Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 April 22

= April 22 =

Misunderstood songs played in inappropriate situations
Just thinking about this tonight too. I can think of some examples when it's happened. Maybe people only heard the chorus or looked at the song title or something and turned off their brains.
 * Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" played as a patriotic song by politicos at rallies, multiple times.
 * Green Day's "Good Riddance" played at funerals (have personally been there when it happened).
 * The Police's "Every Breath You Take" or "Don't Stand So Close To Me" played at a wedding as the first song (have personally been there when it happened).
 * Boomtown Rats' "I Don't Like Mondays" played by some naff DJ in a bar as a song about not liking Mondays and not wanting to go to work or school the next day (have personally been there when it happened).
 * Iggy Pop's "Lust For Life" played on an advert for over-50s package holidays.
 * Nazi bands covering "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" and not realizing it was satire from two Jewish writers.

Any of you folks got any other good examples of this sort of thing? --146.200.128.101 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Leonard Cohens Hallelujah played in a religious setting. -- Cimon Avaro&#59; on a pogostick. (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that the Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want" - a song about scoring drugs (heroin?) has been played by politicians as a campaign song too. When they're doing the "I know you don't like me, but I know you're pissed off with the other guy" thing. --146.200.128.101 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Horse With No Name" and heroin. One of my friends used to partake (long time ago, stopped now, partially because I kept on at him to knock it off) and related to that song. Apparently the writers of it were annoyed that a lot of people did that. --Iloveparrots (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't recall the context precisely, but I watched something or other about drugs that used U2's cover of Patti Smith's "Dancing Barefoot", apparently because one verse ends with the word heroine. —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the song A Horse with No Name was banned by some U.S. radio stations, in Kansas City and elsewhere, because of supposed drug references to heroin use. But there is no evidence that the songwriter Dewey Bunnell intended any connection. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Amerika by Rammstein, which is a criticism of US cultural imperialism. ❖hugarheimur 07:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the appropriateness, but Monty Python's Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life has become the most popular tune to play at a UK funeral (report from 2014). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * David Bowie's "Fashion" played at the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics, as fashion models strutted. Not sure it was "misunderstood", since lyrics such as "We are the goon squad, and we're coming to town" were intentionally omitted.  Also, the Clash's "London Calling" was played in one of the James Bond movies as Bond's airline flight landed in London... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Disney film The Tigger Movie made prominent use of the song "Semi-Charmed Life" by Third Eye Blind. The song is blatantly about drugs and casual sex. Lyrics like "Doing crystal meth will lift you up until you break" and "She comes round and she goes down on me" and "Those little red panties they pass the test/Slid up around the belly, face down on the mattress" are not exactly lyrics for the pre-teen crowd... But it does have a little cheery "doo-doo-doo" part that gets stuck in everyone's head...-- Jayron 32 12:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As you already noted, Iggy Pop's song "Lust for Life" was used in several inappropriate places, including in an ad campaign for Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. It's Iggy's love-letter to heroin.  The lyrics have such gems as "Here comes Johnny Yen again/with the liquor and drugs" and "Of course, I've had it in my ear before" and "Your skin starts itching once you buy the gimmick"  Johnny Yen is a character from William S. Burroughs's Nova trilogy based on a real-life heroin dealer named "Gypsy Johnny" who supplied heroin to the Laurel Canyon crowd in LA.  Again, it's got a catchy chorus, so everyone ignores the obvious meaning of the lyrics.  -- Jayron 32 12:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For a long time I assumed "I've had it in the ear before" was a boast about an unconventional sexual experience. Card Zero  (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunate Son by CCR used at political rallies and on TV commercials for Fourth of July sales. --Amble (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I once heard notorious heroin song Another Girl, Another Planet in a TV ad for something. I remember chuckling at the time. Iloveparrots (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While the song has often been interpreted to be about heroin, songwriter Peter Perrett explained: I put in drug-related imagery, but it wasn’t about drugs. At that time I was more addicted to sex and infatuation than I was to drugs. (From your source.) It's really very hard to be sure what a songwriter had in mind unless they tell us. Card Zero  (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I didn't read that far down. Seems like he said that fairly recently. That song was always cited as a blatant heroin song written by a well-known, long-time heroin user. Iloveparrots (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not quite on point, but it was reported that a Democratic National Convention or similar event filled some slack time with Billy Joel's "Captain Jack", with the uplifting lines "Your sister's out, she's got a date, so you just sit at home and masturbate." —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall a DJ on BBC Radio One playing the 1976 "Disco Inferno" by The Trammps directly after a news report about a fatal house fire. I'm sure there have been more sinister incidents. Here's a similar situation Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Roof Is on Fire? Iloveparrots (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is often a "Is it or isn't it?" discussion Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds .  In contrast, a radio presenter's innocent timecheck late on 24 April 1974 Falta cinco minutos às vinte e três introducing Portugal's Eurovision entry E depois do adeus, followed shortly thereafter over on the Catholic radio station Radio Renascença by the airing of the protest song Grândola, Vila Morena  led to a regime change. 2A00:23A8:948:D900:3C90:127F:3E0B:6E20 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tom Binns (aka "Hospital Radio DJ Ivan Brackenbury") has made most of his act out of doing this. Card Zero  (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My favourite one of these is I Want You (Elvis Costello song). A highlight from its article: Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AllMusic described it as "[among] the nastiest songs he has ever recorded, both lyrically and musically". Of course, because of the title, people play it at weddings. Says Costello: "I humbly bow my head, and can only wish those people a safe journey." -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a sort of opposite example where a properly understood song was played in an appropriate situation, but was then misunderstood because the song had been misunderstood. I recall many years ago on Malaysian radio someone called in (or maybe wrote in but called seems more likely) to say they'd dedicated the song Said I Loved You...But I Lied to their boyfriend or girlfriend, I assume on the same radio station. Their boyfriend or girlfriend was unhappy with that because they misunderstood the dedication. The hosts correctly pointed out as the lyrics make clear that the song is not saying the singer doesn't love whoever he's referring to but rather talks about something stronger than love. I wasn't aware they were right at the time, I was young and don't pay that close attention to lyrics (although did always feel Every Breath You Take sounded more creepy than a love song). I don't know if I ever noticed the rest at some stage but if I did, I didn't notice enough and it was only when researching this I realised they were definitely right. While the title and another part of the chorus "Said I loved you but I was wrong" may make it an odd choice for a dedication to a romantic partner, if you listen to the next next line of each of these "'Cause this is more than love I feel inside" and "'Cause love could never ever feel so strong", it's clear it's supposed to be referring to something that's stronger than love. The lyrics outside the chorus likewise. Note that would likely have been not long after the song was released, so looking on the internet for the lyrics wasn't a thing for most people. For jokers, although it's a long time ago, I'm fairly sure it was indeed a complaint because the song was misunderstood and not "You dedicated a Michael Bolton song to me? Ew!" nor "Yo, we only went on one date. Talking about love let alone something stronger than love seems a bit premature..." nor a philosophical "there's no such thing as something greater than love.....". Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * At some point somebody ought to mention intentional fallacy, so I will. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It's better to keep things simple Dreadlock Holiday . 92.31.139.67 (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Mercenaries and the Geneva Convention
This has happened a few times now during the Russia/Ukraine war. People from neither country who went over to fight on their own volition, captured and accused of being mercenaries/enemy combatants.

As far as I'm aware, anyone captured as a mercenary has no protection under the Geneva Convention. They could shoot you, or send you to the salt mines to be worked to death and your own country would be all "sorry son, can't get involved, you're on your own". Is that correct, as per my understanding? If you sign up to fight in someone else's war, you sign up knowing that any consequences of your actions are on your own head? --Iloveparrots (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The International Committee of the Red Cross's customary international humanitarian law database has write ups for rules and practice concerning mercenaries. If we take this as "lawful" behavior then no, lawfully nationality on its own does not define one as a mercenary and even if a person meets the requirements of being a mercenary other protections yet apply. Whether "they could shoot you" and whether your own country could do anything about it are other questions where "lawful" may not come into play. fiveby(zero) 02:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Foreign volunteers in Ukraine would probably fail the test of being "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain" and are therefore not mercenaries in the strict legal definition. However, legality seems not to be a primary consideration of the Russian Federation. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For Russia specifically, they have ratified Protocol I with Article 47's definition. This would leave the fundamental guarantees of Article 75 to all persons including mercenaries. However, Putin revoked the Article 90 statement accepting the competence of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. They are not a party to the United Nations Mercenary Convention. Russian grave breaches and their willingness to continue their commission aside, could a Russian ever be held accountable for wrongfully designating someone a mercenary outside of Russia? "Just shooting" someone would be a war crime regardless, but say Russia were to deny POW status for some nationalities and not notify when they were taken. I don't think this is a "grave breach" where universal jurisdiction would apply. fiveby(zero) 19:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to read our article on Unlawful combatants. While additional considerations may apply to mercenaries, it summarises some of the general issues. As noted there, the opinion of a numerous of human rights organisations is that someone is either a (lawful) combatant and as such entitled to prisoner of war, or a civilian. Either way, they are entitled to protection both under the Geneva conventions and other parts of international law like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If a civilian engages in unlawful acts they could potentially be prosecuted for such. So someone who isn't a (lawful) combatant who attacks soldiers or equipment engages in hostilities could potentially be charged for it (unlike a combatant who normally  if they followed the laws of war generally can't). And the death penalty is not currently forbidden under international law. However working someone to death on the salt mines, that one I have strong doubts. As others have said, Russia doesn't seem particularly concerned with lawfulness during their invasion, although I'd note one of the key reasons why we have a decent article on unlawful combatants with a lot of sources is for a time the US appeared to think unlawful combatants operated under some "no mans land" of international law and could be denied basic human rights. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Corrected a minor error and added a clarification in my above. Anyway I just wanted to a note that while the death penalty may be allowed under current international law, this is generally following some form of acceptable trial etc. Our article on summary executions suggest it may be lawful to carry out such on unlawful combatants but I'm not convinced this is as widely accepted as it suggests. While researching this I came across [//www.pegc.us/archive/Journals/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf] which interesting enough, suggests in ~1949, the USSR was one of the ones pushing for a person to either be treated as a prisoner of war or a civilian. That opinion/analysis may be an interesting but long read. Although the focus is on other things, it does seem to be one of those who concludes those who don't meet the nationality criterion and other things to be protected under GC(IV) would be protected under article 75 of Protocol I. As fiveby(zero) said, Russia still accepts article 75 although I'd note even if Russian had not ratified or had tried to withdraw from the entirety of protocol I, there are those [//iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Mancini-REV.pdf] who believe it's now part of customary international law and therefore not something anyone can reject. BTW, the analysis I linked does talk about the right of communication a fair amount. While it can be denied, it seems clear from what it says this is intended to be only in cases where there's reasonable grounds to think the person may use the communication to give away information of military value. Again it doesn't have that much focus on the specifics of someone who's a citizen of a nominally neutral party (as I guess the OP is thinking of) who likely still has some sort of diplomatic relations with Russia.  I'd note again that other aspects of international law may come into play. I tried to find but couldn't, some discussion of how war affects article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which as our article says generally requires that consular officers have a right to visit their nationals who have been detained.  I would again emphasise Fiveby(zero)'s and my point that in many ways the lawfulness even under international law is often of limited relevance if the country involved doesn't care. Especially when they're very powerful and have a seat on the security council. We can look outside Russia to see examples, in relation to the Vienna convention in the LaGrand case, Avena case and Medellín v. Texas, the US basically ignored the ICJ even though at the time they'd theoretically accepted its jurisdiction. While there is a recognised Responsibility to protect, unilateral military action like under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter is controversial and even for those who support it, most IMO won't do so just because some citizens were detained as mercenaries and denied communication. And most Western countries are already imposing considerabl economic sanctions.  Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The unfortunate thing about article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations from the American point of view is that the U.S. government signed and ratified the treaty, but in most cases it's individual state governments which have the responsibility to implement it, and the federal government can't simply issue orders to the states about things which are a primary state responsibility. AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine related some questions
Greetings

While assisting review of an interesting DYK regarding Lancelot Lawton 1935 speech of about Ukrainian nationalism @ House of Commons UK. have been informed of this online link (Which seems unofficial) to his speech. On back drop of present Russian invasion of Ukraine the speech seems a good read. Following questions came to my mind.


 * a) Though there is not much to doubt speech at the shared link still Whether any link to official or authorized source can be available to the said speech at House of Commons UK.
 * b) Lancelot Lawton seem to speak regarding racial difference between hinting Ukrainian race being more close to westerners and Russian being a Slavic stalk mixed with mongoloids.
 * b1) Is it only Lancelot Lawton only speaking of this or Ukrainian and  Russian  harbor such racial feelings.
 * b2) Anyways by now human genetic studies have progressed meanwhile, is there any such differentiation exists between Ukrainian and  Russian supported by genetics to any extent as claimed by Lancelot Lawton?
 * c) May be my impression is wrong but, what impression I am getting is Ottoman time Crimean Khanate used to attack Circassia the most then the Moscow but targeting Ukraine lesser though Ukraine was in more proximity. Why Crimean Khanate campaigns were focused more towards Circassia and Moscow than Ukraine

Thanks

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As to question (a), the speech was published in 1935 under the title The Ukrainian Question and Its Importance to Great Britain: Address Given by Mr. Lancelot Lawton in a Committee Room of the House of Commons on May 29, 1935 by the Anglo-Ukrainian Committee. The Anglo-Ukrainian Committee had been formed in London that year to promote the cause of Ukrainian independence, and Lawton was one of its members. (If Google Books is right, the booklet has been reprinted in 1993, but this may be one of the many errors in Google Books' database. Unlike what is suggested, The Serjeants Press, Ltd., was based in London, and as far as I could figure out no longer operative in 1993. A copy may be available at cost through Amazon.) --Lambiam 07:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Lawton's speech was not an address to the House of Commons. It was a talk delivered in a room of the House of Commons, and had as such no official status. --Lambiam 10:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * On question b) race is primarily a social construct, not a genetic one. It is more closely related to terms like "ethnicity" and "culture" and "people group" than to genetic classifications.  The term is imprecise, and how someone like Lawton may be using it here is entirely unrelated to how people in other cultures, such as the U.S., or Brazil, or other places, may use the term.  One thing to note, is that the use of the term "mongoloid" should set off red flags regarding these matters; it is terminology associated with a widely discredited racial theory.  See Göttingen school of history and Scientific racism.  It started with the bullshit notion that White People (Caucasians (their term) were the pinnacle of human evolution, and that you could then divide the rest of the world into two lesser races, "Negroid" covering dark skinned people (mostly black Africans and indigenous Australians) and "Mongoloid" peoples (basically Asians and Native Americans).  They recognized races could mix, but only in the pejorative sense that races mixed into Caucasians diluted its purity... It is probably broadly true that, on average, Ukrainian people have more genetically in common with people immediately to their west (Say, Hungarians and Poles and Solvaks and the like) than do, say, people from Russia proper (Moscow), but that is only because on average, people tend to mate with people near them.  But that's not what Lawton is going on about.  He's basically saying that Ukrainians are more white, and thus more worth defending, than Russians, because Russians live closer to Asia, and thus are likely more "Mongoloid".  It's racist bullshit.  -- Jayron 32 11:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This passage from the speech is also blatantly racialist and anti-miscegenation: "To the North and East there was nothing but forest and swamp inhabited by degenerate Mongol-Finnish tribes with whom the migrants of the first-mentioned stream freely inter-married. From their fusion the Russian and Great Russian stock emerged, typically Eurasian both in appearance and mentality." --Lambiam 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * " .. by degenerate .. typically Eurasian both in appearance and mentality .. " this wording very much tilts towards racism but that is UK. I asked about racism among Ukraine also because recent news reports of students experience of racism from 3 global  Africa middle east and South Asia; I had not searched or gone through articles Racism in Ukraine and Racism in Russia while raising this discussion.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

WWI - Americans in the Canadian military
In World War I, were there Americans in the Canadian armed forces before the United States' entry in 1917? 86.131.21.36 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not mentioned in our Canadian Expeditionary Force article, a job for somebody. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the 97th Battalion (American Legion), CEF, which unfortunately fails to make explicit where the recruits originated from.
 * Also 212th Battalion (American Legion), CEF and 237th Battalion (American Legion), CEF. I have added them to the American Legion (disambiguation) page. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The document I link above is a Masters thesis, so probably wouldn't qualify as WP:RS for our articles itself, but it has an extensive bibliography, and anyone interested in working on the topic should be able to find further sources there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a brief paragraph at Canadian Expeditionary Force, but feel free to chip in if you find anything better. Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Were they only the ones that went to Canada to enlist to fight in the war early? And were there hundreds or thousands of them? 86.131.21.36 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The most detailed figures available to us are in the thesis linked by Andy in the first reply above. This gives a total of 41,078 Americans (of a total Canadian Expeditionary Force of 628,954) of whom 19,966 actually served on the Western Front. Unfortunately, we can't use this in our article because of Wikipedia's rules on using published sources. Other Americans served in the French Foreign Legion and some Jewish Americans joined the British Army to help liberate Palestine from the Ottomans. Alansplodge (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)