Talk:Notre-Dame fire

Yellow smoke?

The fire at an early stage from the south. The lead-covered spire 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)

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)

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)

Apologies to new editors and friendly lurkers, we will now descend into acronym WP:OR. I think I'm at risk of misunderstanding you here, Masem; cause what? I am not suggesting that assertions by Peter ople posting here could be cited in the article (I think, subject to correction, that what you are saying would be WP:OR, and I agree). But they might help us know what search terms to use (for instance, the name of some compound that commonly turns woodsmoke yellow). I'm pretty sure it's not WP:OR to use the personal expert knowledge of anyone to cause the finding of a reliable source . Obviously we'd both like to find a reliable source supporting a reliable statement, so we can put it in the article, and not leave answering "Why was the smoke yellow?" to people employing poor standards of evidence. I'll take even "I've burned wood in the yard that had the exact yellow smoke" as possibly helpful in the search, but I will certainly not cite it.

I've run into this Peter ople in the past and he's not a reliable source. EEng 04:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, Peter ople will say anything, and believe six impossible things before breakfast, despite being generally well-intentioned and helpful. Thanks, autocorrect. HLHJ (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

On which topic, what sort of wood was it? Is it plausible that very well-seasoned oak would burn yellow? Do you have any idea what "mixture of compounds" was oxidizing to yellow stuff? HLHJ (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article has a reference on this: https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/les-compagnons-du-devoir-en-deuil-apres-l-incendie-de-notre-dame-de-paris_ed00c8ac-6033-11e9-8734-715cc24237b7/

It’s not authoritative, but it’s better than nothing.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A fifteen-year-old apprentice woodworker might have expert knowledge about such things, but might not. Out article on backdraft mentions yellow smoke as a sign of incomplete combustion, citing a book on firefighting; if anyone has access to a book on firefighting (your local firehall will be full of such books, and probably some bored firefighters reading them), that would be a good source.

This source (which I found earlier) has a lot of detail, but is slightly off-target: https://www.firefightingincanada.com/structural/trainers-corner-the-science-of-reading-smoke-2139

This source directly answers the question, but is a Quora answer (apparently by a firefighter, tho): https://www.quora.com/Does-the-yellow-smoke-from-Notre-Dame-while-it-was-burning-prove-a-conspiracy

I'd ideally like something a bit more mechanistic than "yellow smoke indicates incomplete combustion (no idea why)". Both because a mere association is not a very satisfying explanation, and because we are involved with a topic of interest to conspiracy theorists here. HLHJ (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, would it be worth including a section on the environmental impact of tons of lead, copper, and small particles (PM10s if memory serves) that were in the smoke?Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, methinks. On the basis of this AFP piece being reprinted everywhere, we could say something like :

"The charity Robin des Bois expressed concerns about lead contamination of the site; regular environmental monitoring samples are being analysed by Airparif."

Feel free to add this or something similar if you see fit. I'm a bit unimpressed by the range of sources used in this AFP article. Since it is being reprinted everywhere, tho, I think we can expect more sources shortly. HLHJ (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Apparently some filter analyses are in, and the pollution was very localized, due to wind conditions (source in French). Will add. HLHJ (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

History of reconstructions

User:117.199.83.186, you removed this text. I think the history of past reconstructions ("The form that the reconstruction should take has been debated. In the Middle Ages a ruined cathedral might be rebuilt in a more modern and fireproof style; for instance, the Gothic style which Notre Dame pioneered became popular partially because it was more fireproof than older styles. Past reconstructions of Notre Dame often changed it significantly.") is relevant context for current ones, especially when people are suggesting restoring it to its 13th-century form (which would require ripping out a lot of stuff added since, and replacing whatever was there before, as best we know). Could you explain why you disagree? HLHJ (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:117.199.83.186, comments? HLHJ (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Fundraising ~

Here is a thought for discussion. ~ of all the people editing in this section are they willing to return when the repairs are complete to finish their edits by editing how much and when the funds were received by the French Republic and if the funds did or did not come thru, are we willing to note along side, an additional ref that indicates exactly how much and when it was received by the Republic Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Let's say all but one of the >10M euro contributors donated what they pledged, and there was only one that contributed, say, half their pledged amount. I wouldn't worry about it in such a case, one outliner is nothing to freak over. But if a significant number (and this will be something that falls out of the news side of things) are short as potentially putting the restoration at risk, then we can discuss how to document that. --Masem (t) 18:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sounds great Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

On this inequality-related content, any suggestion on where it might belong? According to the NYT, it's not just criticism by the yellow-vest movement, but also by tenured academics and civil society groups (see also the articles the NYT links to). There is also comparison with responses to the burning of the National Museum of Brazil ($15 million raised) and famine in Yemen (2.6 of 4 billion). Since everyone seems to have written about this (the Guardian, Forbes, the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN...) one could make a stand-alone article, but there is still the question of inclusion here. HLHJ (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is just an opinion ~ it sounds like a good issue and one that needs to addressed ~ but before we edit it in on the main page we should wait until all the pledges have a chance to stir up more funds ~ I certainly don't want to explain to God how I prevented several million dollars from going to his church because some one felt guilty that there are poor people on this earth ~ you catch my drift lets not do it right now later would be be great Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, Thanks for asking ~ what a great question ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It's hardly original of me, and not really a surprising development. I'm a bit uncomfortable with refraining from adding information in the interests of a financial goal; I think our guidelines may be against it, depending on how one interprets WP:NOTADVOCACY. There could also be differences of opinion. I suspect that some editors might feel that they'd hate to explain to God how they prevented several million dollars from going to poor people on this earth because they wanted more money to go to His church, probably citing Jesus's advice to the rich on how to gain eternal life. I also suspect it makes little practical odds; anyone who was going to donate millions to the rebuilding at this point would be likely to be advised of this controversy first, and I'm not sure to what extent Notre Dame and wealth-transfer charities are actually in competition for donations. I'm sorry, I hope I haven't phrased this offensively, it's always difficult to talk about sensitive topics in a text-only channel. HLHJ (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No your fine ~ it's like lets get the money in the bank and talk bad about the rich people afterwards ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is actually violent protests across Paris and France by the yellow vest movement directly related to the fundraising effort. If it were just criticism without action, I agree its not tied, but I feel not mentionng the yellow vest violent actions is sweeping that issue under the rug. Obviously yes, that can be discussed on the yellow vest page, but I think it does warrant a mention alongside the fundraing part. --Masem (t) 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree Masem a short mention in the Fundraising section with a very strong ref Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

what I meant to say was not Joe blow magazine from solitude Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:Humor Mitchellhobbs (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

My preference is to omit such a reference. It may belong in Yellow vests movement (it is not there now) but is not directly relevant here. Kablammo (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Kablammo What is meant on my last statement to Masem is ~ it has to directly relate to the fire and not necessarily the Yellow vests movement Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Omit these reactions to reactions to the fire. Too far removed. EEng 15:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI for those coming in late Bot archived discussion "Do we need the table of "list of known donations"?" on minimum amount to be noted in fundraising section, 10 million euros is the min Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• NotreDameArchitecture.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Huge white space due to first gallery

Not saying we don't want the first gallery, but right now, because of the length of the infobox, the gallery of structural elements does not start until after the infobox ends. Massive whtie space on a wide window and you have to get it really narrow (past portrait aspect ratios) before the background text streams long enough to eliminate that. Confident it is an issue with the gallery tag that it can't float (I've tried wrapping it in a div floating thing). May want to consider a multiple-image template here or something. --Masem (t) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] EEng 16:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Duhhh, I missed that :P Still think there might be a better solution if it is possible to push that gallery more into discussing the damage, but we're already image tight here. --Masem (t) 16:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I solved the problem by swapping the first two images, which reduces the vertical length of the infobox, making the {clear} unnecessary. I think Background is the right place for the gallery since it shows everything pre-fire and orients the reader who's never seen such a place. EEng 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's much better and graceful layout on narrow windows. Just that first caption begs for trimming but I don't think we can do anything there. Oh well :/ --Masem (t) 16:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Image layout is always a problem on new articles where more good images are available than there is text to accompany them. The problem resolves itself as the article grows, so I find it's best to just make rough and ready fixes temporarily and not worry about it. EEng 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm very disappointed at not being the target of more outrage re [2][3]; I have half a mind to put it back and see how long it lasts. If you want you could encourage me in that and then I could blame everything on you. EEng 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)