Talk:Notre-Dame Affair

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

2006 reprise?

I removed the following from the article, and bring it here for discussion:

On February 17, 2006, a man using the name Bruno Mourre-Berna ascended to the altar, and in front of some hundred tourists assembled for a guided tour of the cathedral, pronounced, in English, an adaptation of the famous Lettrist anti-sermon, this time targeting not “the Universal Catholic Church”, but rather “the Global Tourism Industry”: “Today…we declare the death of Culture, so the tourists may live at last!” A few days later, postcards bearing a picture of the action and the text of the sermon appeared for sale at the souvenir kiosk in the church, and in tourist stands throughout the Ile de la Cité. They bore the title: “Scadale (bis) à Notre-Dame” (Notre-Dame Scandal Two), and on the back the trademark “Retrolettrist Editions”. It goes without saying that this action had no perceptible impact either in the press or in the cafés; a fact which perhaps only confirms the retro-lettrist text’s main claim: that “Culture is dead!”

These words were spoken at the 2006 reprise of the action:

Today, Bruno Day in the Year of our Boredom, Here, at the flagship attraction of Notre-Dame of Paris, I accuse the global tourism industry of the lethal diversion of our living strength towards an empty heaven. I accuse the tourism industry of pimping. I accuse the tourism industry of infecting culture with its corporate romanticism, of being the viral fungus on the cryogenetically frozen body of culture. For verily I say unto you: culture is dead! We vomit out the agonizing insipidity of your tours, for your tours have been the greasy smile hiding the date rape of all our resource wars. Step out, therefore, onto the banal and exhilarating asphalt of a world where culture is dead, and walk the world anew with your quick feet, with your bare feet, with your unguided feet. Today, Bruno Day in the Year of our Boredom, we proclaim the death of culture so the tourists may live at last! LA CULTURE EST MORTE! VIVE LES TOURISTES!

This is unreferenced, its notability is questionable, and it is not relevant to the article, which discusses an historical event which, though not widely known, is certainly important in the history of this movement. This latter event can make no such claim. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to troll, but this was ridiculous and needed to be deleted

The following paragraph I just deleted from the What Happened After section-

The Notre-Dame Affair, actualising the revolutionary Dadaist heritage at a critical moment of retrograde temptation, assured that the guide-wire of avant-gardism, only recently revived after the trauma of the war of the three totalitarianisms, would not languish immobile in the confines of art production, but would once again pursue the path of agitation that lays siege to daily life to at last succeed in overturning life. Even though its author would soon thereafter abandon all revolutionary leanings to repent and become a good encyclopedist of church history, the action remains exemplary, as much for the Situationist adventure that followed it, as for our era in which interventionism is attracting the interest of more and more artists and activists resisting a world whose birth the Lettrists were among the first to announce.

This is pure opinion, it cites nothing, it refers to WW2 as 'the war of the three totalitarianisms,' and it reads like a college freshman's philosophy paper. I apologise for my gruffness and my argumentative manner, but this sort of thing has no place in Wikipedia.

I copied and pasted the paragraph here just in case other users disagree with me, in case y'all see some merit that I do not.

-Sean M.

Removed Tag

The most detailed account of the affair is in Mourre's autobiography, which wasn't cited here. I added that and removed the tag.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Questionable Referencing

This article seems rife with personal opinion and, as far as I can tell, the only reference that isn't a broken link is to a biography of Michel Mourre. I'm not sure what standards are required by Wikipedia, so I've added a "Refimprove" tag to the article in hopes that someone more experienced than me can take a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevori (talk • contribs) 09:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]