Talk:Notre-Dame fire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

the spire of the cathedral has now collapsed could somebody add that please! 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:AC9F:B184:C87F:583E (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Already incorporated into article. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

The deaths are still unknown. Ikevictorjohnson (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

State the date of completion as the year 1345 or the century of completion as the 14th Century. Because it currently states it was completed in the 12th century, which is clearly not correct, as its construction started in 1160. 71.47.224.79 (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: 1160 is the 12th century. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

United States First Lady, Melania Trump, tweeted: "My heart breaks for the people of Paris after seeing the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral. Praying for everyone’s safety." Vedant akh67 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Already doneStudiesWorld (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Artworks

Some outlets have mentioned work to preserve artwork. Something to look into for future article development. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

people inside

Report on BBC News channel (live broadcast, hard to ref) saying there were tourists and a mass service inside the Cathedral who were evacuated off the island. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Creative Commons

I plan on releasing most of the following photos of Notre Dame into CC as part of preservation. However, it may take me time to get to. If any of the photos are of immediate use, let me know and I will prioritize. photos.app.goo.gl/7WacjSHeUPy8ViAYA ResultingConstant (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

One of your photos showing the scaffolding around the spire would be good to show the state of that before the fire. --Masem (t) 20:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Masem While I am happy to release those photos, I should note that the scaffolding visible there is not the same scaffolding that was involved in the current renovations, and surround a different spire than the one that was shown falling. My photos are from 2005 ResultingConstant (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind then, it woudl be confusing then. --Masem (t) 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the Cathedral destroyed?

I think that before we add the Category stating that it's been destroyed that we should allow a few hours for all the reports to come in. @Surtsicna: puggo (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What is 'destroyed'? What is 'damaged'? Is Coventry Cathedral 'destroyed'? Was York Minster Destroyed in 1984? This appears to be somewhere between the two. Given we don't know how bad the damage/destruction is and that we should be careful with such words I would hold off until we know. When we do we can better describe the situation. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but is there a reason you pinged me, puggo? Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You added the category in question. puggo (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That was me, based on some earlier reporting, but I jumped the gun: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-notredame/fire-guts-paris-notre-dame-but-structure-saved-from-destruction-idUKKCN1RR1UN Fences&Windows 21:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference for doors abruptly closed?

Should there be a quote or reference for the “According to those at the scene, the doors of the cathedral were abruptly closed on them” sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90UidI8ZTbQV (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it, but if someone can source it, they should re-add it.StudiesWorld (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It was sourced to the NYTimes article. We don't require every sentence to be sources as long as the next source in the string of sentences covers all that information -- BUT people were splitting the string of sentences into separate paragraphs without leaving behind the ref marker. --Masem (t) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why I've always personally thought we should reference every sentence. Probably not the community's view, but it covers the case where bits of the article get changed or things get moved around, if every sentence stands on its own two feet.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors just need to use more caution. If you want to split a set of sentences, but they all look connected, then you should check the following ref first and determine if a reused ref link is needed. --Masem (t) 22:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Image

I've restored the above image, because it shows:

• flames
• visible damage
• firefighters

The one I replaced just had smoke, with an orange glow. I'm not precious about keeping the former, but if it is replaced, it should be by an image with similar content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a good photo because it shows the extensive damage to the building's interior.--Siberian Husky (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Its a very good picture, but what it shows is also NO flames showing through the cathedral windows. The fire appears to have been contained above the stone vaulting forming the ceiling of the church. There are now some aerial photos which show what really looks like a huge bonfire of roof timbers sitting on top of the stone vaulting of the ceiling, as can be seen in this photo at an earlier stage. The aerial and roof level pics show bright white patches, which might possibly be molten lead. The vaulting is quite substantial as it is part of the load bearing structure. Basically a huge arch spanning between the walls. Sandpiper (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Claude Gauvard

Is Claude Gauvard's statement significant? I'm not sure that it is unless it is a more widely held position. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

She is probably a pretty good bellwether of opinion in that area of expertise. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Cause of fire

Why we say the cause of fire is unknown? With the ongoing speculation I suggest at least adding references to the ND reps backing up the unknowngness of cause of fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabdiukov (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

They know when and where, but not what. Maybe a welding torch fell over. Maybe there was a spark of electricity. No one knows yet and that will take time. And the near references support that statement. --Masem (t) 00:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose as an alternative?StudiesWorld (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Masem sure it is obvious for both of us there could've been a thousand reasons why this happened, but with speculation (and possible dramatisation) of events happened, @StudiesWorld there (i believe) should be citations on the fact that as of currently, the cause of fire is unknown -- Tabdiukov

There's a ref right after that statement, its currently #14, the NYTimes article. --Masem (t) 01:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks for pointing out to that. What I mean is adding ref to the infobox -- Tabdiukov

Why the removal of the " international response" section?

Tweets and short regards given by national leaders are certainly important.

They only seem important for a day or two. Let's not make Wikipedia a repository for old tweets. People that want to read them can create free Twitter accounts.

International

U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted, "So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!" First Lady Melania Trump tweeted, "My heart breaks for the people of Paris after seeing the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral. Praying for everyone's safety." The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan tweeted, "Heartbreaking scenes of Notre Dame cathedral in flames. London stands in sorrow with Paris today, and in friendship always"

President of the European Council Donald Tusk tweeted, "Notre-Dame of Paris is Notre-Dame of all Europe. We are all with Paris today."

References

This is the removed section if anyone cares.puggo (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Can reactions please be limited to those that multiple independent secondary sources pick up on, i.e. not directly sourced from tweets? Fences&Windows 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need a "reaction" section? Natureium (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, such is customary and relates directly to the article. puggo (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• A few major comments from related people can be mentioned, but there's no need to repeat the same condolences over and over. Reywas92^Talk 19:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Condolence from National Museum of Brazil. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This essay may be of use: Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles. Fences&Windows 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If all the international leaders are doing are expressing condolances, that's nothing. Serious reactions, such as pledging monetary support to rebuild/restore, on the other hand, would be fully appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 21:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What Masem said. With a bit of luck, tomorrow will be about monetary pledges and we can lose the world leaders (or their social-media managers) took two mins to hack out a reaction post. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

World Leaders?

I just saw condolences from Juan Guaido of Venezuela, and President Andrzej Duda of Poland. Should I add them or would that be redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomlover1776 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say, add it. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling him "interm president" however isn't accurate. Acting president to be in line with his current article49.185.1.88 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Consistency issues

1. Update USD to Euros: it is a french subject - should use french currency 2. UK Prime Minister, Prime Minister of Norway in the same section for the International section. Should keep wording consistent.

By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. (talk)

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by AWwikipedia (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

2 is done. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

For 1, @AWwikipedia:, do you have any sources that provide amounts in euros? StudiesWorld (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Here: "a 6 million euro (£5.1 million) renovation project on the church’s spire". €6m sounds good for US$6.8m. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we include the information about the BBC coverage

I don't think we should include it, as it seems too Wikipedia:RECENTISM. I've BOLDLY removed it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, I agree with removal, and I've added a diff URL to your comment above (hope you don't mind!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: It's fine. It has been added again by Sobi2203. Please explain Sobi2203. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Silas Stoat thanks for removing it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Such material is completely out of place here. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hl please explain why you have added this information again? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict. I'll remove it. —Hugh (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hl, thanks. I preemptivley removed it, there may be other bits you readded (so could you check?). Thanks and no hard feeling meant, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 :::^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz I think my changes are still intact; thank you. —Hugh (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The whole article is recentism so this conversation about the use of BBC citations makes no sense. Govvy (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, this BBC bit was a lot like the Youtube controversy above, and probably isn't needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Who owns the Cathedral?

Is the Cathredral and its property it is situated on owned by the Roman Catholic Church, or the French National Government, or some Paris agency? I don't find that made clear in the article prose. N2e (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The federal gov't, with the Catholic church having an exclusive right of religious use, as I recall. Can't recall the source, but it's likely in the Notre Dame de Paris article. HLHJ (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at RFPP

Just wanted to let everyone know that there is a discussion about whether to semiprotect the page happening at WP:RFPP#Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire. Thanks. El_C 00:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Currently, there is an 'inadequate lead section' message at the top of the page. However, nowhere on this talk page is anything brought up about the lead section - and to me it looks like an adequate lead section. If it isn't, can someone explain why? Or maybe just fix it? Lennart97 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the tag. If nobody puts a justification why a tag's there, and you don't agree with it, be bold and remove it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Alert to all editors

The Wikipedia servers seem to be experiencing at this time severe glitches (currently intermittent) up to and including brief outages on pages including this talk page as well as the main article. There is therefore IMHO a much heightened risk of inadvertent edit conflicts as well as the possibility of edits being lost altogether. Please keep this in mind especially when making long edits and/or major changes to the article. Good luck to you all! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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"." - but almost every French source says the authorities claim it's too early to confirm anything.

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)

References

Feel free to edit the material using the French sources.- MrX 🖋 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Several articles point to Le Monde as having the direct statement, eg [1] --Masem (t) 02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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."[2] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ritchie333, thanks. I'll point to this if editors add again. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

SimonATL please stop adding this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

Diffs: 1, 2, 3 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

SimonATL would you care to comment? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ritchie333, I'll post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Masem, ok. I'll report them. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

...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)

Facepalm That's what I meant to say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@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)

No problems, Andy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

I agree, but maybe we should wait for it --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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))

Sky News reporting that the nave, transepts, spire, roofs and rose windows have all been destroyed. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

And Chartres Cathedral in 1194. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The current New York Times account [3] mentions molten lead as a hazard. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
• 
  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.
• 
  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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's always the same. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. International Response section should either be removed entirely or summarized a bit more neatly. Mtwoodr157 (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a Catholic cathedral. Are you kidding? Just drop the entire matter.104.169.29.171 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[4] 213.205.198.138 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• IMO the Intl. Reactions section is totally worthless and should be nuked. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

Removal of fundraising

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

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)

Gallery removal

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

Yes, sir: WP:GALLERY. Jay D. Easy (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

By that I presume you've run out of valid arguments? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(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)

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)

Your interpretation of same has proven flawed, sir. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

I had a hunch you'd put it back. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pull the other one Lugnuts, it's got bells on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Yeah, I would not use RT as a reliable source for European news. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

Woops, edit conflict. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What would be your argument against the reliability of RT? 199.8.13.180 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The BBC is constantly being accused of being a propaganda tool. Look it up.Degen Earthfast (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The BBC is a Reliable Source for Wikipedia - case closed.

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

So is The Daily Stormer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.204.183 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. AP is reporting that arson has ruled out. While that determination may change, that is the official position now. --Siberian Husky (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

@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)

References

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)

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)

I don't think that would be required. Wikipedia isn't an advocacy site. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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, 16 April 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)

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)

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)

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

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archbishop's twitter statement of April 15th added. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Related articles

I have started two related articles:

• List of bells in Notre-Dame de Paris
• List of sculptures in Notre-Dame de Paris

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

• 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)

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)

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)

How about some sources?- MrX 🖋 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No. DENY. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Unless the official investigation reveals such a thing, it needn't even be mentioned at all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, 16 April 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Tell me about it! I am having the same problem. UGH! MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• https://www.techspot.com/news/79667-notre-dame-post-fire-restoration-could-aided-digital.html
• https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/04/laser-scans-could-help-rebuild-notre-dame-cathedral/587230/
• https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150622-andrew-tallon-notre-dame-cathedral-laser-scan-art-history-medieval-gothic/ Riverbees (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

of course - clearing the debris will take many months alone 104.169.29.171 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't be helped. At least they were able to avoid the worst case scenario. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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)