Talk:List of fictional antiheroes/Archive 1

Anakin Skywalker?

Yea, he's Darth Vader and all, but if you think about in the end he kills the emperor and is still the chosen one plus he was the hero in the first 3 movies, he did bad things so i think he should be considered an anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.192.217 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor

I have to take some issue with the Doctor being on here. I think he is more of a tragic hero than an anti-hero, the source used talks about the Doctor in the context of the development phase, not the final product. Especially in the more recent incarnations, 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. JasonJD48 (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Severus Snape?

Considering the events in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows i believe that he should be included. 66.41.117.220 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have added him to the list. STHayden ^{[ Talk ]} 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

awkward title

This page has kind of an awkward title; I think it should be changed to 'list of fictional anti-heroes'. CameoAppearance 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I have also added some video game characters, as they belong just as much as the others. There is no Category:Video Game Characters that I could find, so i added one to computer and video game protagonists, as it's mostly the same. --Ifrit 12:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need the addition of "fictional" or "in fiction" at all? Where else would anti-heroes appear?--User:CWL 13:36, 15 July 2006 (CET)

Sometimes (it's quite rare) actual living people are referred to as anti-heroes in articles, newspapers, etc. It's pretty rare so you're question is completely valid (the old list was simply titled "list of anti-heroes"), but usually it's best to be as clear as possible. --TM 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a grumpy old skeptic, but I am not entirely convinced of this. Could you maybe provide an example?User:CWL 04:08, 17 July 2006 (CET)

Usually it's also incorrect usage: John Kerry as anti-hero, Eminem as anti-hero, Colin Powell, the anti-hero. As I said, it's rare, and usually used incorrectly, but occasionally actual people (in politics and entertainment mostly) are dubbed anti-heroes, usually based on public persona. I'm not surprised that someone was unconvinced, but it happens, and adding "fictional" to the title doesn't really have any drawbacks in my opinion. --TM 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Another problem would of course be caused by characters in fictional biographies who are based on real characters. Two such rather good examples of anti-heroes I can think of spontaneously are John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester in The Libertine and Mozart in Amadeus. --CWL 18:20, 1 August 2006 (CET)

Your definition of anti-hero is off. Anti-heroes are not villains or bad characters who lead to good ends. The real definition of an anti-hero is often one who walks away from a battle. Frodo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings is an example of a true literary anti-hero.

Sorry but if there is a "real definition" of an anti-hero it isn't "walking away from a battle". I suggest reading a bit of anti-hero. --TM 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Frodo is the classic "reluctant hero". Doczilla 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer

This subject is highly interesting, but also very subjective, and therefore the list here is very incomplete. I've got an interesting addition, an "ultimate anti-hero" of sorts, which I would like to throw out here in the Talk page first. My ultimate anti-hero is, of course, Lucifer as depicted in Paradise Lost. I'm not sure if Milton intended to make him an anti-hero, but it sure seemed that way to me when I first read the thing in college. I didn't want to edit this choice into the main page because as an atheist living in the USA, a major source of wikipedia readers, I know only too well how easily this religious stuff sets off flame wars on the internet. People might have problems with me labeling Satan as a "hero," or that I've put him into a list of fictional anti-heroes, etc. But I do believe this character is a perfect embodiment of an "anti-hero" and I feel he should be at the head of the list. What do you guys think? Tren001 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly the most important thing is that it's sourced, as long as there's a reliable source saying Lucifer from Paradise Lost is/can be seen as an anti-hero there shouldn't be any problem in adding him to the list. And don't worry, flame wars here aren't very widespread since Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum and there are policies against it. Also, as a sidenote, I rarely see religion strongly influencing articles, the Talk:Evolution page shows how the editors have kept religious objections/manipulations off the article civilly and efficiently. --TM 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've put good ol' Lucifer into the list, along with a website listing some Romantic-era criticism of Paradise Lost expounding on Satan's role as a hero from such literary luminaries like William Blake, Sam Coledrige, and Mary Shelley's husband! Tren001 02:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An antihero has to have some redeeming qualities Lucifer being the imbodiment of pure evil has none therfore he is not an antihero. He also fails to meet the cirteria stated at the top of the page. Eno-Etile 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The devil has been portrayed sympathetically many times in literature. I'd even go further to say Satan is more deserving of a spot than Patrick Bateman who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.CyberGhostface 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't remove Lucifer's section until a consensus was reached. But since sources are cited referring to him as an antihero, thats enough, so deleting him would be a case of WP:NPOV.CyberGhostface 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Most refrences to Satan in Literature especially the earlier ones make him a villian and the progentor of evil even more sympathetic refrences don't usually deny that he is the imbodiment of evil. As for Patrick Baetmen I am not familiar with that character so I cannot make any comparison. Eno-Etile 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PLease don't remove my discussion comments, unless that was just a mistake. Furthermore, his mention on the page specifically refers to his role in Paradise Lost, in which he is a sympathetic character. We're not referring to his roles in general.--CyberGhostface 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya the removal was a mistake if it was me I was having a problem getting my edit to go through might have removed yours when I finally got mine saved. Still the author never intended Lucifer to be a "good guy" or have good guy qualities. I will admit that I never read the book but I did study the keypoints of it, a brife summary, and John Milton in English class. Anyway part of the wikipedia article on the poem does explain and argue against any supposedly noble attributes Lucifer may seem to have.Check under the 3rd paragraph under satan on the Paradise Lost article.Eno-Etile 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are some theories by people who have read the book based on what what was written. Milton didn't come out and say what the story meant, it was for the reader to decide. You don't think he's an antihero, fine, but others do and a source has been cited so he's going to stay.--CyberGhostface 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer is a villain, trying to overthrow God or get rid of paradise or something. He is therefore not a hero, not even an anti-hero. He is a villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.182.30 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

His entry is sourced. That's all we need.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This list still hasn't managed to incorporate a single source or external reference, leaving it completely POV and OR, against Wikipedia policies. These are the reasons similar lists have been deleted in the past, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes. In addition, video games are generally not included in literary/fictional canon, as they are very subjective and not critically reviewed in the same context as literature, film, or even television. At this rate the list will probably continue to grow without any sources being added and eventually be nominated for deletion. Try to provide references or sources for existing examples, or remove them, before adding even more if you want the list to last. Just some advice, and my own opinions. --TM 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree completely with your comment on video games. In case you haven't played any recent ones (say, from the past ten to twelve years), most video games tell a story, with often complex characters. Even if it is an interactive story of which your degree of success might depend on your skill or perseverance, most video games have only one ending, or a few endings with very small variations. Should the characters of these stories not be counted because of the way games are reviewed? I think, comparing video games to literature, that playability is equal to readability, and the games story is a moot point. Many books have been made into games, and even vice versa. I feel they belong as much as any other fictional characters. Second, demanding citations for everything is just silly. How would you citate something like this? Is there an official bureau for the listing anti-heroes? Which "source" would "people" find "credible"? Think about it... it is like demanding a source on the statement that most people like candy. Okay, exaggarated example, but you get my drift. As for new additions to the list running the risk of coming out of control... well, it is always modifiable and we can discuss the inclusions to a great degree on this very page. --81.191.14.79 01:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're actually User:Ifrit who added the section. Please read the official Wikipedia policies on verifiability and original research and you'll see that the notion of asking for credible sources isn't silly, and if you think it is you can take your arguments there. You'll also see on the discussion of the old list's deletion that most people there didn't think it was too silly either. I'm not going to debate for or against the merits of video games; the simple fact is there are critical reviews for most literature and a substantial amount on film and television, but unfortunately not a lot on video games, which hinders verifiability.

As for your question on where to find sources, references can include books, magazines and web sites to name a few. For example, many editions of books will have an introduction, and they may address the nature of the hero, as is the case with A Clockwork Orange for example, where Alex' qualities as an anti-hero are discussed.

If you want a guideline for "which" "sources" "people" "would" "find" "credible", "you" "can" "check" "Wikipedia:Reliable sources". With popular culture the standards for sources are much more lenient, but verifiability with something as inherently subjective as this is still important. It doesn't need to be a government, United Nations, or Harvard document to qualify as a reliable source, but we still need an external source and simply discussing every objectionable addition here would still amount to original research.

I had edited the old list of anti-heroes and thought it was relatively useful and interesting, but it still failed to meet the encyclopedic standards Wikipedia is aiming for. And I think that in its current state, this list suffers from the same problems. Finding sources and avoiding examples where verifiability is difficult/impossible would fix these problems. --TM 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a few sources/examples. Sources are particularly difficult for video games and television. I think that for video games sources can include articles in (online) magazines, but forums and blogs are unusable (which applies to all categories). --TM 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The artical said that an Anti-Hero had to have eventual redeption via love, sacrifece, ect.24.186.66.167 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I added some images since I though the article was looking a little dull. I tried to use the most iconic examples instead of more obscure or contemporary ones, as well as those which have articles discussing their anti-heroic attributes. Any thoughts on replacing them, getting rid of them etc. can go here. --TM 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal

I'm not familiar with the books, so I'm just going to ask what qualifies Hannibal as an anti-hero. In the movies he doesn't usually do anything heroic and isn't actually the protagonist. Most heroic actions he takes throught the movies that I can think of were diversions so he could accomplish his own objectives (such as escape from police custody).

Read Hannibal. That's all I say. The movie is much different. In the book Hannibal he is the protagonist, his tragic past is explored and he does one or two heroic things.--CyberGhostface 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hannibal Lecter article here outlines the character's biography and the second source I just added to the list discusses his classification as an anti-hero extensively. --TM 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not right. First he was created as a villain (voted one of the best two villains of the 20th century!). He does not deserve classification as an anti-hero anymore than Darth Vader deserves it for attacking the Emperor in the end. The fact Dr. Doom saved the whole world a number of times doesn't make him an anti-hero. --Leocomix 14:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bad for you. You can't remove cited examples because you disagree with them. What if I disagreed with your classification of Namor as an antihero? Would that give me a right to remove it? That, and I'm not sure if you have even read Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, both which have Hannibal in the protagonist's role and is displayed more of an antihero than a villain.--CyberGhostface 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point I am trying to make. Namor as a anti-hero is not my opinion. It is an opinion stated so many times by so many different persons that its omission was a glaring mistake. Also I doubt you could find many people that disagree. In other words there is a consensus. Second, there is always an opinion expressed in any Encyclopedia article, if only editorial policy such as what to include, the form that articles must have, etc. From the aricle history you seem to act as de facto editor (in the publishing sense not just WP sense) for that article. Well, when you look down that list, you don't get a sense of what a anti-hero is. You seem to subscribe to the idea that it is not definable. That's proper not for an encyclopedia neither for an editor. It's not too bad for me but too bad for the article and ultimately too bad for the readers. That's who the article should be written for. Being a protagonist is not enough to take on heroic qualities. You cannot gloss over the fact that the public in general doesn't see Lecter as a anti-hero and that this is enough to make the categorisation wrong. This categorisation is clearly your opinion and you chose the excuse that another said it to impose it. I don't intend to bother with an article that is someone's private ground.--Leocomix 11:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And there's a large consensus that considers Hannibal to be an antihero. You just happen to disagree. You personally don't see him as an antihero, and frankly, I don't care. If we were to remove every single anti-hero thats contested there'd be nothing left. And for the record, I'm not the one who added Hannibal to the list. Furthermore, Hannibal was an antihero in the last two books. And he's far more of an antihero than Patrick Batman or Alex DeLarge, but I don't see you complaining about them.--CyberGhostface 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Devil's Rejects

Regardless of what a review says, how are they anti-heroes? They brutally rape and murder hundreds of innocent people for fun. Despite caring for their own, they display no heroic qualities. --DrBat 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They are no worse than Patrick Bateman or Alex DeLarge. The former in question has no human qualities whatsoever. As long as there is a source citing them as antiheroes then they stay on the article. I'm really getting tired of people trying to remove characters from this category and violating NPOV. And "despite caring for their own"? Their selfless love for each other was one of the major parts of the films and seperates them for two dimensional slashers.--CyberGhostface 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Then remove Bateman and DeLarge as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Rejects have little to none of the qualities mentioned at the top of the page. They're remorseless mass-murderers who kill for fun. They aren't redeemed, they don't have noble motives, ect. Plenty of villains care for their loved ones; that alone isn't enough. --DrBat 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be harsh but your opinion, CyberGhostface's and mine have no bearing on whether or not they should be included since there are sources to back it up; leaving it to WP editors to decide and debate in this case would constitute original research. Although I haven't seen the films in question, I'm guessing the characters qualify as anti-heroes not because of redemptive qualities but simply because they are the focus of the films, the same justification is used for others like Shakespeare's Richard III, and the two mentioned above. The term "anti-hero" is a complex term and can be applied to a vast array of characters, regardless of their relative moral reprehensibility. --TM 00:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not entering the debate about whether or not they are anti-heroes, but your statement that they are being called anti-heroes because they are the focus of the media is flawed as the word protagonist indicates the focus of a story without attributing hero or anti-hero status. Karinagw (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That should be clarified in the beginning when it talks about characteristics.--DrBat 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't have to display any heroic qualities to be an anti-hero - otherwise they would just be "heros with some downfalls". It has more to do with their role in the context of the plot and less to do with whether they do any "good" deeds at all. The characteristics on the main page are example, not the criterion. - Xvall

We don't have to justify the listed examples. External sources called them anti-heroes. The external sources can be wrong. Conversely, we don't have to alter the definition to make it fit every example that the external sources have named. Doczilla 20:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that only one of the sources for this argument is still active and in the first paragraph says that the movie is all about villians, and that the only focus we have are the family anti-heroes. The first statement says that the movie the movie focuses on villians, conversely it refers to them as anti-hereos, at least from the ways it is wrtitten, in that they are the opposite of the usually heroic main characters, so both because of the definition of the term and the way the article is written, that they are not intended to be interpreted as anti-heroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoss (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not a shortage of articles calling the Rejects antiheroes. Time wrote "The much tattooed 42-year-old director's last effort, the mordantly witty 2005 horror pic The Devil's Rejects, revealed the metal singer/director's knack for coaxing a certain grisly charm out of his homicidal antiheroes and evoking an unexpected creepiness out of the sun-bleached California desert".[1]--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dante from Devil May Cry

I remaber seeing Dante on the Anti hero list . So why was it remove from the list ? There was sorce from a review .--Ratchetcomand 00:55, 9/14/2006 (UTC)

• The source was a player review, although it superficially looked like an official review (my mistake). Player reviews, like customer reviews, are not valid sources. --TM 19:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

V

Somebody needs to add V from V for Vendetta. He is an archetypal antihero.69.9.30.57 03:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He's already there under comic books. --TM 08:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Batman

I don't think Batman is actually an anti-hero. True he works with a mask and at night and he can be a bit dark, but in the comics he's in league with the GCPD. Furthermore he disapproves of some other masked vigilantes and their more agressive means of handling things - like Huntress and Azrael. He's got this code and he's all noble, and he even risks his life to save villains from being murdered, something an anti-hero would never do. 86.17.163.37 11:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Harley)

Sorry to be curt but your own opinion (and mine) doesn't have any merit in terms of what to include in this article: we have a reliable source claiming he's an anti-hero and that's all that's needed. Second, you don't seem completely clear on what an anti-hero is based on your objections. Third, this has already been argued to death at Talk:Anti-hero when there was a list on the page and Batman was included under the vigilante section, so if you want to see a debate over Batman you might enjoy that. He's staying since we have a source, but if you find a source arguing against a classification of him as anti-hero we can add that it's disputed. --TM 14:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the disagreements above

The people above discussing who is and isn't an anti-hero seem to disagree on what an anti-hero is. I suggest you figure out exactly what that is. I think it's far-fetched to justify that by what other sources have said so. Anyone can refer to any character as an anti-hero.

Anti-hero is already defined. Although you may think it's far-fetched, verifiability is an important feature which Wikipedia actively seeks out, hence the importance of using reliable sources. You're absolutely right that anyone can refer to any character as an anti-hero, but that doesn't make the assessment correct or suitable for inclusion in this list; using reliable sources is helpful since the classifications are made by (usually) people with knowledge on the subject, and/or reflect established public opinion. Hope that helps. --TM 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Duke Nukem

If you don't mind me asking, wouldn't Duke Nukem, a well known video game character, be an anti-hero? I mean he's willing to save the world from destruction but has a lot of flaws such as his love for constant drinking, cigar smoking, gun firing, alien killing and destruction, and womanization of strippers and prostitutes as well as generally arrogant, cocky, and seemingly carefree attitude about things. What do you think?

All you have to do is find a reliable source that describes him as an anti-hero. --TM 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:
http://www.gamingworldx.com/news/DukeNukemArrivesonZodiac.shtml
http://www.mediafamily.org/kidscore/chart.asp?ID=3243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_anti-heroes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem:_Manhattan_Project

Also, 3D Realms website itself calls him an anti-hero as well.

Good enough?

Vgamer101 22:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't qualify any as particularly reliable. Wikipedia obviously doesn't cite itself as a source, and the others aren't too substantial/reliable. In future you'll want articles/reviews like this, or including where 3D Realms calls him an anti-hero. I included it in the list with the review already linked. --TM 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The ones I gave sucked, but that was because I was too lazy. Just to see if I did any better at finding reliable info, I got two hopefully better ones:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280617/keywords
http://www.3drealms.com/news/1998/02/duke_nukem_movi.html

The first one is a bit vague but does show that when Duke Nukem is searched for, Anti Hero is one of the keywords that comes up. And that is IMDB talking there.

The second one is an archived news piece from the 3DR website that quotes another now defunct link or website which itself is, as you would put it, may not be reliable. But the fact that 3DR put it there with the "anti-hero" word indicates to me that they agree with the term because they could have easily quoted it and then omitted the term if it wasn't true.

Any better?

Vgamer101 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since IMDb has a lot of user-editting with categories, keywords, etc. (I believe, could be wrong though) like Wikipedia it's not considered reliable in this context. And I'm not sure about the second one either, since it's quoted from something called "Metaverse's Sleaze site", which as you pointed out, seems dubious and 3DRealms even disparages it. The main thing is just pulling a quote from reputable, large scale sites like gamespot or ipc (I'm not too sure about video games but those seem the most reputable). Getting sources is just a formality (and with video games it's slightly more lenient) but it helps maintain higher standards, and with obvious cases you can usually find a source pretty quickly. --TM 17:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Blake's 7

Most of Blake's 7 characters are bitchy outlaws and certainly antiheroes, but I've been modest and only inserted Kerr Avon as the most obvious one. I was surprised not to see any B7 characters on the TV list, considering how much the "bunch of criminals bickering in space" concept influenced later tv sci-fi, notably Farscape and Firefly. I'll give more links for reference if needed, shouldn't be difficult if Google comes up with 27,500 pages with the search string "Avon+antihero".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowgrouse (talk • contribs)

Images

I know people like to have the images in the article; they make the article more attractive to read, but they're really not necessary. I don't need to see Travis Bickle here when I can go straight to the character's own article page or to You talkin' to me? for this specific image. The images themselves are not discussed in the text and thus by definition they are decorative. If you want a second opinion on this, try Wikipedia:Fair use review and I guarantee you other admins will tell you the same. howcheng {chat} 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first objection to inclusion of the images hinges on the argument that they are unnecessary, but necessity is completely POV: one could argue all images or even this entire encyclopedia is unnecessary. Your second objection that images are only to be included when the images themselves are discussed rather than simply the subject of the image (if I understand your argument correctly) seems quite inaccurate, since if that were the case only articles concerning notable photographs, portraits, etc would contain images.

This list includes images of some of the more notable and iconic fictonal anti-heroes of each given media, which are the subjects of this article. As such their inclusion falls under WP:FUC #8, specifically the identification of the subject of an article or illustrating relevant points (in this case the "points" are the examples). --TM 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in your interpretation of my comments, and this is entirely in line with the Foundation's stance on non-free images (see [2] for a recent email and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement for discussion). In reality, this has always been part of the Five pillars but has until recently only be laxly enforced. howcheng {chat} 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the PREDATORS remove ?

Why where the Predators remove on the List. It even have a link to prove that the Alien race are Anti Heros . .--Jackbalck23 00:55, 9/14/2006 (UTC)

"showing them as a kind of noble, anti-hero, alien culture" does not specifically call them anti-heroes. "kind of" is weak. Doczilla 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the entirety of the Predator race should not be included but, instead, specific Predators such as Broken Tusk from the original Aliens vs. Predator comic, or the Predators from the AvP film. - CawH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.55.248 (talk) 01:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source referring to them as such, then go ahead and add it.--CyberGhostface 03:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Elric of Melnibone

I can't see any reason why Elric shouldn't be on this list, he is called an anti-hero on his own page as well. While he should be placed here, the source for that statement is not cited, so if anybody can find an official reference for Elric, it would be very helpful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.14.200 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Considering Elric is often the young fantasy readers first brush with the concept of the antihero I am shocked that he isn't mentioned in the main article on antiheroes as well. Are these acceprtable as references: [3] or [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.251 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Star Wolf

Please add Star Wolf in the list. While they are "just goons" in the Star Fox 64, they slowly become anti-heroes (and even allies) in the next games. This is more highlighted in Star Fox Assault, where Wolf advices Fox which later helped in the hero's struggles. In Star Fox Command, Star Wolf team is seeking for redemption, and the default path shows that they did receive redemption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.2.127.32 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

If you can find a source that refers to them as such, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My reference would be the game itself, but I don't know how to cite it. The articles about Star Wolf and character list contain references itself, though they don't provide the link (the references are the manuals and, as I said before, the game).

The thing is, they won't show their anti-heroic attitude until the third game in the series which is Star Fox Assault. They will continue to do so up to the recent game, Star Fox Command. In the second game, they lack characterization, but as I stated, this was resolved in later series, where the core Star Wolf is made up of Wolf O'Donnell, Panther Caluroso (Caruso/Caroso in US), and Leon Powalski. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.2.127.32 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

You need a secondary source describing them as antiheroes for them to be included in the list, otherwise it's original research. --TM 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I site if my sources are simply the manual and the game? Nintendo sites never cared about the characters outside the main team in the game. =/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.2.127.32 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Just search "Star Wolf" and "antihero" on google and if you find a reputable source (I.e. not a geocities website) then you can add it.--CyberGhostface 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ArwingLanding.Net is a reputable source - a big conundrum for Star Fox information. The following links state the Star Wolf team's profiles about their "position".

http://www.arwinglanding.net/sfds/index.php?page=characters

http://www.arwinglanding.net/sf2/index.php?page=enemies

In addition, the official manga for Star Fox 64 explicitly shows how Wolf feels towards Star Fox.

http://arwinglanding.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.2.112.253 (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Seriously... somtimes you people on Wikipedia takes this with "original reasearch" and sources too far. If it's in the games themselves, there's no reason a source other than the games would be needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.251.71 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

It's Wikipedia policy. This isn't the place to debate the policy. Take it up at the talk page for the policy article. Doczilla 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've provided links. How come Wolf O'Donnell is not yet listed?

Honestly, it is ridiculous to require a source other than the game itself. The video game is a primary source openly displaying anti-heroic qualities for Wolf O'Donnell (The rest of his team is iffy, as they generally abide by his orders). There has to be a point where one source is enough, otherwise stating 2+2=4 and referencing your Ti-83 calculator counts as original research. I say Wolf O'Donnell qualifies, as he picks a fight with Fox McCloud on the basis of a rivalry yet helped Fox save the universe from the Aparoid invasion, nearly killing himself and his whole team in the process. Commander Regulus 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if I can find someone calling Leatherface an antihero, surely you can find someone calling Wolf o'Donnell one, huh? *wink wink*--CyberGhostface 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that earlier post. But, as the rules go, you need at least one reliable source. If not, anyone can add anyone just because they think they fit the criteria. I've never played Star Fox, but Wolf does seem to fit the criteria, so finding a source should be easy. But adding a character based on his qualities in the story itself is not a reliable source in this case. I'd like to add Ben Linus to this article, for example, but since I have yet to find a review calling him such I have not.--CyberGhostface 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta

Is Vegeta from Dragon Ball Z an anti-hero too? He changes from a bad person to a good person and tries to save the world but still is selfish and arrogant. What do you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darth Mandalorian (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry but this isn't a forum for editors to discuss their opinions of which characters are anti-heroes. If you want a character included in the list you just need to provide a reliable source describing a character as an anti-hero. --TM 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as he is NOT a traditional type of hero, he qualifies. More specifically he qualifies under the following definition mentioned in the Anti hero article, some come across, and one I added. "An Unconvetional hero" "A character with, few if any, traditional values or characteristics" "a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities" As he matches ALL those definitions, he can be clasified as an antihero. The only main characteristic he has is his pride. His honor itself is merely an aspect of his pride. Before you start wondering WHY all those definitions, I have wondered the same, and I must admit, they can be confusing. It seems to me that the only type of character who can't be classified as an antihero is a traditional hero. Corrupt one 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Carver

Could I add Jack Carver, from the Farcry games to this list as I believe he is a good case of an anti-hero... Smiley200 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your belief is not an encyclopedic source. We only add those for whom an appropriate source can be cited that specifically calls the character an anti-hero. Thanks for asking, though. We get so tired of people constantly making unsourced additions. Unsourced additions will get this article deleted for violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Doczilla 17:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you search for "Jack Carver" and "antihero" on Google and find a legit source that defines him as such (I.e. not a fan review on amazon) feel free to add it.--CyberGhostface 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about these:

Taking on the role of anti-hero Jack Carver, you’re thrown right into a tropical paradise... TeamXbox(spring 2006) and the official amazon review: Hapless antihero Jack Carver..., now i need a bit of help. How do you add references to this kind of thing? I'm not sure :( Thanks again Smiley200 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just add the name and the source. (Sorry if you already did this, but no one responded yet)--CyberGhostface 04:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The root of the problem with this page

The root of the problem wit thispage is that there is NO CLEAR DIFINITION OF AN ANTIHERO! You could have Jack the Ripper as one, as he was a character with few if any traditional heroic qualities! This discusion page will not help much until we can find a way to deal with this matter. The only constant I have come across with definitions is that a person who is of a type recognized as a traditional hero type is not able to be counted as an antihero. That is the only constant. Corrupt one 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain Jack Sparrow?

In the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy, Will Turner plays the archetypical hero, and Jack fulfills the role as anti-hero.

If you can find a source labeling him as such (and I'd be very, very suprised if there isn't) then add him.--CyberGhostface 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as he is NOT considered a traditional type of hero, I think he may qualify. The root of that matter is that the definitions of Antihero are so broard, general and different, only traditional heroes types are excempted from being listed as some.

Anyway, why is he mentioned in the part under Jack Sparrow, and jack is not? Corrupt one 02:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack isn't a ero, in any sense. He relies on his compass to tell him what he subconsciously wants, much as Harvey Dent relies on his coin. Besides, he's a selfish @#$!%&? withput any obvious goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discworld

Rincewind

The cowardly wizard Rincewind accidentally saves the world and does other heroic deeds in multiple Discworld novels.
http://booksiloved.com/20/Color_of_Magic-Light_Fantastic.html: "Rincewind, on the other hand is the ultimate anti-hero. Not the dark side of heroism as portrayed by Clint Eastwood etc., but what you get if you distil all the heroism out, leaving only a streetwise but inept example of thaumaturgical detritus."
http://www.sfsite.com/05a/last56.htm: "Rincewind is Pratchett's anti-hero"

Samuel Vimes

The (former) alcoholic policeman Samuel Vimes, protagonist in multiple Discworld novels, is anti-authoritarian and cynical, equally dislikes all species, but has a strong sense of justice.

http://www.lspace.org/books/analysis/andreas-kristiansen.html#Toc58643935: "Commander Sam Vimes is the most easily recognizable anti-hero"

I don't see any problems with these references, so I added them. Terraxos (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed the top of the list page

I removed this example of what an antihero may exhibit as a characteristic of being an antihero

"*Eventual redemption through love, friendship, duty, etc."

Redemption heroes have become recognized as traditional, and are thus exempt from from being antiheroes solely on those grounds.Corrupt one 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised no one mentioned Severus Snape

He's playing both sides - he could be siding with the enemy, with an ally, or even his own.

Do you have a source?--CyberGhostface 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I post book pages on the last two books?

I killed Iago

I removed Othello's Iago from the literary anti-heroes list. I'm not sure Iago is ever considered an anti-hero, he's one of Shakespeare's most memorable villains. The article on Iago makes it clear he is a villain, not an anti-hero. Of the two sources for this Iago anti-hero assertion, one link is dead, and the other's only reference to Iago at all is the line, "'Othello' is focused on jealousy and is all about the destruction of the Moor by his servant, Iago." Which is a paragraph discussing characters like MacBeth or Othello as anti-heroes. So, unless there's some new school of thought reimagining Iago as an anti-hero instead of Othello (and can be cited), I think he's a misleading and bad example.AstrolobeJones 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not for you to decide. As long as a source refers to him as such, and is properly cited, it stays. I've added am extra source. If we were to act like this and remove any character who we thought didn't fit the qualifications the article would be dead.--CyberGhostface 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't remove him because I felt like he didn't belong, that's just how I noticed it. I removed it because of the two sources, one was dead and the other said nothing about Iago being an anti-hero. I don't think I did anything wrong by "acting this way" and removing unsourced references. Anyway, as for the sources you've added, I'm removing ones that are not, in fact, sources. The Independent source says, "Iago- He's the worst villain of all," and nothing about being an anti-hero. Ditto for the writersstore.com, which is about Othello being an anti-hero. The random geocities page (questionable as a source to begin with...) also says nothing about Iago as an anti-hero, and talks at length about what a great villain he is. That being said, the thestage.co.uk, dailyinfo.co.uk and filmeducation.org sources all, bafflingly enough, do discuss him as an anti-hero, so I guess he belongs after all. Well, at least it's much better referenced now!AstrolobeJones 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it might be worth adding to the actual Iago article that he can be read as an anti-hero instead of a villain, since the entire article only discusses him as a villain with no mentions to his possible anti-hero status. AstrolobeJones 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misinterpreting you then...there have been numerous cases where people try to remove cited additions from this list because people don't like them, so I just jumped to the wrong conclusion. As for editing the Iago article, I did add a quote from Andy Serkis that somewhat shows him more than just a villain.--CyberGhostface 01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Anyway, looks good now, and the citations are much more robust if a reader should happen to look into them in the future.AstrolobeJones 08:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is flawed

It mixes totally different characters. The criteria seems to be 'if we have any source that says so that's enough' well, no, that's not enough, there must be a definition and consistency within the article. --Leocomix 14:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If we went by your guidelines then the list would be subject to personal opinion. So a source is enough, as long as said source is legit. If we were to go "B-but that character is a villain!" and remove cited examples then there'd be nothing left.--CyberGhostface 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A source cannot be enough. What if a single source is contradicted by many others? Like I say in my answer for Hannibal, the list is in its present state heavily subject to personal opinion including the personal opinion that a single source is enough. Saying that there'd be nothing left if we removed villains is such bad faith and so false that you have already managed to thoroughly disabuse me there is any chance of having you relent your ways. --Leocomix 11:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From the main article: Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an anti-hero, although the classification is somewhat subjective matter. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources, and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero.. And I'm not saying simply removing villains...I'm stating that if someone were to disagree with the classification of a character and then removed it there'd be nothing left. I don't think Homer Simpson is an antihero. But I'm not going to remove him and say "He's not an antihero!"--CyberGhostface 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments bring into question whether or not this article is encyclopedic in the first place. How is a critic's review of a movie not a personal opinion? Does being published in the Entertainment section of a local newspaper make it a fact? ButteredToast 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't and the article doesn't claim to be undisputed fact. This is stated as much in the opening paragraph. And reviews aren't 'fact' either, but a cited source is better than just some schmoe posting his favorite character.--CyberGhostface 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, concerning your argument about critic's review; think of it this way. You can't go in an article about a movie and go "This movie is horrible." What you can do is find a cited review and properly quote the critic as in "Roger Ebert wrote 'This movie is horrible'" and so forth. The same goes with this. The page itself says its disputed, but as long as it has a cited source, it can stay. But you can't remove or add characters from this list based on your own personal opinion. There are a lot of characters here who I don't like. Am I going to remove them? No, because they have sources. And there are a lot characters I'd like to add, but am I? No, because I can't find any sources. Which is why it bothers me when people try to remove cited entries on the basis of their own personal opinion. Whether or not you think Leatherface or Tony Soprano or Hannibal or whoever is an antihero is beside the point, because as long as they have cited sources referring to them as such, then they get to stay.--CyberGhostface 21:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph basically says that this is NOT a list of ficitonal anti-heroes:

"Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an anti-hero, although the classification is somewhat subjective matter. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources, and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero.")

That's a pretty good indicator that this whole article is indeed flawed and not encyclopedic. ButteredToast 01:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That actually seems more like a disclaimer. I think it's fair to add a character if there is an established source saying that so-and-so is an anti-hero. It's either that, or as Leocomix pointed out, we let it be based on personal opinion. Fuzzform (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Leatherface

How in the world is Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre an anti-hero. To be an anti-hero the character still needs to be a hero, which he is specifically not. He viciously and cruelly kills random people mainly for the sadistic experience of their suffering with eating them as a distant second purpose. It would be very hard to even argue that he is the protagonist, much less the hero of the films. I will admit that I have only seen the original film and the new prequel, but, unless the old sequels or new version pose some drastic overhaul of his character, he needs to be stricken from this list. -CawH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.55.248 (talk) 01:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

First off, your personal opinion (or anyone's for that matter) doesn't matter. Removing or adding characters to this list based on personal opinion counts as POV and original research.

Second of all, Leatherface is hardly sadistic/cruel and doesn't enjoy people suffering. He is mentally retarded, childlike and is bullied/manipulated by his family. That's irrevelant to this discussion, of course, but I just wanted to make that point.--CyberGhostface 21:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "personal opinion" that Leatherface is the villain of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. A sympathetic antagonist is not an anti-hero. In fact, that's pretty much the opposite of an anti-hero. ButteredToast 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the qualities listed is "Qualities normally belonging to villains (amorality, greed, violent tendencies, etc.) that may be tempered with more human, identifiable traits (confusion, self-hatred, etc.)". Leatherface has violent tendencies and villainous behaviors (i.e. cannibalism) that are tampered with 'more human, identifiable traits' such as loneliness, confusion, etc and so forth.--CyberGhostface 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot identify Leatherface as an anti-hero. The article for anti-hero states:

"In fiction, the anti-hero is the protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities — courage, idealism, fortitude — and possessed of character traits — ineptness, stupidity, dishonesty — that are antithetical to heroism. Typically, the anti-hero acts heroically, in scale and daring, but by methods, manners, and intentions both fair and foul, even underhanded and deceitful."

He does not commit "heroic acts" despite possessing traditionally unheroic qualities; rather he possesses A FEW sympathetic qualities in spite of his villainy. He still is a villain in that his action is "evil" in both purpose and effect; certainly, he cannot be considered a protagonist or even allied with the protagonists (as a typical antihero would be). Perhaps (but probably not), he could be considered an anti-villain, but certainly he does not fulfill the qualifications of an anti-hero. All in all, I think it should be edited. --DarkStar0 21:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is still being discussed.

First off, whether or not you consider Leatherface to be an antihero is irrevelant. This goes for ANYONE. If a character is cited by a legit source, it stays. If not it, its removed. End of subject. There are plenty of entries I disagree with but I'm not complaining because them's the rules. Removing entries based on your opinions counts as original research and point of view.

Also, keep in mind, this article states that "Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources, and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero". BUT..."Qualities normally belonging to villains (amorality, greed, violent tendencies, etc.) that may be tempered with more human, identifiable traits (confusion, self-hatred, etc.)" is listed as criteria. And as I've pointed out, Leatherface's villainous acts are tampered with human traits.

Also, would you care to explain how Alex DeLarge and Patrick Bateman (the former's picture was used in this article before the fair use inquisitors removed it) act as heroic? Or how the natural born killers "act heroically, in scale and daring"?--CyberGhostface 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am nothing if not reasonable. I would not care to answer your question, as I absolutely believe many of the other characters listed are NOT anti-heroes. I am not going to argue further on the definition and how it does or does not apply to Leatherface. The legitimacy of the citations is in question for the following reasons:

[66] Fangoria.com - This is the only half-way justifiable article, but not a credible source. This seems to be more of a release marketing article trying to indicate TCM attempts elevate the depth of the film genre. Only uses the word anti-hero once.

[67]Nighttimes.com - Does not make a case for Leatherface as an anti-hero at any point (the reference may even be sarcastic given the rest of the article). Seems highly uncredible, referring to the film as a “cinematic turd” shows it is not really a scholarly article about anti-heroic attributes.

[68]Dvdjournal.com – this short review makes no justification of its claim or even indicates the author understands the definition of anti-hero (as given on wikipedia).

[69]Aintitcool.com – See [68]. Also, the author’s use of quite a bit of profanity takes away from it as a credible article.

Simply, using the word anti-hero is not enough; some justification should be present in a good citation. Even if I don’t agree personally, I would be more than happy to completely drop this if one credible article that explains how and why Leatherface is an anti-hero is cited. Beyond this, the point as you accurately stated is moot. I did not edit the list, nor would I edit the list without consensus (as some may strongly feel he is an antihero). Even simply removing [67], [68] and [69] would be preferable, as those citations, in my opinion, are so illegitimate as to detract from the argument for Leatherface’s inclusion.--DarkStar0 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide how credible a source is? Since when does using profanity mean its no longer credible? In fact, your critique that the articles aren't 'scholarly' enough or don't discuss the subject of being antihero is rather baseless: I suggest you take a look at some of the other sources. Alex DeLarge's source states "Clint Eastwood's Harry Callahan from the Dirty Harry movies is fourth [in a poll on antiheroes in a magazine], ahead of Alex DeLarge, played by Malcolm McDowell, from controversial film A Clockwork Orange". He's not even the focus of the article, and its mentioned briefly. Holden Caulfield's? "...was intercut with a series of short films that featured an actor playing Salinger's adolescent antihero, Holden Caulfield." Yet again, only a 'passing reference'. For Snape: "It may be that we have finally seen which way the wind is blowing with the brooding anti-hero Professor Snape." Yet again, another passing reference. I could go on and find some more, but you get the picture.

So if you're going to argue that simply using the term antihero in describing Leatherface is not enough, then I suggest you take a look at numerous other entries on the list instead of singling out one character--CyberGhostface 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To maintain Wikipedia as a credible source it must be based on credible sources. And if you read my previous entry you would see I have a problem with 90% of the entries here. I think the whole list is flawed, people can't see the difference between an anti-hero and an anti-villain apparently (the anti-hero article tries to explain this). So perhaps you're right in that I shouldn't focus on Leatherface, but rather on getting this flawed list removed. I withdraw my individual complaint against Leatherface. The list needs a complete rewrite with more stringent restrictions.--DarkStar0 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Nominate the article for deletion, if you feel so strongly about it. I should point out, however, that this was nominated before and the consensus was to keep it, so keep that in mind. The discussion was in favor 10-2, with one of the two dissenters being the original nominator.--CyberGhostface 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want the list to reflect the true definition of anti-hero, which as defined on the list itself is unclear. I really would like input as to what you think, as you seem to disagree with a lot of the so-called 'anti-heroes' placement as well. Do you know if there is an anti-villain list (as many of these characters would be more accurately defined as this)? If one does exist a merger might be a good idea and then sorting or something. I really don't know, what do you think?--DarkStar0 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm sorry if I came off as rude before. There is an anti-villain page, but there is no list. There used to be one, but it was just people adding characters with no source. Anti-villain isn't as common as anti-hero so it would be harder to make a lengthy list using cited sources.--CyberGhostface 03:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An idea... This might be plain crazy or against wikipedia rules, so tell me if I am completely off-base here. Maybe make an archetypical antihero subsection within the list for characters who are "consummate" anti-heroes. They would have to fulfill all the terms that would end up listed for example:

1) they must be the protagonist (not the antagonist),

(2) they lack several traditional heroic archetypical traits (ex: courage, ideals, fortitude),

(3) use methods and have intentions both ideal and underhanded,

(4) have their own values which may or may not be in unison with societies,

(5) and, in the end, act heroically, in both heroic scale and daring.

These are just examples (taken from the antihero article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihero), but I think you see where I'm going. Can you require literary sources (which would assume credibility) for this kind of thing; is that against wikipedia rules? Anyways, this is just one idea on how to cleanup. Like I said, my intention is just to reflect anti-hero accurately. I guess I really don't care if some quasi-antiheroes are on there, but some clear 'good' examples would really elevate the list in my opinion. Any other ideas to achieve the goal?--DarkStar0 00:47, 18 September 2007 (CST)

I could have sworn I already replied...weird. Anyway, I would take it up with themidnighters, as he is the main editor on the article. I wouldn't have a problem with making subsections, though although I don't know how it'd fit in with the other sections.

As for literary sources, do you mean judging if a character is one based on events in the book, or if a character is referred to such in the book?--CyberGhostface 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, a source for the subsection would come out of an academic journal article (e.g. "The Anti-Hero In Eigteenth-Century Fiction". By: Adams, Percy G.. Studies in the Literary Imagination, Spring76, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p29, 23p; AN: 6889189).--DarkStar0 12:47, 23 September 2007 (CST)

First off I agree that Leatherface is not an anti-hero, but as has been repeated to death on this talk page, the opinions of editors do not factor into the inclusion of characters. Only including examples backed up by a reliable source is the strength (and sometimes, as in this case, the weakness) of the list. The reason the list is imperfect and includes some objectionable examples is due to the problems inherent in the usage of the term "anti-hero" in popular discourse which is beyond our control. This list never has been and never will be perfect, but maintaining the Wikipedia standard of verifiability is what has and will (hopefully) keep it alive.

Second, while I like your suggestion of a subsection for "consummate" anti-heroes I'm pretty certain it would simply become another battleground for POV. For example, I already disagree with your conditions for inclusion, namely the fifth, which does not apply to some of (what I consider) the more iconic, clearcut and universally recognized anti-heroes of modern literature (like Alex from A Clockwork Orange, Patrick Bateman from American Psycho or Humbert Humbert from Lolita). Your definition is more within the scope of the vigilante type of anti-hero (a questionable but ultimately heroic character), and while this might encapsulate the definition of anti-hero for you, it won't for everyone. --TM 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prince of Persia and Solid Snake

This page says that "(The Prince) has become a generic tough guy or anti-hero." Also Solid Snake from the Metal Gear Series has aspects that could qualify him as an anti-hero. For a start he claims not to be a hero as he only fights for himself. I don't have specific references for either of these two things outside of wikipedia or from what can be perceived from playing the games. Jagged Fel 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You need a cited source to get a character mention in this list. Do a google search for "Prince of Persia" and "antihero" and see if any professional game reviews count as such.--CyberGhostface 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I thought: I found this one:
*http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/prince-of-persia-2-2005/570797p2.html

Which I think is official, it says near the bottom "The Prince in Warrior Within is a bitter, deeply angry man who's only out to save his own ass and he really doesn't care who he has to run over in the process. The result is that, rather than being a "dark" and "gritty" anti-hero, the Prince merely comes across as a self-pitying jackass who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions." It occured to me that although it suggests he isn't an anti hero, the fact is he is described as having the same characteristics as one. I found some other official reviews, but they don't specifically mention the phrase "anti hero" and are therefore no more or less help than that review. Also seeing as Solid Snake claiming to fight for himself and no one else is a quote from the game, does that need a website as a reference? Or will just stating that its referencing a quote in the game do? Jagged Fel 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some published reviews for Prince of Persia that use the term antihero.[5][6] And here is one for Solid Snake.[7] You should be able to add them now.--CyberGhostface 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Crypto

If you don't mind doing so I believe that Cryptosporidium-137/8 should be added to the list of anti-heros in video games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.111.206 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Heroines

I know that these are less common than male anti-heros, but I feel that there need to be some on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakesomeaction (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as you have a cited source, you can add them.--CyberGhostface 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my! You're so gracious for giving Shakesomeaction permission to edit this open source encyclopedia. ButteredToast 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CyberGhostface is merely stating the requirements for inclusion so that Shakesomeaction's additions do not get removed. Please refrain from personal attacks. --TM 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am pretty gracious.--CyberGhostface 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am now an official mod on the fictional anti-heros page. Citations are only allowed from in-print sources and those I do not agree with will be arbitrarily deleted without discussion. Shakesomeaction 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, there's no such thing as being an "official mod" for an article, and noone gets to single-handedly decide what entries remain or not. I hope this is some kind of joke. --TM 04:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, two people on here seem to have enough time to decide what gets posted. Notice there is a lot of "you can post if..." This is Wikipedia, anyone can post in spite of someone's presumption that the poster is incorrect. A lot of people have had their entries deleted just because it isn't "sourced." Do you even know what a credible source is? I will agree one source I gave was not credible, but neither are movie reviews, which are purely biased and opinion-oriented. Just because a single person once somewhere incorrectly gave the label of anti-hero to a fictional character does not mean that the character is an anti-hero. It would make more sense if you used un-biased sources (if the sources is your basis on choosing who to delete off the page, since both of you have taken the roles of unofficial mods) and at least two of these un-biased sources were cited. Movie reviews are not unbiased. Period. Neither are booklists or movielists (even in a newspaper), personal webpages, or descriptions of movies or books by a retailer. I don't know what you learned in fifth grade about research papers, but that doesn't cut it. That's the worst thing about an open-source encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it or take over a page and constantly edit it to their liking, and they don't know shit about research and un-biased journalism. And for christ-shakes! The US education system needs to put more effort into their teaching of correct grammar, spelling, and punctation! (And don't either of you try to give me "we have the disclaimer" crap. That disclaimer invalidates the whole source idea. You don't want opinionated sources, yet you disclaim that some of these sources are personal opinion. Make up your mind what you see as fit and stick to it. Don't arbitrarily decide when it should be used.)Delete this if you wish. You'll have read it anyway, and that is my intention. /end rant Shakesomeaction 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to form a response point by point. "You can post if..." is in regards to WP:V which states that claims need sourcing, otherwise it's original research. I didn't come up with that rule, the community did. In regards to the claim that movie reviews are biased, that's arguable and depends on your definition of bias but of course they are opinion-oriented, most (or arguably all) articles/academic papers/reviews inherently are since they represent the views of the author. You're correct that a single person cannot single handedly definitively label an anti-hero, since, as has been repeated, this is a slippery and subjective term and means different things to different people. The decision as to what is biased and un-biased is a very grey area; one person's biased piece is another's unbiased piece. Attempting to weed out "biased" articles would open up POV battles about which articles are biased and which aren't. Your last point is pretty much a straw man argument since at no point do we say we "don't want opinionated sources" (all sources concerning the labelling of anti-heroes is opinionated). And finally, obviously your comment will not be deleted.

So, what would you like to see done? Would you like us all to review the citations and only stick to highly regarded sources (The Guardian, The New York Times)? You suggested only citing in-print sources which, as an academic elitist, I might support since it would likely do away a lot of examples I don't like, but there is little justification to exclude sources based on whether they are in print or online. And besides, with print media you still end up with what you would consider biased and opinion-based articles.

The problem is, as I've stated so many times, that the application of the term (in most or perhaps all cases) is a subjective and debatable issue and as long as we state that fact in the article we remain objective about the subjectivity of the list. We are not saying that these are definitively anti-heroes, merely that they are characters that have been described as anti-heroes by a critic.--TM 11:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That post about in-print citations was just as you named it--a joke. But in all seriousness, let's not get into the complexity of the fact that there cannot be a paper written without any sort of bias. Clear bias is a movie review. An informative article is not. Let's excuse the fact that making a list of fictional anti-heros is almost ridiculous in itself, but clearly ill-informed people don't understand what an anti-hero really is and movie reviews(which, I might add, don't really take any kind of journalist training to write and does not make a person a professional critic) and other examples I gave previously fall into this category. All I am saying, and I know that plenty of other people agree, is that if you and your friend want to take the role of "main editors," use some common sense. I would actually have no problem with non-cited examples because of the nature of Wikipedia, but because this is important to the two of you, maybe you should make it a little more professional. I have no qualms with the fact that you insist there should be sources. (And by the way, not all academic papers are biased. English, Philosophy, and other subjective arts might be, but scientific papers make it a point to avoid bias.) Shakesomeaction 14:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's little to say that TM hasn't without coming off redundant, so I'll just state this in response to the complaint that I "police" this page and how I'm always asking for sources on the talk page.

So many times someone comes on here and goes, "Can I add this character? He's cool. I think he's an antihero." I just point out that for it to be a valid site it needs a published source. In one case, I actually helped someone find a source. And sometimes someone might add an unsourced entry, which gets removed. I don't "control" the page. There are several characters I don't like who I haven't touched on account of there being valid sources. The only personal bias I see are people trying to remove cited entries based on their personal preferences. As for having enough time to moderate this page...it literally takes all of five seconds to check the most recent changes and see if there's a source or not.--CyberGhostface 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting that you automatically assumed I was speaking of you. Obviously you do think that you have some authority over the page, when it is a open-source encyclopedia of which no one should consider themselves the main editor. I'm not putting words into your mouth, I am simply explaining through your actions and even the very fact that you felt you must justify yourself telling a person they couldn't add something to a domain that is not your own. Other than that, I have no problem with sources, it's the type of stuff that you consider sources. (And your well-endowed user page shows your presence on Wikipedia is not merely passing.)Shakesomeaction 14:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia, by nature, is not a valid site. It is edited by any hoo-ha who can type and has access to the internet.Shakesomeaction 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I assumed that you were speaking to me. You write "two people on here seem to have enough time to decide what gets posted". Me and TM are the two main contributors to this article. I think Doczilla pops up to regulate it but not as much. Unless you wouldn't mind telling me who else "the two main people" was referring to??? If not, then why is it a problem that I 'assume' that you are talking about me?

That doesn't mean I believe I have an authority over others. I don't remove legit entries, and I don't add unsourced ones. There are no rules on this page that I consider myself to be exempt from. You're the one who's trying to narrow down the list and exact your standards on it.

Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its rules. If someone's going to be doing something that's against article criteria, then its going to be removed. That doesn't mean that the removing editor is exacting his authority over others, it just simply means that he's following said rules.--CyberGhostface 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)\

I go back and forth on watching this page. I'll take it off my watchlist for stretches of time just so it doesn't feel like I'm camping the page and so I can come back with a fresh perspective. Plus, those of us who regularly check this page have generally been in such consistent agreement on what we'll delete that it's pointless for us all to check the same article every day. I do think we need to come up some stricter standards on what we'll count as sources. It's a tough call. Printed sources, however, are clearly not the only sources allowed on Wikipedia. Doczilla 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is basically based on a biased view. It's just everyone's "opinion" Zzz sleeping 04:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrugs* I guess you could say that, although it would probably apply to 90% of any articles dealing with the critical response of a work of fiction. Buf if we don't have sources then we just get random people adding in their favorite characters with no rhyme or reason.--CyberGhostface 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Official mod"

Wait a minute. Let's back up to Shakesomeaction's claim to be an official mod on this page who gets to decide validity of the page's sources singlehandedly. What does that mean? That sounds like a hoax, and if so, this person should be blocked from editing this page for attempting to perpetrate said hoax. Doczilla 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that he/she was trying to be sarcastic more than anything else.--CyberGhostface 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's find out. After all, a feeling is not a valid source. Doczilla 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

a feeling is not a valid source Good Show!

it is a open-source encyclopedia of which no one should consider themselves the main editor

If you weren't making a well-placed joke, I am very embarrassed for the psychological community, of which I am a member. Ban me if you wish. It ain't no thang. Shakesomeaction 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I add someone?

Can someone PLEASE tell me how I do this, I wanna add Master Shake, he's a worthy anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.145.130 (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just find a review or some source making reference to him as such and add him to the proper section.--CyberGhostface 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alastor

If I recall, wasn't Alastor casted as the Anti-Hero for Viewtiful Joe? I think the game might have even stated so, as it has a tendency to mock itself for being cliche in regards to silver-screen archetypes. I know that if Leatherface through some twisted mockery of the definition of Anti-hero can be labeled as such, Alastor could easily meet those terms. Commander Regulus 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gasp. Someone disagrees with Leatherface's classification on this list? Oh no, that's horrible. I'm so upset. Just take a number and wait in line with the rest of the people. Thanks!--CyberGhostface 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said remove him. I looked at the argument and it was clear that debating such a classification is a lost cause. I'm saying that if a few quality match-ups can place a character on the anti-hero list, I believe Alastor meets at least one or two of those qualities. There's really no call for such blatantly scathing sarcasm. Commander Regulus 02:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic because it seems that tons of people are complaining about Leatherface or attempting to remove him because they don't agree with his addition. It wasn't so much as targeted at you specifically but just in general. There are tons of characters I don't like but are sourced. I wasn't attempting to be deliberately hostile to you specifically, I'm just in a pissy mood today for various reasons, so I apologize for that. As for Alastor, maybe you can search for some reviews that refer to him as such.--CyberGhostface 03:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg, by all definitions, is a bad guy, not a anti-hero. 98.200.242.98 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He's sourced. That's all we need.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with anonymous. Randall Flagg is a villain, not an anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.169.205 (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben Linus

ben Linus is an anti-villain, not anti-hero. He is certainly the main antagonist of Lost and doesn't do gestures by non-heroic deeds. He is noble and does what he thinks is right for the wrong reasons. He's certainly not an anti-hero, although he does have potential to become one. He is by definition a villain and does nothing to help the survivors (minus trying to prevent the freighters from arriving, but he's saving his own hide over theirs).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.134.228 (talk • contribs)

That's not for us to decide. See WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V for relevant policy Doczilla (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Benjamin Linus is still quite a mysterious character in the series Lost, which still has no ending, and it might be interesting to wait and see how it all unravels. Then, depending on what he finally does, it should be classified. But anyways, if there are cited sources that know he is an anti-hero (for instance, the actor himself in an interview, or the script-writers) then I guess it is understood that his actions up until now qualify as those of an anti-heroe. Uberflaven (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Woland

From Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. I don't have a source yet, but from reading the novel, it's clear that he isn't a villain. More evidence to come. Fuzzform (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It can't be included unless you have an reliable external source calling him such. Anything else is original research.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick google search and nothing came up.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a realible source for it, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/05/klimowski-schejbal-margarita. I'm adding it now. The Illusional Ministry (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is apparently about a adaption of the novel, it has been converted to a Graphic novel. Still valid though, as the section about Woland discusses him exclusive of the the novel or graphic novel.The Illusional Ministry (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some links explaining Wolf O'Donnell's position

I looked at the discussion and it seems that no one posted links on proof that Star Wolf, or at least Wolf, is an antihero. Here are some links.

http://www.arwinglanding.net/sfds/index.php?page=characters http://guides.ign.com/guides/748545/page_68.html http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Wolf_O'Donnell http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wolf

Here are even vids to provide stuff about them! http://youtube.com/watch?v=J91fAOBsaW0 http://youtube.com/watch?v=ysW-z47Bm6Y http://youtube.com/watch?v=-VA2s4bY1-U http://youtube.com/watch?v=AM6QWn0iNPQ http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOQXs-B8bfs

There's still one vid I am looking for where Star Wolf comes and assists Star Fox in the Aparoid Homeworld invasion. but yeah, those are proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuffiekun123 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The link needs to call him an antihero specifically. Including a character because you believe he fits the criteria is original research. I don't know if any of those links are valid. The first two don't call him such, wiki pages aren't used for sources, and I don't think the youtube videos (which I haven't viewed yet) would be good either unless its of a creator/reviewer calling him one. I did a quick google search for you but nothing valid came up.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For example, if you were to find a review that said something like "Antihero Star Wolf is the most interesting character" then we could add him.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Anti-Hero and opinion of Wikipedia's stance on neutrality

The main issue I see with the list is that many have forgotten that “hero” is the major aspect of the definition of “anti-hero.” An anti-hero is, essentially, a hero who acts in a non-traditional manner towards heroic ends. I was going to comment on what qualities some of those on the list possess that qualifies them, but many are a complete mystery how they ended up listed. If the primary criterion for being included is that someone printed an article stating a specific character was an anti-hero, then it is completely subjective to that one individual’s point of view.

Wikipedia has a definition of what an anti-hero is, as does Wiktionary. But both definitions are very limited and I would argue not accurate enough. An ant-hero is one who is a hero with a looser moral code. Usually they operate with an “ends justifies the means” attitude with a positive or heroic ends and questionable means. This is also why I disagree with Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality relating to this article. If people are referencing this article for an understanding of what an anti-hero is and using Gollum from Lord of the Rings as an example compared with Severus Snape from Harry Potter they might become confused.

• • • • • • • • • SPOLIER WARNING *********

Gollum’s motivation was to reacquire the One Ring at any cost for his own personal gratification. That is not heroic. Snape utilized questionable tactics and actions that were perceived as villainous until we learn that it was his “end” to see that Harry Potter survives to defeat Lord Voldemort. Snape is whom I could view as the arch-typical anti-hero. I would also cite The Punisher over Batman due to the latter’s qualms about killing. Batman’s reluctance to kill is a traditional hero standard that The Punisher eschews in order to bring about his sense of justice. By setting a standard for what characters should be included as anti-heroes and adding only characters that fit the definition will we properly demonstrate our definition, which is the purpose of this list/article. SeanMike77 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing really to say on this that hasn't been discussed already. Yes, the list (and what antihero means) is subjective. But removing entries based on our own personal views counts as original research. Yes, the links make it subjective to that reviewer's point of view, but its still a cited review and not just the editor's opinion.

If someone's really confused, they just can click on the link for the proper context and make up their mind. But I don't see anyone becoming confused.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

spiderman!

In the anti hero article it states numerous times that spiderman is an a primary example of the "young brooding anti-hero" yet he is notably absent from this list. 201.238.124.206 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because no one bothered to find a reliable source calling him such. If you can find one, go ahead and add him.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Dent?

Really. . . Does someone have a verfied source for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessnotdean (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, remove Arthur Dent. Nothing about his character is anti-heroic. In the wikipedia for Arthur Dent there's a source for him being anti-heroic, and it is this article which is some odd social commentary and nothing to do with Hitch Hikers guide at all. REMOVE! General kaiden (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't remove sourced entries because you disagree with their placement.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about disagreeing with the source, it's about the source not being a proper one. Here, I'll give an example for the slow witted. If I was to go into the earth article and claim that over 90% of the earth is made of snow, and then use a Peanuts comic strip as my source... would that make it right? I understand what your trying to say. But read that article. It's not even about Hitch Hikers guide, Arthur Dent is mentioned in one sentence, the term "anti-hero" is thrown in willy nilly without any statement to back up how Arthur Dent is actually an anti-hero. I'm all for properly sourced facts, but this is not a fact, it's a poor source, it doesn't support it's case at all. Don't you understand? This should totally be removed.General kaiden (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, ask TheMidnighters first then. I think just being referenced as an antihero is enough, but he'll probably know better as to what constitutes a valid source. (Although there are other references in the article that are just as minute as Dent's.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So.. how do you find a reliable source?

I know for a fact that Winslow Leach from 'Phantom of the Paradise' is an anti-hero. He's the protagonist of the film; he is falsely imprisoned, has his teeth removed, and after a horrible accident he is disfigured and forced to hide in a costume in the attic of a discoteck. Further bad things happen as his musical work and hippy girlfriend are stolen, so he goes nuts and starts killing people.

How do I find a reliable source to confirm this?

(Also, I think Swan could probably be on this list too. He's the cause of all the things mentioned above, all in the pursuit of greed and immortality.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.136 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way for me is just to do a google search. It doesn't have to be a major thing, just a reference in a professional interview, review or article. (For example, a review by the Boston Globe could say "As the antihero Sweeney Todd, Johnny Depp steals the show" and that would be enough) But I just did a google seach for Leach and nothing came up.

But including a character on the list because you feel that he fits the criteria based on his actions counts as original research.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chucky

I believe that the information about Chucky as an anti-hero should be edited.

The following is an excerpt from the source citing Chucky as an anti-hero:

"The first one is great because it’s actually a scary movie. It’s really original. Bride is genius because it rewrites the whole series and Chucky becomes the anti-hero instead of the villain. There’s something great about how [Don Mancini] chose to rewrite the series."

The current wording seems to imply that Chucky is anti-hero in all theatrical appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendonnn (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He's still the same character in all the films, though. I really don't agree with saying "Chucky from Bride of Chucky" (if that's what you're trying to suggest) instead of "Chucky from the Child's Play series", but maybe one the regulars like Doczilla or Midnighters could clarify this for me. But if push comes to shove, and the current one is not acceptable, then we can just use this review which states "Seed Of Chucky is the fifth installment in the popular Child's Play series that introduced audiences to a pop culture antihero and a horror icon." which does make a clearer indication of him being an antihero in all his appearences.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That is good enough for me and everyone else I suppose. I was just uncertain with the original source's statement. I just have trouble with the ambiguity the anti-hero definition. thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendonnn (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 

Lelouch Lamperouge and Light Yagami

Shouldn't Lelouch Lamperouge and Light Yagami added to the list since both of their articles on Wikipedia clearly state that they are anti-heroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcamfee (talk • contribs) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You need a reliable external source (outside of Wikipedia) that refers to them as being antiheroes before adding them to the list. I'd be extremely surprised if no article ever called Light an antihero, although I have no idea who Lamperouge is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are these links okay? http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B001AZ5ITM?filterBy=addFourStar http://bestuff.com/stuff/light-yagami —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.255.37 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Here's another link for Lelouch Lamperouge if the first one doesn't work. Although it doesn't explicitly say the word "anti-hero" it states his actions and morals. http://stars.ign.com/objects/142/14236948_biography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.255.37 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those are acceptable. Be-stuff looks like a fan wiki and Amazon reviews aren't reliable sources. IGN would be a reliable source, but only if it called him an antihero. I'll do a google search and see if anything comes up.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this link at IGN for Lelouch, which should be good enough to list him here. It reads "With this power and his impressive intellect, he becomes the quintessential anti-hero with a cold willingness to use any means necessary to achieve his noble goal of destroying the Empire." I haven't found anything reliable for Light, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

how's this? http://stars.ign.com/objects/102/10207290_biography.html It doesn't use the word anti-hero but it does say he is mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.28.22 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It has to call him an antihero, sorry.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lelouch be added now? CyberGhostface's link explicitly says antihero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.31.25 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you (or anyone else) can add it if you want now that it has a source. But if no one does it soon, I'll try to add it later.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Who moved Lelouch from Anime/Manga to comic books? Most articles on Wikipedia separate anime/manga from comic books. We should either start an anime/manga section or have him in both comic books for the Code Geass manga and him yet again in television for the Code Geass anime. And if it matters, the Code Geass anime and manga follow different stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.195.68 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still surprised that Yagami Raito hasn't been included in this list, since every list of anti-heroes place him as one of the best (or worse) anti-heroes of all times. Albmont (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

HOW COULD YOU GUYS FORGET ARTEMIS FOWL ?

Artemis Fowl, from Eoin Colfer's series? Noble intentions eventually, but uses mostly illegal means. Someone add him, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, he's already listed. --TM 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Two Face/Harvey Dent

    He kills people, but they're usually criminals or dirty cops anyway.

too many villains here

could someone edit this to take out all the villains that have been posted as antiheroes? for example, hannibal an antihero? please... do no confound antihero with the villain! (Sunsetterxxx (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

If they're correctly cited an as antihero by a reliable source, then there is no reason for them to be removed, especially not because someone disagrees with their placement.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you're interested, I suggest reviewing the Hannibal section above and other sections dealing with issues like inclusion and the wide variety of characters represented. --TM 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just removed Freddy Krueger from this list because there is absolutely NOTHING anti-hero about him, he is a villian 100%. I'm currently wading through, trying to remove all the villians. Chucky from Child's Play? Who in their right mind thinks he's anything but a villian? Xprivate eyex (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Your edits will be reverted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading the discussion of Leatherface from last year. I kept seeing over and over that "one person's opinion doesn't matter", but only as far as getting someone removed. In other words, if I add to the list, and offer some citation, however tenuous that citation is, then it stays? No matter how many people disagree? It seems there is a much higher threshold for getting a character removed than put on. This seems 180 degree opposite to the way it needs to be. In order to provide reasonably accurate information, then it seems that there should be some consensus on the justification. Leatherface, Hannibal, Freddy ... these are villains, not anitheroes! What did Freddy ever do that was heroic? He was a clever-witted villain, but that hardly makes him heroic. Likewise, Hannibal was never interested in helping anyone. Likewise, I am a great fan of "Seinfeld", but I fail to see how George Castanza should be on the list. He may have been a sympathetic character, but heroic (saving the beached whale not withstanding)? On the other hand, what about Andy Sipowicz from "NYPD Blue". At least in the early seasons, his alcoholism was his demon, and his flaws are what set the show apart and redefined the cop drama; in some ways, it ushered in an era of antihero dramas ... but I cannot definitely say that Sipowicz that he was an antihero b/c, beyond drinking (and his temper) what were his flaws. He could, in fact, be construed as a traditional hero, or at least in the mold of Batman. Back to the original point ... it seems that more consideration could be given to him, and to others, and the list could be pruned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.62.57 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source, then you can add it. If it has a reliable source, it stays. That's all there is to it. Removing or adding characters because of your personal opinion constitutes as original research.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well my "original research" turns up the definition of antihero on Wikipedia: "In fiction, an antihero[1] is a protagonist whose character and goals are antithetical to classical heroism." In general, and in the examples I cited, the villains are not protagonists, they are antagonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.244.99 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet all these characters who aren't antiheroes managed to have reliable sources calling them antiheroes.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is the same conversation that's been going on for years on this board! Given that, I will digress, but for this last post. Joseph Heller's words seem appropriate here: "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22" ... so long as I can find one article that describes someone as an AH, that's sufficient; but that does not account for the fact that the writer of the article is a) espousing POV themselves and b) may be confused over the meaning to begin with (again, Freddy and Batman are prime examples). While most of the list is accurate, I don't believe many people would find Freddy to be heroic in any capacity; Batman is a little more gray, but seems to be a traditional hero. Yes someone cited them as AH in an article, but ... circular argument. I agree that, because it can be subjective, that one person should not get "veto power". But is it not reasonable to offer up any contradiction to discussion on this page (with or w/o a caveat on the main page)? Sfter a period of time, a consensus is liable to emerge. In the event of lack of agreement, then the default action would be to leave it posted (again, possibly w/ a qualifier). This would be a simple check-and-balance and a compromise to many who have raised the issue over the years. Just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.244.99 (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't pretend to be undisputed fact. The 'disclaimer' points out that these characters have all been identified as an antihero by a critic, but that the definition is subjective, and that the identifications may be disputed and/or contradict the known definition. One of the main reasons why similar articles have been deleted in the past was that people just added and removed characters at random because they agreed/disagreed with their placement on the list. If we get to the point where we decide to remove characters because we disagree with their placement (even if we 'vote') then we're just back to the same place as before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood ... to certain extent. While I don't think that discussion that reaches a consensus is a fair comparison to 'voting' or undocumented additions, I will grant that the disclaimer does make the point that I (and others) were trying to address.

I get what you're saying, but to me, it's still taking uncited Wikipedian opinions (even if a a large number of them reach a consensus in discussion) over published articles. This article was nominated for deletion before, and one of the things that kept it from being deleted was that its entries were sourced. If you want, you can bring this up to User:TheMidnighters and User:Doczilla, as they both moderate this article. I'll admit I'm not an expert on all the rules at Wikipedia, but they'll probably clarify what's the best route to take on this article. If they decide that the idea of having a consensus of opinion is valid I'll back off.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to weigh in, basically the article that existed before this was deleted for not having any sources. Verifiability is one of the major things Wikipedia strives for. We can't decide what's true in the case of anti-heroes, just like we can't all sit around and rewrite history through editor consensus. It boils down to this, keep this list sourced and it will stay (hopefully), let it become a list of original research and POV and it will be deleted quickly. Sources are also good because most of the "obvious" anti-heroes we'd all agree on have a source out there anyway, you just have to look for a bit. The drawback is that some more controversial ones also appear. I believe the points you raise are discussed elsewhere on this page (specifically POV of reviewers vs POV of WP editors, and inclusion through consensus). Personally, I like the list, I think it's useful, and I think following this system is the only way it will stay on Wikipedia. --TM 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that this article isn't "reliable sources only" - anything with a source is being accepted unconditionally, with no one checking to see that the sources are reliable. I don't remember all the precise nuances of the sourcing policies, but some of the entries are sourced only by sites so obviously unreliable that they make blogs look like the pinnacle of accuracy by comparison (and there's at least a few blogs among the crop too), and some other source links lead to 404 errors. Recall that the sourcing policy requires that sources be vaguely reputable sites, not just the results of a Google search for anti-hero and a character's name. Examples of bad sources include 141 and 150 (seriously, how did a source with "Animated Lust" in the title go unchecked?), as well as 158. There's also at least half a dozen source links whose no longer exist (if they ever did). I didn't touch anything on the page, because I don't have the time or the knowledge of the subject matters necessary to exhaustively examine each and every one of these two hundred sources, but more importantly because all I'd be able to get rid of are the most obvious glaring problems, and then you'd go back to just rubber-stamping anything with a source. I'm leaving them for the article's dedicated caretakers to clean up so you can see just how bad it is and not only fix everything but adopt a more critical policy toward additions in the future. Gelmax (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you find any unreliable/questionable sources, post them here. I removed the ones you mentioned.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, we also try to be strict with standards, but there are only a few of us monitoring the page. If you actually look at the history of the article you'll see many examples of us reverting examples based on the source being unreliable/invalid or not describing the cited character as an anti-hero. --TM 11:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Students of St Trinian's

I'm trying to keep within the rules here (so you know what to do should I break them), but would the students and staff of St Trinian's School, as portrayed in the films (or at least the most recent installations), be included in this list, or would they be more listed as villians? --JB Adder | Talk 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

All you need is a reliable source that calls them an antihero (like a review).--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Garrett from the Thief Series

I feel that Garrett from the Thief Series should be added as an anti-hero. Although he is primarily motivated by greed (and is an amoral thief as the title suggests), he does occasionally do the right thing, and has saved the world no less than three times! I added Garrett the other day but my edit was promptly removed with no explanation.

As justification, I offer the following link to a(n archived) BBC webpage which clearly cites Garrett as an (anti)hero.

Weyoun47 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If your addition was removed, it was because you didn't have a source calling him such. Since you have one now, you can add him back.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Covenant

I added a literary character: Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever from Stephen R. Donaldson fantasy series. I think he is an excellent example of an anti-hero, but my source may be a bit weak. It's from a fan site of the novels. An introduction page describes this character as "anything but a typical hero." There are some good interviews with the author at his website at http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/ that discuss the character's unsympathetic nature.

Your trilogy, THE CHRONICLES OF THOMAS COVENANT THE UNBELIEVER, will inevitably be compared / contrasted with J.R.R. Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. I know you have great respect for Tolkien's work but isn't it difficult to explore the same grounds without losing your own originality? Is that why Covenant is such an unsympathetic character -- even an anti-hero? Are his leprosy and bitterness an antidote for Hobittitis?

Ah, where to begin? Let me say first that I shudder every time anybody compares / contrasts COVENANT with LORD OF THE RINGS. Of course, my respect for Tolkien is unbounded, so in that sense I suppose I should feel flattered. But comparisons / contrasts are often odious to the people being compared / contrasted. Writing fiction, after all, is not a competition. In fact, nothing can destroy a writer faster than a tendency to compare / contrast himself with some towering predecessor.

In writing COVENANT, I was certainly aware that I was working in Tolkien's shadow (after all, his shadow covers most of the field). But I took LORD OF THE RINGS as a source of inspiration, rather than as any kind of counter-argument or antithesis. I read Tolkien while I was planning COVENANT as a way of reminding myself of the value of fantasy (at that time, I had never been published; never written any fantasy, and almost never read any worthwhile fantasy; Tolkien, Lewis and Peake were the exceptions). So I certainly was not looking for any kind of antidote for Hobbittitis. I was looking for Donaldson -- trying to explore the kinds of things that moved/excited/convinced me, with as little reference as possible to anybody else.

As for Covenant himself, I've never considered him to be "unsympathetic". I wouldn't have written him if he had not so fully engaged my sympathies. But, of course, while I was writing him in LORD FOUL'S BANE, I knew what he was going to become in THE POWER THAT PRESERVES. That -- combined with my interest in people whose guilt arises from their essential innocence (just as their innocence grows out of their guilt) -- probably gives me an unusual tolerance for him.

Source: http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/fromtheauthor/page.php?Page=11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Classic (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated the reference to point to the author's official website. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Compton

What about Bill Compton from True Blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.70.94 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You just need a reliable source referring to him as such.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool

Why isn't Deadpool included here? Considering his character and history, he is known as an anti-hero. Shouldn't he be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.68.240 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Too many antagonists

Leatherface, Chucky, and Freddy Krueger are not protagonists of any series. There's a reason they do not belong on the list; an anti-hero refers to a protagonist... whereas those characters are clearly the antagonists in their films.

Sadly we have no way to trace a line separating the term villain and anti-heroe, and since the term itself is so ambiguous. Anyone famous or well enough known giving his opinion may be considered a source for wikipedia, even tough he might be wrong in throwing that particular character into the anti-heroe list. The right thing to do would be to ask the creator of that character and find out what he thinks, then conduct a voting to see if that caracter really is an anti-heroe and be included in the list. But if we did that, we would all grow nice and long beards and our social life would be reduced to 0. So, even tough I might think a character X is not an antiheroe, if someone whose opinion is relevant thinks this character X is in fact an anti-heroe, then it is has the right to be listed here, and to be removed, the relevant person who thinks character X is an anti-heroe should be convinced otherwise, not us here in wikipedia. Until the day comes that we have an easy way to define an anti-heroe (word that keeps changing as our society also does) we will have to keep a very long, inacurate list. Uberflaven (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to keep antagonists (as per the overall scope of the definition on the anti-hero page), then the opening paragraph on this page needs to be altered. Right now, it specifically details characteristics that protagonists may possess to qualify. That, in itself, does not explicitly exclude antagonists, but the general tone is that it only includes protagonists, and the general feeling to readers may very well be that all of the people on the list are such. I'm not arguing about including villains on the list (which we clearly have), but there should be something in the opening paragraph making it clear that the list is NOT comprised solely of protagonists. --Stevehim (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Anime/Manga

Given the extreme amount of manga (and to a lesser extent) anime, I find the section is quite sad, as only 3 characters are listed. Maybe we could get some more anime/manga characters up there, since I think even the Spanish wikipedia has more (I could have said any other language, but I'm spanish); there are like 7 or 8. I'm not sure we can use their sources since they are most possibly in spanish, but I'm going to list some of them, so we can get up there on this list some anime and manga characters who are clear stereotypes of what an antiheroe would be (properly sourced and verified). As a quick comment, the fact that manga and comic are considered diferent things, I find useful, since many manga have their anime version and listing it all together saves having the same guy in diferent places.

The first and most obvious anti-heroe I can think of is Shinji Ikari. I've found that many people don't think he's an anti-heroe because he's a normal guy (actually, more of a mediocre guy). People tend to think that anti-heroe is a very powerful (heroic) guy but that is selfish and egocentric, doing good things only if he gets some profit off them. That would be a kind of anti-heroe, but not the only one; an antiheroe might also be some mediocre guy who runs away from his problems instead of fearlessly confronting them. I will provide the sources for this one, but I'd prefer someone added it, since I'm no expert at it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiHero It's the second example. (I'm aware this source might be crap, but my google searchs in spanish and I have a hard time getting english pages, since antiheroe is written alike in english and spanish)

Here it also comments that Asuka Langley is the opposite side on the anti-heroe dimension; while Shinji is a coward, Asuka is indeed brave, but in a selfish manner. I believe that to some extent all characters in Neon Genessis Evangelion are antiheroes, since at some point they all say that they do what they do for some selfish reason or other, but I think incluiding all of them would be pointless; Shinji and Asuka should be enoug to represent Evangelion.

An other popular (possible) anti-heroe would be Sasuke Uchiha, altough since the series are still going, maybe he simply becomes a villain, or he becomes a good old fashioned heroe, so it might not be wise to put him up there yet. The same goes for Ichigo Kurosaki, who normally fits more the heroe type, but it might ultimately end up changing.

One who should be listed is Piccolo, as his role is similar to the one Vegeta, has, being evil and later switching to good. The link I posted about Shingi and Asuka also mentions Piccolo; "To a lesser extent, Piccolo could also be seen to possess some anti-hero qualities." It actually says this after dealing with the anti-heroism of Vegeta.

Others listed on the Spanish article are: Phoenix Ikki, Seto Kaiba and Mello, but since I don't know them much, I feel someone else should decide and if so, get the most apropriate source. Uberflaven (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mello (Death Note) is not an anti-hero, he's just a villain. The triangle between Near, Raito and Mello is a classical three-pole terror equilibrium, like the world division in 1984 (book) - Near is the heroic type, Raito is the protagonist and anti-hero and Mello is the villain. Albmont (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blade (Marvel Comics)

What about Blade? I could have sworn that I heard in the Director's (David S. Goyer) commentary of Blade Trinity mentioned somewhere that he is an anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.248.12 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointless list

I think this article is flawed on two levels:

(1) It provides no useful information to the reader. Who, exactly, is this list aimed at? It certainly isn't aimed at readers looking for a list of characters that meet wikipedia's own definition of anti-hero; nor is there any consistancy around any other definition. This renders the page useless.

Including people in a list on the grounds that at least one prominant person considers them an anti-hero is like including Obama in a list of communists, or Bush in a list of tyranical dictators, on the grounds that at least one person truly believes that they qualify (using there own unique definitions of the terms) and has said so.

It's also worth pointing out that it's basically impossible for a counterpoint to that statement "x is an anti-hero" to exist in an article. For example, nobody is going to write an article saying "Mary Poppins is not an anti-hero", simply because it's something that everyone knows already. So if one person did write an article entitled "Mary Poppins is an anti-hero" (not impossible - they may be saying, for example, that Mary Poppins' old fashioned values are the antithesis of what we expect from a 21st century hero), there would be no article to contradict is. This would, of course, not imply consensus.

So why is the list here? The only reasons I can think of for a list to exist on wikipedia is to either demonstrate the definition by example, or to allow the reader to contrast and compare items that fit the definition. This list does neither.

(2) It is actively misleading. The definition of anti-hero, as given on wikipedia, requires that the character be a protagonist. This page includes the phrase "Characteristics in protagonists that merit such a label include...", which further infers that an anti-hero must be a protagonist. Therefore, a reader of the article could very easily conclude, for example, that Gollum is the (or a) protagonist of Lord of the Rings. That is factually incorrect, although of course it's hard to find an article that states specifically that Gollum isn't a protagonist.

Any decision filter used to determine inclusion that results in factually incorrect has no place at all in an encyclopedia.

If we are going to say that Gollum, Flagg and the rest are anti-heroes, then the main anti-hero page should be changed to the appropriate definition (which apparently is "any character who isn't pure good or pure evil", based on the list). Otherwise, this list needs to be either properly filtered or dispensed with, because at the moment the two pages glaringly contradict eachother. For example, the anti-hero page states "Antiheroes differ from Tragic heroes", yet Hamlet is currently listed as both an anti-hero and a tragic hero.

So as it stands, this page is misleading, incoherent and contradictory, and as such I don't see how it can have a place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.132.142 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I have to agree with this point. This list feels more like a Google search for any review with the word anti-hero in it. Would it be better to extend the anti-hero page with a few more clearly defined examples? A lot of the references are little more than reviews where someone has used the term anti-hero in passing. Is referencing a subjective reviewer's write up better than our own subjective opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungalphobia (talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Gollum

A couple of things here:

First, the source cited gives a 404 error, so the article seems to have been deleted, though I did find it using the Internet Archive here if anyone wants to fix the article link (which technically should be done according to policy.

Serkis was talking about the LOTR film, not the novel. I would think at least a clarification on the author or medium would be in order...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevehim (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)