Talk:Leaning Tower of Pisa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Leaning Tower of Pisa is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Leaning Tower of Pisa at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= suck my irish balls haim stanks so bad

  • San Ranieri: D♯3
  • Dal Pozzo: G3
  • Pasquereccia: G♯3
  • Terza: B♭3
  • Vespruccio: E4

It would be useful for the article to tell the reader if the bells are used regularly and if they are used was the vibration caused by the bells considered in either increased settlements over time or physical damage to the structure. (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Reference for the apocryphal nature of the story of the experiment to show the nature of gravity is more properly cited as: Nature News (13 Jun 2005), doi: 10.1038/news050613-10 or some variant thereof. Can someone please change this? Sander roy (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

In the lead section: "This means that the top of the tower is 3.9 metres (12 ft 10 in) from where it would stand if the tower were perfectly vertical.[2]" - after reading the footnote [2], this looks like OR so should it be removed? (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Added useful external link[edit]

Just added external link to website containing University of Ferrara 3D and HD data from Piazza del Duomo, including a fully manipulable laser scan of the Tower. Recently on Febuary 3, 2010, the Leaning tower of Pisa tipped over and fell. It killed over 2,000 people so far and many more are injured. There were many sightseers that also got injured. This was a very recent and even more tragic. It was a very historical place to visit, and now it's gone. Could not figure out how to link the Tower scan model directly, so I just put up the link to the parent area - if anyone wishes to locate the specific page address with the Tower data, that may be superior. --DuendeThumb (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange wording[edit]

Okay, am I the only one who finds these two paragraphs extremely contridicting?

"[...] the tower was reopened to the public on December 15, 2001, and has been declared stable for at least another 300 years.[10]

In May 2008, after the removal of another 70 metric tons (77 short tons) of earth, engineers announced that the Tower had been stabilized such that it had stopped moving for the first time in its history. They stated it would be stable for at least 200 years.[11]"

If my math serves me, 7 years =/= 100 years ;P. Obviously an issue with 2 misleading references, but couldn't we just change the wording around a little bit to sound a little less awkward? Perhaps just remove the latter part of the first paragraph altogether, just leave it as "the tower was reopened to the public on December 15, 2001."

Discuss. :B (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Both references are correct, the first one they did say it would be stable for 300 years. But they were wrong. When they went to check it again, it was 200 years. Perhaps when they check it again, that estimate will be wrong (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)ERIC

It seems strange to me that the tower "currently" leans to the southwest. Why is that word in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's gone in different directions over time. Was first one way, so they changed the third floor to level it out, then it went another way and they changed the 5th floor. Right now, it's heading southwest. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Why doesn't the article mention Mussolini's 361 boreholes and 90 tons of cement? (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bassic Information[edit]

The box needs to put say "Country : Italy" because it needs it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Ever since being unprotected, this page saw almost only vandalism: 30 edits in 2 weeks. I'm not sure of what is needed to qualify for semi-protection, but I think that would still be useful. --Andylong (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the section named "Ending": it's pure vandalism. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Statistics Paragraph[edit]

The third paragraph of the article lists some stats as to the angle of the tower before and after restoration in the late 90s. It lists the final angle at 3.99 DEGREES, yet the source referenced says it's final slope is 3.99 METERS which equates to 3.92 degrees. Furthermore, the next sentence states that the tower is 3.9 meters from where it would stand if it were vertical contradicting the previous reference and math.

What is TRUE angle of the tower? What is the TRUE slope (meters away from vertical at the top) of the tower? Also, how many steps does the tower have? It says 296 or 294. Does that mean it has 590? This last half of the paragraph should be edited for clarification purposes and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMHoward (talkcontribs) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Saved by US Army?[edit]

In regrads to the quote: "During World War II, the Allies discovered that the Nazis were using it as an observation post. A U.S. Army sergeant was briefly entrusted with the fate of the tower and his decision not to call in an artillery strike saved the tower from destruction.[17]"

I think this is a bit silly. Would an article on the Empire State building include the phrase "During the War on Terrorism, al-Qaeda discovered that the Americans were using it as an office. An al-Qaeda sergeant was briefly entrusted with the fate of the tower and his decision not to call in a strike saved the tower from destruction." ? I think not. They are both basically equal statements. I think all the facts should remain, as the Nazi's using it as an observation post is interesting, but "saving" something by "not destroying it" is absurd. Dn832jd983d (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone else is planning to destroy something, and you make a decision that effectively overrules that, that could certainly be described as "saving" it. But to address this criticism, I've rephrased the text to characterize it as this person "sparing" the tower. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Information in the lead[edit]

I have removed the following info/section from the lead, where it really does not belong (the lead should summarise the article). If it is necessary to have this paragraph at all, it should perhaps be inserted in the Technical information section, along with the names of the bells. I won't put it there myself, as i'm not convinced it's necessary. (Removed: Although it is widely known as The Tower of Pisa, Pisa is not the name of the Tower like, for example, the Eiffel Tower: Pisa is, of course, the name of the city. Usually belltowers have no proper name and are called by the name of the related church. So, if the leaning tower has a name, it is Campanile di Santa Maria (Italian: Belltower of St. Mary), being Santa Maria Assunta (St. Mary of the Assumption) the name of the Duomo di Pisa.[1] ) Cheers, LindsayHi 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


the Timeline seems to me a little bit... not really like a timeline -- Hartmann Schedel Prost 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Impact on photography?[edit]

While humorous, many visitors take photographes of tower as if they're trying to support it. I think it should be mentioned. Shourisha (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC) awesome helped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't belong in the introduction, however. It doesn't flow at all. I propose a move/removal. Badair (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'posing in front of the Leaning Tower of Pisa' issue should be mentioned in the article. Apparently it's a thing - especially since some really famous youtubers did it in 2014. Goofy yea'. Some poses I haven't seen: one person pushing it to fall (hands in horizontal plane) while the other pushes it back on the other side at the same time (hands in vertical plane) - like some epic scene, sitting Wild E Coyote style with a tiny umbrella raised above head (and with worried expression on his face) as if it's gonna fall on him, taking photos of the same pose (pushing with hands) from different viewpoints around the tower so it (hopefully) looks like it is getting straight when played in succession... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The math does not work out.[edit]

The height of the tower is 55.86 m (183.27 ft) from the ground on the low side and 56.70 m (186.02 ft) on the high side. The width of the walls at the base is 4.09 m (13.42 ft) and at the top 2.48 m (8.14 ft). Its weight is estimated at 14,500 metric tons (16,000 short tons). The tower has 296 or 294 steps; the seventh floor has two fewer steps on the north-facing staircase. Prior to restoration work performed between 1990 and 2001, the tower leaned at an angle of 5.5 degrees,[1][2][3] but the tower now leans at about 3.99 degrees.[4] This means that the top of the tower stands 3.9 metres (12 ft 10 in) lower from where it would stand if the structure were perfectly vertical.[5]

3.99 degrees lean shortens the tower by about 6% of its height. Huh?

Consider triangle ABC with A being the base of the tower, B being the top of the tower leaning (51.96 (55.86m - 3.9m) above the ground), and C being the same height above the ground and directly above A. AC is 51.96m long. AB is 55.86m long.

1) cos 3.99 degrees is .9975, but according to the triangle created is 51.96/55.86 = .9302.

2) By the Pythagorean Theorem, AB is 20.51m long! sin 3.99 degrees is by this triangle supposedly .3672. The actual value is .0696.

Something is wrong with the article figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Geo coords are incorrect[edit]

I'm not 100% sure how to correct them so I'll leave that to the experts.

Current coords: 43°43'23.98"N 10°23'39.00"E Correct coords: 43°43'22.61"N 10°23'47.81"E

The real effect of this change will be to put the Wiki article on the Tower itself (east end of the Cathedral) on Google Earth rather than on the Baptistry (west end of Cathedral). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnelson62 (talkcontribs) 23:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

suprised it has taken so long, but done. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

basic information[edit]

In the introduction I see many specific details and measurements but no mention of why the tower leans in the first place. I would suggest that the beginning should be reorganized to be more general and to explain why the Tower leans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

why is it leaning like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added a bit more information to the intro. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

another alternative candidate[edit]

There was an article in today's New York Times on alternative candidates, and particularly one in Switzerland. I don't know how to add the reference (with the footnote, etc.) but maybe someone else could do it. Omc (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC) 12:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Forced Perspective[edit]

With the mention of forced perspective and a popular tourist activity, I would think including an image of somebody holding up the tower would be appropriate in this article.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep that for your blow Balloonman Simon How can I help? 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia placemarker in wrong location[edit]

If you look at the area on Google Earth, the placemarker (the little Wikipedia icon) is in the wrong location -- its on the bapistry building nearby. Can we fix this? -- (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

done. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Leaning tower of pisa cyark.JPG[edit]

File:Leaning tower of pisa cyark.JPG

The quality of this iage puts this article to shame, this image in it's current state with so much blurred information is not going to be very helpful.

Niles, Illinois[edit]

I think a small mention & picture of the replica in Niles, Illinois should be added. This would be in addition to similar replicas being mentioned on Wiki pages such as the Parthenon replica in Nashville, and the many replicas of the Statue of Liberty, being a replica in itself. (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Like the Graceland replica in Holly Springs
Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

How much lean?[edit]

The main text states that the lean is 3.99 degrees, while the technical information section states 3.97 degrees. Each are sourced to a dead link.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015[edit]

The Leaning Tower Of Pisa is the worlds ugliest tower. Ricky-ticky-tavi (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


This article (not to mention the Talk page) is replete with discussions of the angle of tilt and linear departure from vertical. Nowhere, however, is there any mention of the direction of the tilt, except for one vague mention that the north staircase has two fewer steps (which might be for other reasons). Which way (compass direction) does the tower lean? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leaning Tower of Pisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd Oldest

The Leaning tower of Pisa is located in the city of Pisa, Italy, and it is a great tourist attraction. It is a bell tower mainly known worldwide for its unintended tilt! But did you know that even though the Leaning Tower of Pisa is 842 years old it isn't the oldest it actually the 3rd oldest on Pisa's Piazza del Dvomo (cathedral square)! The Cathedral and Baptistery were first!

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016[edit]

In the paragraph "History following construction": Please change "The final solution..." to "The eventual solution..." or some other phrase. "The final solution" refers to this: (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - well, sort of - I changed it to "the solution chosen" as "eventual solution" sounds as if they tried several other things that didn't work first - Arjayay (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre Syntax[edit]

There seems to be an odd instance of phrasing in the introduction: "The tilt increased in the decades before the structure was completed and gradually increased until the structure was stabilized"

This might read better as:

"The tilt increased gradually over the decades before the structure was completed and stabilized."

  1. ^ Capitular Archive of Pisa, parchment n. 248; Biagi (1172). "Note of 1172 where the fabric of the tower is referred as "Opera campanilis petrarum Sancte Marie" (Fabric of the stone belltower of Saint Mary)".