Talk:Working Class Hero

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles Mid‑importance This John Lennon-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion. To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one? inactive .Green DayWikipedia:WikiProject Green DayTemplate:WikiProject Green DayGreen Day articles

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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