Talk:Ground zero

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Hypocenter Because this page is not heavily watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Hypocenter

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

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

Ground Zero denots a explosionplace of a bomb or of a raket above the ground. Since september the 11th 2001 denots the concept for the destroyed World Trade Center in new York (Ground Zero New York)

Ground Zero is the point of the world with the serious Damager of a bombexplosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.182.226 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I'll be bold then. --Grocer 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the entire contents of The Pile to World Trade Center site. --Grocer 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Furthermore, with airborne nuclear blasts, the site directly under the blast is not the point of most destruction. That should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.141.210 (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems pretty obvious to me that the point of greatest destruction would be closest to the nuclear blast, so perhaps you would like to explain first why you believe that is not so. Astronaut (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

This isn't a tragedy, it's an atrocity. The site should be called by its proper name: The World Trade Center.Thefactis (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is about the term Ground Zero and not specifically about the World Trade Centre. The usage of the term Ground Zero as it applies to the WTC is covered in this article and the WTC also has it's own page. Astronaut (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Epicenter is the standard for the origin point of earthquakes; Patient Zero is the standard for the starting point of epidemics.

A Citation has been requested in order to ensure that no mistake has been made here. Anarchangel (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC).Reply

I agree. Unfortunately, the expression "ground zero" has been used increasingly by the press as a generic phrase for the centre of a great calamity. I will try to find something I can cite. Astronaut (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The term was first used on the atomic bomb projects because the intended use of the weapon would be as an airburst. Therefore the jargon developed to talk about effects of the bomb at ground zero, ground plus 100 metres, ground plus 250 metres, and so on. Relative distance from the hypocentre (ie the ground) was used instead of an absolute altitude (eg 750 metres above sea level) as it is more meaningful. So to agree with Astronaut, we need a cited source - anyone? It jutifies the exchangeability of hypocentre and ground zero I think, and also casts a light on the more modern (and usually incorrect usage) of ground zero Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. {{Non-free historic image}} covers all fair use rationale requirements for it's use in this article. Duplicating the exact same template is not necessary. Astronaut (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I read somewhere that they have renamed this since 9/11 and it is now the "central courtyard cafe" or something. can anyone confirm? --199.86.17.78 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

When I was researching the Ground Zero Cafe image last year (the image has since been re-uploaded into commons), the caption said "... will be torn down in the coming months." I am not a regular visitor to the Pentagon, so cannot confirm (or deny :-)) that the cafe was demolished, replaced, refurbished, or renamed. Astronaut (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This recent edit introduced a series of statements about legal justification/authorization for the use of the term Ground Zero. I find this very confusing and is quite probably unnecessary, particularly as no references are supplied to support the assertion that legal justification/authorization is necessary or even important to understanding of the topic. Astronaut (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This reference to an interview on Fox News, claims it was first shown at approx 11:55 am on September 11, 2001. However, the only thing I have to go on is the text on that YouTube page. The video on this archive seems to be from a different Fox affiliate so I cannot confirm the time there. While I'm happy to believe the stated time for the moment, I would rather we had a more reliable source for the time than the upload comments of a YouTube user. Can anyone identify the Fox affiliate for me? Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ground zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201082850/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nmbook/appendices/ap_B.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nmbook/appendices/ap_B.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply