Talk:Jason Todd/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jason Todd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Is Jason Todd dead?

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)

Jason gone bad

Does anyone know the issues detailing his supposed murder of a foreign diplomat?

Its Batman issues 424 - 425 thats where Jason throws a guy off a building. Dick Grayson

Jason in heaven?

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)

Image of Jason as Robin

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

Update: One Year Later

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)

So was the annual just a flashback showing how he survived? --DrBat 01:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Showed how he came back to life, to be specific. It was a good annual, though. -- Ipstenu 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason Todd died

For all of those wondering, yes, Jason Todd died. This was shown a Dead Man miniseries a few years back and also in Green Arrow, where they showed him in heaven.

However, Superboy-Prime got cranky about this and replaced the dead Jason Todd's body with that of one who had survived, which meant that he had to crawl from his grave and had trouble because of lack of oxygen. This change took place recently in DC time, but it changed the situation retroactively. --Chris Griswold 01:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

are you serious? from what i read it really is Jason Todd back from the dead not an alternate world Jason or a replacement, but the earth 1 version that died at the hands of the Joker. Dick Grayson

Right, but the way I read it, in light of what happened with the Doom Patrol, it's the same person, only that person's reality has changed.

Everyone now remembers the Doom Patrol's prior adventures, despite having the originial team alive and together. They're the same people, only they had never died, but the ones who lived anyway remember all the adventures they had.

Jason Todd died in continuity. The world believes that and knows it happened. He was in heaven. But time fixed things because he wasn't supposed to die. So for Jason Todd, he never did. It's reality for one person vs. reality for the world.

We didn't see flesh grow back; we saw it replaced.--Chris Griswold 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason died, was buried dead, and 'woke up' alive. He was dead. He is back. The Superboy-Prime wackiness can be argued as a lot of different 'ways' to come back, but given that he remembers dying (I think, since he's pissy his death was not 'aveneged'), then he's Earth-1 Todd, ressurected. I think we should take the Superboy-Prime Retcons on a case by case basis, since each storyline for the affected characters was written by someone different. Each 'punch' changes history in different ways. Also, if Prime replaced Todd with one who survived from another Earth, why was Todd still bruised, battered and head trauma'd? -- Ipstenu 15:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's been stated he remembers dying, only being beaten. This one made it out alive, and it appears he was taken from around the moment he did - the moment that made things different. The reason he's angry is that even if he doesn't remember being dead, Batman didn't avenge his death. And I don't know that we should look at these incidents as completely independent of each other, since Johns was given an editorial position to oversee all of this, working closely with Rucka and Winick. --Chris Griswold 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I just meant we should look at Todd's ressurection/rebirth as separate from, say, the Hawkman crap, and all the other retcons blamed on Prime. Including Doom Patrol. I'll re-read Hush/Red Hood/Annual tonight. -- Ipstenu 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Even the Red Hood stuff is left a little unresolved: he broke out of his coffin, and yet the one Batman has has no marks on it. --Chris Griswold 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

He replaced the coffin with Talia's help (Batman A. #25) - Neodammerung 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're right; I totally forgot. --Chris Griswold 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[i]. Todd indeed had died at the hands of the Joker, but when Superboy-Prime broke out of the paradise dimension created by Alexander Luthor, the current reality was altered, thus restoring things to the way they were meant to be (in this case, Todd was never supposed to die).[/i] This passage does not properly reflect the ambiguity outlined in this section of the Talk page. Someone please edit accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.79.230 (talk • contribs) 22:11, May 20, 2006.

I have gone over that section again, making it more accurate, neutral, and concise and correcting the tense to literary present.--Chris Griswold 08:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahnke vs. Wagner in the superherobox

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)

Wagner's image is better. And what's so notable about Mahnke (sp)? Jim Lee was the one who designed the updated Robin look (in Hush), and all Mahnke did was use the pre-existing Red Hood helmet and a leather jacket. It's not so creditable as to warrant a SHB pic. --DrBat 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think the Mahnke picture better displays that Jason is seriously f'd up. Showing him with the kinda evil grin and the guns says 'I am no some piddly grown up Robin, I am a bad ass mo-fo and I'll kill you.' Okay, there was a little sarcasm, but still, it make Jason look like the questionable 'hero' that he is. The Wagner one has it's merits, but it seems better as a punch of 'Muahhahhah! Back from the dead, Batman, you tool!' vibe, which is good in the context it shows up in. -- Ipstenu 21:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Mahnke picture. I've moved it back, again. CovenantD 02:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to come to a happy medium

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.

-- Ipstenu 13:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank you! I can agree with all of that. However Mister "I want things different! I want things my way!" GIPU 64.236.243.16 is not likely to be as open minded. Ace Class Shadow 16:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

i agree with you Ipstenu, recently since Todd came back, Jason has basically just been DC Comics's "Punisher" but the difference between Todd and Castle is Jason so far has just been sadistic in behavior Dick Grayson

Not exactly. He also feels alone and betrayed. The punisher only goes as far as he feels he can justify and seems to have gotten over what happened to him and his family. Jason's taking out whatever he feels on any criminal he can get his hands on, specifically, it seems, those who hurt or mean to hurt others. Worse yet, he might not even realize exactly what he's doing. And to top it all of, He still sees Dick as his friend even though Jason's already got the guy wishing him dead. He's being sadistically anti-heroic so much as he's trying to reconnect with his only friend. The fact that he's giving into all his violent urges is the real problem. He just can't help himself. Ace Class Shadow 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmph. I told you, guys! He's back and wouldn't ya know it? Total recall! I bet this guy doesn't even know about Jason's past interactions with the TT (although comparitively minor) and DG. I'm going now, in an attempt to restore some semblance of NPOV. I'll try to be respectful toward his edits, not that he deserves it. Ace Class Shadow 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

what guy doesnt know about Jason's past? Dick Grayson

Hero Turned Bad

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)

The category is "Evil", not "Bad". It leaves no wingle room and doesn't fit Jason's character. So far, he seemingly hasn't killed any innocent person. What he's doing isn't legal, but it's not senseless, either. Ace Class Shadow 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. So lets make Hero Turned Wishywashy about Morals? ;) I kid! -- Ipstenu 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jason Todd Arsenal

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)

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)

Literary present tense

When discussing a specific issue, please use literary present. For more information, please see [1].--Chris Griswold 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So UCSD says to use Literary Present when summarizing fictional events. Does that mean using the past tense to summarize historical events in comics is wrong? In the DCU, this style is sensible. Literary Present is a silly concept. It sounds better in past tense. We would have to change 90% of the comic book world articles in existence in order to incorporate this "rule".

It's been 'standard' here on Wikipedia to use present tense when talking about works of fiction. I can't find the link right now, but I recall reading on one of the style pages that we should use present tnese. I'll go look for it... PS. you should sign your posts with ~~~~ on talk pages :) -- Ipstenu 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Particularly because we need to differentiate between real events and fictional ones on Wikipedia, we use present tense when talking about a fictional event. The page you're looking for, Ipstenu, is Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. As for the idea that of Superman is occurring in the present, not the past events in the DC Universe are historical: If I read a copy of Superman #75, the death of Superman is in the present, not the past. You may want to read the book Understanding Comics for details. --Chris Griswold 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, comics aren't real? I've read them both, I was just too tired last night to look them up. I'll spare you my diatribe on Scott McCloud. Still, if we're supposed to use present tense when talking about a fictional event, i.e. The Ressurection of Jason Todd, and we do use the present tense in other articles, it becomes a question of 'at which point do we flip back to using past tense?' I skimmed a couple other articles, and the two most 'recent' additions (IC and OYL) are done in present, while older edits (Jason's death for example) would be done in past tense. Dick Grayson is in present tense from 'Knight of Bludhaven' on, and Bats himself goes back and forth a little. The jump in editing 'voice' is occasionally jarring, and we should reach, on this page, a consensus. Why don't both of you take a day off from this and let's let other people weigh in. -- Ipstenu 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. (Check out my contributions throughout the past night -- I could use a rest.) The tense does switch when you talk about the work being done on the comic, such as when a writer worked on it, vs. when a character appears in it. I have made a point of using the present tense when an issue or series is specifically mentioned. That might be a good rule of thumb for now. --Chris Griswold 12:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your literary present tense does not include events that have been retconned. It would make sense if you are refering to events that have just taken place, for timelines that exist today. But the majority of this article is about events that have been retconned by DC. Everything before "Post Crisis" should be in past tense. That timeline no longer exists, but you are referring to it like it still does. Since it doesn't exist any longer, it is no longer part of that "writers' eternal existence". That is the whole point of "literary present tense", because you have to assume that it's existence is eternal; unfortunately that isn't the case with Pre-Crisis. Also, the sentence structure needs to be cleaned up a bit, because most of the article uses commas either improperly or not at all. Come on Chris, you have a degree in English, you should step up and re-read the article. I can't be the only one that notices the incorrect use of commas here. Bignole 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Those stories are still "eternal", in that they still exist to be read. Don't confuse history with continuity. I'm not sure why you're pointing your finger at me about the grammar of the sentence. If it has to do with my reverting your edits, I may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, but you had changed the majority of the article. Speaking of incorrect use of commas, I noticed somethingin your most recent edit: You don't use a comma before an adverbial clause. --Chris Griswold 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to discussion, I hardly worry about my grammer. I worry about getting my point out fast enough for you to respond. Why proof a simple discussion, when it's importance is like that of a water bug in a pond. If you want to talk about grammer in the Talk page, read your last sentence again. Always check your spelling. Personal attacks are irrelevant here, as they were on Xmen. I wasn't pointing a finger at you for any other reason that your user page says you have a degree in English, yet for someone that edits this page so religiously, you seem to allow a lot of grammatical errors. Bignole 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing out your talk page grammar: I specifically wrote "edit". You added a comma before "while Ra's is still in it". I don't care how you write on the talk page as long as you are comprehensible. Grammatical errors have escaped me only because I was specifically editing for something else. With the size of some of the edits I have done, yes, sometimes I miss something, but I often go back and edit more finely. I'm not sure what personal attack you are referring to, but you set a pretty negative tone when your first response. It's one thing to suggest an edit; it's another simply to complain, particularly when you make a related error when you then edit. --Chris Griswold 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well I didn't see a link to that, so I figured you most have been referring to the Talk page, because that was the last thing there. The reason there was a comma was because you could remove "while Ra's is still in it" and it would still be a complete sentence. That is the point of most commas. But, as you stated it was irrelevant anyway, and you removed it. I was only doing grammer, I don't know enough about his history to know what is erroneous and what is not. Bignole 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

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)

Chris, feel free to keep things the way they are. I am sorry, I still feel the article is jumbled in some areas. I also feel that the original version that I had edited was cleaner and more fluid than yours. No one seemed to edit the article or its tense (for months) until you came along. I had reverted back to my original first paragraph, yet converted the tense from past to present. Then you reverted back, even though you asked me on the Talk Page why I hadn't done any work, only reversions. Point is the majority of most articles incorporate both past and present tense. If this rule is to be applied to all fictional events, then we must go back and correct a lot of pages. Since we can't seem to agree on the specifics, I suggest we let someone else come in, perhaps another professional writer, and let them fix it. Also, Superboy Prime in Batman Annual #25 has no "opinion on the matter" of the anamoly he creates. The narrative isn't even his. I understand that the present tense should be used now, yet, the present tense edits you have made aren't fixing the article; if anything, it's made it more confusing. Sorry if you feel offended. Until the article is perfect, I will continue to fix it as I see fit. Cheeto74 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Could some please mediate this? Cheeto74 here has done a lot of work on this article and so is very protective of it, to the point of reverting edits when he feels they are too big or different from his vision of what the article should be. It appears to me he does not wish to share, and he may also have missed the disclaimer on the edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." When someone repeatedly tears down your work and insults you without being constructive, it is somewhat aggravating. I do not want to argue anymore, and I do not want to continue to revert. I feel my edits streamlined an overly long, iverly detailed, awkward section while following the structure of the text that was already there. Additionally, I allowed for the ambiguity of the narrative and found netral ground mechanics of Jason Todd's return, relying on only what is shown in the issue. Somebody, please help us out with this. --Chris Griswold 15:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Chris, my intention was never to revert your work just because... Like I stated earlier, it didn't clarify the article any further. Now, since we have to keep it present tense, let's clean it up as much as possible. Although I do disagree with some of your structure within the article, I have enough respect to leave it as is. Should I consult with you before I contemplate adding/deleting/changing any section of the article? Cheeto74 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Whilst the page is protected, amendments and alterations should be discussed on the talk page. Wikipedia practise is that we should use the talk page to discuss alterations we disagree with on the talk page rather than simply reverting. Whilst this is hard to follow, it is best practise. It allows discussion, understanding and compromise, and causes less impact on the article and any readers. Hiding Talk 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheeto74 - How come, if as you say, you felt his changes didn't clarify matters, you just reverted instead of trying to edit it into something that you felt was better? I do think Chris' went a little too far in trying to explain how the situation is somewhat ambigious (i.e. we don't know if Jason was resurected, partly healed, or body-swapped with a Jason who didn't die) and the whole 'not supposed to die' is preplexing in that we don't know who felt that way (other than the 5,271 people who voted for him to live). Doing a wholesale revert switch back doesn't feel very commiunity to me, and while I understand and respect many of the changes made to this page, I think there's always room for improvement.
So let's be constructive. What 'structure' do you dislike in the ressurection section? -- Ipstenu 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Chris, let's just keep working together from this point on, since we both apparently feel very strongly about Jason Todd's past, present, and future. Should we begin somewhere else together on the entire biography of the character, that way when we reach the "resurrection" section, we will have a better idea of each other's writing style? Let me know, whatever works for me. Cheeto74 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

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)

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)

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)

Cheeto74's issues

Cheeto74, what are your real issues with the page as it is currently written? Hiding Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me site an example from the One Year Later article below Resurrection:

"One Year Later, Jason Todd has resurfaced in New York City, patrolling the streets as a murderous version of Nightwing. In his attempt to battle the criminal element, he executes a kidnapper, nearly beats a rapist to death, and even slices Dick Grayson's hand while the two spar on a rooftop (both wearing the Nightwing costume)."

To me that is a perfect summary. We could say Jason "resurfaces in NYC", but instead "has resurfaced" is used. Either version sounds good to me. But the latter just seems to flow better, because we have no idea about Jason's journey, much less why he has transferred to New York. I would suggest doing so w/the beginning of our Resurrection section. Only utilize Lit Pres when we are aware of the full details of a fictional history. So could we possibly rephrase the opening of Resurrection as such:

"In Batman Annual #25 (2006), Jason Todd's resurrection is finally explained. Jason indeed had died at the hands of the Joker, but when Superboy-Prime punches the walls of the paradise dimension created by Alexander Luthor, the current reality of the DCU is altered, thus restoring things to the way they were "meant" to be (in this case, Jason was never supposed to die). From there, a temporal anomaly regenerates Jason's decaying body, allowing him to break out of his coffin. Suffering from shock (due to his head trauma and wounds), he wanders the streets in a catatonic state, until a lost couple finds him and brings him to a hospital. There, he lapses into a coma and is subsequently transported to a convalescent home."

Here is the current/original version:

"In Batman Annual #25 (2006), Jason Todd's resurrection is finally explained. Todd died at the hands of the Joker, but when Superboy-Prime punches the walls of the paradise dimension created by Alexander Luthor, the current reality of the DCU is altered, thus retconning Todd's death becuase he was "never supposed to die" (although the narrative isn't clear whether this is a universal truth or merely Superboy-Prime's opinion on the matter). Returned to life, Todd breaks out of his coffin, but suffering from shock (due to his head trauma and wounds from the Joker's beating), he wanders the streets in a catatonic state, until he is found by a lost couple and taken to a hospital. There, he lapses into a coma and is subsequently transported to a convalescent home.."

I like the hybrid version above the current version for multiple reasons. The second sentence sounds better to me because most of it is taken directly from the narrative of the comic book. Using "meant to be" and "supposed to die" are not present events, they have already occurred, and quite a long time ago, in the DCU as well our real world outside the DCU (since 1988). Now, I know that's not Lit Pres, but I think it's an exception. Immediately following that sentence, we transform into Lit Pres because the new events are current, they are happening. And thus new information we have never been privy to until this exact moment.

I also think "... the narrative isn't clear whether this is a universal truth or merely Superboy-Prime's opinion on the matter" is awkward, not to mention "Returned to life..." breaks our Lit Pres mode. I believe that there is no universal truth, and Superboy Prime does not have any sort of "opinion on the matter", because the narrative states (loosely paraphrasing here) "... but time is more fluid then we know..." This narrative from the book is not Superboy-Prime's but perhaps ours. Finally, explaining Jason's wounds at the hands of the Joker is redundant. We know by now it's Joker who had inflicted Jason's injuries (plus it's mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph). We have had it engrained into our minds since 1988. Time to assume that anyone who reads this page or has any loose knowledge of Jason Todd's, is well aware that the Clown Prince of Crime murdered the second Boy Wonder in this sadistic fashion. In conclusion, I preferably enjoy the hybrid of our work and hope this version is acceptable. Cheeto74 12:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris Griswold's issues

Chris Griswold, what are your real issues with the page as it is currently written? Hiding Talk 09:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions?

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)

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)

A suggestion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then this frame of reference is best discussed in a footnote, yes? Hiding Talk 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

I quote the defintion for "resurrection" from Merriam Webster's wesbite: Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re- + surgere to rise. Now, although DC never utilizes this term, I feel it is not inappropriate to use it until a better word comes along. Jason was dead, then returns to life. He is resurrected from death to life. He is dead when the anamoly occurs and is thus resurrected. This is not a "retcon" because Jason's history is not reset and his background is not changed. The DC world is still the same as we know it. Batman and the heroes at large have no idea of Jason's return. Jason has been hiding all along (from six months after his death). Cheeto74 14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

His death is, in essence, retcon'd. It's retroactive continuity to say 'Jason was never supposed to die' because by taking his death and erasing it, you've retroactivly changed the history of the DCU and as such it's a retcon. Also, SB-P's punches have been (albiet with a little humor) called retcon punches, because they were responsible for altering history. It's only a resurrection if Jason was brought back to life. Instead, we honestly don't know how he came back. Was his body traded out with one from the 'right' timeline where he didn't die? Was he re-animated? Was he simply made alive again? We don't know, and as such, I think resurrection implies an innacurate representation of his return to life, but I'm okay with it staying in 'Jason's death was retconned and he was resurrected by Superboy-Prime's reality altering punches...'. The DC world is not the same as it was, which is explained in the Infinite Crisis Special, where-in we learn about SB-P's hissy fit.

To quote the SB-P article 'Superboy-Prime pounded on the barrier to reality but was unsuccessful. A side effect to this assault on the universe was "ripples" that corrected reality and caused history to repeat itself for several characters which, in effect, is a catch-all explanation for real-life changes and retcons in DC continuity for the past 20 years.' One of which was the 'resurrection' of Jason Todd. -- Ipstenu 15:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perfect. "Restore" allows for either interpretation. --Chris Griswold 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Page unprotected

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)

Woops, my bad! I made some edits already, but they were minor. I corrected the spelling of "because", and just cleaned up some grammar. Otherwise, the 1st paragraph is virtually unchanged in meaning. I do not feel it is necessary to mention Jason's wounds are a result of the Joker because we know that already (we have another whole article dedicated toward that). And the only other change I made was Superboy-Prime's opinion, because, once again, SBP has no opinion because the narrative is not from his POV. Hope everyone likes the new stuff... sorry for not checking here first. Cheeto74 01:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Chronological order

Should how he was resurrected be before his stint as the Red Hood, and not after? --DrBat 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia's purpose is not to mystify readers. --Chris Griswold 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Aren't we here to describe the real world, though, not the fictional one? This article doesn't seem to acknowledge that Jason Todd was first reintroduced and then his resurrection/origin was backfilled, and it doesn't acknowledge that the reappearance of Todd was shocking and mystifying to readers when he first reappeared.

I'm not calling for the order to change (although I'd prefer it), but this Wikipedia entry is here to describe a character and the context into which it fits, something this article doesn't currently do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles

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)

Revert War Once Again

--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)

Comma usage

Because this has become an issue, I would like to address proper comma usage. From Comma (punctuation):

"The comma is used to separate two independent clauses (a group of words that can function as a sentence) that are joined by a co-ordinating conjunction ("for", "and", "nor", "but", "or", "yet", and "so" when they are used to connect; the acronym "fanboys" can be used as a memory aid) ... The comma is used to seperate a dependent clause from the independent clause if the dependent clause comes first."

Several recent edits have placed commas in places they do not belong:

"Superboy-Prime's pounding against the barrier wall, of the dimension in which he is trapped, alters reality prior to the events in Infinite Crisis."
"Talia instead submerges Jason in a life-rejuvenating Lazarus Pit, while Ra's is still in it, and when Jason resurfaces his health and memories are restored."
"Jason earns the mantle of Robin, a short while later, by helping Batman apprehend a gang of thieves."
Subsequently, Jason is murdered by the Joker in the "Batman: A Death in the Family" storyline, after attempting to locate his biological mother.
"the Red Hood gives them the Kryptonite back, and tells them he has gotten what he truly wanted"
"Jason asks Batman why he has not avenged his death, by killing the Joker."

All of these are incorrect; each violates one or both of the above rules. Comma usage is one of the most common grammatical mistakes writers make, so you may wish to familiarize yourself with the above entry. If anyone has questions about this, I would be happy to discuss it with you. --Chris Griswold 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the only rule for commas Chris. For someone with an English degree, it amazes me that you only list one rule for commas usage, just to support you. You don't get to pick and choose what rules you want, Chris. If you are going to cite rules, cite them all. How about the most basic and general rule for commas. Oh, here is a link http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comma that supports my edits, and I will even post what it says here:

com·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km) n. Grammar. A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence. A pause or separation; a caesura. Any of several butterflies of the genus Polygonia, having wings with brownish coloring and irregularly notched edges.

[Latin, from Greek komma, piece cut off, short clause, from koptein, to cut.]

[Download Now or Buy the Book] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

comma

n 1: a punctuation mark (,) used to indicate the separation of elements within the grammatical structure of a sentence 2: anglewing butterfly with a comma-shaped mark on the underside of each hind wing [syn: comma butterfly, Polygonia comma]

comma

If you didn't get that Chris, it means that you put commas in placed that contain short clauses, not independent clauses. You use a semicolon for independent clauses. Why? Because independent clauses can stand as a single sentence themselves, but, commas are used with you have short, dependent clauses that others would be fragment sentences. I have issued my rebuttle, so I will be changing those back. Also, please read the edits before you needlessly go back and just revert to the last thing before my edits. Some of those edits are actually correct in everyone's eyes (i.e. where it says "he counts to of three"...how do you count "to of three"?, just an example of one of the things that was reverted that no matter what you say it is wrong.)Bignole 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Please stop patronizing me. 2. I didn't highlight one rule; I included text from two rules. 3. The encyclopedia entry I linked to goes into greater detail on the comma's usage than the dictionary entry you linked, which pretty much just defines it on a basic level. 4. Try to paste only the parts you need. 5. Please look at these and tell me if they are sentences:

"While Ra's is still in it."
"A short while later."
"And tells them he has gotten what he truly wanted."
"After attempting to locate his biological mother."
"By killing the Joker."

Your dictionary entry does not contradict the Wikipedia entry; it merely glosses over the rules. Please take another look at the comma entry I linked; I think you might find it helpful. It gives a lot of examples. --Chris Griswold 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected myself on two of those entries, because I went back and looked at them and realized that I was wrong. But, the "a short while later" should be listed at the beginning of the sentence, it's a time frame, it structure is defined better when it is at the beginning. You removed the "Ra's" part, I didn't do anything but surround it by commas. Why? Because "while Ra's is still in it" is not a complete sentence, it is a dependent clause that comes between one independent clause. I reworded the "and tells them he has gotten what he truly wanted" sentence, so that it was correct the way that I had it. It wouldn't work with the choice of words that are there now. Oh, I didn't patronize you, I criticized your choice of inclusion, because it only listed what you wanted it to list. Go back and read the page yourself, it lists my rules as well. There were only two instances, that I saw, where I used a comma when the dependent clause was after the independent clause (which is incorrect) and I went back and corrected those. There are other times when the word usage in that page is just plain out there. The sentence with Superboy-Prime could be rewritten to be much better than the way that it is now. The problem exists in the fact that we are trying to correct grammatical errors for sentences that need to be rewritten anyway. Choice of words, some being amateurish; choice of phrases and sentence structures. There are more problems than just commas for this page. What is important in this sentence, "Jason earns the mantle of Robin a short while later by helping Batman apprehend a gang of thieves."? Is it that Jason earned the mantle of Robin by helping Batman, or, is that Jason earned the mantle of Robin a short while later? I placed "A short while later," at the beginning because, it seemed to me, that what was important was that Jason earned the mantle of Robin by helping Batman apprehend a gang of thieves, and how long it took him to earn that mantle was a side not. Bignole 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the sections of the entry that you feel support your position. You are correct: There are more problems with the article than just commas, and sentences certainly do need to be re-written; however, your misunderstanding about comma usage is creating more problems for the article. --Chris Griswold 02:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The important part of the sentence doesn't always need to come at the beginning. Additionally, we should try to vary sentence structure. In the interest of this goal and in response to your prodding me to address the commas, I re-wrote some sentences so they would no longer need any commas. --Chris Griswold 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The importance of that sentence focuses on Jason becoming Robin, and what he did to earn that, not on how long it took him. So, why is that in the middle of the sentence? What I said was that it should be at the beginning. It's irrelevant how long it took him, because it was about how he earned it. Oh, it's hardly a misunderstanding of comma usage. If memory serves me correctly, you didn't even know how to properly use a semicolon in the X-Men 3 article. I attempted to insert commas where they should be, without removing the word choice of others in some sections. Other sections I reworded it so that it made sense. The Superboy Prime sentence is a prime example. It's irrelevant to talk about the barrier being to the dimension that he is in, because the focus of the sentence is on the fact that he altered reality. Because of that, noting the fact that the barrier wall is the wall for the dimension that he is in means that you should inclose it with commas. It's simply magnifying "the barrier wall", and if it was removed it would still make a complete sentence. It's just extra information, and extra information comes with commas. I notice that, if I have such a misunderstanding of commas, why haven't all of them been reverted? It wasn't the commas that were the problem, you just didn't like how I changed the sentence. There were occassions where you reverted sentences that were rewritten so that my punctuation was correct, but you reverted it anyway in your mass reverts. Also, if I have such a misunderstanding of commas, why were they so many punctuation errors before I even came along? Bignole 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I came over because Medcom kicked this to the comics project, and I happened to see this there. Chris G is right on this one, for the reasons he cites. Bignole, in spoken English, pauses at the places where you have commas would be an acceptable way to accentuate or emphasize those sections of the sentence, but they are not correct in formal written English. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you taken the time to read the article, or are you simply reading this discussion page? Try reading the entire article, and tell me that it looks fine the way that it is. Bignole 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I read the article, and it's in need of a total rewrite; it's a mess. This isn't a grammatical issue, though; there are lots of unsourced assertions, swathes of the article have no clear sources at all, there are no real-world time references to speak of, there are spoiler tags around only the most recent story events instead of all of them (Romeo and Juliet has spoiler tags around the plot summary, and so should this article), and there's no real-world context (controversy? design process/reasoning for bringing back the character?) for the revival of Todd. This silly nonsense about commas is getting in the way of solving the more-serious problems plaguing this article, and I hoped weighing in as a third opinion could put this to rest so some work could get done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I came expecting to have to express my opinion: but A Man In Black has just done it for me :D Seriously, though, arguing about commas usage is a pretty petty thing to do when this article needs much more than that. Especially all the lack of sourcing. Let's just come to a quick consensus on comma usage without this squabbling and then we can improve the article properly. Gamesmaster 13:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I felt the early JT article a month or two back was decent. No offense, CGriswold, but as soon as you began your campaign to alter everything into the Lit Present tense so dramatically, everything seems to have fallen apart. Now we are arguing over lame or non-existant issues. The pt of JT's page is to present an accurate and neutral acct of the character's bio. Sure, a few sentences could use a source cite or two, but seriously, things weren't so bad before. About 90% of this article is now completely non-sensical, sloppy, and full of some run-on sentences. Whole sections have been taken out an replaced with utter rubbish. I agree, the spoiler alert is great. Jason's history is important to establish, and is summarized neatly and accurately. Whereas the storylines and specific details/events can be browsed further down the page if the reader choses to learn more.--Chee-sen 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything hasn't just fallen apart; the problems we need to edit have been there for a while. I have mostly just edited the tense. Except for the "Return" section, I only made minor alterations. Besides, it doesn't matter whose fault it is; we need to work on improving the article. --Chris Griswold 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should start one section at a time. Start a section here, in the discussion, titled "Improvements". Then we bring a section from the article in, as is, and we start (as a team) disecting it and reconstructing it so that it is better than it was. We can discuss better sentence structure, word usage, tense, etc. Then, when we have come up with an improvement that we can all agree is far better than it was, and more proper for wiki, we insert the new edit into the article (not saying we actually take the section out to edit, just copy it for the discussion page). This is just a suggestion, and maybe it is a bit much, but it seems like a more diplomatic way of dealing with the page, instead of one editor going in and editing and then someone else going in and changing that later. Also, we should look into archiving the sections that we edit (in the discussion page) so the page doesn't become cluttered with suggestions for edits on each section. Bignole 15:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

This is a suggestion section to begin editing on the Jason Todd article. We open with:

"Jason Peter Todd is a fictional character and hero (later anti-hero) in the DC Universe. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983). and would shortly thereafter become the second Robin, sidekick to Batman, after Dick Grayson, the original Robin, goes on to become the superhero Nightwing."

I suggest editing the "fictional character and hero (later anti-hero)" title. Todd is a fictional character and anti-hero in the DC Universe.

"Jason Peter Todd is a fictional character and anti-hero in the DC Universe." This promotes his current status in the DC world. He is an anti-hero. He inflicts brutal and swift justice, serving as Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

The short bio now states: "He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983). and would shortly thereafter become the second Robin, sidekick to Batman, after Dick Grayson, the original Robin, goes on to become the superhero Nightwing."

This is basically a long run-on sentence. I suggest the following: "He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983) to replace Dick Grayson as Robin, when Grayson went on to become the superhero Nightwing." We know Robin is the sidekick to Batman, we've already cited that Jason's debut is in a Batman title. We've established that Jason is the replacement Robin to Grayson. So here are my suggestions in final form. Please edit accordingly.

"Jason Peter Todd is a fictional character and anti-hero in the DC Universe. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983) to replace Dick Grayson as Robin, when Grayson went on to become the superhero Nightwing."

This summarizes Jason's main history (what he is most known for) in the DC Universe. From here, we can delve (sp?) into his current exploits and how he got there. --Chee-sen 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a good start. My thoughts:

1. I brought up middle names the other day at the project talk page. Check out the discussion here 2. How about: "The character first appeared in Batman #357 (1983), and he later replaces Dick Grayson as Robin when Grayson becomes the superhero Nightwing." Minor change, but that "character" stuff has come up in talk about fair-use text and real-world POV. It's important to have that sort of thing up top. That's it for now; I am working on some other things, but I will take another close look in a while and see what else we can discuss. --Chris Griswold 17:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's a better word to use than "character" then let's find it. We could say "superhero" but then it makes the phrase awkward. "... superhero and anti-hero"... or "... superhero turned anti-hero..." Jason is a fictional character and an anti-hero. It makes sense, especially to the average user who might not be as well versed as us in the comic book world. Like the saying goes: The simpler the better.

To say "... first appeared in Batman #357 (1983), and he later replaces Dick Grayson as Robin... " is also somewhat awkward. Better to say "... first appeared in Batman #357 and later replaced Dick Grayson as Robin..." is a better substitute.

As for middle names, I would prefer Jason Todd over Jason Peter Todd, but that's just me. People know JT as JT, not at JPT. However, either is acceptable. --Chee-sen 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some other heroes are listed with their full name (Edward (or Theodore) 'Ted' Kord vs Alan Scott), so I think that gonig with Jason Todd would make sense. So long as his box has his whole name. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jason Todd sounds better to me versus Jason Peter Todd, since he's mostly referred to as JT. But like I said, it's all about preference. But I am a big supporter of keeping JT!--Chee-sen 18:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no preference over the "middle name" issue, but the "character/superhero" usage is important. When you say "character" you are refering to him being a fictional being, while "superhero" describes what he was in that world. I like Chris' opening sentence, though it dipped from past tense to present tense in the same sentence. "character first appeared.... and he later replaces Dick..." My real problem with this, I guess, is that it kind of implies that he is still Robin in current issues. Since this is the introductory paragraph, and not a description of his history, I think it should all be past tense. I don't believe it would actually fall under literary present tense, because you are looking at it from the outsiders point of view, instead of a narrator's pov, like when you describe his battles within the comics. Bignole 19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is ok to change tense when using a compound sentence. It still needs to be in present tense when referring to the character's life, rather than the publication history.--Chris Griswold 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... I see what you mean. The question is how do we keep the opening brief with just enuff information to explain Jason's background and character history in the DC Universe, without turning it into a full fledged article? --Chee-sen 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Jason Todd is a fictional character and anti-hero in the DC Universe. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983) and replaced Dick Grayson as Robin, when Grayson went on to become the superhero Nightwing. After his death at the hands of the Joker in the A Death in the Family (1986) storyline, Jason Todd returned to life as a nemesis of Batman in the story arc Batman: Under the Hood (year?)." From there we could a more detailed history of JT and then delve into spoilers which explain the mystery of his return. Just a suggestion. --Chee-sen 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion:

"Jason Peter Todd is a fictional character, whose status varies from superhero to anti-hero, in the DC Universe. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983), and he later replaced Dick Grayson as Robin when Grayson became the superhero Nightwing."

It's short and to the point. Bignole 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's about 90% there! I would prefer it to say:

"Jason Todd is a fictional character in the DC Universe, whose status varies from superhero to anti-hero. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983) to replace Dick Grayson as Robin, when Grayson went to become the superhero Nightwing." But that's just my personal preference once again.--Chee-sen 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yours, with a couple things added (in the bold): "Jason Todd is a fictional character in the DC Universe, whose status varies from superhero to anti-hero. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983) to replace Dick Grayson as Robin, when Grayson went on to become the superhero Nightwing. He was created by ______. "

That sounds great to me! Can someone input the created by data? --Chee-sen 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The only created by I see listed is for Robin, I don't see one for the actual character "Jason Todd". Bignole 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do make sure you're not ever referring to events that happened in the comic as past-tense, even in the intro. Events that happened in Batman #357 are as much present tense as the latest issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the Literary Present tense that is supposed to be utilized in everything Wikipedia when referring to fictional events. Real-life events are to be summarized in past tense, whereas fictional events are always stated in present. Although this is the "rule", I find it quite awkward for the readers. I disagree that Jason appearing in Batman #357 is as much present as the lastest issue. It is not present, in fact, it is the past, roughly 23 years ago. I say allow for some leeway on this Wiki rule. This bio is Jason's past, not his current whereabouts nor his future. I say current and recent events can be listed in Lit Present, but talking about when Jason made his debut is just that, "when", not now. He doesn't make it, he "made" it a long time ago. Go to this website, it does suggest that Lit Present for fictional historical facts can become problematic. What I get out of this link is that when stating opinion or ideas, use Present. If the events can be altered, such as a theory, then you can use a Lit Present tense. Even though DC can retcon a character, they have not retconned Jason's origins. They are unquestioned at this time. Only his "death" and his "return" have been altered. If it is something that has happened in the past, and cannot change, you keep it in Past tense. But I could be wrong, so please read it carefully. Here's that link --[[2] Thanks, --Chee-sen 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Even though DC can retcon a character, they have not retconned Jason's origins." Not sure why you would say this when the article has a paagraph about DC doing just that. Anything can be chagned in fiction. --Chris Griswold 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out there are exceptions, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Bignole 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not even a guideline. It's a disputed opinion that lets anyone justify anything because of how openly it's worded. --Chris Griswold 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another try:

"Jason Todd is a fictional character in the DC Universe. Todd first appears in Batman #357 (1983) and becomes the second in a line of teenagers to serve as Batman's sidekick Robin. In a controversial move, DC editorial killed the character in 1987 after polling fans on the subject, and Todd's death serves as an emotional touchstone for Batman in a number of stories published during the next two decades. In another controversial move, DC Comics re-introduced the character in 2005's Batman #635 as the Red Hood, a violent anti-hero whose actions put him at odds with Batman's vision of justice. Todd's anger toward Batman and abilities make him a threat to Batman; Dick Grayson, the Robin he replaces; and Tim Drake, the Robin who replaces him."

--Chris Griswold 05:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this one, but do please keep any spoilers (he died, he came back) below the spoiler tag. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about:

"Jason Todd is a fictional character in the DC Universe. Todd first appears in Batman #357 (1983) and becomes the second in a line of teenagers to serve as Batman's sidekick Robin. DC Comics re-introduced the character in 2005's Batman #635 as the Red Hood, a violent anti-hero whose actions put him at odds with Batman's vision of justice. Todd's anger toward Batman and abilities make him a threat to Batman; Dick Grayson, the Robin he replaces; and Tim Drake, the Robin who replaces him."

Good now? I have to ask, however: Isn't all of this spoiler material? (His appearance, his becoming Robin, etc). --Chris Griswold 12:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a gut call on the spoilers, there. Can "Jason Todd is the second Robin" ruin a story for a reader? I don't think so. I do think "Jason Todd dies" and "Jason Todd is Red Hood" could ruin stories, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Red Hood" bit would be considered spoiler, because I would think that everyone that came to this page would already be under the assumption that he was Robin. Oh, and that "no rules guideline" is meant to allow for exceptions to rules when those exceptions are better for the article. But, I was only listing it as opposite opinion to the "literary present tense" argument. Bignole 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To address the Retcon issue of Jason's origins: Yes, DC retconned his character during the original Crisis. Obviously this is an article on the Post-Crisis Jason Todd, which is why he has been introduced as such. Otherwise, we should mention that JT originally had red hair in the very opening summary. Sorry once again, and I am not trying to gripe, but the following sentence is very awkward:

"Todd's anger toward Batman and abilities make him a threat to Batman; Dick Grayson, the Robin he replaces; and Tim Drake, the Robin who replaces him." Replaces and replaces? Come on, this is not anywhere near the level of professional writing. Let's try this, simple and a very basic summary:

"Jason Todd is a fictional character in the DC Universe, whose status varies from superhero to anti-hero. He first appeared in Batman #357 (1983) to replace Dick Grayson as Robin, when Grayson went on to become the superhero Nightwing. Todd eventually took up the mantle of the new Red Hood, a murderous vigilante in Gotham City, and is currently posing as Nightwing in New York City." -- perhaps a little editing would help clean this up, but we know the basics w/o knowing Jason's death, return, transformation. --Chee-sen 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is an article for Jason Todd. Pre and Post Crisis are BOTH included. What about:

Jason Todd is a fictional character in the DC Universe, whose status varies from superhero to anti-hero. Born Jason Peter Todd, he first appeared in Batman #357 (1983), created by Gerry Conway and Don Newton as the second Robin, replacing Dick Grayson.

-Spoiler-
Originally concieved of as a red-haired circus performer, similar to Dick, Jason's background was altered after the end of Crisis of Infinite Earths into a street punk. After several years of increasingly negative fan reaction to the character and as part of a stylistic move away from the more colorful and campier elements of the Batman comics, the 1988 "Batman: A Death In The Family" storyline sees Jason killed by the Joker.

Jason is revealed to be alive in 2005, holding a grudge against Batman for allowing his death. Taking on the Red Hood persona, and later that of Nightwing, Jason becomes a recurring nemesis to Batman and Dick.
- End spoiler-

We should keep the spoiler bit in, I agree, but we need to reflect both Pre and Post Crisis. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again we have strayed too far off the page. We can have sections, dedicated to the monumental moments in Jason's life. Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis. His death, his return, his run as the Red Hood, and finally his current whereabouts in New York. Not to mention the Infinite Crisis which explains how Jason comes back from the grave. It makes sense to start off simply. Jason's introduction biography should be short. A spoiler is a personal preference. Anyone reading this article can see immediately that it gives a history of the character in question. Jason is a former Robin turned Anti-Hero in the DC Universe. No offense, but: "Jason is revealed to be alive in 2005, holding a grudge against Batman for allowing his death. Taking on the Red Hood persona, and later that of Nightwing, Jason becomes a recurring nemesis to Batman and Dick" is an awkward spoiler. Shouldn't a spoiler warn the reader that any section of the article contained within can potentially reveal material that might "spoil" it for them?--Chee-sen 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro should explains who Jason is, what he is, and what's significant about him. The problem with him (and Donna Troy, Hawkman and others) is that events that can be construed as spoilers seriously impact who and what he is. If you want to drop the need for spoilers, then trim it down to the first paragraph. However, to give a basic summation of Jason, you need to mention both Pre and Post Crisis, Red Hood etc. And those are spoilers. If you want to split this off into a discussion of what is and isn't a spoiler, I suggest talking on the Comics Project page as a start, since it's a Comics as a Whole issue and not just Jason. Also, I know that particular sentence sucked. :) Someone please fix it ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In a traditional encylcopedia, there is no such thing as a spoiler. Since this is Wikipedia, I guess exceptions have to be made. Think about the reader, though? Always think of the first timer who comes to JT's page or any page for that matter. What if they just want information, basic facts? Here's what Jason Todd is and then flash to what Jason is doing now and explaining the enitre mystery, all the outs and ins, of what Jason is and how he came to be? Just suddenly? Spoilers are there to disclose vital information to the reader, something that ruins any type of surprise. Once again, we should concentrate on Jason's bio first, a few brief sentences, a spoiler should come before the explanation of Jason's return from the dead. The other information beforehand is really mostly historical and lyrical.--Chee-sen 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what's been suggested? A short, 1 paragraph, blurb on Jason, a spoiler warning, the explanation of his original inception and death and then revival? Unless I'm missing something, we're in agreement there and all we need to do is sort out the wording. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked the Intro a bit, including just the "broad strokes" of Todd's history, who he was, and who he is now, without revealing how he got to be that way (i.e.: his death and rebirth). As it is now, I think we can move that Spoiler Tag beneath it to the Character History section, and delete the passage after that Tag entirely. Whaddaya think? Nightscream 08:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tense reversion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dark Knight Returns

I wasn't trying to start a revert war, I was thinking that the title 'Jason Todd in The Dark Knight Returns' is long, unhelpful, miss-informative, and as the stuff is non-canon (where as Pre Crisis was at one point canon, this never was), it should be demarcated in a way that does not lead one to believe that Todd was either in DKR (he's mentioned) or that DKR is 'canon' (we all agree it's not). It being in Character History is fine, since we're not talking about an 'in-world' history but an explanation of the character past and present. But if we leave it in the Char Hist, why have a second section? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any chance that anyone is going to think Jason was in DKR ("The eventual fate of Jason Todd is foreshadowed by his conspicuous absence").

The reason I moved DKR up is because you have, basically, four roles for Jason Todd. There's the pre-Crisis role, as Dick Greyson knock-off. There's the post-Crisis role, as a rebellious Robin. There's the post-DITF role, where his death is a symbol; I think the shrine with his uniform appears in more issues and stories than Jason Todd himself. Then you have the more-recent Red Hood role. I wanted to move the DKR section up as the beginning of the first time he served in the third role.

I'm not a big fan of having a DKR header at all, but I think it's important to mention the first appearance of what would become Todd's main role for 18 years worth of comics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just fold it into the in-line section we already have in the Char history then? What purpose does the double up serve? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What double up? I don't see any double up. ¬_¬ (In short, AMIB is an idiot, and keeps forgetting to remove the second one.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing. Thanks, AMID! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 05:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)