Talk:Leaning Tower of Pisa

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Architecture B‑class Top‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on .

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)[reply]

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.

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 leaning 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A history of lean (angle)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]