Talk:Eiffel Tower/Archive 1

Miscellaneous text
===>Skating? "Skating is free in Paris"? What does that mean, and is it true as written? TSmith7057 10/28/07

hi

"One of the great Hollywood movie clichés is that the view from a Parisian window always includes the tower. In reality, since zoning restrictions limit the height of most buildings in Paris to a few storeys, only the very few taller buildings have a clear view of the tower." 70.110.81.3 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * American and British English differ in spelling, but I prefer British not because I'm British, but because storeys is less ambiguous than stories — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from Superbfc's very valid point, Wiktionary's policy is to use the local variety of English in articles relating to UK/US/Canadian/etc subjects. This doesn't apply to French articles, of course, but as France is just across the English Channel from the UK, might this mean that UK English is more appropriate? Alternatively, a neutral term could be used instead: perhaps "levels", as "storeys"/"stories" is usually used for the levels of buildings such as houses; the Eiffel tower is a construction, so does it really make sense to talk about "storeys" at all? — Paul G 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking about the surrounding buildings, perhaps "floors" would be a good neutral term.--190.74.107.251 02:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "retreating" and general referred to in this article, could it be Dietrich von Choltitz, the Wehrmachtsbefehlshaber (military governor) of Paris who disobeyed Hitler's orders to burn the city and died peacefully in 1966? 62.163.167.174 11:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) the eiffel tower was constructed in 1889

As far as I know, the Eiffel Tower is not made of steel, but of puddled iron. David.Monniaux 13:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You're correct, according to --wwoods 22:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

What is "puddled iron"??--Srleffler 04:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See puddle iron. Puddle iron is the result of a special baking technique relying on swirling during the liquid phase to prevent carbon and the impurities in the metal from associating. See the FAQ section of this reference.Tvbanfield 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)TVBanfield

Do we need to caption photos with image credits, or notes like "public domain photograph"? All of the info about an image should be stored in its Wiki page (which you get to by clicking on it.) Except where the photographer asks for specific on-page photo credits, can we save the captions for more useful info (or just get rid of them?) Dachshund

Is this really the most visited monument? Does it really beat the Ka'bah in Mecca?

Calgary Tower
The Calgary Tower, which is 190 m tall is not listed in the list of other towers. Considering how many other towers are listed that are shorter than this, it ought to be in the list, right above the Nagoya TV Tower. Calgary Tower 204.191.213.37 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The name Eiffel is pronounced "eye-full" in English, in French EfEl in X-SAMPA, but English speakers often adopt a German-sounding pronunciation ajf@l.

I'm not a big X-SAMPA fan, but isn't "eye-full" pronounced ajf@l?

66.32.95.94 03:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yea your right. It's pronounced eye-fell


 * I guess it's similar to the Eifel mountains in Germany, and the name does appear German (cf. Baron Haussmann, another Frenchman with a German name) so it's just become stuck that way. Anyone attempting to pronounce words with authentic pronunciation in English risks being—
 * not understood
 * labelled pretentious
 * The IPA transcription is the correct one for French (done by me). There was an 'english' one too but it's since been removed.
 * — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 10:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of points:
 * ("eye-fuhl"), not  ("ah'y-fuhl")
 * French uses the tonic accent rather than the stress used in English. The stress marks in the pronunciation should not be used in French, and so I have removed them. — Paul G 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

pictures from the tower
Arpingstone would like to apologise to Elliot whose two photos of the view from the Tower I have removed. Firstly, their quality was low and, secondly, they were not of the Tower! The article is titled Eiffel Tower but the photos were of Paris. Best to put them on the Paris page although I have much better pics of Paris so can we let them be deleted? Sorry to do this, I hope you understand why I did it -- Arpingstone 23:06 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed the view from the Eiffel Tower and hope the pics are re-added. Susan Mason


 * Same here. Many people go all the way up to the top of the tower to see exactly the views which these pictures were showing. I would love to see them, or similar ones back. Maybe they could be of smaller size than they originally were. olivier 00:36 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * Neither of you has answered my two reasons for deleting i.e. the quality was too poor for a serious site and they were not illustrating the subject of the article (which is the Eiffel Tower, not Paris). It is best, when replying to someone, to answer their points. However, I am in a minority, so in an hour or so I'll replace them with better views from the tower. Thanks for your comments -- Arpingstone 08:32 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * Here's my first replacement pic, I think it's a bit better than Elliotts, I hope you agree. It's annoying to compress my pic so much to keep it to 25K (it loses heaps of quality). Now you can properly see the huge buildings of the Ecole Militaire at the end of the Champ de Mars (I love Paris!)

Cheers! -- Arpingstone 09:39 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Just had a thought. Can anyone tell me how the two views from the Tower (on the Eiffel Tower page) look on an 800 by 600 screen? It could be a mess. I can't change my screen because my icons get put into a heap in the corner of the screen if I change resolution, and don't go back when I revert to the 1024 by 768 I normally use. -- Arpingstone 18:00 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

the picture on the left is very nice. Susan Mason

"In reality, one can be a few hundred meters away from the tower and unable to see it." Yes: one could be right next to any tower and looking in the wrong direction. Does this need to be said? -- Robert Israel


 * The idea is that the streets around the tower are so narrow that even if you're looking in the * correct* direction, you can be unable to see it. With many other towers, they're much more visible. Krupo 23:47, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Construction image
The German WP has a great picture of the construction site. Check this out: Rl
 * That is an excellent photo, and as it appears to be tagged as public domain I see no problems with us using it in this article. Thryduulf 21:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

discrepancies
There is a discrepancy in the height given in meters and feet. The reported value 325 m converts to 1,066 ft. The article quotes the height in feet as 1,063. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktaco (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

there are 2 striking discrepancies between this article and that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Tower namely - the height of the Eiffel Tower (the Paris one) and the weight of it. Anyone knows which article is correct? i.e. which one should be fixed?
 * weight: The Eiffel Tower's official site (English version) gives two weights, one for the "metal structure" (7,300 tons) and the other a total weight (10,100 tons) (presumably including lifts, the TV antenna, and other non structural fittings). The former was quoted on this article, the latter on the Tokyo Tower article. I've fixed this by quoting both. The 7000 ton figure comes from the Offical site of the Tokyo Tower - This seems likely to be rounding of the lower figure above.
 * height: The Tokyo Tower article was wrong - the difference is 9 metres (inlcluding TV antenna on Eiffel Tower) or 33 metres (excluding said antenna). I have changed both articles to reflect this. I suspect the 13 metre figure comes from the offical site of the Tokyo Tower, which quotes the height of the Eiffel Tower as 320 metres - this looks like a rounding of the 324 metre height). I have left the scale (1.04:1) as it is, I can't find a source for this on either page and my maths is vastly inadequate for the task of working it out. Thryduulf 22:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Change in height of Eiffel Tower due to climate
I'm not sure, but I believe somewhere I read that the Eiffel Tower shrinks 6 inches in the winter and grows back 6 inches when the weather grows warmer. If I can find a (reliable) source (or two), I might remember to put that here later (when I have more time). However, would this statement be in any way relevant or important to the article, or would it just be extra fluff? ~Michael Chang


 * In fact, the tower also inclines itself slightly during the day, because the Sun heats one or another of its faces. I know people who have inclinometers up there, I may ask some questions. David.Monniaux 11:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The shape
Why was the distictive shape selected by Gustave Eiffel for the tower?

I've seen a few different explanations including:
 * The leg area decreases from bottom to top, to provide uniform stress (probably wrong)
 * The shape is designed so that the wind torque balances with the torque generated by the self weight (published in a journal, by a physicist)
 * The shape is an exponential curve, derived from making the effective wind load direction parallel to the face and resulting in no/less need for shear bracing (or something like that, I can't remeber exaclty).

--Commander Keane 14:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Answer to the shape
The best article I have found explains that the weight-counterbalancing equation proposed by Christophle Chouard would result in a parabola, which would not be correct, but that the more recent Pinelis-Weidman theory (based on a 1885 paper by Gustave Eiffel to the French Civil Engineering Society) proves that Eiffel planned to counterbalance wind pressure with tension between the construction elements of the tower. With that theory, they derrived two nonlinear integral-differential equations that produce the true shape of the Eiffel Tower. That shape is exponential.

At the time the tower was built, Eiffel was severly criticised for trying to create something artistic without regard to engineering. However, Eiffel and his engineers were bridge builders who understood the importance of wind forces. If his enterprise was going to build the tallest structure in the world, he was going to be sure it would withstand the wind. Eiffel responded to this criticism in an interview in the newspaper Le Temps, 14 February, 1887 by saying:

''Now to what phenomenon did I have to give primary concern in designing the Tower? It was wind resistance. Well then! I hold that the curvature of the monument's four outer edges, which is as mathematical calculation dictated it should be (...) will give a great impression of strength and beauty, for it will reveal to the eyes of the observer the boldness of the design as a whole.''

So, now we know that the shape of the tower is determined solely by the wind factor. It is simple engineering and simply elegant artistically.Tvbanfield 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)TVBanfield

Further remarkable lattice towers
This list is getting very long, would anyone have any objections if I split it off into a separate article list of notable lattice towers or somesuch? Thryduulf 16:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Great idea, it would be much appreciated. --Commander Keane 08:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thirded. --Crazeman 19:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I LOVE THE EIFFEL TOWER. ITS AMAZING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.209.254 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

2005 Fireworks music?
Does anybody have a list of the songs used in the 2005 Bastille Day fireworks show? I know it started with a big classical number, the 3rd song was "Robot Rock" by Daft Punk, & another was "The Girl from Ipanema".Ianthegecko 03:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Would these songs be played in the month July? Maybe someone from the French Wikipedia can help.  Ariele 00:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What use does the tower serve?
Hello, I read this article hoping to find info on the uses of the tower, but aside from a single sentence about it's use for communications, I did not find anything.

I just want to propose that such a section be added. Did the tower have any use the year it was built? What about today, is it still useful for communications, and if so, how exactly is that so?

Just some proposals! I wouldnt know how to write these personally.
 * Look at the first couple sentences in "Background".Ianthegecko 02:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

New Lights at Night
Wow!!!!! And what it treat it was!! All Sparkly!!! Very nice and romantic! Try the view from a river cruise. Wasn't able to take any photos. Ariele 00:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood
Not 1 to def Hollywood, but, isn't using the Tower a simple shorthand for "Paris", since everybody knows it? Rather than always having somebody say, "Welcome to Paris", which would get really tedious... Trekphiler 17:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of the tower and the fountain
Here is my picture of the tower. I don't want to put it on page by myself, so if you think it is good enought, you can put it on the page. Stijak 07:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice photo, and shows a view not seen in any of the other photos on the page. I added it to a section near the end that didn't already have a picture.--Srleffler 04:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've resized the image - editors can click on it for a larger version. It was taking up a bit more than its fair share of space on the talk page. –MT 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

hey-fell?
Who actually says this? Someone please change it to eye-full or i-full.

Well, that would be how one would phonetically spell how the name is pronounced in French (provided one mutes the "h" in "hey"). Ramdrake 16:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Team America film
In Team America World Police the Eiffel Tower falls on the Louvre, not the Arc d' Triomphe.


 * No, it falls on the Arc de Triomphe - that, strangely, is on the same side of the river as the tower : ) THE PROMENADER  23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...Here. Enjoy! -- THE PROMENADER  02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image positions
I was annoyed by the way that the images were positioned, forcing the reader to weave amongst them, so I've lined them up along the right side. I realize that this just isn't as exciting as having the images come at you from all sides, and that it's just not the way articles do it, but do hope that it'll stay. To the right is what a particularily offensive section looked like under a width of 800px. I've tried my edits out under several resolutions, and they don't seem to mess up. If other editors are unsatisfied, the ideal solution may be to create a section titled "images of the tower" - or, of course, to remove of some of the images. –MT 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Artist's oppositions to the tower
In the french wiki page for the eiffel tower there is a lot of information on artists that did not like the tower whcih is quite interesting. Let me know what you think.

See "The answer to the shape" above, in this Discussion section. Tvbanfield 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)TVbanfield

Mistake?
"...It is the highest structure by far in Paris; the second-highest structure in Paris..." is this a mistake or am I just missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.33.254 (talk • contribs)
 * You were missing something, specifically the semicolon which marked the start of a new clause about the second-highest structure. However, I've edited this for greater clarity. — Johan the Ghost seance 14:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still very confused by this part of the article, could you explain? SalvadorRodriguez 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Height of tower in "stories"
A little earlier today I changed the height of the tower + antenna from 108 to 81 "stories", because this is consistent with the given heights (with and without the antenna) in meters. I am new to Wikipedia, and I know nothing about the Eiffel Tower -- I was just making the math right. But as far as I know though there is no official definition of a "story", so should the term even be used here at all? If I were more comfortable using Wikipedia I might remove it entirely.


 * Best put the height in metres (as it is in Europe) with its equivilent in feet. Yes, very few know exactly the height of a "story", so multiples of this measure won't help much to clarify things. Go ahead and change it! THE PROMENADER  09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't a story something which has a beginning, a middle and and end, and is usually found in a book? I wonder if regular stories are the unit used, or tall stories? :P —  superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 16:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions
The first paragraph in the Statistics section reads:

The tower is the second-highest structure in France, after the 350-m Allouis longwave transmitter, built in 1939. The Eiffel tower is the highest structure in Paris. The second-highest structure in Paris is the Tour Montparnasse (Montparnasse Tower), at 209 m.

I don't know enough about the subject to correct this, but I'm guessing that the intent here was to say that the Eiffel tower is the second highest structure overall, but that it is the tallest structure people can actually climb (the Allouis longwave transmitter is a mast).

--CairoTasogare 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. --Gareth Cash 25 August 2006

The Allouis longwave transmitter is simply not located in Paris. It is actually located in Allouis in the département of the Cher. Hence, the tallest structure in Paris is indeed the Eiffel tower.

--Metropolitan 03:14 26 August 2006

Lepaute Tower?
According to some sources it was a guy called Henry Lepaute (might also be Henri Le Paute) who designed the actual tower. He apparently worked for the Gustave Eiffels engineering bureau. Lepaute is mostly known for designing lighthouses and he might have had his own company for this as well. One of the lighthouses he designed can be found on Valsörarna in the archipelago between Finland and Sweden. The lighthouse (built in 1886) bears a likeness to the Eiffel Tower (built in 1889). Does anyone have more info on this? See the lighthouse here: http://www.korsholmsskargard.fi/index.php?tocID=478&sprak=eng Ostrobothnian 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Images
Too many images. Text becomes hard to follow.

Why is there no good night picture (will have to be fair use as article explains).

-- Cat out 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussed in tha article. The Society that owns the Eiffel tower claims copyright on images that include the lighting display. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the square footage?


 * Of what? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lighting Copyright Year?
"Images of the tower have long been in the public domain; however, in 2003 SNTE installed a new lighting display on the tower. The effect was to put any night-time image of the tower and its lighting display under copyright. As a result, it was no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in some countries."

I visited the tower in 2002 and at that time it was claimed that the night lighting of the tower was copyrighted. The quote above on the indicates that this copyright started in 2003, but my experience says this was earlier.--Johnm4 03:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I would argue that the above statement is wrong. See US Copyright Office FAQ which states: "Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of the photograph." Ian ¹³  /t  19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to know more about the validity of that SNTE claim (on Wiki), and even in general (the law seems to be almost overturned at every opposition here (cour de cassation rulings)). I have a pic I would have liked to to upload here, but it has been removed from wiki and commons altogether "because" of the above claim. I would say that this was a good dose of copyright paranoia, but until I know for sure no-one can say either way. I have done the rounds (there is a lawyer here, but I have recieved no reply), but perhaps it is time to do the same again. If anyone here has any information, it would be helpful. THE PROMENADER  00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the validity of the claim (although I personally don't think it should be valid). US Copyright likely differs from the French law, so an argument about the validity should probably reference a French law or ruling. My original purpose was to challenge the date that the copyright claim was established. The SNTE website mentions the 2003 year, but as I said, my personal experience was that the claim to the copyright existed earlier (in my 2002 visit). --Johnm4 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I sort of hijacked your question to get an answer to my own : ) Thanks for your input though. I'm of the same advice (about the French law), but if it can't stick in the US, I don't think it should apply here either. Copyright paranoia abounds in some Wiki corners... THE PROMENADER  21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is true that US copyright law doesn't respect that kind of copyright, as Ian says, then pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night should be fine, here, as Wikipedia is hosted in the US and adheres to US copyright law. 68.184.150.249 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions
Am I overlooking something? The only dimension I can find is the tower height. How about the size of the base? Jm546 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer: The base consists of the four pillar mounts that form a square 125 by 125 meters at ground level. [9] Look in the FAQ section of this reference site. Tvbanfield 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)tvbanfield

Request page protection?
I think this page should be protected or semi-protected. There's a lot of vandalism, notwithstanding the recent blitz in the last couple of days. I've had this page in my watch list for ages, and it's by far the most vandalised. Anyone else agree? — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should say Named after its desisner and engineer, ....... — this unsigned comment was left by

Please add the link to Ido Wikipedia
io:Eiffel Turmo  -  Thank you, io:User:Joao Xavier 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maupassant?
I know it's a minor point, but could someone please source the anecodote about Maupassant? I've heard the same story, only it was Gide, which sounds more convincing to me - but in any case, it needs a reference. Ajcounter 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo Tower
Tokyo Tower, Tokyo, Japan — 9 m higher than the original (33 m if the TV antenna is included).

This line needs to be moved from Similiar Towers to the top of the Reproductions list. Tokyo Tower may not be a scale model, but it is a reproduction, and not just another tall tower. --70.234.45.23 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually now that I look at both of them, they are more different than I thought, so "similar tower" is fine. --70.234.45.23 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fernsehturm Berlin
The Fernsehturm Berlin, 365m (368 including redesigned antenna)is not on the other towers list. This creates confusions, some web pages I found considering that Berlin Radio Tower, which is 150m high, is the tallest Berlin structure. Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.122.245.33 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Dietrich von Choltitz mispelling
Hi, I'm new, I registered just to point out that in the "Events" section, when talking about Dietrich von Choltitz, when his name is first mentioned and linked to the wiki page on him, it spells his name correct, but in the following line, it appears "Von Cholitz", the "t" between the "l" and "i" is missing. Since I'm a new member, I can't change this, but I think someone should fix this tiny thing.

ZanderArch 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World
I've been adding links for the various contestants for the New Seven Wonders of the world. I've been meaning to add the link for the Eiffel Tower as well, but I saw the "Please Add No More Links" notice. Do you think it could be added anyway or not?Cryptonym 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please post the link here first so the community can decide if it should be included — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
On the infobox on the article, is there a particular reason the completion status in the color green? Should this be removed?  Cool Blue  talk to me 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is to do with the template, not this particular page. I.E. see CN Tower and moreover Template:Infobox Skyscraper —  superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thickness when molten
A recent BBC2 programme about Paris made the claim, which I've heard before, that if molten down, the entire structure of the tower would fill its base to a depth of only 6 centimetres. A rough calculation suggest that this is correct - 7,300 tonnes of iron, at a density of c.7.8 tonnes/cubic metre would fill the 125m square base to about that depth. Is this too trivial to include somewhere in the article, or does it neatly illustrate the economy of Eiffel's design?Ghughesarch 12:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

''I say go for it. You're right - it definitely illustrates economy of design. The third paragraph of the "Introduction" section seems like a good place to add it, since there's some technical information there already, but that's just my opinion. Redshift9 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)''

Wartime Clarifications
The article mentions the Eiffel Tower's role in capturing the "infamous Mata Hari". How? By intercepting the German radio message? The current version of the article on Mata Hari doesn't mention it.

Then there's the Tower and the Marne. That part about dispatching taxis to the front line sounds so odd that I thought it was vandalism. I've added a link to the First Battle of the Marne, but a short explanation of the Tower's strategic importance to that battle would be more appropriate. Redshift9 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Which floor?
The article says there is an ice rink on the tower's first floor, but "first floor" has different meanings in UK and US English, so which is right? Cheers,  Mi re ma re  17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Try official website, which says "ground floor", "first floor", etc.~User:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lightning strike in 1902
A metallic grounded lattice tower like Eiffel Tower will not take any damage after a lightning strike as it is an excellent conductor. What happened really in 1902? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villinger10 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the Eiffel Tower from Paris?
The article currently says:


 * One of the great Hollywood movie clichés is that the view from a Parisian window always includes the tower. In reality, since zoning restrictions limit the height of most buildings in Paris to 7 stories, only the very few taller buildings have a clear view of the tower.

I see the sense of what is intended (most Paris widows don't have a long vista), but as written, it's just wrong. If you can see a window from the Tower -- and you can see lots -- then that window has a view of the Tower. Does somebody want to try to write a sentence that's similar but true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.229.190 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would have a view of the tower but not necessarily a clear view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.65 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would recommend removing the entire discussion about the movie chiché, but if it is important, just remove the sentence about zoning and replace it with:  In reality, since more than half of the windows in Paris have no view of the tower because they are facing away from the tower, and if half of the windows facing the tower have a building obstructing the view, then perhaps only one fourth of the Paris windows would have a view of the tower.Tvbanfield (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about removing that paragraph. It's uncited and smacks of original research.  One could just as easily claim that there is no cliche that you can always see the tower from wherever you are in Paris; rather, that the situation arises because filmmakers setting their films in Paris always want to include the tower in their movies because it looks cool and it "places" the film in its setting, so they choose to set their scenes in places from which the tower is visible.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 03:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Eiffel tower on Google Earth
Here is some other Eiffel tower seen on Google Earth : http://www.geo-trotter.com/cat-tour-eiffel.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.241.199 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Alisha Sharrer eiffel tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.160.48 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong information
First I want to sorry my english, isn't too good :P This text have a mistake. It's say that: "Eiffel originally planned to build it in Canada, for the Universal Exposition of 1888, but they rejected it." It's true that the Tower was dessinged for the 1888 Exposition, but not in Canada, was for Barcelona, in Spain. Actually, Canada didn't have any Universal Exposition in the 1888.  The Eiffel Tower page of the wikipedia's spanish edition says that: "El ingeniero francés Gustave Eiffel presentó primero su proyecto de torre a los responsables del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, para que se construyera en esta ciudad con motivo de la Exposición Universal de Barcelona (1888)" it means "The French engineer Gustave Eiffel first show his project of tower to the responsible for the Barcelona City Council, to be built in this city for the occasion of the Universal Exhibition of Barcelona (1888)" 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.4.202 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article is vandalised daily with childish comments by anon editors. One guesses that it is linked on some school curriculum. I have asked that it be semi-protected? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Misspelled name
The events section includes the following text: On February 4, 1912 an Austrian tailor Franz Reichelt jumped from a height of 60 meters from the first deck of Eiffel tower using his home-made parachute. Reinchelt fell to his death. The second appearance of the name 'Reichelt' is misspelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Result: Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - we'll just see. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Prospects
The copy below was removed, quite rightly, from the article on the basis it was unsourced. Evidently written by a French person, it merits further research. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Recent reports and activity on the tower itself shows that the Eiffel Tower may not be as "strong" as it seems, and may have to be dismantled in foreseen future. This is due to the extended period of time it has been erect, the everyday 'wear and tear' due to a combination of rust, forces and other factors, on the triangulation of the base supports, means the tower may become "unsafe to the public" during a time-span of the next couple of decades. Currently, consultations are being made between the French Government, agencies in charge of public sector safety, and other important people involved, as to whether this could become a risk to the public and whether it would be safer if it were replaced, or at least removed. This information has been gathered for a couple of years now, research beginning throughout 2005, but the issue is being more closely looked at now.


 * Many of the public are concerned for the well being of this structure, but more are worried about the possible decline in careers that the tower brings to the surrounding society. Officials assure workers that there will be no impact from this, as they aim to recreate the Eiffel Tower (possibly with slightly different technology or shape), or replace it with another landmark. There have already been a few underlying searches for more French landmark ideas to replace the tower, but at the moment the future is not clear as to what will happen. All that is known is that something must be done, and businesses/jobs will not suffer as a result of any changes that occur.

Ah yes sorry, i'll work on adding some citation soon when i have the time, as I feel this is an important addition to the article. And yes I am indeed French, I am on of the structural engineers on the tower itself, but i know that isn't good enough to be a source on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.167.99.108 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
The gallery for this article is quite large; I pulled 4 images that are already in Commons and plan to remove the others that are also there and migrate any in there into Commons. The tower has a large gallery in its own right on Commons that would permit the same images to be displayed with the same commentary there. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 05:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New Look for Eiffel Tower / Reshaping the Eiffel Tower
Will someone please look into this? Thanks!

MG Online: New Look for Eiffel Tower


 * MariusHR (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we have the answer, this is not a hoax. The French company Serero Architects announced on its website that its project is an unsolicited proposal they submitted to SETE, the Eiffel Tower management company, and that SETE did not organise a competetion on the topic. Serero has unveiled its design of a temporary extention of the top floor of the Tower to allow more visitors on the top floor, reducing the wait times. The extention is designed to be removed. Serero has not received any response the the proposal as yet. Here is further explanation and a photo: More photos at: Tvbanfield (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Tower Events Listing
On March 31, 1984, Robert Moriarty flew a Beechcraft Bonanza through the arches of the Eiffel Tower. Is that a worthy addition to the "Events" list?  Kotukunui (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Economy of design
The following sentences were removed by Richarman who states that they are untrue and unsourced.

Also, the entire weight of the tower is inferior to the mass of air contained in a cylinder of the tower's dimensions. The 10,000 tons radiate on 4 pillars so that the weight per square centimeter on the ground would be that of a lady weighing 80 kg on a pair of high heels.

I believe they are true because, not only because they come from the French version of WIKI, they are based on calculations using data provided by the official website of the Tower where it is stated:,

Weight: The Eiffel Tower is relatively lightweight, creating a force of only 4.5kg/cm2 on the foundation. If the Tower was placed in an air cylinder, its weight would not be more than that of the air cylinder. Just do the arithmetic.Tvbanfield (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I took them out for two reasons. Firstly, because there was no English translation for the references, which in the English wikipedia there should be. Secondly because another wikipedia article is not a verifiable reference, especially if the bit you are quoting is not referenced itself. To be honest, I may be a bit thick, but I'm not sure what the reference above is saying anyway, so someone will have to explain it a bit more fully. You say "do the arithmatic" but the information is not all there. The tower weighs about 10,000 tons and is 325 metres high so the cylinder of air would be 325m high. I don't know what the diameter would be as it's not given, but air weighs about 1.2 oz, or 34gms, per cubic foot, which is about 340gms per cubic metre. Where do we go from there? Richerman (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know not to use other country WIKI articles as reference and that translations would be required. I agree with both of those principles. Here is the translation of the fact in question from the French WIKI:

"The tower has a mass inferior to the mass of the air contained in a cylinder of the same dimensions, that is 324 meters high and 88.3 meters in radius. (This results in) 10,100 tonnes (weight of the tower), compared to 10,265 tonnes (of air)."


 * This statement appears to support the statement found in my primary source (in English) that the tower weighs less than a cylinder of air containing the tower.
 * In answer to your question, here is my arithmetic:
 * To calculate the volume of the cylinder of air you multiply the tower height of 324 m by the area of the circle around the base of the tower, which is Pi x r² (324 x 3.14 x 88.388 m x 88.388 m). This volume is 7,948,062 m³. Multiply this by the density of air (1.29 kg per m³ at sea level at 0 C.) and divide by 1,000 kg per metric ton. This gives the weight of the surrounding column of air to be 10,253 metric tons. I am not greatly troubled if this anecdote is left out for other reasons, but I don't think it should be left out because it is not true. A tower lover.Tvbanfield (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I found a similar calculation here last night. It is a surprising statistic and I have to confess I did misunderstand it at first but I was more concerned about the poor references. Extraordinary claims need good references. I'd be quite happy for it to go back in with the reference you've given. If you've not done it already I'll put it back in. Richerman (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've put in something along the lines of what you said above as I think it describes the statistic better but there is now a mixture of tons and tonnes in the paragraph which could do with standardising to one or the other. Richerman (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As to using tons or tonnes, if you go to the Wiki article tonne it states that "tonne" is now used as the standard spelling for the metric mass measurement in English. Clearly the stated figures are in metric tons, so to standadardise either go with tonne or metric ton throughout the article.Tvbanfield (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, I changed it in the first place so I've got to put it right - that's seems fair enough to me:-) I suppose as they came from a French website they would be metric tons. I've changed them all to tonnes now as it's less confusing - and shorter! Thanks for your help. 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged partial destruction by lightning
The section 'Events' contains the following alleged event, which, it turns out, seems doubtful to have ever happened:
 * In 1902, the tower was struck by lightning (see photo at right). 100 m (330 ft) of the top had to be reconstructed and the damaged lights illuminating the tower had to be replaced.(16)

The source cited is:
 * (16) "Thunder and Lightning", Camille Flammarion, translated by Walter Mostyn, published in 1906.

It looks like the vandal(s) who added this bit of disinformation in thought this book would be too hard to get for anyone to bother double-checking the source, but a quick Google search returned the actual document on the Internet Archive. The book is available in several format, including PDF and text. The document refers to the Eiffel Tower by name in two places, which are succinct enough to be included here.

p. 81-82:
 * On September 4, 1903, towards ten o'clock in the evening, M. Laurence Rotch, director of the Observatory of Blue Hill (U.S.), happening to be in Paris, made the following curious observation from the Rond-point of the Champs Elysées.


 * Looking in the direction of the Eiffel Tower, he saw the summit of the edifice struck by white lightning coming from the zenith. At the same moment a fireball, less dazzling than the lightning, slowly descended from the summit to the second platform. It appeared to be about one yard in diameter, and to be situated in the middle of the tower, taking less than two seconds to cover a distance of about 100 yards. Then it disappeared. The next day the observer ascertained, on visiting the tower, that it had actually been struck by lightning twice on the previous day.

p. 247:
 * The Eiffel Tower boasts several such multiplex conductors. It has often been struck by lightning, but no one who has happened to be up it at the time has ever suffered any damage therefrom. The lightning strikes the conductor sometimes from out the actual cloud -- curious photographs have been taken of this. The Eiffel Tower is in itself a gigantic lightning-conductor.

First remark: from the second excerpt we learn that it is possible to be on the Eiffel Tower when it is struck by lightning and not be harmed, an interesting bit of trivia but unrelated to the alleged partial destruction of the tower. The first excerpt relates a witness account of the tower being struck by lightning, however no mention is made of any damage to it. If the topmost 100 meters of the structure had been suffered serious damage, one would think the observer would not have needed to visit it on the following day to ascertain "that it had actually been struck". However, the event took place in 1903, not 1902 as claimed in the article. The photo refered to in this part of the article is found in this same book, and it does show the Eiffel Tower being struck by lightning on June 3, 1902, as captured by M. G. Loppé, however the title of the illustration is "The Eiffel Tower as a colossal lightning conductor". It seems safe to assume that if this lightning strike had seriously damaged the tower, the caption would make some mention of it.

For these reasons, I am removing the event from the article, as well as the citation. If an actual source can be found to support the claim, preferably one that is more recent than a 100-year old manuscript, then it may be added back in, however, lacking such a citation I will silently throw it right back out whenever I check on this page. PhilSC (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Page is semi-protected and I appear to not meet the requirements to edit it as such. If someone who does would be kind enough to remove the offending excerpt, otherwise, I will drop by here when my account permits editing of semi-protected pages. PhilSC (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Scratch the last, my latest comment pushed my account past the 10-edits mark and I was able to remove the event myself. PhilSC (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that any person who is up the tower if lightning strikes is in fact perfectly safe. Since the only publicly accesible areas are within the steel structure, that structure acts as a Faraday Cage protecting all contained within 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sections
The Lattice towers taller than Eiffel Tower and Architectural structures in France taller than Eiffel Tower sections are currently sub-sections of In popular culture. Is this correct?

Also, the "West yorkshire" in Lattice towers taller than Eiffel Tower needs a capital "Y".
 * I have removed Emley Moor as the tower s not a lattice tower, as its article describes. -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 10:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And in the same section, People's Republic of China is wiki-linked (via a redirect) twice, yet Ukraine, Uzbekistan, etc, are not wiki-linked at all.

Thanks. 161.58.16.26 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Reproductions
There is an additional reproduction of the Eiffel Tower not listed on the page at Kings Dominion. The Kings Dominion article lists it as a 1/3 scale replica, which is a pretty signficant omission in the list of replicas. There's also a picture of it used in the KD article.

Unixrevolution (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this user. Living in Virginia, I have been to the site and it is pretty impressive. The Fun Facts page at the Kings Dominion web site lists details about the construction of the replica and states that it is 33 stories tall. In addition, the Family Rides page cites that the observation deck is 275 feet high, which would suggest a 1/3 scale, including towers above the observation area.

KennethCTyburski (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Though not an official (or even accurate) reproduction, the Blackpool Tower in Blackpool, England was built to replicate the tourist draw of the Paris Tower in the English coastal resort. It differs mainly in that it's not free standing - but stands on top of a building (actually the building is built around its base) which also houses a ballroom, restaurants, and circus - which has the attraction that the circus ring can be lowered into a pool of water to a depth of about 4 feet. This is usually done whilst clowns are throwing water about and precedes a 'dancing fountains' finale, which make it appear that the ring has been flooded. The ballroom is renowned for its size and the quality of the dance floor - and has been used recently as a venue for the BBC's "Strictly Come Dancing" - which in it's international format is shown as "Dancing with the Stars" - and is currently (Jan 2009) reputed to be the most widely syndicated TV programme in the world listen to isabella

78.32.193.115 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

French translation
The translation in French is tour Eiffel, not Tour Eiffel. Please correct it. Thx 80.200.30.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The definitive history of the Eiffel Tower
Would someone kindly add "The Tallest Tower: Eiffel and the Belle Epoque" to the 'Further Reading' section? Written by veteran international journalist Joseph Harriss, it is widely regarded as the definitive history of the tower's construction and socio-cultural impact.

Here is a link to the book:

http://www.unlimitedpublishing.com/harriss

Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.25.64 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Renovation of Altitude 95 restaurant (first floor) started.
In November 2008, one year after the renovation of the Jules Verne restaurant, Altitude 95 was closed for renovation. Scheduled to reopen in March 20th 2009, it will feature new decor, new cuisine, early evening brasserie service, and a sophisticaded late-evening menu.. More details to come on either this website or this one. BryanParis (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

excuse me
excuse me im a 13 year old girl and even iv been up and personal with the eiffle tower the 3rd floor is actually possible to get to ask at the ticket booth for a star pass

Isabella —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.152.163 (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

# 4.2 Restaurants section needs update
Still under renovation at the time of posting but name of new restaurant on 1st floor is now known and official: 58 Tour Eiffel. I therefore suggest the change of name in first sentence "The tower has two restaurants: Altitude 95, on the first floor (95 m, 311 ft, above sea level); ...". More details available on Paris Eiffel Tower Faq website. I suggest the insertion of this website in External links section: Paris Eiffel Tower Faq, useful information about the Tower for students and also tourists, my source of information with updated content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanParis (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the Arches
When the tower was built the first level had a series of domed arches as shown here but by WWII the arches had been removed  is there any information on when this was done? ~ Brother William (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Discussion section of the French Wikipedia the arches still existed in 1935 but were removed as part of the complete rearangement of the first floor in preparation for the International Exposition of 1937.--Tvbanfield (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reproductions
The list of reproductions includes a photo of the 1/3 scale replica at Kings Island amusment park, but for some reason that is not included on the list. That one, and the one at the Kings Dominion amusement park should rank #2 and #3 by height. Before I add them, wanted to ask if there was any reason why they were ommitted? Anson2995 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian Eiffel Tower =)
Added info about a copy of Eiffel Tower in Russia. The proof:the effel tower is made of 18,038 pieces of pulled iron.

http://uralpress.ru/img/72352_b_22085.jpg http://www.cheltv.ru/rnews.html?id=21447&cid=7 http://www.sotaweek.ru/news/data/21030592.htm http://www.google.com/search?q=%D1%8D%D0%B9%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%BD%D1%8F%20%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8&sourceid=firefox

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Ivanoff (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Number of steps during WWII?
The article states: "...the lift cables were cut by the French so that Hitler would have to climb the 1,665 steps to the summit."

but at the beginning of the article, the number of steps is stated to be: "...at the time of construction in 1889, there were 1710 steps to the summit platform at 300.65 m; after renovation in the early 1980s, there were 1920 steps; and today there are 1665 steps."

Seems like a discrepancy. One could simply say "...so that Hitler would have to climb the steps to the top" rather than adding the unnecessary step count.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelocab (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexy Eiffel Tower
This is fun! First I get to change the height of the Eiffel Tower, and now I'm an expert on obscure pop music!

I remember hearing this song over and over when it came out, and being totally baffled by it, so it's cool that I can do something with that memory. I'm still baffled by the song, since there seems to be remarkable little about it on the Web -- in particular no lyrics. But here are a few links to at least prove that I am not making it up:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0D91638F936A15752C1A967948260

http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/150193/04031998/bow_wow_wow.jhtml

and of course Bow Wow Wow.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.15.13 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh...this is wrong...and it annoys me.
This is a note to the Wikipedia Staff and anyone who would like to use this page for referencing. The text and facts on this page have been altered. The following text is factually INCORRECT:

"In 1902, it was struck by lightning, which caused builders to reconstruct 300 feet of the top later in 1902-3. The lights illuminating the tower also had to be replaced, due to short-circuiting."

The Eiffel Tower [Paris, France] was indeed struck by lightening, but there are no accounts of it being reconstructed in 1902-1903. The lights in the tower also DID NOT have to be replaced due to 'short circuiting'.

I was going to find out what happened when the tower did get struck, and when I find out, I'll post the facts =) —  02:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move the tower to Montreal
Found this clip from the 60's about moving the Eiffel Tower to Montreal for Expo 67 for the festival only: CBC Archives.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Themepark (talk • contribs) 05:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

de:Bild:Eiffelturm im Bau.jpg

Blue Eiffel Image
watt up but head

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerPriller (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo copyrights
Be careful about photographs of the Eiffel Tower. It is free to use a daylight photograph, as its image is in the public land. But lightning is not (because too recent) so using photographs is under copyright. --132.166.216.221 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[[Media:$$Example.ogg$$ --~Insert non-formatted text here

Superscript text ]] ]]
 * 1) REDIRECT [[ Target page name

Emphasis on lift system
I have to say that my impression is that this section, which is by far the longest section of the entire article, is significantly longer than warranted. Could someone trim it back a bit? Un sch  ool  03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Entry
There seems to be a duplicate entry in the replicas list for "Satteldorf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.103.10 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Weight of the Tower
From the dimensions of the tower: 325m high, base area = 10282m2, the encapsulating cylinder measures 142m dia, giving a volume of 5,110,000m3. This is the max dimensions of the encapsulating air. Density of air is 1.2kg/m3, this gives a mass of air considerably less than the mass of just the iron work (7342 tonnes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.172.159 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
There is an error in the above calculation because the actual base of the tower is 125 m2, which means that the diameter of the encapusulating cylinder is 176.8, and the radius is 88.4. Therefore, the area of the base is 24,543.5 m2, not 10,282. Doing the further calculation, multiplying by the height of 325m yields a volume of 7,976,637m3. Using a density of air of 1.2 kg per m3 gives a mass of the encapsulating cylinder of air of 9572 metric tons, which is considerably heaver than the mass of just the iron work.

This anecdote is not a creation by a WIKI reader, it is in the Offical French site of the Tower and is in the French version of WIKI.--Tvbanfield (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not find the numbers in the provided reference. However, if the computatio is done with 0°C air (plausible during the winter), the air density is 1.29 and the weight (pi * 88.31 m ^ 2 * 324 m * 1.2923 kg/m^3) is 10259 metric tons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduchate (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

architect misinformation
The Architect was not Gustave Eiffel, it was Stephen Sauvestre. Would be glad if someone can find sources for that and change the main page.

Response

You are correct. AS for sources, the French language version of Wikipedia lists Gustave Eiffel as the entrepreneur, Maurice Koechlin and Emile Nouguier as the engineers and Stephen Sauvestre as the architect. If that is not sufficient as reference, the same information is given in the official site of the Tower [English version]:

http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/

in the section named "All you need to know about the Eiffel Tower."

I believe the Administrator needs to make the change on the table in the main articleTvbanfield (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Communications
"Today, both radio and televisioni stations broadcast their signals from the top of the Eiffel." - Note that "Television" is spelled wrong. Could someone with editing rights remove the extra "i"? this is at the end of the first paragraph in the section titled "Communications" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.101.14 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation
The pronounciation "tuʀ ɛfɛl" is wrong.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.46.223 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

History
Please provide some insight as to whether Eiffel actually lived in the upper level of the tower as is rumored. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.10.193 (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly. He didn't.  20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe
Someone please add one to "towns" under the Replicas section. Merci! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.171.211 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Steel
More sources state that the tower was made of Iron not Steel. Eiffel considered Steel, but chose puddle Iron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.2.27 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first para claims 'iron' but the second then claims 'steel'. Iron is the correct answer and it is, as you note, puddle iron.  Someone with rditing rights will have to correct the article. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gustave Vs Alexandre
Just wondering why this page has elected to call Alexandre Gustave Eiffel, Gustave Eiffel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.167.217 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an election of "this page." All references that I have ever seen -- including French references -- use the name Gustave. In fact my 16 volume Grand Larousse Encyclopedia does not mention the first name Alexandre.Tvbanfield (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Tvbanfield (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meccano model at SciTrek
I've read comments online from people that said that the Eiffel Tower model that was at SciTrek was auctioned off when the museum was liquidated, but so far I can't find where the model is now. If anyone knows this, please update the page. Rjhatl (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans restaurant
Cara Was Here 15/04/10 Ahaaa The section of the tower that was moved to New Orleans and formerly known as the Red Room was rehabbed in 2005 and is now known as the Cricket Club, part of the Culinary Institute of New Orleans --Buckimion (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference related article about contribution of Gheorghe Panculescu
I would like to include a note in the history section related to some of the technological developments that allowed the construction of the tower from a related wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Panculescu_1844-1924

thanks

For the underdrogs (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid your request is not specific enough; requests are generally made in the form, "Change X to Y" or "Add X after Y", &c. In addition, citing Wikipedia itself is not allowed in articles. Please provide a more specific request, and cite a reliable source, which might be found in the references section of the article Gheorghe_Panculescu_1844-1924. If you do so, please also replace in the edit window with editsemiprotected.  Thank you.  Intelligent  sium  00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Remove the Photograph of Hitler
While it is an iconic image of the dictator and mass murderer, I feel it is an insult to the story of the tower and to the people of France to have that butcher featured in an article on a work of art such as the Eiffel Tower. Use it as part of an article on the fall of France by all means, but not here, please. --Sid the Obscure (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Frolic80, 16 April 2010
editsemiprotected

Please change "Three hundred workers joined together..." to "132 workers joined together..." because the official homepage of the Eiffel Tower states it here on page 6: tour eiffel

Frolic80 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the page says this.

Fifty engineers and designers produced 5,300 drawings, and over 100 workers built more than 18,000 different parts of the tower in a workshop. Another 132 workers assembed them on site.
 * This could mean that the figure should be 132+100+50=282, which is about 300, so it is fine as it is. Thanks.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   251° 34' 0" NET   16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass of air cylinder
The claim about the mass being less than the mass of air in the cylinder is simply wrong: 88.3*88.3*1.25*324/1000 < 10000. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your formula is for a rectangular box, not a cylinder. Assuming a cylinder radius of 62.45 m and an air density of 1.2 kg/m^3, the weight of the air in the inscribing cylinder is 4763.66 metric tonnes, not 3157.74 tonnes. Whatever the case, the Eiffel Tower mass (10000 tons = 9071 tonnes) weighs more than the cylinder of air inscribing it, contrary to the claims of the official website, http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/documentation/structure/page/chiffres.html. 114.77.229.190 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pah! You're right, of course. Anyway, as you say the point still stands. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the above calculations is correct. CheesyBiscuit used the correct radius, just forgot to multiply by Pi. The second calculation uses an incorrect radius. The mass of air in the encapsulating cylinder will calculate to be about 9,500 to 10,000 metric tons depending upon the temperature one chooses from the air density table [1.204 at 20 deg C]. When I wrote the Wiki section about the mass of the air cylinder back in 2008. it was under the heading Economy of Design, i.e., about the economy of the iron structure to support whatever else is added [such as elevators] and to be resistent to the wind. So the compaison needs to be against the mass of the iron structure, which is about 7300 metric tons, not the total mass of 10,000 metric tons, proving the iron structure is lighter than the surrounding column of air.--Tvbanfield (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 213.83.78.223, 4 May 2010
editsemiprotected

I think the suggestion that the Eiffel Tower was originally designed for the 1888 Barcelona Universal Exposition is incorrect. The French wikipedia page on the Tour Eiffel does not mention it, saying it was designed for the 1889 Paris Exposition. Arthur Chandler's detailed history of the Paris Exposition Universelle 1889, says it was designed for Paris (http://charon.sfsu.edu/publications/PARISEXPOSITIONS/1889EXPO.html). I can find no reference to it being submitted to the 1888 Barcelona Exposition in histories of that event - the organisers were already aware of the tower being designed for Paris. The Consistory of Barcelona was a medieval literary society and was not involved in organising the Barcelona Exposition. There's no mention of the design being submitted to Barcelona in the history of the Tower on the SETE website (http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/documentation/dossiers/page/invention.html)and I have emailed Marthe Ozbolt of SETE and she says the design was never intended for Barcelona. 213.83.78.223 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

213.83.78.223 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The text claiming that the tower was built in Barcelona appears to have been added in this edit of February 1, 2007 by . There are no references to support it.  I will remove this claim. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Tim Pierce (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction
"The Eiffel Tower (French: Tour Eiffel, [tuʁ ɛfɛl]) is an 1889 iron lattice tower located on the Champ de Mars in Paris that has become both a global icon of France and one of the most recognizable structures in the world. The Eiffel Tower, which is the tallest building in Paris,[10] is the single most visited paid monument in the world; millions of people ascend it every year. Named after its designer, engineer Gustave Eiffel, the tower was built as the entrance arch for the 1889 World's Fair.

Then CN tower stands 324 m (1,063 ft) tall, about the same height as an 81-story building. It was the tallest man-made structure in the world from its completion until the Chrysler Building in New York City was built in 1930. Not including broadcast antennas, it is the second-tallest structure in France after the 2004 Millau Viaduct."

The first two paragraphs contradict each other because one clams that the Eiffel tower is the tallest structure in France and the next one clams it is the second tallest structure. *Edit 5/18/2010 from same guy for spell check —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.70 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Response: No, the statements are not contradictory. It does not say in the first paragraph that the tower is the tallest building in France, it says it the tallest building in Paris. The taller Millau Viaduct is not in Paris.--Tvbanfield (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not encyclopeadic
From the article:

"2008 An explosion happens at the tower."

More information is needed to make this entry worthy of inclusion in an encyclopeadia. What exploded? What was damaged? How many were killed or injured? 86.180.173.157 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is patently not true, there was a bomb scare, but this was noted as a fraud at the time after a search of the tower. This should be amended, but for some reason the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.241.100 (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Elevator count in info box is incorrect.
The infobox states 7. There is in fact 9.

One each in west, east and north pillars. Two in the south pillar (Jules Verne elevator plus the maintenance elevator). There are a further four from the second to the third floors. That's 9 in total. I can't edit the article. Would some kind soul be good enough make the necessary correction. 86.180.173.157 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On the evidence of an anonymous comment - No. If you can provide a source, then maybe. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Finechap, 11 September 2010
Under 1914 capitalise A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finechap (talk • contribs) 10:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I did so. I also added a period at the end of the sentence.Ormewood (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suicides
Surprised nothing is written about suicides at the Tower. "Sad fact: The Eiffel Tower is the most popular landmark for suicides in France. In an average year, four people commit suicide by jumping off the tower or, occasionally, by hanging themselves from its wrought iron beams." http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/16/the-eiffel-tower-story/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.19.51 (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 31, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wind considerations: explanations of what?
In the section titled "Wind considerations" is the following sentence:

"Several explanations have been proposed over the years; the most recent is a nonlinear integral equation based on counterbalancing the wind pressure on any point on the tower with the tension between the construction elements at that point."

All right. But there is nothing preceding this to tell us what question this is intended to explain. (Possibly some later edit inadvertently orphaned the last half of a paragraph?) I could remove it, but I would prefer that someone alter the paragraph so that it makes sense.

Any takers?

Ormewood (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * May I suggest the rewriting of that section, preferably by "un ingénieur" (!) ?
 * Also reading of this fr:wiki article "Histoire de la Tour Eiffel".
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ormewood is correct that later revisions by someone (to put all wind considerations into one section) caused a loss of continuity. I was the original author of the section "Shape of The Tower" in March of 2007, so I know that the orphaned sentences answer the question: What mathmatical calculation was Eiffel referring to? I tried to edit the article, but found it is now semi-protected owing to excessive vandalism. I propose that an autoconfirmed user revise the entire paragraph as follows:
 * In search of what mathmatical calculation Eiffel referred to, researchers have found that Eiffel used empirical and graphical methods accounting for the effects of wind rather than a specific mathmatical formula. Careful examination of the tower shows a basically exponential shape; actually two different exponentials, the lower section overdesigned to ensure resistance to wind forces. Several mathmatical explanations have been proposed over the years; the most recent is described as a nonlinear integral equation based on counterbalancing the wind pressure on any point on the tower with the tension between the construction elements at that point. As a demonstration of the tower's effectiveness in wind resistance, it sways only 6–7 cm (2–3 in) in the wind.

I would be happy for any assistance in further editing or rewriting.--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the change suggested above by Tvbanfield, with a few changes intended to clarify the meaning. I may edit it a bit further to improve the readability of the paragraph. Hope this is agreeable to all...Ormewood (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify a bit...it seemed to me that when "several mathematical explanations have been proposed over the years", that these explanations were not suggestions of what calculations Eiffel used. As pointed out, he used empirical and graphical methods, not a specific formula...so the formula proposed recently would be one that explained the success of the design of the tower in dealing with the forces of the wind on it rather than an explanation of which methods Eiffel used. I changed the paragraph to reflect this.Ormewood (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ormewood's modifications are fine by me. I think that the recently developed mathmatical explanations were simply the result of an academic objective of finding a formula that would explain the design based on the principles described by Eiffel.


 * Now I find that reference (3) is no longer valid and that the maximum amplitude of wind sway at the top of the tower was measured in 1999 to be 9 cm. Current reference would be:http://www.tour-eiffel.com/component/content/article/7-faq/115-histoire-technique --Tvbanfield (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the image shown on the right side of the "wind considerations" section is actually the fourth floor (the top floor), not the third floor, as the caption of the picture states. If counting american style, that is even floor number five. I could not correct the page, even after login into wikipedia. I don't know why. Is the page locked in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csoler (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Height
The new height of the eiffel tower is 327 meters now because a new antenna is installed. But this page is protected so I can't modify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.132.161 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No one else should modify the page either because you have forgotten that all important citation for your claim. 86.176.152.238 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Restaurants
Restaurants The tower has two restaurants: "Altitude 95", on the first floor "311 ft (95 m)" above sea level;

I just visited the Eiffel Tower and the restaurant on the first floor was call "58 Tour Eiffel". The first level of the Eiffel Tower is 57m to 58m. A visual inspection of a photo of the tower will show that the first level is not approximately 1/3 of the overall height, i.e. 95m/324m. I reference p. 17 of the travel guide DK "Eyewitness Travel Top 10 Paris" ISSN 1479-344X which lists the information correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndigiovanni (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Source
seems like someone just threw this in. No source personally i find it hard to believe unless it was spider man XD 'A Frenchman scaled the tower during the German occupation to hang the French flag.'

i agree this is not believable at all wasnt it used as a radio tower by nazis there for guarded no way someone could scale it without being seen lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.142 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolted Together?
I visited the Eiffel Tower some years ago and recall that it was bolted together, not riveted. Anybody got any RS on this? Also, the color is beige, which looks black from a distance. Anybody know why beige was chosen as the color? Has the color of the tower ever been a different color? 64.169.154.63 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== It is rivited. Here is an excerpt from www.eiffer-tower.com:
 * First the pieces were assembled in the factory using bolts, later to be replaced one by one with thermally assembled rivets, which contracted during cooling thus ensuring a very tight fit. A team of four men was needed for each rivet assembled: one to heat it up, another to hold it in place, a third to shape the head and a fourth to beat it with a sledgehammer. Only a third of the 2,500,000 rivets used in the construction of the Tower were inserted directly on site.http://www.eiffel-tower.com/everything-about-the-tower/themed-files/69

==As for the paint, see ref 27 in main article.--Tvbanfield (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.19.122.251, 22 July 2011
http://www.eiffel-tower.com/exploring-the-eiffel-tower/the-restaurants Restaurant on 1st level is called 'le 58 tour eiffel' not 'Altitude 95'

82.19.122.251 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

SPAZZ YW PJILL. MK2 IS EIFFLE TOWER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.57.251 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Seats in the original elevators
The article states that:

"Contemporary engravings of the elevators cars show that the passengers were seated at this time but it is not clear whether this was conceptual. It would be unnecessary to seat passengers for a journey of a couple of minutes. "

Eiffel's own blueprints, published in book form in 1900, show seats in the ground to second level elevator cars. This website:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi320.htm

features an illustration which shows the pivoting plate mechanism originally employed to keep the seats level as the inclination of the cars changed during their travel.

I have never encountered an illustration of these elevators that did not show seats.

In my opinion it's clear that there WERE seats, and I'm removing the sentence that speculates that this may have been "conceptual".Ormewood (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am reverting your edit, because your illustration does not prove that the seats were ever installed. AFAIAA there are no photographs showing the seats in the lifts.  Photographs exist of almost every other feature that made it into the final tower.  Indeed the illustration even shows the operator in a different position to that which he actually occupied suggesting that that illustration is conceptual. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * From "Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1899", Robert M. Vogel, FQ Books:


 * "The double car, traveling at 400 feet per minute, carried 40 persons, all seated because of the change of inclination."


 * This was a description of the Otis elevators. Vogel states that with the Roux lifts "about 100 people could be carried in the double-deck cabin, some standing".


 * Again, Eiffel's blueprints (not illustrations, blueprints) show seats. The blueprints were published in 1900 in book form. They included the structural and cosmetic alterations made to the tower for the 1900 exhibition.  It seems unlikely that details such as changes in the specifications of the pumps and motors would be included, but that "conceptual" blueprints of the elevators from eleven years earlier would be left as they were.


 * I won't reinstate my revision because I don't indulge in edit wars, but I think you are mistaken. No, I haven't yet found a photograph of the interior of the elevators, but EVERY contemporary illustration from multiple sources that I've encountered shows seats.


 * Can you find a single illustration that shows an elevator without seats?Ormewood (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to disapoint you but I don't have to. WP:BURDEN states that if you wish to claim that the lifts had seats, then it is you who needs to provide the required citation.  This can be a photograph or documented report of the presence of seats.  A drawing or sketch is not a good citation, because these do not prove that seats were actually installed.  You are right in that there are several sketches and drawings showing seats, but there is little concurrence on the design and layout hence these do seem conceptual as claimed.


 * As the article states: it does seem rather pointless to install seats for a journey that is less than 2 minutes long. To seat passengers because of the change in inclination also seems unlikely, because the lift mechanism was designed to correct for the change in angle of the slanting track, the current lifts use essentially the same mechanism.  Although the current lifts do take on an angle that varies from the horizontal, it is not more than a few degrees and causes little problem to today's passengers.


 * As far as Eiffel's published blueprints are concerned, it should be remembered that although Eiffel designed and built the tower itself, he did not design or build the lifts. Since the lift design was totally novel at the time, it is rather unlikely that the designers and installers would release detailed drawings of their products.  Even in the 1890's and 1900's, companies were very protective of their internal secrets and would be reluctant to share too much detail even with a company not perceived as a direct competitor.  It is worth noting that the two different designs of the original installations (or three if you include the Edoux lifts) were radically different and all three companies were competitors.


 * Although I didn't contribute this section of the article (apart from a few minor edits), I can confirm that it is fairly accurate. Although I am now a retired, I did spend time as a lift engineer - study of the Eiffel Tower lifts was a required part of the training as they are (apparently) unique. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On thinking further, I believe the parenthesised comment about the seats could be deleted without affecting the factual nature of the article. It is a bit of a throw away comment after all.  What do you (or anyone) think? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did cite Vogel, which is probably the most authoritative work on the subject. As to your point about the reluctance of competing companies to share details about their products, I would point out that the 1900 blueprints show all of the elevator mechanisms in great detail. (I highly recommend getting the reprint if you can...it's a magnificent book if you have any interest at all in the tower, especially from an engineering viewpoint.  Vogel's book on the elevators can be downloaded free via Amazon if you have a Kindle, too.)


 * All said and done, it's an extremely petty point to argue about. You are welcome to make whatever changes you deem suitable, and I won't pursue it any further.Ormewood (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've deleted it. It adds nothing to the technical design and construction of the lifts and It looks like an unprovable point with certainty. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC).......