This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Notre-Dame fire is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
The fire has also been the subject of a film on Netflix and a documentary on Disney+. Also, shortly after the fire, Ubisoft made its video game Assassin’s Creed: Unity (which had been released before the fire) available for free to all for a limited time, as the game contains a complete interactive model of the cathedral. Perhaps someone could add these to the article? Jhurley85 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of claim of 'accident' predating the fire brigade even arriving?[edit]
Is it notable that this is the first disaster in history where the media, church, and government were declaring it was an 'accidental fire' before the fire brigade had even arrived on the scene and many days before a fire investigator had even gotten a look at the place? Before police, fire, or anyone had arrived - straight as it was a breaking story, there was a unanimous statement from all three. "Accident." Given that no one had been INTO the church since the fire had started, this was clearly a lie to placate the public and their jumping the gun was what made it evident. I'm in no way suggesting it's NOT an accident, but three institutes of power being caught in a lie is a notable and interesting historical event in my books. I don't think I've seen that done before, not so blatantly and in a way that a simple bit of reasoning can prove that they are lying to the public to placate them. 2001:8003:37B8:D900:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should find some sources about this to cite Fivework (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is the first time that I have edited something, I apologize in advance for naive errors by my part.
I wanted to highlight the fact that this page (as well as the analogous French and Italian pages -- I did not bother to check other languages) does not mention the confession of arson by part of a caretaker of the cathedral.
As a source, you can check e.g. [1], and it is trivial to find dozens of newspapers in multiple languages that claim the same thing: the fire was not an accident and, on 25-July-2023 a 39 years old caretaker confessed to having started the fire due to having seen its visa not renewed, apparently. Going forward in time, additional sources[2] mention that the same person killed a priest, the killing is unrelated, but those sources mention the killer, now with its full name, as the arsonist of the cathedral. They mention this as a fact, not as a possibility, about a year later of the confession.
Given all this, I am *very very extremely* surprised to see that Wikipedia pages in multiple languages do not even mention this, not even in passing, even though (1) the pages were edited after 2020/2021 and (2) the pages contain various very detailed hypothesis on the cause of the fire which, given that now we know it was an arson, appear like far-reaching fantasies.
In fact, years ago I heard on television about the confession, but when today I read the Wikipedia pages I started thinking of having fake memories about the fire, such is the misalignment between the history told in Wikipedia and 'common' knowledge.
I apologize for not having the time or capability to edit the page(s) myself, but I wanted to raise this issue, as of now I would (respectfully) claim that the misalignment of Wikipedia with 'common' knowledge is very severe (that, or maybe I misunderstood everything about the fire).
Regards87.14.107.157 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In short, connecting the 2019 Notre-Dame fire and 2020 crimes in Nantes carries no due weight for even a mention without verifiable evidence beyond proximity in time and location. Neither of the linked articles even suggest a connection. The consensus of the Notre-Dame investigation remains accidental cause. There's not enough to support WP:FRINGE as an alternative view, never mind Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize a thousand times. I have been for several years under the false impression the cathedral object of arson was notre dame instead of nantes. I must be getting old. Thank you for correcting my gross misunderstanding. 151.82.23.46 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}