Talk:52-hertz whale

A fact from 52-hertz whale appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 September 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 52-Hertz whale is known only by its unique sound (listen), the only one of its kind ever recorded, and has been called the loneliest whale in the world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/September.

Wikipedia

Unidentified sound?

I don't understand how the sound can be called "unidentified" if every source is calling it a whale, if the sound signature is that of a whale and if there is no reasonable doubt it is not a whale. The article title is about a whale. Can someone clarify why should this be listed/categorized a "unidentified"? This is not the bloop, which explanation is still speculative. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyclopia. Well, I have not seen any source so far which would identify this species with certainty. They all speculate that it is most likely a whale, but that is hardly a proof (until someone has seen it) nor an identification of the actual species. It's more like: It sounds like a bird. But what kind of bird? And if it is a bird, why does it roar?

Even if it would be known for sure that it's a whale, it is still unclear why the sound differs so much from that of other whales. Various good attempts to explain it have been brought forward, but no proof.

The category also holds a number of other sounds, for which likely explanations have been given (icebergs, machines etc.), but nobody has come forward with an actual proof. Until this happens, the actual origin of these sounds remains unidentified.

That's why I think, the "52 Hz whale" belongs into this category as well, at least for as long as we do not start to further distinguish between unknown sounds, unidentified sounds, unexplained sounds and unproven sounds (which I don't think is necessary). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between "I have no idea what this sound is, here is some plausible explanations but I can't assign it" and "This is a whale, even if I cannot pin point the species of whale which produces this sound with certainity". The former is a genuine unidentified sound, the second just lacks details but it is safely identified as whale. At least, that's what sources say. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the New Scientist source states: Its calls do not match those of any known species, although they are clearly those of a baleen whale, a group that includes blue, fin and humpback whales. (emphasis mine). All sources I can see are consistent on this. This is very well different from sounds like the Bloop, whose identity is disputed (living being? icebergs?) and as such is genuinely unidentified. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would at least like to keep the "See also" section with the link to List of unexplained sounds. It's a helpful addition for readers who want to explore other strange noises recorded by hydrophone arrays or whatever. Even though the 52-Hertz sound may not be totally unexplained, the list is a related topic that I think is appropriate for inclusion in the "See also" section (Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section). Braincricket (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary

The documentary section smells like spam to me. The sources are an anonymously added plot summary on IMDB and a blurb in a middle-market tabloid. Maybe I am just being paranoid. Braincricket (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.160.72 (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article omits an important second discovery of the 2021 documentary crew: that there are at least two sources of the 52-hertz song. This adds plausibility to the theory that it is made by blue whale/fin whale hybrids.

Lowest note on a Tuba

52 Hz is a G#1, which tubas go much lower than. Probably clearer and more accurate to call it G#1 or the lowest G# on a standard piano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.225.176 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed "just higher than the lowest note on a tuba" to "a little higher than the lowest note on a double bass", which, while a little clunky, is at least accurate. I removed the NYT reference for that line, since the inaccurate tuba assertion seems to have been the only thing carried over from that citation in that passage. Jason Fruit (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

longform BBC article that challenges some of the claims in this article

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150415-the-loneliest-whale-in-the-world

©Geni (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 52-hertz whale. 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/20150226002906/http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/listen-to-project-sounds/blue-whale to http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/listen-to-project-sounds/blue-whale

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) 03:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purposing renaming "In Art" section

"In Popular Culture" is more appropriate and would be more helpful because it would broaden the scope of information that can be included in this section. “In Art” can always be added as a subcategory of "In Popular Culture" at a later date if need be. – Down time (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections in the coming weeks I will move forward and make the change to the section. – Down time (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]