text:
Talk:Antihero

Other examples in mind
My idea of an antihero is a bit different, especially when it comes to concrete examples. In my view an antihero is a main character that is lazy, selfish and hedonistic. It's someone with low moral values and no big ideals. He's to be distinguished from the
 * hero: high moral values, unselfish, brave
 * unlikely hero: hero from a lower social class
 * villain: enemy of a hero, thoroughly evil.

The examples I have in mind are mainly from the 19th Century:
 * Julien Sorel in The Red and the Black
 * Eugene Onegin
 * Pechorin in A Hero of Our Time
 * Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment
 * Anna Karenina
 * Arsene Lupin is an easily cited example, I may be able to find scholarly papers to back me up here. He is certainly an anti-hero in that he was created as a parody or foil to one to the popular hero of the day Sherlock Holmes. But besides that he's only really heroic when he meets someone worse, he steals, lies, and messes with people just because he well feels like it.173.8.113.1 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. By this logic isn’t Ahab an antihero? Imaginejane12 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Botwin on Weeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:100:BB0:E0A5:ACE3:2A1E:9094 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed definition change
Since the definition already in use seems to be causing so much confusion and disagreement with it, found a definition I would like to add to the main article that I found in the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary (Bay Books and Oxford University Press (C) 1962 (1983 reprint)) I think it sums up what an anti hero is neatly, while allowing for flexability for the changing on conventions.

Hero of unconventional type in novel etc.

Why this definition?

One of the most common definition states, with minor variations depending on the source, that an anti hero is "a character with few, if any, traditional characteristics or values." That leaves the door open for villians and other non hero people to be included as antiheroes.

The other main type of definition I have come across is "A protagonist with few, if any, traditional characterists." This also leaves the door open for villians, and also means that it only refers to one person/ small group of people. That means you can't have an antihero working in the backgrounds as a mysterious figure. You can't have them popping up to help, hinder, and do what they want.

Others try to define why an antihero is different from other heroes, and limit them in that way, so the definition can't include the full range of antiheroes.

I am giving you one month before I add this to the article to present cases why you think it should not be added. Corrupt one 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Areas for clarification left open
I can see only two varibiles in this definition

The first is WHAT is a Hero. For that, I think it would be best to go to the Hero page

What is unconventional?

Does it depend on the culture, the age, the people who make them up, or what? Can an antihero become a conventional hero if that type of unconventional hero is adopted by culture and becomes a conventional type? Can the reverse occure when a culture changes and that type of hero is no longer conventional?

If anyone can find research to help clarify this for the article, I would appreciate it. Corrupt one 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree with the definition proposed by Corrupt one ("an unconventional hero") in favour of the previous one ("a fictional character who has some characteristics that are antithetical to those of the traditional hero"). One reason is that Corrupt one is proposing a definition of anti-hero that describes the class of character as a hero; it's important to clearly differentiate between the two concepts rather than simply state that an anti-hero is an unconventional hero, which is vague and misleading. It's better to state, as the older definition does, that a fictional character described as an anti-hero is more than just unconventional, and possesses traits antithetical to those of the traditional hero, not just ones that are unconventional. --TM 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that maybe it might be benefitial to combine the two definitions. I still have a problem with using the term hero in the lead since all the definitions I've checked (Penguin dictionary, M. H. Abrams' Glossary of Literary Terms and definitions from dictionary.com) refrain from using the term hero. (Most of those sources define an anti-hero as a main character or protagonist lacking heroic qualities.) Perhaps they could be combined into a lead like this: "An anti-hero has variably come to define an unconventional hero, a protagonist lacking heroic qualities or even one possessing traits antithetical to the traditional hero". This definition is broad enough to cover the range of definitions found elsewhere. --TM 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may work. Mention in the definition area something like "The term antihero has a varity of definitions, ranging from unconventional heroes, a protagonist lacking heroic qualities or even one possessing traits antithetical to the traditional hero."

This will allow for all the definitions to be looked at, while not excluding any. Since the definitions are listed latter on, they can see them more clearly. It will also allow for people to understand WHY there is debate over what is and is not an antihero.

The change you propose to make would sugest that it was all part of the one definition and might of caused confusion.

My intent was to provide what I say as the broadest possible definition while not including all chacters who were not heroes, or excluding all characters other then the protagonist. If the definition I put up does not work, then mention the wide range, by all means.

Hell, I'm no expert, I just have what I admite is my point of view. Just as long as you allow people to see what there is and think for themselves, go for it. Corrupt one 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just on a side thought, with all those definitions, who are NOT included, except conventioal heroes? Corrupt one 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say something. The definition here for anithero is definitely a confusing one. I know that you may feel like cultural differences may change the definition of the term "hero", "villian", "antihero", etc. but surely you know that the truth is independent of what other people believe. Therefore, we the general populance, already know what a hero is and from there can say that an antihero is a hero that fulfills his role as a hero using unethical means. Always open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism 147.70.153.95 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've gone through the article, mostly focusing on the first part in regards to definition. Cleaned that up so it's more presentable in the aspect of showing how the defintion has changed throughtout the years (which was previously mentioned in the beginning of the article).

Decided to remove the "examples" part at the bottom since it listed another 'specific' specific examples and the place to do that was in the body of the article. Am quite familiar with the example of Shinji Ikari and can validify such an example usage. However, Ikari's characteristics are better incorporated as a 'definition' rather than a specific example. Subject can be included in examples but with more detailed perspective.

This is just a cleanup and I have not yet removed the "clean up" notification implicated by Wiki, I leave this up to someone who can validify the actions done here. (Dave 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Hannibal Lecter
Surely Hannibal Lecter is the ultimate anti-hero? He is a 'hero' because he helps with a police investigation in a way only he can using his considerable powers of analysis etc that the police don't have. He also makes considerable self sacrifice in self-amputating one of his hands so he can be with Clarice. He is 'anti' because he eats people etc. I think this should be put in, by am unsure of how this should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.146.157.138 (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
 * This article isn't for listing anti-heroes, that purpose is served by List of fictional anti-heroes where Hannibal Lecter is already included. --TM 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree he is NOT a conventional hero. However, he was NUTS, and although that argues in his favor to BE an antihero, you must remember that his helping people was mainly to manipulate them to do what he wants, thus the hero part of being an antihero is HIGHLY debatable. Being a hero considers a persons deeds and intents. An antihero also looks at them. If he had no heroic intent or deed, then how can he be any type of hero? Corrupt one 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Caveat Lector
From the discussion, you seem to be acting as de facto senior editor for this article. You have centered the literature section around Batman (with a glaring error that he dates from late 20th century, early 21st). Judging from the date of your BA, I can fairly assume you discovered the Miller or post-Miller version of the character. If editor after editor is trying to include other examples or engaging you about the validity of Batman, there is a reason. I discovered Batman way before Miller came around. I also read the Bob Kane first stories. And there was never any question that this was a hero, not a anti-hero. It's true that I was not around in 1939 and cannot say how readers thought of Batman then, if they thought that was an anti-hero or not. However, considering he was on the tradition of earlier pulp characters like The Shadow and The Spider, I very much doubt they did. The most characteristic feature of Bob Kane's art that comes to my mind is the broad smile that he put on both Bruce Wayne and Batman face so the "brooding" description is rather limited. And it's not a question of author's intent. To the readers Batman was and has always been a hero. The preclusion of further examples has the disastrous result that Batman appears as a typical example yet few readers can agree with it and want to come up with Magneto, Anakin or Wolverine. I proposed Sub-Mariner because he's supposed to be the first one. He's also unsympathetic which, although it is not stated, may be a key characteristic that differentiates heroes from anti-heroes in people's minds. So considering this article has two tags for improvement and you only revert others people's edits per the recent history and you're very vocal on the discussion page about defending your reasons, I'd like you to cut short on the discussion, be bold and do what you think is necessary to improve it. --Leocomix 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not add the section mention of Batman. It was kept there by a consensus that I did not agree with, but let stand because it was the consensus.  I do not think that these examples should be in this article, and I do not think that adding examples improves the article at all.  When I found this article, it was a complete mess, and it's terrible twin sibling was up for deletion.  The article basically consisted of a long list of characters who random editors just 'thought' that they were anti-heroes (and thus, added them, including Achilles of all people, whose addition was justified on the basis that he doesn't meet the modern conception of a hero...you can see the problem with that, I imagine).  I cleaned up the article, tried to come to a good language, and even tried to source as much as I could.  I added the improvement templates to draw more attention to the article and to get editors who were interested in building a sourced, well written discussion of the anti-hero trope which was not merely a list of their favorite characters or of those who they thought were anti-heroes.  I felt you edit fell into both of these categories, so I reverted it.

 * And I did so not because I do not think that Namor is or is not an anti-hero. I don't know enough about him to know that.  This is actually precisely the reason why I took his name out:  his inclusion was unsourced.  You seem to know a lot about him, and you even claim to know a lot about the history of the anti-hero in comic books, where the trope is observiably present.  However, we cannot add these observations because they are original research.  Your opinion that Namor is an anti-hero does not matter.  I felt that Batman was an anti-hero, but I argued against his inclusion because I knew that this did not matter.  WE need sources.  So, since you know a lot about comic books, can you find a reliable source that deals with the tradition of the anti-hero in comics?  If you can, please do use that source and improve the article.  Until then, I have tagged the section that discusses comics with an 'unreferenced' tag. If it remains unreferenced for a long period of time, we'll have no choice but to take it out of the article, unfortunately. CaveatLectorTalk 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Adding a tag asking for a source is the correct thing to do. I have seen no consensus on Batman from the talk page. If we have to keep Batman which to me is a bad example of an anti-hero in the comic book tradition (there is a person in the talk page that expressed the same opinion), then I feel it is necessary to include more examples. I am not a fan of Sub-Mariner if that's your concern. It's just that as anti-heroes go in comic books, he's a famous and early example. As for the list, I agree, it should be deleted again. --Leocomix 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Develop a new term to replace Anti-Hero
It seems that the term "anti-hero" is pejorative and subjective - it presupposes that there is an "authority" who defines heroic, villainous and anti-heroic values, qualities and attributes.

I propose the following:

It is agreed that the Western Christian tradition is dualistic.

Furthermore, the this tradition divides Creation between the Spheres of Good and Evil. (Regardless of how culturally created these spheres are.)

That the Classical Hero exists in the Sphere of Good.

That the Classical Villain exists in the Sphere of Evil.

That the anti-hero exists on the shifting borderland between Good & Evil. (Otherwise known as Liminality.)

That the anti-hero is a Liminal Being.

Therefore I suggest that the Anti-Hero be renamed.

I suggest the neologism: Limenethos to describe a character who exists in an ethical borderland. (from the Latin "limen"-threshhold, from the Greek "ethos"-moral character.)

As a side note, judging by the etymology of the key words, "Anti-hero", "Hero", "Villain", "Protagonist" and "Antagonist" none of these terms serve a useful descriptive purpose:

"Hero" - from the Greek meaning "demi-god" - does this mean that the Anti-hero is the "against demi-god"?

"Villain" - from the Latin meaning "farmhand"

"Protagonist" - Pro-"in favor of", agonizesthai "to contend for a prize"

"Antagonist" - Anti-"against", agonizesthai "to contend for a prize" (Is Austin Powers a villain because he contends against Dr. Evil's prize of ruling the world?)

Eh?Why? 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * First of all, 'anti' does not always mean 'against'. It can mean 'the opposite of' or something that's not really an opposite, but backwards or swapped in a way, like a reflection in a mirror. Antithesis is an example of this.  It's not negative or pejoratives.  Secondly, we do not 'develop new terms' on Wikipedia.  We write articles on terms that already exist.  See WP:NEO. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try to popularize this. Gortb (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to trying to change the term Anti-hero. It is an accepted word. We do not MAKE words, but make an encyclopdia of words that already exist using referances from the real world.

Also, a few other things. If we DID somehow rename antiheroes, we would still have to have an article on antiheroes to show what they are, since people who know the term will look for it.

Another matter; I believe you know that litteral translations do not count as the meaning of things. I base this on the fact that those examples you gave would mean you had a pretty stuffed up educvation if you believed they still meant their original meaning I state quiet freely that I believe you are trying to stir things up. I can appreciate it; just try to be more subtle and amusing in the future. Corrupt one 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Byronic hero and anti-hero
The articles don't seem to be clear on this. Although the two are very similar, the difference is not outlined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.64.10 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
McMurphy is a couragous, idealist and has fortitude throughout his adventure of the story. He is proof that you can still be an anti-hero and have those traits. He lives by his own rules and does everything for his own benefits. He uses the patients in order to obtain better fortune for himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.77.193 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Antiheroes as an evolution of heroes
Here is something from the part on contemporary littrature "In modern times, heroes have enjoyed an increased moral complexity. From this, one could say that the popularity of the anti-hero has seemingly boomed but this is part of the continual evolution and redefinition of the hero" My only problem with this is there is no referance, and without that, it may be deemed OR. Will someone please find some referance to support this? Corrupt one (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed my recent addition has been removed; reading through the discussion list, I wonder if it was thought to be a "random list" that did not further the substance of the artice. However, I did not present the characters as random examples; rather, I was trying to point out that the antihero character seems to be common in pop culture today. I listed three well-known and critically acclaimed TV shows, and provided documentation from NY Times that supported the exact point I was trying to make. I am respectfully asking for an explanation why my edits were removed. It's very frustrating to spend an extended bit of time on an entry only to have it completely wiped a day later. (Oh, and my reward for asking this question once already is that the discussion suddenly gets archived and my post disappears). SgtOsiris (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but if these were your additions it really is simply a list of three examples of anti-heroes with overly lengthy descriptions. We have a list for examples. --TM 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what I was referring to. I have visited the list entry. Is there any relevance to the point (and, subsequently, any better way to address the issue) that antiheros are more common in entertainment (esp. TV) than in the past?
 * For example, reviewing the TV lineup from 20 years ago, "hero-based" shows included "Magnum, P.I.", "Spenser: For Hire", "The Equalizer" and "Miami Vice". Even the latter two, though they are edgy, have a clear-cut good/bad delineation. Even in 1993, you had only the beginnings of this movement, with debuts of "X-Files" and "NYPD Blue", although I'm not sure I would definitively put Fox Mulder in this category and Andy Sipowicz is a little bit closer (more of a tragic hero than antihero) -- but you get the point that these were shows that moved us along the spectrum to where we are now.
 * On the other hand, Vic Mackey's line from "The Shield" pilot, "Good cop, bad cop have gone home for the day. I'm a different kinda cop," nicely sums up his character and the stories: that is, as dirty and corrupt as he seems (, torture suspects, killing cops, robbing organized crime, partnering with drug dealers), he still becomes a quasi-noble character, either because others around him are equally decietful and ambitious, he's trying to look after his family, or his motivation is the greater good (deal drugs OK, but don't deal them in/around schools to kids). [Indeed, the show is appropriate for the time that we live in, where good/bad are gray areas -- isn't that the point, e.g. phone tapping by government is bad -- except to do it to catch terrorists is OK].
 * While I understand that you don't want this article to become a laundry list, I stress again that was not my intent. So please let me know a) if my greater point is a worthwhile contribution to the article (again, I think so since it shows evolution in media) and b) if it is worthwhile, how do I approach it without it being perceived as a so-called laundry list. Thanks. SgtOsiris (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think the greater point is very worthwhile. The only thing I and others have been trying to avoid with this article is getting bogged down with examples and summaries. While the whole article you cited is good in terms of verifiability, I think the most relevant and most credible aspect of it is the comments by the Syracuse University professor. Here are a copy of his comments:
 * ' "These kinds of characters are so satisfying to male viewers because culture has told them to be powerful and effective and to get things done, and at the same time they're living, operating and working in places that are constantly defying that," said Robert Thompson, the director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University.Consequently, whereas the Lone Ranger battled stagecoach robbers and bankers foreclosing on a widow's farm, the enemy of the contemporary male TV hero, Dr. Thompson said, is "the legal, cultural and social infrastructure of the nation itself."
 * "On one level you could see the proliferation of these types of characters as an indication of the decline of American civilization," he said. "A more likely interpretation may be that they represent an improvement in the sophistication and complexity of television." If you accept that view, he added, "Then the young male demographic has pretty good taste." '
 * Sourced criticism like this is really what the article needs more of in my opinion. --TM 22:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the feedback. I see your point ... I added the examples as evidence of the proliferation of these type of characters; however, more to the point is why there is such a proliferation, which the article from NYT delves into. I'll do some more digging and try a rewrite with some more substance. I appreciate the help! SgtOsiris (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How come this site lists the Doctor (Doctor Who) as an anti-hero
How come Wikipedia has listed the Doctor as an anti-hero? What traits make him that and does it really apply to all Doctors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.128.9 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

He lacks traditional heroic characteristics or values. he messes with time for fun, goes all over the place and time with little regard for other, and many other such things. Corrupt one (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case, especially not in the current incarnation, I think he fits better the tragic hero model than the anti-hero. The Doctor after all places life as beyond value, risks his life for companions, is brave, caring, etc. which are all characteristics of a classic hero, he does have major flaws, but he is not an anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJD48 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That's correct. This article mistakes the defintion of a tragic hero with that of an antihero. 208.53.79.39 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Doctor first killed someone as a child. He killed a bully named Torvic. He continues to kill again and again. It would not be exaggeration to say he's committed genocide many times over. Even if you find a justification for every single incident that's still countless deaths. There's a reason he's known as a "Nameless terrible thing soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.182.215 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Spider-Man
I found a few referances to Spider-Man as an archtypical antihero, and I figured I wllet you look at the bits I selected. I put them on the Spiderman talk page. They list WHY he is an antihero, and an archtype of that kind of antihero! Corrupt one (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Slayers & "Sam & Max"
Slayers' Lina Inverse is deffinately an anti-hero; she always accidently destroys whatever town she was paid to save & recklessly endangers it's citizens, but always saves the day...& then demands a lot of money if no one is chasing her out.

Sam & Max would be anti-villians if they weren't the protagonists. These vigilantes drive recklessly shooting at cars, shoplift, torture rodents, tried to launch missiles at Antartica (& Crypton), break in & enter homes & sieze things without a warrent, make crank calls, tried to sell America to Canada, Max wants to destroy congress, & Max can't tollerate the idea of a world ruled by love & peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC) How does being the protagonist not make them anti heroes? do you even understand what anti hero means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.209.76 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Change in meaning
I noticed there was some changes in the article as they could not find any definition of the word Antihero, so they could not mention its change in meaning. This is interesting, since a while back I provided a list of definitions for the word, and provided refferances, using about six or seven dictionaries and encylopedias. I wonder what happened to the list, which allowed up to view the changes of meaning over some time?

Maybe we can call them back and put them in a section all of their own. Corrupt one (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1940: Merriam-Webster New International Dictionary, Second Edition, lists the word but without a definition.

1962: Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it as "Hero of unconventional type in novel, etc."

1992: American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language defines anti-hero only as "a main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage".

2004: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, says: "(1714): a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities."

Here is what I had put up. There had been a few other entries that were basically the same, I remember. Corrupt one (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that a villain could go under that definition, if he is the protagonist of the story, since that definition does not make a diference between good and bad, as do the terms heroe and villain. Uberflaven (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 * That's correct. An antihero is often a villain. However, many villians have powerful or heroic qualities, which would disqualify them from being an antihero. Napolean Dynamite is an antihero. He has no heroic qualities and is the protagonist of his story. 208.53.79.39 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The only main characters that do not fall under any of these definitions is a conventinal type of hero. I think it is important that such a wide range of possible characters is mentioned so people do not make the mistake of thinking that what other people list as antiheroes are not actually so, and try to edit their work. Corrupt one (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of spelling
The three largest American dictionaries all spell it as a single word, without hyphen: Merriam-Webster Online; Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006; and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'', Fourth Edition, 2000.

The term is also one word in The New Yorker, in such academic books as Antiheroes: Mexico and Its Detective Novel, Avatars and Antiheroes: A Guide to Contemporary Chinese Artists, and In Praise of Antiheroes: Figures and Themes in Modern European Literature, 1830-1980. --Skippu (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did Antivillain article go?
Didn't there used to be an antivillain article? I can't seem to find it anywhere. If it was deleted, for what reason. An anti-villain is different than an anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.181.144 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted, here was the discussion: Articles for deletion/Anti-villain, Articles for deletion/Antivillain. --TM 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-villain redirects here. I think it's inappropriate to redirect to a page that doesn't mention (or at least in an obvious way connect to) the word you are redirected from. I came across the term "Anti-villain" in a review, and I thought: "Interesting concept! Wonder if it is in common use, and if so, how it is used." Googling, it seems to be "not uncommon", but perhaps still a bit of a fringe thing. I think it would be great if someone could put together a few lines to be included in Antihero (or more lines to make up an independent article), but of course it must be properly sourced, not OR. -- Anyway, if the concept is a fringe thing rather than being used by serious critics and academics, I think it must be because villains with redeeming characterstics are so commonplace that this neologism seems inappropriate to describe them - not because they are rare! Or maybe it is because a satisfying and clear definition making the concept distinct from "antihero" is not as easy as some might think.--Nø (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Evil Ernie as anti-hero?
The chaos comics character evil Ernie has been described as an anti-hero. I just want to know if chaos having defined him as an anti-hero (even though he IS also a villain) would change the definition of anti hero here because it seems your definition of anti hero is simnply that an anti hero is a very flawed hero but chaos defines anti hero as something different. So what is an anti hero really? If Evuil Ernie can pass as an anti-hero then your definition of anti hero needs revising. -Anonymous- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.233.193 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Holden Caufield
I think he is a hero, not antihero, because he has several redeeming qualities, and reader cheers for him. Can someone confirm? Turidoth (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Protagoinst?
I´m sorry if I have missed a point, but one thing seems very strange to me. After all this discussion, the definition on the top of the article says that an antihero has to be a protagonist.

Most of the discussion, opinions and reference definitions here seem to say otherwise.

As Corrupt One says: That means you can't have an antihero working in the backgrounds as a mysterious figure.

Duckthor (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Not Consistent with Current Use of Word “Anti-Hero”
This article as completely at variance with the term as I learned it in high school and college and as it is used in literary circles, though it is consistent with the way it is often misused in common parlance. Most of the examples I’ve seen in the article and in this discussion (and I haven’t read the entire discussion page) are examples of Byronic heroes. Most of them have, in fact, many of the qualities associated with heroes, most notably courage, often great competence, intelligence, perseverance and ingenuity. An anti-hero, on the other hand, would be better represented by Woody Allen than by Hannibal Lecter, and by John Updike’s Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom than by Karl Wagner’s Kane.

This is a serious issue; I believe this article to be so off-base as to misinform those who turn to Wikipedia for such information. No offense.
 * Be sure to sign your posts using four tildas (~). Also, if you can come up with some reliable sources that confirm a solid definition of an anti-hero, I for one would welcome the contribution to the article. However, just stating that you heard something in high school and college just isn't enough. --CaveatLector Talk Contrib 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

antihero
an antihero is a self covered base of human defence someone who acts like they left money in a burning building when its really their lover, detests comic heroes calls them cruel an antihero is by heart not head unlike comic heroes antiheros are not pompous but coragous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.152.46 (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Batman?
Why is Batman mentioned so frequently in this article?

This article focuses as much on the definition of the word antihero as its history. So why are comic book characters or pulp culture movies referenced almost exclusively?

Can somebody over the age of 17 please update this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.152.14 (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Distinction from unlikely heroes?
I have noticed that the "Distinction from unlikely heroes" section seems to focus solely on the distinction between traditional heroes and unlikely heroes. This seems like it could be somewhat misleading. It is not made clear whether or not there is a difference between an unlikely hero and an antihero and what such a difference may be. The reader has to therefore rely upon the other sections to determine whether there is such a difference or not (or they must rely upon their knowledge of how a traditional hero and an antihero differ... that is, if they know how a traditional hero and unlikely hero differ and how a traditional hero and an antihero differ, then they can figure out to a certain extent how an antihero and unlikely hero are different. Of course the problem with this, besides it being a roundabout way of going about things, is that when you complicate things like this (as far as language is concerned) misunderstandings inevitably result, but I must apologize for my digression) since antihero is not being clearly defined in the aforementioned section. I feel it would be better if unlikely heroes and antiheroes were both clearly defined beforehand and then the comparison was made between antiheroes and unlikely heroes, as opposed to the current form where the distinction seems to be between unlikely heroes and traditional heroes. As it stands, I'm somewhat unsure about the relevance of the given section. It's almost as if somebody took this from another page and forgot to edit it so that it would apply to antiheroes. Or perhaps antiheroes and unlikely heroes are one and the same? But if that is the case, then shouldn't the title for the section be "Distinction from traditional heroes"?

24.47.216.175 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion between evil heroes and those who fail to be heroic
In lit crit the latter definition is the only one that I can recall being accepted.

The Clint Eastwood character in the spaghetti westerns is a hero. The one is Unforgiven is an anti-hero. Tirailleur (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unique definition of antihero here is improper
This article is unique for confusing its definition of an anti-hero with a tragic hero. The assertion that an antihero has heroic qualities but has character flaws is the definition of a tragic hero. The references to blogs with that mistake is an effort to perpetuate their mistaken definitions that exist nowhere else. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The references to Merriam-Webster, Encyclopeida Britannica, and other online dictionaries in no way support the mistaken definition attempting to be espoused here. 208.53.79.39 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The definition talked about this article has absolutely no standing in literature criticism. The hero of a literary work is its main protagonist. If the main protagonist is evil, he's still a hero, just an evil one. An anti-hero is always understood as someone who fails to be heroic. Prince Hal in the Henry IV plays is an anti-hero, Falstaff is an anti-hero, but Richard III is a hero because although he's a villain he's still a hero.

 * The problem with the article is that it tries to impose its misunderstanding of the term onto traditional examples of good and evil heroes and somehow make it work. This is doomed to failure. Arguably the article needs splitting into two, so as to distinguish the anti-hero in his strict literary sense of non-hero from the anti-hero in the modern sense of bad guy. The issue with doing this though is that we already have a perfectly serviceable term for the latter meaning - it is, in fact, bad guy - so maybe we should simple redirect to the article for that?Tirailleur (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Personally, I like the definition here:
 * ... An anti-hero is a protagonist who typically lacks the traditional traits and qualities of a hero, such as trustworthiness, courage, and honesty. If he were assigned a color, it would be gray.
 * Often, an anti-hero is unorthodox and might flaunt laws or act in ways contrary to society’s standards. In fact, and this is important, an anti-hero often reflects society’s confusion and ambivalence about morality, and thus he can be used for social or political comment. ... --PLNR (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Antihero definition limits media formats.
The current page describes an antihero as "...a leading character in a film, book, or play..." But other forms of media use anti-heroes as well, including games (Disgaea's Laharl), poems(Childe Harold's Pilgrimage - Lord Macaulay), and comics (Deadpool). We should consider changing this line to "...in a story..." so that all forms of storytelling media can be accounted for. 71.246.13.59 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the Lede intended to mean?
antiheroes are typically inferior to the reader in intelligence, dynamism or social purpose -- makes the definition relative to the reader. People of very low intelligence, dynamism or social purpose can be readers. Some minimal intelligence is required to read, but typically the reader is sitting or lying: the typical anti-hero must be exceedingly inert if they are less dynamic than that! And what does it mean to be of inferior "social purpose"? Just because someone said it in a published work doesn't mean that it makes sense or should be included in the lede.

these heroes without naturalness as without identity -- does this refer to heroes or anti-heroes? either way I cannot make sense of it. If it's not about anti-heroes then it shouldn't be there, and if it is then it as best confusing and probably misleading. If anti-heroes are flawed then they are more natural (because natural persons are flawed) and potentially have more distinct identities.

The lede is confusing and overall the article is thin. There are very few examples -- it mentions several several genres and authors, and a few works but very few characters -- and all are literary. Not a single cinematic, televisual or popular culture reference! Even film noir doesn't get a mention. Here's a definition of anti-hero from that genre, one about three times better than the one in the lede:

''[http://www.filmnoirstudies.com/glossary/index.asp The principal protagonist of a film who lacks the attributes or characteristics of a typical hero, but with whom the audience identifies. The character is often confused or conflicted with ambiguous morals, or character defects and eccentricities, and lacks courage, honesty, or grace. The anti-hero can be tough yet sympathetic, or display vulnerable and weak traits. Specifically, the anti-hero often functions outside the mainstream and challenges it.]'' Qemist (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I, too, was confused by the lede. Often inferior in intelligence to the reader? I've never thought that to be the case at all, I find it to be often be quite the opposite, actually. Also, is the "sporting antihero" section necessary/relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mics 777 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lede is confusing and does not give a good overview. It definitely needs to be rewritten.  The content of this article relies (at least source-wise) on (sometimes postmodern) literary criticism, but it gives no context.  It just drops names and terms.  "Naturalness" is an example of this.  It can/should be removed as far as I'm concerned.  If someone wants to dive into some source material, there can certainly be a lit-theory section in the article, but it would require more explanation and context, and should only stand alongside the popular definition (and some popular examples) of "antihero." --MattMauler (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like some (anti-?) hero has stepped into the breach and fixed the lede. Well done. Now to the empty film examples section that needs to be fixed. Qemist (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is written very poorly
The first sentence is the only sentence explaining what an antihero is, how well could you explain something in just one sentence? The rest of the article just talks about the antihero throughout history. The antihero himself is not described. No one reading the article will be any smarter than before. What is an antihero? Just any bad guy who turns good? --2.245.170.168 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to further elaborate on the description of what an antihero is. I included personality traits that are often present/highlighted in these types of characters and included a scholarly journal as a source for my description.Lexproj (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

another classical example of an anti-hero
is Jonah of the Old Testament. Notably,the word "prophet" is missing from the book, and for a very good reason: Jonah lacks idealism, courage or morality. He is interested only in his image as a 'true' prophet -- even at the expense of the lives of all the people of Nineveh. 2601:8C0:427F:CEE1:65E6:8573:3EEB:268F (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Shlomo Karni

 * This is tricky, because even if you're right, you would have to highlight the reference text as 'Old Testament' and not 'The Bible'.
 * There would be plenty of people saying this is inappropriate, since Jesus is written to have said that "he bears the mark/sign of Jonah" (accepted as meaning that "Jesus is like the prophet before him, and people can know Jesus' arrival as a prophet just as they knew Jonah's arrival as a prophet"). I can foresee that you could be seen to be demeaning Jesus' words, even if that wasn't your intention. Does that make sense? VeraxVoice (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research and Practice in Wikipedia
— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Article expansion: analogies
This article is somewhat confusing as it lacks examples for clarification. Is the use in describing the opposition to a tragic hero a second definition or a use case? Is Batman an antihero because of his backstory or is he a hero because of his selfless motives? The point about an antihero joining the heroic side of a conflict for selfish reasons could use an analogy, especially an example from pop culture. Even a real-life example could work, for example a defense company which caters exclusively to a side commonly considered "good", though it would be very hard to find a non-political example. A good pop culture example would be a movie or video game protagonist who performs typically-selfless actions e.g. "saving the world" in exchange for a reward. Survival is too common, a good example might be requirement with and/or survival of a friend or family member though a favor to win friendship, goodwill, or affection would also work. 22jcampb (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Examples? (Main thread)
I understand this topic (the Antihero) is somewhat subjective, and is subject to all of our biases - which are intensified when we have/feel a personal attachment to characters in literature/film/media. I still think we should add an 'Examples' section with almost-certain examples in Modern Entertainment.

Examples which I faithfully assume we could all agree on would include:

- Sirius Black (Harry Potter), known for attempted murder and being imprisoned, whose drive as a supporter of the protagonist is unclear as to 'pure moral' or simply 'vengeful' motives

- Han Solo (Star Wars), known for stealing and smuggling, whose drive... is unclear as to 'pure moral' or simply 'lustful' motives (wooing Princess Leia)

I encourage your criticism/discussion. Let's make this concept easier for the less-literary to realise. VeraxVoice (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again
I'm not sure why wikipedia is always wrong, but someone please fix this. An "antihero" is not a hero that does good things for reasons that might be different that why the audience would do them. What?

And antihero is an anti-hero. The opposite of a hero.

"a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities" according to dictionary.com. 79.106.203.95 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I believe you are commenting on the 2nd sentence of the lead, but it seems like you are ignoring the "may", and ingoring the 1st sentence, which seems to be saying exactly what you want. I may have misunderstood, but please clarify. Nø (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Antihero


text:
Relevance logic

Relevance logic, also called relevant logic, is a kind of non-classical logic requiring the antecedent and consequent of implications to be relevantly related. They may be viewed as a family of substructural or modal logics. It is generally, but not universally, called relevant logic by British and, especially, Australian logicians, and relevance logic by American logicians.

Relevance logic aims to capture aspects of implication that are ignored by the "material implication" operator in classical truth-functional logic, namely the notion of relevance between antecedent and conditional of a true implication. This idea is not new: C. I. Lewis was led to invent modal logic, and specifically strict implication, on the grounds that classical logic grants paradoxes of material implication such as the principle that a falsehood implies any proposition. Hence "if I'm a donkey, then two and two is four" is true when translated as a material implication, yet it seems intuitively false since a true implication must tie the antecedent and consequent together by some notion of relevance. And whether or not the speaker is a donkey seems in no way relevant to whether two and two is four.

In terms of a syntactical constraint for a propositional calculus, it is necessary, but not sufficient, that premises and conclusion share atomic formulae (formulae that do not contain any logical connectives). In a predicate calculus, relevance requires sharing of variables and constants between premises and conclusion. This can be ensured (along with stronger conditions) by, e.g., placing certain restrictions on the rules of a natural deduction system. In particular, a Fitch-style natural deduction can be adapted to accommodate relevance by introducing tags at the end of each line of an application of an inference indicating the premises relevant to the conclusion of the inference. Gentzen-style sequent calculi can be modified by removing the weakening rules that allow for the introduction of arbitrary formulae on the right or left side of the sequents.

A notable feature of relevance logics is that they are paraconsistent logics: the existence of a contradiction will not necessarily cause an "explosion." This follows from the fact that a conditional with a contradictory antecedent that does not share any propositional or predicate letters with the consequent cannot be true (or derivable).

History
Relevance logic was proposed in 1928 by Soviet philosopher Ivan E. Orlov (1886 – circa 1936) in his strictly mathematical paper "The Logic of Compatibility of Propositions" published in Matematicheskii Sbornik. The basic idea of relevant implication appears in medieval logic, and some pioneering work was done by Ackermann, Moh, and Church in the 1950s. Drawing on them, Nuel Belnap and Alan Ross Anderson (with others) wrote the magnum opus of the subject, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity in the 1970s (the second volume being published in the nineties). They focused on both systems of entailment and systems of relevance, where implications of the former kinds are supposed to be both relevant and necessary.

Axioms
The early developments in relevance logic focused on the stronger systems. The development of the Routley–Meyer semantics brought out a range of weaker logics. The weakest of these logics is the relevance logic B. It is axiomatized with the following axioms and rules. The rules are the following. Stronger logics can be obtained by adding any of the following axioms. There are some notable logics stronger than B that can be obtained by adding axioms to B as follows.
 * 1) $$A\to A$$
 * 2) $$A\land B\to A$$
 * 3) $$A\land B\to B$$
 * 4) $$(A\to B)\land(A\to C)\to (A\to B\land C)$$
 * 5) $$A\to A\lor B$$
 * 6) $$B\to A\lor B$$
 * 7) $$(A\to C)\land(B\to C)\to (A\lor B\to C)$$
 * 8) $$A\land(B\lor C)\to (A\land B)\lor(A\land C)$$
 * 9) $$\lnot\lnot A\to A$$
 * 1) $$A, A\to B\vdash B$$
 * 2) $$A, B\vdash A\land B$$
 * 3) $$A\to B\vdash (C\to A)\to(C\to B)$$
 * 4) $$A\to B\vdash (B\to C)\to(A\to C)$$
 * 5) $$A\to B\vdash \lnot B\to\lnot A$$
 * 1) $$(A\to B)\to (\lnot B\to\lnot A)$$
 * 2) $$(A\to B)\land(B\to C)\to (A\to C)$$
 * 3) $$(A\to B)\to((B\to C)\to(A\to C))$$
 * 4) $$(A\to B)\to((C\to A)\to(C\to B))$$
 * 5) $$(A\to(A\to B))\to(A\to B)$$
 * 6) $$(A\land (A\to B))\to B$$
 * 7) $$(A\to\lnot A)\to\lnot A$$
 * 8) $$(A\to (B\to C))\to(B\to(A\to C))$$
 * 9) $$A\to((A\to B)\to B)$$
 * 10) $$((A\to A)\to B)\to B$$
 * 11) $$A\lor\lnot A$$
 * 12) $$A\to(A\to A)$$
 * For DW, add axiom 1.
 * For DJ, add axioms 1, 2.
 * For TW, add axioms 1, 2, 3, 4.
 * For RW, add axioms 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9.
 * For T, add axioms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11.
 * For R, add axioms 1-11.
 * For E, add axioms 1-7, 10, 11, $$((A\to A)\land(B\to B)\to C)\to C$$, and $$\Box A\land \Box B\to \Box (A\land B)$$, where $$\Box A$$ is defined as $$(A\to A)\to A$$.
 * For RM, add all the additional axioms.

Routley–Meyer models
The standard model theory for relevance logics is the Routley-Meyer ternary-relational semantics developed by Richard Routley and Robert Meyer. A Routley–Meyer frame F for a propositional language is a quadruple (W,R,*,0), where W is a non-empty set, R is a ternary relation on W, and * is a function from W to W, and $$0\in W$$. A Routley-Meyer model M is a Routley-Meyer frame F together with a valuation, $$\Vdash$$, that assigns a truth value to each atomic proposition relative to each point $$a\in W$$. There are some conditions placed on Routley-Meyer frames. Define $$a\leq b$$ as $$R0ab$$. Write $$M,a\Vdash A$$ and $$M,a\nVdash A$$ to indicate that the formula $$A$$ is true, or not true, respectively, at point $$a$$ in $$M$$. One final condition on Routley-Meyer models is the hereditariness condition. By an inductive argument, hereditariness can be shown to extend to complex formulas, using the truth conditions below.
 * $$a\leq a$$.
 * If $$a\leq b$$ and $$b\leq c$$, then $$a\leq c$$.
 * If $$d\leq a$$ and $$Rabc$$, then $$Rdbc$$.
 * $$a^{**}=a$$.
 * If $$a\leq b$$, then $$b^*\leq a^*$$.
 * If $$M,a\Vdash p$$ and $$a\leq b$$, then $$M,b\Vdash p$$, for all atomic propositions $$p$$.
 * If $$M,a\Vdash A$$ and $$a\leq b$$, then $$M,b\Vdash A$$, for all formulas $$A$$.

The truth conditions for complex formulas are as follows.
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\land B \iff M, a\Vdash A$$ and $$M,a\Vdash B$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\lor B \iff M, a\Vdash A$$ or $$M,a\Vdash B$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\to B\iff \forall b,c((Rabc\land M,b\Vdash A)\Rightarrow M,c\Vdash B)$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash\lnot A\iff M,a^*\nVdash A$$

A formula $$A$$ holds in a model $$M$$ just in case $$M,0\Vdash A$$. A formula $$A$$ holds on a frame $$F$$ iff A holds in every model $$(F,\Vdash)$$. A formula $$A$$ is valid in a class of frames iff A holds on every frame in that class. The class of all Routley–Meyer frames satisfying the above conditions validates that relevance logic B. One can obtain Routley-Meyer frames for other relevance logics by placing appropriate restrictions on R and on *. These conditions are easier to state using some standard definitions. Let $$Rabcd$$ be defined as $$\exists x(Rabx \land Rxcd)$$, and let $$Ra(bc)d$$ be defined as $$\exists x(Rbcx \land Raxd)$$. Some of the frame conditions and the axioms they validate are the following. The last two conditions validate forms of weakening that relevance logics were originally developed to avoid. They are included to show the flexibility of the Routley–Meyer models.

Urquhart models
Operational models for negation-free fragments of relevance logics were developed by Alasdair Urquhart in his PhD thesis and in subsequent work. The intuitive idea behind the operational models is that points in a model are pieces of information, and combining information supporting a conditional with the information supporting its antecedent yields some information that supports the consequent. Since the operational models do not generally interpret negation, this section will consider only languages with a conditional, conjunction, and disjunction.

An operational frame $$F$$ is a triple $$(K,\cdot,0)$$, where $$K$$ is a non-empty set, $$0\in K$$, and $$\cdot$$ is a binary operation on $$K$$. Frames have conditions, some of which may be dropped to model different logics. The conditions Urquhart proposed to model the conditional of the relevance logic R are the following. Under these conditions, the operational frame is a join-semilattice.
 * $$x\cdot x=x$$
 * $$(x\cdot y)\cdot z=x\cdot(y\cdot z)$$
 * $$x\cdot y=y\cdot x$$
 * $$0\cdot x=x$$

An operational model $$M$$ is a frame $$F$$ with a valuation $$V$$ that maps pairs of points and atomic propositions to truth values, T or F. $$V$$ can be extended to a valuation $$\Vdash$$ on complex formulas as follows.
 * $$M,a\Vdash p \iff V(a,p)=T$$, for atomic propositions
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\land B \iff M, a\Vdash A$$ and $$M,a\Vdash B$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\lor B \iff M, a\Vdash A$$ or $$M,a\Vdash B$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\to B\iff \forall b(M,b\Vdash A\Rightarrow M,a\cdot b\Vdash B)$$

A formula $$A$$ holds in a model $$M$$ iff $$M,0\Vdash A$$. A formula $$A$$ is valid in a class of models $$C$$ iff it holds in each model $$M\in C$$.

The conditional fragment of R is sound and complete with respect to the class of semilattice models. The logic with conjunction and disjunction is properly stronger than the conditional, conjunction, disjunction fragment of R. In particular, the formula $$(A\to(B\lor C))\land(B\to C)\to (A\to C)$$ is valid for the operational models but it is invalid in R. The logic generated by the operational models for R has a complete axiomatic proof system, due Kit Fine and to Gerald Charlwood. Charlwood also provided a natural deduction system for the logic, which he proved equivalent to the axiomatic system. Charlwood showed that his natural deduction system is equivalent to a system provided by Dag Prawitz.

The operational semantics can be adapted to model the conditional of E by adding a non-empty set of worlds $$W$$ and an accessibility relation $$\leq$$ on $$W\times W$$ to the frames. The accessibility relation is required to be reflexive and transitive, to capture the idea that E's conditional has an S4 necessity. The valuations then map triples of atomic propositions, points, and worlds to truth values. The truth condition for the conditional is changed to the following.
 * $$M,a, w\Vdash A\to B\iff \forall b, \forall w'\geq w(M,b, w'\Vdash A\Rightarrow M,a\cdot b,w'\Vdash B)$$

The operational semantics can be adapted to model the conditional of T by adding a relation $$\leq$$ on $$K\times K$$. The relation is required to obey the following conditions. The truth condition for the conditional is changed to the following.
 * $$0\leq x$$
 * If $$x\leq y$$ and $$y\leq z$$, then $$x\leq z$$
 * If $$x\leq y$$, then $$x\cdot z\leq y\cdot z$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\to B\iff \forall b((a\leq b\land M,b\Vdash A)\Rightarrow M,a\cdot b\Vdash B)$$

There are two ways to model the contraction-less relevance logics TW and RW with the operational models. The first way is to drop the condition that $$x\cdot x=x$$. The second way is to keep the semilattice conditions on frames and add a binary relation, $$J$$, of disjointness to the frame. For these models, the truth conditions for the conditional is changed to the following, with the addition of the ordering in the case of TW.
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\to B\iff \forall b((Jab \land M,b\Vdash A)\Rightarrow M,a\cdot b\Vdash B)$$

Humberstone models
Urquhart showed that the semilattice logic for R is properly stronger than the positive fragment of R. Lloyd Humberstone provided an enrichment of the operational models that permitted a different truth condition for disjunction. The resulting class of models generates exactly the positive fragment of R.

An operational frame $$F$$ is a quadruple $$(K,\cdot,+,0)$$, where $$K$$ is a non-empty set, $$0\in K$$, and {$$\cdot$$, $$+$$} are binary operations on $$K$$. Let $$a\leq b$$ be defined as $$\exists x(a+x=b)$$. The frame conditions are the following. 1. $0\cdot x=x$

2. $x\cdot y=y\cdot x$

3. $(x\cdot y)\cdot z=x\cdot(y\cdot z)$

4. $x\leq x\cdot x$

5. $x+y=y+x$

6. $(x+y)+z=x+(y+z)$

7. $x+x=x$

8. $x\cdot(y+z)=x\cdot y+x\cdot z$

9. $x\leq y+z\Rightarrow \exists y',z'\in K(y'\leq y$, $z'\leq z$ and $x=y'+z')$

An operational model $$M$$ is a frame $$F$$ with a valuation $$V$$ that maps pairs of points and atomic propositions to truth values, T or F. $$V$$ can be extended to a valuation $$\Vdash$$ on complex formulas as follows.
 * $$M,a\Vdash p \iff V(a,p)=T$$, for atomic propositions
 * $$M,a+b\Vdash p \iff M,a\Vdash p$$ and $$M,b\Vdash p$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\land B \iff M,a\Vdash A$$ and $$M,a\Vdash B$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\lor B \iff M, a\Vdash A$$ or $$M,a\Vdash B$$ or $$\exists b,c(a=b+c$$; $$M,b\Vdash A$$ and $$M,c\Vdash B)$$
 * $$M,a\Vdash A\to B\iff \forall b(M,b\Vdash A\Rightarrow M,a\cdot b\Vdash B)$$

A formula $$A$$ holds in a model $$M$$ iff $$M,0\Vdash A$$. A formula $$A$$ is valid in a class of models $$C$$ iff it holds in each model $$M\in C$$.

The positive fragment of R is sound and complete with respect to the class of these models. Humberstone's semantics can be adapted to model different logics by dropping or adding frame conditions as follows.

Algebraic models
Some relevance logics can be given algebraic models, such as the logic R. The algebraic structures for R are de Morgan monoids, which are sextuples $$(D,\land,\lor,\lnot,\circ,e)$$ where The operation $$x\to y$$ interpreting the conditional of R is defined as $$\lnot(x\circ\lnot y)$$. A de Morgan monoid is a residuated lattice, obeying the following residuation condition.
 * $$(D,\land,\lor,\lnot)$$ is a distributive lattice with a unary operation, $$\lnot$$ obeying the laws $$\lnot\lnot x=x$$ and if $$x\leq y$$ then $$\lnot y\leq \lnot x$$;
 * $$e\in D$$, the binary operation $$\circ$$ is commutative ($$x\circ y=y\circ x$$) and associative ($$(x\circ y)\circ z=x\circ (y\circ z)$$), and $$e\circ x=x$$, i.e. $$(D,\circ,e)$$ is an Abelian monoid with identity $$e$$;
 * the monoid is lattice-ordered and satisfies $$x\circ(y\lor z)=(x\circ y)\lor(x\circ z)$$;
 * $$x\leq x\circ x$$; and
 * if $$x\circ y\leq z$$, then $$x\circ\lnot z\leq \lnot y$$.
 * $$x \circ y\leq z \iff x\leq y\to z$$

An interpretation $$v$$ is a homomorphism from the propositional language to a de Morgan monoid $$M$$ such that
 * $$v(p)\in D$$ for all atomic propositions,
 * $$v(\lnot A)=\lnot v(A)$$
 * $$v(A\lor B)=v(A)\lor v(B)$$
 * $$v(A\land B)=v(A)\land v(B)$$
 * $$v(A\to B)=v(A)\to v(B)$$

Given a de Morgan monoid $$M$$ and an interpretation $$v$$, one can say that formula $$A$$ holds on $$v$$ just in case $$e\leq v(A)$$. A formula $$A$$ is valid just in case it holds on all interpretations on all de Morgan monoids. The logic R is sound and complete for de Morgan monoids.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Relevance logic


text:
Talk:President (card game)

Name Game
Hold on, hold on! There's a card game called 'asshole'? Jdaniels15 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC) "Fred Fuchs? His name might as well be Erect Cock!"

Schekjbenjel
Within certain Mennonite communities in Canada, this card game is known as Schekjbenjel, a Plautdietsch (low German) word meaning Errand-boy. It is played with the most standard Asshole rules. the lowest ranking player is referred to as Schekjbenjel, and the highest ranking player is usually referred to as the King. the word Schekjbenjel was a term usually used for someone who is hired as a farm-hand (usually the neighbour's kid), but today it is more used as a friendly-Derogatory term (if such a thing can exist). Impreziv (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dai Hin Min
Dai Hin Min is the same game, and it has a big description too, it would be good to fuse the articles.

Merge
I know this one by the name 'high society' and we use the fewest rules possible. Makes for a super simple game that non card players can catch on to. It's a 'gateway game'. (shudder)

I know this game by the name Shithead. However, I think this page is "better" in that most of the content on that page is duplicated here. I suggest that any relative content from the Shithead article be moved here. Technostalgia 19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. While the two games appear to have some similarities, just as Hearts and Spades do, they are definitely not the same game. This page describes a game completely different from the Shithead I have played. Dansiman 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The games are quite different. Suggest removing merge notice soon. EdC 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have guidelines for dealing with variations in rules to games? This is obviously describing something very similar to the (dozen or so variations on the) game I know exclusively as Asshole, but is just different enough that explaining the differences will be difficult. Lousy drunk people can't remember the rules from one time to the next... Tuf-Kat

 * There aren't any guidelines that I'm aware of. The most popular ruleset should be the main one given in the article, but any optional rules should also be given.  If there are substantial differences and disagreement, I guess that there could be multiple pages for the same game.

 * Realistically, I don't think there's much hope of stating the "most popular" ruleset. Perhaps a simple, general description of the game's mechanics would be better, and leave all of the optional rules to the optional rules section. I like the way the optional rules are currently presented. I'm also having my doubts at describing a children's card game as "usually a drinking game" :) Dze27 22:04 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of it as a children's game. It's probably the most common drinking game, in my experience, in the greater DC area. Tuf-Kat 22:25, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * Interesting. The reason I said "children's game" earlier was just that it relies on some trust with the passing of cards. I don't think it wouldn't make a very good gambling game, for instance. Dze27 05:08, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

The Great Dalmuti is not a President variant. It's a commercial game based upon the same principle as President, but with a special deck.

Hm, I'd say children's game. I learned to play it when I was 13, and played every day at school since. We played 3's high, and cards had to be the same "combination" (I dont know how to word this hence I didn't put it in the article) ie, if someone played a pair, all cards except 2's and 3's had to be in pairs etc... four 4's couldnt beat 2 5's etc.

I do accept that 3's high is a rare mutation that was specific to the group of people I played with though, even the people at the next lunch table over played 2's high.

We always played with 3's high as well, and occastionally high 4's (the thinking being that a 2 could beat a pair, 3 a triple, and 4 a quadruple). Another rule we played with is if there is a "run" of 3 or more (ie. on person plays a 10 next a J, then a Q) each of the people involved got to discard a card (two if it was doubles, and so on). I also agree that it is primarily a childrens game, we started playing it when we were 11 or 12, and while we occasionally still play it while drinking, we don't play it as a drinking game. priester

Warlords and Scumbags
I first knew the game to be called "Warlords and Scumbags". I haven't added this alias to the article in case it is a rare variant, but if others have heard of the name then go ahead and add the alias. Whoever does should also link an article titled "Warlords and Scumbags" to this one. I hail from Brisbane, Qld, Australia (could be useful in determining the spread of this alternate name). Midg3t 06:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Victoria, it can go by that name too. I think it's the dominant name here in Mildura, and at least some people know it by that name in Melbourne. It's a good gender neutral and relatively polite name. matturn 11:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That name sounds familiar to me too (Sydney, Australia). I also know the game by the name Prince or Pauper. MyNameIsNotBob 07:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I went looking for Warlords and Scumbags and had to Google it before I found this page. I'm from Adelaide, and I'd never heard it called anything but W&S. I learnt it (the game) from a group of people who possibly learnt it while they were in Canberra or Sydney... Alphax τεχ 09:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am from Western Australia, and have heard this game referred to as "Presidents and Assholes" here, with the euphemistic name of "Ranks" in front of those likely to be offended by the correct title. With reference to Matturn's earlier comment regarding gender-neutral language, I think this article needs to be edited to be in keeping with this; I plan to make some changes momentarily. Neenish Tart 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I just made a bunch of changes to the article, my goal being to simply some of the earlier paragraphs, add to some of the later sections, and all the while illustrate how the game can vary. The variants of this game present a difficulty: since its most common incarnation is as a drinking game, the rules vary almost from party to party. I don't think there is any "most popular" version of this game. There seem to be a few different categories of variants. The first, of course, is whether the game is played for points or drinks. The second category of variants involves how a round ends: using the joker to clear the round, using the 2 to clear the round, and not having any card that can clear the round; all three of those agree that the round should be cleared when nobody can beat a player's cards. Then there's the issue of the rank of the cards. Those are rather complex, and they involve variations where the 2s have a certain power (when they're not a "clear" card), and where only higher ranked cards can be played, regardless of pairs, etc. I hope I didn't mess up the descriptions of those variants too much. I also added in more info on optional Presidential powers and rules, which in my experience are generally only relevant to the drinking game version, but if people know of Presidential powers that are used in the children's game version, that would be a good addition. Like some others here, I'm not at all familiar with the children's game variant, but I'll trust that it exists. It might be worth noting how this game fits into drinking culture, and how the drinking game's rules are fluid and vary from community to community (or even party to party). -Eisnel 19:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I did a bit of simplifying and rewording myself, although I realise I probably should have read the whole article before adding "variations" to the Optional Rules. Sorry about that, -Blagh

Merge unnecessary
At shithead (card game) beforehand, there was a clear distinction between this president and shithead, but this edit confused everything. I may revert it some time...--Dangherous 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience the rules for shithead and Presidents (or asshole, as the case may be) are different enough to the point where there is almost no overlap. Kyle J Moore 03:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up Play Section
I tried to clean up the play section so that it was more readable, especially to someone who does not know how to play. I deleted some redundancies and seperated play in to the "First Round" (Where there is no ranking) and "Succsessive Rounds". --Ismelstar 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposition for a cleaner article
At Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not there is some controversy around a reasonable amount of info on the rules that should go into a card game article. /temp is an example of what a wikipedia card game article could be. Criticism is welcome.Punainen Nörtti 12:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Merely mentioned rules

 * The Burn rule mentions the Skip rule but it is not called the skip rule or a variation

 * Last card mentions loser rules but they aren't mentioned elsewhere

 * The Social rule mentions the Lateral Moves variant but it is not listed

I'll fix the Skip rule but I'm not sure what the other ones are. Ryan_1729 (login problem) 66.82.9.49 00:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the Lateral Moves variant which is mentioned in the "Skip", "Burn", and "Social" rules.--Ismelstar 19:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How significant is the rule about not being able to play a 2 as the last card in a player's hand? Last I played this, there was practically a bloody brawl over it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slowcheetah11 (talk • contribs).
 * I've never heard that, I think it's a house rule --AW 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up
This article needs a lot of work. I'm going to do what I can --AW 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete variant rules
I say that we delete the variant rules. -  hmwith  talk   19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of them seem to be main rules, like 2 clears, social, and so on. Maybe get rid of some of the more obscure ones, like Long Island rules, Poker hands, etc etc. What do you think? --AW 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2 being clear and 4 being social is mentioned in the main rules. Those should be deleted. But yes, everyone just adds their house rules on here that are just from their city, state, school, friends, etc. It gets to be too much... without any sourcing (not that the game sources any references though either). -  hmwith  talk   19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * True. How about I'll put ones that I think are main rules (skip, trading, etc) into the main rules, and you can see if you agree or not. --AW 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, thanks! You're sure on top of this. I assume that other people will agree. The article does need cleanup, so this should help... or at least will be a first step. -  hmwith  talk   19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I removed a bunch of the variants and integrated some of them, let me know what you think --AW 13:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Drinking
I'm not legal drinking age, so i would also suggest that this would be edited or have another article concerning the non-alcoholic gameplay. JCcat 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was invented as a drinking game. This is the true, original version. (EDIT: Retracted 1st statement. True version of Asshole. For the non-drinking version, see Dai Hin Min.) If you find any sources supporting the rules as a non-drinking game, feel free to add it as a variant. -  hmwith  talk   15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there reliable evidence that it was invented as a drinking game? Doops | talk 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is reliable evidence that it is a drinking game, and that that is how it is commonly known/played. -  hmwith  talk   00:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is reliable evidence, could you please cite sources. Punainen Nörtti 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! My mistake. I thought that there were cited sources. I forgot that I added them for Kings, but not here yet. If I get time, I'll add them. You can add them, too. It's not one person's responsibility! =)  hmwith  talk   23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do not know of any sources stating that President is primarily a drinking game. I suppose that the best I can find are sources stating that it is sometimes played as a drinking game. Punainen Nörtti 10:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the game you are thinking of is Dai Hin Min (the non-drinking version of this game). Regardless, I'm in the process of adding sources to this page in my sandbox.  hmwith  talk   15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * THERE! Added the 4 out of the 1,100,000 sources that came on Yahoo! for "asshole - drinking game". I hope this will suffice.  hmwith  talk   15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, nobody questions that Scum (the name I'm used to) can be a drinking game or that it's often played that way. The question is whether it's fair to say (as is claimed above) that that's the "true, original version" or (as claimed elsewhere) that it's the "primary" version. Doops | talk 07:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the article for the game that is NOT drinking is Dai Hin Min, the article for the DRINKING GAME is Asshole (game). The use for Asshole is a drinking game. The same rules that are for NOT drinking are in the DHM article. This shouldn't even be a debate. If we put non-drinking rules here, it would be the same article as DHM. It states that it is the drinking game version of the in the article. If one wants the non-drinking rules, he/she will go there.  hmwith  talk   16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At least pagat.com gives non-drinking rules for President, and reports Asshole to be an alternative name. If my memory serves me correct, David Parlett's A-Z of card games has a similar description. Punainen Nörtti 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Search for "Asshole". The name of "Asshole" is nearly 100% drinking game.  hmwith  talk   17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's acknowledged that it can be used as a non-drinking game. Therefore, there a 2 separate links to the rules of the non-drinking version. Hope that will suffice! =)  hmwith  talk   17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, 3 times now. Is that okay?  hmwith  talk   18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. I still would like to see a source stating that the non-drinking version is not called asshole (google search to see how the word is actually used comes frighteningly close to original research). If the non-drinking version is called asshole in wide enough circles, the wording of the articles needs some adjustment to recognize this fact. Punainen Nörtti 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's just going by sources. However, this article does not need to be changed, as the full set of non-drinking rules are in the DHM article. No changes would have to be here. As I said, "it's acknowledged that it can be used as a non-drinking game. Therefore, there a 2 3 separate links to the rules of the non-drinking version." Why put the rules here if they're there, as well? I also put in the DHM article that Asshole is the drinking game equivalent of the game.  hmwith  talk   01:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, your proposed solution also calls for 1) a disamb. notice at the head of this page; and 2) the addition of the boldfaced names "scum" "president" etc. to the first sentence of the DHM article. That done, I guess a modus vivendi could be reached. However, truly to fix this article it should really get attention from a wider variety of wikipedia editors. Right now I think some of the adverse reaction you're getting is coming from the perception that it's being treated as a private bailiwick by overly-confident drinking-games enthusiasts. Cheers, Doops | talk 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't think we need two articles with the exact same content. That's all. Drinking rules are here, non-drinking are there. If anyone wants anymore done, such as the other names to the DHM article, he/she can do that.  hmwith  talk   04:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dai Hin Min
Based on the above discussion, labelling Asshole/President/Scum definitively as a "drinking game" runs contrary to the experience of many editors and ultimately is not borne out by the available sources. While many "drinking game" versions can be found on the web when searched for, many non-drinking variations can as well. We can't conclude by Google-sampling which version is actually more popular or widespread; that's OR using a terribly innacurate methodology.

I would suggest that this article and Dai Hin Min be merged, and the resulting article describe the general play structure of the family of games, with additional discussion highlighting some specific variations (such as drinking game rules). According to the most authoritative source we have, Pagat, this family includes several international versions which we don't cover, and which won't fit into the false dichotomy created by the separate Dai Hin Min/Asshole article structure.--Trystan (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 * While you are at it, how about merging Big Two in as well. The three articles all are different variations on the same underlying game. --EngineerScotty (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Asshole is an American bastardisation of Dai Hin Min. Altering existing things to create reasons for people to get drunk (The Roxanne game, for example, where one team has to drink every time Sting sings the word Roxanne, and the opposing team has to drink each time he sings the phrase Put on a red light) does not create a fundamentally new thing (Although you could argue Prostitute was the name of a drinking game with the above rules, to justify a wikipedia page wholly dedicated to the "game" is obviously absurd). The gameplay of Asshole is almost identical (without drinking) to Dai Hai Min, to the point where you could call the differences house rules on the same game.

Whilst it comes from the same fundamental rules, the allowance of poker hands in Big Two renders the strategy hugely different to that found in Dai Hin Min. In both games, hand balance is important. In Dai Hin Min, however, the strategy is specifically determining the best time to play certain cards based on deduction of the only other possible hands, what cards have been seen, and what streams of play are therefore likely to result. Because of the "double value" of cards in Big Two (a four of spades is close to useless by itself in Dai, but hugely useful as part of a flush play in Big Two), determining the future streams of play is close to impossible - there is not enough information in card deduction alone to reveal future plays. The strategy in Big Two is not nearly as focused on card deduction as the strategy of Dai Hin Min. They are different games.(talk) 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.103.134 (talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree with the proposed merger. While DHM and Asshole do share a similar ruleset and Asshole is (in all likelyhood) derived from DHM, the differences that have evolved between the two games are socially signifigant. Asshole is a distinctly Western game and has incorporated into its base rules, besides the driking aspect, rules changes that are local variations (at most) in DHM.

While the relationship between the games is important, there is sufficient divergance (sp?) to justify considering them to be distinct games with an ancestor-decendant relationship. The current wording of the Asshole and DHM introductions express this relationship well and should be kept as is.

What should be considered, however, is a pointer to the DHM rules variation section from the Asshole article. Many of the variants mentioned are common house rules and/or additions made to the rules by the nomic nature of the Presidency's role in the game.

-- Levi "Karatorian" Aho 69.87.204.225 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with Levi. I played a non-drinking version of this game in grade school in Texas, unsurprisingly introduced to us by a fellow American of Asian decent. We called it Royalty, and while similar, is quite different from the game of Asshole I would later learn when I moved to the Northeast. -- Kendrick7talk 05:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I've removed the merge tags.--Trystan (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Trick-taking game"
This article currently describes the game as trick-based, but it doesn't meet the definition given in the "Trick-taking game" article, which defines a trick as a single round in which every player contributes exactly one card.--Trystan (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken link
referance #4 is a broken link 24.213.49.51 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)ski

Page should be moved or split to President
I'm not sure which one is the more common variation, the original variation was President correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore President should be the main page (or a split). Valoem  talk  20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal is to use the most common name, per WP:COMMON. I feel that Asshole is the most common name. However, if you find more reliable sources that call it President than Asshole, we could move the page.  hmwith  τ   20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, I just saw the notice on the page. You want the page split? I don't think that's what you mean. Do you disagree that they're the same game?  hmwith  τ   20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page should be split, as the game "President" is not always the same as the drinking game, even if they are similar. The game "President" is not always played in bars, but for fun and is a very common card game. Most of the "general rules" are very different. For instance, cheating is not allowed in most games, and at the beginning of the next round, the bum gives the president 2 of his best cards and the president gives the bum any 2 cards (usually his worst), and the vice-pres and vice-bum do the same with only one card. I can make this new article, if you guys want, I just want to get the ok from someone. Cainine (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled Daihinmin about common variants that do not involve drinking. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I cleaned out a number of variations and house rules that didn't seem to have many (or any) references on the web. Nothing had references here either. --AW (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this called Scum now?
I didn't see any reason for the move. I think Asshole is by far the more prevalent name. For example, if you google asshole card game you get 1.1 million hits, while "scum card game is only 367,000. --AW (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I felt like based on the talk page, its status as a drinking game was less notable than as a non-drinking card game. I chose "scum" but "president" might be a more logical title. Red Slash 23:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, President is a much better choice. (176,000,000 hits) I've heard of it more as "asshole", but often as "president" or "president and something" but never heard the name "scum".  Th e S te ve   03:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I moved it --AW (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dork? Anyone?
I've just been taught a card game new to me. I was told it is called 'Dork' (from Durak?), and the name and rules were apparently passed on from someone in Cuba to a person in London, UK. I can't find any rules for Dork, but the rules in this article 'President (card game)' are identical to the rules for Dork! Has anyone else used the name 'Dork' for this game? --Observer29 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge from The Great Dalmuti
The Great Dalmuti is just a commercially packaged variant of the folk game. That article serves nothing but a promotional purpose in stand-alone form like that. The designer name-dropping in it strongly suggests WP:COI / WP:SPAM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Strip out the rule variants
Back in 2007, most of the local/quirky/seldom-used rule variants were stripped out in favor of the base game — with notable variants described in another section. It seems that a lot of the variants have snuck back in to the point where the main gameplay article is basically unreadable. What do y’all think — can we filter out some of the unsourced chaff? Grahamtalk/mail/ e 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Grahamtalk/mail/ e 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on President (card game). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621062148/http://www.partizzle.com/asshole-drinking-game.html to http://www.partizzle.com/asshole-drinking-game.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.herassmygod.org/asshole.html
 * Added tag to http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/dg-ass.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"celiaci"???
In the section General Rules > Burning Cards, one line says "if you are celiaci, you automatically win the match". What is "celiaci"??? That's not an english word, doesn't appear anywhere else on the page & a web search only returned foreign language pages & references to celiac disease.

Will somebody please clarify what that line means, for me, please? ProphetZarquon (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Probably a joke. It was added a few weeks ago. I've taken it out. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Trouduc
Hey y'all. This game is also the same as the French Trouduc, an account of which appeared on page 20 (48 on the source) of 27/12/1987 of Sud-Ouest Dimanche[1]. A translation and further outlining of it is described in A Dictionary of Card Games pages 316-319 [2]. I think it's pretty interesting how it evolved, and Parlett makes the claim it evolved from Durak and Svoyi Koziri. Although I could see where the idea could originate from, I'm not sure if I entirely agree. Regardless, thought it would be a good idea to add this to the article. Since it's already active I figured I'd let the community decide on it too.

1. https://archives.sudouest.fr/storage/timemachine-so-prod/high?path=data/1987/12/27/04/00/54cb26c688e445d7ff911aa678db828f360389ebaa668c31572dcbb5be0fe7c7.jpg 1 (alt). https://archives.sudouest.fr/search/?page=2&page_number=&publication_date_from=27/12/1987&publication_date_to=27/12/1987&query=&sort=score 2. https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofcard0000parl_e8f2/page/316/mode/2up

Bobpaw (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Bombs
The article mentions bomb cards but doesn't really explain what a bomb card is 2600:1700:3870:FE40:79FE:6D9A:E0E:7C57 (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

More clean up needed
This page still needs more work. It's very confusing and all over the place, especially the "notes on play" section. I just read a wiki page on a similar game called Zheng Shang You that also has a lot of variations and rules but was very simple and clear and also had a great section that made note of variations. Maybe the page on that game can help give a structure for this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_Shangyou?wprov=sfti1 Katiewoz (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:President (card game)


text:
Ulundi

Ulundi, also known as Mahlabathini, is a town in the Zululand District Municipality. At one time the capital of the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa and later the capital of the Bantustan of KwaZulu, Ulundi now lies in KwaZulu-Natal Province (of which, from 1994 to 2004, it alternated with Pietermaritzburg as the provincial capital). The town now includes Ulundi Airport, a three-star hotel, and some museums amongst its sights. In the 2024 Census, the population of the town was recorded as 30,828.

History
When Cetshwayo became king of the Zulus on 1 September 1873, he created, as was customary, a new capital for the nation, naming it "Ulundi" ("The high place"). On 4 July 1879, in the Battle of Ulundi (the final battle of the Anglo-Zulu War), the British Army captured the royal kraal and razed it to the ground.

Nearby is Ondini, where King Mpande, Cetshwayo's father, had his kraal. A large Zulu hut now is on the site.

Climate
Köppen-Geiger climate classification system classifies its climate as humid subtropical (Cfa). It is rainier in the warmer months.

title: Ulundi


text:
Talk:List of miscellaneous poker variants

Merge
Why isn't this article merged with List of poker variants? It's not that long and would be more convenient to have all in one place. Besides, I would anticipate a single list eventually that links to separate articles for each variant. --Tysto 01:35, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

 * I agree. There is no reason why it should have a seperate article.  --IRelayer 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio? Plagiarism?
The text of this article is identical to the text at http://www.pokerliveonline.com/pokergames2.htm (before I rewrote the Guts section). The rest of the game descriptions on that site are also identical to pages here. I don't know who copied from who. If we copied them, then it's a copyright violation I'm sure. If they copied from Wikipedia, is that a FDL violation? I would think so, but the GNU_FDL page seems to say no (at the bottom). GGano

 * If they copied from us, then it's a GFDL violation because we require that licensees:

 * your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
 * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and
 * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is its wiki text.)

They have done none of those things. Question is, did they copy from us? Martin

 * Many of the poker pages were originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker, who placed them in the public domain (but subsequent edits from other users here will be under GFDL license.) Annoyingly, the edit histories of many of these articles were butchered when renamed from subpages back in the day. (They can be restored with some effort.) First recorded version of this article is by LDC. --Brion 22:20 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I'll add a mention of this to all the relevant talk pages. --GGano

Additiona Poker variant?
Where would be the best place for a description of

H.O.R.S.E ( poker )

A game or tournament format in which five forms of poker are played in rotation, usually either half an hour of each or one round of each. The games are limit hold 'em, Omaha/8, razz, seven-card stud (high), and seven-card stud high-low (the e standing for 8-or-better).


text:
Kim Newman

Kim James Newman (born 31 July 1959) is an English journalist, film critic and fiction writer. He is interested in film history and horror fiction—both of which he attributes to seeing Tod Browning's Dracula at the age of eleven—and alternative history. He has won the Bram Stoker Award, the International Horror Guild Award and the BSFA award.

Early life
Kim Newman was born 31 July 1959 in Brixton, London, the son of Bryan Michael Newman and Julia Christen Newman, both potters. His sister, Sasha, was born in 1961, and their mother died in 2003. Newman attended "a progressive kindergarten and a primary school in Brixton, and then Huish Episcopi County Primary School in Langport, Somerset". In 1966 the family moved to Aller, Somerset. He was educated at Dr. Morgan's Grammar School for Boys in Bridgwater. While he attended, the school merged with two others to become Haygrove Comprehensive. He graduated from the University of Sussex with an English degree in 1980 and set a short story, Angel Down, Sussex (1999) in the area. Newman acted in school plays and with the Bridgwater Youth Theatre.

Non-fiction
Early in his career, Newman was a journalist for the magazines City Limits and Knave.

Newman's first two books were the non-fiction Ghastly Beyond Belief: The Science Fiction and Fantasy Book of Quotations (1985), co-written with his friend Neil Gaiman, a light-hearted tribute to entertainingly bad prose in fantastic fiction and Nightmare Movies: A Critical History of the Horror Film, 1968–88 (1988) is a serious history of horror films. An expanded edition, an update of his overview of post-1968 genre cinema, was published in 2011. Nightmare Movies was followed by Wild West Movies: Or How the West Was Found, Won, Lost, Lied About, Filmed and Forgotten (1990) and Millennium Movies: End of the World Cinema (1999). Newman's non-fiction also includes the BFI Companion to Horror (1996).

Newman and Stephen Jones jointly edited Horror: 100 Best Books, the 1988 horror volume in Xanadu's 100 Best series and Horror: Another 100 Best Books, a 2005 sequel from Carroll & Graf, U.S. publisher of the series. The books comprise 100 essays by 100 horror writers about 100 horror books and both won the annual Bram Stoker Award for Best Non-Fiction.

Newman is a contributing editor to the UK film magazine Empire, as well as writing the monthly segment, "Kim Newman's Video Dungeon", in which he gives often scathing reviews of recently released straight-to-video horror films. He contributes to Rotten Tomatoes, Venue, Video Watchdog ('The Perfectionist's Guide to Fantastic Video') and Sight and Sound. Newman is the author of the Doctor Who entry in the British Film Institute's book series on TV Classics. In 2018, Newman became the chief writer on the BBC Four documentary series Mark Kermode's Secrets of Cinema.

Newman participated in the 2012 Sight & Sound critics' poll, where he listed his ten favorite films as follows: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocalypse Now, A Canterbury Tale, Céline and Julie Go Boating, Citizen Kane, Duck Amuck, Let's Scare Jessica to Death, Mulholland Drive, Notorious, and To Have and Have Not.

Fiction
Newman's first published novel was The Night Mayor (1989), set in a virtual reality, based on old black-and-white detective movies. In the same year, as "Jack Yeovil", he began contributing to a series of novels published by Games Workshop, set in the world of their Warhammer and Dark Future wargaming and role-playing games. Games Workshop's fiction imprint Black Flame returned the Dark Future books to print in 2006, publishing Demon Download, Krokodil Tears, Comeback Tour and the expanded, 250-page version of the short story "Route 666".

Anno Dracula was published in 1992. The novel is set in 1888, during Jack the Ripper's killing spree—but a different 1888, in which Dracula became the ruler of England. Anno Dracula was followed by the Anno Dracula series of novels and shorter works, that followed the same alternative history. The fourth novel in the series was published in 2013 as Johnny Alucard.

Other novels include Life's Lottery (1999), in which the protagonist's life story is determined by the reader's choices (an adult version of the Choose Your Own Adventure series of children's books), The Quorum (1994), Jago (1991) and Bad Dreams (1990).

Newman wrote a Doctor Who novella, Time and Relative in 2001.

Novels

 * The Night Mayor (1989)
 * Bad Dreams (1990)
 * Jago (1991)
 * The Quorum (1994)
 * Life's Lottery (1999)
 * Anno Dracula series
 * Anno Dracula (1992)
 * The Bloody Red Baron (1995)
 * Dracula Cha Cha Cha (also published as Judgment of Tears: Anno Dracula 1959) (1998)
 * Johnny Alucard (2013)
 * One Thousand Monsters (2017)
 * Anno Dracula 1999: Daikaiju (2019)
 * Time and Relative (2001)
 * An English Ghost Story (2014)
 * The Secrets of Drearcliffe Grange School (2015)
 * The Haunting of Drearcliff Grange School (2018)
 * Angels of Music (2016)
 * Something More Than Night (2021)

Short story collections

 * The Original Dr. Shade, and Other Stories (1994)
 * Famous Monsters (1995)
 * Back in the USSA (1997) (with Eugene Byrne)
 * Seven Stars (2000)
 * Where the Bodies are Buried (2000)
 * Unforgivable Stories (2000)
 * Dead Travel Fast (2005)
 * Diogenes Club series
 * The Man from the Diogenes Club (2006)
 * The Secret Files of the Diogenes Club (2007)
 * Mysteries of the Diogenes Club (2010)
 * The Man From the Diogenes Club (2017)
 * Moriarty: The Hound of the D'Urbervilles (Titan Books, 2011; ISBN 9780857682833)

Comics

 * Anno Dracula – 1895: Seven Days in Mayhem (Titan Comics, 2017, five issues) with artist Paul McCaffrey.

As "Jack Yeovil"

 * Warhammer setting
 * Drachenfels (1989)
 * Beasts in Velvet (1991)
 * Genevieve Undead (1993, three novellas published as a single book)
 * Silver Nails (2002, short stories)
 * The Vampire Genevieve (2005, compilation of the above four books)
 * Dark Future setting
 * Krokodil Tears (1990)
 * Demon Download (1990)
 * Route 666 (1993)
 * Comeback Tour (1991)
 * Orgy of the Blood Parasites (1994)
 * "The Big Fish" in Shadows over Innsmouth (1994)

Awards

 * The Horror Writers of America Bram Stoker Award for Best Non Fiction, shared 1989 (Horror: 100 Best Books, edited by Stephen Jones and Newman)
 * The Horror Writers of America Bram Stoker Award for Best Non Fiction, shared 2005 (Horror: Another 100 Best Books, eds. Jones and Newman)
 * The British Science Fiction Award for Best Short Fiction (The Original Dr Shade)
 * The Dracula Society's Children of the Night Award for Best Novel (Anno Dracula)
 * The Fiction Award of the Lord Ruthven Assembly (Anno Dracula)
 * International Horror Guild Award for Best Novel (Anno Dracula)
 * International Horror Guild Award for Best Novella (Coppola's Dracula)
 * Prix Ozone for Best Novel (Anno Dracula)
 * The British Fantasy Award for Best Collection, 2000 (Where the Bodies Are Buried)

Newman has been nominated for the Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award six times and for the World Fantasy Award seven times.

General and cited references

 * Clute, John and John Grant (1997). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-15897-1.

title: Kim Newman