Talk:The Hum

Hysteria
Shouldnt we add another possibility, the fact that this is often the product of mass hysteria. It is a reasonable possibility in some cases, especially given the influence of modern media. Although the Wiki article on mass hysteria doesn't give much information.

In case anyone's interested here's an article about mass hysteria: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16743-mass-hysteria-breaks-out-in-central-america.html

--Jgeach (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd no idea The Hum phenomena existed before tonight, even though I've been hearing it for a month now. So it's not media-induced mass hysteria in my case. Bromley86 (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to support the idea of hysteria, although in my opinion I would prefer the wording influence by the modern communication. This also is the main reason, why Hum erroneously seems to be a new phenomenon, because the information-exchange of internet, Wikipedia etc. is new. Therefore the Hum-Map is an interesting result of the density of the population, of internet, of press activity etc. - and not the identification of the Hum-source. Brummfrosch (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing that may strongly support this theory is that it only seems to be reported in English-speaking countries. --2003:4B:2F41:39AA:B5D6:333:CF98:3B2 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not so. It's seems to be similarly reported in Germany, for example, where it seems to be called "Brumm".  Unsurprisingly,  would know more.  Bromley86 (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tinnitus?
Really? That is so clearly wrong... why is it even on the wiki page? If we have THAT there, why not the reason "god is bowling"? Who was that moron that came up with the idea, that thousands or millions of people suddenly all have it at the same time? oO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.248.239 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes really! Hum for sure falls under the definition of tinnitus, because "every heard sound without a corresponding external acoustic source is tinnitus by definition". We only can discuss about the kind of tinnitus, hum fits into. To me your arguments are comparable to that of hearers, who additionally experience a completely different tinnitus and therefore cannot accept their hum to be tinnitus. Brummfrosch (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To say that the Hum in general falls under the "tinnitus" catagory is flat out false, and just shows how little some people understand about the subject. What about the Windsor Hum, is that "tinnitus" 'without an acoustic source'? In actuality there have been very few instances where a sufferer's "Hum" source could not be detected or found with extensive research and the proper equipment. The sources of Low Frequncy Noise can be very difficult to locate. The Taos Hum is a rare case where many scientists were unable to pinpoint a source, but many believed it to simply be structural noise generated by certain buildings, as the sound could only be heard indoors and usually at night. This sound was real, was witnessed by hundreds of people, and as was even recorded. LFN can easily travel 100 kilometers or more across a cool, flat desert terrain at night and there were several hypothesis of where the noise was coming from, yet none were ever proven beyond a doubt. Also, do you not realize that most "Hearers" can simply leave their house and the Hum goes away? Why would they hear it in their home, but not in a motel if it was "tinnitus"? Why is it usually wooden framed structures (can be brick on the outside) or certain vehicles that cause the Hum, if it is "tinnitus"? Why it is usually heard more in certain rooms of a house than others? Why is it rarely heard outdoors, even on a super-quiet night, but then you step across the threshold of your door and you immediately notice it? How does any of that relate to tinnitus?? Even ear doctors and audio specialists that have studied hearers have said they don't believe the Hum is tinnitus in the majority of cases they have seen. Please explain why you believe this to be the case, as I would love to hear..173.25.253.87 (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading more of the Wiki page and it is obvious that whoever is posting most of the material is biased. The theme of tinnitus and OAE's run rampant. The funny thing is, they are obviously so blind they completely ignore proven facts that suggest just the opposite. Why did the "Hum" only start becoming reported in the last few decades? Why does it always seem to be concentrated around certain areas, many of which the sources of the noise were found? Do you not realize in all of these cases, there is always the average two percent that can hear it? And someone actually thinks an aspirin will "cure" it? This is the most ridiculous hogwash I have ever read regarding this phenomenon and it all seems to have just appeared on the page in recent months. The reason "head movements" reduce the Hum effect is simple sound cancellation due to your relative motion in regards to the sound waves. We are talking about very low frequencies here, so you don't have to shake your head back and forth that fast to cancel out the sound waves, this is basic science.

So tell me (whoever is convinced of the tinitus theory) why hasn't this problem always existed, if it's a natural occurance within the human ear? Regular tinnitus has been reported throughout history, but never with the Hum description, until recent decades. Even Joan of Arc suffered from tinnitus as far back as the 1400's, so people are very familiar with it. If you think the Hum is tinnitus, then why is it usually always mostly heard only late at night, rather than day, even when there is total silence in the house at either time? Why does the perceived sound vanish when outside, even in the dead still of the night?? Does tinnitus work this way? Absolutely not. Tinnitus doesn't come and go, depending on the weather or what particular room in the house you are in, does it? The theory does not hold water, at least for a majority of the cases. Nearly every scientist and expert investigating these Hums believed there was something present that people where actually hearing, even though, when detected, some of the frequencies and amplitudes were below levels of the expected human threshold of hearing. However, when doing the Taos research they realized that most "hearers" had higher sensitivity to lower freq ranges of 20 - 100 Hz (the 2% of the population who report the sounds all seem to have this higher sensitivity).

Anyone who uses critical thinking and weighs the evidence (and is at least slightly intelligent), will quickly realize the Hum is not tinnitus. You can't "walk away" from tinnitus, it goes everywhere with you. The Hum can easily be "left behind", usually by simply leaving walking out of your house. Also studies have shown that most areas where people report this noise are usually concentrated within a certain radius of each other. The Taos Hum supposedly had a radius of about 50 miles or so, from what I recall. How do you group that with a human hearing defect??

Whoever keeps pushing the OAE's and tinnitus is obviously suffering from confirmation bias, as there is very little evidence to support it, yet tons of evidence to the contrary.

I am writing a long letter to Wikipedia explaining all of this to them and will include screenshots of all editor's posts, as well as the reactions to any edits I try to make. This is just ridiculous.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.253.87 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could it not be tinnitus triggered by some other phenomenon? A damaged receptor in the ear which normally hears low frequencies, but misfires when the air pressure is at a certain point, or when certain radio waves strike it, or when "hearing" some frequency outside of the normal human hearing range. The brain would perceive that as whatever frequency that receptor normally detects, even if that's not the frequency that's setting it off. It's not unimaginable that lots of people have some minor hearing damage/defect that causes this phenomenon in response to some seemingly innocuous event like a change in air pressure. 65.95.209.254 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

. Sorry to revert your response to the above, but you really should be replying in this section. Please construct paragraphs that get all your points across rather than adding loads of unnecessary text by reproducing another's post. You might also want to avoid caps if you want people to read it and because, frankly, in an article on the Hum putting things in ALL CAPS may inadvertently convey an impression that you'd rather avoid.
 * Also, FYI, threading works by adding :,::,:::, etc. to the beginning of a new line.
 * Like this.
 * Incidentally, in case you've missed it, this article is currently being considered for deletion. Insofar as votes count, you might want to add yours. Bromley86 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your information. As I told you several times already, the current structure of the Hum is nonsense. Because of the lack of an exact definition, the phenomenon of internal Hum is mixed with environmental and industrial noise. I will give my comment on the page for deletion and in another form here. Thank you again for your information Brummfrosch (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of the Hum-phenomenon
Here we define hum "...as a noise not audible to all people" to unintentionally include deaf people, and "as a sound for which obvious sources have been ruled out" to unintentionally invite esoteric speculation. A clear definition is missing, although Mullins and Kelly more than 20 years ago found that the Taos Hum has no external acoustic or electromagnetic sources. I propose to change the definition into "...as a noise not found in the environment." Brummfrosch (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While tinnitus is a possible explanation, the articles doesn't define it as such. The current definition I think is open enough for the range of potential explanations. Changing it to "a noise not found in the environment" undercuts the geographic focus of the phenomenon and suggests the hum isn't real when we have no solid proof one way or the other. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me the definition you favor. Is it the definition, which includes deaf people or that to welcome esoteric speculators? Why are so many well-known effects of hum not mentioned in the Hum-article? Brummfrosch (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about "deaf people" hearing the Hum? What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. The "Hum" has many different origins, some of which have already been located and eliminated! The page even makes it sound as though none of the folks complaining of the Kokomo Hum were "cured" when the low frequency sources were eliminated, when in reality over 90% were! About the average two percent complained about the noise initially, but the remaining population that still said they heard a humming noise after the sources were stopped was literally only a few people, out of over a hundred. Guess what? Those few were considered to have LF tinnitus after closer testing.. That helps support the fact that only a small fraction of Hearers actually suffer from LF tinnitus, while the majority are experiencing something very real. Many sources can be found if they are looked for properly and with the proper equipment. Windsor spent a lot of money to find their source, and of course, they did. It was blast furnaces at a nearby steel mill, but because someone was obviously getting paid off, the report said it couldn't say for sure "which one" it was, basically letting US Steel off the hook. You obviously have very limited resources on this subject or something, because you act as though you know a lot, when it's obvious to me you understand very little about the Hum and it's possible sources. My experience comes from years of dealing with it personally and studying every detail available for over a decade. Not sure where your experience and knowledge comes from? Please enlighten us..173.25.253.87 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your experience is irrelevant to the content of this article unless you are a published author on the topic. Are you? If not, please note that article talk pages are not chat forums. Yworo (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My experience is irrelevant?? I tried to contact you on your page, but you have it blocked so this was the only page I could post my reasons. So you are saying I am not free to post my reasons for removing the paragraph on this page? Do you work for Wikipedia or something? Why does my opinion not mean anything to you, even though I have lived and studied this experience for years? This is not a "chat" forum, I am very aggravated at the fact you think you own this website. I am making screenshots to send to Wiki, so they can see what I am having to deal with.173.25.253.87 (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is still faced with the wishy-washy definition of the Hum. In your opinion Hum has many different origins, which also include environmental noise. In my opinion environmental noise, mechanical devices, noise of colliding ocean waves, and the moans of pleasure of fish should be subject of other articles, because they have nothing to do with Taos Hum. Have a look at the paper of Mullins and Kelly in this article. If you are really interested in my person, make a click on Brummfrosch and you can realize that I had to deal a lot with Hum suffering people including persons like you. Brummfrosch (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Description
I have tried, with complete and total honesty, to remove an insignificant and innaccurate paragraph of the most important part of the article - the "Description", but a user named "Yworo" keeps undoing it and putting the paragraph back in. The paragraph is not, I repeat not, an accurate description of a Hearer's experience! "Yworo" claimed it was to give the article "context" (???) How so?? I am a Hearer myself and this is absolutely not the way it has affected me and makes little, to no sense at all why it would be left in the article as part of the main description. The Hum results in "paranoia" and the Hearer feeling "victimized"?? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Also, the paragraph claims that Hearers have "normal to above average hearing ability". Where did this info come from "Yworo", because this is not true? Where is your source for this info?? As a a matter of fact, while many Hearers do have normal hearing, a large percentage suffer from some minor hearing loss, mainly due to age. That is also part of the main reason why mostly only older people above 40 can even hear it. Btw, I am talking about normal hearing loss (loss of ability to hear higher frequencies very well), not any form of tinnitus. Yet all of this "fictional account" is part of the main "description"??

This article used to be much more accurate and is now filled with nonsense and gibberish thanks to a few 'editors' of the page. It's sad that Wikipedia has allowed this to happen, as this used to be a place where honest people could make changes when they knew, beyond a doubt, that something was innaccurate. A "Description" should be just that: Something very simple and to the point, not some long, drawn out third person's fictional personal account, which obviously various greatly with the reality of most hearers and is partly untrue as well. I have been studying this phenomenon for over 10 years and it is sad to see people who obviously know nothing about it taking over the page's topic as they seem "fit". I am turning in a complaint against "Yworo" to Wikipedia as they will not allow anyone else to edit the page, even when totally inaccurate information is present in their posts. It may not do any good, but the fact that someone can totally control a public website with complete nonsense just because they have made thousands of posts on other topics is just totally ridiculous, not to mention an insult to what Wikipedia is meant to be all about..173.25.253.87 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The paragraph you are removing is sourced to a reliable source, see the citation at the end of the paragraph? The third party is the author of the research article, David Deming. The fact that your personal experience differs does not entitle you to remove sourced material. Yworo (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I removed it is because it is irrelevant to the basic description. I am not only speaking of my experiences but many others of whom I have spoke with on the subject. Why exactly do you feel it is important to muck up the basic description with a "third parties" experience that does not fall into the "common" hearer's category at all? It's actually pretty pathetic to even read, to be honest. Have you ever experienced the Hum? Obviously not. I have read Deming's report and never even remember anything like that in there. Plus, that is just one report out of dozens and dozens involving LFN and it's affects on the body's physiology. Besides, why should you and you only decide what should go into the description page and not let others make edits where they should be made? Is this your job or something?? Why does only your decision matter Ymoro? I'm turning in a complaint to Wikipedia and I have made notes and screenshots of everything that has transpired between us, in case they are even interested in keeping it what is was meant to be, a public site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.253.87 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be interested in discussing, only dictating. You're one revert short of a block. I suggest you stop edit warring and discuss. There is no deadline. Please wait for other regular editors of the article to join the discussion. We edit collaboratively here, that does not mean anybody can come in and disrupt the current article without discussion. Yes, anybody can edit: but the regular editors can disagree with your edits and undo them. Yworo (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not dictating, I am doing what a responsible Wikipedia user should be doing and that is making edits to obvious inaccuracies. Each time I have made an edit I made each reason very clear, just as I am supposed to do. I have also made it clear, your editing abuse Yworo, and the Hum page is being watched by Wikipedia now. You seem to be the dictator here. I see how you and one or two others undo everyone else's edits like they mean nothing. Your snappy comments and instant removal of others edits and hard work, who where only trying to help out in the past, have been pointed out. Why have such an attitude with someone trying to help, regardless of whether you remove their edit or not Ymoro? You obviously know very little about the Hum, only what you have read. I have been studying this phenomenon for many years now and this page not only has some ridiculous description of some "third person", who was never even named (fictonal, I assume?), but it also doesn't go into hardly any detail at all about the individual locations and the story behind each one. What do you think this page is here for Ymoro? Btw, the statement I removed was regarding Taos Hum was inaccurate and did not appear in in the text cited. I have read it several times and the statement you undid the edit on was never quoted by Mullins or Kelly, only mentioned that because of their unability to detect it in the environment, was their attention then directed to the people themselves. However, if you bother to actually read the article you will see that they had pretty much ruled out tinnitus and felt they needed better, more sensitive detection equipment. They admitted they needed a better microphone specifically for low frequencies. Go back and read again, if you don't believe me. Is that edit I made being a dictator?? Absolutely not! That is why Wikipedia exists as it does and allows those who understand the subject in more detail make edits to those who are just making assumptions and not even quoting text. Next time why not just quote the text in the article? Did you even go back and check it? Obviously not or you would have seen I was correct.

Again, this subject means much to me as I have much time invested in it. You obviously have no respect for those who have actually experienced this first hand Ymoro. I am getting tired of having to go back and forth with you. If I see something that is inaccurate, or not contained within the cited text, I have every right to edit it, whether I have your "permission" or not. I am writing Wikipedia again and let them know you have undid another edit, when I gave a clear reason that can easily be proven by reading the cited text.173.25.253.87 (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Ymoro, can you explain why you referred to me as an "IP vandal", when nothing I did was incorrect? Please explain why you enjoy demeaning people on this site who are only trying to help, Ymoro. Thank you.Calidude84 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What you did wrong, and it's completely obvious you are the same person as the IP editor, was not wait for other editors to join the discussion and wait for a consensus to be formed. Now you will likely be blocked, because you have broken our rules agaisnt edit warring. You're in too much of a fucking hurry, like it fucking matters. Read "There is no deadline" now, because you clearly didn't the first time I posted it. I put these links in my comments for your benefit, not my own! Yworo (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You also insult and belittle me by repeatedly and intentionally misspelling my user name as "Ymoro" when it is actaully "Yworo", as evidenced in every signature appended to my comments and every entry in the edit history. Yworo (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We should remind each other that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to inform interested persons. Mainly interested in information on Hum are hum-sufferers. In the "description" they should get a basic information with the description of the phases, hearers typically go through. This is described by Deming at page 576 line 4ff, and a great information and help for sufferers. We should thank Yworo to ensure that Wikipedia keeps a verifiable platform. I can inform that I do not only study this phenomenon for over 20 years, but have information of hundreds of sufferers in Europe; and fully agree with the description in question. Brummfrosch (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose to change the word "paranoia" into "frustration", because it describes the situation correctly, without the use of the medical term of a disease. Brummfrosch (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Whilst Calidude didn't go about it correctly, I'm in the same camp as him. This is an encyclopaedia, not a self-help group.  The entire paragraph, "In his early days . . . disappears completely." does not belong here.  It is the insertion that needs to be justified, not the removal of it.  There may be scope for a subsection that presents a far more neutral version, but even then I'm not convinced.  I'm cutting it and reinstating the more staid version.  Also, I'm very hesitant (this is typical British understatement!) about using the Journal of Scientific Exploration for cites here ("The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena.).
 * If someone wants to revert my revert, I won't edit war. As I've said, I believe it is the contentious insertion last month by Brummfrosch that needs justification rather than its removal.  Bromley86 (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm being closed minded here (and bearing in mind I haven't registered with the SSE yet, so cannot read the article), I did see that one of the other articles in the JSE volume that this cite appeared in was A Case of a Japanese Child with Past-Life Memories. This is the newsletter of the SSE, where the first article is on telekenisis.  Bromley86 (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Deming has been the go-to reference for this article; as part of trying to decide whether the Frosch article should remain in History (as it's published in JSE), I've just noticed that the Deming article was also published there!  I think we need to draw attention to that.  Therefore, retain the Frosch.  Reorder to date.  Remove paywall link (I can see an argument for keeping it, so won't revert if someone re-adds it, but if there's no cite it'll encourage people to add one if they find an un-paywalled version).  We're not talking a small paywall here - non-student is $85/annum.  Bromley86 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

When you ask the author you can get the article for free. Frosch or Deming can tell you the reasons, why they did not publish their articles in a hearing research journal. The actual description again is back to a listing of single observations with negligible value. Very important observations of hearers, like the interactions with external sounds are removed. We again ignore important observations, like the beat-formation of hum with external sounds. Don´t name information a self-help group! As long as you have not read the Frosch article I cannot accept your reversion back to innocence. Brummfrosch (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If it walks like a self help group and quacks like a self help group . ..
 * Anyway, that aside, are you Frosch? Similar name, interest in the hum.  It'd certainly help with getting access to an article that, of all the people reading and editing here, you are likely to be the only one to have read.  Reading that source however is not necessary to determining whether the information should be included here or not, merely on the veracity of the information.  I'm not questioning that.
 * Likewise I'm not arguing for total exclusion; if there's a key point that enhances the description, then it should be included. However the beats point previously in there is, I'd suggest, pretty confusing and adds nothing to an average person's understanding:  Hum can form beats with external sounds.[3] In a questionnaire 60% of hearers report to perceive such a sound-interactive Hum that may form beats with, lock into and match the frequency of an external sound. A time lag of 2 - 3 days until Hum reappears after longer air travels has been reported by 55 % of hearers, and 37 % of them report that they can stop their Hum during purposeful head movements.
 * There's definitely scope to expand on the head movements thing, if this Frosch article explains it. I assume this is related to the Epley maneuver?  Bromley86 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, forgive me, I've been rude. I see from your userpage that you are the same Frosch.  I see though that I nailed it with the self-help thing, assuming my google translation of Interessengemeinschaft zur Aufklärung des Brummtons is accurate.  There is the potential (only potential; the article has been published) for a conflict of interest here.  Bromley86 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Interessengemeinschaft (IGZAB) finished its activities several years ago. There is no conflict of interest. Nevertheless I still do have all information and contacts to hearers; and finally published the insights. I am surprised about this kind of "innocent" wordy activities made here. To criticize the quality of the papers from Deming and Frosch, only because they were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, is unreasonable. Deming`s article is an excellent literature review and Frosch presented new research-results on Hum. JSE is a peer-review journal, where abnormal phenomena are scientifically critically judged. Most of the other references in our Hum article here are news reports of journalists of unknown reputation. Is this fine for us? Did we realize that consequently we would have to remove all 8 comments with reference to Deming? Nothing of value would be left. Brummfrosch (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by '"innocent" wordy activities', so I'm unable to respond to that.
 * Critical analysis of sources is essential; as a scientist you surely know this? Whatever your personal view of the JSE, I suspect it would fail any arbitration over on the reliable sources noticeboard.  You are absolutely correct that this presents a problem for the article, in that removal of everything that came directly from a JSE-published source would remove a lot of content.  However, there is good news!  Deming himself says in the section that formed the basis of that first sentence in History: " Only a handful of articles have been published in the scientific literature . . . so I am forced to rely mostly on anecdotal reports."  Whilst this may sound bad at first, it does mean that Deming meticulously cites statements and effectively acts as a clearing house for published newspaper reports.  It is these statements that have been used in the article, rather than conclusions that Deming himself draws.  Thus there is no issue (except in the place where he says that up to 11% of people in Taos heard it; I think we need to remove that, as (although I can see how Deming arrived at it) it wasn't reported that way in the original Mullins/Kelly article).
 * As for a possible WP:COI; as I said, it's only possible. I'm somewhat concerned that you didn't disclose to Yworo/Skyerise your authorship of the article that you were using to support statements that were questioned.  Likewise, even if there were no concerns over the reliability of the JSE, I'd still be concerned at the author of a source adding information to the WP article when that source is effectively uncheckable by other editors.  This would be greatly mitigated if there was an online, unpaywalled version available, although I appreciate that that may not be something that's possible or even desirable for you.  Certainly, there's no requirement in usual situations for published material used for cites to be accessible online, but this is (I'd suggest) not a usual situation.
 * I'm content that the current wording of the second sentence of the History section allows us to refer to your and Deming's articles as "scientific literature" without potentially lending undue credence to them, as well as highlighting the fact that there has been little mainstream work in this area. Bromley86 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Everybody can read my user description. It is forbidden to include the literature there, which I published. It is better to stop the destructive behaviors, therefore I removed the JSE-comments. Some changes in the description now are fine for me, although I think that they will not be informative for most of interested hearers. Brummfrosch (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The first two years after publication we have to pay for scientific articles. This is the normal usage of most scientific journals. Hearing Research Journals are also not for free. Author copies are free. My long lasting experience tells me that no one dares to ask me for a PDF for free, because he then will give up his privacy. You obviously don´t have any problem with that authors (Wilson, etc.), who have no links at all at the history site. We should not apply double standards and include the links or remove the names. Brummfrosch (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, the situation here is slightly different. Wilson etc. were not the ones to add mention of their research.  Nor were they the ones to cut a warning about the nature of the source of that research (which, IMO, is an example of COI).  I'm reverting your cut and inviting Skyerise in to quickly review when they get a chance.  What you call destructive behaviour (curiously the addition of information), I believe is necessary given that we're talking about a fringe journal.  The JSE didn't do too well last time it was considered on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
 * Re. access to the article, I'll email you via Wikipedia with my details. Bromley86 (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mullins did not calculate "around" 2% of the population. This is an unjustified playing down of the situation. The 2% he used is the lower percentile of the 11% he actually found to be on the minimum side. Attached some more information he found. The geographical factor is pure speculation, because the time delay of the travel effect is well known. Tom Moir did not measure the Hum but the average of it. Additionally he is advertising at his homepage; therefore I will remove his link completely. Brummfrosch (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Added back Moir, left the 2% alone (not sure what you mean by 11% on minimum side, as that's clearly not the case). What advert are you objecting to?  Also, again, you have a WP:COI here as you are pushing the position that only your paper has advanced.  Unlike Moir's findings, published in national newspapers, your paper was published in an unreliable source.  Likewise, there's no reliable source for the time delay travel effect you mention.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not be silly to expect anything unproved as a reliable source. Didn´t you read the article? Moir advertised through the newspaper for his homepage. He never measured the Hum, which he confirmed per email. I will remove this link again, where he advertises for toys to remove Hum. He seems to be a no reliable source for the Hum.

Because of my personal contacts to Joe Mullins I know the exact data. He found frequencies ranging from 32.3 Hz to 80.5 Hz. Four of the eight musicians found no modulation the others with frequencies between 0.5 and 2.3 Hz in their Hum. Sorry of using the exact, however unpublished data. A total of 1440 residents responded to the survey sent by Mullins, 161 of them were classified as hearers. 161 of 1440 are 11%. He wanted to be on the very safe side and calculated 161 of 8000, which was the number of all questionnaires he sent to get a feedback of 1440 residents only. By doing so he assumed that every hearer did answer to the survey, which practically cannot be the case. Look into in his paper. Brummfrosch (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but 11% still isn't on the minimum side, it's closer to the absolute maximum. Not that any of that is reflected in the article, so no problem.  I'm adding Moir's section back in - you appear to have a problem with his website; perhaps you are correct to, perhaps not.  However, you're also deleting material related to the article and reported in a reliable source purely because it doesn't agree with the position that you have put forward.  We will always disagree on whether the personal website should remain.  If you wish, I'll invite a WP:3O.
 * If you do want me to, or if you do yourself, please try to get a handle on how threading works, as it makes following conversations with multiple people easier. Bromley86 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Moir claimed to have measured and identified 56 Hz as the Hum, and suggests the Hum being of only one external tone of 56 Hz, identical for every Hummer (at least in NZ). My comments to that claim: The well known extraordinary good low frequency hearing ability of hearers, which Tom Moir did proof himself, is known to be present only in local spikes. The spikes act as band-pass filters sometimes with quality factors Q3>35. Hearers filter their individual Hum out of each low frequency noise-mixture like the simulated 56 Hz sound-mixture.

When we filter Tom Moirs sound-mixture of 56 Hz with a high quality band-pass filter Q3=35, having a center frequency for example of 50 Hz, or 60 Hz or 70 Hz we always will get one tone only, the first of 50 Hz the second of 60 Hz and the last of 70, all of them fluctuating in loudness like the Hum.

Hearers will filter out their individual hum-frequency from Tom Moir´s supplied simulated sound-mixture of 56 Hz, which can be 30 Hz or even 80 Hz. Therefore the conclusion, Hum being an external sound of 56 Hz is not correct. The 56 Hz are only the average of all possible Hum-frequencies.

Hi Bromley86, I appreciate when you invite as many persons as possible, to scientifically discuss this above topic. I did proof the theory. As long as you did not bring me the proof of the contrary I will not accept Tom Moir´s claim. Brummfrosch (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll start the WP:3O process, although I don't have much time for WP at the moment. Please leave the relevant section in the article until we have a consensus on removing stuff that is reliably sourced (his webpage, BTW, is almost certainly a reliable source (see [{WP:SPS]]).
 * (And, as I said, please do try to get a handle on threading.) Bromley86 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Some more relevant data on the variability of "The Hum" to put in front of the Taos study:

In a study in 1978 at the Chelsea College, London the Hum of each subject was matched at a different frequency between 31 Hz and 186 Hz, having an individual modulation frequency between 0 Hz to 2.6 Hz. Wilson, 1979; Brummfrosch (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

SCC contra CSICOP
The link to CSICOP is not objective, because CSICOP has encouraged UFO research themselves for centuries. They are competitors to the SCC the organ of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer reviewed journal, which encourages to publish scientific literature, including unexplained phenomena, as long as they are in an objective way. The used wording is an unjustified partial defamatory statement contra the Journal of the Scientific Exploration and has to be removed. Brummfrosch (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already pointed out to you that your opinion of the reliability of the JSE is out of step with WP and that, as a published author with that journal and one about who's article the warning specifically refers to, your removal of that warning would likely suffer from a conflict of interest. Likewise, your opinion of the CSICOP is similarly out of step.  Have a look at WP:RSN to confirm this.  The statement you cut is a reduced version of a quote on the WP JSE page; it's clearly already been through the WP editorial process and survived.
 * I've previously invited an involved editor in good standing in to resolve this; give them a chance to review. If you'd prefer, we can take it to the RSN?
 * The affected sentence is at the end of the first para in History and used to read:
 * Further, there has been little mainstream attention; both Frosch and Deming were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which has been accused of promoting fringe theories and ignoring contrary evidence. (with appropriate cite). Bromley86 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot follow your wordy comments. Brummfrosch (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * With respect, I can't help that. It's going to make reaching consensus almost impossible if we can't communicate in English (I'm not being snide here; Brummfrosch is a native German speaker).  Bromley86 (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

For me it is no problem to understand your words, I simply cannot follow you! It seems, you cannot argue objectively. Why are you trying to be a peer-peer-reviewer? Please read articles before judging. A hearing expert called one of our cited articles in the New Scientist "absolute nonsense". Why didn't you mention that? If we follow this way, we would not help anyone. Please think over your Hum-strategy. Brummfrosch (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. You do understand the basics of how WP works?  Reliable sources must be used, consensus is formed with reference to previous opinion (although, of course, current and future opinion can modify this).  Previous opinion is against your position (i.e. opinion is that the JSE is not reliable and that CSICOP is).  I suspect this will only be solved by a visit to the RSN - I'll get onto that this weekend.
 * As to my lack of total knowledge of the subject, so what? (Also, cite please for the hearing expert's opinion; it'll make deciding what to do easier). Until you added the New Scientist link, I didn't even know that a New Scientist article was being mentioned (via Deming; told you we shouldn't rely on the JSE :) ).  I could equally ask you why the [| German WP entry] on The Hum now looks like a cut and paste of your article published in the JSE.  Given that an expert (Baguley, Description) has said that 1/3 of hums are not internally-derived hums, why no mention of explanations other than the one that you believe explains your hum?  With the German WP page, you've taken a WP entry that was accurate and changed it to fit precisely with your article (I've some initial opinions of that article, but I'll hold onto them until I've had time to finish it).  I note that you tried to do the same here, removing cited cases of phenomena that are regarded as hums and which have in fact been traced to external sources.  This is, without a doubt, conflict of interest editing.
 * I remind you (again) that this is not a self help group. On that note though, I've an interesting anecdote.  I'd almost forgotten my hum was there until this round of editing focused my attention on it; now I'm finding it very noticable at night.  In my case, Baguley and Leventhall seem to be right on the money (ignore it and it won't bother you).  Bromley86 (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

When are you going to start reading my article, I sent you? Read, understand - then comment. To me you are the typical aggressive but "innocent" hearer with no experience, neither through the own hum, nor through other articles, who thinks to know all better, who tries to reinvent the wheel. So what, being "innocent" is no problem. You should join a self-help group. Brummfrosch (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the personal attacks Brummfrosch. Keep it civil.  Bromley86 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * RSN entry added here. Bromley86 (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please tell us the UFO contribution in the article of Deming or Frosch, or stop your wordy accusations. That Hum has no acoustic source is not my baby. You can read Mullins, who has been cited by me in my article. This is a fact to live with, accepted or not. Changing the wording in Hum-Wikipedia does not help. Brummfrosch (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Mullins & Kelly (1995) are quite clear that they did not find an acoustic source, although they are less definite than you seem to think that an acoustical source may be involved (i.e. "no known acoustic signals" != "no acoustic signals"). That aside, they make no claims about hums other than Taos.  Obviously.  It's a real shame that the hearers of the Kokomo Hum weren't the subject of a proper before & after review, as that might give an idea of the proportion of hums that are linked to normal external sources (at least, in the case of the Kokomo Hum!).  The Auckland Hum has been physically recorded; The Calgary Hum appears to affect far more than the usual ~2%;  the Windsor Hum has been traced to an industrial zone (that's ongoing, but the Seattle Hum was actually traced to machinery).  Bromley86 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Result of the RSN question as to the reliability of the JSE. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. So I've reformatted the literature list and moved Frosch & Deming from "Scientific literature" to an "Other publications" category. I've also trimmed much of Frosch's research from the Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions section, to give it it's due weight (technically, WP:WEIGHT might require its removal until it's reported in a reliable secondary source, but that's a different matter. Bromley86 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment to the Journal of Scientific Exploration: The Journal of Scientific Exploration describes the publication's purpose as providing a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science. The articles are peer-reviewed and must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical arguments. Additionally to fringe science the journal publishes research articles, essays, and book reviews on many other topics, which are not accepted by the mainstream because of other reasons, like not coming from an institution or a University. We should not accept to classify articles into being scientific or not, without referring to the quality of each of the papers in question. Without judging the quality of each article in question it cannot be accepted to define articles as scientific literature or not. This quality check has not been done. I propose to use a more objective or no assessment on the quality and refrain from subjective grading. Brummfrosch (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You should have taken it up on the RSN then. You chose not to.  Feel free to make your case there (presumably in a new section as the one I opened has been archived).  Until you do, whatever your personal beliefs, consensus is that it is not reliable.  Bromley86 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This does not answer my arguments. A consensus is not an evaluation of the articles. You try to take the easy way out, not to read all articles you classify as not reliable. By doing this you have to condemn all articles and for example remove all of the 6 citations Deming. I cannot accept this destructive approach. Keep in mind that this article is of low importance to Wikipedia and you would overreact. I propose a compromise: "Only few articles have been published, including: Leventhall....Hanlon. Brummfrosch (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's because you're arguing in the wrong place. I disagree and will revert any changes that you make that inflate the import of your own research.  Bromley86 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment to: “Given that an expert (Baguley, Description) has said that 1/3 of hums are not internally-derived hums, why no mention of explanations other than the one that you believe explains your hum?...”

The main difference between the German and the English hum-article is the definition. In Germany we do not include environmental noise to hum by definition. The German Hum does not describe my Hum but is the result of questionnaires of hundreds of hearers in Middle Europe. The English version considers industrial noise or even the mating call of fish as hum! Then we also can include the moo of the cows, which sometimes is very humming in the Alps. Where will this end? It is not surprising that the hum-article has been rated as physical and C-Class on the project's quality scale. It seems to be a playground for scientifically interested non-professionals, who because of my activity fear that their toy gets lost. Brummfrosch (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Zealand story
I would like to remove at the headlines "Possible explanations/Tinnitus/Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions" the sentence “Recordings of sounds that appear to be the Hum, such as that made in Auckland, would indicate that otoacoustic emissions cannot explain all occurrences of the Hum.” Comments: In Auckland there have been made several measurements of low-frequency environmental sounds, which is comparable to the vast number of measurements of hobby physicians all over the world, who experience their own hum and think, this is the only one hum. Not one single measurement, like Mullin`s matching test with musicians, has been performed to find, whether the measured sound correlates with the hum of all the hearers. Four hearers “confirmed” the sound, which is not a reliable approach. Brummfrosch (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As the article is currently structured, and, indeed, as the Hum is currently reported in the English-language press, some hums are clearly not internal. This section needs to reference that, either by reference to the recording or by reference to a non-internal hum.  Bromley86 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear the hum in rural Tauranga. This started in March 2020 in covid lockdown. It continues everyday to various degrees. I can block it out with ear plugs. Some others hear it. I feel It’s possibly a change of frequency, 5G technology or the Schumann resonance. Some times it’s so intense I have to play music to drown it out. Wisdomkeeper74 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

English language Wikipedia obviously still has difficulties to separate different events into different articles of Wikipedia. This is embarrassing but not my problem. My problem is that an Auckland article is placed into the section Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, although it has absolute nothing to do with SOAEs nor uses a single word about SOAEs, but speculates about the humming of sand dunes or the sounds of the motion under the earth as sources for the Hum. This article should be restricted to a separate esoteric section like the colliding ocean waves and the moan with pleasure of fish. Brummfrosch (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit reverted for a couple of reasons. (1) As above. (2) You're making an unsupported connection between tinnitus and the hum (i.e. 1-9% may experience tinnitus, but that has nothing to do with low frequency noises). Bromley86 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, using colons allows you to thread a conversation, like this. Bromley86 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In this chapter we are not talking about New Zealand´s funny low frequency noise but about the correlation between tinnitus and spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. As I already told: The quality of this article is not my it is the problem for native English people. Brummfrosch (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * NZ point: see above. Tinnitus point: then you'd need to provide a source that links tinnitus with low frequency noises.  Adding "Between 1 percent to 9 percent of people hear these otoacoustic emissions as disruptive tinnitus" gives the impression to anyone reading that this statistic is somehow related to the Hum.  Bromley86 (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Each sound without a corresponding external source is tinnitus by definition. Therefore Hum is tinnitus by definition. Why do all these poor guys not understand this fact and still look again and again for external sources and this in a complete unprofessional way? Why did the physicists in New Zealand not run frequency matching tests? Then they would have realized that hum is not this measured 56 Hz tone but that everyone is experiencing a different hum-frequency, which would have proven that the 56 Hz is a vacuous environmental noise that hearers not even hear, and that low frequency environmental noise has nothing to do with the Hum. They did a bad turn and a favor to all the hearers, who cannot accept that they have a special form of tinnitus. Because all these facts have been confirmed in the article of Mullins and Kelly already more than 20 years ago, I am so staggered by the stiff opposition in this topic. Brummfrosch (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's one of the key problems you have. We have no source that excludes external sources for the Hum.  We have no source that says it's all tinnitus/SOAEs.  We have Baguley who seems to believe it's more along the lines of hyperacusis.  So, whilst you believe you've solved it based on (if I understood correctly) measurements that you'd taken of your own ears over 10 years, we don't have that from anyone else.  Bromley86 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you not answer my question but instead introduce a disease as cause for hum? Hyperacusis at best is a footnote when involving persons with inner ear damage and ordinary tinnitus into the class of hearers. By doing this you do hearers no service, because: 95% of hearers have a sound ear and a normal to extraordinary hearing ability, which has been proven by otologists in Germany. All my activities are not my personal believe but the results of questionnaires from hundreds of hearers and measurements. I will send you the corresponding publication to your email address. The main problem I now can realize out of the discussion is that your cited hum-activists begin with the second step and ignore the relevance. This is unprofessional and shameful! 1)	The physicists try to find low frequency acoustic signals with sensitive devices without checking the relevance in matching tests with hearers. 2)	The otologists dig out something they have learned, also without running matching tests and without checking the low frequency hearing ability of hearers (they mostly don’t have the equipment and start at 125Hz upwards) I repeat again: WHY DID THE PHYSICISTS IN NEW ZEALAND NOT RUN MATCHING TESTS? Without these tests we are involved with esoteric speculation. Do you really want this? If you are not familiar with the meaning of matching tests read again at Mullins and Kelly or Frosch or bow out. If you cannot bring this matching test proof, I will have to reverse your revert partly, because YOU MADE AN UNSUPPORTED CONNECTION (saying in your words) between environmental noise and hum in New Zealand. Have fair dos. Brummfrosch (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't introduce Hyperacusis, Dr. David Baguely did.
 * I am not here to do hearers a service. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word on uncited reports of proof by German otologists.
 * Your questionnaire is likely not usable in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, thank for mailing it to me.
 * AFAIK the NZ scientists did run matching tests; that's where the 56 hertz figure was taken from (The scientists are measuring the frequency by playing a second low frequency to someone who can hear the humming. When the person can no longer hear the hum, the frequency they are playing is the same as the humming noise.).
 * However, irrespective of whether or not this is what you're referring to, you have yet to show any reputable (i.e, with respect, not you) source for the definitive statement that the Hum=SOAE. I'd suggest that you might not want to go down the literal Wikipedia rules route, because then everything in the SOAE section will be removed.  The point is we do not have any souce, other than roundabout references by Mullins & Kelly that were not in their article, such as this.  The whole SOAE section (and most of the Tinnitus section) is synthesis.  I happen to find SOAE a credible explanation, which is why I support its inclusion, but it's all basically someone's original research; if we're going to include OR, then we certainly have to draw attention to the faults in the reasoning.  Bromley86 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In a matching test the hearer himself, not the scientist, adjusts volume and frequency of a tone generator until his hum and the external sound from the tone generator are identical. This has not been done in the New Zealand/Auckland-test, where the scientists adjusted the tone generator. Running a test this way is not lege artis, because it is open for psychological external influence. I welcome your support for the theories of Mullins & Kelly and Frosch, and I am sure you accept a compromise, not to eliminate but to move the sentence “Recordings of sounds that appear to be the Hum, such as that made in Auckland, would indicate that otoacoustic emissions cannot explain all occurrences of the Hum.”[8] from SOAEs to history/Auckland, because it has absolute nothing to do with SOAEs. Brummfrosch (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the article again and now that SOAEs are nested under Tinnitus, I'm happy for that section to address this. We don't need to move that sentence there as Tinnitus already has statements that draw attention to the explanation not being comprehensive.  No need to mention it in the Auckland section.  So I've removed that sentence.
 * Incidentally, I don't support your theory, I just accept that it's just as possible as any other unproven theory. That position is not going to change in the absence of someone publishing in a reliable source.  Bromley86 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That said, it might be easier to use the Auckland recording to make the point in Tinnitus than the current, largely uncited, statements. I'll see if I can restructure Tinnitus with cites to Leventhall or similar.  Bromley86 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem, the Hum article in Wikipedia is facing, is the lack of an exact definition. We are trying to combine completely different phenomena into one article. As long as one global internal and several local external phenomena are not distinguished, we are condemned to fail. We must not defend this moribund structure of an all-in-one device suitable for every purpose. The first step therefore is to bring a clear definition and to remove all local external events from the global internal hum-phenomenon, before we discuss details of tinnitus together with colliding ocean waves and the mating call of fish. Are you the man with vision to split the current Hum article? Brummfrosch (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Whilst they may well be different phenomena, they have not be reported in reliable sources as such. So you'll likely not get anywhere with your project.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - we will see. Brummfrosch (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

HAARP
I will remove the HAARP part, because

1) Hum was present long before HAARP has been used (see history),

2) in almost 100% electromagnetically shielded rooms Hum still is unchanged audible (see literature of Frosch). Brummfrosch (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of anyone who has ever built a Faraday cage capable of shielding against ELF, let alone a continuous mu metal vault that would also should against direct magnetic effects within the antenna itself (the Earth is the antenna in ELF). The Microwave Voice/Auditory Effect is real. EMR oscillatory effect on brain matter adjacent to the auditory nerves. It was first actively and intentionally utilized by Stanford University before being sent over to the US Air Force Research Lab for further development. Various over-the-horizon radar systems have paper work associated with them concerning the risks of this. Australian EPA acquired some of this documentation after USA built such a facility there due to health concerns. -Reticuli, in Dayton, OH USA 65.186.61.58 (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Article blanking
Please discuss before you blank the entire article. I'd wikilawyer you with a bunch of WP:BLAHBLAHBLAHs, but that's not necessary; common sense says you shouldn't wipe an article out without first discussing it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the source of the attempted blanking. It would probably be useful for you to read up on WP:OR and WP:POVFORK, however I do not believe anything in either of them justifies deletion of the article without an AFD discussion. Artw (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not needed, as a redirect is not a deletion, but as fans seem unwilling to permit redirection to the (correctly titled) infrasound and demand an AfD, even though it's not being deleted, I have started one. You are entirely correct about WP:OR and WP:POVFORK. There is only one subject, and it's infrasound. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see little practical difference between a deletion and your blanking (and redirecting to an article with no common content) except
 * 1) you get to skip some procedure and
 * 2) history is preserved so if people notice you pulling a fast one it can be reverted. Which is what has been done. Artw (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the content is preserved in the history and we don't have to go through a process just to arrive at the inevitable result. Oh, wait, you already noticed that. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CON for why that process, and process on general, is important. Artw (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article in question from The Guardian is a very important contribution on the psychological impact of Hum. It should be kept here, even enlarged. Brummfrosch (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just commented out the bulk of the History section. This is to see if that removes some of the issues people are having over at the AfD. Bromley86 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have to visit AfD on this one, when I get a chance. It's beyond my bedtime right now though. First, the article is one on a noteworthy phenomenon, one that entire television reports and programs have went on ad nauseum about. I remember those quite well, though some I honestly wish I had those minutes of my life back from without their pseudoscience attempting to erase my brain cells. That said, it's a known phenomenon and hence, is noteworthy and hence, should have an article. A much better article, as to be honest, if it were my decision on a rewrite to retain the article and stay within Wikipedia guidelines, the article would say, "Some people proclaimed that they heard a hum at times or even continually at location X, Y and Z. Location X had evidence to support fish. The rest would go undocumented, but cited to the claims. Personally, I hear a three tone, high pitched hum, at three specific frequencies. But, that isn't *the hum*, it's hearing damage from an IED. Before that disaster, I could hear 60HZ hum clearly and isolate it. I could also locate 18khz hum and isolate it. That all said, I'd probably also include the venous hum bit, with citations.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the AFD template. Artw (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Case
There's a paragraph that myself and are having a disagreement over. I'll post on WP:3O requesting opinion after Brummfrosch has had a chance to state his case (so the 3O person can see both sides immediately), but anyone else who watches this article or passes by is welcome to comment. Paragraph and summary of the dispute below:

"In 2006 Tom Moir of the Massey University in Auckland, New Zealand believes he has made several recordings of the Auckland Hum. His previous research using simulated sounds had indicated that the hum was around 56 hertz. The Taos Hum was between 32 to 80 hertz"

I'll let him state his case below, rather than putting it in my words, but the effect is that he's been removing the entire paragraph. It's my contention that the paragraph is supported by reliable sources and merely states what they do. There are two news sources used in the article (SMH & NZH, both as reliable as the BBC etc.); I don't see any need to add any more, but for this discussion there's also 3News and Stuff, and abroad The Times and The Independent. It's also made it onto national television in NZ a number of times, e.g.. The fact that someone is claiming to have recorded a reported Hum is notable (or weighty, or whatever the phrase is) in the context of an article on the Hum.

The other reference is to Moir's personal webpage. I'd included this per WP:SPS, i.e. it's not the same as a blog by a random person, but is instead a relatively short page (i.e. it's not a regularly updated blog) on the subject of his recording by an expert who has been published in 3rd party reliable sources.

The final sentence re. Taos Hum is, I suspect, not controversial, as Brummfrosch often refers to that particular source and has added that sentence in elsewhere. Bromley86 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As there is no other comment than yours it is justified to remove the Moir article - and that part from Taos because of being twice. Brummfrosch (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not so. I've not started the process, as I've been waiting for you to state your position prior to posting on WP:3O.  Once you do that, we can move onto the next step.  Bromley86 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Commented out History section
Just wanted to check that everyone is happy with the bulk of the History section being commented out (last visible in this version). I did that because it was a lazy way of effectively reporting "News of the Weird", to use another editor's phrase, rather than correctly constructing an encyclopaedic article.

I commented it out, rather than deleting, because I'm intending to review to see if some parts of it can be added back in (for example, the fact that it has been raised in the Irish parliament may deserve mention in the article). Bromley86 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A month on, nothing of value was moved out, so I removed it. Good call. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that - been on holiday. And I'm potentially going to be too busy for WP, so I re-removed the commented out text for you.  Anyone who might want to review it can always look at a previous version.  Bromley86 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved
This article has substantially improved, thanks in large part to Brummfrosch I think, and it is now a description of what the UK Government calls "low frequency noise" (noise being unwanted sound, broadly), and that is clearly a better title than "The Hum" since there are precisely no sources that use the term The Hum, it is a novel synthesis from a couple of named examples. So, in the absence of a better candidate name, I moved it over the former redirect. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense: bbc report it as 'the hum' and that was already linked from the article. This appears to be you being economical with the truth to get the name changed to one you prefer.GliderMaven (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * JzG's claims of WP:OR have been shot down repeatedly, and they are well aware of this. At this point they are editing in bad faith and their other changes of the day should probably checked more closely. Artw (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Requested moves process is thataway. Skyerise (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly should be lowercase based on that link, but I didn't check any others.GliderMaven (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Artw: When you say shot down, you mean denied by a few people. The title "The Hum" is unquestionably WP:SYNTH. Skyerise: you may not have noticed, but I predate most processes. Almost all of them make Wikipedia worse (just ask Mike Godwin). Guy (Help!) 21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:SYNTH is when an editor invents a name themselves based on two different sources. That's not what happened here, the BBC report specifically uses that term, as do reports in other news sources.GliderMaven (talk)


 * It is referred to colloquially as "The Foo Hum", the BBC article uses scare quotes, whereas the title to which I moved it, is used in an official government publication. Not one single source calls it The Hum (bare) with any authority. Not one. Not even the human interest piece you linked. The deletion debate contained, as I note above, a robust defence of the title being OR, the article was kept due to no consensus to delete, but there is an evident consensus that the article itself is wrongly titled. Now the content is largely fixed, we can fix that too. Easily. So I did. And you unfixed it. I do know how this works: I have been an admin since a long time before your first edit. Seriously, there is no need to discuss the obvious. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not my interpretation of the AFD, or the sources, and the move appears to be currently non consensus. If you want to do the move, set up a !vote like anyone else.GliderMaven (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are two perfectly acceptable responses to unsourced weasel words: one is tagging for citation, the other is removal. I prefer the latter, because Wikipedia articles on subjects which are widely thought not to even be real, suffer from the problem of WP:RANDY. And before anyone accuses me of anything, I suffer from low frequency noise, and tinnitus. The two behave quite differently, but both are almost certainly idiopathic, I get them randomly regardless of location and environment. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly you would acheive more constructive results if you did not immediately leap to edit warring, WP:CANVASing, breaches of WP:CIVIL, article blanking and post-AFD sour grapes and actually engaged in a dialogue? Actually reading the article'ssources and the policies you have been citing would help also. Otherwise I think it's best you leave the article alone. Artw (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you done condescending yet? This is about policy, which forbids novel synthesis, even in article titles. Twice, the removal of text commented out over a month ago has been reverted. See the note above. What, exactly, is wrong with removing content that the reader doesn't even see, commented out by a fan of the article weeks beforehand? Why do we edit-war weasel words back in? What is so great about a journal that specialises in promoting crank ideas, that it's worth edit-warring it back into an article that has many, much more robust sources? Do tell. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not synthesis when it's used by the BBC and other news organisations including The Independent, whether or not it was used in quotation marks. WP:COMMONNAME governs the article name, not WP:GUYSWHIM. You've also made multiple untruthful claims about the outcome of the WP:AFD to justify your actions.GliderMaven (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I am actively involved in the English “The Hum” of Wikipedia, my surprises will not end. In this article it is tried persistently to combine an internal phenomenon with such funny external phenomena like the mating call of fish, which is impossible. The word “Hum” and low frequency noise (LFN) must not be used simultaneously. The word “Hum” is common for an internal phenomenon; all externally caused noise should be removed from this title. The Hum is an objective tinnitus with similarities to spontaneous otoacoustic emissions; LFN is an external noise. It is useless to discuss about that again and again. The recent article tries to remove the internal phenomenon unsuccessfully. The Taos hum for example has nothing to do with external noise. Is it so difficult to get this? My proposal for the “low frequency noise” article: Remove Taos hum and everything internal, but include the frog´s croaking or the mooing of the cows into the low frequency noise. On the other side I will prepare a Hum article cleaned up from low frequency noise. Is this okay? Brummfrosch (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not okay. That is not how it is reported.  There are more reliable sources, even if they're not medical ones, for fish as the source of phenomena that are called "The Hum" than there are for things like SOAE, for which we have (IIRC) one source that is not reliable (your publication) and a minor mention in a newspaper that didn't make it into the original report by Mullins & Kelly.  Bromley86 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagged
I tagged it with a couple of the issues the article exhibits, we don't have a tag for "full of commented out crap that someone insists on reverting back in when it's removed" but it seems we should have. I'd leave it to you to fix, but you won't so, I will simply point to it as an example of the terrible content that can creep in when people refuse point blank to consider the reality-based perspective. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added POV, disputed, essay-like, original research, primary sources, undue, unreliable sources and{weasel tags (within multiple issues) to article
 * So that's seven tags, most related to your unsupportable claim of WP:OR, also in your talk comment you've chosen to violate WP:CIVIL again. Now, undoubtly some of these will get removed and you have every intent of edit warring over it, but I have to ask you - does this really seem like a sensible course of action? Artw (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not "unsupportable". For example, the lede says: "Among those who cannot hear the hum and some specialists, there has been skepticism about whether it exists." Source? Where's the evidence that it's only those who can't hear it who are skeptical? I can hear it and I am skeptical. Who are the "some" experts? Why the WP:WEASEL words? Which reliable independent sources describe low frequency noise as "The Hum" capitalised? The sole source presented on this page uses scare quotes clearly indicating that this is not a proper term for it. Why source material tot he Daily Mail? This is a canonically unreliable source for any subject relating to health (see the The Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project and numerous discussions at WP:RSN). Why cite sources published privately by believers without peer-review, as the article currently does? I removed some of the unreliable sources but was reflexively reverted, just as I was reverted when I removed material that has been commented out for over a month. You seem to think that these are baseless concerns, despite them being long-standing problems with dozens of articles on fringe topics. In fact they are normal concerns, and it is absolutely to be expected that they should be found here, and that their remediation would be fought tooth and nail. Exactly as we see. So: you won't allow me to fix the article, you won't allow me to tag it with the concerns I identify and describe, and frankly, that is frustrating but also hilarious, because I can now point to this as an example of the absurdity of the New! IMPROVED! Process-Bound Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS has always been a policy, there's nothing new their. And other users seem to be able to make fixes to the article without a string of lies, insults, disruptive edits and spammy templates. You should consider the possibility that the problem lies with you. Artw (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * JzG isn't the problem, actually. As was noted at AfD, this article has been in dire need of cleanup and his attempting to address the issues with this article are hardly "disruptive". The next time you want to accuse someone of violating WP:CIVIL, review your own behavior first. - Aoidh (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure what I am supposed to be seeing there? Probably the deletion if the commented section shouldn't have been reverted but another user took care of it. Artw (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And in fact if you see anything else there you feel is worthwhile feel free to cherrypick it and make that change to the current article, some of it may stand on merit. Forcing through the name change without discussion is just not going to happen though. Artw (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was the issue and makes your claims of JzG being uncivil seem rather disingenuous. - Aoidh (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Luckily there's no need to add the tag per WP:FULLOFCOMMENTEDOUTCRAP, as I'd removed it before you posted this section. I'd suggest that it'd be easier to address your concerns if you raised them in sections (e.g. a section on the article title, etc.) rather than blobbing them all together, where it gets hard to keep track of where we are.  Bromley86 (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title
Let's have a stab at this. I think the current article title is the correct one, but clearly doesn't, often referring to it as The Foo Hum (presumably drawing attention to the fact most sources mention specific geographical hums, e.g. The Taos Hum). Assuming that we retain a separate article for The Hum, what should it be called?

With reference to the Foo part, hums are usually referred to with the geographical descriptor (and are AFAIK never scare quoted in those cases). Obviously, WP shouldn't then invent a global term that encompasses all Hums, but, as can be seen, we're not. Sources where the actual expression The Hum (or a close variant) is used:
 * BBC ("The Hum"/"The hum")
 * Guardian (The hum)
 * Daily Mail (The Hum)
 * Leventhall, for DEFRA (The HUM/The Hum)
 * Skeptoid (The Hum)
 * New Scientist (The hum/The "hum")

JzG has said that almost all of our sources for "The Hum" do precisely that - bracket it with quote marks. That's not the case, but certainly the fact that the BBC do is notable and needs to be addressed. I don't know for certain why they use these scare quotes, but suspect the neutral distancing subheading is the relevant one, specifically the neologism or the slang parts. Certainly that appears to be the case in the BBC article.

Either way, I'd suggest that we have enough to establish that, scared or otherwise, it is often referred to as The Hum by reliable sources. Anyone know how other WP articles with titles that are often surrounded by scare quotes in sources are dealt with? Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources you cite (ignoring the Mail, which is an abject fail of WP:RS for anything to do with health) do indeed make clear that the hum is not a correct term. Some use scare quotes, capitalisaiton is inconsistent, one omits the indefinite article, and the best and most analysitcal (Leventhall) calls the phenomenon Low Frequency Noise and references hum as a colloquiallism. That's precisely the point. The others establish an acceptable case for a redirect from the hum to low frequency noise (which is precisely what I did). I can't imagine why this is still even being debated, it is so obvious. The hum is a colloquialism for a phenomenon more correctly described as low frequency noise. Which is also what my audiologist called it. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no opposition to a change in title. However, since this is a long-established article, it should be done through the requested moves process. This brings in additional editors who are neither regular editors nor advocates for a particular change, which leads to a more robust and stable result. Input from outside the regular editorship of the article is needed here. Skyerise (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to a change in title, but don't see the arguments for a need for one as being particularly strong. Should the title be changed it should probably be to something like "mysterious hums" or "location based hums" - I would say that "Low Frequency Noise" is out of the question as a title as not only is it is a synonym for infrasound and likely to cause confusion. Artw (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite thinking that the current title is the best fit, I likewise have no problem with a change. A change to Low Frequency Noise (LFN) needs to be carefully thought through, rather than selecting it merely because the last attempt, Infrasound, failed (the AfD highlighted just how poorly thought out that suggestion was.  Disturbingly, many people voted for the change even after this was pointed out).
 * The problems, off the top of my head, that I have with LFN are (a) that Baguely seems to suggest that LFN isn't really the issue in 2/3 of the cases, (b) it's not what the subject of the article is commonly called (the only mention of LFN in this BBC article is when they name a support group, whereas the hum is mentioned 9 times), and (c) it introduces unnecessary confusion, as I'd assume that there are low frequency noises that aren't a problem (including, as Artw notes, infrasound).
 * Let me turn it around. I've listed the sources that use The Hum, or something similar.  You've mentioned one of those, Leventhall, as an example of Low Frequency Noise.  He also uses The Hum and distinguishes it as different from LFN ("Hum is the name given to a low frequency noise", emphasis added).  Do you have enough sources to establish that Low Frequency Noise satisfies the following requirement more so than The Hum?  - WP:COMMONNAME:  "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."
 * A minor point: I'd also suggest that the Mail is perfectly reliable in this context (i.e. the naming of something). Bromley86 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional mentions, not currently in article: Minors:
 * Huffington Post (The Hum)
 * Business Insider (The Hum) - this one's just a cut & paste of the article in HuffPo; both have been supplied by a 3rd party
 * Daily Mail (The Hum)
 * Indianapolis Monthly (The Hum)
 * The Blaze (The Hum)
 * Irish Examiner ("The Hum")
 * ABC (uncertain, as it's audio 00:58)
 * The Telegraph (The Hum)
 * The Independent (The Hum)
 * Mid Devon Gazette (The Hum)
 * Hunts Post (The hum/The Hum) Bromley86 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

SOAEs
@. I see we're destined to disagree about everything.  What's wrong with the existing cite, dated 2013, that requires you to replace it with one dated 1991? I've included a link to the relevant page in the reference, so it's now easily verifiable. From what I can see, Tinnitus: A Multidisciplinary Approach is the epitome of a good source for WP purposes, as it's a solid secondary source.

Also, I'd suggest that the flow of the original is better. Finally, your citing format leaves a lot to be desired (I'm assuming that Band & Nummer are German?) - why overwrite a correctly cited journal with an incorrectly formatted version? That said, I cut that part of the para as it didn't add anything to the Hum issue.

As to whether "affect" is the correct word in this case, there you have a point. Changed. Bromley86 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Skews.Me's experiences with The Hum
Circa 1995, I'm guessing it was the Unsolved Mysteries episode featuring the Taos Hum I saw that played what the hum sounded like. Then the next day, I started hearing it in my apartment in Seattle. I asked my manager in the apartment above if he'd turned on a fan, and he said he had, and that it was leaning against the wall. He moved the fan, the wall stopped resonating, and the noise disappeared. (Later he punched a hole in my ceiling above the toilet like he was trying to spy on my cute roommate and screwed up the peep hole.) Then a few years ago I started hearing something like it in this apartment. At first it was horribly loud and distracting, coming in two timbres. One sounds like a fluttering fan that sets up resonance in the ear canal to create a tone (around 60hz). Moving or swallowing would cause the sound to flutter for several seconds before eventually returning to the tone. To say it was annoying would be an understatement. I can hear it throughout my apartment, especially at night. After several days of the barrage, the intensity diminished to bearable levels, and now I just consider it background noise. Now today I heard the hum at my parent's house. They say they can't hear it, but they're losing their hearing. Knowing that a fan against a wall can cause the sound, I can't help but be reminded of a couple things. On the television show Leverage, for example, when they were gang stalking one person, they put a noise maker in the victim's room to irritate them all night. I'm also reminded that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) techs are trained to plaster walls like a pro to hide listening devices wired into their electricity supply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.166.245 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This entire article, including these Talk posts, is a joke, right? I knew WP wasn't the Humour Desert it seemed to be. – AndyFielding (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Enclosure of fish and industrial devices are violating the current definition of the Hum
The definition of the Hum, made at the beginning of the article, should be respected: "The Hum is a phenomenon, or collection of phenomena, involving widespread reports of a persistent and invasive low-frequency humming, rumbling, or droning noise not audible to all people”, and: ”Recent data from (not only) English speaking countries suggests that the phenomenon is experienced around the world” The following conclusions should be accepted:

1)	The Hum is not a local acoustic phenomenon. The humming of fish and of industrial devices however are local acoustic phenomena, which are audible only locally, however to everybody over there who has a normal hearing ability at the frequency in question.

2)	Most people who have a normal hearing ability at the frequency in question cannot hear the Hum. Environmental noise can be heard by everybody with a normal hearing ability at the frequency of the environmental noise.

External sounds can interact with the Hum of hearers and form beats or an amplification of the Hum, to get the impression as if the external sound is the Hum. These are facts, reported by Mullins and Frosch cited in this paper.

Proposal: Either to remove the parts concerning fish and industrial devices, or change the definition of the Hum. Brummfrosch (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No they are not, they are well documented sources of at least two incidences. You have no other significant contributions other than promoting the validity of "The Hum", and you have engaged oin long-term POV-pushing and edit warring over it, it is getting towards the time when we separate you form this article where you are unwilling to accept anybody else's judgment. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a contradiction in the whole article, which has to be solved by logical not by emotional thinking. Your frigid comments are highly appreciated.Brummfrosch (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction, merely a fact you do not like. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As we discussed a while back, the fishy explanation does belong in there. I'd left mention of your work, published in the definition of a fringe publication, because I didn't want to have another fight, but I'm not convinced it should be in there.  You certainly should not be editing the article (nor the German one, but that's up to others to deal with) because of the WP:COI that arises from your strong advocacy for a non-mainstream position that you've published.  Bromley86 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail
The Daily Mail is pretty much the canonical unreliable source for anything related to medicine (which seems to me to be the correct area). Bromley thinks that removing the Mail breaks referencing due to other refs not supporting the text. That's an interesting point: if something is drawn only form the Mail, then it should not be included in Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The main point I was making was highlighting a particular bugbear of mine, namely when someone writes an article (whether it's good or bad) and comprehensively cites, someone else turns up and removes the cites, and we end up with a situation where:
 * Space is cold,(Nasa) pies are hot.(Good Housekeeping)
 * becomes
 * Space is cold, pies are hot.(Good Housekeeping)
 * I.e. always use fact tags if you're removing cites.
 * That aside, I personally think that the Mail is fine in the places that it's used, or at least as fine as the BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Your argument centres on the "medicine" part; certainly the detail of the article might be described as such, but not the general description and reporting of the phenomenon.  Bromley86 (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair point, but the cite is not NASA, and if we don't have a good source for the material then it should simply go - because my bugbear is people painstakingly adding fringe nonsense out of a misplaced sense of "fairness" :-) Guy (Help!) 16:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But we do have a good source - the Mail is not blacklisted. Statements that the Mail is currently used to support:
 * (1) The essential element that defines the Hum is what is perceived as a persistent low-frequency sound, often described as being comparable to that of a distant diesel engine idling, or to some similar low-pitched sound for which obvious sources (e.g., household appliances, traffic noise, etc.) have been ruled out.
 * (2) Other elements seem to be significantly associated with the Hum, being reported by an important proportion of hearers, but not by all of them. Some people hear the Hum only, or much more, inside buildings as compared with outdoors. Some perceive vibrations that can be felt through the body. Earplugs are reported as not decreasing it.
 * (3) However, the theory that the Hum is actually tinnitus fails to explain why some hearers report that the Hum can be heard only at certain geographical locations.
 * I'd suggest that there's nothing particularly controversial there. Only (3) really touches on the medical, and that contains a direct quote by an "audiology specialist for the Royal National Institute for the Deaf".  Bromley86 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the Mail said the sky is blue I would still want a confirming neutral source. The problem is often not with what we include from the article (which may indeed be appropriate), but with what else the article says that we don't include. And very often the comments. Oh, and the sidebar of shame. If there is no better source that says it, it's probably not worth having - and if there is, then let's use the better source. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked into this in detail, that was not the position over on RSN. Recent entries there would seem to confirm that, as I said, the Daily Mail is not blacklisted and may therefore be used.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about a probable medical condition, and there is solid consensus that the Mail is not a usable source for anything to do with health. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not really being used in a medical context, it's mainly being used in the phenomenon-reporting context. Having read through the article in (3) again, I'm not convinced that it actually states what we use it to support.  So I'll remove that cite.  BTW, in the case of that particular article, the Mail was as good as the BBC/Indi/etc. (interview with sufferer, comments by Leventhall, comments by another audiology specialist, relaxation/NLP advice).  Bromley86 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Frosch
Aside from the fact that the cite to Frosch looks to have been added by Frosch himself, it is in a journal which specialises in publishing fringe ideas, and - per WP:FRINGE - we must not include this as a primary source. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is another paper published by Frosch in „The International Tinnitus Journal”, titled “Manifestations of a low-frequency sound of unknown origin perceived worldwide, also known as "the Hum" or the "Taos Hum".” Unfortunately the paper is not published in a fringe science journal. Now you are getting problems, dear guy. Brummfrosch (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done for finally getting published in a journal that is worth more than the paper it's written on. However, the problem is still you, abusing Wikipedia to push your agenda. Go away. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Windsor (Ontario) hum?
The phenomena of the "Windsor Hum" is well documented in press reports, such as this one:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/03/07/strange-hum-canadian-city-windsor/81453386/

There is a history of this hum, and investigations going back to 2012. You would think it would certainly qualify for inclusion in a wikipedia article on low frequency / infrasound of unknown origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.142.168 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, unsigned, feel free to post relevant sources here, maybe with a small description. Cheers. Wakari07 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Hum" in Tennessee
I came across this article after extensively researching a persistent noise that has been occurring in my region for the past couple of years, and thought I would share my experience. I'm a 30-year-old man living in the East Tennessee region. I've lived in the same general area for just over a decade, but this "hum" is only a recent phenomenon. The noise sounds like a nearby idling diesel engine. Just as the article describes, the noise is much more audible indoors than outdoors, and it pervades earplugs, headphones or other attempts at blocking it.

The noise appears sporadically. It would sometimes occur for several hours during the day with weak or mild intensity, then it would suddenly cease, only to resume anywhere between 30 minutes to several hours later. The noise occurs more persistently at night, sometimes droning on for the duration of the entire night and several hours into the morning. The noise also has much more intensity during the night.

There's no seasonal pattern to the noise. It occurs just as frequently during warm and cold weather. However, there are periods when the noise will cease entirely for weeks (or even months) at a time. I can sense when the noise will return again. I sometimes notice that, as I walk outside, my footsteps generate a tremble throughout my body. This is always a telltale sign that the diesel noise is only hours or days away from resuming.

The only two things that seem to diminish the noise are: 1.) Passing vehicles. As local traffic passes through, the vehicles seem to "break through" the noise for just a few seconds, before allowing the noise to resume again. 2.) Heavy rain beating down leads to a break in the noise, at least until the rain clears up.

Hopefully this information is useful to someone (or the article) in some way. 98.86.105.187 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Transcript of Question Period - Période des Questions at the House of Commons of Canada on December 8, 2017
updated link: (updated link) Wakari07 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

‹ starts at 24:10 ›

Hon. Tracey Ramsey, ‹MP for Essex› asks:

For many years, people in Windsor and Essex have endured a persistent, low-frequency vibration coming from the US, known as The Hum. Over the last few weeks, people have reported The Hum to be louder, shaking homes, affecting sleep, creating earaches and headaches. The Liberals promised to work on this issue but despite several attempts for information, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has yet to answer. The Hum continues to negatively affect the health of my constituents in Essex and people in Windsor. They deserve answers. What actions are the Liberals taking to address this issue and why do they think it's OK for people to keep waiting?

‹ applause at 24:50 ›

Hon. Andrew Leslie, ‹Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) — Canada-U.S. Relations› replies:

The Government of Canada is well aware of the seriousness of the complaints from residents in the city of Windsor, to which I was a couple of weeks ago with my distinguished ‹ ?›kith and of course‹/? › the resultant complaint caused by the noise. We understand their concern. Our officials have consistently raised the issue with the American counterparts. We will continue to engage ‹ breathes › and work to find a solution. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

‹ ends at 25:15 ›

Wakari07 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess the FM says "kith"? Wakari07 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

recent article
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/whats-that-terrible-noise-all-over-the-country-people-are-plagued-by-a-strange-hum-are-their-ears-1424317.html Kdammers (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

section "Science"
The section is poorly named as scientific studies are cited throughout the article, not just in this section. It also seems to be unrelated to the acoustic phenomenon as it refers to The cited sources call it "Earth's mysterious hum" but this is a separate phenomenon that should get its own article and be linked from the disambig. --89.204.137.16 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * planetary i.e. global vibrations, not local
 * mHz, not Hz range. Are mHz vibrations even human perceptible? Probably not as sound.
 * So I don't agree to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hum&type=revision&diff=855576795&oldid=853164187 remove this information]. Why discriminate against the hypothesis of a global sound? And of course mHz vibrations are perceptible, since they are measured... Wakari07 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency
“Hums have been widely reported by national media in the UK and the United States.”

“There has been little mainstream attention.”

Can’t have it both ways. This isn’t a factual error I can correct. It’s a lack of clarity in thinking that the authors involved need to work on.

Poihths (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The latter is possibly talking about serious scientific investigation. Both seem redundant, though, and "Only a handful of articles have been published in scientific literature, including" looks like an unnecessary reference dump, I'll rewrite. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This entire thing is ludicrous. I love it. – AndyFielding (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

2019 Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/13/what-is-the-mysterious-gl-hum-and-is-it-simply-noise-pollution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.176.96 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also in Brooklyn

 * There's also a mysterious hum in Brooklyn as at What is the weird sound driving Brooklyn residents crazy for over a year? by David Pescovitz, Boing Boing, 17 Nov 2022 --Rob Kam (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The Oslofjord Hum
The phenomenon has also been reported in Oslo and the Oslo fjord:


 * https://www.nrk.no/kultur/xl/the-hum_-hege-hoyrer-noko-nesten-ingen-andre-hoyrer-1.16121231 (Oct 2, 2022)
 * https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/mystisk-lyd-i-oslofjorden/77332937 (Oct 4, 2022)

...in case somebody wants to contribute a section on that.

Vegard (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tampa Bay
A comparable phenomenon has also been reported in Tampa Bay:


 * https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2024/01/19/mystery-sound-Tampa-Bay-black-drum-fish/4181705683683/ (Jan 19, 2024)

The case seems to be solved now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)