Talk:Human (The Killers song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charts[edit]

"Human" become a number-one song on the israeli single chart this week. source: http://www.charts.co.il/charts.asp?id=12 --Albuman (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric reference[edit]

At the end of the song, the lyrics drift into a sampling of lyrics from the song "Dancing Horses" by 80s alternative band Echo & The Bunnymen. Also dancers would make sense as it ryhmes with "answer" which is 2lines after "are we human or are we dancer"


Lyric confusion[edit]

I've read in a german translation of the lyrics a new way to look at the line "Are we human or are we dancer?": They claim that dancer ist meant as marionette. That would make sense with 2 other lines: "Cut the cord" and "... I'm on my knees ...": Because if you cut the cord of a (dancing) marionette it falls to its knees. Furthermore: A marionette has vital signs (like dancing) but cold hands. Maybe it's a jibe at the music industry ...

--Eddie2 (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it's a jab at the type of human beings many have become? "Vital" as in actions are being taken, but "hands are cold" as in those actions are only about appearance and not substance. Papillonone (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is great and very interesting, but remember that it should not affect the article itself unless there is a strong source - say, if Brandon Flowers comes clean about it one day, or if someone else in the band suggests something, or if a critic like Robert Christgau takes a stab. 98.232.58.2 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first contribution to a discussion on Wikipedia, so take it easy on me! I agree with the comment directly above that the discussion is great and very interesting. However the addition of paragraphs relating to theories circulating in The Netherlands, while plausible and interesting, don't add much substance to the article, in my opinion. Can they be 'firmed up' with references etc.?--Homer2 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dune reference?[edit]

Maybe it's "Are we Human or (Face) Dancer?" As in the shapechanging Face Dancers from Frank Herbert's Dune series, engineered beings used to assassinate humans and steal their identities for nefarious purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.55.163 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love Dune, I would say probably not a reference, though I could be wrongJulio144 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Lyric Possibilities[edit]

The words "My Sign is Vital" in the Killers 'Áre We Human' recalled something that eluded discovery for a while. Upon further reflection the Rush song 'Vital Signs' was reviewed and it was noted that it too has a message that is quite timely and important, or rather- vital. It was also noticed that this Rush song shares areas of grammatical incorrectness with the Killers song. One of the Rush phrases is: 'Everybody got to elevate from the norm. Coincidence or connection?--79.179.111.78 (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)TJ[reply]

I would like to remind you that this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion. -download ׀ sign! 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singular and plural[edit]

The article clearly describes the meaning behind the line "Are we human, or are we dancer?" but why is the line "...are we dancer?" and not "...are we dancers?" How can "we" (a collective) be a "dancer" (one)? E.G. (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'll have to ask Brandon about that one. --JD554 (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. E.G. (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the song isn't about 'Dancers' as in people who dance! Dancer refers to a state of mind which comes from a quote which they heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.97.244 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to their homepage (which there is a link to from this article). There it says Hunter S. Thompson had said something about how "America was raising a generation of dancers". N.b. dancers, not dancer. So I still don't understand. :-/ E.G. (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the grammatical conflicts can also be explained via "poetic license." Papillonone (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better via "shite" :) Nuttyskin (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can come away with everything by refering to poetic license of course! :-) E.G. (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel there is any discrepancy by the conjugation as far as singular/plural goes. The lyric could have been "Are we humans... Or are we dancers?" but this leaves out a sense of unity and/or community between the listener and the singer. I recognize this is more discussion on the song and not the article, but since it was brought up, I thought I would throw that in. "Dancer" is consistent with the use of "human," even if that isn't the same way the two would be commonly used. 70.21.123.214 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I thought "human" was an adjective in this case (like in "human beings"), not a noun. "Dancer", however, must be a noun, or else it would have been "dancing". E.G. (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Dancing" isn't an adjective either. Ketone16 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I think you are missing my point... E.G. (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dancing" actually can be an adjective (technically, a present participle), as in "dancing bears." Also, it is important to distinguish between "human" as a noun and "human" as an adjective. In other words, you can be "a human" or you can be "human". If I ask you, "Are you human?", it implies that being "human" is somehow more significant than being "a human." You would answer "yes", but then the question could be asked, "what does it mean to be human?" So, it is "human" as a description of identity. If I ask "are you a human", you would simply say "yes", and that would suffice. It would be a scientific, not a philosophical question.

In essence, being "human" is not simply a label, not simply a species. It is a state of existence, and it implies far more than just being a living creature. For example, atrocities committed by actual humans are sometimes described as "not human" or "inhuman" because we have standards for what it means to be "human". But any single human could commit such atrocities and be considered "not human" because he or she is not acting in accordance with what it means to be human.

Likewise, it seems that the songwriter might be implying that "dancer" is a state of mind that has certain standards as well. By saying "dancer", the link between the individual and the way the individual is choosing to be identified is much stronger than simply being "a dancer" or any ol' dancer. By saying "I am a dancer", I simply indicate what I do. By saying "I am dancer", I mean that I inhabit some sort of existence that is defined by the essence, the energy of dancing. Perhaps by being "dancer", one becomes more in tune with the rhythms of the world around him or her. So, what may seem to be a simple grammatical mistake may have been a very careful rhetorical (meaning "for a specific purpose") choice indicating a plane of existence that is not just "human", but "dancer" as well.

I'm sure a linguist could offer a more scientific explanation of how the word "dancer" is being used in a non-traditional way. User:godummydotshutup —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If 'dancer' is simply a non-traditional adjective then the statement about poor grammar in the article should be changed to 'perceived poor grammar' 121.79.27.14 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrically it's just cleaner, more elegant. Instead of saying "humans/dancers", he chose to say "human/dancer" thus removing the extrenuous s's (which wouldn't have added any meaning, but wouldn't have sounded as good) Beyond that, the song is in fact a "dance" song ;) He didn't want the lyrics to be interpreted literally, because that would be an easy way to dismiss the deeper meaning. ("are we... dancers" is more prone to literal interpretation, than "are we... dancer") "dancer" is being used as a metaphor, as others have said, referencing a marionette. But then, when you do take the song literally, then basically the lyrics are saying "are you going to dance or not?" So in that sense it's telling you to dance to the song ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.189.7 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plural Collective Noun: Dancer[edit]

If you consider the parallel construction in his question--“Are we human or are we dancer?"--, dancer is obviously a plural collective noun, just as human is. —Preceding F. Macias comment added by 140.147.236.194 (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charts also[edit]

Hi there. "Human" became a number one song in the UK also, not a number 3 song. As far as i'm aware it's been their only number one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.97.244 (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=34111 .—Kww(talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes it did. I live in the UK and listen to the charts everyweek, it became a number one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.97.244 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I heard it on the radio" isn't a source. The link I provided is a reliable archive of British charts. Please don't modify the article again without providing a legitimate source.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone else who live in the UK, I can assure you that you are wrong. It definitely only reached number 3. Another reliable source which backs this up is Everyhit.com (enter "Human" in "title of song" to search). --JD554 (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video[edit]

To the user who undid the (correctly added) link to the official video - don't go randomly reverting edits without paying a little attention. The link was to the official video, posted by Universal Music Group. That it "isn't released in all countries" is not even something that matters in this context (although if you DO somehow know the countries it was released in, or that it specifically wasn't released in, it would seem more appropriate for you to add that information, correctly sourced of course).

I apologize if you were offended by my "Mr. Reference Needed" comment, but the appropriate behavior is not to essentially vandalize the article. It took me 10 seconds to track down the verifiably official video - it seems like someone who cared about Wikipedia would be at least making a rudimentary attempt to do the same. 98.232.58.2 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed your revert, [1], please refrain from making accusations of vandalism. I think we can both agree that this clearly was not vandalism.
I reverted[2] your edit as I had no way of knowing what it was about of even if it was remotely related to the music video in question, (as per my edit summary).
I think in future you need to be a bit more tactful in your comments/edit summaries, sarcasm, humor and so forth is not usually easy to pull off in edit summaries. FFMG (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The video appears to be available only to people that YouTube believes are in certain countries. This fact does matter, because ==External links== that are not available to a substantial number of readers -- say, anyone outside North America -- are not acceptable under WP:ELNO #7. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, Your interpretation of WP:ELNO #7 is very loose - it CLEARLY does not say that a link must be available in all countries - it warns against something, for example, only available in one specific country.
And FFMG, my comment was meant as criticism, not humor - I've looked at your history and you seem to be a bit revert-happy when a more appropriate tack would be to improve the article. I suggest you rethink your strategy here.
It seems that some would rather play editing games and run in circles defending themselves than improve a Wikipedia article (and you know what? if it isn't vandalism, it's damn close). You win, it's not worth my time. Have fun on your little playground. 98.232.58.2 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less if you looked at my history or not, and I care even less what you think of my editing patterns.
You added a reference that could not be checked, it could have been anything but a video of the Killers. Removing a reference that cannot be verified is far from vandalism.
I don't know what I won, or what my playground is supposed to be, but I also don't care. What I do care about is that the video has been verified and apparently it fits the article, (although it is a bit silly to have a video reference that only a very limited number of visitors can actually look at). FFMG (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzche and original research[edit]

The Nietzche interpretation on the lyrics is an enlightening read, but IMO, as it's an uncited interpretation/analysis, it's original research, so I flagged it as such. Entitled (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for one thing it is original research. Plus, when has Wikipedia been a place for extensive analysis anyway? I mean, I know whoever wrote it probably worked hard on it but it should go.ShokuMasterLord (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XFM's greatest songs of all time[edit]

I've altered the claim that this song was voted number 77 in XFM's "100 Greatest Songs of All Time": the original URL was a spamlink, promoting the book but not quoting it online, and therefore is not a valid source; the list is actually about the top thousand, not top hundred, songs: and according to the current website, the song is #97, not #77 ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To cheer us up[edit]

This link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAFGE72zz3g almost certainly doesn't belong in the article. But it's pretty upbeat, so I've added it here for you all to enjoy. Shannock9 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human (The Killers song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human (The Killers song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human (The Killers song). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human (The Killers song). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_(The_Killers_song)&oldid=1202838005"