Talk:Jason Todd/Archive 1

message: Anways, just wanted to bring this up (!!!!WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!)
.
.
.
.
Is Jason Todd dead? In Batman #650, Batman hits Jason in the neck with his batarang, and the place the two and Joker are in gets blown up by C4. It looks like the hit Jason got was pretty fatal. Is he, in fact, truly dead now?
:Well, its just like dead in the family, where we see jason agonizing and then the explosion, but we never see him really "dying". Is Jason Todd dead? No. Check the Nightwing covers of march, april and may. We have twin Nightwings, or two guys wearing the same costume. DC has confirmed that Dick Grayson will be Nightwing one year after infinite crisis. As for the other guy, the covers describe him as a "murderous madman", who possesses the same dagger that the red hood (jason) uses. Jason confronted Tim Drake wearing his old robin costume, trying to prove that he is the "better" hero, and now he goes for dick grayson as nightwing. Why? Because is "symbolic", just like jason adopting the old identity of the man who killed him: The Joker, the former red hood. 200.112.96.223 15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Jason Todd dead? 

message: Wait a second......ok if anyone has read the graphic novel where Green Arrow(Ollie) was reserected we see that there was a paradise for fallen superheros, one of them being Jason. Then why in heck is he evil? please tell me they are gonna explain that. Zer0_Gun
:If it turns out he did truly die, and was then resurrected, its not a continuity error.
:If it turns out he somehow survived, then its a continuity error, though not that big a deal since it was only one panel in GA.
:Also, he isn't evil now. He's more of an anti-hero. He's going after other villains, but he's more militant and is less concerned about not killing them than Batman is.  --DrBat 13:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason in heaven? 

message: Is it possible to get a picture of Jason in his Robin costume before his death?--Filby 16:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Jason as Robin 

message: i just updated Jason Todd's latest (or last) battle.  However, do you think he's still alive?  its sorta unreasonable.
:He's alive. Look at the cover of the next Nightwing, and it has Jason's knife right there. Add that onto rumors of 'Two Nightwings' and ... well, it makes a sick sort of sense ;) -- Ipstenu 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So was the annual just a flashback showing how he survived? --DrBat 01:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Showed how he came back to life, to be specific.  It was a good annual, though. -- Ipstenu 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update: One Year Later 

message: I would prefer that we use the previously used Doug Mahnke picture of Jason Todd. I personally like it better, but aside from that, we already have represented Wagner's depiction of Jason, with him as the Red Hood. If we can show more than one current vision of the character, we should do it. --Chris Griswold 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue, jim lee's jason had a different costume, mask and hair. In fact, he seems older than Nightwing in the Batman: Hush storyline, while, mahnke's jason (specially in Batman #641, when bruce and todd are face to face) looks younger. - Neodammerung 15:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, in essence, Mahnke created the new Red Hood design, making his representation more notable, and so his image should be put back. I will do so now. The Wagner picture can stay, because some people seem to like it, but if someone wants to contest this, make your case here. Otherwise, please leave the Mahnke picture alone. --Chris Griswold 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahnke vs. Wagner in the superherobox

message: There have been some wholesale hacking edits that look like the beginning of a rev-war.  I've gone over both sides and tried to pull a happy medium for the changes.  My thoughts are as follows:
* Todd is not a 'super' hero, he has no powers. He is an anti-hero, ala Punisher, because he kills.
* Mention of the 'he was always going to die!' conspiracy theory is good and adds to the encyclopedia nature of the article, however the digression about Mr. Sardonicus is not required to explain the situation.
*The links about drugs and gang violence are fine, leave 'em alone!
* The Robin vs Robin fight is useful, though spec about why Todd left Drake alive is just that, spec.
*Wether or not Jason is taunting Dick by wearing the costume is spec.  Jason's weird.
<BR>-- Ipstenu 13:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually seems pretty okay with most of the changes.  The only paragraph that seems to still be in contention is the one about Grayson's feelings, etc, which now that I re-read it, could be a little less Grayson. Still, I can't help but think this 'partner' thing may be imporant down the road.  Ah well, trying for a different rewording.  I guess all I wish is that 64.236.243.16 would edit instead of replace. -- Ipstenu 16:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to come to a happy medium

message: I noticed the category was removed.  Is it really inappropriate?  Jason's killing people, and that's pretty 'bad' in the DC Heroverse.  I think that it's appropriate now. -- Ipstenu 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hero Turned Bad

message: Kord (the Wayne R&D company) is the target of a take-over shortly before Todd uses a Wayne-designed gadget against Batman. Does anyone know if Todd is supposed to be behind the take-over? (This would explain Todd's arsenal, but begs the question of where Todd got the bushels of money necessary.) 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jason got his arsenal and the money from Talia al Ghul. In Batman Annual #25, almost at the end of the story, there is a computer monitor showing a message from Talia (T) to Jason (T) about purchases of Wayne Tech and more founds in his account - Neodammerung 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Jason Todd Arsenal

message: I don't want this to continue any longer. Someone on this page asked for someone to edit the paragraphs about Jason Todd's coming back to life to reflect the ambiguity of the event and to appease those with differing opinions on the event. Additionally, I removed a lot of unnecesary words and streamlined the text, including flowery language such as "bestowed upon him a kiss." Finally, I put it all in the literary present tense. Other than "I want it this way," Cheesenw@aol.com, please tell me what is wrong with the editing I did. Your insults and arguments about the use of present tense were proved wrong. Your repeatedly deleted the work I did, instead of trying to integrate it in a way you felt was correct. You didn't add, only subtracting. So, please tell me: What needs to be changed, and why? --Chris Griswold 09:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mdash is a printing/typesetting term, and it refers to a dash the width of the letter "m". The shorter dash, or hyphen, is similarly referred to as an ndash. With some modern day fonts, there wouldn't be much difference. It's not gramatically incorrect.  I've pulled up both copies of the intro PG. We can do without a detailed explaination of how StupidBoy reset the DCU (it's explained in SB-P's article, and I've linked to it). I hope this is somewhere in between the two extreems we've had. Also, it's speculation as to if Jason was regenerated, ressurrected or brought in from an else-world at this point. We do not know, and it's not NPOV to interject our suspicions at this point.  I'm trying to keep it neutral. -- Ipstenu 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment just seems bizarre to me since that's what I felt you were expecting of Ipstenu and me when we tried to alter your article. --Chris Griswold 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't believe I discussed the various possibilities, only that first there was a corpse and then there was a living Jason Todd. But ye, all I want to do is work together, and we can't do that if editors completely undo each other's work. I've never been involved in something like this on Wikipedia, and it's just disheartening. --Chris Griswold 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that I made the first move in trying to incorporate others' work. If someone wants to direct me to make alterations, I will do so. But I need to know what alterations to make, since my opinion is obviously that what I wrote was appropriate. If your opinion differs, great, just let me know so we can come to a middle ground and make this work for everyone. --Chris Griswold 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant.  Since all parties have indicated willingeness to discuss their issues, perhaps you could now discuss what changes you would like to make to the article as it presently stands.  If you work together quickly, and remember to focus on the content and Wikipedia guidance on style issue, I'm sure we can have a version all parties are happy with, and then the page can be unprotected and that version uploaded. Hiding Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See, I think mentioning the Joker is important because those are the wounds he is suffering from. He flashes back on unused art from the "Jason lives" ending because that's what he remembers from before he found himself trapped in the coffin. --Chris Griswold 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert War 

message: The page is now protected until you sort the differences out between the interested parties.  I'll keep an eye on discussion and if anybody needs me feel free to contact me at my talk page.  I think everyone needs to recognise that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, that nobody owns an article and that we must always refer back to policies and guidelines in settling disagreements. Present tense should generally be used, and also note that issue numbers should be cited wherever possible.  Whilst it is true many articles do not meet the policies and guidance on Wikipedia, this should not be seen as an invitation to ignore them; standing in the way oof their implementation only delays people the chance to improve other articles to the point that they meet the standards desired. Hiding Talk 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that I made the first move in trying to incorporate others' work. If someone wants to direct me to make alterations, I will do so. But I need to know what alterations to make, since my opinion is obviously that what I wrote was appropriate. If your opinion differs, great, just let me know so we can come to a middle ground and make this work for everyone. --Chris Griswold 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant.  Since all parties have indicated willingeness to discuss their issues, perhaps you could now discuss what changes you would like to make to the article as it presently stands.  If you work together quickly, and remember to focus on the content and Wikipedia guidance on style issue, I'm sure we can have a version all parties are happy with, and then the page can be unprotected and that version uploaded. Hiding Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See, I think mentioning the Joker is important because those are the wounds he is suffering from. He flashes back on unused art from the "Jason lives" ending because that's what he remembers from before he found himself trapped in the coffin. --Chris Griswold 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Cheeto74, what are your real issues with the page as it is currently written? Hiding Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cheesenw@yahoo.com|Cheeto74]]'s issues

message: Chris Griswold, what are your real issues with the page as it is currently written? Hiding Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]]'s issues 

message: I didn't want to put this under people's immediate grievances, so appologies if this is in the wrong spot or if I should shut up.
Cheeto74 - IMO "meant to" is really subjective.  The current version is by no means the original, and was last munged up by me, trying to come to a mid-way point between your edit and Chris'. Yes, it's an awkward sentence, but we shouldn't pitch the concept behind it. If you say 'restoring things to the way they were meant to be' then you're interjecting your view that Todd should have lived. Which is fine, but personally I called up the Kill Todd number, as did the majority of readers ;)  I think that saying "retconning Todd's death becuase he was "never supposed to die"" is a better middle, since it's factual. It was a retcon.  We can drop the narrative being unclear, though I still think we ought to pay some homage to the fact that even that narrative is subjective. It sure as hell isn't MY opinion, so I don't feel it can be 'our' voice.
Also, does it matter that J-random couple transported Jason to the hospital?  I think we can drop that.
What about changing "due to his head trauma and wounds from the Joker's beating" to "due to his wounds remaining unhealed"?  I dunno, it seems a big deal that Jason was brought back to life, but other than that, unhealed ... I agree, we don't need to mention the Joker :)  We should know that. -- Ipstenu 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I think mentioning the Joker is important because those are the wounds he is suffering from. He flashes back on unused art from the "Jason lives" ending because that's what he remembers from before he found himself trapped in the coffin. --Chris Griswold 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions?

message: It seems like we are concentrating too much on telling this article from the character's perspective, rather than from that of the writer's and the publisher.  It would, to me, be far better to write that:
Jason Todd's resurrection was at the suggestion of insert writer, with an in continuity explanation being detailed in Batman Annual #25.  This reveals that Todd's resurrection is due to events which occurred in issue here, in which Superboy Prime is presented as altering the continuity of the DC Universe.  This plot point was central to the insert storyline here, which allowed DC editors and writers a chance to alter events shown in previously published comics.  One such event was Todd's death at the hands of the Joker in Batman #issue number.  Batman Annual #25 establishes that Todd did not die from his wounds as previously presented; however, he is returned to life buried in his casket, much as Buffy was in insert episode of Buffy here. Todd escapes from this situation, but is confused and becomes hospitalised, whereupon he lapses into a coma and is subsequently transported to a convalescent home. 
Just an idea. Hiding Talk 19:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might be a decent idea. Winick announced when Red Hood first appeared that he knew how he had come back but that he wouldn't reveal it until later. This was of course controversial, and some fans wanted their money back for having called the 900 number. Eventually, Greg Rucka wrote the issue that brought him back. Oh, and "returned to life" is much better than "resurrected in this case. --Chris Griswold 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet.  All that stuff you mention, if we can cite a good source, can also be added into the section.  User:Cheeto74, what are your thoughts? Hiding Talk 11:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd rather leave off the 'like Buffy...' bit. I mean, saying 'returned to life, buried in his casket' is pretty self-explanatory, IMO.  Change 'but is confused' to 'but still suffering from his injuries prior to his death, he becomes hospitalized...' and then we've got the ends covered that've bugged me ;) . -- Ipstenu 13:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Buffy bit is important in fulfilling the role as an encyclopedia; we should be pushing people to other instances to aid in research and expand knowledge.  Hiding Talk 13:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I disagree that it was like Buffy's resurrection, because of the specific differences in how they are brought back: Buffy's flesh is regenerated, while Jason Todd was retrieved from a specific point in time (similar to how Rex Tyler has been able to walk around recently, despite having died in Zero Hour). I think it is alright, however, to say that it is "reminiscent" of Buffy's return to life in her grave because it presents a possibly recognizable situation for the reader. "Reminiscent" but not "similar." --Chris Griswold 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone can find a more relevant (perhaps Comic Book reference? Marvel? Phoenix resurrections?) comparative resurrection, I might be less squidgy. It's not like Buffy's and I don't think it's a valid parallel. -- Ipstenu 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be misremebering, but wasn't Buffy brought back to life in her coffin, as was Jason Todd?  That's the point of similarity being referenced.  I have to say I don't see this as an issue worth quibbling one way or the other over, but to my mind it is what an encyclopedia should do, reference other examples which are useful to a wide audience.  This shouldn't be written with the comic fans frame of reference in mind, we should be attempting to reach the broadest frame of reference possible.  I'm not going to war on this one, just stating my reason for the text.  I agree that Chris is right and it should be reminiscent, but I'm more interested in moving this forward and getting the page protection off.  For that I need to hear User:Cheeto74's thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Buffy was ressurected in a coffin, but that's the only similarity.  Which is why I suggested finding something more similar to the situation (i.e. we the viewer know exactly why and how Buffy was resurrected, where as Jason is still all kinds of fucked up...) -- Ipstenu 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this frame of reference is best discussed in a footnote, yes? Hiding Talk 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We could simply say that Jason "emerges from his grave." --Chris Griswold 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sadly, I am not a fan of Buffy.  She is not a primary comic book character featured in the DC World.  I say avoiding the reference is sensible, because not everyone is a Buffy aficionado.  As for whether Jason is resurrected or regenerated back to life is something debatable, but in Batman Annual #25, it is clear that Jason is DEAD.   Then "time decides to set things right".  Meaning Jason was never meant to die (once again, loose paraphrasing on my part).  I see nothing wrong with following the interpretation as told from the narrative in the comic book.  We are trying to determine what is speculation and what is fact.  In this issue, Jason was buried dead, then crawls out alive.  Regardless of our opinions, the reason for Jason's transformation from death to life is clearly explained in this story. Cheeto74 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: What we agree on is that Jason Todd emerges from his grave alive, and perhaps that is what we ought to say. Never have the comics used the word "resurrection." --Chris Griswold 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure what you are intending with quoting the Spuerboy-Prime article because it contradicts your previous paragraph. But I do agree with you: resurrection is not accurate in this case. Instead, it is a retcon. Resurrection only works if Jason Todd died, and Superboy fixed it so that he hadn't died. That's why that word doesn't work. --Chris Griswold 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, that article and Alexander Luthor weren't the most exemplary articles. I just spent the past two hours or so copy-editing them and removing redundancies from editors updating with each issue and pasting bits from other articles. --Chris Griswold 03:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The point I was trying to make was that it was a retcon and that's a correct explanation of the resurrection'. -- Ipstenu 03:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the retcon issue is simply solved.  How about we say, "In Batman Annual #25, the retcon of Jason Todd was finally explained."  How about that?  I think the initial purpose of this Talk Page was to discuss how to make the article flow smoothly in Literary Present.  I would suggest we also word Jason's return as follows: "... thus restoring Jason's body, allowing him to break out of his coffin. Cheeto74 20:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. "Restore" allows for either interpretation. --Chris Griswold 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, this is another point we disagree on. I think it is worth noting the wounds are from the Joker, because it clarifies the state to which he is restored: not to full health, but still suffering the wounds he had suffered at the hands of the Joker. It is important to connect this to his collapse and loss of memory, particularly since it is more reason for him to hate the Joker; even if he is no longer dead, he still loses a year or so of his life because of this beating. --Chris Griswold 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken some time off to review the new changes to Jason Todd's page.  Although I completely disagree with the Literary Present (because in the end, the Lit Present guideline is just that, a guideline, not an actual established rule taught in any grammar class), I will for now not dispute it.  But I do feel it is important to mention that keeping every single sentence and event in Lit Present makes the entire article sound just sloppy.  It would be best to blend the two.  I can post an example here if anyone wants to see my point.--Chee-sen 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged Lit Present and Lit Past.  Lit Present in every sentence is awkard.  How can events in Jason Todd's past (such as his parents' history) be in the Present tense as well as the current events?  At some point we must differentiate between past, present, and future (if appropriate).  On the back of the freshly released Under the Hood, Volume 2, the summary reads "The Red Hood has been unmasked, and revealed as former Robin Jason Todd.  As Batman starts to desperately search for clues... the Hood is busy tearing apart Gotham's underworld..."  If DC, the publisher of all the comics we are summarizing can write in Lit Past as well as Present, why can't we? --Chee-sen 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because DC isn't writing an encyclopedia. Additionally, they are addressing one single storyline, in which thos events did happen in the past. here, we are addressing the entire recorded story of Jason Todd, which has been shown to us in present tense at some point. In cases where I am writing about a storyline that references its past, I use past tense. Tense is subjective based on the time shown in the comic. --Chris Griswold 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: Okay, I've removed the page protection.  What I would ask is that all edits be detailed here on the talk page and revisions discussed in a reasonable manner.  I'd like to thank everyone for a very civil exchange of views, and wish you all happy editing. Hiding Talk 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is another point we disagree on. I think it is worth noting the wounds are from the Joker, because it clarifies the state to which he is restored: not to full health, but still suffering the wounds he had suffered at the hands of the Joker. It is important to connect this to his collapse and loss of memory, particularly since it is more reason for him to hate the Joker; even if he is no longer dead, he still loses a year or so of his life because of this beating. --Chris Griswold 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken some time off to review the new changes to Jason Todd's page.  Although I completely disagree with the Literary Present (because in the end, the Lit Present guideline is just that, a guideline, not an actual established rule taught in any grammar class), I will for now not dispute it.  But I do feel it is important to mention that keeping every single sentence and event in Lit Present makes the entire article sound just sloppy.  It would be best to blend the two.  I can post an example here if anyone wants to see my point.--Chee-sen 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged Lit Present and Lit Past.  Lit Present in every sentence is awkard.  How can events in Jason Todd's past (such as his parents' history) be in the Present tense as well as the current events?  At some point we must differentiate between past, present, and future (if appropriate).  On the back of the freshly released Under the Hood, Volume 2, the summary reads "The Red Hood has been unmasked, and revealed as former Robin Jason Todd.  As Batman starts to desperately search for clues... the Hood is busy tearing apart Gotham's underworld..."  If DC, the publisher of all the comics we are summarizing can write in Lit Past as well as Present, why can't we? --Chee-sen 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because DC isn't writing an encyclopedia. Additionally, they are addressing one single storyline, in which thos events did happen in the past. here, we are addressing the entire recorded story of Jason Todd, which has been shown to us in present tense at some point. In cases where I am writing about a storyline that references its past, I use past tense. Tense is subjective based on the time shown in the comic. --Chris Griswold 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page unprotected

message: Should how he was resurrected be before his stint as the Red Hood, and not after? --DrBat 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. You're right, this is the character biography, and it relies on the comics' chronology, not the publication date. I have made it work better. --Chris Griswold 21:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually feel that putting events in chronological order creates a bit of confusion.  The idea of keeping the storyline in the order that DC Comics released them in was to create a sense of mystery.  To mystify Batman as well as the other characters in the DC Universe.  It gives a new perspective on Jason's attitude toward his adversaries as well as Bruce Wayne.  I say we revert it back.--Chee-sen 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's purpose is not to mystify readers. --Chris Griswold 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  But it is to preserve DC Comics' intentions (something Chris, neither you or myself should try to dispute).  DC wishes to keep events in a specific order.  We should honor that, and in such a way that it does not confuse any Wikipedia readers/users.  When I first came to this page, I was never "mystified" by it.  After the recent changes, there is no longer a sense of fluidity.--Chee-sen 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia entries are not intended to honor anything. This entry is here to describe a character, not to create a sense of mystique or serve as a narrative. --Chris Griswold 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order 

message: Comic book, movie, book, and TV series titles are italicized. Story titles use "quotation marks". Please don't change these again. --Chris Griswold 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: --Chris Griswold, are we going to go through this again?  I have tried to add some changes to the Return article, yet you've gone back and reverted everything, which you accused me of doing when we had this issue last time? --Chee-sen 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert War Once Again 

message: Why is the tense of this article being changed en masse, particularly be Cheesen, who has accepted the literary present tense previously? --Chris Griswold 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put/kept past tense on the intro PG since that seems like a logical place for it to exist. It's not part of the history/plot, it's a recap. Can't speak for the rest. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not you so much. By the way, good call on the Batman page. That sentence kept bweing changed, and I hadn't reworded it enough to please everyone. And I am glad you have begun to work on this article as well. --Chris Griswold 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lit present should only be used for active and current events.  Using Lit Past for a recap or summary of Jason's origins from his Post and Pre-Crisis history is acceptable.  Every other section in the article is in Lit Present. --Chee-sen 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see the discussion currently at Talk: Batman. I'm not sure what makes that section different from the other sections. --Chris Griswold 03:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense reversion