Thor Odinson is the All-father of Asgard /God of Thunder, offspring of All-Father Odin & Elder-Goddess Gaea. Combining the powers of both realms makes him an elder-god hybrid and a being of no perceivable limits. Armed with his enchanted Uru hammer Mjolnir which helps him to channel his godly energies. The mightiest and the most beloved warrior in all of Asgard, a staunch ally for good and one of the most powerful beings in the multiverse/omniverse. Thor is also a founding member of the Avengers.
OK so we had a bit of a debate in the mod's forum about Thor's 1st appearance issue (spurred by a submission). Xerocks kitteh and Aztech are falling on the side of Journey Into Mystery #83 as his first appearance. I can agree with that, but I can also understand the user/writer's ( David Wiltfong was the submitter) argument that Venus #12 should be the first appearance.
The argument for Journey Into Mystery #83 is that that was the 1st appearance that we recognize as the modern day Thor. The Venus appearances were a random god character and/or should be disregarded for pre-dating (by a decade or so) the Thor canon associated with the character we all know.
The argument for Venus #12 is that the character Venus/Aphrodite exists in regular Marvel-616 continuity and Venus #1 is credited as her 1st appearance. So if its good enough for Venus, it should be good enough for Thor as well. A Thor is a Thor, whether it was Donald Blake or not.
So what do you think? Do we have two different Thors here or is it one in the same thunder god that saved Venus in her late 40s/early 50s series that just took his time finding his way back into comics continuity.
I would say that they should be considered two different Thors much the same way that we separate DC Zeus and Marvel Zues. They are different characters and should be treated as so. Not every Thor that appears in comics is Donald Blake. Thats just my opinion on the matter.
This is how it looks over on the official marvel.com Thor page:
First Appearance Venus #12 (1951); (modern) Journey into Mystery #83 (1962)
But since his actual origin wasn't told until Journey into Mystery #83, that gets my vote. Also, Venus was published by Atlas (even though it later became Marvel) and Journey into Mystery was published by Marvel. And the Thor we're talking about is and always will be associated with Marvel.
There are confusing first appearances that have caused trouble in the past.
For instance, Firestar technically first appeared in an issue of Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends. However, it wasn't 'canon' since it was connected to the television series. Her first 'in continuity' appearance didn't happen till a few years later when she was introduced as a Hellion. Similarly, Harley Quinn appeared in comic adaptations of the Batman Animated Series. Her first actual appearance as a legitimate Batman villain wasn't until many years later.
On the other hand, the original New Warriors first appeared in the Thor issues of the Acts of Vengeance cross-over. It was only two issues, but they were a fully established team... however, that was published before New Warriors #1 which told the story of how the team formed. Ini terms of publishing then it should be the Thor issues as their first appearance, yet chronologically speaking then it should be the issue where they first came together.
Then there's Domino who didn't actually appear in New Mutants #99. That was Copycat posing as Domino. So the real Domino didn't appear until a year's worth of X-Force comics had been published.
But regarding the matter of Thor, that is the issue that Marvel has stated as his first appearance for nearly 50 years. We know that there have been other characters based on the Norse God, just as we know there are multiple representations of Jesus or other religious & public in comics... I can't say with all certainty that it was the same Thor in the Venus comics. However, I haven't seen images of the Thor that was in Venus comics. I can't say for certain that this definitely IS or ISN'T the same Thor we all know & love. I'd need some sort of concrete evidence from Joe Quesada or Stan Lee to state that it was the same character & that they were wrong for all these decades before I can accept a sudden change to a long established First Appearance.
My vote goes for Journey into Mystery. Venus #12 may have had an appearance by a Thor, but that doesn't mean it was The Thor. I think it's another case of Marvel reusing an old name for a new character, much like they did with Human Torch.
"Venus #12 may have had an appearance by a Thor, but that doesn't mean it was The Thor. I think it's another case of Marvel reusing an old name for a new character, much like they did with Human Torch. "
That's a much simpler way to put it, thanks. Since so very few people know about this previous Thor, and as Marvel has spent such a long time establishing Journey Into Mystery as the first appearance, then there's a lot of uncertainty. Is it the same character, or did they do another Jim Hammond?
Looking at the picture posted here and in lieu of the point brought up about this Thor being under the Atlas comics publication and not the latter Marvel one, i would stand to call that an alternate reality version of Thor that happens to predate the one, and at best a concept art version, comparable to how the design ending up used for Storm from the X-Men was actually the concept for Black Cat from Spider-Man. The Journey Into Mystery seems more correct for the first appearance of what is actually used in canon 616. As well, the above posted information from Marvels site, also a carbon copy of what is provided in the official Marvel handbooks bio's is indicated two separate ones, by including the (modern) at the end ie: (modern version).
"There are confusing first appearances that have caused trouble in the past."
They are not confusing at all really. It is only confusing if you want to make it confusing.
"For instance, Firestar technically first appeared in an issue of Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends. However, it wasn't 'canon' since it was connected to the television series. Her first 'in continuity' appearance didn't happen till a few years later when she was introduced as a Hellion. Similarly, Harley Quinn appeared in comic adaptations of the Batman Animated Series. Her first actual appearance as a legitimate Batman villain wasn't until many years later."
It is canon. Just not in the Reality-616/Earth-616 version. It is for that SPIDER-MAN & HIS AMAZING FRIENDS TV series, which has its own reality designation.
"But regarding the matter of Thor, that is the issue that Marvel has stated as his first appearance for nearly 50 years."
Marvel also incorrectly lised Captain America's shield as being made of Adamantium and Vibranium for years until it was fixed within the pages of AVENGERS 2001 ANNUAL and pointed out why his shield is not made of Adamantium. Captain America's shield pre-dates the creation of Adamantium.
The original and Deluxe Edition Handbooks listed Captain America's first appearance with an actual first appearance and a modern appearance. Bucky (who appeared in the same issue), Namor, Human Torch, and others were not listed the same. The best reason for others not being listed is that for some reason they felt Captain America should be listed as such, but the others did not need to be. "We know that there have been other characters based on the Norse God, just as we know there are multiple representations of Jesus or other religious & public in comics... I can't say with all certainty that it was the same Thor in the Venus comics. However, I haven't seen images of the Thor that was in Venus comics. I can't say for certain that this definitely IS or ISN'T the same Thor we all know & love. I'd need some sort of concrete evidence from Joe Quesada or Stan Lee to state that it was the same character & that they were wrong for all these decades before I can accept a sudden change to a long established First Appearance." That is where the problem comes. You are making it about what your opinion instead of what happened. YOU don't need wording from Quesada or Stan Lee. Expecting to hear something from Stan Lee is being too much of a fanboy. You as a fan WANT it, but you don't NEED it. The Official Handbooks list it as official, which is checked/verified by editors at Marvel.
@Ry Fryy said:
"This is how it looks over on the official marvel.com Thor page:
First AppearanceVenus #12 (1951); (modern) Journey into Mystery #83 (1962) But since his actual origin wasn't told until Journey into Mystery #83, that gets my vote. Also, Venus was published by Atlas (even though it later became Marvel) and Journey into Mystery was published by Marvel. And the Thor we're talking about is and always will be associated with Marvel. "
The first appearance of the following characters that appeared under Marvel Comics old company names Atlas and Timely... Captain America - Captain America Comics #1 (1941) Namor/Sub-Mariner - Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 (1939) Namora - Marvel Mystery Comics #82 (1947) Captain America (Barnes) - Captain America Comics #1 (1941) Human Torch (Hammond) - Marvel Comics #1 (1939) Human Robot - Menace #11 (1954)
Loki - Venus #9 (1950) - which is already has him appearing in the issue, but not listed as his first appearance here. So the first appearance needs to be changed. Thor - Venus #12 (1951)
@Shatterstar said:
"OK so we had a bit of a debate in the mod's forum about Thor's 1st appearance issue (spurred by a submission). Xerocks kitteh and Aztech are falling on the side of Journey Into Mystery #83 as his first appearance. I can agree with that, but I can also understand the user/writer's ( David Wiltfong was the submitter) argument that Venus #12 should be the first appearance. The argument for Journey Into Mystery #83 is that that was the 1st appearance that we recognize as the modern day Thor. The Venus appearances were a random god character and/or should be disregarded for pre-dating (by a decade or so) the Thor canon associated with the character we all know. The argument for Venus #12 is that the character Venus/Aphrodite exists in regular Marvel-616 continuity and Venus #1 is credited as her 1st appearance. So if its good enough for Venus, it should be good enough for Thor as well. A Thor is a Thor, whether it was Donald Blake or not. So what do you think? Do we have two different Thors here or is it one in the same thunder god that saved Venus in her late 40s/early 50s series that just took his time finding his way back into comics continuity. "
The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe lists Thor's first appearance as Venus #12 (1951); (modern) Journey into Mystery #83 (1962) .
Is this website about what "you" want or to be informative and list correct/official information? If the official/correct information is not being listed, then what is the purpopse of having Moderartor verify the information? Does it become what the Moderators want to include or is it their job to make sure the information is correct? In checking the information that is correct, you only need to check the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and you can see what his first appearance is listed as.
There was a Thor before there was a Donald Blake. Just because Thor looked different, does not automatically mean it is a different Thor. Each phase of Ragnarok changes the Asgardians. It affects their memories, looks, and other things.
Since we do not have a option to add two first appearances, I suggest we leave it at Journey Into Mystery (which was considered the first app for the longest time) because it more accurately represents the current incantations first appearance. Plus the fact that if Thor only appeared in two panels, I might consider that a cameo, even though it could or could not be an altogether separate character.
Also if you go by comic values, they consider Journey to be the first appearance of Thor and it's value reflects that at $30,000. Venus #12 is a mere $1,220.
That being said, someone should add a section to the beginning of Thor's page to point this out, since it is still valuable information. (If most agree with me)
"Is this website about what "you" want or to be informative and list correct/official information? If the official/correct information is not being listed, then what is the purpopse of having Moderartor verify the information? Does it become what the Moderators want to include or is it their job to make sure the information is correct? In checking the information that is correct, you only need to check the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and you can see what his first appearance is listed as. There was a Thor before there was a Donald Blake. Just because Thor looked different, does not automatically mean it is a different Thor. Each phase of Ragnarok changes the Asgardians. It affects their memories, looks, and other things. "
Despite having apologised to you twice for the inconvenience I caused, we seem to have somehow incurred your ongoing disdain. What's so wrong with asking the general public for their opinion...?!
@DragynWulf said:
"The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe lists Thor's first appearance as Venus #12 (1951); (modern) Journey into Mystery #83 (1962) ."
No it doesn't. I am rarely bothered to photograph or scan things, but I've grown tired of this condescending attitude.
Gallery
As I said before, for decades Marvel's official word has been Journey Into Mystery. We are erring on the side of caution for a reason. Any decent website would do the same.
"Is this website about what "you" want or to be informative and list correct/official information? If the official/correct information is not being listed, then what is the purpopse of having Moderartor verify the information? Does it become what the Moderators want to include or is it their job to make sure the information is correct? In checking the information that is correct, you only need to check the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and you can see what his first appearance is listed as. There was a Thor before there was a Donald Blake. Just because Thor looked different, does not automatically mean it is a different Thor. Each phase of Ragnarok changes the Asgardians. It affects their memories, looks, and other things. "
Despite having apologised to you twice for the inconvenience I caused, we seem to have somehow incurred your ongoing disdain. What's so wrong with asking the general public for their opinion...?!
@DragynWulf said:
"The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe lists Thor's first appearance as Venus #12 (1951); (modern) Journey into Mystery #83 (1962) ."
No it doesn't. I am rarely bothered to photograph or scan things, but I've grown tired of this condescending attitude.
Gallery
As I said before, for decades Marvel's official word has been Journey Into Mystery. We are erring on the side of caution for a reason. Any decent website would do the same. "
You are scanning outdated material from 1986. Check the updated versions of the Handbooks. Do Moderators use the old material (when there is no new material to use) and their own opinons to approve edits or the updated (when there is new material to use) official ones? If they are using thier opinons, then this is not a reliable website for information and is just like another website that puts whatever they want into the entries without checking for facts. As said before... the Handbooks state Venus #12 (1951) as his first appearance. Journey Into Mystery is the modern appearance. Just because it is mentioned for decades are incorrect, does not make it correct. I gave an example of Captain America's shield as something that Marvel has said for decades, but was incorrect and corrected. The shield is not made of Adamantium/Vibrainium, but a Vibrainium/steel alloy.
As I stated, Captain America was the only character to be given that type of entry (first appearance/modern appearance) in the Deluxe Edition even when Bucky appeared in the same comic that Captain America did. Why, I have no idea. While I technically "worked" on the Handbooks in the 80's (I wrote in to correct information as any fan could back then and can currently do so), I was not a writer on the Handbooks then, but I am now and just like then we make every entry up to date as possible with as much information as possible to give the absolute best entry on the character.
As for asking the general public... it can't be done. You'd get fanatics wanting to have their version of what they think should be instead of what actually happened. The Thor fans would build up Thor to impossible levels, Hulk fans would do the same, Wolverine fans would do the same, Spider-Man fans would do the same, Squirel Girl fans would do the same, and so on and so on. That is why there is an official standing on things.
"OK so we had a bit of a debate in the mod's forum about Thor's 1st appearance issue (spurred by a submission). Xerocks kitteh and Aztech are falling on the side of Journey Into Mystery #83 as his first appearance. I can agree with that, but I can also understand the user/writer's ( David Wiltfong was the submitter) argument that Venus #12 should be the first appearance. The argument for Journey Into Mystery #83 is that that was the 1st appearance that we recognize as the modern day Thor. The Venus appearances were a random god character and/or should be disregarded for pre-dating (by a decade or so) the Thor canon associated with the character we all know. The argument for Venus #12 is that the character Venus/Aphrodite exists in regular Marvel-616 continuity and Venus #1 is credited as her 1st appearance. So if its good enough for Venus, it should be good enough for Thor as well. A Thor is a Thor, whether it was Donald Blake or not. So what do you think? Do we have two different Thors here or is it one in the same thunder god that saved Venus in her late 40s/early 50s series that just took his time finding his way back into comics continuity. "
Is this website about what "you" want or to be informative and list correct/official information? "
Yes this site exists to codify my view of comic books and mine alone. I moderate each and every page so that it fits my view of all of comic book history until it eventually pieces together into the greatest fanfic ever created.
Seriously though, if OHofMU has literally two different 1st appearances listed, and we have no way of listing two appearances in that field, what are we supposed to do? You can denote the fact that there's two 1st appearances modern/original in the body of the page, but for the purpose of that particular field- its one or the other. This discussion should be about whats going in that field, lets try to stick with that and not how moderators should do what they do. Personally, I'm leaning toward Venus#12, the fact that Venus and Loki are described as having their 1st appearance in that series is trumping the modern Thor argument.
"OK so we had a bit of a debate in the mod's forum about Thor's 1st appearance issue (spurred by a submission). Xerocks kitteh and Aztech are falling on the side of Journey Into Mystery #83 as his first appearance. I can agree with that, but I can also understand the user/writer's ( David Wiltfong was the submitter) argument that Venus #12 should be the first appearance. The argument for Journey Into Mystery #83 is that that was the 1st appearance that we recognize as the modern day Thor. The Venus appearances were a random god character and/or should be disregarded for pre-dating (by a decade or so) the Thor canon associated with the character we all know. The argument for Venus #12 is that the character Venus/Aphrodite exists in regular Marvel-616 continuity and Venus #1 is credited as her 1st appearance. So if its good enough for Venus, it should be good enough for Thor as well. A Thor is a Thor, whether it was Donald Blake or not. So what do you think? Do we have two different Thors here or is it one in the same thunder god that saved Venus in her late 40s/early 50s series that just took his time finding his way back into comics continuity. "
Is this website about what "you" want or to be informative and list correct/official information? "
Yes this site exists to codify my view of comic books and mine alone. I moderate each and every page so that it fits my view of all of comic book history until it eventually pieces together into the greatest fanfic ever created. Seriously though, if OHofMU has literally two different 1st appearances listed, and we have no way of listing two appearances in that field, what are we supposed to do? You can denote the fact that there's two 1st appearances modern/original in the body of the page, but for the purpose of that particular field- its one or the other. This discussion should be about whats going in that field, lets try to stick with that and not how moderators should do what they do. Personally, I'm leaning toward Venus#12, the fact that Venus and Loki are described as having their 1st appearance in that series is trumping the modern Thor argument. "
With the comments I've gotten about giving a character the alias of an alternate reality character when they are in fact two different characters and the name of another has nothing to do with the other, problems about listing the correct first appearance, Moderators saying "what I" and "what we" want (the point of this thread is that you Moderators are discussing what to use instead of what is official), it seems that you don't care about official stances on things, but what you as a group or an individual decide upon instead of what Marvel has decided about its characters. There are websites that do this just so they can hope to make their mark on a character and have caused numerous problems for the Handbooks and Marvel because the website claims to post correct information and then it is spread all over the internet. Hence the remark I made. Now, I am not trying to say that you are trying to make your mark on a character, but as a Moderator, by approving misinformation or not the correct information, you can inadvertainly cause the same problem if this site is indended to be a source of correct/actual information.
@DragynWulf: But technically aren't both appearances correct? That's how Marvel labels it. Unfortunately, we only get one spot to choose which one goes there. If we select Journey into Mystery, then it is inaccurate because that wasn't his actual first appearance. If we choose Venus, then it is inaccurate of the current, and far more iconic, version of Thor (which is the character most if not all are interested in). It's kind of a catch 22 with only one spot to be used. We aren't really debating which is true, we are debating how we should handle a rare situation. Like I said, technically, both are true, as you showed us.
I still say comic values reflect Journey as the first appearance and we should have a section at the very top of Thor's page detailing the information of his chronological first appearance.
" @DragynWulf: But technically aren't both appearances correct? That's how Marvel labels it. Unfortunately, we only get one spot to choose which one goes there. If we select Journey into Mystery, then it is inaccurate because that wasn't his actual first appearance. If we choose Venus, then it is inaccurate of the current, and far more iconic, version of Thor (which is the character most if not all are interested in). It's kind of a catch 22 with only one spot to be used. We aren't really debating which is true, we are debating how we should handle a rare situation. Like I said, technically, both are true, as you showed us. I still say comic values reflect Journey as the first appearance and we should have a section at the very top of Thor's page detailing the information of his chronological first appearance. "
Both are correct, but the actual first appearance of Thor in a Marvel comic is Venus #12.
@aztek the lost said:
"Even the Handbook acknowledges the two are different characters, just with the same name and role. I say make a new page for the other Thor and Loki and credit them to that Venus series for what small role they played. "
It does not acknowledge them as two different characters. They are one and the same charcter. You are trying to twist the words to make them to be two characters to support your claims that it is not the same character. The appearance is no different than Captain America (Barnes)'s first appearance listing or any other character. (Bucky) Captain America Comics #1 (1941); (Winter Soldier) Captain America #1 (2005); (Captain America) Captain America #34 (2008). Three different first appearances listed for one character.
" @DragynWulf: But technically aren't both appearances correct? That's how Marvel labels it. Unfortunately, we only get one spot to choose which one goes there. If we select Journey into Mystery, then it is inaccurate because that wasn't his actual first appearance. If we choose Venus, then it is inaccurate of the current, and far more iconic, version of Thor (which is the character most if not all are interested in). It's kind of a catch 22 with only one spot to be used. We aren't really debating which is true, we are debating how we should handle a rare situation. Like I said, technically, both are true, as you showed us. I still say comic values reflect Journey as the first appearance and we should have a section at the very top of Thor's page detailing the information of his chronological first appearance. "
Both are correct, but the actual first appearance of Thor in a Marvel comic is Venus #12.
@aztek the lost said:
"Even the Handbook acknowledges the two are different characters, just with the same name and role. I say make a new page for the other Thor and Loki and credit them to that Venus series for what small role they played. "
It does not acknowledge them as two different characters. They are one and the same charcter. You are trying to twist the words to make them to be two characters to support your claims that it is not the same character. The appearance is no different than Captain America (Barnes)'s first appearance listing or any other character. (Bucky) Captain America Comics #1 (1941); (Winter Soldier) Captain America #1 (2005); (Captain America) Captain America #34 (2008). Three different first appearances listed for one character. "
it says Modern Version, that signifies it is a different character...it's not the same as Bucky at all because that is the same individual having different mantles...this is the same mantle being held by different individuals...this is like saying Wally West first appeared in Flash Comics #1 "
Modern was used for Captain America in the Deluxe Edition just as it has been for Thor currently. It never signified that the Golden Age and modern were two different characters as you are trying to make it out to be. It is the same character, not two different ones. It is modern appearance, not modern character. This isn't DC Comics from the 90's where the Godlen Age version is a different character.
"OK so we had a bit of a debate in the mod's forum about Thor's 1st appearance issue (spurred by a submission). Xerocks kitteh and Aztech are falling on the side of Journey Into Mystery #83 as his first appearance. I can agree with that, but I can also understand the user/writer's ( David Wiltfong was the submitter) argument that Venus #12 should be the first appearance. The argument for Journey Into Mystery #83 is that that was the 1st appearance that we recognize as the modern day Thor. The Venus appearances were a random god character and/or should be disregarded for pre-dating (by a decade or so) the Thor canon associated with the character we all know. The argument for Venus #12 is that the character Venus/Aphrodite exists in regular Marvel-616 continuity and Venus #1 is credited as her 1st appearance. So if its good enough for Venus, it should be good enough for Thor as well. A Thor is a Thor, whether it was Donald Blake or not. So what do you think? Do we have two different Thors here or is it one in the same thunder god that saved Venus in her late 40s/early 50s series that just took his time finding his way back into comics continuity. "
Is this website about what "you" want or to be informative and list correct/official information? "
Yes this site exists to codify my view of comic books and mine alone. I moderate each and every page so that it fits my view of all of comic book history until it eventually pieces together into the greatest fanfic ever created. Seriously though, if OHofMU has literally two different 1st appearances listed, and we have no way of listing two appearances in that field, what are we supposed to do? You can denote the fact that there's two 1st appearances modern/original in the body of the page, but for the purpose of that particular field- its one or the other. This discussion should be about whats going in that field, lets try to stick with that and not how moderators should do what they do. Personally, I'm leaning toward Venus#12, the fact that Venus and Loki are described as having their 1st appearance in that series is trumping the modern Thor argument. "
With the comments I've gotten about giving a character the alias of an alternate reality character when they are in fact two different characters and the name of another has nothing to do with the other, problems about listing the correct first appearance, Moderators saying "what I" and "what we" want (the point of this thread is that you Moderators are discussing what to use instead of what is official), it seems that you don't care about official stances on things, but what you as a group or an individual decide upon instead of what Marvel has decided about its characters. There are websites that do this just so they can hope to make their mark on a character and have caused numerous problems for the Handbooks and Marvel because the website claims to post correct information and then it is spread all over the internet. Hence the remark I made. Now, I am not trying to say that you are trying to make your mark on a character, but as a Moderator, by approving misinformation or not the correct information, you can inadvertainly cause the same problem if this site is indended to be a source of correct/actual information. "
The point of the thread was not for moderators to discuss what we want. If that were the case I'd post it in the moderator forum and only we'd talk about it (and I'd have been outvoted 4 to 1 by now). I actually created the thread for you and other Thor fans to discuss the topic and come to a logical resolution. Its not what stance the mods are taking, we don't even see the majority of submissions that go through. I could change it to Venus #12 because it makes logical sense to me and tomorrow someone with live edit can come along and change it back. The fact that there's no mention of Venus on his page as it is doesn't help change perceptions.
I'm interested in whats official but what has recently become official is obviously not yet common knowledge of widely understood. It sounds to me like what is the official stance has changed from one handbook to another and othersitescontinue to cite Journey Into Mystery #83, which adds to the confusion, so there's reason to have a discussion about what to do here. If Marvel took a few decades to come to the conclusion that these Thors are one in the same, give us some time to come to the same conclusion. This is a site that relies on our community's input and expertise, we're not provided handbooks so we rely on what we've got (in XK's case it might be an older handbook).
With the comments I've gotten about giving a character the alias of an alternate reality character when they are in fact two different characters and the name of another has nothing to do with the other, problems about listing the correct first appearance, Moderators saying "what I" and "what we" want (the point of this thread is that you Moderators are discussing what to use instead of what is official), it seems that you don't care about official stances on things, but what you as a group or an individual decide upon instead of what Marvel has decided about its characters. There are websites that do this just so they can hope to make their mark on a character and have caused numerous problems for the Handbooks and Marvel because the website claims to post correct information and then it is spread all over the internet. Hence the remark I made. Now, I am not trying to say that you are trying to make your mark on a character, but as a Moderator, by approving misinformation or not the correct information, you can inadvertainly cause the same problem if this site is indended to be a source of correct/actual information. "
The point of the thread was not for moderators to discuss what we want. If that were the case I'd post it in the moderator forum and only we'd talk about it (and I'd have been outvoted 4 to 1 by now). I actually created the thread for you and other Thor fans to discuss the topic and come to a logical resolution. Its not what stance the mods are taking, we don't even see the majority of submissions that go through. I could change it to Venus #12 because it makes logical sense to me and tomorrow someone with live edit can come along and change it back. The fact that there's no mention of Venus on his page as it is doesn't help change perceptions.
I'm interested in whats official but what has recently become official is obviously not yet common knowledge of widely understood. It sounds to me like what is the official stance has changed from one handbook to another and othersitescontinue to cite Journey Into Mystery #83, which adds to the confusion, so there's reason to have a discussion about what to do here. If Marvel took a few decades to come to the conclusion that these Thors are one in the same, give us some time to come to the same conclusion. This is a site that relies on our community's input and expertise, we're not provided handbooks so we rely on what we've got (in XK's case it might be an older handbook). "
Being interested in what is official and the debating if it is official are two different things. By debating it, you are deciding if you want to have it on the site or not even though it is official, which I've proven in more than one way. Is it the fault of mine that it is not common knowledge about Thor's first appearance? No. I tried to correct the information and was told I was wrong and it was not approved, when in fact I was correct and even made a point in the notes to the Moderator that it was in stated in the Handbooks. Is it my fault that person approving/rejecting uses a source from 1986 instead of 2010 when I am trying to get the correct information listed? Is it my fault that you'd rather debate on if you think it is official or not? No. There should be no reason to take time to accept it and agree upon it, when a link was provided to Marvel.com's profile and I also provided an image from the Handbook to prove the information is correct. By not allowing the correct information to be added, you (as in this website and the Moderators that are in charge) are continuing to allow the correct information to not be added.
It is not about the information changing from one Handbook to another. This is the excuse that is given all the time about the current versions of the Handbooks when someone refuses to accept something provided within the Handbooks. It is a Marvel Handbooks approved by editoral. It is official. I can't tell you why no other character was given the same treatment as Captain America in the 80's Handbook by the use of appearance and modern appearance. I was not a writer back then. It could easily be that they did not have access to the comics back then like we do today with libraries having them on microfilm for the public to access. Notice how there is more and more TPBs and reprints of comics from that era these days? Notice how Ares' son Monstro had his first appearance in a comic (a Handbook) since 1942? It is because of this very fact. The Handbook team have access to much more information than what was provided back in the 80's. You can expect more and more of these characters to appear in Handbooks over the years as a result of this.
You point to other websites, but those websites are wrong with either outdated material (MarvelDirectory.com), incorrect material (Wikipedia.com), or misinformation (MarvelWiki.com). And as I've said before, the owner of Marvel.Wiki.com has specifically stated the reason for making up their own information is to hope it will catch on at Marvel allowing that website to put its stamp on the character. Marvel.com has the correct information, as already shown, and done so that it can not be edited (meaning the profile is locked). And in all honestly, you sholdn't be going to other websites that fans can change to wahtever they want and use it as a source to approve/reject material, because that just continued to do what the fanatics want... the spread of misinformation. Go to the comics themselves first, Handbooks second, and then Marvel.com third. Not Wikipedia, MarvelDirectory, and definatly not Marvel.Wiki.com. The continued use of online websites are the problem. No one goes to the actual comic or Handbooks. They check to see what the other websites have instead of looking for the correct information themselves, taking the word of the other website as "fact.
Marvel.com has the correct information, as already shown, and done so that it can not be edited (meaning the profile is locked).
Just to nitpick on the "Marvel.com" has the correct information thing.
So according to Marvel.com (that has the correct and up-to date information), Mary jane can kick Tigra's tail any day she wants? "
We are talking about Thor, not mary Jane or the power grids, which I've already stated that has not worked for years. You want to look for holes in what I've stated just to prove me wrong and make me look bad. It won't work.
Just so you or any other Moderator or poster can't attempt to do it again... I will clarify specifically for you, any other Moderator, or poster. All of the locked profiles are completely 100% accurate (other than the power grids, which I've said does not work). If you want the correct power grids... then check the Handbooks. Not the Handbooks from 80's, but the current Handbooks.
Specific enough for you or are you going to attempt to take another pot shot at me and twist the words to make me look bad?
"Is Thor First Thunder going to be considered canon? "
It depends on how the story plays out. So you can't say one way or the other until the story is finished.
@thegreatfour said:
" @KillerZ: still that's pretty funny "
What is funny is the constant attacks from Moderators here. What is also funny is that even though it was been proven as official, you and other Moderators are debating on if it should be used or not just because other websites don't have it and because you are not use to it.
@KillerZ
said:
" @DragynWulf: I was just pointing out that Marvel.com isn't always reliable as a source. "
I stated that FIRST you go to the comics. SECOND you go to the Handbooks. And if you "have" to go to a website, then Marvel.com is the website to go to. So, what you were trying to do is take a pot shot at me using something I already stated that was broken.
" @DragynWulf: I was just pointing out that Marvel.com isn't always reliable as a source. "
I stated that FIRST you go to the comics. SECOND you go to the Handbooks. And if you "have" to go to a website, then Marvel.com is the website to go to. So, what you were trying to do is take a pot shot at me using something I already stated that was broken. "
When did you state that, not in this thread atleast. And my first comment was not directed at you personally, but to the site called Marvel.com
" @DragynWulf: I was just pointing out that Marvel.com isn't always reliable as a source. "
I stated that FIRST you go to the comics. SECOND you go to the Handbooks. And if you "have" to go to a website, then Marvel.com is the website to go to. So, what you were trying to do is take a pot shot at me using something I already stated that was broken. "
When did you state that, not in this thread atleast. And my first comment was not directed at you personally, but to the site called Marvel.com "
I work on Marvel.com's forums and Marvel Universe. Therefore, you are directing it towards me.
¨Thor- was based upon the thunder god of the same name in Norse mythology. Thor was the super-strong son of Odin.
There were a number of iterations and adaptations of Thor to comic books before his most iconic version appeared in 1962.
In the premiere issue of Weird Comics # 1 (April 1940), Fox Features Syndicate introduced Thor, God of Thunder. The story was written by an unknown author and drawn by Pierce Rice.
In Weird Comics # 6 (September 1940), Thor had become Dynamite Thor, the Explosion Man, created by Wright Lincoln. Dynamite Thor was the alter ego of Peter Thor, a demolitions expert who fought criminals and spies.
In Fawcett Comics' premiere publication of Nickel Comics # 1 (May 1940), Thor was briefly mentioned, in name only.
In DC Comics' Adventure Comics # 75 (June 1942), there was a villainous version of Thor (known as the "Villain from Valhalla"), depicted by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby (this was Kirby’s first rendition of the Thunder God). Thor battled against Sandman and Sandy.
In the Fawcett Comics publication, Whiz Comics # 50 (January 1944), Thor appeared in a story titled "Loki, the Terrible," by Otto Binder.
In Atlas Comics' Venus # 12-13 (February to April 1951), a different version of the mythological Thor appeared.
In Charlton's Out of This World # 11 (January 1959), artist Steve Ditko drew a Thor story ("The Hammer of Thor"). The modern-day, canonical version of Thor, the fictional superhero character of the Mighty Thor, appeared in Marvel Comics' science-fiction/fantasy anthology series Journey into Mystery # 83 (August 1962), created by scripters Stan Lee and Larry Leiber, and artist Jack Kirby. ¨¨
I actually made a video about the comic yesterday. Thor fights Korg, who we can actually see in the Avengers: Endgame movie where they hand out together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekRzBEFWEaE
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment