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 199.8.13.180 (talk) at 22:04, 15 April 2019 (→Arson?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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." [1] Vedant akh67 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ Trump, Melania. Twitter https://twitter.com/FLOTUS/status/1117851477693718528. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
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)[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]
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]

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!"[1] 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."[2] 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."[3]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Trump, Melania (15 April 2019). "My heart breaks for the people of Paris after seeing the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral. Praying for everyone's safety". @FLOTUS.
  3. ^ "Notre-Dame de Paris est Notre-Dame de toute l'Europe. We are all with Paris today". @eucopresident (in French). 15 April 2019.

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

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

Yes, such is customary and relates directly to the article. puggo (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Condolence from National Museum of Brazil. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This essay may be of use: Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles. Fences&Windows 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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]

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

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree, but is there a reason you pinged me, puggo? Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You added the category in question. puggo (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[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]
Additionally, the comments have been responded to by French firefighters. puggo (talk) 20:12, 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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]
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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Silas Stoat thanks for removing it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Such material is completely out of place here. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hl please explain why you have added this information again? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there was an edit conflict. I'll remove it. —Hugh (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz I think my changes are still intact; thank you. —Hugh (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hope

I hope this be all solve out I mean that was a very famous and fantastic place😥 Lonewolf2019 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lonewolf2019, it seems that it is more under control now. See [1] Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still dicey. :( Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some good news. According to the BBC, a "Paris fire official has said the main structure had now been 'saved and preserved'". Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:44, 15 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> 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]
...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]

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

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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Notre-Dame_fire&oldid=892638426"