Talk:Human (The Killers song)

Charts

"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)

Lyric reference

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

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)

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)

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)

More Lyric Possibilities

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

Singular and plural

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)

I guess you'll have to ask Brandon about that one. --JD554 (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Good one. E.G. (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Charts also

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)

Nope: http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=34111 .—Kww(talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Music Video

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)

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)

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)

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)