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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
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.99.236.160.15 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
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)[reply]
Original research?
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? 86.18.241.153 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added useful external link
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)[reply]
Strange wording
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."
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saved by US Army?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Information in the lead
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, LindsayHi19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 124.187.88.225 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 79.101.207.209 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The math does not work out.
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.
The math is good, the position difference is mainly horizontal. Using the cosinus for vertical calculation and sinus for horizontal shows a 3.8869m difference for horizontal and a 0.1354m difference for vertical... obviously, since the tower is not a perfect beam with thickness tending to 0, there are some geometric factors to take into account and these number are only representative of the movement of a theoric point taken at the top and center of the tower. The overall heigth may even be higher than with a perfect vertical since the top is flat, and the diagonal (which is longer than the straigth line perpendicular to the top) moves towards the center, theorically increasing the heigth as the tower leans, up to the angle of said diagonal to the perpendicular. 2001:56B:9FE8:C3A3:C8C5:64AF:F9EE:F52B (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geo coords are incorrect
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 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 75.31.108.217 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? --76.115.67.114 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. 99.54.188.176 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
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)[reply]
Bizarre Syntax
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."
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leaning Tower of Pisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "discovered" to "suspected" in the line about the tower being spared from destruction during World War II under History following construction. The confirmed presence of German soldiers in the tower is not supported by the sources. --92.4.153.49 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Leaning Tower of Pisa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
The section "Alternative candidates" is completely off topic, as it doesn't deal with the tower. It seems a way to advertise other, lesser known historycal sites. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is the freestanding bell tower of the Cathedral of Pisa, Italy. The third oldest structure in the city's Square of Miracles, it is known worldwide for its unintended tilt. The tower's tilt began during construction in the 12th century, caused by an inadequate foundation on ground too soft on one side to properly support the structure's weight. The tilt gradually increased until the tower was stabilized (and the tilt partially corrected) by efforts in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The tower, which measures 55.86 metres (183.27 feet) from the ground on the low side and 56.67 metres (185.93 feet) on the high side, has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1987.Photograph: Saffron Blaze
The portion on stabilizing and straightening the Tower is missing several key pieces of interesting information.
The information that at one time, it had been projected to freeze the soil on the softer side by using liquid nitrogen.
The information that multiple attempts had been made over the years by using counter-weights (as is shown), but also various other processes, like injecting concrete into the soil on the softer side, to help slow the tilting.
The information that an English engineer, John Burland, finally 'solved' the problem for an estimated 300 years, using a process that can be repeated as needed.
Previous attempts to stabilize and straighten the tower concentrated on the soil on the softer side of the tower. John Burland looked at the problem in a different way. His successful idea was not to harden the soft side of the soil, but to soften or slowly remove soil on the hard side of the tower, by boring a large number of long, thin holes into the harder soil under the high side of tower, so that the tower would slowly lean back towards the vertical naturally. Not only did this work well, better than any hardening process on the softer soil, it can be repeated as necessary to keep the tower stable.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In "See also", it says to see the only leaning temple. This is inconsistent with the article it leads to; I would suggest changing it to:
See Also:
<name of temple>: One of only two leaning temples in the world. TH3 AN0N\M0U5 U53R (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change 77 short tons to 84.88 short tons.
The article references a tower mass of 77 metric tons, and then further explains this value equates to 77 short tons (English system). This should be read as 77 long tons. 1 metric ton = 1 long ton (1000 kg = 2,240 lbm). Alternatively, you could also write 77 metric tons = 84.88 short tons (which is a flat 2000 lbm).
@Norman constellation: It looks correct to me as written. That part of the article is referring to the amount of earth that was removed to stabilize the tower. The source article says that 70 metric tons (tonnes) were removed, which converts correctly to 77 short tons. The mass of the tower is mentioned a couple of times and is far greater. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple misidentification of the buildings and their architectural styles
In the section entitled Construction, the last paragraph identifies the only Gothic structure as the belfry. In fact, the Tower itself is the belfry or bell tower. It is in the Romanesque style, a later version of classical Roman Empire architecture with rounded arches and plain surfaces. The photos reveal its purpose with many views of the bells that hang on every floor. The photo down the page shows only the nearest of the three buildings in the set to be in the gothic style, with feathered window frames and pointed, decorated arches. That is the shortest of the three, the Baptistry. It came late to the party, the last to be built, after Europe had adopted the gothic style that continues to identify many later cathedrals and churches (Milan, Westminster Abbey), even many built in nineteenth and twentieth century North America (Grace in SFO, Nat'l Cathedral in WDC). Joseph Hickey-Tiernan (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 Janurary 2020: Replace Bad JPG with PNG
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The link in this article to the Leaning Tower of Wanaka is incorrect. It leads to a page about a puzzle, not to the Tower’s article. Aafritz17 (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'd like to request that the bell tuning information be added to the page. This has been discussed before on the Talk page in 2008 and 2014. In the "Construction" section of the page there is this statement: "There are seven bells, one for each note of the musical major scale." The reference for that is given as Black, William Harman, but this is all the reference has to say on the topic: "7 bells, representing musical notes, at top of 8 stories". The reference doesn't claim a tuning to a major scale, and in fact the bell tunings don't form any standard scale, major or minor. Para175 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the section 'Earthquake survival', the clause
"A 2018 engineering investigation concluded that the tower withstand the tremors because of dynamic soil-structure interaction..." contains the word 'withstand' where it should be 'withstood' or, even, 'was able to withstand' 86.27.95.79 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: I'm not sure what image you're referring to, but the tilt was reduced to 3.9 degrees following the stabilization of the structure (this is covered and sourced in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current use/military presence?
Two pieces of information are missing: 1. Other than just being there, is the tower still used as a bell tower? There is reference to the bells being removed as part of stabilization efforts. I presume the public cannot go inside (like how Galileo allegedly scaled the tower to drop the balls from). Also, as visible in the "panoramic view" image and also Google Maps aerial and Street View imagery, there seems to be a military presence at the tower in the form of a tank that seems to be permanently parked outside. Is it indeed there for security of the structure, or just as a military display given the tower is a tourist attraction? 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 degrees of improvement or 0.5 degrees?
All the sources I see say that the remedial engineering work between 1993 and 2001 improved the tilt by a modest 0.5 degrees. However this article claims a much larger improvement, from 5.5 degrees to 3.97 degrees, i.e. 1.53 degrees change.
The Stabilisation of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, J.B. Burland (Professor of Geotechnical Engineering) , M. Jamiolkowski (Professor of Geotechnical Engineering) , C. Viggiani (Professor of Geotechnical Engineering)
“The results obtained from the final underexcavation are plotted in Fig. 37. The target of decreasing the tilt of the Tower by half a degree was successfully achieved (Fig. 38). “
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. spintendo 18:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Partly done. Better yet, I just removed the text as superfluous; it's clear what the significance is from its name alone. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
All done! Thank you for your contributions. TGHL ↗ 02:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
