# Talk:Ear

In mammals the hair cells of the inner ear detect levels of carbon dioxide in the blood, and send this information to the brain. A loss of hair cells in the inner ear can cause death for this reason. Source: https://www.audiologyonline.com/releases/ears-may-hold-answers-to-4038  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.246.188 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC) 

Would you want to add this to the article? Prophylax (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

How come there is no section about infections of the ear?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 

Infections are mentioned briefly in some sections, but there are other pages for them. Prophylax (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Heaven is mine (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Too painful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.199.204 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 

Why is the "This section requires expansion" tag present on the "Invertebrate hearing organs" section of the article? According to the section itself, "only vertebrate animals have ears." Assuming this to be correct, it tells me that, if anything, the section does not belong in this article at all! This article is about ears specifically, not hearing organs in general. Why would an almost-completely-off-topic section require expansion? --50.99.8.14 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Invertebrates have ears, just not in the human-centric sense popular decades ago. They simplest ears are the statocysts found in jellyfish. The correspond to the inner ear in humans (sense of balance). They are part of the jellyfish ear/eye organ. In Bilateria eyes and ears slplit into separate organs, with ears including the lateral line system used by fish to detect pressure waves, as well as organs of hearing and balance. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Both File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg and File:Blausen 0328 EarAnatomy.png are used in the article. Both of these images document a "round window." I was wondering what the purpose of the round window was but the word "round" much less "round window" never appear in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marc Kupper, if you're still wondering (1+ months out), have a look at the article Round window, and if that doesn't help, Middle ear. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you LT910001. I had not realized we had an article for the round window. I have updated this article to incorporate mention of the round window and its membrane. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The final paragraph of Ear -> Structure -> Outer Ear is blatantly an advert. The first sentence or two contain information. The rest is plugging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherreay (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) 

I agree, it's promoting Valencell, and the final paragraph should be removed. It was added by CherryCoke027 (talk · contribs) here, who also added this to Biometrics. —Bruce1eetalk 14:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Blatant spam, use of WP:YOU wording and also not true (pulse oximeters have been used in the earlobe for ages). The user mentioned above is writing about this all over the encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing this out Christopherreay. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this has been removed. Prophylax (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is protected because it experiences a lot of vandalism from IP editors. As a user with an account, that shouldn't prevent you from making edits to improve the article, although edits that are not in good faith may be reverted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(merged in from deleted old subpage /to do)

Vestigiality of ears (e.g. muscle in human ear)
Discuss creating a separate sub-article on human ears so this article can stay focussed.the ear wax is also important thats how we get helicptres

I feel that the different types of otitis should at least be mentioned in the article. However, the Clinical significance section is already too long. What are other editor's opinions on this? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. A very reasonable suggestion and a big cause of morbidity. If the article is too long, we can always make it shorter by moving or removing some of the "Injury"-related material. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it deserves to be mentioned in the article with links to separate pages for details. Prophylax (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi.
I normally do not work on Society and culture sections on anatomy articles but while reading this one something crossed my mind. Would it be appropriate to include a couple of sentences on "ears in fiction"? Something could be said about pointy ears being used to depict humanoid races in fiction such as Spock from Star Trek or elves in many movies and books such as Lord of the Rings. I am having trouble deciding if this is in any way relevant.
In the article skeleton we have a "In popular culture" section stating "In Western culture, the skeleton is oftentimes seen as a fearful symbol of death and the paranormal. It is a popular motif in the holiday Halloween, as well as Day of the Dead."
All input is welcome. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @JakobSteenberg, I think that sounds like a great idea, after all anatomical articles do (rarely) have some social and cultural significance :P. We do in fact have an article Pointy ears here. I think as you suggest a statement about their general use in fiction is a good idea (as opposed to a list of pointy eared characters, which would be "trivia"). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried copy pasting a section in directly from pointy ears. I think it works out; not to much or little. Thanks for your answer. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Cannot see the point in having this template displayed. Info in it is incomplete and all is included anyway in navbox. Doesn't seem to be any such template attached to other articles ? --Iztwoz (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, another one of my ideas. The aim here was to have a small template with links to the main parts of the ear so readers can easily navigate, as opposed to a huge navbox with every article about ears linked. Am very happy for discussion/deletion if that's where consensus swings. At the moment the template is very outsized... maybe removing the image could help reduce its prominence, too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tom (LT) - removing the image is a good (first?) step!  imesho - would prefer to see that image used in main infobox and the one used for outer ear replaced by the labelled one on the auricle page. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. -- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler thanks very much for your thorough review, I will try to respond point by point below and appreciate the effort you've put into it. Unfortunately I can only really do this justice by starting in a few days time, but rest assured I will be on the case. Sorry about this! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all. There's no rush. It took me a long time just to get through my first review. I look forward to seeing your updates as time allows. (I see that you've begun already!) Saskoiler (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


### Items to Address
The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.
External links

See also

Ear vs Human Ear

Lead

Prose

General

Lead

Structure

Structure - Outer Ear

Structure - Middle ear

Structure - Inner ear

Structure - Blood supply

Question.

Function - Hearing

Development

Clinical significance - Deafness - Congenital abnormalities

Clinical significance - Injury - Outer ear

Society and culture

Other animals

Citation errors
Somewhere along the way since this review began, two citation errors got introduced: #17 and #20.
 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you to get this promoted :). Thanks for taking up this review! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I took the liberty to make a number of copyediting updates when I was fairly confident. Don't hesitate to revert one or more of my changes if I've botched things. -- Saskoiler (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've grouped together issues that I feel are addressed and collapsed them so I can keep track of what I need to do. Please move bits out if you want to continue discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the collapsing effect. Please continue to use it for sections which you feel have been addressed. I've glanced at a few of your changes, and it looks good so far.  Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your thorough review, Saskoiler. I feel I have addressed your concerns, including the ones which have crept in :). Awaiting your reply, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You've made some great improvements throughout the article. I was able to check and confirm many sections this evening. I've got a couple more to go, and I need to give a final read to cover the various new sections (or significantly reworked/expanded sections). Due to prior commitments, it may take me a couple of days to get back to it. Saskoiler (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry, I'm happy to take a few days off too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I've now confirmed all sections. I performed a series of copyedits on my final read. I also removed one image (the Vacanti mouse) because my understanding is that the fair use claims are contingent on the image only being used on its own article. It's a good image, but a reader can easily click on the wikilink to find that article if desired. Saskoiler (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hurray! Many thanks for your thorough and systematic review, Saskoiler. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304145249/http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/basal-cell-carcinoma/the-ears-a-high-risk-area-for-skin-cancer to http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/basal-cell-carcinoma/the-ears-a-high-risk-area-for-skin-cancer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930063158/http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Hearing_-_Inner_Ear_Development to http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Hearing_-_Inner_Ear_Development
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Add the following video in the introductory section:

 Lauramanella (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Due to the positioning of an image on the 'Society and culture' section of this article, the text has been misaligned. I feel that this is a problem as it spoils the consistency of the article regarding text alignment in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ototmisis (earcut), pronunciation: /ɔːˈtɒ.tmi.sis/

Hello @UpdateNerd -- I saw you reverted my removal of the images of Fred Trump and Adolf Hitler in this article.  Could you please explain why these images belong in the article?  I see no reference to either of those people in the article, and I do not understand the comparison being made between the two images.  Thank you. Cloud atlas (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Uniqueness section cites a study under the ref "Ears as effective as DNA in identifying people", which notes that "the probability of two individuals having the same type of ear was 0.007." (That's 7 in 1000 or 1 in 142.) An expert quoted by the ref says, "the accuracy of uniqueness is very high. Ears are very unique for each person". This image is an example of two individuals with nearly matching ears despite the low odds. If you can find other famous examples with then I'd support a replacement, but it's hard to think of people that have been so well-covered photographically to produce clear profile shots. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, @UpdateNerd.  I think that what is problematic about the comparison is that it is essentially original research, and therefore a violation of WP:NOR.  You have not included a reliable source that explicitly points out a similarity between the ears of Fred Trump and Adolf Hitler, and therefore, I think that the assertion of them being similar is based on your own assessment of their ears, which is original research on your part (the research being a comparison of people with similar ears).  Do you see what I mean?
And by putting this comparison together of these people, Adolf Hitler and Fred Trump, I think it insinuates a connection or similarity between the two that is politically meaningful, when the content of the article is not about politics at all. Cloud atlas (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree. Whatever your opinion of these two birds-of-a-feather, the ear comparison is OR and serves no encyclopedic purpose in this article. Ewulp (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@UpdateNerd -- having not heard from you in a couple days, I removed the photos again on grounds that they are original research.  Please let me know if you want to discuss further, and if so, we may have to get the opinions of other editors. Cloud atlas (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the 'Inner ear' subsection of the 'Structure' section says "The inner ear structurally begins at the oval window, which receives vibrations from the incus of the middle ear." However, by my understanding it is the stapes, not the incus, which pushes on the oval window. PeterOut101 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)