Talk:Ground zero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that there's an article for The Pile, could most of the WTC stuff be moved there? -- Tarquin

Japanese spelling is "グラウンド·ゼロ".But,the link "ja:グラウンド·ゼロ" is not jump to "グラウンド·ゼロ" . Modeha 05:53, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've tried, But it seems to me that it have no problems. Please check. Wandering perfect fool 10:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] disambiguation

I agree that this page could use some disambiguation. The definition of the term (its first use at the Trinity site) should remain central, I think. There are currently 10 other uses, not counting external links. There are two uses that clearly should be separated out: its use for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and its use for the September 11th, 2001 attacks. The page should be disambiguated accordingly. Any thoughts on this?

I've split the other uses section into a new disambiguation article, so it's a little better now. -- Bovineone 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal

I don't think The Pile needs to be a full article itself. Should either be merged (back?) here or into World Trade Center site. --Grocer 01:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd second it going into the World Trade Center site page. By no means should it be here. --Swift 07:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be bold then. --Grocer 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the entire contents of The Pile to World Trade Center site. --Grocer 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

I have updated the first paragraph to remove the contrdiction of the definitions of hypocenter and epicenter. I believe that 'ground zero' should refer to the point on the ground nearest to the explosion. In that case, ground zero is the same as the epicenter of earthquakes and the hypocenter of above-ground explosions. Astronaut 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Paragraph (Katrina)

In the short list of cities affected, the presence of the state names left me with the confusing impression three whole states had been affected. Although it is common practice in the US to add the state, I don't think it is necessary to do this here; after all when I see "New Orleans" and "Katrina" I know we are talking about New Orleans, Louisiana. Astronaut 19:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hello Astronaut.
1) Your revert of my edit has me confused. MY image placement (although not perfect) was an improvement to the previous that had the Dome in Hiroshima beside the History of the term, Ground zero, as it relates to the Manhattan Project. Your edit placed the World Trade Centre beside the description of The Pentagon. Your edit also removed an image of the Pentagon. My intention was to improve the article by placing the images (and adding the Pentagon one) in their correct places as per the text. My edit rectified this problem by placing the WTC in its correct position. Could you please explain your blind edit-apart from stating it is an improvement, What has it improved?
2) To answer your question, it makes sense to include the State when writing articles as there are people in the world (apart from Americans) who maybe don't know that New Orleans is in the State of Louisiana, let alone the United States.

Cheers!--Read-write-services 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the general image placement, the World Trade Center picture did appear next to the World Trade Center paragraph - maybe it depends on the browser. Also, I think using the caption text "World Trade Center site (Ground Zero)" is better than "Ground Zero (WTC site)", because not everyone would associate WTC with the World Trade Center.
As for the image of the Pentagon, it is too generic. The same picture appears in the Pentagon's article and I think it is unnecessary to also use it here. However, if there was a close-up picture of the Pentagon's open centre or a picture of the Ground Zero Cafe, I think that would be a lot better and illustrate the paragraph quite nicely.
Another editor has removed explicit mention of Hurricane Katrina. However, I think my point on this talk page is a good one. The previous wording was: "...New Orleans, Slidell, Louisiana, Gulfport, Biloxi, and Waveland, Mississippi, and Mobile, Alabama." I found that hard to read and it gave me the incorrect impression that whole states were affected. As each city was wiki-linked to the correct city anyway, removing the wiki-linked states made a lot of sense to me. I certainly know that New Orleans is in Louisiana, Biloxi is in Mississippi, and Mobile is in Alabama; and all are in the USA. Such pointless additional information only makes it harder to understand.
Astronaut 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just found this image - a photo of the Ground Zero Cafe - here (you will have to click on the correct photo to read the accompaninying text. Perhaps we could use this photo instead of the generic pentagon shot (I think it's public domain because it's on a US-military site). Astronaut 01:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
hello again Astronaut,

Could you please use the image (as suggested by you) above, because (Embarrassed) I'm not sure how to do this without creating a huge mess. Regards--Read-write-services 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to merge Hypocenter into Ground zero

I have suggested this merger because the two terms appear to have the same (or very similar) meanings. There is a lot of overlap in the content of the two articles, and the topic would best be served with only one article. Ground zero is the more commonly used phrase, so hypocenter should be merged into it. —gorgan_almighty 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the two terms are (presently) used interchangeably, however this does not make it right. The term Hypocentre is (correct me if I'm wrong) also a mathematical/geometrical concept as well, so really the term is not limited to ground zero applications. I would prefer to keep them seperated until there is further discussion on this.--Read-write-services 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No Merge. There is some overlap, but they are different terms. Hypocenter is a scientific term related to earthquakes and extended to include explosions. Ground-zero is a modern colloquial term for a major destructive event on the surface of the Earth that has been extended to include events with a major cultural impact. They can only be used interchangably in the case of above ground explosions. If anything, it should be the other way round - merge Ground-zero into Hypocentre. Hypocentre is the more commonly used phrase and covers cases where ground-zero is not really applicable (eg. the actual location of an earthquake beneath the ground). Ground-zero is really a specific case of a hypocentre. Astronaut 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks has been long enough to discuss this. I think both Read-write-services and I have made good arguments, so let's keep the articles separate (for now). I have removed the merge tags. Astronaut 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest use for September 11

I found a use of "Ground Zero" on CBS News at 7:47 p.m. on September 11, and have added it to the article. The reporter said, "…as it's being described", suggesting that there may be even earlier uses on television coverage that day. I welcome anyone else to browse through the coverage of the day's events at Internet Archive's September 11 Television Archive, for an earlier use of the term. — Walloon (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)