Thread:Undoniel/@comment-3406131-20160105150003/@comment-61022-20160105154532

Having a "Retconned History" page doesn't seem worth the trouble to maintain. Whereas DC Comics does massive retconns that basically re-write entire origins, Marvel's changes are usually a lot more moderate and can be easily explained. I say we present all accounts in the main body of the page. This will present all versions, eliminate edit wars over which version is "more correct" and also it'll be on the main page instead of a secondary page that will likely not be regularly updated. Keeping all the important information on the main page is tantamount, and all versions of a characters origins are important, so I say we present them both in the main body.

If you take a look at some of the Expanded History pages I've done (Examples being Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man) I've presented the various accounts in the main body and then in greater detail in the reference tag (usually explaining that the retcons or different accounts are due to the Sliding Timescale and the need to update concepts)

When referring to the handbooks pre-and-post retcons, it looks like they either (a) generalize the points of difference (because in a lot of cases it's geographical locations or a time specific conflict. IE: Vietnam, Russia/USSR that are affected by the Sliding Timescale) or (b) incorporate both versions into a single narrative so that both versions of a characters origins are technically true. Instead of one being "valid" and the other "invalid" both are only a portion of their history.

In the case of Klaw and T'Chaka, I don't see how both presented origins cannot be two parts of the whole truth. I haven't read the retconned history, but from what is presented (and what I know of the original origins, which I have read) both would fit together with some minor aberrations. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) the only thing that doesn't fit between the two origins is how Ulysses gets his sonic weapon. So how I'd write it would be to incorporate both origins, and then specify where the two accounts are at odds with each other. Because at the end of the day it's a matter of interpretation, and the end result (T'Chaka is dead and Klaw loses a hand) is still the same.

The only thing I'd think would need some cleaning up would be Klaw's family tree. I would go in and be less specific about who his ancestors are in relation to him. There's no indication that Klaw ages slowly and as such his lineage should be made less specific due to the Sliding Timescale (specifically, his father being a Nazi, or that he was involved in the 1954 Bilderberg Conference) It prematurely ages the character. Per the Sliding Timescale, a modern age characters past is tethered to the Modern Age and slides forward along with their present history. Currently by the Sliding Timescale, the events of Fantastic Four #1 now happen in the year 2001. So if Klaw killing T'Chaka happened a decade prior to his becoming Klaw... Which happened roughly during "Year Two" of the Modern Age, the earliest he became Klaw was 1992, at least until the Timescale Slides forward again.

With T'Chaka... He's clearly rooted in the 20th Century due to his regularly involvement with Wartime characters. I wouldn't be surprised if the special herbs that made him the Black Panther of his time slowed his aging down. So you have a plausible explanation as to how T'Chaka could be relatively youthful a decade prior to the modern age (and also sire a son when he would be in his senior years)