Talk:The Hum

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Hysteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of the Hum-phenomenon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HAARP 

message: ===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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Third Opinion:  New Zealand reports of recording 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Case

message: 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)
replies: text: A month on, nothing of value was moved out, so I removed it. Good call. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Commented out History section 

message: @.  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)
thread_title:  SOAEs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Skews.Me's experiences with The Hum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There is no contradiction, merely a fact you do not like. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Enclosure of fish and industrial devices are violating the current definition of the Hum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Frosch 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure, unsigned, feel free to post relevant sources here, maybe with a small description. Cheers. Wakari07 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of the Windsor (Ontario) hum?   

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The Hum" in Tennessee 

message: === Transcript of Question Period - Période des Questions at the House of Commons of Canada on December 8, 2017 ===
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/question-period/episodes/90009435  updated link:http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/question-period/episodes/55513022 (updated link) Wakari07 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the FM says "kith"? Wakari07 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Windsor Hum in the [[Parliament of Canada]] 

message: http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/question-period/episodes/90009435  updated link:http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/question-period/episodes/55513022 (updated link) Wakari07 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the FM says "kith"? Wakari07 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript of Question Period - Période des Questions at the [[House of Commons of Canada]] on December 8, 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  recent  article 

message: 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 
* planetary i.e. global vibrations, not local
* mHz, not Hz range. Are mHz vibrations even human perceptible? Probably not as sound.
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)
replies: text: So I don't agree to 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)
thread_title: section "Science"

message: “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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This entire thing is ludicrous. I love it. – AndyFielding (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2019 Guardian article 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Also in Brooklyn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Oslofjord Hum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tampa Bay