Talk:Leaning Tower of Pisa/Archive 1

Article doesn't match quality standards?

What's up with this? "MAJORLY AND COMPLETLY flawed from the beginning" "...stable for another 300 years.WOW" I don't think that the caps are very Wikipedia-ish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.134.83 (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor use of English

Anyone else notice the extremely poor use of grammar and the english language throughout the page? it looks like someone knowledgeable from another country made the English version but it very strange reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.150.68 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Campanile or Tower

Why is it named the leaning tower of Pisa and not the leaning campanile of Pisa? As it is a campanile and not a tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daevas (talk • contribs) 17:00, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Although the structure is a belltower (campanile), it is a tower indeed. And is commonly known as the learning tower of Pisa, or simply the tower of Pisa par excellence. Any other references as Pisa tower or simply Pisa are wrong. LoneWolf76 01:36, 3 Octuber 2007 (CEST)

Vandalism

(NOT GOOD)

Corrected sexual vandalism. (Why the hell would someone vandalize this entry? Someone please ban the vandals.) Adraeus 03:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, for some reason this entry seems to be a major vandal target. My guess is school kids doing projects. Blorg 11:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was some "non-offensive" vandalism that stayed on this page for close to 12 hrs. I've reverted the version before it was added. Someone please check the IPs. KKL 22:26:07, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

There is so much subtle vandalism in this article that it should be rewritten. The tower is leaning away from the cathedral because the cathedral had been there before and compressed the ground. Thus when the tower was errected, the ground below had a falling compression gradient, making the tower lean away from the cathedral. This happend already during construction and the tower twice was straightend out: above the second floor and below the top section. You can see it well on the picture. As one can see on the neighboring buildings (cathedral and baptistry) the architects where well capable to do make sufficent foundations on the sandy ground.

Other vandalism: the steel cables where not hundreds but just a couple dozen metres long and the surrounding appartments where not closed. The closest building is the tower authority just behind and it was open all the time selling tickets for the cathedral.

And nobody digged out 35m^2 below.

Best-known landmark

I specifically made the assertion that the tower is the best-known, because there is nothing else even close famewise. Does anybody have a plausible counterexample? Stan 19:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Colosseum. Bogdan | Talk 19:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even lacking a counterexample, the statement that something is the best-known landmark is a personal judgement. That personal judgement is based upon your own POV. If, however, you can find citation that it is the most visited or most-well-known according to some survey, that would be a fine assertion (if the citation is included). I have to say that the Colosseum is a pretty convincing counterexample, however. --ABQCat 21:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Sistine Chapel. Brunelleschi's Dome. Saint Peter's Square. St Mark's Square. The Doge's Palace. The Grand Canal. Gdr 23:22, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I think you can say something is "best known" without citing anything if it's uncontroversial, e.g. Bill Clinton is the best known politician from Hope, Arkansas. However this case is clearly controversial (I'd say the Colosseum was first). Kappa 01:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I think Rome—ancient Rome—I think of the Colosseum just as I think of the Parthenon when of Greece; however, the Leaning Tower of Pisa being a major tourist attraction, and a major source of Gypsy income, I think the tower is perhaps second to the Colosseum. That is only because when I think of Italy, I think of Rome, then I think of the Colosseum, then I think of Italy again and I think of my cousins in Bologna. I've visited Pisa and much of Italy so my experiences tend to associate different landmarks with different things different from what the average American thinks when they think of Italy. Whew!

The point is: there are better terms. I'll show you! Adraeus 02:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting responses - keep in mind that the point is to identify the best-known landmark, something that the proverbial high-school student in Botswana will most likely have heard about, not to rattle off the obscures (and technically the Sistine is not even in Italy :-) ). But I don't have a survey with numbers, and if it's not self-evident to everybody, I'm not going to press the point. Stan 05:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say the Statue of Liberty in NY is best-known by anyone everywhere. Does it get any closer famewise to the Tower of Pisa??? i guess..Tere 01:33, 13 May 2005

What about the Eiffel Tower in France? This is also a well-known landmark. I don't think that you can pinpoint one landmark as being the "best-known" - for example, if you are American, you may think of the Statue of Liberty as being the best-known. If you are Italian, you may immediately think of the Colosseum or the Leaning Tower of Pisa. I don't think it is at all feasible to decide the "best-known" landmark in the world, or even one country at that. Agree with Stan Shebs - As we "don't have a survey with numbers" we cannot truly come up with a correct idea of what the "best-known" landmark is. As for famewise - can this not be open to individual interpretation? [User: Scorpio] (note- Scorpio is now the account Scorpia)

I think that it possibly could be the statue of liberty because immigrants from all over the world passed by there on their trip to America sa psyco 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fortunately"

I have to agree with Hnsampat. There is no need for the word "fortunately" with regard to the tower not being destroyed. I'm sure most readers would consider this fortunate, but it's a decision they can come to on their own. —BenFrantzDale 04:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Steps: 294 vs. 296

I know this is a small point but I'm finding conflicting infomation on the number of steps. A google search for "leaning tower pisa steps 294" gives 755 results, while a google search for "leaning tower pisa steps 296" gives 717 results. Can anyone shed some light on this? Or if any of you are planning a trip there can you please count the number of steps?  ;) Monkeyman 30 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Seems like a problem about counting your footsteps vs. number of levels in the stairs ? Ericd 1 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

There ia actually 294 steps. That is the correct #. sa psyco 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The two numbers are correct. In the seventh floor there are 4 steps on the northern side and 6 steps on the southern side. That because the bellfry was built with a different inclination in effort to compensate for the tilt, more than the previous levels. LoneWolf76 01:28, 3 Octuber 2007 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1976 (talk • contribs)

how many people did jump??

the text says "At least two people have jumped down the tower with a parachute: Mike McCarthy on August 5, 1988 (Boston Globe, August 6, 1988) and Arne Aarhus on February 1, 2000" so how many people DID jump , two or three ?--83.244.76.180 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A history of lean (angle)

Would be good. What happened to the base jumping sentence? Rich Farmbrough 18:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. What does the direction of lean statistic mean? It makes no sense to me, and I'm about to start a degree in engineering. BigBlueFish 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it means the direction the tower was leaning for specific years. "Direction of lean: 1173-1250 north, 1272-1997 south" would mean it was leaning north from 1173AD to 1250AD ... and it was leaning south from 1272AD to 1997AD. But this statistic seems worthless because it is unsourced and vague. I'll go ahead and remove it. Monkeyman^(talk) 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article ought to show the current angle of the tower, as well as the angle of the tower at important stages in the history of the tower. I've heard that the tower is leaning less now than before, although I have no idea to what extent. Further research is recommended, but beyond this contributer's expertise. 12.147.193.6 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Stable for at least another 100,000,000 years"

This can't possibly be true. If any source has said this, it should definitely be quoted. There's no possible human structure that could ever be said to be likely to even survive for a hundred million years. To say that the repairs to the tower of pisa will make it stable for this length of time is ridiculous. Perhaps it means 100 years, and has been vandalized? --Corinthian 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that it would be straight enough to not fall by itself for that long, assuming you could stop erosion, weatehring, and other interference. If it was on the moon, and the tilt was minor enough, it would last very long.--Planetary 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Final remedial work?

The mere removal of some 35 m^3 of earth from below the foundations does not sound like a likely intervention to a complex problem that had so many experts occupied for so long.. We need some references to technical information on the subject.. Gregorydavid 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sound file

The French language version of this article has an audio recording of the bells ringing. I would add it to the English version if I knew how.uguly

Design is Flawed

Article states: After the third floor was built in 1178, the tower acquired a lean, due to a mere three-meter foundation in weak, unstable subsoil. The design of this tower was flawed from the beginning.

Specifically, just how was the tower flawed from the beginning? Just what exactly is the design flaw in question? The statement does not elaborate-- just leaves it at this.

It's saying that no matter what, there was still going to be that weak soil there so they couldn't have done anything to keep it straight at the beginning. They can make it straight now but that would lose tons of money off of tourism. sa psyco 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem (that I'm aware of) with the "mere three-meter foundation", if there was a problem with the thickness of the foundation it would crack and the cracks would travel up into the structure, compromising it. The problem is the foundation was not large enough to spread the weight on the "unstable soil" and therefore sank into it (more on one side). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.17.135 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaning all over?

How is it possible for the tower to have leant towards the north and now to the south? If the angle of inclination is 13 degrees what was it originaly and why was the remedial exercise overdone so that it now leans the other way? Gregorydavid 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a program a few years ago, so can';t remeber the details, but they said that the tower started to lean, and the clever Pisans tried to counter the tilt by thickening the south wall, but overcompensated. I've not seen it in print though. --Bilbo B 09:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The tower has always leaned in the same direction. The "direction of lean" refers (perhaps unclearly) to the fact that the tower began to lean to the south even before it was completed. At some point after several remedies had been tried, the tower began to sink on the north side faster than the south side (although they were both sinking) thus the top of the tower was moving north or "straightening" itself. It did not straighten completely or lean in the other direction. Also I believe the "angle of inclination" is about 3 degrees or about 13 feet from being vertical not 13 degrees. I do not know what the most lean was or when the tower began to straighten, if someone could add this information into the article in a clear way I think that it would be good, I think the straightening of the tower is one of the more interesting facts about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.17.135 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Third Structure?

It is situated behind the Cathedral and it is the third structure in Pisa's Campo dei Miracoli (field of Miracles).

Does this mean it was the third structure to be built in that field or on that particular spot? Or does this just mean it's the third on the left as you walk through from a certain direction? Or one of three buildings there? Authoritative though the statement sounds, I can't make head or tail of it. qp10qp 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's the third by dimension. The Cathedral, the Battistero, then the Tower. --Gspinoza 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the third by time. First Cathedral (1064), then Baptistery (1152), then the belltower (1173). Last the fourth structure the cemetery (1277). User:Lonewolf76 01:24, 3 Octuber 2007 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1976 (talk • contribs)

hey

the leaning tower of piza is very introsting so instead of talking about it wright info about it duu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa, I don't think you meant to use the word "penis" in the article.

Ostia

From Ostia:

In the Middle Ages, bricks from buildings in Ostia were used for several other occasions. The Leaning Tower of Pisa was entirely built of material originally belonging to Ostia.

Cite needed!! Neddyseagoon - talk 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC) and it has easy and delicate features

Here is a problem when viewing this page, also

The Leaning Tower of Pisa (Italian: Torre pendente di Pisa) or simply The Tower of Pisa (La Torre di Pisa) is the campanile, or freestanding bell tower, of the cathedral of the Italian city of Pisa. It is situated behind the Cathedral and it is the third structure in Pisa's Campo dei Miracoli (field of Miracles).

Bold text{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}

Although intended to stand vertically, the tower began leaning to the southeast soon after the onset of construction in 1173 due to a poorly laid foundation and loose substrate that has allowed the foundation to shift.

This is what it looked like. i copyed the first and last paragraph between the error. weird...

Double layered foundation, freezing failure

During the excavation of soil from under the high side of the foundation, it was discovered that the foundation was built in two layers. Apparently the first sank into the ground and another was built on top. Prior to the excavation, which used metal tubes driven into the ground with archimedes screws to extract the soil, coolant pipes were put into the ground to freeze the soil in an attempt to stabilize it while other options were considered. The freezing was stopped when it was discovered the water in the soil expanded and was making the tilt worse.

I wonder if anyone ever considered taking the tower apart, ripping out the bad foundations, building a new foundation with pilings driven down to bedrock, then reassembling the tower on the new and perfectly misaligned foundtation?

Bonanno Pisano

Why does Bonanno Pisano redirect to the Leaning Tower of Pisa? His name is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Is he the architect that designed the Leaning Tower? Apparently there is some controversy regarding that. He was also an accomplished artist. Doesn't he have his own page seperate from this one? 199.64.0.252 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

His name was no longer mentioned because, in the past, obviously large chunks of text have been deleted. I've added them again, with small modifications. JoJan 05:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be a tourism section added to this.

One of the most bizarre things about the tower, is that for some reason, it is everyone's desire to get a picture that uses 3-dimensional perspective to give the illusion that a person is actually a giant holding up the tower (or conversely pushing it over). When I went, there were so many people taking these pictures, that in every picture I have of the tower, there are 3 or 4 people in the background taking the exact same picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.194.121 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Angle of Tower

The article states the angle is 5.5 degrees. However the Guinness Book of World Records has ruled that a church steeple in Germany, not the famous leaning tower of Pisa, is the most tilted tower in the world.

The 25.7-metre steeple tilts at an angle of 5.07 degrees, while the tower of Pisa tilts at just 3.97 degrees, said Olaf Kuchenbecker, head of Guinness's German edition.

The new record, scheduled to appear next autumn in the 2009 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.172.198 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the figures per German steeple beats Leaning Tower of Pisa into Guinness book. I expect, but have no way to be certain, that the tower has been righting lately due to efforts to keep it from falling over, and the formerly-referenced BBCi article gave the maximum tilt (in 1990) as 5.5 degrees[1], so it seems quite reasonable to this armchair architect that the tilt might have been corrected by 1.5 degrees through various herculean efforts to keep it from falling. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How much does it actually move per year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.198 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Error?

Under history it says "A multinational task force of engineers, mathematicians and historians was assigned...". Shouldn't it be were instead of was? I'd edit it, but I'm not great with grammar at times. MooMix1 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Was" is right. To see this, take out the prepositional phrase: "A multinational task force ... was assigned". Singular subject, singular verb. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar in section: Certain information and suppositions

I have tagged this section for cleanup. It appears that the author was not a native English speaker, and I am having considerable difficulty determining exactly what he is saying here. The information is likely correct, but impossible to decipher.

It is likely someone will have to spend some time researching the subject to figure out how to clean this up correctly, unless they already know the history. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"On the Contrary of Popular Belief?"

I'm sorry, but "there's no lift inside, on the contrary of popular belief?" That's so poorly worded it hurts my feelings. I'd have changed it immediately to something more intelligent, but the article is locked. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.38.26.103 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment is ridiculous. I' m removing it alltogether. Nobody seriously could believe that a 13th-century belltower has a lift!

82.40.163.5 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes? I work there, and I hear that sentence MANY times per day. And all people were serious. I know it's ridiculous, but it's not the worse thing people think about the tower or the monuments in the square, just the most common one. Many ask what's the use of that tower (maybe a BELL tower?), if it's a church, if it was build tilted by purpose etc.

--Lonewolf1976 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned this up today, but I dunno... It appears a non-native speaker read an article (or fragment), dumped the text into an online translation package, and then simply threw it over the wall. There seems to be some useful info (with citations) but also more than a little "Yes, but..." stuff. I can't spend any more time on this, and I suppose it's OK so I removed the tag. Seduisant (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes too to make it more understandable. Clearly, some texts were translated from the original texts in Italian. JoJan (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section title needs changing - in effect it's a trivia section by another name. The stuff about construction should be merged into the construction section and so on.FlagSteward (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

One of the images on this page is described as "Some of the works they did in 1910 and you can still see." Is this meant to be "that can still be seen.", and should we change works? Jezzamon (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Geographic coordinates

Current coordinates of 43°43′50″N, 10°23′58″E do not point to the tower as it shows when using the link to Google Maps. Correct coordinates are 43°43'22.67"N 10°23'46.96"E as shown in Google Earth.

Orecht (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that too much. The difference on Google maps is around 850 metres. An error of that magnitude may easily be explained by differences in the Geodetic system used. 79.77.32.208 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Work of art?

The first thing mentioned under the Construction heading is "The Tower of Pisa was a work of art". To begin with this is clearly and uncategorically wrong in that it describes the tower in the past tense.

However, is it really appropriate to describe it as a work of art in such an early and prominent position of the ariicle? It is ultimately a functional construction and any artistic elements of its design are purely secondary. Artistic considerations may by alll means be covered in a section later on in the article, but a completely unsubstantiated and assertive statement at that point seems inappropriate. 79.77.32.208 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor Quality

So, the wikinazis have decided to end free speech again. The grammar and syntax of sections of this article are very poor. It is most probably written by a non-native English speaker. In addition, a number of "facts" seem subjective, and are not sourced.

This "article" is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Poor quality, and yet locked off by a cartel for bogus "vandalism" claims.

Wikipedia -- an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Provided you grease Jimbo's palms... or the admin cabal agrees with your politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.138.91 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)