much of their data comes from official sources, and I wouldn’t have any qualms about using that. Their data from private sources might not be as reliable. I don’t know whether the above-named weather station is official or private. They mustn’t be confused with the radical political organization of the same name.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Grote Markt[edit]

The meaning of “Grote Markt” has been changed from "Big Market" to "Great Market". To me, “great” has connotations of “grand”, so I think “big” is more appropriate in this context.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Or "large". Actually Grote Markt is the name of a big square. To me, it better should not be translated at all as in Grote Markt, Haarlem. Other articles "Grote Markt (..)", like Grote Markt (Kortrijk), use Grand Square, which seems pretty close. --Ajv39 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Big Market Square is more appropriate ... --Ajv39 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. I appreciate the research you did. As other articles have gone so far as to use “grand”, I can’t complain at this one merely using “great”.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Historical remains - wording[edit]

Maybe “very rigorous city planners” should rather read “vigorous city planners”.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That statement seems WP:POV and should be reworded in a neutral way in my opinion. CRwikiCA talk 13:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I presume you are referring to the last portion of that sentence: the city planners “finished what the Americans and Germans started”, and not the portion I commented on. If so, then I agree that the current wording could cause offense.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, that part is non neutral, neither is the unfortunately that starts the (long) sentence. CRwikiCA talk 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I hadn’t noticed that “unfortunately”, possibly because usually I prefer to preserve very old buildings. I’ve just spotted something else: shouldn’t the “eight, ninth century” in the final sentence rather read “eighth, ninth century”?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it should include the extra h. CRwikiCA talk 13:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have now implemented the changes discussed; I hope the revised wording is acceptable. I also changed “1950s, 60's and 70's” to “1950s, 60s and 70s” for consistency and because that seems to be the Wikipedia standard.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Keep up the good work! CRwikiCA talk 13:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)