Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Image update?

Senior Editors, Is it possible to update Thor s image? Thor s most recognizable appearance is his black and silver suit, which is how he is portrayed in most of the media sources Including the Thor movies. The blue and red suit was a classic suit Which only lasted until the 80s and made a few brief appearances in later editions. The black and silver suit is the most well recognized. The classic suit is mostly unrecognized because Thor s popularity faded out in the 80s .its only in the mid 2000s that his popularity began to increase,hence most people recognize Thor by his early 2000s version. Is it possible to provide a more recognizable image or at least conduct a poll or a discussion about this. I still want to learn more about this! thanks for reading this.

talk) 11:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Is anyone there. I need help

talk) 17:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Your assessment is incorrect. Thor's classic costume is by far his most consistent appearance. It has been used since his first introduction through the 1980's and beyond. Since then Thor has gone through a number of costume changes, no of which has had the staying power as his original. Your comment shows a
WP:RECENTISM bias.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I personally think that this image looks more iconic regarding what the character currently looks like. The previously used image can be featured in an era section of the page instead. David A (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is it possible to put that image in the infobox
talk) 08:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Not a fan of the pose, it makes pats of his costume hard to see. How about this one that is a full frontal shot?--TriiipleThreat (talk)
Well, normally Ross is a really good artist, but I am not a fan of the aesthetic quality of that particular drawing. How about this one by the same artist from Thor issue 701 (I think) instead? It looks more iconic to me. David A (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last one looks the best. It has the classic outfit with the modern feel.
talk) 20:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats nice artwork but again for the infobox I prefer the standing shot that shows off more of his costume.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone of them would work though. In the end it depends on yours and David sir s decision.
talk) 12:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
How about this image then? Would it be more acceptable? David A (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,It definitely looks great. But it still your decision
talk) 05:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Isn't that the same one as we discussed earlier? How's this?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is another one. Anyway, I think that your new image looks good, but we would probably need to find a version of it without the text. I will try a reverse image search engine. David A (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. I think that it looks great, but it is obviously too wide for our purposes, and would need to be heavily cropped. Perhaps one of the images that I linked to earlier, that only show Thor himself, would work instead? David A (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely work.
talk) 10:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@TriiipleThreat: @BOZ: What do you think about this? David A (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it going to change? Lord kai07 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use the Coipel artwork with the lettering?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well anything would work, Im not particularly objecting anything. I'm just stating whether the discussion is still active or not. Lord kai07 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ: @TriiipleThreat: Perhaps it would be better to add this entire great-looking image to the top of Thor's supporting cast page instead, and keep the current header image for his main page, since we cannot seem to reach an agreement here? David A (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was already decided that the picture was going to be used. Lord kai07 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somebody would have to properly crop the higher quality version of the image without text, and then upload it to Wikipedia with proper descriptions, sourcing, and crediting in that case. David A (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot do that. I lack the necessary skills required for this.Lord kai07 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can technically go here, but on second thought, I think that if the other Wikipedia editors here did not like the rendered images of Thor alone that I provided above, I prefer the currently used image instead of heavily cropping the image featuring Thor and his supporting cast. My apologies. David A (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I personally still think that this image looks better, so if anybody here change their minds, feel free to use it. David A (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image looks great. But I would still have to request you to do this. My apologies! My editing skills aren't really on point. Hence I ask for this favour. Thank you for reading this. Lord kai07 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the image’s quality.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So can we use a different imagine? For example:this or this Lord kai07 (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the main image should be Thor's classic costume and preferably be comic book art.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about the previous images. Do we have a conclusion?? Lord kai07 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it appears that we do not.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But does the text really matters. I believe we can just use this image. 1 With the text on. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have cropped the textless image and uploaded it here, so I think that seems like a better alternative to use if others here find it acceptable. David A (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few more images,please have a look.

Lord kai07 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like image number 3 and think that it can be used, but @TriiipleThreat: and @BOZ: also need to respond. David A (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the classic costume should be one displayed in the infobox. If we want to go with a modern example of then I still say the best option is this one, even with the text.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the classic constume absolutely necessary. Multiple heroes don't have their classic look anymore. Besides that The 2nd image is in his classical suit. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an out of topic request. Can anyone please upload this image on Wikipedia. I do not possess the necessary skill to upload an image like this and I need this image for an article. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about it being the classic, it’s about being the most “universally recognized costume” per
WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE
. It just so happens that Thor’s classic costume is his most universally recognized costume. As stated previously the classic costume has been his most consistent costume until relatively recently. Over the past couple decades he has gone through numerous costume changes, none of which has had the staying power of the classic costume.
Also the character should be posed in such a way that shows off more of costume.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image is his classical outfit and it shows his costume properly. Lord kai07 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a version of the image that TriiipleThreat suggested above without any text earlier. If somebody uploads it to Wikipedia I think that it can be used if you both wish. You can click here to see it. David A (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link it outdated. It doesn't show the image Lord kai07 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I need help. Can you upload this image on wikia Commons. Or atleast give instructions on how to do it. Lord kai07 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image link is not outdated, but perhaps you need a Fandom account in order to see it. How about this link instead? Does that work for all of you? David A (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out. It is appreciated. David A (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! The new image looks great. Lord kai07 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading content

Hello.

Since this page received a good article nomination, its content has very quickly been severely distorted.

This version of the characters has traditionally stood for kindness, empathy, nobility, self-sacrifice, bravery, genuine heroism, and general responsibility of power to protect innocents unable to defend themselves. It has extremely little to do with the original mythological incarnation of Thor, much less Nazism and Viking raids, as the article currently appears to attempt to make parallells for.

In addition, Thor's powers and abilities section has been completely butchered to the point that it contains virtually no valid or relevant information whatsoever, and even provides direct misinformation or disinformation such as claiming that he can only lift 100 tons, even though he has moved at least 9 entire universal spacetime continuums through sheer physical strength, which would require literally infinite amounts of power, and that is without the "Odinforce", which has enabled him to perform a few explicit feats of a literally multiversal scale.

There seems to be a very major fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of the Marvel Comics incarnation of this character. David A (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANCRUFT and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, at the very least the 100 tons mention is not a reliable source, but rather extremely misleading. Even Spider-Man has lifted many tens of thousands of tons on occasion, whereas Thor has a few literally infinite strength feats, and the mentions of viking raids and Nazis seem completely inappropriate for a character that has usually been portrayed as a very nice person throughout his history. The current article seems to actively extremely misinform the visitors about Thor's personality and explicit power level, as it currently presents him as unsympathetic and powerless. David A (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two cited sources describing him as able to lift approximately 100 tons, and reliable sources have discussed the contrast of Marvel's portrayal of Norse mythology versus other connotations. If you have an issue with this, you're welcome to make a post at
WP:NPOV/N, but I suspect you won't get very far suggesting we should use your understanding of the comics over reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
But those sources very clearly do not know what they are talking about, unless scientific research has suddenly determined that many combined entire universal spacetime continuums together weigh 100 tons. They are citing old symbolic Marvel handbook numbers that are constantly disproven by the comic books themselves, and are extremely unreliable to take at face value. Again, the current version of this page reads more like a character-assassination than a character-appreciation, and that should not be the intended point of visiting it. David A (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: As a compromise solution, can we at least remove the extremely misleading "100 tons" Marvel 1980s handbook citation? It is very blatantly inaccurate to the point of being silly. David A (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we would remove information cited to two reliable sources just because you disagree with it. Comic books are notoriously inconsistent in regard to character feats, but this is the number that the sources have come to agree on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien:I apologise for not seeing/being notified of your reply earlier. That is the reason for why I removed the "100 tons" mention on my own.
Anyway, the comic books are very inconsistent, yes, but there have likely been several hundreds of contradictions with the "100 tons" claim from the 1980s Marvel Comics handbooks, that your secondary source blindly cited without indepth knowledge about the character, including the references that you removed from this article earlier, so if you want to use the inconsistency argument, no specific statistics data should be mentioned at all. David A (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not write content based on an editor's understanding of the content. We write it based on what is said in reliable secondary sources. I'm sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's expectations regarding
WP:OR/N. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
But if you have read any of the comic books featuring this character, you would know for a fact that "100 tons" is extremely misleading Marvel handbook nonsense, and you yourself used the inconsistency argument above. Why do you so very strongly want to include this particular piece of misinformation that sets a specific border to Thor's scale of power, and why are you adamantly unwilling to budge an inch regarding finding a compromise solution? Please explain yourself.
Also, I would strongly recommend at the very least reading the comic books that were mentioned in this page previously to check that what was stated then is accurate. David A (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to call for the removal of verified content because of your personal understanding of primary sources. Please stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly tried to explain to you that the only source that has ever listed 100 tons as an upper border for Thor are the old Marvel handbooks, and that the secondary source that you cited has either read the number there or taken it out of thin air without explaining how it reached that conclusion. Please stop being completely unreasonable in this regard, given that I have otherwise begrudgingly accepted your near complete overhaul of this page, despite all of the work I had put into the content that you removed, and explain your motivations. Do you even know of this character indepth beyond just inaccurately assuming that it is a toxic masculinity icon? David A (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my unnecessarily testy tone in the above text. In retrospect it was inappropriate and overly suspicious, due to general frustration with that the extreme page overhaul removed lots of useful information.

In any case, as I stated here, would it be an acceptable compromise solution to replace the "100 tons" number with strength feats from the following (and similar) secondary sources?

[1] [2]

David A (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien, Argento Surfer, NatGertler, Drmies, Nightscream, and BOZ: I apologise for disturbing, but would this be an acceptable compromise solution here? David A (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that anyone would call on me from this page--what I see is a very long page on a comic character. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My further apologies in that case. I looked for Wikipedia members I recognised who had contributed to the talk section of the overall comic book project here. David A (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references to Nazism -- and especially communism --- should either be elaborated, in order to clarify what the author, Arnold, is referring to, or should be removed entirely.
As for the issue on Thor's strength the gold standard is
OR. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
At this point, I just want to replace the extremely misleading "100 tons" claim with links to other sources instead. I would prefer if a few directly cited comic books from the pre-revision version of this page can be added, but if that is not allowed, I find it acceptable to use the two CBR pages with Thor feats that I linked to above instead. David A (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Does this seem acceptable for you? David A (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do need real world content in the article, other than that I'm not sure what else to say. BOZ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you for your reply. David A (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SYNTH. Bottom line: Stick to secondaries first. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Nightscream: Okay. I hope that the two secondary sources that I linked to above are acceptable as replacements then. David A (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: I am afraid that I still need some helpful guidance here. David A (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What do you need? Nightscream (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifications regarding if I can replace the extremely false and misleading 100 tons claim with strength feats from other secondary sources (news sites).
I also wonder if I am allowed to reinsert direct comic book references from the previous version of this page into the currently extremely barren and unimpressive powers and abilities section. David A (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will oppose any use of primary sources where secondary or tertiary sources are available. I will also oppose the insertion of
WP:FANCRUFT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
And replacement of a single blatantly inaccurate claim from secondary sources with more accurate secondary sources that extremely strongly contradict the blatantly inaccurate claim from the other secondary sources?
Also, again, the powers and abilities section here is currently extremely barren and uninformative. Expanding on what is currently there with some matter of fact primary sources seems like a good idea in this case. David A (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to write about Thor. We're here to summarize what other people have written about Thor. What you've been describing is more in line with the mission of marvel.fandom.com. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look. What I mainly want to do here is merely to replace a blatantly inaccurate small piece of information with much more reliable information from other secondary sources that logically contradicts it. That is all. It is extremely far from an unreasonable suggestion, so I would greatly appreciate if you would allow this change to pass. Also, the Fandom page for Thor is comparatively incoherent and doesn't reach nearly as many people. Thor's Wikipedia page risks to severely inaccurately distort overall public perception of the character.
@Nightscream: What do you think should be done here? David A (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the passage or passages that you want fixed or replaced? Nightscream (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to replace "He can lift approximately 100 tons" in the powers and abilities section, preferably with a list of Thor's most impressive feats. If it is not allowed to copy-paste the list of feats and powers from the previous version of this page, to add as a supplement to the currently displayed information, I at least want to use some secondary sources in lack of better options: [3] [4] David A (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: David A (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would ask whether the source cited for that passage, which appears to be the 2006 edition of the Marvel Legacy Handbook by Youngquist and Grünwald, actually says this. If it does not, then remove it. If it does, and you have other sources that say otherwise, and which actually cite specific issues or storylines that give more authoritative info on this matter, than cite those. Another suggestion would be, when sources conflict, to simply report what different sources say. The thing is, the Handbook, at least the series that had been written by Peter Sanderson, in addition to information derived directly from the storylines, also contained information that was speculative or which Sanderson originated himself. If that's what the info from the 2006 Handbook is, then remove it entirely, and replace it with the info from the secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Well, as we both know, the Marvel Comics handbooks do contain a lot of made-up nonsense that contradict what actually happened within the storylines themselves, and the most extremely contradictory claims within the handbooks is the scale surrounding the value 100 tons, which is absurdly small compared to the recurrently literally infinite scale that several of these characters have explicitly demonstrated.
The problem here is that this blatantly inaccurate information seems to have been blindly cited by a few badly informed secondary sources, which have then in turn been cited here. Ideally, I would like to be able to use a combination of other secondary sources, and primary sources from the original powers and abilities section that I linked to above, to replace it. David A (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: I would still greatly appreciate your help here. David A (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: Were my previous suggestions not sufficiently useful? Nightscream (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Well, it is unclear to me if any of the solutions I mentioned in my last longer post here is acceptable to apply. David A (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream and BOZ: Would you be willing to help me out here please? I want to try to rescue this article from severely misinforming the public about this great character. David A (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like me to do? Nightscream (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: It would be greatly appreciated if you can clarify if I am allowed to replace the extremely inaccurate "100 tons" claims from secondary sources with other secondary sources (These are the ones I have found previously: [5] [6]) depicting Thor's feats and powers, and whether or not I am also allowed to reinsert primary sources from the previous version of this page into Thor's powers and abilities section as a complement to what is currently stated there. David A (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since we don't want to just throw out sources because they conflict with what editors think are true or not true, it's better to assess precisely what they say, and either see if they can jibe with one another, or simply report in the text that different sources say different things, or if appropriate, remove the sources and the text they support if the sources are found not to say what the text indicates that they say. It's also important to verify that the editor who added that text was the same editor who cited that source: Remember, sometimes one editor will add text with a source, and then another editor will come by, shoehorn text in between the old text and that source, or change the text entirely, giving the false appearance that that source supports the new material when it does not. I've seen this happen. So let's do this:
The two sources currently cited in the article for the "100 tons" claim are Jeff Youngquist and Jennifer Grünwald's 2006 book Thor, and an article by Jim McLauchlin in the April 1998 issue of Wizard.
Go back through the article's edit history, and verify that the editor who added that text also added the source. If you find that someone added it without those sources, then remove it.
If you find that the editor did cite those sources, then determine whether those sources actually support the "100 tons" claim. Doing so with the Wizard article should be easy. Since no page is cited for the 2006 book, try asking the editor who added that info what page it's on. If the editor does not respond, then try finding a searchable copy online, or just buy a copy, either digitally or hardcopy. Since no page is given in the article for that specific claim, try looking through via its Table of Contents, Index, or whatever. If you cannot find that information in those sources, then remove it from the article.
If one or both of those sources do mention that "100 tons" claim, see if they mention where that information was derived from. Do they mention a specific issue? Ditto for the new secondary sources you mentioned.
If that info conflicts with the info in your other secondary sources, then try editing the passage in the Wikipedia article to simply report that different sources say differen things, and emphasize this. For example, "Jeff Youngquist and Jennifer Grünwald, in their 2006 book Thor, say this and that, but over here in this CBR article, this columnists points out that in this storyline over here..."
Does this help? Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: Unfortunately not. It is not realistic for me to get ahold of physical copies of such old and obscure sources, but it is very possible that they do in fact make the false 100 tons claim due to blindly citing the old Marvel Comics handbooks that initiated this misinformation. As I stated previously, the problem here is that it is very easy to disprove that claim through likely hundreds of occasions when Thor has performed enormously greater feats than 100 tons, sometimes to an infinite degree, and even Spider-Man has supported many tens of thousands of tons on occasion. For example, citing the secondary sources that I linked to above (preferably combined with the primary sources that were listed before the recent overhaul of this page) would blatantly disprove that 100 tons has any accuracy and reliability whatsoever. David A (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you seem to be focusing on the portion of my post above in which I mention acquiring the sources in question, without addressing what I said about first verifying that the editor who added that passage was the same one who added those sources to support it, and then editing on the basis of your finding.
Second, I'm perplexed by your rejection of the suggestions that you asked for. I mean, seriously, "such old and obscure sources"? Marvel Legacy: The 1980s Handbook (which I now see was the name of the book, and not "Thor"), came out in late 2006. And who said anything about a physical copy? I explicitly said about "either digitally or hardcopy". You can get a digital copy at Amazon for $1.99. Even if you had to get a hard copy, you can get one on ebay for five bucks. Mile High Comics has it for three bucks. Midtown Comics has it for a buck sixty-four.
"...enormously greater feats than 100 tons..." Then modify the passage in the article that reads "He can lift approximately 100 tons" by adding the sources that say that (after you verify that they indeed do so), and then add mention of other instances in which he exceeded that, with the cited source. And again, if you find that the sources currently in the article do not support that passage, then remove them. Nightscream (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Okay, I found a free online readable copy here. Oddly enough, there's no entry for Thor, even though the final includes him in the list of characters featured. Was a page omitted from this online version? Nightscream (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I have brought offence. I will try to answer your points.
1) Thebiguglyalien added the 100 tons text, so we can ask them for verification help if you wish. I was also referring to the Thor book and the Wizard Magazine issue that you mentioned here.
2) I intended to refer to that the 100 tons and 95 tons misinformation began to be spread in the handbooks that were published in the early 1980s, and then Marvel Comics' editorial department dug in their heel regarding the practice, seemingly just because 100 tons was a convenient even number, even though it did not make any sense whatsoever when trying to pattern it based on the feats that the characters have actually done in practice.
3) Thank you very much for your help. That seems like good and useful advice. Is it fine if I also use the primary sources from the older version of this Wikipedia article that I linked to above in combination with the new secondary sources?
4) I cannot visit the online readable copy as my Bitdefender antivirus program registers that it is dangerous and prevents me from visiting it. My apologies. David A (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now noticed that you linked to a copy of the Wizard article as well as the Marvel handbook (which would be a primary source as far as I am aware). My apologies about that, but anyway, both of them mentioned the number 100 tons as far as I can see and remember. David A (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be satisfied if we changed it to a simpler phrasing like "Thor possesses superhuman strength"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be greatly preferable to the current text, yes. Thank you very much for being reasonable. I would obviously prefer to complement it with practical examples of Thor's explicitly demonstrated scale of power from secondary and primary sources, but removing the misinformation is my primary concern here. David A (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thor_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=1213719313"