Talk:Seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To do

Thanks to RCS we have lots of new information on Strasbourg. However what we are missing now is infomation on Luxembourg. Anyone know where we can get it? - J Logan ^t: 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spilt

What do you think about splitting this into a Brussels and a Strasbourg page? Might help organisation and keeping things tidy, seems logical as they are two separate sites and we have enough data now, we don't even have much common data between the two sections. I propose;

Seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg -as it is the official seat and the complex has no overarching name and we can talk about past buildings
Espace Léopold -as that is the name of the whole complex (for the Flemings/Dutch, I have never heard the Dutch translation being used in English - ever) and it would be buildings only due to the B&EU article covering history
European Parliament in Luxembourg -as it could be expanded on the general activities of the EP in Luxembourg rather than just the buildings

What do you think?- J Logan ^t: 10:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine.--RCS (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, done. I've tagged on extra data as I split the two.- J Logan ^t: 21:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article

The title of this article is rather unwieldy. It seems redundant to have "in Strasbourg" as part of the title of the article; it would be like having an article entitled "Capital of Germany in Berlin". I would suggest renaming the article to "Buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg" or "European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg". Also, the intro paragraph should be recast. --Mathew5000 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second title suggestion sounds better, imo. RCS (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the introduction. RCS (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if you count Brussels as a "seat" (as a common way of saying working location rather than the technical def). Also, it could allow for expansion of the article to cover the history of the parliament in the city?- J Logan ^t: 10:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brueghel

. Just a little iconography. RCS (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Weiss dates

started in May 2005 ??? --triwbe (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo of course. Read: 1995. Have corrected. Thank you! --RCS (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split again?

Unlike Espace Leopold, the secondary buildings here are totally different, separated from the main building, much older, different style and not really contiguous in any sense. We have quite a bit on LW and the infobox refers to that only. Perhaps it might be good to split off secondary and have former merely as a note (as that is covered by the institutions page anyway). Only problem is, if we have it as each building, then we end up with three micro articles and if we have it as one, what do we call it? Thoughts?- _J.Logan`^t: 16:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, why splitting? IPE 1, 2, 3 and 4 are interconnected by bridges and corridors, and the whole has grown quite organically: first IPE 1 and 2, then IPE 3 and then IPE 4, with only a few years between the end of one building site and the start of another. Another problem is that we don't even know the name of the architects involved in IPE 1, 2 and 3 (i searched and didn't manage to find - maybe in the archives of the Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace one day), without this knowledge, you can't possibly start a valuable article about a building or a set of buildings. --RCS (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it was more for the benefit of the LW section than those buildings. Who might know that kind of data though? We could start sending emails, but then again that is OR isn't it?- _J.Logan`^t: 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the info?: Architects for WC and SdM were F. Sauer, J. P. Freidmann and the Strasboug City architectural dept.. Built 1980, 1988 and 1991. WC: Meeting rooms, common departments and services (resturantes, nursury, libraries etc.) for MEPs. SdM: administration and other deparmtns. Ombudsman on 7th floor. IPE 3 was designed by Sauer and the Strasboug City architectural dept. and built in 1991, was press centre till LW opened, now generic departments.[1]- _J.Logan`^t: 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i couldn't find the info. But this is probably because i use the French language version of Google.--RCS (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Its a curious thing when you can find information on a building in France in English but not French! Says something about the world...- _J.Logan`^t: 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link to seating order

Reference 14 refers to the wrong target, correct one is http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sed/doc/ext/hemicycle/PLAN_STR.pdf

Can't figure out how to change it, maybe someone else can do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.180.68 (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --RCS (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eschatology

I've removed some nonsense about the Tower of Babel, sourced to a blog by this bloke on the internet. Yes, I know Glenn Beck has repeated it on his show but that doesn't change my opinion on the appropriateness of the reference. Any questions? --TS 18:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well - yes: did you remove it *because* Glenn Beck used it or in spite of it? Since you started talking of opinions... --Insert coins (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other bloke on the internet alerted me to Beck's solecism. I came to Wikipedia to see if there was any reliable evidence to support it, noticed the blog-supported nonsense and removed it. Synergy! There's no Hebrew word for that, you know. --TS 20:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck can hardly be treated as a reliable source (to put it lightly), especially for a fact that is disputed. Academic, official or first hand sources only for this.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of two issues?

Will all due respect, I think you guys are conflating two issues, thus muddying the debate. The first issue is: was the LWB actually designed to resemble the Tower of Babel as painted by Bruegel? The answer is: of course not. The second issue is: are there persistent rumors, Internet memes, urban legends etc. claiming the LWB was designed to resemble the Tower of Babel as painted by Bruegel? The answer is: yes, plenty, and several already many years old. So the question is not of the veracity of a fringe theory but of its notability. Should we source the claim that the design of the building consciously mirrors the Bruegel ToB? No way - it is obviously absurd. Should we mention as a notable fact that there are many bloggers - however lunatic or scare-mongering they may appear - who make this claim? I think we should. It used to be a fringe theory, but Beck has pushed it into the mainstream, even if it (rightly) exposed him to (even more) ridicule. So, the suggestion I make is to reword this section accordingly, instead of just shoving it under the carpet. See also Paul is dead. --Insert coins (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to state it is notable as a misconception, we should have more than Glenn Beck surely?- _J.Logan`^t: 09:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of seriousness: surely. In terms of audience: I think he reaches more than enough people. Unfortunately so. --Insert coins (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Truth? Suggestion

The fringe theory is not the one saying that Parliament building was designed to emulate an artist's depiction of the Tower of Babel. Posters published by the Council of Europe from 1992 to 1996 document that design: Council of Europe poster of EU Parliament building emulating an artist's concept of the Tower of Babel

The fringe theory that should possibly have been discredited is the one imputing a religious motive to a secular organization, which is what most of the internet memes of this building are about. That wasn't done. Instead, an opposing fringe theory to the effect that the Parliament building does not emulate the artist's concept of Tower of Babel was put forth - without a shred of evidence - and others here apparently fell for it.

The result is damage to the neutrality and credibility of this page for the past 4 years, along with suggesting to the conspiracy-minded, a theory that someone has something to hide about the design of the EU Parliament building. To be sure, emulating the design of an ancient religious structure, apparently without anticipating that others would interpret it as a religious statement, was short-sighted, but that's water under the bridge, down the stream, and out to sea by now.

Denial of the obvious is not going to discredit fringe theories, but give them unwarranted credibility. Further, denial of the obvious is not WP's purpose.

I may eventually find time to repair that section of the article. Then again, I may not, so this is a suggestion that someone do so. Downstrike (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the sound of a dead horse being beaten... Honestly, this is a non-problem if there ever was one. --Insert coins (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

EuropeanParliamentBuildingStrasbourgFrance.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Council of Europe Palais de l'Europe aerial view.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]