text:
Alphabet

An alphabet is a standard set of letters written to represent particular sounds in a spoken language. Specifically, letters largely correspond to phonemes as the smallest sound segments that can distinguish one word from another in a given language. Not all writing systems represent language in this way: a syllabary assigns symbols to spoken syllables, while logographies assign symbols to words, morphemes, or other semantic units.

The first letters were invented in Ancient Egypt to serve as an aid in writing Egyptian hieroglyphs; these are referred to as Egyptian uniliteral signs by lexicographers. This system was used until the 5th century AD, and fundamentally differed by adding pronunciation hints to existing hieroglyphs that had previously carried no pronunciation information. Later on, these phonemic symbols also became used to transcribe foreign words. The first fully phonemic script was the Proto-Sinaitic script, also descending from Egyptian hieroglyphs, which was later modified to create the Phoenician alphabet. The Phoenician system is considered the first true alphabet and is the ultimate ancestor of many modern scripts, including Arabic, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and possibly Brahmic.

Peter T. Daniels distinguishes true alphabets—which use letters to represent both consonants and vowels—from both abugidas and abjads, which only need letters for consonants. Abjads generally lack vowel indicators altogether, while abugidas represent them with diacritics added to letters. In this narrower sense, the Greek alphabet was the first true alphabet; it was originally derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which was an abjad.

Alphabets usually have a standard ordering for their letters. This makes alphabets a useful tool in collation, as words can be listed in a well-defined order—commonly known as alphabetical order. This also means that letters may be used as a method of "numbering" ordered items. Letters also have names in some languages; this is known as acrophony, and it is present in scripts including Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac. However, acrophony is not present in all languages, such as the Latin alphabet, which simply adds a vowel after the character representing each letter. Some systems also used to have acrophony but later abandoned it, such as Cyrillic.

Etymology
The English word alphabet came into Middle English from the Late Latin word alphabetum, which in turn originated in the Greek, ἀλφάβητος (alphábētos); it was made from the first two letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha (α) and beta (β). The names for the Greek letters, in turn, came from the first two letters of the Phoenician alphabet: aleph, the word for ox, and bet, the word for house.

Ancient Near Eastern alphabets
The Ancient Egyptian writing system had a set of some 24 hieroglyphs that are called uniliterals, which are glyphs that provide one sound. These glyphs were used as pronunciation guides for logograms, to write grammatical inflections, and, later, to transcribe loan words and foreign names. The script was used a fair amount in the 4th century CE. However, after pagan temples were closed down, it was forgotten in the 5th century until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. There was also cuneiform, primarily used to write several ancient languages, including Sumerian. The last known use of the Cuneiform script was in 75 CE, after which the script fell out of use. In the Middle Bronze Age, an apparently alphabetic system known as the Proto-Sinaitic script appeared in Egyptian turquoise mines in the Sinai peninsula around 1840 BCE, apparently left by Canaanite workers. Orly Goldwasser has connected the illiterate turquoise miner graffiti theory to the origin of the alphabet. In 1999, American Egyptologists John and Deborah Darnell discovered an earlier version of this first alphabet at the Wadi el-Hol valley. The script dated to c. 1800 BCE and shows evidence of having been adapted from specific forms of Egyptian hieroglyphs that could be dated to c. 2000 BCE, strongly suggesting that the first alphabet had developed about that time. The script was based on letter appearances and names, believed to be based on Egyptian hieroglyphs. This script had no characters representing vowels. Originally, it probably was a syllabary—a script where syllables are represented with characters—with symbols that were not needed being removed. The best-attested Bronze Age alphabet is Ugaritic, invented in Ugarit before the 15th century BCE. This was an alphabetic cuneiform script with 30 signs, including three that indicate the following vowel. This script was not used after the destruction of Ugarit in 1178 BCE. The Proto-Sinaitic script eventually developed into the Phoenician alphabet, conventionally called Proto-Canaanite, before c. 1050 BCE. The oldest text in Phoenician script is an inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram c. 1000 BCE. This script is the parent script of all western alphabets. By the 10th century BCE, two other forms distinguish themselves, Canaanite and Aramaic. The Aramaic gave rise to the Hebrew alphabet.

The South Arabian alphabet, a sister script to the Phoenician alphabet, is the script from which the Ge'ez abugida was descended. Abugidas are writing systems with characters comprising consonant–vowel sequences. Alphabets without obligatory vowels are called abjads, with examples being Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac. The omission of vowels was not always a satisfactory solution due to the need of preserving sacred texts. "Weak" consonants are used to indicate vowels. These letters have a dual function since they can also be used as pure consonants.

The Proto-Sinaitic script and the Ugaritic script were the first scripts with a limited number of signs instead of using many different signs for words, in contrast to cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Linear B. The Phoenician script was probably the first phonemic script, and it contained only about two dozen distinct letters, making it a script simple enough for traders to learn. Another advantage of the Phoenician alphabet was that it could write different languages since it recorded words phonemically.

The Phoenician script was spread across the Mediterranean by the Phoenicians. The Greek Alphabet was the first alphabet in which vowels have independent letter forms separate from those of consonants. The Greeks chose letters representing sounds that did not exist in Phoenician to represent vowels. The Linear B syllabary, used by Mycenaean Greeks from the 16th century BCE, had 87 symbols, including five vowels. In its early years, there were many variants of the Greek alphabet, causing many different alphabets to evolve from it.

European alphabets
The Greek alphabet, in Euboean form, was carried over by Greek colonists to the Italian peninsula c. 800-600 BCE giving rise to many different alphabets used to write the Italic languages, like the Etruscan alphabet. One of these became the Latin alphabet, which spread across Europe as the Romans expanded their republic. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the alphabet survived in intellectual and religious works. It came to be used for the descendant languages of Latin (the Romance languages) and most of the other languages of western and central Europe. Today, it is the most widely used script in the world.

The Etruscan alphabet remained nearly unchanged for several hundred years. Only evolving once the Etruscan language changed itself. The letters used for non-existent phonemes were dropped. Afterwards, however, the alphabet went through many different changes. The final classical form of Etruscan contained 20 letters. Four of them are vowels (a, e, i, and u) - six fewer letters than the earlier forms. The script in its classical form was used until the 1st century CE. The Etruscan language itself was not used in imperial Rome, but the script was used for religious texts.

Some adaptations of the Latin alphabet have ligatures, a combination of two letters make one, such as æ in Danish and Icelandic and Ȣ in Algonquian; borrowings from other alphabets, such as the thorn þ in Old English and Icelandic, which came from the Futhark runes; and modified existing letters, such as the eth ð of Old English and Icelandic, which is a modified d. Other alphabets only use a subset of the Latin alphabet, such as Hawaiian and Italian, which uses the letters j, k, x, y, and w only in foreign words.

Another notable script is Elder Futhark, believed to have evolved out of one of the Old Italic alphabets. Elder Futhark gave rise to other alphabets known collectively as the Runic alphabets. The Runic alphabets were used for Germanic languages from 100 CE to the late Middle Ages, being engraved on stone and jewelry, although inscriptions found on bone and wood occasionally appear. These alphabets have since been replaced with the Latin alphabet. The exception was for decorative use, where the runes remained in use until the 20th century. The Old Hungarian script was the writing system of the Hungarians. It was in use during the entire history of Hungary, albeit not as an official writing system. From the 19th century, it once again became more and more popular.

The Glagolitic alphabet was the initial script of the liturgical language Old Church Slavonic and became, together with the Greek uncial script, the basis of the Cyrillic script. Cyrillic is one of the most widely used modern alphabetic scripts and is notable for its use in Slavic languages and also for other languages within the former Soviet Union. Cyrillic alphabets include Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian. The Glagolitic alphabet is believed to have been created by Saints Cyril and Methodius, while the Cyrillic alphabet was created by Clement of Ohrid, their disciple. They feature many letters that appear to have been borrowed from or influenced by Greek and Hebrew.

Asian alphabets
Many phonetic scripts exist in Asia. The Arabic alphabet, Hebrew alphabet, Syriac alphabet, and other abjads of the Middle East are developments of the Aramaic alphabet.

Most alphabetic scripts of India and Eastern Asia descend from the Brahmi script, believed to be a descendant of Aramaic.

European alphabets, especially Latin and Cyrillic, have been adapted for many languages of Asia. Arabic is also widely used, sometimes as an abjad, as with Urdu and Persian, and sometimes as a complete alphabet, as with Kurdish and Uyghur.

Hangul
In Korea, Sejong the Great created the Hangul alphabet in 1443 CE. Hangul is a unique alphabet: it is a featural alphabet, where the design of many of the letters comes from a sound's place of articulation, like P looking like the widened mouth and L looking like the tongue pulled in. The creation of Hangul was planned by the government of the day, and it places individual letters in syllable clusters with equal dimensions, in the same way as Chinese characters. This change allows for mixed-script writing, where one syllable always takes up one type space no matter how many letters get stacked into building that one sound-block.

Zhuyin
Zhuyin, sometimes referred to as Bopomofo, is a semi-syllabary. It transcribes Mandarin phonetically in the Republic of China. After the later establishment of the People's Republic of China and its adoption of Hanyu Pinyin, the use of Zhuyin today is limited. However, it is still widely used in Taiwan. Zhuyin developed from a form of Chinese shorthand based on Chinese characters in the early 1900s and has elements of both an alphabet and a syllabary. Like an alphabet, the phonemes of syllable initials are represented by individual symbols, but like a syllabary, the phonemes of the syllable finals are not; each possible final (excluding the medial glide) has its own character, an example being luan written as ㄌㄨㄢ (l-u-an). The last symbol ㄢ takes place as the entire final -an. While Zhuyin is not a mainstream writing system, it is still often used in ways similar to a romanization system, for aiding pronunciation and as an input method for Chinese characters on computers and cellphones.

Types

The term "alphabet" is used by linguists and paleographers in both a wide and a narrow sense. In a broader sense, an alphabet is a segmental script at the phoneme level—that is, it has separate glyphs for individual sounds and not for larger units such as syllables or words. In the narrower sense, some scholars distinguish "true" alphabets from two other types of segmental script, abjads, and abugidas. These three differ in how they treat vowels. Abjads have letters for consonants and leave most vowels unexpressed. Abugidas are also consonant-based but indicate vowels with diacritics, a systematic graphic modification of the consonants. The earliest known alphabet using this sense is the Wadi el-Hol script, believed to be an abjad. Its successor, Phoenician, is the ancestor of modern alphabets, including Arabic, Greek, Latin (via the Old Italic alphabet), Cyrillic (via the Greek alphabet), and Hebrew (via Aramaic).

Examples of present-day abjads are the Arabic and Hebrew scripts; true alphabets include Latin, Cyrillic, and Korean Hangul; and abugidas, used to write Tigrinya, Amharic, Hindi, and Thai. The Canadian Aboriginal syllabics are also an abugida, rather than a syllabary, as their name would imply, because each glyph stands for a consonant and is modified by rotation to represent the following vowel. In a true syllabary, each consonant-vowel combination gets represented by a separate glyph.

All three types may be augmented with syllabic glyphs. Ugaritic, for example, is essentially an abjad but has syllabic letters for  These are the only times that vowels are indicated. Coptic has a letter for. Devanagari is typically an abugida augmented with dedicated letters for initial vowels, though some traditions use अ as a zero consonant as the graphic base for such vowels.

The boundaries between the three types of segmental scripts are not always clear-cut. For example, Sorani Kurdish is written in the Arabic script, which, when used for other languages, is an abjad. In Kurdish, writing the vowels is mandatory, and whole letters are used, so the script is a true alphabet. Other languages may use a Semitic abjad with forced vowel diacritics, effectively making them abugidas. On the other hand, the Phagspa script of the Mongol Empire was based closely on the Tibetan abugida, but vowel marks are written after the preceding consonant rather than as diacritic marks. Although short a is not written, as in the Indic abugidas, The source of the term "abugida", namely the Ge'ez abugida now used for Amharic and Tigrinya, has assimilated into their consonant modifications. It is no longer systematic and must be learned as a syllabary rather than as a segmental script. Even more extreme, the Pahlavi abjad eventually became logographic. Thus the primary categorisation of alphabets reflects how they treat vowels. For tonal languages, further classification can be based on their treatment of tone. Though names do not yet exist to distinguish the various types. Some alphabets disregard tone entirely, especially when it does not carry a heavy functional load, as in Somali and many other languages of Africa and the Americas. Most commonly, tones are indicated by diacritics, which is how vowels are treated in abugidas, which is the case for Vietnamese (a true alphabet) and Thai (an abugida). In Thai, the tone is determined primarily by a consonant, with diacritics for disambiguation. In the Pollard script, an abugida, vowels are indicated by diacritics. The placing of the diacritic relative to the consonant is modified to indicate the tone. More rarely, a script may have separate letters for tones, as is the case for Hmong and Zhuang. For many, regardless of whether letters or diacritics get used, the most common tone is not marked, just as the most common vowel is not marked in Indic abugidas. In Zhuyin, not only is one of the tones unmarked; but there is a diacritic to indicate a lack of tone, like the virama of Indic.

Alphabetical order
Alphabets often come to be associated with a standard ordering of their letters; this is for collation—namely, for listing words and other items in alphabetical order.

Latin alphabets
The basic ordering of the Latin alphabet (A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z), which derives from the Northwest Semitic "Abgad" order, is already well established. Although, languages using this alphabet have different conventions for their treatment of modified letters (such as the French é, à, and ô) and certain combinations of letters (multigraphs). In French, these are not considered to be additional letters for collation. However, in Icelandic, the accented letters such as á, í, and ö are considered distinct letters representing different vowel sounds from sounds represented by their unaccented counterparts. In Spanish, ñ is considered a separate letter, but accented vowels such as á and é are not. The ll and ch were also formerly considered single letters and sorted separately after l and c, but in 1994, the tenth congress of the Association of Spanish Language Academies changed the collating order so that ll came to be sorted between lk and lm in the dictionary and ch came to be sorted between cg and ci; those digraphs were still formally designated as letters, but in 2010 the Real Academia Española changed it, so they are no longer considered letters at all.

In German, words starting with sch- (which spells the German phoneme ) are inserted between words with initial sca- and sci- (all incidentally loanwords) instead of appearing after the initial sz, as though it were a single letter, which contrasts several languages such as Albanian, in which dh-, ë-, gj-, ll-, rr-, th-, xh-, and zh-, which all represent phonemes and considered separate single letters, would follow the letters d, e, g, l, n, r, t, x, and z, respectively, as well as Hungarian and Welsh. Further, German words with an umlaut get collated ignoring the umlaut as—contrary to Turkish, which adopted the graphemes ö and ü, and where a word like tüfek would come after tuz, in the dictionary. An exception is the German telephone directory, where umlauts are sorted like ä=ae since names such as Jäger also appear with the spelling Jaeger and are not distinguished in the spoken language.

The Danish and Norwegian alphabets end with æ—ø—å, whereas the Swedish conventionally put å—ä—ö at the end. However, æ phonetically corresponds with ä, as does ø and ö.

Early alphabets
It is unknown whether the earliest alphabets had a defined sequence. Some alphabets today, such as the Hanuno'o script, are learned one letter at a time, in no particular order, and are not used for collation where a definite order is required. However, a dozen Ugaritic tablets from the fourteenth century BCE preserve the alphabet in two sequences. One, the ABCDE order later used in Phoenician, has continued with minor changes in Hebrew, Greek, Armenian, Gothic, Cyrillic, and Latin; the other, HMĦLQ, was used in southern Arabia and is preserved today in Ethiopic. Both orders have therefore been stable for at least 3000 years.

Runic used an unrelated Futhark sequence, which got simplified later on. Arabic usually uses its sequence, although Arabic retains the traditional abjadi order, which is used for numbers.

The Brahmic family of alphabets used in India uses a unique order based on phonology: The letters are arranged according to how and where the sounds get produced in the mouth. This organization is present in Southeast Asia, Tibet, Korean hangul, and even Japanese kana, which is not an alphabet.

Acrophony
In Phoenician, each letter got associated with a word that begins with that sound. This is called acrophony and is continuously used to varying degrees in Samaritan, Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic.

Acrophony got abandoned in Latin. It referred to the letters by adding a vowel (usually "e", sometimes "a", or "u") before or after the consonant. Two exceptions were Y and Z, which were borrowed from the Greek alphabet rather than Etruscan. They were known as Y Graeca "Greek Y" and zeta (from Greek)—this discrepancy was inherited by many European languages, as in the term zed for Z in all forms of English, other than American English. Over time names sometimes shifted or were added, as in double U for W, or "double V" in French, the English name for Y, and the American zee for Z. Comparing them in English and French gives a clear reflection of the Great Vowel Shift: A, B, C, and D are pronounced in today's English, but in contemporary French they are. The French names (from which the English names got derived) preserve the qualities of the English vowels before the Great Vowel Shift. By contrast, the names of F, L, M, N, and S remain the same in both languages because "short" vowels were largely unaffected by the Shift.

In Cyrillic, originally, acrophony was present using Slavic words. The first three words going, azŭ, buky, vědě, with the Cyrillic collation order being, А, Б, В. However, this was later abandoned in favor of a system similar to Latin.

Orthography and pronunciation
When an alphabet is adopted or developed to represent a given language, an orthography generally comes into being, providing rules for spelling words, following the principle on which alphabets get based. These rules will map letters of the alphabet to the phonemes of the spoken language. In a perfectly phonemic orthography, there would be a consistent one-to-one correspondence between the letters and the phonemes so that a writer could predict the spelling of a word given its pronunciation, and a speaker would always know the pronunciation of a word given its spelling, and vice versa. However, this ideal is usually never achieved in practice. Languages can come close to it, such as Spanish and Finnish. Others, such as English, deviate from it to a much larger degree.

The pronunciation of a language often evolves independently of its writing system. Writing systems have been borrowed for languages the orthography was not initially made to use. The degree to which letters of an alphabet correspond to phonemes of a language varies.

Languages may fail to achieve a one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds in any of several ways:
 * A language may represent a given phoneme by combinations of letters rather than just a single letter. Two-letter combinations are called digraphs, and three-letter groups are called trigraphs. German uses the tetragraphs (four letters) "tsch" for the phoneme and (in a few borrowed words) "dsch" for . Kabardian also uses a tetragraph for one of its phonemes, namely "кхъу." Two letters representing one sound occur in several instances in Hungarian as well (where, for instance, cs stands for [tʃ], sz for [s], zs for [ʒ], dzs for [dʒ]).
 * A language may represent the same phoneme with two or more different letters or combinations of letters. An example is modern Greek which may write the phoneme in six different ways: $⟨ι⟩$, $⟨η⟩$, $⟨υ⟩$, $⟨ει⟩$, $⟨οι⟩$, and $⟨υι⟩$.
 * A language may spell some words with unpronounced letters that exist for historical or other reasons. For example, the spelling of the Thai word for "beer" [เบียร์] retains a letter for the final consonant "r" present in the English word it borrows, but silences it.
 * Pronunciation of individual words may change according to the presence of surrounding words in a sentence, for example, in sandhi.
 * Different dialects of a language may use different phonemes for the same word.
 * A language may use different sets of symbols or rules for distinct vocabulary items, typically for foreign words, such as in the Japanese katakana syllabary is used for foreign words, and there are rules in English for using loanwords from other languages.

National languages sometimes elect to address the problem of dialects by associating the alphabet with the national standard. Some national languages like Finnish, Armenian, Turkish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian (Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian), and Bulgarian have a very regular spelling system with nearly one-to-one correspondence between letters and phonemes. Similarly, the Italian verb corresponding to 'spell (out),' compitare, is unknown to many Italians because spelling is usually trivial, as Italian spelling is highly phonemic. In standard Spanish, one can tell the pronunciation of a word from its spelling, but not vice versa, as phonemes sometimes can be represented in more than one way, but a given letter is consistently pronounced. French using silent letters, nasal vowels, and elision, may seem to lack much correspondence between the spelling and pronunciation. However, its rules on pronunciation, though complex, are consistent and predictable with a fair degree of accuracy.

At the other extreme are languages such as English, where pronunciations mostly have to be memorized as they do not correspond to the spelling consistently. For English, this is because the Great Vowel Shift occurred after the orthography got established and because English has acquired a large number of loanwords at different times, retaining their original spelling at varying levels. However, even English has general, albeit complex, rules that predict pronunciation from spelling. Rules like this are usually successful. However, rules to predict spelling from pronunciation have a higher failure rate.

Sometimes, countries have the written language undergo a spelling reform to realign the writing with the contemporary spoken language. These can range from simple spelling changes and word forms to switching the entire writing system. For example, Turkey switched from the Arabic alphabet to a Latin-based Turkish alphabet, and Kazakh changed from an Arabic script to a Cyrillic script due to the Soviet Union's influence. In 2021, it made a transition to the Latin alphabet, similar to Turkish. The Cyrillic script used to be official in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan before they switched to the Latin alphabet. Uzbekistan is reforming the alphabet to use diacritics on the letters that are marked by apostrophes and the letters that are digraphs.

The standard system of symbols used by linguists to represent sounds in any language, independently of orthography, is called the International Phonetic Alphabet.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Alphabet


text:
Talk:Arc de Triomphe

Miscellaneous comments
I removed the original French version. If anyone wants it, it can be found (now in slightly improved form) in the French wikipedia (see http://fr.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Arc_De_Triomphe). --Zundark, 2001 Nov 7

How can the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Paris have 'inspired' the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey? They were both done at the same time. Antsnest (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a citation that Jacqueline Kennedy was inspired by the eternal flame at the arc de triomphe, we should consider this coincidence and it should be removed. This isn't fact, but theory, pretty much urban legend. 74.135.11.200 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it right to say 'the' tomb of the Unknown soldier, shouldn't that be the the French tomb of the Unknown soldier or the tomb of the Unknown soldier in France? -Adrian.

 * agreed 74.135.11.200 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm severely tempted to say I don't know.

I like the idea of being more specific about which Tomb of the Unknown. I believe in the United States the Tomb is in Arlington National Cemetary, but I don't know if the tomb is of a soldier killed in the first world war, the second, or the civil war, or what. I guess one soldier is enough, its the idea that counts.

Regardless, being specific that it's the French Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, is a good revision, do it.
 * Since the article is about the Arc de Triomphe, carefully specifying that it's a French unknown soldier is like referring invariably to "Paris France," isn't it? It seems a little parochial. Wetman 17:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attendance at opening
"Upon its completion, the Arc de Triomphe was so far from the center of town almost no one showed up for the opening ceremony. " Since the Champs-Elysées was already lined with grand 18th century private houses, I removed this assertion here. Woman 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The above comment was part of the article - I moved it to the talk page. Rhobite 15:26, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Vestal Virgin date
"'...the first eternal flame lit since the Vestal Virgins' fire was extinguished in 492 CE'" ... "'Their sacred fire was treated, in Imperial times, as the Emperor's household fire. It burned until AD 391, when the Emperor Theodosius I's decreees forbade public pagan worship, had the fire extinguished, closed the Temple of Vesta and disbanded the Vestal Virgins.'"

Which is correct? Demiurge 14:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sacred fire of Vesta gives a third date, AD 394!

Demiurge 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The "Theodosian decrees" are mentioned under Theodosius I. Dates 391 - 394 or so are credible. That 5th century date was a gaffe, or just a tpyo.... --Wetman 16:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theodosian decrees of 391 prohibit all pagan observances, punishable with huge fines: Theodosian Code 16.10.10 and 11 - Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code (1952). These two decrees are framed generally, but would have covered the observances of the Vestals. I can't see a comparable decree in 394. These decrees were issued, respectively, at Milan (Spain) on 24 February 391 and Aquileia (Italy) on 16 June 391, so may be presumed to have been effective in Rome before the end of that year. However, effectiveness of imperial decrees is a matter of speculation. Maybe the extinguishment didn't happen until after 391. So I have changed the dating to simply "the fourth century". In the present context, the exact date is surely unimportant. --Wikiain (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia also indicates that a fire was kept burning in Ireland for St Brigid until at least the 12th century, and possibly until the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_flame#Extinguished_flames — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9EBA:7400:B88B:FD3F:AE01:9552 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Victories
We should add something noting that the list of 'victories' on the AdeT are in some cases clearly wrong and in others certainly questionable. The list reflects political considerations as much as a calm asessment of the military reality. I would give as examples Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse and fuentes d'onoro. Alci12 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A complete list of the victories insctibed on the Arc de Triomphe should be included in a note. The following text was deleted by someone: "The list of victories includes as victories contested battles, such as Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse." --Wetman 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I want to say to you that I was at a lecture when " Arc de Triomphe " was mentioned, but the question is (( What do we call it in english??? )) please send me the answer as soon as possiple. yours . rajo Palestine / Gaza

 * Well...The literal translation of Arc de Triomphe is simple, Arc of Triumph! Translating it is like translating Le Tour Eiffel; The Eiffel Tower and me of course
 * Although, no-one actually translates it! The Arc de Triomphe is always called the Arc de Triomphe in English. However, Le Tour Eiffel is always translated... perhaps it's because such arches are uncommon (so the name is left as is) but towers are very common (so we use our usual naming conventions). I realise yours is a literal translation, I think a more effective translation would be simply "Triumphal Arch".

Coordinates
where is it? maybe coordinates? 70.190.180.166 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII
Reading the article, it seemed odd to me that there was no mention of the Nazi troops parading through it when they invaded Paris. There were more than a few psychological reasons for this action. Now as I was searching the web for a reliable source about it, nothing turned up. Maybe we'll have to go to the books? Do others think this incident is noteworthy for inclusion?--Rockero 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section
It was deleted? Any reason why? 'Cause it looks like vandalism that was never reverted... RobertM525 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exact dimensions
Seems hard to get exact dimensions that agree with each other; two sources below gives different heights but same depth. So I thought I put the depth in. If anyone know the exact dimension that would be great.

http://www.answers.com/topic/arc-de-triomphe?cat=travel https://www.parisdigest.com/monument/arc-de-triomphe.htm

maybe it use to be shorter, then they build upon it? Pseudoanonymous (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wheelchair Access????
Hello,

could somebody please add information about access with a wheelchair? Is it possible, possible with an assistant or not possible?

Cheers, Bunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.215.16 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya this is casey from the ps3 network im wondering what is the name fo this ... con... well i so not know can anyone help- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.83.155 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

allo je suis Thom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.168.46 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an elevator to the top, but the wait is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.144.133 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Somalian Arch
there is a similar arch in somalia, "victory Arch" http://www.canadianptsd.com/images/Somalia%2093/Beledweyne1.jpg Should there be any mentioin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.30.31 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MoS
To avoid future "over-imaging", I'll copy-paste the guidelines from the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding images (MOS:IMAGES)

 * Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox.
 * Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined  by the most recent level 2 heading)
 * Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.
 * Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article (see Captions, below).
 * See this tutorial for how to group images, and avoid "stack-ups".
 * It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: [ Timpani]). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. An image should be reversed or substantially altered only if this clearly assists the reader (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail discussed in the text). Any such alteration must be noted in the caption.
 * The thumbnail option may be used (" "), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as " " resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and " " (or " " for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels (" ") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the " " or " " options to stand alone. The Wide image and Tall image templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
 * Lead images, which should usually be no wider than " " (" ").
 * Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
 * Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
 * Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
 * Use to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy.
 * Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the alt parameter. See WP:ALT for more information.

Regards, -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Why replacing all the pictures of the Arc by the one where the nazis are parading ? The picture you're placing all over Wikipedia...
 * Let's put a non-controversial picture on the article, the other pictures (including the one with the nazis) could put in a gallery section or in a Commons gallery.UltimaRatio (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A photograph can hardly be "controversial" - it is what it is (which also goes for the occupation of France). The only question is whether it is 1) significant enought, or 2) relevant for, and related to, the subject matter. Yes on both counts.

 * This is one of the most famous photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and it does not depict "Nazis", but ordinary German soldiers. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * The controversy is to reduce the history of the Arc to this picture, why this picture ? There's a lot of significant and relevant pictures that can fit in this section. Reducing the history of the Arc to this "pretend-not-to-be-nazis" soldiers picture is NPOV. UltimaRatio (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Why not this picture? It seems to me you're taking this a tad too personally. The reason why I included it is because this is probably one of the most famous photographs of the history of the arch (as much as I imagine you may dispute that). --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Of course, considering this picture as the most famous photograph of the history of the Arc is a disputable point of view. On top of that, you replaced every pictures of the Arc by the one with the nazis, this is a personnal and non-neutral edit. By the way, an encyclopedia is not a place to put "famous stuff" on it... So, wether this picture is the most famous or not is irrelevant.UltimaRatio (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * 1) I said one of the most famous photographs, not "the most famous", and that much can hardly be disputed. And yes, famous historical photographs are preferred over those less famous.
 * 2) Please do not turn me into some Nazi-loving fantasy nemesis from your imagination. This is not "personal" for me. It is personal for you (quite obviously) - that's the whole problem here...
 * 3) "You replaced every pictures of the Arc by the one with the nazis." Quite simply: no. I did not. Very few images were actually removed, and those unrelated to the history of the arch were moved lower down. It was not easy to repair the article while trying to preserve all the images, and place them in connection to the context, this is a small article and it was very badly cluttered.
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image perfectly fitting article context repeatedly removed
The image is one of the most famous historic photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and fits the context perfectly. It is apparently being repeatedly removed because of historic grudges. Consensus should not be determined by patriotic sentiment, or by attempts to glorify one's own history by censoring-out all defeats. In other words, I cant imagine any objective justification for replacing this photograph with yet another generic image of the Arc de Triomphe - in the history section - because some user finds it offensive. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Is it one of the most famous? According to whom? It seems that the only significant relation of the Nazis to the Arc is that they once paraded around it; the article at least makes it clear that the Arc was used as a symbol of the Allied victory, which is arguably more significant. I reverted you as there is so far no consensus for your changes. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * (Lets not start proclaiming "consensus" here with two people in a discussion.)

 * @"It seems that the only significant relation of the Nazis to the Arc is that they once paraded around it."
 * Weasel words + straw man: 1) The image does not depict Nazis in any way. 2) The image is not there because it depicts some sort of relationship between the Nazis and an arc, it is there because it depicts a famous (though depressing) event in its history, and fits the context of the text very well. 3) I don't see what the Allies have to do with this discussion? Are you saying the Allies won WWII? :)

 * In short, it fits the context very well and should not be removed or replaced due to historical grudges (which is obviously the case here with User:Frania). That is called POV content blanking. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * If the photo does not significantly inform the reader about the Arc de Triomphe, then it does not belong in the article. This is about a monument, not the Second World War and you don't seem to have argued why the photo is important to understanding the monument, choosing instead to accuse others of bias. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Um... I am aware of the role of images in Wikipedia articles. The image depicts a very infamous event in the history of the Arc. So yes, it definitely helps the reader understand the "History" section. (This much goes without saying when someone points out the image fits the text.)

 * I am accusing others of bias on a very good basis, i.e. the unexplained deletion of indisputably relevant info - from several Wikipedia articles. The user unbelievably also deleted the photo from the Battle of France article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Right, it probably was an important event but that wasn't explained. The caption for the image said "German soldiers on parade marching past the Arc de Triomphe after the surrender of Paris, 14 June 1940"; so what, they probably marched through a lot of Paris. Was this the only effect of the War? I would guess that the Arc was used by the Germans in propaganda to celebrate their victory as it was and is a very famous monument, however this isn't explained either in the caption or the main body of the article (and would of course need to be sourced). My point about the Allies is that the article at least explains why the marches and the Arc were significant, so why not include an image from that? Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The high-point and central event of the German parade of 1940 was the passage past the Arc (as it was in 1871). In general, the arc was the centerpiece for almost every army marching through the city. The photo (and the reel) was used heavily in both Axis and Allied propaganda, making it quite infamous and representative of the disastrous events of 1940.

 * I don't follow, though. Are we really contesting the relevance of this photo? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes because no source or context was given. Some thought also has to be given to the issue of balance: as you say the Arc may have been the high point of the Germans' march, but the same could be said for the marches in 1944 and 1945. Why include a picture of the Germans as opposed to the French? If the two cannot both be included for balance (and I really don't think there's space in the article at the moment given its size and the usefulness of the other images) then why choose as leaving them both out is also arguably neutral. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea, see how you like this version. As for space, the Arc was after all built with military parades in mind, so photographs of military parades though the Arc should be well represented as depictions of the monument's primary function, esp. if they are historically significant and in-line with the narrative. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * yes, that should satisfy anyone whose quibble concerns "balance". We all agree that the images are vivid examples of the Arc de Triomphe as an icon. Nev1 should be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored. Please, everyone, move on and find something useful to do at Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it's better than just having the one image as it provides balance. And thanks for the reminder Wetman and your not in the least bit condescending tone. Odd though, I don't remember mentioning censorship; could you point me in the direction of where I suggested that? Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the one who mentioned censorship, since that image was being completely removed by Frania on a number of articles. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I didn't think I had, yet Wetman implies I was advocating censorship. Perhaps he should stop talking out of his arse. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok this is WP:NPA. Seriously, man, calm down? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * If I hurt Wetman's feelings by asking him not to be a prat he's been around long enough to know where the drama boards are. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm obviously missing some background here :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Over-imaging
Oh for the love of... Frania, we all know the Allies won WWII, there is no need to further demolish this article's layout by cramming too many images of Allied soldiers. Read MOS:IMAGES on too many images in an article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * DIREKTOR,
 * 1. Your reverting twice within a few hours my addition of photo of American troops by the Arc de Triomphe at the time of the Liberation of Paris, giving for a reason:
 * first time: Rm, arch barely visible
 * second time: ''Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. Its already too many images, this is FAR too many. And no, we should not be removing the German pic...)
 * can be looked upon as:
 * for one: anti-American POV,
 * an obvious campaign of demolishing my contributions to Wikipedia whenever I work on an article on France.
 * 2. As for your remark on not removing the naz pic, please also note that I did not remove it, I simply added the Yanks marching in August 1944.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * There is already an image of the Allied liberation of Paris, adding another pic just so they can "outnumber" the German one is nationalist POV (feel free to quote me on that).
 * Even if we disregard the above, the article is already swamped with images (read WP:MoS). When I added the first Allied pic I was forced to sandwich part of the text for the sake of balance, your adding a second picture of the same thing ruins the layout of two whole sections.
 * In a sentence: do not swamp the article with images of the liberation of Paris just so they can outnumber the German file. I spent half an hour re-arranging the images according to WP:MoS, and I won't hide the fact that I'm annoyed when guidelines/policy are ignored for POV reasons. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Frania Wisniewska, I would be much indebted to you if you would finally begin to understand the concept of IMAGE LAYOUT. Replace the lead nighttime image with the daylight one if you want, but please do not push TWO lead images and ruin the entire image layout of this encyclopedia article because you've still to come to terms with the fact that France was ocupied in 1941... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures for the history section.
Hi,

here are the facts : The history of the Arc de Triomphe starts in 1806. We have 3 pictures for this section, all in the 20th century. For the sake of page setting, this section should have only 2 pictures, otherwise text sandwiching will occur.

Therefore to I replaced the 3 images by 2 images, one showing the initial project of the Arc. This seems to me way more valuable for this article than pictures from the battle of France, the Liberation of Paris or the exploit of Godefroy. The second is the return of the remains of Napoleon, instigator of the project. Again, this is more valuable than any of the pictures previously found in this section.

Feel free to modify the images by others that you consider carrying more history. See Commons:Category:Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile by decade.

Badzil (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I totally agree with the changes in images - and reasons thereof - done by Badzil. It makes sense.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Considering your posts and statements on User talk:Frania Wisniewska (which are still here in spite of your removal (Note: I did not remove the discussion. Badzil (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) and the fact that you did not use English) there can be little doubt that your goal here with these edits is not article improvement but the removal of the picture of the German parade.
 * If one thinks hard enough one can find a sensible-sounding justification for almost any edit. People are not stupid, User:Badzil, your justification is quite obviously an excuse created to single-out and remove one image.

 * The previous consensus was to keep the image in question, and an extra image was demanded and added for balance. If you claim there's an "image too many", we shall then remove the last one added, certainly not the one you and your buddies personally dislike so fiercely. And I remind you that but for my edits this article would be still be swamped with a horde of over-large images.

 * Once again, the previous consensus on this talkpage (see above) was to keep the image in question. Your edits are also in very obvious contradiction with WP:NPOV. They will be reverted. Should an edit war occur once more, as with Battle of France I will take these repeated attempts at image censorship to WP:AN/I. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I talked to Frania in French because I knew it would help her understand this edit better. I told her: I don't support your action but understands it. (Je ne supporte pas ton action mais la comprends.) I did not remove anything on Frania's talk page, an archiving bot did. Be assured that I stand behind what I write, French or English. Our conversation lives now here.

 * I don't know how you can genuinely believe that if we have to choose two images for the history section, one being a drawing of the project by the architect itself and one being a picture where the monument is only a spectator, you would choose the latter. You're very quick at accusing people of NPOV. Badzil (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Being extremely busy outside Wikipedia, I have not been & still am not able to get involved into a lengthy discussion; however, I did take the time to reinstate the discussion on my talk page hoping the archiving bot will not rush to archive it again.

2. May I point out that when I put the French flag in more evidence on 11 November, I did not remove the marching naz, as says the summary of my revsion:
 * Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.

Also, as for the picture at the Battle of France, here is what my summary says: '' 3. Direktor, it is impossible for some of us not to take as a kind of harassment or antagonism aimed at the French your placing of this photograph on several France-related articles within six minutes on September 23. However, as it is such a "great historical find", I will ask you to please note that I did not remove it, just changed its place.
 * ''There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place.

To loosely quote Badzil, the history of the Arc de Triomphe should be more on its construction, based on a blueprint by its architect, than on an oversized naz propaganda photograph which uses the Arc de Triomphe as a backdrop.

I am curious to see what reaction Direktor would get placing that picture as the main & most telling one at de:wiki article Westfeldzug.

4. As for Direktor's last comment at the discussion page of the Battle of France, responding to the idea of a collage, while I suggested a map would be the appropriate image, thus bringing to an end a discussion that is going no where the obvious hatred, name-calling & false accusations leave me outraged and speechless.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_France#Lead_photograph_and_image_censorship

--Frania W. (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Excerpt from my talk page written by Direktor:
 * Understand: the Battle of France is likely the single most important event in 20th century history of France, and certainly the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history...

I beg to differ, in the 20th-century history of France, the Battle of Verdun ranks as high, if not higher, and to many "the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history" was not naz marching by the Arc de Triomphe, but D-Day.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Apologies for my lack of response. I will certainly be back on Wednesday, I hope we can take a brief pause.
 * @P.S. Yes I was aware of Verdun when I made that statement, that is why I said "among the most important". However, Verdun was not very decisive and was merely the most horrible of many such conflicts. As for D-Day - its a very important event to be sure, but apart from the fact that it took place on French soil, French forces were not the main combatants. What I mean is that it is not really known as a "French battle" as such (no disrespect intended). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Direktor, it is difficult to follow your train of thoughts on the importance you give to events that are part of the History of France: on the one hand, the Battle of France, which saw the defeat of the French in June 1940, is part of the History of France, with marching naz by the Arc de Triomphe its most telling event in the 20th century; on the other hand, the Battle of Verdun, a French victory in WWI, which, in your eyes, "was not very decisive" (should it even be mentioned in the history of WWI ?), and D-Day, dixit you: "a very important event to be sure" - (how condescending ! Go say that to the GI's who are still alive or to those whose tombs are in the cemetery above Omaha Beach), the landing in Normandy of Anglo-American-Canadian (+ Australian + Polish + a couple of French + dearest Ernest Hemingway etc.) in the eyes of many, including mine, "the most glorious day" of the 20th century, which happens to have happened in France (yes, I know, the names of those beaches (Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, Sword Beach, Juno Beach, Gold Beach, could lead to confusion), so, according to your assessment of what makes the importance of an event, 6 June 1944, because "French forces were not the main combatants", should not be included in the History of France.
 * You are a very young man and you have a lot to learn before you attain the rank of historian as, right now, you do not seem to know the difference between historical facts & propaganda.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical pictures for the article Arc de Triomphe
2 pictures are required to illustrate the History section of this article and contributors (including me) have problems deciding which pictures should be chosen. External input on this matter is welcome as the current discussion only involves 3 contributors. Badzil (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To summarize, 5 pictures have been notably added to the History section, and here they are:

Badzil (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I shall not be able to participate in the discussion until Wednesday, so I would like to invite users to put the RfC on hold until I may be able to respond and possibly explain why I consider it very likely that the (rather famous) image in question is being removed out of patriotic sentiment. At least, there can be no question that the issue originated in that way. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I would use the architectural drawing and the one of people lining the Champs Elysees.  The one with the German Troops is not really about the Arc de Tiromphe but political statement made by the invading germans. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the image was taken by the Germans is not the issue at all. Nobody is trying to support Nazi Germany here.

The whole purpose of the Arc was to serve as the arch for parading armies. The photograph of the Arc is not only 1) famous and significant in and of itself, 2) not only depicts one of the most infamous and monumental historical events in the history of the Arc, 3) not only fits the section perfectly, but 4) also shows the Arc in its main function as a triumphal arch for a military parade.

Now, the image is being removed by a number of patriotic Frenchmen because they intensely dislike the fact that France was defeated in 1940. :P It was added, it was accepted by consensus, and now it is being presented in a very clever way with the object of removing it. The agenda is very clear from correspondences on user talkpages (I invite users to have a look if there is any doubt regarding this fact). This should certainly be taken into consideration. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you've used the phrase "patriotic Frenchmen" a number of times in a number of places, and you make references to "agendas" or allege that some editors "intensely dislike the fact that France was defeated in 1940". That's not helpful, and is actually a breach of WP:CIVIL.  A similarly charged atmosphere existed until recently at WP:BISE, and this is now under the observance of extreme civility.  From experience, your comments will simply get peoples backs up.  Can you stick to making the argument without commenting on other editors, either their nationality or your opinion on the motivations is irrelevant.
 * You argument to keep the photo based on the merits of the photo is fine and good. FWIW, I agree that it is a famous photo depicting an infamous historical event.  But I disagree that the merits of the photo outweigh all other great photos.  Unless this article has a section dedicated to famous events that occurred in the vicinity of the Arc (and perhaps there's merit in starting a section if there's enough material), I'd pick the crowds of French patriots ahead of the German army photo. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you then describe or explain the fact that this particular image is being removed simultaneously by these same editors on other articles as well?

 * Its not that my fellow Wikipedians here like some other image more, its that they want this one removed (regardless of what may replace it). That's what I'm saying. The new images were found and suggested long after the parade photo was attacked. And taking into consideration private correspondences among the users - its very obvious that the object here is to remove the image. Am I not supposed to bring this up?? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please name the users you mention. And here is one extract from that conversation that you like to cite: "Il est possible qu'en France on aurait tendance à ne pas la montrer car c'est effectivement un peu blessant et humiliant. Cependant ça fait partie de l'Histoire et on aurait tort de ne pas la montrer." ("It is possible that this image is not shown in France because it is hurting and humiliating. However it is part of the History and it would be a shame not to show it.") This happened after I reverted the removal of the image from that very same article. Get your facts straight. Badzil (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 * RE the conversation between two fellow wikipedians, there for all the world to read even if written in French since most participants to France-related articles do speak & read French, it is a shame that the meaning of that conversation has to be twisted out of recognition.
 * 11NOV10, 0359hrs: Article Battle of France: I reverted Baseball Bugs who, the previous day, had put the marching naz photograph as leading picture, and had left the comment: It's already been discussed at length, and this was the consensus., leaving as my own reason for reversal: There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place /). Thus, I cannot be accused of removing the picture of the marching naz.
 * 11NOVO10, 0420hrs: Article Arc de Triomphe contrary to what is being said by DireKtor, I did not remove any, but switched two photographs, putting the one with the French flag floating within the frame of the AdT closer to the top & the one of the marching naz at the bottom where the French flag had been - with the comment: On 11 November, the Arc de Triomphe with French flag is more appropriate than marching naz of June 1940.)
 * 11NOV10, 1345hrs, Badzil, with whom I am being accused of conspiring, reverted my edit - with comment: Please, an encyclopedia should not be modified for a particular day.
 * 11NOV10, 1442hrs: I reverted "my fellow conspirator" Badzil - with comment: Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.
 * 11NOV10, 1452hrs: my talk page, Badzil left a msg in French explaining his reversal, saying that although he did not like the marching naz anymore than I did, no change could be done without a debate, i.e. wiki rules had to be followed. He also wrote somewhere in his comment that he did not "support" my action although he understood it. I would hardly call this a conspiracy.
 * Then, before DireKtor entered the scene, I wrote (summarizing) that I know what historical documents are, and that I have nothing against their use, but that, not being an imbecile, I also can identify dirty tricks from the start, suspecting that D. did not add the photograph by respect for History, but out of spite toward the French, in other words, with harassment in mind - comparing the inclusion of the picture of the marching naz to France-related articles to the sending of a rope to the family of someone who had hung himself, or been hanged.
 * Finally, as my archiving bot archived the section because it laid dormant for over 48 hours, I not having answered his piece, DireKtor accused Badzil of removing the whole thing. I then reinstated the discussion yesterday, and the archiving bot archived it again today.
 * The above is the summary of the whole "conspiracy" between Badzil and myself.
 * Now I have other & better things to do than rehash over & over facts for the enjoyment of a young lad who wants to give himself importance with his one-sided knowledge of the History of France, the Battle of France, World War I & World War II, but cannot give a straight & true account of recent facts plain for everyone to read & see.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaRatio (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My preference is for the architectural picture (there is a more colourful variant in lower resolution on Gallica here) and the De Gaulle picture with the parade along the Champs-Elysées. Other pictures that have appeared on and off in the article, including for example the picture of the elephant and of the arch during the German occupation, could appear in a newly created gallery. This happens for example in Aix-en-Provence and Marseille. ("Iconic pictures" like this, which are often reprinted in French newspapers on the anniversary of the French liberation, should only be used in their proper context even if there is a recognizable architectural feature in sight. This year's picture in La Provence was taken in front of Saint-Esprit. Note that there are no pictures of femmes tondues in liberation of Paris, its embattled French equivalent or in the eponymous article.) Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The nazi picture should be used in its specific context, not to illustrate a general article about the Arc de Triomphe.
 * "French nationalists", "Frania's pals", "hidden agendas"... DIREKTOR's paranoiac behaviour and conspiracy theory are disruptive to the encyclopedia and violate Wikipedia conventions. He should be reported for that.
 * My preference goes to the proposed pictures 1 and 3 . The Nazis picture can be relegated in a gallery with that of De Gaulle and Godefroid. This would be a good consensus, if Direktor is eager to accept a consensus.
 * UltimaRatio (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Back to the agenda. Several people mentioned a gallery, not all in the same way. Being young and bold, I tried this option with a selection of 6 images. They depict key events of the Arc de Triomphe. The images are sorted in chronological order. Tell me if this solution suits you. , I am still waiting for you to correct your false allegations and apologize to me. Badzil (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any solution that does not remove a historical, relevant image from the article on the basis of patriotic sentiment is fine with me. My congratulations and heartfelt apologies, Badzil, this is one of the most elegant dispute solutions I've seen, wish I thought of it. :) I'll go and fix up all the images in the gallery to the best of my abilities, and I suggest we copy/paste it on all Wikis. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support the above by UltimaRatio, who is not my pal (but whom I would not mind having as one), and by Badzil, my "fellow conspirator". In fact, the creation of a gallery would allow the display of more historical drawings and photographs, such as this one right next to the marching naz, then,, , (probably not available for here), =Patrouille de France flying over the AdT on a 14 July, and even this one.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point I would like to caution everyone against over-imaging. Lets not go over five (best) images, we need to keep in mind the article's appearance on lower screen resolutions. Quality, not quantity. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, there is a wiki rule against more than five pictures in a gallery.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no "rules" on Wikipedia, but there is a Manual of Style. If we add more the gallery will require as separate "Gallery" section and we'd need to place it all the way down. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support : The current version is fine to me. Thanks everybody to have been so patient with DIREKTOR.UltimaRatio (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Before taking this further I will ask you to please apologize for your personal attack, in accordance with WP:NPA. Please be sure not to ignore this request. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to support DIREKTOR on the number of pictures. There is no need to display more than one image per key event related to the Arc de Triomphe. Frania, if you think that an image is more suited to illustrate one of the events currently shown, feel free to perform a substitution. , I accept your apology but I would also advise you to consider contributors as individuals and not as national groups. Also rereading WP:CIVIL would be a good thing. Badzil (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, now that's over we can start discussing the introduction of this pic? Its a good image, probably the most significant event in the 19th century history of the Arc, plus we've got a huge gap between 1811 and 1919 ;)))

But seriously, we could use a better pic of the WWI victory parade. One with French forces? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * "Before taking this any further", I believe that, in order to respect chronology, owes me an apology for his many disparaging remarks, before demanding one from UltimaRatio.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This was settled on WP:ANI. Calling someone a "French patriot" is not an insult, feel free to launch your own report. Also, even though Badzil has shown he is not out to remove anything from Wikipedia, your repeated deletions (as opposed to moves) of the image from the Battle of France article and elsewhere personally convince me that you truly would like to erase the image entirely. Again, feel free to quote me on the above as well.

 * On the other hand, describing someone as a nuisance, and insinuating in a hostile manner that another requires patience to deal with one is a personal attack completely removed from any connection with the subject matter (trust me on this one). I shall not further discuss my request for an apology. I sincerely hope User:UltimaRatio will withdraw the comment. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * , for now almost two months, there have been more of your remarks than calling me a "French patriot", such as using the terms "nationalist", "nationalistic", "hidden agenda", "conspiracy" etc., and I will have you know that after removing once (twice?) the marching naz, I never removed the picture anymore, instead switched with another, keeping it lower in article.
 * I also have not felt the need to report you because my "fellow conspirator" Badzil had already done so, and yesterday I did leave a lengthy comment there.
 * Denigrating remarks get those to whom they are addressed fired up, as they are felt as aggressions, which those with a backbone cannot ignore. Consequently, I do not see how in the case of France-related discussions you would consider yourself a victim after what many of us took as antagonism against the French.
 * In fact, the apology I am asking of you should not be addressed to me alone, but to all French users you have insulted.
 * This being said, before the patience of our fellow Wikipedians wears out, could we -eventually- go back to the business at hand, that of the pictures.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to the article. If we add the Bismarck pic and find a photograph of French forces parading after WWI, along with the French passing through it after WWII that would really complete the military history of the Arc and create a piece of work to copy/paste to other Wikis. Greek troops is all well and good, but WWI was won by the French primarily... I couldn't find a WWI French marching photo on Commons, and I can't imagine where to start looking for one, perhaps you fellas can lend a hand? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I have corrected the template for the gallery per the articles I mentioned before. No title is necessary if it becomes a subsection. DIREKTOR is right that any other interestings image can be added, for example the elephant. Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the captions do not display properly without the correct template. Since I believe that I was the editor who first suggested a gallery and indeed the alternative architectural image currently used, I would request that DIREKTOR calms down and reflects a little before pressing the revert button. Merci et amitiés, Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you I am perfectly calm. :) Template:Gallery not only is the "correct template", but is also a more efficient way of displaying the images. The whole idea is to present a single line of images displaying the momentous events in the Arc's history. A "default" gallery is much to large. I dare say the reason your proposal was not accepted by users in the first place was due to the fact that you had not proposed such an elegant gallery version. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically the correct method of displaying this is "gallery". My edit was in response to Badzil's request. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just use perrow="6"? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have used the standard template that I am familiar with from articles on WikiProject France. The template seems completely adequate and uncontentious. Wikipedia users have all sorts of screens of different sizes and the gallery is adapted to screen size, even on tiny screens, such as ipads or portable phones. In your edit summary you mentioned having five or six images per line, but there you were presumably referring to your own computer screen. The format was poorly adapted to the captions. That was not a reasonable approach to take. You mention "consensus" but apart from adopting my solution and the image I found, as far as these technical matters go, I can't see why you're trying to pick a fight. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is a "standard" way of creating galleries. There are several ways described in the help, see Picture tutorial. I do prefer using the template instead of the gallery tag because I think that it looks better. I was also planning to write alt texts for each picture which only the gallery template allows you to do.

Also, I do not understand what the problem with the captions is. Could you please elaborate on that?

Finally could we stop reverting each other, discuss this and decide on a solution. Badzil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Bonsoir, Badzil. I very much appreciated the way you created the gallery! However, only one third of the captions could be viewed in the format you chose: it was impossible to see the rest. I just adopted the same format as used for Aix-en-Provence and Marseille—eh oui, je suis un "plouc"—which works fine. I myself have often puzzled, along the same lines as DIREKTOR, how to get more entries per line, but that must remain one of those unutterable mysteries of wikipedia software. Salutations, "l'anglais" :) Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 * User:Mathsci. I did not think these explanations necessary since you are the... gallery expert, but by inserting " " the gallery will extend to cover six images in a row. If you must use raw HTML, that is. The problem with this is that it will be inflexible with changes in screen resolution. Among other reasons, this is why we have Template:Gallery, which a lot more efficient. Further, you will also notice (if you actually follow the link I provided) that the template can easily be adjusted to leave more space for the captions of each image if you find that a problem.

 * I will also point out that to break WP:3RR you usually need to make more than three reverts. I made three reverts, trying to restore the consensus version you altered (without consensus) - and I had no intention of going any further. Will you please withdraw the report? People over there are likely getting agitated with this and I get the feeling we could all just get blocked. I've been on Wiki for a while, trust me? :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The best idea at the moment is to find more interesting images. I don't see any point in getting bogged down in discussions about technicalities of wikipedia software. I liked the elephant. I was slightly surprised to find fewer images on Gallica than I expected, but perhaps I used the wrong search terms. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Arc is a military monument. Since it was built, France participated in three major wars. We've got Bismarck for the Franco-Prussian War, two pics for WWII, and we need one for WWI. Greek troops are good but we need to find something better. I found the Bismarck image on Commons, but nothing for French troops WWI. If we can't find anything we can use the Greek painting but still... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are photographs of the French ceremonies at the Arc de Triomphe on armistice day (Nov 11, 1918) out there. but I have not succeeded in finding any that are in the public domain so far. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I know which one you mean, is it public domain? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Access
Can somebody on the spot please clarify the "Access" section? From memory: --Wikiain (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * there is not always a "heavy police presence", or indeed much of a police presence at all
 * crossing the road to the roundabout in which the Arc stands is not forbidden, but is simply impossible because of the traffic
 * the main stairs and the elevator go to the attic, which is in the topmost storey of the Arc and contains an exhibition
 * is the elevator still accessible only to people with special needs?
 * the actual, open top - with the panoramic view - is reached by further stairs
 * how many further stairs (another site says 64) and are these to be included in the total of 284?
 * the top is a very good place from which to see the Eiffel Tower illuminated at night

 * Wikiain: The sentence Pedestrian access to the Arc de Triomphe is through an underpass, visitors are not permitted to cross by road which has a heavy police presence. provoked the hidden note I left there "police? or maddening automobile traffic?/FW", because the "heavy police presence" makes it sound as if we were in a police state. There probably is "heavy police presence" on 6 June, 14 July, 25 August, 11 November because of the personalities present at ceremonies, otherwise, there is not a flic in sight! The only reason for the underground passage is heavy "mad" automobile traffic: try crossing by foot from any avenue leading to the Arc, specially the Champs Élysées, it's possible/feasible, but few American tourists dare do it. Same scenario at the Place de la Concorde, which, for excitement, one should try crossing by foot after 5 p.m.
 * As for the elevator, it can be used by any healthy individual who does not feel like using the stairway, just like for the Eiffel Tower: run up the steps or use the lift.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Frania W. I had seen your hidden note! Would you be able to revise the "Access" section? I can't find the required info online, even in French, and I don't have a plan to be in Paris in the near future. --Wikiain (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, user 67.249.186.105: the section seems ok now. --Wikiain (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I adore user 67.249.186.105, wish it was me... Nice job! --Frania W. (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

the lift is officially for handicapped use, though this is not enforced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.134.167 (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Statue on top
The section "The design" states:

 * There was at the top of the Arc from 1882 to 1886, a monumental sculpture of Alexandre Falguière, "Le triomphe de la Révolution" (the Triumph of the Revolution), a chariot drawn by horses preparing "to crush Anarchy and Despotism", that remained only four years up there before falling in ruins."

But the article on Falguière says:

 * His Triumph of the Republic (1881–1886), a vast quadriga for the Arc de Triomphe, Paris, is perhaps more amazingly full of life than others of his works, all of which reveal this quality of vitality in superlative degree.

Maybe he began it in 1881 and it was installed in 1882, but what is the correct name for it?

Also, the image captioned "1840: Napoleon's ashes return to Paris" shows a huge installation on top of the Arc, which looks very like a quadriga. The caption accurately reflects the image's filename "Retour des cendres (Return of the Ashes)" and the date is right for that event - it also corresponds to the article Retour des cendres, which has the same image. So, was there a quadriga in 1840 which Falguière's sculpture replaced? Possibly there was something temporary, perhaps of wood and plaster, erected for the occasion: it could have matched the figures on the cortège. But such an installation is unlikely to have survived nearly 50 years, or probably even one year, in an extremely exposed location - compare Louisiana Purchase Exposition, "Buildings". It is not there in the photograph taken in 1871. What seems more likely is that it was remembered as a good idea and Falguière was commissioned to produce something permanent. --Wikiain (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Names underlined

 * Why are the names of Marshal Mortier (column 13) and general Bourcier (column 14) underlined ? They weren't killed in action. Marshal Mortier was killed in a bombing in 1835 and general Bourcier died at home in 1828... DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Construction materials
What is this monument made of? Maybe I overlooked it, but I can't figure out whether this was made out of marble vs concrete vs other. Mauvila (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Washington Sq. Park Arch
Shouldn't Washington Square Arch be in the See Also section? - JAF1970 (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
The measurements must be wrong as a meter is larger than a foot. How can it be more meters than it is feet? 2603:8081:7001:1F8:B4A8:C604:2B13:301B (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. It looks like the measurements are fine. 50 metres (164 ft), width of 45 m (148 ft) and depth of 22 m (72 ft), while its large vault is 29.19 m (95.8 ft) high and 14.62 m (48.0 ft) wide. The smaller transverse vaults are 18.68 m (61.3 ft) high and 8.44 m (27.7 ft) wide. Height	50 m (164 ft) Wide: 45 m (148 ft)

Deep: 22 m (72 ft) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

While we’re at it, how can a 60 meter arch height possibly be considered only “slightly” higher than 50 meters of height? An increase of 20% deserves at least a “moderately” or “somewhat“ yes? Article is locked so leaving comment instead, FWIW, regarding the section discussing other arches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.144.28 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped.jpg

Tallest arch
Article mentions La Grande Arche in La Défense as the tallest arch in the world? The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is on the line and would like a word… 113.252.231.146 (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 * 192>110, but this article is locked and seems to have been abandoned. 2604:6000:CFC0:43:B531:97C1:2238:E859 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2024
Please change

that used its design as a model include Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, North Korea; Arcul de Triumf in Bucharest, Romania; Rosedale World War I Memorial Arch in Kansas City, Kansas, US; and a miniature version at the Paris Casino in Las Vegas, US.[33]

to

that used its design as a model include Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, North Korea; Arcul de Triumf in Bucharest, Romania; Rosedale World War I Memorial Arch in Kansas City, Kansas, US; a miniature version at the Paris Casino in Las Vegas, US [33]; and the Washington Arch in Washington Square Park in New York City, US. ==

75.127.202.130 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arc de Triomphe


text:
Atomic number

The atomic number or nuclear charge number (symbol Z) of a chemical element is the charge number of an atomic nucleus. For ordinary nuclei composed of protons and neutrons, this is equal to the proton number (np) or the number of protons found in the nucleus of every atom of that element. The atomic number can be used to uniquely identify ordinary chemical elements. In an ordinary uncharged atom, the atomic number is also equal to the number of electrons.

For an ordinary atom which contains protons, neutrons and electrons, the sum of the atomic number Z and the neutron number N gives the atom's atomic mass number A. Since protons and neutrons have approximately the same mass (and the mass of the electrons is negligible for many purposes) and the mass defect of the nucleon binding is always small compared to the nucleon mass, the atomic mass of any atom, when expressed in daltons (making a quantity called the "relative isotopic mass"), is within 1% of the whole number A.

Atoms with the same atomic number but different neutron numbers, and hence different mass numbers, are known as isotopes. A little more than three-quarters of naturally occurring elements exist as a mixture of isotopes (see monoisotopic elements), and the average isotopic mass of an isotopic mixture for an element (called the relative atomic mass) in a defined environment on Earth determines the element's standard atomic weight. Historically, it was these atomic weights of elements (in comparison to hydrogen) that were the quantities measurable by chemists in the 19th century.

The conventional symbol Z comes from the German word Zahl 'number', which, before the modern synthesis of ideas from chemistry and physics, merely denoted an element's numerical place in the periodic table, whose order was then approximately, but not completely, consistent with the order of the elements by atomic weights. Only after 1915, with the suggestion and evidence that this Z number was also the nuclear charge and a physical characteristic of atoms, did the word Atomzahl (and its English equivalent atomic number) come into common use in this context.

The rules above do not always apply to exotic atoms which contain short-lived elementary particles other than protons, neutrons and electrons.

The periodic table and a natural number for each element
Loosely speaking, the existence or construction of a periodic table of elements creates an ordering of the elements, and so they can be numbered in order.

Dmitri Mendeleev said that he arranged his first periodic tables (first published on March 6, 1869) in order of atomic weight ("Atomgewicht"). However, in consideration of the elements' observed chemical properties, he changed the order slightly and placed tellurium (atomic weight 127.6) ahead of iodine (atomic weight 126.9). This placement is consistent with the modern practice of ordering the elements by proton number, Z, but that number was not known or suspected at the time.

A simple numbering based on periodic table position was never entirely satisfactory. In addition to the case of iodine and tellurium, several other pairs of elements (such as argon and potassium, cobalt and nickel) were later shown to have nearly identical or reversed atomic weights, thus requiring their placement in the periodic table to be determined by their chemical properties. However the gradual identification of more and more chemically similar lanthanide elements, whose atomic number was not obvious, led to inconsistency and uncertainty in the periodic numbering of elements at least from lutetium (element 71) onward (hafnium was not known at this time).

The Rutherford-Bohr model and van den Broek
In 1911, Ernest Rutherford gave a model of the atom in which a central nucleus held most of the atom's mass and a positive charge which, in units of the electron's charge, was to be approximately equal to half of the atom's atomic weight, expressed in numbers of hydrogen atoms. This central charge would thus be approximately half the atomic weight (though it was almost 25% different from the atomic number of gold (Z = 79, A = 197), the single element from which Rutherford made his guess). Nevertheless, in spite of Rutherford's estimation that gold had a central charge of about 100 (but was element Z = 79 on the periodic table), a month after Rutherford's paper appeared, Antonius van den Broek first formally suggested that the central charge and number of electrons in an atom were exactly equal to its place in the periodic table (also known as element number, atomic number, and symbolized Z). This eventually proved to be the case.

Moseley's 1913 experiment
The experimental position improved dramatically after research by Henry Moseley in 1913. Moseley, after discussions with Bohr who was at the same lab (and who had used Van den Broek's hypothesis in his Bohr model of the atom), decided to test Van den Broek's and Bohr's hypothesis directly, by seeing if spectral lines emitted from excited atoms fitted the Bohr theory's postulation that the frequency of the spectral lines be proportional to the square of Z.

To do this, Moseley measured the wavelengths of the innermost photon transitions (K and L lines) produced by the elements from aluminium (Z = 13) to gold (Z = 79) used as a series of movable anodic targets inside an x-ray tube. The square root of the frequency of these photons (x-rays) increased from one target to the next in an arithmetic progression. This led to the conclusion (Moseley's law) that the atomic number does closely correspond (with an offset of one unit for K-lines, in Moseley's work) to the calculated electric charge of the nucleus, i.e. the element number Z. Among other things, Moseley demonstrated that the lanthanide series (from lanthanum to lutetium inclusive) must have 15 members—no fewer and no more—which was far from obvious from known chemistry at that time.

Missing elements
After Moseley's death in 1915, the atomic numbers of all known elements from hydrogen to uranium (Z = 92) were examined by his method. There were seven elements (with Z < 92) which were not found and therefore identified as still undiscovered, corresponding to atomic numbers 43, 61, 72, 75, 85, 87 and 91. From 1918 to 1947, all seven of these missing elements were discovered. By this time, the first four transuranium elements had also been discovered, so that the periodic table was complete with no gaps as far as curium (Z = 96).

The proton and the idea of nuclear electrons
In 1915, the reason for nuclear charge being quantized in units of Z, which were now recognized to be the same as the element number, was not understood. An old idea called Prout's hypothesis had postulated that the elements were all made of residues (or "protyles") of the lightest element hydrogen, which in the Bohr-Rutherford model had a single electron and a nuclear charge of one. However, as early as 1907, Rutherford and Thomas Royds had shown that alpha particles, which had a charge of +2, were the nuclei of helium atoms, which had a mass four times that of hydrogen, not two times. If Prout's hypothesis were true, something had to be neutralizing some of the charge of the hydrogen nuclei present in the nuclei of heavier atoms.

In 1917, Rutherford succeeded in generating hydrogen nuclei from a nuclear reaction between alpha particles and nitrogen gas, and believed he had proven Prout's law. He called the new heavy nuclear particles protons in 1920 (alternate names being proutons and protyles). It had been immediately apparent from the work of Moseley that the nuclei of heavy atoms have more than twice as much mass as would be expected from their being made of hydrogen nuclei, and thus there was required a hypothesis for the neutralization of the extra protons presumed present in all heavy nuclei. A helium nucleus was presumed to be composed of four protons plus two "nuclear electrons" (electrons bound inside the nucleus) to cancel two of the charges. At the other end of the periodic table, a nucleus of gold with a mass 197 times that of hydrogen was thought to contain 118 nuclear electrons in the nucleus to give it a residual charge of +79, consistent with its atomic number.

The discovery of the neutron makes Z the proton number
All consideration of nuclear electrons ended with James Chadwick's discovery of the neutron in 1932. An atom of gold now was seen as containing 118 neutrons rather than 118 nuclear electrons, and its positive nuclear charge now was realized to come entirely from a content of 79 protons. Since Moseley had previously shown that the atomic number Z of an element equals this positive charge, it was now clear that Z is identical to the number of protons of its nuclei.

Chemical properties
Each element has a specific set of chemical properties as a consequence of the number of electrons present in the neutral atom, which is Z (the atomic number). The configuration of these electrons follows from the principles of quantum mechanics. The number of electrons in each element's electron shells, particularly the outermost valence shell, is the primary factor in determining its chemical bonding behavior. Hence, it is the atomic number alone that determines the chemical properties of an element; and it is for this reason that an element can be defined as consisting of any mixture of atoms with a given atomic number.

New elements
The quest for new elements is usually described using atomic numbers. As of, all elements with atomic numbers 1 to 118 have been observed. Synthesis of new elements is accomplished by bombarding target atoms of heavy elements with ions, such that the sum of the atomic numbers of the target and ion elements equals the atomic number of the element being created. In general, the half-life of a nuclide becomes shorter as atomic number increases, though undiscovered nuclides with certain "magic" numbers of protons and neutrons may have relatively longer half-lives and comprise an island of stability.

A hypothetical element composed only of neutrons has also been proposed and would have atomic number 0, but has never been observed.

title: Atomic number