Talk:Working Class Hero

Please re-edit. This is overly Marxist and literal in tone. The song origin is more complex, Lennon was undergoing Primal Scream therapy and is by his own admission a deeply personal song. Also, the Beatles were popular but can not be classified by the 'Pop' genre.

Green Day cover section
I find very surprising that the section on the cover version by Green Day is larger than the section on the original song by Lennon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.227.179 (talk • contribs), 22:28, 18 November 2007

I find it frustrating that Green Day would have so much space on a song by John Lennon! There are plenty of covers of this song so why not give all of them just as much attention? I personally like the Green Day cover but I strongly disagree with the way their cover version overtakes the article of the original song. I tried to edit the article to the way it should be edited, with Green Day in the notable covers section but these editors will revert the changes so I quit doing the right thing. Let it be known that who ever does not sleep or work can revert any change, as biased a revert can be by a few die hard Green Day fanatics. Why not just call "Working Class Hero" a Green Day original? 75.43.170.245 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is not that much bigger, but the reasons are simple: the green day cover is fresh, there is more info about it, like the quotes, then there is also the talk about the event it was made for. Donny (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, with the revert of what should be. There is even a singles section of Green Day on a song written by John Lennon? WTF??? I see your point but please see mine. What makes the Green Day cover that much better than all other covers? They belong in the covers section, period. I will revert changes once a day to avoid an edit war, I can keep it up once a day. I play that song as well but because I am not famous, I could never be mentioned as a person who covers it. I am fine with that. What gets to me is how much the Green Day section is riding on the coat tails of such a well known, established song. People should not see Wikipedia as a promotional tool for their own interest by shadowing the work of another artist with content of an artist they like. If people look up Working Class Hero, they will see what notable artist have covered it. They should never see half an article on a cover unless it was completely revolutionary, such as "Knocking On Heavens Door", originally by Bob Dylan but in case point, Guns n Roses made completely their own. There is nothing revolutionary about Green Days rendition, just another cover that fails in comparison to the original.

75.38.111.47 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

January 22 2019 edit

 * This article is about a song and recording by John Lennon. It includes details of some of the many cover versions by other artists to reflect the popularity of the song and the different styles in which it has been covered.
 * Any references to a cover should reflect the above, and should not be disproportionately represented.
 * I have therefore reduced the Green Day entry to a size similar to other entries in the Covers section.
 * I also removed the infobox for the cover for the same reasons.
 * Again, the article is not about the cover by Green Day; in this article, the entry for the cover is notable only because it's one of a multitude of covers of the song. I took the liberty of adding brief details about a few other covers to reflect the variety of artists involved.
 * There is no reason for an infobox for the single release by Green Day of their cover because the article is not about it or Green Day. If an editor feels that it is necessary to include greater detail about the Green Day cover, then it should appear in a place specifically for for the band and/or the article for the album on which it was also released (for example, see the entry for Instant_Karma! and U2's cover of it on the same album).  Including such details here gives undue weight to what is essentially trivia in the article. PårWöet (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your edits. What makes that particular cover version more notable than the others is the charting and independent coverage it received. It's not a competition. Green Day's success does not diminish Lennon's. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If, as you say, the charting and independent coverage of the cover version makes it notable then, as I wrote before, include the information and infobox either as a separate article or put it on the article of the album on which it appears (Instant Karma) or the Green Day band itself. If it is notable because of the charting and independent coverage, then it is only because of its appearance on the Instant Karma album. Interestingly enough, its mention on the album's article at present is as one of several covers, and its mention on the band article is as a less informative and shorter paragraph than here.
 * As it now is, you might feel that Green Day's success does not diminish Lennon's. But the relative merit of whatever success either one enjoyed is not the point. The point is that the content in the article given to Green Day should be proportionate to the content and purpose of the article, namely the "song by John Lennon from his 1970 album John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band".  The entry and, especially, the infobox make the Green Day segment disproportionate.
 * You're right; this isn't a competition, but it is about getting the article to be about what it is supposed to be about. For that reason I will revert your reversion.  However, notwithstanding the issue around the Green Day cover, your reversion also removed details of some other covers that represent a greater variety of styles than those before, so my reversion will reinstate them.
 * Perhaps if you still consider your stance to be rightful, you'd put the matter up for arbitration. PårWöet (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment about Marx
I've removed a rather incongruous single-sentence paragraph comparing the sentiments of the "doped with religion" line, with Marx's "opiate of the masses". Aside from the stylistic problems of the paragraph, the disdain Lennon's line appears to carry for the "fucking peasants" is not necessarily similar to Marx's sentiment. Certainly the statement that it is could be seen a disputable, and an instance of Original research. Either way. I don't like it, and am removing it. It can be replaced, but I'd hold that it's a contentious statement. cmsg

uncited statement

 * It was controversial in that it was one of the first popular songs to include the word "fucking." In contrast to the usual censorship laws, the record label printed the word clearly.

This statement is accompanied by a "citation needed" tag. If I may chime in, in the lyrics booklet of my CD copy, the word is replaced with a "*." So, the part about the record label printing the world clearly is most likely false. If anyone can upload a scan of the original vinyl issue's lyric sheet as source that the word is printed clearly, as this article states, then the statement can be left in. If not, the erroneous information should be deleted. (Sugar Bear 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC))


 * I bought the vinyl record in 1971, a year after it was released. I still have it. The sleeve says "fucking". There's absolutely no question about this. The only thing questionable is what "one of the first means". The Jefferson Airplane song "We Can Be Together" from the 1969 album "Volunteers" includes the word "fuck", for example. (I could photograph the Lennon lyric with my Ipad, but I don't know how to upload it to Wikipedia. If you leave an e-mail address here, I'll send you a copy.) TheScotch (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement about Lennon being not from working class roots and the other Beatles being angry with the song because of this
This statement should not be here. It requires citation. Anything that you have to say, "Allegedly," unless the information is common knowledge, does not belong in an encyclopedia. So I deleted it. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.86.251 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for explaining. In the future, consider providing edit summaries to prevent your edits from being mistaken for vandalism. -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

middle-class - working class idea
About: "The irony of this song is that Lennon grew up in Woolton, which is one of the most afluent and middle-class areas of Liverpool."

I believe that the song is not really about "working class" in the classical meaning of the word. It is more about that the "middle-class" is an illusion, and that this is just the new form of a working class in the so called western world. So I do not know I that calling this "irony" is correct.


 * I'd agree with you there. The concept of the song is that lower classes are conned into working for the upper class due to the sense that they gain 'rise through the ranks' e.g. ", but you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see...there is room at the top, they are telling you still" - AlKing464 12:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it doesn't make sense to say that a neighborhood is "one of the most affluent" areas of Liverpool, and at the same time to describe it as "middle class." It can't be both.

But more importantly, there is no irony here in any case. John wasn't claiming to be a hero either from or to the working classes. He was talking about the place of the "working class" in the popular imagination.


 * All very well, guys, but I'm afraid your own opinions/interpretations don't beong in a Wikipedia article. For any of these arguments to remain in the article you must provide citations from reliable, published works to support them - see The Beatles article for a related example of sourcing. With all the work on John Lennon around, it shouldn't be too difficult to find but if that isn't provided then the interpretions will be deleted as time goes on. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Rose, the content that is currently in the article is no less opinion and interpretation than what some of us are suggesting. The article assumes a contentious (and rather idiotic) interpretation of the song when it claims that Lennon's affluent background is a source of irony. If you think that interpretations of the song need to be cited and sourced, why doesn't your rule apply to that interpretation? The article also suggests that perhaps Lennon saw himself as a hero to the working class rather than from it. That might be true (though I doubt it) but in any case, that interpretation is not sourced or cited either. Perhaps the whole issue of Lennon's social class should simply not be addressed in this article.

Additionally, it is not a "matter of interpretation" that describing a neighborhood as "one of the most affluent"areas of Liverpool is incompatible with calling it "middle class." That's a matter of logic, not interpretation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.24.43 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My anonymous friend, we may be in violent agreement - 'my' rule applies most particularly to the source of irony you mention, and to the third and fourth paras in general. The issue of "affluent" vs. "middle class" is secondary. However rather than removing those paras wholesale, I've tagged the article as unsourced, because it should be expanded and could well include info along similar lines, provided it can be attributed to reliable sources and is not simply the thoughts of a Wikipedia editor (see No original research). Cheers, Ian Rose 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like it noted that, if Liverpool at the time consisted primarily of the 'middle class', then it is entirely possible for some to be more wealthy than others, unless you suggest that everyone given a certain class label has exactly the same level of prosperity. That you mightn't describe them as affluent in the absolute does not prohibit them from being 'more affluent', much the same way that a short person can still be taller than another short person. Regardless, I think tagging the article as unsourced is appropriate. A little investigation has revealed that Lennon's interview with Red Mole contains relevant info - 124.168.174.235 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If Liverpool is a largely middle-class city, then it can make sense to describe some neighborhood within it as "one of the most affluent."  But without that sort of background information, to call the neighborhood "affluent" is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.11.160 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

You know; I did my teacher training placement in a primary school in the Wirrall and Liverpool is no more or less affluent than any other large northern English city: Liverpool is not and never was a predominently middle-class city though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangpangu (talk • contribs) 10:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved all the unsourced analyses from the article
"One might find irony..." "It could be argued... " "Allegedly ..." "One common interpretation is ..." --91.148.159.4 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One might find irony in the fact that Lennon grew up in Woolton, which is one of the most affluent and middle-class areas of Liverpool. However, it could be argued that Lennon is singing about being his status - that of being a hero to the working-class, rather than being a hero who is working class. Furthermore, Lennon's father Alfred "Freddie" Lennon was a merchant seaman, so in spite of John's relatively privileged upbringing, his roots were undoubtedly working-class.

Allegedly, many of the lyrics derive from his time during Primal Therapy and stem from his acceptance of life as opposed to the continual fight against it that society expects.

One other common interpretation of the lyrics is that of satire. He is saying in his lyrics that essentially no matter how hard you try to be what society wants which is a working class hero, it will never be good enough.

Fair use rationale for Image:JLPOBCover.jpg
Image:JLPOBCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationale for image and employment in this article added to Image:JLPOBCover.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Green day working class hero.jpg
Image:Green day working class hero.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Day's Music Video
there are several "raw clips" of the working class hero music video. what does that mean?--Greenday21 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

On the song
I added a brief description of the music (chords and production), as a start. Does anyone want to look at it and see if it can be improved? Dan engstrom (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It reads fine to me, however everything in Wikipedia needs to be sourced and cited. At the moment this info would be classed as original research because it comments on the style without citation from a reliable source. Even information that may appear perfectly obvious to those with the requisite knowledge needs citation, so please provide a source from a book or journal that backs up this info. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, have done now. Even though it would be cool to have original research credited to me on the subject of John Lennon :-), I got rid of the part that is useful but my interpretation and not really encyclopedia material.  Dan engstrom (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What a guy, not
According to the article Lennon said of the song "I just think its concept is revolutionary. I hope it's for workers and not for tarts and fags.".

What a lovely, homophobic and sexist thing to say........ Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 52 years ago mate. Different world. --Ef80 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)