Talk:Notre-Dame de Paris

Mary I's marriage to Francois II

I edited the date on which Mary Stuart married Francois II - the page said 1588, but by then, Mary had been executed over a year before, and Francois had died around 1560. The correct year is 1558, which is what I changed it to.

Hunchback of Notre Dame

Shouldn't this page have at least a mention of The Hunchback of Notre Dame? The book's influence helped to preserve the cathedral in its original state. TheCoffee 18:06, 17 Feb 2005(UTC)

I agree. It's a crime not to mention it! ApsbaMd2 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

More correctly, perhaps, Victor Hugo's book gave impetus to the building's restoration from the sad condition that the revolution had left it. According to Italic text Decadent Enchantments Italic text by Katherine Bergeron, the book made it fashionable among middle-class Parisian readers to be conversant with the details of Gothic architecture, and they shamed the authorities into doing something about the cathedral. Around this time as well, a historical consciousness arose to enable construction, or reconstruction, in an antique style. But Viollet-le-Duc was aware that his work of "restoration" envisioned an idealized state of the building somewhat different from anything that had ever actually existed. This approach contributed to the controversy surrounding the project.Paul Emmons (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Paul Emmons

Failed GA

Looks OK but is insufficiently referenced. No inline citations and only four general references, two of which are about art and one is a travel guide. It's unlikely that those sources are adequate for the level of detail given in this article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The fisrt sentance mentions that the gates of the church face west. Is there any reason why this is stated, partucularly in the first sentance?

intro

The fisrt sentance mentions that the gates of the church face west. Why is such a seemingly irrelevant fact stated in the introduction? Is there some reason to this? (there is no mention of it in the article).

Sign your posts. What is your problem with this? It's on the east side of the isle and it faces west. How is that irrelevant? Why shouldn't it be in the first paragraph? Maybe you should explain why you think it is so undeserving of mention, or where you think it should be mentioned. As for not being mentioned elsewhere, why does it need to be? The church faces west. That hardly requires elaboration. 12.22.250.4 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If not irrelevant, that point was perhaps unworthy of such prominence since, nominally at least, all Churches (excepting a few derived from the Lateran rite) face West. However, to avoid controversy I've amended it to say it faces "westwards towards the Royal Palace" - something which was highly relevant to its original spatial relationship with the rest of Medieval Paris. StuartLondon (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Churches face east, not west: the main entrance is on the west. (See recent comment at Orientation [1])

--Frania W. (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The first and second sentences give the impression that the Cathedral is owned by the Roman Catholic Church, which is not true, according to my sources, and ought be vetted for greater precision. By French law regarding separation of Church and State (1905),inter alia, all cathedrals that were built with French funds are legally property of the Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques (the National Historical Monument Trust), an agency of the Republic of France. This includes Notre Dame de Paris. The cathedral is now technically managed, including tourist access, by the Trust, the Catholic Church does not control tourist access. It is a "Roman Catholic" building only in the sense that the Republic has designated that church as the religious group permitted to use the building for religious services. I suggest that the first and second sentences be restructures so as to indicate that the Republic/Trust owns the building and controls its use (sencond sentence would be appropriate for this). I am not sure whether this means that the Trust/Republic is paying for the restoration. See Wiki's own article Centre National Monuments and the Trust site re its control of "tours et la crypte archéologique de Notre-Dame" this translates to the "towers" and to the underground dig sites and museum (under the square (parvix) in front of the West facade. (SteveO1951 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

• 1st sentence: Notre Dame de Paris (in English: Our Lady of Paris), also known as Notre Dame Cathedral, is a Gothic, Roman Catholic cathedral on the eastern half of the Île de la Cité in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, France.
• 2nd sentence: It is the cathedral of the Catholic archdiocese of Paris: that is, it is the church that contains the "cathedra", or official chair, of the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois... The part I underlined makes it clear that ND is the Archbishop's "cathedra", which does no imply that it belongs to the Church.
• 3rd sentence: The fact that ND does not belongs to the Church could be mentioned immediately after the second one, directing readers to the Centre des monuments nationaux article. Ownership of ND & who pays for repair & restoration should then have its own section at the end of the article, or be the subject of a sub-article, but not developed in the lead.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

130 or 90 meters tall?

In this page it says this cathedral has 90 meters, and at the notredame page it says 130. which one is right???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_church_towers

Sign your posts. Read it again. Both articles state that the cathedral is 90 metres tall. This article also states that the cathedral is 130 metres long. 12.22.250.4 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Offending sentence in the article?

Hi all, I've just read the article and was quite surprised to find an offending sentence just after the construction timeline. I think it should be removed.

Links

In link, you keep "Stained glass Madonna with fleur-de-lis at Notre Dame de Paris" On that page, there is alomost nothing about Notre Dame. on the other side, you reject our link to our page (http: // france.jeditoo.com /IleDeFrance/Paris/4eme/Notre_Dame.htm) reserved to Notre Dame seen by painters with 62 paintings reproductions! So we don't understand your choice !

Dan

jeditoo has been extensively discussed on fr.wikipedia.org, and you know that it is considered spam. You are trying to add the link repeatedly, from an IP address, in many parts of wikipedia. There is no point in trying to rename the web site to avoid spam detection. The link you are referring to is not a commercial site, and has encyclopaedic content, without any ad, so it is considered acceptable. If you disagree, feel free to propose its removal. Vincent Lextrait 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Line

I just happened to stop by looking for a picture and saw this ending sentence in the paragraph. I removed it -- unless someone happens to think it should belong. ;)) 71.244.62.36 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Notre Dame de Paris was one of the first Gothic cathedrals, and its construction spanned the Gothic period. Its sculptures and stained glass show the heavy influence of naturalism, giving them a more secular look that was lacking from earlier Romanesque architecture.it was the first sex place that was held for goths.

Notre-Dame de Paris vs. Notre Dame de Paris

I think a lot of people are going to confuse this with Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris, or Hunchback of Notre Dame as is the English title. We should probably include this somewhere at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.106.64 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've rarely heard an American pronounce it as Noter Dayme. That indignity is usually reserved for the university. We may sometimes be provincial, but we're not all completely uneducated. Why not just give the French pronunciation. The article on Iran, for example, doesn't say that people in the US pronounce it as Aye Ran.

I have to agree with the unknown commentator above me. "Noter Dayme" is what we call the University in Indiana in the US. It's pronounced correctly when referring to this structure. My point: the "US" pronunciation seems OR. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I live on the Kentucky border, the area most likely to pronounce it incorrectly, and I've only ever heard the French pronunciation unless we're speaking specifically about the university. In fact, that's often how we differentiate the two. --74.137.224.33 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left as the French say it. --Ntncorntastic (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the 2 1/2 month-old discussion consensus seems to be that the "US" pronunciation claim is not right in the context of the Cathedral (as opposed the University), I will remove it from the article. If it is reinserted, it should be cited and sourced. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact-checking needed

A quick comparison of dimensions given here with those given in the French Wikipédia article reveals discrepancies, so some fact-checking appears to be in order.

There are also at least a couple of blatant mistranslations from French, but I don't have time to copyedit the article right now. Awien (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I revised the dimensions section to reflect the information on the official site of the cathedral [2]. PhilSC (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Louis Vierne - dates

The section about the organ shows Vierne taking the position in 1900, but the timeline shows him taking the post in 1937, then dying the same year. I think the timeline is wrong Dunstan ^talk 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Portals pic

Beautiful picture! Does any smart person know how to tweak its position so that it's not obscuring a line of text? Awien (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you try a different browser client. The one that I use shows no such obscuring.Jarhed (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Devoir de réserve

I do not speak French, so please bear with me. In the concluding paragraph of the Significant events at Notre Dame section, the subject French phrase is stated as being an obligation of foreigners. However, an English translation of the French Wikipedia article on Devoir de réserve (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devoir_de_r%C3%A9serve) seems to make it pretty clear that the principle is with regard to French citizens only. A knowledgable person needs to straighten this out. I recommend a flat delete of the sentence, but an explanation of Devoir de réserve in the context of the sentence would be sufficient. In English, this phrase means nothing (many French phrases make sense in English, but not this one). This sentence needs a complete cleanup or a flat delete.Jarhed (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Petit Robert, the devoir de réserve is the devoir des agents de l'état d'exprimer leurs opinions avec discrétion, that is, the duty of public sector employees to be discreet in expressing their opinions. In other words, it is a general principle regarding the behaviour of public servants, has nothing to do specifically with Notre Dame, and was being misused and misinterpreted here. I, a knowledgable person, support Jarhed's deletion. Awien (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Time-line

There seems to be some confusion on the construction dates. It says at one point that the construction of the west front began in c1200 BEFORE the construction of the nave, and yet the timeline says the nave was completed in 1196 - though it does agree that the west front was begun about 1200. Could some knowledgeable person clarify this, please? 81.79.110.38 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The nave was certainly not completed in 1196. Date of commencement of west facade is largely speculative. Have tided up chronology a bit but will clarify further when I get time. StuartLondon (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Candle removal?

The text says In the late 90's one of the holy candles was removed from the church. a crime penaty faces 20 years. Is this referring to an ordinary wax candle, or does candle refer to something else here? Can anybody explain or provide any reference for this? This seems hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.40.170 (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the notre dame

i think that they sould have definetly metioned about the hunback of notre dame its a very good book that was influenced the notre dame!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.208.40 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Notre Dame, Paris by David Roberts, RA.jpg

Recently the file File:Notre Dame, Paris by David Roberts, RA.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. The date is unknown, but it's apparently a 19th-century work. Dcoetzee 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Never finished?

Right at the bottom of the article it mentions that it was never finished. Can I get a yes/no/bullshit on whether or not this is true? --Aergoth (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly could be considered unfinished, because the towers conspicuously lack spires of their own. Gothic architecture was pretty big on spires, however, I'm in no position to tell if their absence in this instance is by design or not. --Martcx (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Infringement

Material pasted into this article from Polish-Lithuanian State has been truncated and revised in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policy. If restoring any of that text, please be sure either to rewrite it completely in your own words or to handle it in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Orientation

Hello, StuartLondon.

A couple of observations about your edit: "with its main entrance facing westwards towards the Palais de la Cité" and your explanation that "this is highly relevant to its original function"

- as far as possible, all churches have their main entrance on the west, so there is nothing remarkable about Notre Dame being oriented this way

- Notre Dame doesn't face the Conciergerie, it's offset from it, fairly close but not in any obvious relationship

So I'm not clear about the relevance of this edit, but am prepared to be instructed . . . Awien (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awien, Sorry - I didn't express myself very clearly. To be honest I see no reason to mention that a church faces west at all since that's the default. However, I noted that there had previously been a disagreement about whether to include this obvious fact in the introductory section and was trying to be diplomatic (see my comment in the earlier bit of the talk page). Feel free to remove it if you wish. My main concern is with the historical and architectural details in this article which I fear are in need of some work. For the record, when N-D was built the Conciergerie wasn't there, leastways not in anything like its present form (most of which echoes the later Valois remodelling). Instead there was just the rambling Merovingian palace (with its entrance facing east) dominating the western end of the Isle with the cathedral at the eastern end facing (obviously) west. They 'faced' each other in that sense alone - as you say, they weren't on the same central axis. It has been argued that this splitting of the isle into secular west and clerical east created a conscious relationship/opposition between church and state (at this time the Palais de la Cite, rather than the Louvre was the main royal residence in Paris) - though for the life of me I can't remember who argued that! StuartLondon (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi StuartLondon.

Terrible how real life gets in the way of one's work on WP, isn't it? ^_-

I've removed the sentence about the west end facing west.

I'm no historian, but the 12th century seems awfully early for there to be any sense of needing to separate church and state. My sense is that they were totally in cahoots, just competing as to which was the senior partner. Interesting thought, though - filing it in the back of my mind. Pls let me know if you remember who said it. Best,

Awien (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. I remembered who was arguing about the axis of power on the Isle de la Cite - but it was a conference paper and is unpublished, so it's OR in WP terms and hence verboten. Popular misconception about church and state being in cahoots - for much of the 12th-13th centuries it's probably closer to say they were two separate states coexisting within the same territories and not always in a particularly friendly fashion. Elizabeth Hallam's book on Capetian France is particularly good on such things (and very readable even if one isn't an historian!) Cheers, StuartLondon (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Barging in on an old discussion: arguing the separation of Church & State in the 12th & 13th centuries (?) in relation to the entrance of Notre Dame facing west, you are totally off course. The reason the main entrance faces west is that it leads to the altar that must face east. A Christian church or cathedral represents a ship, navire in French, also nef (nave in English), which is the name of the part of a church from the rear entrance to the altar, the altar being the bow of the ship (proue du navire), facing east, sailing toward the rising sun, i.e. the resurrection of Christ. --Frania W. (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Stephen's

Do we have a picture of the earlier cathedral? Should it have its own article. What notable events are associated with it? Drutt (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are drawings, but probably not "d'époque". --Frania W. (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Catalog of organ stops

I've removed the lengthy list of organ stops again. Sorry, but this is information that is essentially completely meaningless to anyone but an organ specialist, and it takes up an undue amount of space in an article about such an important church. Wikipedia isn't a directory of all possible information, and this is a prime example of the type of trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The current text of the organ section does a sufficient job of explaining that the organ "has 7,800 pipes, with 900 classified as historical. It has 111 stops, five 56-key manuals and a 32-key pedalboard."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fortunate are those who know French and, by clicking on "Français" for French wiki, are able to read its splendid article with great description of organ, which, by the way, as a musician, I find ridiculous to call "trivia", when one knows the importance of such an instrument in such an "important church".

--Frania W. (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. However, what I removed is not a "description," it was a contextless, unexplained list making up something like 20% of the entire article's length. As a musician myself who is around church organs with some frequency, I can tell you flat out that a catalog like that is impenetrable to probably 99% of Wikipedia readers. You're free to disagree, of course--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Glen, for the 1% who might be interested, why not keep a detailed section of the organ with "piccolo", "bourdon", "flûte" and other trivia, as a sub-section? Since you're an expert, you'd be the perfect author for that section. --Frania W. (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the removal of the stop list from the organ section either. This is an extremely important organ, not only in France (where it is the largest organ by number of stops) but also in the world. Please remember that Wikipedia is here to inform and perhaps also educate, and this very interesting information should have been retained. And I completely agree with Frania W, the French article on NDdeP is excellent, far better than the sad and 'butchered' version we have in English. Fortunately, my French is quite good.Ds1994 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ds1994: I agree with you that "Wikipedia is here to inform and perhaps also educate..."; therefore, why not put that information back? It's easily retrievable. Where else can we find information on this splendid organ if not at its "home" article?

As to another important reason for removing it as expressed by contributor Glenfarclas:

• "and it takes up an undue amount of space in an article about such an important church.", which brings a smile to my face after checking on the following & noticing the importance "culture" takes in the en:wiki:

• With 23,983 bytes in English wiki (against 177,316 in French wiki), Notre Dame de Paris lags behind:
• 28,149 - Levi Johnson
• 29,333 - Pumpkin Yes! the pumpkin is more important than Notre Dame de Paris!
• 32,231 - Halloween
• 39,707 - McDonald's
• 40,421 - Brigitte Bardot
• 40,936 - Garfield
• 59,070 - Jack the Ripper
• 64,086 - Disneyland
• 66,297 - Mickey Mouse
• 154,181 - Sarah Palin
• 169,608 - Elvis Presley
• 179,711 - Michael Jackson

Has anyone ever brought up undue amount of space in the redaction of the above?

Before the organ "undue weight" was removed, the article was 24,765 bytes. The organ "weight" was 3,148 bytes, and if this was added to article as it stands now, with a total of 27,913 bytes, the article would still weigh less than the 28,149 of Levi Johnson...

--Frania W. (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you say and the logic of your argument Frania W. I am also concerned that the tremendous importance of this instrument is merely being overlooked, the provision of the specification in itself would emphasise the grandeur of this world-renowned instrument. I also think that a majority of people are perhaps more informed and indeed a little more intelligent than Glenfarclas suggests. When I last went to Notre Dame for an organ recital 10 years ago the cathedral was packed and everyone I noticed sat in awe as they listened to this magnificent instrument. And how can we broaden the exposure of this Grand Organ without the relevant information?

I shall take two examples to support this argument:

1) The mutation stops on the Grande Pedale (Quinte 10 2/3, Tierce 6 2/5, Quint 5 1/3 and Septieme 4 4/7) are the genius of Aristide Cavaille-Coll himself and are quite unique in France, if not the world. Pierre Cochereau himself when requiring a rich mezzo-forte effect on the Pedale invariably used the combination of Contrabasse 16 and Septieme 4 4/7. This had a unique effect and was likened to a chorus of double basses in a grand orchestra. The Septieme 4 4/7, being a mutated flat twenty-first effectively in the 32' register, provided sub-harmonics when coupled to the 16' stop to 32' feet and below.

2) The current battery of five independent en chamade reeds (the three earlier reeds provided by Robert Boisseau in the 'Spanish' style, and the two more recent chamades provided by his son Jean-Loup Boisseau in the 'Cavaille-Coll' style) are unique in France.

Without the specification, how can anyone either fully appreciate this instrument, or even begin to do so if not acquainted with the information in the first place? Basically, the French article has got it right (the entire French version is right), and the English version is its poor cousin. Perhaps we should put the specification back?

In doing so, perhaps we should use the French version, which is presented in a very tidy 'tabular' format, whereas the format of the erased English version was in itself perhaps a little untidy? (and hence perhaps did not help its cause in the first place?) Ds1994 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ds1994: Since you are the one who originally had put the information, you should put it back & use the French wiki version[3], making it readable to English-speaking readers.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Hauptorgel at German wiki[4]

Thank you for your consensus Frania W. However I did not originally insert the specification (although I did make minor adjustments as several of the stop entries were incorrect). It would be good to have consensus from Glenfarclas, as I see no point in ping-pong deletion and re-insertion - there is too much of this going on in Wiki anyway. P.S. Yes German wiki has it the same way as the old English version. Oh well, the French and the Germans are 'with it' and the Anglo-Saxons are trailing behind as usual (hah hah). Also the photo of the organ in German wiki is much better than the one in the English version. Is it easy to change the one for the other? Ds1994 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ds1994, I agree with you that we should have consensus, although I do not believe that the article should remain amputated of one its vital "organs" - said "organ" should be treated in the "body" where it belongs, that is to say that of "Notre Dame de Paris".

Yes, if you prefer another photograph that you see in another article, the one here can be changed.

On another subject, I also do not understand the reason of making space for this photograph[5], which belongs more in the article on the rose, while leaving out this one [6], or not including this [7] at the place of this one [8] in which Notre Dame is leaning at almost the same angle as the Tower of Pisa.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree FraniaW. Would you be happy to perform the changes? I think you may be more adept at this than me! Regards, David. Ds1994 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have provided an 'External Link' in the article which provides a history of the Organs in Notre Dame, together with very comprehensive specifications of the Grande Orgue and the Orgue de Choeur. Ds1994 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way I could perform the changes would be to "pick" the section off the French wiki article & place it at en:wiki NDdP - then wait for someone to "venir nous sonner les cloches". Pouvu que ce ne soit pas avec le "Bourdon"[9] (!)

--Frania W. (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The organ pipes information is important and should be included in the encyclopedia somewhere. (I don't think it is OK to say that this can just be linked externally. In that case one could argue that much of the Wikipedia should be deleted.) I would suggest that since the organ is a specialty interest, most of the organ information, including the lists of organists and organ ranks should be split off into a separate article, e.g., Notre Dame organ or Organ of Notre Dame with a link to it from a short paragraph on the organ in this article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Robert Allen, but would suggest the title Organ of Notre Dame de Paris as there are other organs in other "Notre Dames" that may be notable enough to warrant an article. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it just occured to me that there are more than one organ in Notre Dame, so the best solution may be Organs in Notre Dame de Paris or even Organs and organists of Notre Dame de Paris (though the latter may be too long). Danmuz (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Notre Dame (ND)

From all my research there was a place referred to as the cathedral school of Notre Dame, perhaps originating after Charlemagne's educational edicts. A cathedral simply means there is a Bishop running it, not necessarily a grand structure. St. Dennis is not a cathedral for example. But I digress. My inquiry is some scholarship on the cathedral school of Notre Dame. It may have been near St. Stephen's, the heavy Merovingian structure apparently sprawling with a large roof that gave way at times. Torn down to make room for ND. Markbeaulieu (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It may well be older but I've never seen any references to the Cathedral School of N.D. prior to the tenure of William of Champeaux as Magister at the start of the 12th Century. Most post-Carolingian cathedrals certainly had 'schools' attached to them but a lot were fairly minor affairs. I suspect the fame of the School of N.D. is at least partly a 19th century invention resulting from the over-romanticisation of Peter Abelard's time there - certainly in the 12th Century the School of the Abbey of St Victoire (i.e. the Victorines) was far more influential. As for the architecture, Cathedral/Abbey schools were not generally separate physical structures like later medieval colleges. Instead teaching tended to take place in the generic space of the cloister. If you're looking for details of the area surrounding the cathedral (or anywhere else in Paris), the wonderful "Atlas de Paris au Moyen Âge" by Phillippe Lorentz and Dany Sandron is a good starting point. Good luck with your research. StuartLondon (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dedicatee

We seem to have just blindly assumed that Notre Dame is a reference to the mother of Jesus. Is it not just as likely that it refers to Mary Magdalen? Her cult in France was massive. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one Notre Dame: the mother of Jesus. The church isn't Sainte-Marie, which could be ambiguous. Awien (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

!

If consecrated to Marie Magdalen, then it would have been named Sainte Madeleine, not Notre Dame, as Notre Dame in France is the Holy Virgin.

"Her cult in France was massive." So was that of the mother of Jesus. No comparison between the two.

• http://www.immaculata.ch/Archiv/nd_france_hamon1.htm
• http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/Portail-de-la-Vierge
• http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mxdFa4_-lKEJ:www.salve-regina.com/Histoire/La_Sainte_Vierge_et_la_France.htm+cons%C3%A9cration+de+Notre+Dame+de+Paris+%C3%A0+la+Sainte+Vierge&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

--Frania W. (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical

How to best add a disambiguation notice to the french musical Notre-Dame de Paris (musical)? Debresser (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another user added a regular hatnote, and also asked the question, whther three hatnotes isn't a sign it would be best to make a disambiguation page. Opinions? Debresser (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would vote against. Actually, I'm a little surprised that the link to Victor Hugo's book is a hatnote in the English WP rather than only an item in the "See Also" list. In the English-speaking world the book is much better known as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", rather than by its original title - so it's very unlikely that an english-speaking user would arrive at this page by mistake when searching for the book. Since the musical is just an adaptation of the book I wouldn't see that as any reason to have a disambiguation page either - though paradoxically it probably does merit a hatnote even if the book doesn't! Ultimately, the other entries that would appear on such a disambig page are all secondary to the cathedral, from which they take their names. In terms of WP's disambiguation policy, the cathedral is clearly the Primary Topic. StuartLondon (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

View from Notre Dame across Paris

Hello, I would like to add a line about the view from the Cathedral as it is known for being one of the best views across Paris. Can you please guide me and suggest an appropriate place to add it? I also have some photographs of this view to upload. Please be kind to me, this is my first post on editing a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.72.217 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be useful to be signed in. Hopefully you can see my user name now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlikelyusername (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Bells

There are several potential inaccuracies / contradictions in the bell section. As I am unable to reconcile the differences I have created this talk section rather than edit myself. It would be helpful if someone with more specific information could reconcile these issues.

The article states: The bells were once rung manually, but are currently rung by electric motors. When it was discovered that the size of the bells could cause the entire building to vibrate, threatening its structural integrity, they were taken out of use.

Which is correct "currently rung by electric motors" - or "taken out of use". Perhaps this should be some of the bells were taken out of use as per this article in the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203814/Ding-Dong-New-bell-cast-Paris-cathedrals-850th-anniversary-centuries-previous-torn-French-Revolution.html Assuming they were rung by electric motors and then taken out of use at a later date (February 2012 for taken out of use?) then this should have the relavant dates. It also requires citations for these events.

The Notre Dame website also appears to be out of date, but there is an article by the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-bells-the-bells-why-notre-dame-is-ringing-the-changes-7440657.html This article contracticts Wikipedia. It states that the bells have been sent for scrap and that the new bells will be replicas. There is no mention of recasting the bells to make the new ones - citation needed if they are recasting the new bells from the old ones.

A more recent article from the Guardian suggests that the old bells have not yet been scrapped "The four grandes dames are currently at the French bell foundry Cornille-Havard" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/12/ding-dang-notre-dame-bells . PenguinTutor (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro photo

The introductory photo should be changed. That photo was taken from too far away - the Cathedral is too small in it, and shown at an angle. The photo further down depicting Notre-Dame illuminated at night is better. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Emmanuel Bell Frequency

In the Bells section, Emmanuel is assigned two different frequencies. The original as Eflat, whereas the table says F#2. Someone more knowledgeable about this than I am may like to look into this and provide some clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyburns (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)