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, Brummfrosch 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)

Brummfrosch. 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[1] 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.[2] 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)

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.).[3]

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)

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.[4] 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)

Third Opinion: New Zealand reports of recording

Case

There's a paragraph that myself and Brummfrosch 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[5] and Stuff[6][7], and abroad The Times[8] and The Independent[9]. It's also made it onto national television in NZ a number of times, e.g.[10]. 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)

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)

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 [11] 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)

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)