Talk:Juggernaut (character)/Archive 1

Paradox

Is it worth mentioning the comic book nerd paradox of "what would happen if the Unstoppable Juggernaut ran into the Unmoveable Blob? While most of us agree Jugernaut's magic power overrides the Blobs.... this paradox is often time used by X-Men buffs to define a super powered paradox.

Immoveable Blob, not Unmoveable. :) 192.249.47.11 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unstoppable

I think if you are going to use a term like "Finally, while moving, he could, essentially, not be stopped" a brief discription of those circumstances in which that statement has not been true should be included. ie by an Apocalypse enhanced Hulk as War II. This has been done in other charecter discriptions notably The Blob.

In the X-men 3 movie it was stated that once he has any momentum, nothing will be able to stop him. What do you suppose will happen if Juggernaut should jump of a building? His momentum will be directed downwards. Will the earth be able to stop him from falling? Just a thought. 155.232.128.10 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

--but he obviously can stop himself by refusing to walk or exert himself, it's just common sense. If he was shoved from the back and pushed forward, he can stop himself from moving. Jaybonaut 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Let me give you an example. I remember a scene where Storm pushed Juggernaut backwards. When that happened, he stopped himself easily. The end.--Oreichalcos (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Appearances in other media

The statement that his powers in X-Men: The Last Stand are nearly identical seem's stupid to me. He display's unstopability, but not nearly the range of strength, durability, stamina, or such that he has in the comics. I think it should be removed.67.48.102.11Juggy#3

The Juggernaut B*tch paragraph doesn't seem notable enough to be of mention here, it almost seems like some people just trying to "promote" their lame video. It's poorly worded too, please stop adding it over and over.

ElCapitanAmerica 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just type in the title into google, its everywhere. I have nothing to do with that vid and yet i keep seeing it pop up all over the web. that's like not mentioning the Chuck Norris Facts on the chuck norris page. -(Brodey)

Let's see how well-known it is after a while. It's fairly new right now. --DrBat 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

i agree, not only is it lame but also not really informative in any way, keep removing it

Nobody is trying to "promote" anything here. It has become very popular and you've just been unfortunate not to have heard of it. - user:Madame Arsenic

It has has over 2 million views on YouTube alone. It's noteworthy

It is extremely notable, many, many people know the catchphrase "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" Just google it and see for yourself. Senner 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it would seem that small animation parody has received enough notoriety to receive the attention of Hollywood. As anyone who has seen X-men 3: The Last Stand will tell you, this infamous internet quote has made its way into mainstream film media. It is shown in a scene involving Kitty Pryde whilst stuck within the floor thanks the Kitty, Juggernaut shouts “Don’t you know who I am? I’m the Juggernaut, B*tch! Some might go far as to say that this is the sole purpose of juggernauts involvement with the film as far as I can tell he did little to nothing to progress the story - Peter Ryan

This video I think is worth mentioning its another internet meme right up there along with Numa Numa and the starwars kid I vote for a keep Xaios 07:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend giving this more mention. This, along with [Snakes on a Plane], is a clear example of internet culture making its way into mainstream culture. That is certainly noteworthy. The Taped Crusader 07:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't beleive people kept removing this mention from the page? "The Juggernaut bitch" became quite the internet phenom. Its even tributed in the latest film! Duhon

Yeah - I watched that and I was like "did they actually copy that? Wow - cool." GreenReaper 06:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The original author should be alerted to the fact that 1. ebonics does not exist, ebonics was, nay, is, merely a feeble attempt to alleviate an academic ailment plaguing inner-city students, or more precisely, african american inner city students, by, in so many words, deeming their dialect as another language altogether. This is both utterly assinine and offensive. 2. Even if one could rationally apply such a label to urban vernacular, let me assure you this display of endless obscenities is not ebonics, urban dialect, or black dialect, and to give, or succumb to, the impression that our, at times, unconventional speech is simply obscenities and misogyny is offensive and ignorant. May I suggest the actual exploration of a culture and traits therein before speaking, mentioning, or attributing anything to said culture. Especially short-lived, antiquated, ignorant, foreign concotions which try to define said traits, i.e ebonics...

p.s. exploration of our culture does not include, BET, MTV 1 or 2, VH1, UPN, WB, or anything broadcast on television, radio, or produced in a studio... 68.48.90.208 08:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Employee 022784

This is great. So many people were complaining about having this in the page about how it's irrelevant and lame, but then it appears in the movie. They must be crying their eyes out

I agree. This is for all you dumbasses who said that the movie based on the Juggernaut wasn't important enough to put in this article. They put it in the fucking movie. You lose. Thanks --MadameArsenic 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So that you know, someone has altered the film entry with a comment in such a way that normal frequenters can't edit it out. It basically tries to negate the article. Might want to check that out.

Exiled

Is this really notable enough to appear in the article? It's not really important enough for the characer, and it seems out of place next to the rest of the article's flow. --DrBat 22:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

i think its really funny, sorry to be the party pooper for elitist comicy convo but it really made me giggle and it is really popular online. i think it should have a meantion but im not going to go and cry if it doesnt lol

This article looks bad

"ultimate juggernaut"

"but has apparently left the brotherhood team for parts unknown." this is not correct juggernaut was imprisoned after ultimate war mini-series and escaped when Shield was transporting him

SHB pic

This Asamiya pic is awful, we cannot even see the character. I do not like the Miguire pic as well but even so, is much better than Asamiya's. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Healing factor?

In an episode of the animated series, When Juggernaut is de-powered, Xavier sends the X-men to go and reclaim the ruby that powered Juggernaut in the first place to give him back his "superhuman healing abilities" so that he wouldn't die. Question is, think this can be counted as evidence for a healing factor? Should it be listed among his special abilities?

The animated series isn't part of mainstream Marvel continuity. I don't know if he possesses some form of accelerated healing powers. The picture in the article displaying the Juggernaut reduced to a living skeleton would imply that he does, but the villain in the picture with him is the demon D'spayre, who feeds psychically off of fear and..well despair. I don't have the issue in which the confrontation takes place but I believe that the Juggernaut's mind was being tampered with by D'spayre. I might be wrong, if I am then someone please let me know. Cases involving the Juggernaut being injured are few and far between. With the exception of his encounter with Onslaught, I'd never seen the Juggernaut sustain any injury. He's been injured since his depowerment but as to how quickly he heals, it's up in the air. It's something that hasn't really been focused on, at least not to my knowledge. Anything put in the article about a "healing factor" would probably be more speculation than anything else at this point. Odin's Beard 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

he did have a healing factor during his unstoppable juggernaut period, i can't recall exactly where the picture is from but i do believe i've seen it and it's not depicting a mental scene. In the first few issues of x-force, shatterstar cuts juggy up, most notably apparently putting out his eyes. He quickly heals. (shatterstar has mystical blades, so some sort of mystic attack may be the common ground for damaging cain) Impulse 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That was from Juggernauts fight with X-Force, I believe it was X-Force #3. Shatterstar stabbed him in the eye, and within moments his eye was completly healed. It should also be mentioned that within his One-Shot, he was burned down to a skeleton and healed in moments.67.48.102.11Juggy#3

It was in X-Force #4, I found the old issue. The character, Syrin, managed to pull the Juggernaut's helmet off after Shatterstar used his swords to sever the mystical link binding his helmet to his armor. Shatterstar commented that his sword was forged by a combination of the science and magic found in the Mojoverse, then he started to cut up on the Juggernaut a bit and he did heal quickly. Odin's Beard 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Juggernaut flat-out states in that issue that the magic flowing through his viens heals him. It also shows blood flowing of his eye and then, in moments, a healed eye. I have a picture.204.110.228.254

I have a picture of Juggernaut, after getting stabbed in the eye by Shatterstar, discussing how the magic inside him protects *and heals* him, and showing him with a damaged eye that is healed as he states this. I'd upload it, but I don't know how to do so.24.31.244.43 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the fight with Juggernaut Vs D'Spayre. Yes he does feed off of despair and anger, but that powers up his magic. His skin was actually removed in that scene He used the god like powers he received from Juggernaut's anger and despair. D'Spayre wondered how he was still alive. He said "He still stands? He moves? How when there is nothing left?" This is proof that it was done to his body and not mind. Juggernaut then explains that there is something left: Hate. "Cause life is pain. Pain leads to despair. An' the only way to beat despair is through rage. And rage feeds The Juggernaut. Once The Juggernaut feels rage...nothing...of this or any world... NOTHING CAN STOP THE JUGGERNAUT!" So yes not only can The Juggernaut regenerate from nothing, but he is truly unstoppable. The Black Juggernaut 23:39 10, September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Black Juggernaut (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen a good picture on this article

All the other Juggernaut pics had some deficientcy in them. (Either he was throwing dirt in front of his face, or he was realy small in the pics).--P-Chan 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya I have that issue, let's just say this--nothing can stop the Juggernaut. ;) Well, old school 'Naut anyway. 192.249.47.11 15:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Juggernaut pic vote

No one can seem to agree, so i think we should have a vote for the main pic. But instead of me just posting some pics, feel free to add your own and then we'll vote. (it's not on wiki but check this one out too.) Don't be afraid to post a pic in the gallery tag, and we can start the vote on Monday June, 12. Exvicious 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Juggsexcal.png (holding rock) --Facto 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pat Lee Dstorres

As I've often had quoted at me, so I quote at you: m:Polls are evil.

And I've removed the gallery per WP:FU#Articlespaceonly.

Here's the criteria I use to determine SHB pics:

1. Follow the fair use criteria, especially the Images that cannot be fair use guidelines. These supersede all the following criteria. Also, source your images fully (including all applicable from issue/page/panel, scan source, web source) and give a fair use rationale.
2. Ensure that the picture clearly shows as much of the character as possible:
   • The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best.
   • If a full-body shot is unavailable, the picture must show the whole of the head and torso (or the equivalent for non-humanoid characters).
   • Visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances.
   • Pictures which hide significant areas the character in shadow should be avoided (exceptions apply only where the shadow is itself part of the character's look - e.g. Raven.), as should pictures where blur or distortion effects are applied.
   • Colouring should be neutral - pictures which have a heavy colour cast, or otherwise depict the character with false colours should not be uploaded unless the cast has been removed first.
   • Heavily stylised art should only be considered for use when the character is closely associated with the style to the exclusion of less extreme styles.
3. Pictures which have more characters and/or objects than the subject of the article should only be used if the subject is the most prominent object - editing the picture, by cropping, obscuring and/or painting out the other characters may help to ensure this.
4. If the character has a clearly-defined primary costume (e.g. Superman), a picture of this should be used. Otherwise, the most recent ongoing costume of the character should be used.

- SoM 04:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great. I understand the guidelines, but how would you stop an edit war dispute without a vote. All that will happen is they'll keep switching until they break the 3RR or one of them gets bored. Exvicious 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Go on google and look there, they've got some good pics of juggernaut....go juggernaut.

Informal

I believe that the X-men: Evolution bit of the Television section is far too informal, this is the text:

Juggernaut also appeared in the X-Men: Evolution series, voiced by Paul Dobson. This version was Xavier's half-brother, a mutant whose powers were awakened by the Cyttorak gem. The gem was said to hold special properties that enhanced and evolved mutants. In this series, his strenth and intelligence are greatly underestimated. Sure, he can throw tanks and other vehicles around but that is the top level of brawn exhibited in the cartoons. Also, he speaks in a drawl that is associated with thick people. He does seem to be affected by pain but he normally shrugs off the blow and continues fighting. He is not by any means unmovable because he was blasted by Cyclops when he ripped of his visor and gave Juggernaut his full power. However, Juggernaut then waded through it after the first inital wave. This might mean that he is not impervious to attacks but instead adapts to and then develops a stronger defense to perils.

There's also a few misspellings in there. --Damuna 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

I do not believe the external link "A complete Juggernaut Bio" which links to thejuggernaut.means.it is appropriate on this page. It is neither complete nor does it have any useful information not already on the wikipedia page (it is just 1 page of an incomplete biography with many advertisements). Instead I suggest "The Unstoppable Juggernaut Homepage" at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Neptune/7060/main.html. Despite whatever prejudices you may have about Geocities pages, I find this page to be surprisingly complete, not to mention fun to read. 129.97.233.57 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this statement; while the Unstoppable Juggernaut Homepage is a fan page and therefore biased, it does provide a huge wealth of information regarding his powers, his history, and his appearences, as well as multiple scans of comics in which he apppeared in. 24.31.243.245 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting tired of this

I'm getting tired of reverting the anonymous edits of a user who insists on adding his biased origin of the Juggernaut, negatively slanted to make him appear worse than he really is.

The latest reversion can be seen here. [1] Examples include changing "Juggernaut underwent a crisis of conscience and joined the team" to "Juggernaut underwent a number of retcons which were used to help remake him into a heroic figure", and stuff like "In an extremely unusual turn for someone of Cain's nature, he immediately befriended people at the mansion as he'd never befriended people before" and "Cain and Xavier had a conversation in which they recounted their past in a way much different from previously shown, and based on these new revelations immediately reconsiled their longtime feud." --DrBat 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ban him?Phoenix741 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Way too harsh for now. Nobody has even put a message on his talk page. If anything lets tell him first that his edits arnt right. Thefro552 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say something about the person who keeps reverting to the same mistakes in the article and I see this. lol Before I edited anything I double checked to make sure it was accurate. Retcons were used and the Juggernaut hasn't ever befriended people like that. Those are both true so what is the dispute? Also before the edit the article it was very incomplete and had errors in it. Like under "Redemption" it said:

• "Soon after, the Juggernaut accepted an offer from the Commission on Superhuman Activity to become their headhunter and, in exchange, was pardoned from his past crimes. However, he threw away his pardon soon after when Black Tom talked him into going back to being a mercenary with him."

That's wrong and I've seen people try to correct it at least 3 times before I did. Black Tom doesn't talk Juggernaut back into anything and Juggernaut was never pardoned. And none of that had anything to do with Juggernaut redeeming. Juggernaut only pretended to redeem to fool the government to become a better criminal. Not only is the info wrong but it's in the wrong section! If the article isn't supposed to be corrected shouldn't it be tagged? I would have spared myself the trouble of trying to fix it. --63.40.244.219

Juggernaut only pretended to redeem to fool the government to become a better criminal. Um, no. We saw his thought bubbles in X-Men Forever, and he wasn't planning on fooling them or using them for information. And Juggernaut has befriended people before. Black Tom, anyone?

Your edits are POV and poorly written. Regardless of what you think of Juggernaut's redemption, it's against wikipolicy to insert your opinions into articles. Please, leave it alone. --DrBat 11:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Juggernaut said flat out that he fooled the government with that trick. That's not opinion that's fact. [2] Before restoring the same bad edits please provide a referrence for "Soon after, the Juggernaut accepted an offer from the Commission on Superhuman Activity to become their headhunter and, in exchange, was pardoned from his past crimes. However, he threw away his pardon soon after when Black Tom talked him into going back to being a mercenary with him." This never happened. And you have the whole thing in the wrong bloody section. Luger1/63.40.244.219

He was lying to Cyclops in that scene. We saw his thought-bubbles in X-Men Forever. We know what he was thinking. He wasn't trying to fool anyone then. A throwaway comment isn't enough to retcon an entire miniseries. Sorry.

As for the "Threw away his pardon" bit... Put two and together. He got a pardon in X-Men Forever. Then, he was back to working with Black Tom in the Cyclops miniseries. Effectively throwing away his pardon.

And it's not in the wrong section; it was in X-Men Forever that he started to redeem himself. --DrBat 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"He was lying to Cyclops in that scene." Mate, now you're making things up. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can create your own imaginary version of it. Are you an article monitor? If you are you need to be cited. You block out information you personally don't like. And you must not like any stories of Juggernaut as a villain because the "Criminal Life" section is anorexic compared to the others. And that's where most of Juggernaut's biography is! One of the few villain stories allowed to be mentioned is the X-Force thing and that's called "one of the odder ones". That's POV. I hope you're not an authority and I think this is a waste of public space. If there is a real monitor here please handle anything else through private message. Luger1 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not making things up. We knew from his thought bubbles in X-Men Forever that he wasn't working with the government to fool them. Ergo, him claiming to do so would be a lie. There's no other possible explanation. It's that simple.

I've already stated how your edits are POV; you seem to be deliberately slanting the article to make Juggernaut appear to be more evil than he really is, and trying to debunk his redemption storyline by adding little notes such as "Cain Marko underwent a series of quite sudden and at times unexplainable changes," "In an extremely unusual turn for someone of Cain's personality," "after a number of shocking and previously unheard of revelations," ect ect, and in general criticisizing the storyline. --DrBat 23:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the article has minimal references. I'm assuming that none of the information is correct so both of your arguments are pointless.

See the page for Storm. This is what wikipedia considers to be a good article. Note how every single phase of Storm's life is referenced with the comic book where it is attributed from. Now obviously this is hard since there are so many comics for each character so online sources are preferred. Please go to the relevant section regarding online sources for wikiproject comics.

None of the renditions of Juggernaut matters in wikipedia regardless of the fact that you can verify them. You should include a mention saying that it is ambiguous whether he fooled the government as he did say once (include the reference from the comic book or Fooled.jpg) that he did so while in X-Men Forever (include reference refuting from the comic book that refutes this), that he had started to redeem himself. This is likely to be due to... etc. Zuracech lordum

Good. The article can at least be worth discussing as parts of it are verified. I possess some of the comics mentioned within the references so I might check up on them but I trust that the references are accurate. Generally, material within the X-Men series are more reliable than material from a limited series (in my personal opinion, DO NOT ATTACK ME IF YOU DISAGREE) as usually a large part of the character's history stems from the X-Men comics.

At uncannyxmen.net, it says on X-Men Forever #6, Juggernaut tries to redeem himself by serving the government. Now, regardless of whether this is unusual for him or whether he was primarily an evil character, this is what happened. He may have fooled the government later but at that time, this is what happened. If he said later on that he had fooled the government, then an addition should be included later on within the biography to that effect. Just because you know in advance that he fooled the government (or you believe that he fooled the government) does not make it legit to remove any statements that disagree with that belief throughout the article. THAT IS POV.

Regarding the claim that DrBat seems to be softening the character, I can only say that Luger1 can rectify that issue by including information about his evil adventures and referencing each comic that it comes from. Hitler cannot be characterised as an evil megalomaniac by removing all information pertaining or portraying his benevolent nature.

Finally, I would like to request Luger1 to not engage in personal attacks and rude language ("bloody wrong", "waste of public space" etc) as they are not germane to the case. Don't be a dick, or if that's too offensive for you, don't be dense.

Good job with the article, nevertheless. I'm sure hundreds of people around the world appreciate the work. Zuracech lordum 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Final nail in the coffin, hopefully - Reformed villains —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zuracech lordum (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

http://marvel.com/universe/Main_Page is a user-created encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia, and as such, isn't a reliable source. - jc37 10:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is a reliable source for comics? cbr and comicbooksdatabase don't have much information for characters in comics. Zuracech lordum 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Character History

Ok, I did some minor editing to the character history, and added "some" fact tags. (I tried to limit them to the more problematic statements.) I also commented out a section of text that simply needs a lot of work. It's better to remove the entire section than to have such potential misinformation in the article. Please don't remove the comments until the sections are cleaned up. - jc37 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Do not think it will appease those two arguing up there but it's a step in the right direction. Zuracech lordum 11:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Included that section with "it is debated" because that seems to be major point of contention between DrBat and Luger1. Zuracech lordum 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We should only use "it is debated", if the target is debated in one or more sources, not if Wikipedians are debating. But I understand what you were trying to do : ) - jc37 11:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's better to remove the entire section than to have such potential misinformation in the article.

I sourced all the relevant issues for the info in that section. The text may need to be cleaned up, but all the info is correct. Please do not remove it. --DrBat 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The part that states "Juggernaut recently reaquired the Gem of Cyttorak and with it his full powers" should be removed. He has the gem, but he has not been shown using it, nor has he been show at full power. This is strictly speculation and cannot be verified.24.31.253.131 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

resemblance to the sandman

Does "Cain Marko" relate to "Flint Marko?"

No theres no connection. Please do not add to the talk page unless it has something to do with the page. Also please sign your posts. Thefro552 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Was War Hulk empowered by Apocalypse or Franklin Richards when he stopped Juggernaut?

Given that it's been put into question I've checked this up as extensively as possible to not be unfair about it, and it's actually pretty confusing with major contradictions.

Here’s everything shown or stated about War Hulk:

Apocalypse making Hulk an offer: ”You have shrapnel in your skull Hulk. Ghosts in your past. These make you vulnerable. I can relieve you of your vulnerability. No one and nothing could ever hurt you. Not even she could.”

In the operation room:

“My technology, taken from those who come from the heavens, the Celestials, tells me the energy the Hulk generates will be instrumental in the coming. That energy must be mine to control… For it may give me power over the Celestials themselves.”

-I.e. he wants to use the Hulk’s nexus-energy, derived from imminent Celestial Franklin Richards pocket universe, to increase his own power.

Apocalypse then proceeds to remove the shrapnel from Hulk’s brain, while the ghost of Hulk’s father continues to torment his son.

Apocalypse lowers the helmet on the Hulk’s head and he can no longer hear his father. His eyes glow red in motivation as he says: “Ahhh… Peace.”

During Hulk’s fight with Juggernaut the latter continues to push the Hulk backwards, until the latter receives yet another dose of Heroes Reborn nexus energy, glowing green in the process, and stops him in his tracks, then immediately throws him to Cairo.

Apocalypse: “As I thought. The power of the Celestials supercedes all but my own. The day of judgement is approaching, and the global upheaval from which a new era will emerge is upon us. Of all the X-Men’s non-mutant foes the Juggernaut seemed the most puissant. He seemed a valuable test of celestial might. I desired to learn whether his power could withstand my own… and by extension, that of the Celestials. Clearly I’m receiving my answer.”

-Yet another reference to the Hulk’s Celestial energy and the coming of Ashema.

After Hulk accidentally cripples Rick Jones and his father’s ghost turns up again, he rips off the helmet and armour melded with his skin. Meaning: No genetic modification. Beyond this no shown empowering mechanical features were shown within the armour.

Apocalypse appears as a hologram before some of the New World Order leaders and tells them that their pawns served a purpose as a testing arena for equipment that would enable him to monitor the upcoming Celestial cataclysm and use it to his advantage, then blows them up.

Green Mail issue #461:

“Apocalypse’s enhancements did increase the Hulk’s strength, so ish. #457 didn’t give a true indication of who is stronger, Hulk or Juggernaut. The question remains unanswered for now!”

“Hulk’s strength had been boosted before that fight, so it was not a fair representation.”

This seems like a big contradictive mess all around. Apocalypse is strictly interested in harnessing Hulk’s nexus power for his own purposes, and simply melds a helmet and armour with his skin, along with removing the shrapnel, and making the Hulk far more focused and clear-headed in the process. Hulk is shown receiving one of his recurrent Franklin Richards power-ups in order to stop Juggernaut, and references are made to Franklin’s Celestial nature.

Yet the editor inserts an “Apocalypse did it” mea culpa afterwards, even though the latter stated that he wanted to use Hulk’s power not the other way around, and this was explicitly shown to be the source for stopping Juggernaut? Weird. I guess the only explanation that makes semi-sense is that Apocalypse stabilised the Hulk to receive the HR energy more efficiently, or somesuch. Still, it’s not a question about whether or not Hulk was empowered, just “Franklin did it” or “Apocalypse was responsible”.

I decided to ask PAD directly to make sure, but haven't received a reply. ( http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005526.html )

I finally checked for that old Usenet post by Peter David that I vaguely remembered and found it (or at least a mention) here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.peter-david/browse_thread/thread/fe8a5b335fb1dc3e/bb0eb0bea95c3544?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#bb0eb0bea95c3544

">Who, in your HO, is the stronger: Hulk, or Juggernaut?

For sheer physical strength, it's the Hulk. However, nothing can stop the Juggernaut (although the Hulk did manage it once, but he was aided by Apocalypse at the time.)"

But that still doesn't give a definite answer, since there's no question that he was _aided_ by Apocalypse's equipment, just if the helmet and shoulder pads powered him up, when the HR energies were the ones shown to do so in the actual book.

Make of the above what you will. Dave 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Answers the question for me. Good answer by Peter too, protects both characters. 192.249.47.11 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hulk's strength increases with his anger. Juggernaut's strength stays the same, unless he is able to tap into the full potential of the powers of cyttorak. When they first fought they were fighting to a draw, but hulk's stanima began to fade and his blows were getting weaker while Juggernaut kept hitting him harder and harder. He tried to end him and break his neck but that fueled the Hulk's rage and gave him a power boost that allowed him to grab him and throw him away. Juggernaut hasn't reached his full potential physical strength-wise. It is said that his strength is limitless. Hulk's increase with his anger. I say the Juggernaut is stronger, or at least stronger than base hulk. Juggernaut has also KO'd Hulk with ease before. The Black Juggernaut 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)The Black Juggernaut 10:55 11 september 2007

The only time he has taken down the Hulk was by tricking him by wearing civilian clothes, so the latter would severely underestimate him and hold bac, and repeatedly ambushing him. That's it. No other occasion and it took him considerable time. As for their strength, the official Marvel RPG listed the Hulk of 2003, and the Juggernaut of the same era. Hulk started at level 20, but could reach up to level 30 when mad. Juggernaut was level 19, and stuck there. Dave 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That still counts as a KO. Juggernaut's strength allows him to knock out some of the best who never get KO'd like Hulk and Thor. I know on MarvelUniverse.com they are both classed 100. They can both lift (press) over 100 tons. I don't know what Marvel RPG is but it sounds like a game and you really can't base facts off of RPG games and stuff like that. If its not a game then I still don't know. I think that Cain lost his powers at that time. I forgot when this intially happened, but I believe that he was weaker as of 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Black Juggernaut (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The game was official. The point is that Juggernaut has only fought Hulk when the latter was near his base, or in one case, when he had a higher base, but couldn't get stronger with his rage. Juggernaut has not taken down foes Hulk couldn't. On the other hand he was completely outclassed (literally handled like a toy in his hand) by Onslaught when the latter only had Xavier and Magneto's combined power, while Hulk overpowered Onslaught when the latter had added the full potentials of Franklin Richards + X-Man to the mix (i.e. hundreds of times more powerful/comparable to a Celestial). He also outpowered a 10x more powerful than normal Thor with a single arm. Basically Juggernaut has an advantage when Hulk isn't enraged, or just a bit enraged, is an even match when the latter is moderately enraged, but would be insanely outclassed if the latter was insane, at least in the above two instances. 30 is Celestial level, and the game was official, the same as the handbook. That said, this happens very, very rarely. Besides the above mentioned occasions it has only happened once. Although if Hulk is somehow able to match Zom in WWHIV it might be increased to four.

Juggernaut has been listed in the "75-90 tons" and "75-100 tons" levels. Hulk has been admitted outright as able to exceed the "100 ton" level many times over. In year 2003 Juggernaut had received his "External" upgrade, while Hulk hadn't received the higher base he currently uses. Then again, the current Juggernaut is apparently even more powerful, as his strength+unstoppability (which greatly increases the force of his attacks/movements) combo was enough to match the current Hulk when the latter was just semi-motivated. Dave 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities

I just want to ask, those in the know, why the last line states the Juggernaut has returned to his previous power levels after describing how much it had been crippled in the previous paragraph, without explaining a single thing.

There is a huge gap there, and it adds confusion. Jaybonaut 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we can explain that he was loosing power without going into all the unneeded details of just what he could and couldn't do in his depowered state. Since he is back to normal as it were it just seems unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.149.40 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the paragraph does not explain how he got back to his previous power levels at all. They go into detail as to how he lost his abilities yet end it with just stating 'HE'S BACK and STUFF.' A simple sentence or two explaining how he returned to his old power levels and if he has the full power of Cytorrak, the god of destruction, would be appreciated. Jaybonaut 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole list about how epic Juggernaut can be is really, really pointless. Half of the examples would suffice, and two paragraphs about strength/invulnerability would be not only a lot less annoying, but easier to read. And would take up less space. I went in and fixed spelling and grammar (which were terrible...mostly just seems like that whole thing was written by a Juggernaut fanboy with no idea how to write), I don't know enough about Juggernaut to fix the whole thing. 68.112.142.149 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried editing it to simply state some of the characters he's fought (I didn't have references, though) as well as the fact that he is somewhat easily outwitted. It was edited out again, though. Is all that stuff really necessary just because it has references?115.133.127.245 (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So I was just reading Deadpool - The Circle Chase #002, and Juggernaut was definitely outwitted easily in it. And I can probably pull up a few other references as to his other less impressive feats without much work. I'll do a mass edit in a bit, trying to put it in more of a paragraph form than pointless list form. 68.112.142.149 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

did a huge edit. some things that were already there that didn't have refs I kept in, I'm looking around for proof of them. Anyone with refs should attack it with them. PixieSailor (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work; looks like a lot of excessive stuff was removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AOA CAIN.jpg

Image:AOA CAIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juggernaut 517 thumb.jpg

Image:Juggernaut 517 thumb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juggernaut vs Wolverine.jpg

Image:Juggernaut vs Wolverine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juggybackoriginal.png

Image:Juggybackoriginal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:XMEN161.jpg

Image:XMEN161.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jugg heal.jpg

Image:Jugg heal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

This week long edit war on the article has got to end.

To date none of the participants has chosen to discuss their edits, why they feel they are correct and justified, and why they feel the edits of others are wrong or misguided. As a result there has been no consensus to actually change the article.

This section has been created with the express purpose and hope that the editors involved will actually discus what needs to be done to improve the article.

As a courtesy, notes have been left with all the editors who have edited the article since the "wrong version".

Let's see if we can be constructive now, please.

- J Greb (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I was just reverting to what I felt was the consensus-driven version. I have no personal preference one way or the other, so I leave it to others to decide how they want it to look. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious the writer has an agenda to make Juggernaut appear as villainous/evil as possible, and this isn't the first time he's edited the article to make it slanted towards his views. Just compare his version to the original; it's sloppy and unencyclopedic. --DrBat (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific that you don't like DrBat or do you just not like the "tone" of the article? Unless you can cite something specific and back it up with facts as shown in the comics you have no basis for your blocking of this needed revamp. Also calling it "sloppy and unencylopedic" is not a reason. That just means you don't like it. Not that it is wrong.TheJaff (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with the article (which is basically an essay on why the Juggernaut is an evil sociopath), but let me try finding a few examples.

"For a time, the Juggernaut turned himself over to authorities and pretended to have reformed. Under this premise he offered his services as a bounty hunter in exchange for a lesser sentence. By doing this Cain was able to get within the government itself. But shortly afterward Cain revealed that this was a ruse to further his criminal activities and was soon back at large." No. Not true. We saw his thoughts in X-Men Forever, we know he was being genuine. A throwaway comment in Cyclops #1 doesn't invalidate an entire miniseries.

The top of the article reads "After a journey of self-reflection and discovery, Cain realized this wasn't his path and came to terms with his villainous nature," which is a reference to his WWH storyline. Even though the writer of WWH: X-Men himself, Christos Gage, said "It's up to whoever writes him next, of course, but I see Juggy as going back to what he was in the good old days -- on the wrong side of the law, maybe, but not a puppy-killing evil villain, more of a rogue. He's always been kind of a shades-of-grey character, and that's what I like about him." [3]--DrBat (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are showing nothing except your personal POV of what the "tone" of the page should be. The revamp is properly sourced. But let's just delve into this a little bit. Your thoughts on the "After a journey of self-reflection and discovery, Cain realized this wasn't his path and came to terms with his villainous nature," line. It's funny you use a quote from Chris Gage to try and prove your point. When what he writes in the comic backs up the statement in question. Cain agrees to go back to "rampaging, destroying, killing" All the things he "used to do" [4]. When he gets to the battle with Hulk he admits to himself that he didn't take the power back to help anyone. But for the sake of the power. When he knows full well what it means to be The Juggernaut. [5]. If this is not coming to terms with his villainous nature than I don't know what is.

As for your X-Men Forever/Cyclops#1 problem. If by Cyclops #1 he is no longer with the government. Then he had a change of heart at the very least(or a return to character as it were). Or we can take Cain at his word that he infiltrated the government. Or one could think the writer of that comic used it as an opportunity to change what he felt was a flaw in X-Men Forever story. Cyclops #1 is the truth. X-Men Forever either A. Became invalid after Cain changed his mind. Or B. Was a ruse from the beginning. Or C. Was retconned. Any way you look at it. For all intents and purposes, X-Men Forever can be ignored. It is not relevant in the slightest.TheJaff (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gage said Juggernaut was going back to being a "rogue" and a "a shades-of-grey character." He specifically said that Juggernaut wasn't going to be "a puppy-killing evil villain," which is basically what your whole version of the article tries to make him out to be.

As for X-Men Forever, the article originally said "An offer from the Commission on Superhuman Activity came to become their headhunter. In exchange, he would be pardoned from his past crimes. Nevertheless, Black Tom talked to him afterwards and he took up the life of a mercenary with him again." The new version said it was all a ruse to infiltrate the government, which is absolutely false.

Second, I think X-Men Forever is a lot more relevant and important to the Juggernaut's character than stuff like Factor Three, Thor, or some 90s Spider-Man/X-Force crossover. Stuff like that can be referred to in one sentence. We don't need whole paragraphs about it. --DrBat (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look. Were sorry that Cain Marko as The Juggernaut has done many bad things over the course of the characters history. I am also personally sorry that he decided of his free will for the second time in his history to embrace the mantel of The Juggernaut. With all that it entails. But he did. To ignore that seems like an odd thing to do. Should all of this (properly sourced) history just be swept under the rug or glossed over for the sake of not making him "look bad"? If that isn't you trying to force your POV on this page then I don't know what is.

As for your X-Men forever Hang up. Like I stated. It's irrelevant. His conflicts with various heroes is vastly more important than a story that was retconned almost before the ink dried.TheJaff (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Except, it wasn't retconned. A throwaway comment isn't enough to retcon an entire series, especially since there's been nothing else to question it's canonicity. All Cyclops #1 established was that Juggernaut threw away his pardon when Black Tom asked for help; it's not like we got a detailed explanation stating that the Juggernaut in X-Men Forever was really an impostor or whatever.

And his battles with the heroes weren't ignored in the original article. -DrBat (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A "throwaway comment" is enough to go by if it fits with the character and his actions during said comic. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it wasn't retconned. It was. Plain and simple. Heck I got plenty of things I wish were retconned (or de-retconned) but that doesn't make it so. Maybe the writer of Cyclops #1 was going for a "No-prize" by explaining Cain's actions in X-Men Forever. They why is irrelevant. The fact that it happened is all that matters.

Also I find it funny that his Criminal Life section is smaller than his Redemption section. The Juggernaut as a character has been around since 1965. For a span of what 4-5 years he was a hero? But he is back to being a villain again so the page needs a revamp. The page was a mess right after WWH. It has been cleaned up a bit. But a major overhaul is needed .TheJaff (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article just isn't very good overall. Compared to other entries it looks bad and it has too many inaccuracies. The "X-Men Forever" argument is a case in point. The information in the present article seems to come from some website rather than an actual comic. For example, the current article reads:"An offer from the Commission on Superhuman Activity came to become their headhunter. In exchange, he would be pardoned from his past crimes.[16] Nevertheless, Black Tom talked to him afterwards and he took up the life of a mercenary with him again.[17]" with the footnote being to XMF and the Cyclops mini-series as though they support this. I have both those series and don't see this claimed talk with Black Tom anywhere. It appears to be fabricated by the editor for the purpose of self-supporting his own claim. Looking at the Juggernaut's chronology after XMF I cannot find a single issue showing a turn from villainy. According to the comics themselves the Juggernaut's "reform" and bounty hunter stint was a trick on his part. He never left crime so there would be nothing for Tom to talk him back into. For accuracy's sake DrBat needs to cite a page or supply or scan showing this alleged talk with Black Tom or stop reinserting the same error after it's corrected. And if he can't cite an issue showing a reformed Juggernaut then his criminal plan to fake reform doesn't belong in the Redemption section and needs to be moved back to Criminal Life.

I have to also agree with TheJaff about the skewing of the article. Cain Marko's short time as a hero is expanded on in depth while his villainy is poorly condensed with little meaningful information. Since the overwhelming majority of the Juggernaut's existence was as a villain this leaves the entry hollow. Many of his notable moments such as when he brought down one of the World Trade Center towers or went to kidnap Madame Web are either devoid of key details or not mentioned at all. The revisions provided some depth, structure, and were properly sourced. The undoing of them so far seems to be based on a personal bent rather than refutation of the info. As TheJaff's scans show, no "agenda" is needed to make the Juggernaut appear villainous. He's long established as such. Personal dislike for this fact isn't valid cause to block out significant details of the character's history.

Aside from the inaccuracies and slant, the article is also out of date to boot. There is not even a mention of the Juggernaut being a mantle and there being previous and potential future Juggernauts. I presume this was left out because the things Cain Marko had to do to earn the mantle were too villainous for the editor's liking. Even though they were a significant plot point behind the Juggernaut's current status.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal. We saw Juggernaut's thoughts in X-Men Forever. We know he was being genuine. Therefore, a throwaway comment saying it was all just a ruse can't be true. Therefore, he must be lying. It's that simple.

And I don't deny his villainy, but it's one thing to say he was a villain and it's another to say he was an evil sadistic sociopath.

Second, is he back to being a villain? Gage, the writer of the story, basically said he was going back to being a shades-of-grey character. Until we see him setting fires to orphanages or attacking the X-Mansion, let's not jump the gun.

As for the 'mantle' bit; it can be mentioned later in the article, but it doesn't need to be the very first sentence of the character history. We don't have the first sentence of Spider-Man's article talking about the mystical spider retcon, and how there've been other Spider-men before him, do we? --DrBat (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Juggernaut didn't reform in his thoughts. The reform was implied at the end when he turned himself in and offered to bounty hunt, which was revealed as an act. There was nothing "throwaway" about the comment. That is yet more of your slant. The Juggernaut had already been shown as still villainous in his previous chronological appearence. The "Cyclops" mini just explained why. You are unable to name a single issue following XMF showing Juggernaut as reformed and you are unable to provide a source for this mythical conversation where Black Tom talked him back into crime. Can we take this as an admission that you know they don't exist and move on now?

As for the Juggernaut being a mantle, it should logically go in the beginning since it's the origin. But there is no mention of this at all in the article you keep re-inserting. And since the plot point behind the mantle was that Cain Marko slaughtered an entire village(including the children) in order to earn it, you no doubt would block it from the article. But you personally not liking it doesn't make it any less important to to the character. It's a large part of what made the Juggernaut realize that he'd done things you can't redeem from and that being a hero wasn't him. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::: This is mostly a question of tone before being a question of content. The tone was unencyclopedic and broke NPOV in both versions. In the short version: Stuff like "Juggernaut is a career criminal of much success" and "However, Cain Marko is not a hapless victim of the evil of the Juggernaut but a willing volunteer", "unsurprisingly, since the monster was after all composed mainly out of Charles Xavier's feelings of anger, frustration and hate" and "During this period of self-reflection, he often found himself witnessing parts of his life where he was trapped, which made him realize that he had wasted his entire life" would need to be severely rewritten. In the long version, I find questionable "The Juggernaut is not an individual person but a mantle. The power of the Juggernaut was created by the dark deity, Cyttorak", "Though his hatred for Xavier remained, after this Cain moved on from trying to kill Xavier and pursued other criminal endeavors", "The Juggernaut is a career criminal of much success." and "Cain asks Tom if being a hero was worth it. Tom can't answer that for Cain but says that there's no redemption for things like what they've done" are problematic, and this version has several issues of erroneous grammar and spelling. Everything in both versions is written from an in-universe perspective anyway - characters are called "evil", everything written in the past tense. Finally, the publishing history has only 51 words while the fictional character biography has 2276 in the "short" version, and 3542 in the "long" one. There's too much plot description and every citation uses the stories are primary sources. --Pc13 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut in half

Well now, there is a third, more succinct version to discuss. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There was way, way too much plot summary in even the "short" version of the article. I hacked out mention of minor and single-appearance stories, and tightened summary of the others to skip out on detail in favor of getting to the point and advancing the explanation. The article is, I think, shorter and tighter now. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to support Phil Sandifer's version. --DrBat (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here. It makes me want to read it much better than the previous tl;dr versions. Addendum: still needs more sourcing, though, especially in the "powers" section. --Pc13 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, days like this make me wish I still had my Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe. In any case, the powers section is correct. Just not sure what specific point to source it to. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So what was the point of locking the page and the discussion if someone else is just going to swoop in the middle of it and do what they want?TheJaff (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was locked? There wasn't a template on it - I didn't notice that. My apologies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; we weren't getting anywhere, and you're pretty much a neutral party. --DrBat (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you weren't getting anywhere. So I guess you would be happy with what is basically a shorter version of the page you were defending. Nothing has really been fixed.TheJaff (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you see as the problem with this version? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps too succinct at the cost of pertinent information. Still no proper origin and the merging of previous text into one big block of undivided bio is a little rough. It should probably have been rewritten altogether if striving for that level of concision. Rather than aiming for significant improvement this revision seems moreso aimed at avoiding issue with an unsourced editor who's proven that he can't validate his edits in the first place.

This version is better than it was before but carries much of same problem. For a couple of examples, it for whatever reason says the Juggernaut is "something of a hero", and the recount of World War Hulk is incorrect. It also confusingly skips over the fact that Cain Marko stopped trying to be heroic and fully absorbed the evil power of the Juggernaut. Though a reader of the article would not notice the significance of this since the article doesn't address the background of the power and what it means to have it in the first place. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil's version for reference since a protected article should not have been massively edited. - J Greb (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The origin poses a major problem, though, since it's combining information from two comics published over 30 years apart. Simply put, the Austen material wasn't true for the vast majority of Juggernaut stories, and I think breaking it away from the Lee/Kirby material is crucial. Past that, I don't think there was a lot in the origin that was substantive. Furthermore, I'm cautious about the "stopped trying to be heroic" claim. We're speaking here of World War Hulk: X-Men, right? There's nothing in there that is explicit about what, exactly, Marko is embracing. It is clearly a darkening of the character, but it's ambiguous, and I aimed to capture that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the origin. I'm referring to the origin of the Juggernaut mantle and what it is. The Austen material doesn't have anything to do with that. This revision also takes World War Hulk as a standalone story when it is actually a pick-up of the preceeding storyline in New Excalibur entitled "Unredeemed". Where it is explained in-depth what the power of the Juggernaut does to people and how evil and murderous it makes them. As well as Cain's willingness to take it back despite this. That is what Cain's decision in WWH:X-Men is based on. As far as explicitness as to what Marko was embracing, what is ambivalent about "avatar of destruction", "no turning back", "rampaging" and "killing"? Cosmos Keeper (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, I find it unclear what extent he's embracing it - the gem's language here is very unclear - "you begin to accept it now." Clearly he takes action, but the ending does seem to me ambiguous - a writer could take it in any number of directions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's ambiguous, but in any event, WWH:X-Men is a pick-up on a previous storyline which the revision doesn't mention. But it needs to mention this in order for the WWH part to make sense because that's what it's based on. And I don't know why it would leave this out but it also needs to mention that Cain reclaimed the evil power of the Juggernaut. This is the current revision:

"In the course of the World War Hulk storyline, Juggernaut engages unsuccessfully with the Hulk, and in the process learns that the steady weakening of his powers has been due to Cyttorak's evil powers being ineffective for heroic purposes. Although he continues to fight to protect the X-Men after this realization, when the battle ends he dismisses Xavier's attempts to thank him for his aid, and warns that nobody should come looking for him after he leaves, lest they not like what they find."

As it reads now, the article just says Cain Marko was weak because of his heroism but knowing this fought to protect the X-Men anyway(which isn't true) and leaves it at that. That's skipping the main part. Then it confusingly jumps to how the Juggernaut was harsh toward Xavier. But since it leaves out the whole in-between about Cain dropping his intent to protect the X-Men and becoming the Juggernaut again, Marko's response to Xavier wouldn't make any sense to the reader.

At the very least, the developments of Unredeemed need to be added preceeding the WWH:X-Men recount and it needs to be explained that Cain Marko reclaimed the Juggernaut mantle. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he always called himself the Juggernaut, so reclaiming the mantle doesn't seem accurate. But I see your point. I'll recast the paragraph. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the pressing matters is that his entire history is spelled out in one big block. I have seen plenty of other character pages that separate out major events. In this particular page there is no mention that I can see of the 3-part Unredeemed story arc. This was one of, if not the most important story arcs for The Juggernaut in many, many years. The WWH paragraph is very sloppy and misleading. The Onslaught and 8th day paragraphs are also sloppy.

The new format we were trying to implement was not perfect. But it was a much more in depth starting point. Sure it needed tweaking. But with everything spelled out clearly on the page in it's proper section and context this would have been much easier. As it is we have a stunted page with disjointed facts and outright wrong statements.TheJaff (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Depth is overrated - the purpose of the plot summary is not to provide detailed, in-depth coverage, but to basically and roughly sketch out the major beats in the character's history. I dropped the Unredeemed story arc for two reasons - first, nothing in the paragraph spelling out that section actually suggested its importance. Second, and more importantly, it's not one of the most important stories in the history of the character. The story only came out last year. It hasn't had time to establish its importance. Accordingly, I dropped it in favor of focusing on the most recent appearance of the Juggernaut, where his status decisively changes. Even in the version you prefer - where this storyline gets an absurd three paragraphs, well outside the bounds of what WP:PLOT would allow - there is nothing that establishes the story's importance. It may be important. It may not. In practice, it is probably no more important than the story where he came back from being launched into outer space, or where he came back after Onslaught - that is, it's a reset to some degree of the status quo of the sort that happens constantly in superhero comics. Note that neither of those have been summarized in any of the proposed versions, and with good reason - changes back to the status quo are generally unremarkable in comics.

Brevity is the soul of good plot summary. If there are errors, feel free to correct them. But it is very important that we keep our plot summaries brief, concise, and to the point, and that we only go into major beats of the character's history. I am not averse to some mention of Unredeemed being folded into the WWH paragraph to create a short paragraph in which the Juggernaut's new status quo is established, but the length at which you propose to do this - five paragraphs - is simply absurd. This should take one brief paragraph. Anything more is overkill and excessively detailed plot summary. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Depth is not overrated if the brief summery lacks meaning or context. Why are you adverse to starting with detail and scaling back? You would rather we try and tack on details at a later point? That how the page became a disjointed mess to begin with. Compared to a good chunk of just the X-Men pages this one is sorely lacking.

As for your assertion that the "Unredeemed" arc is unimportant. I would have to completely disagree with you. It was not a "reset" or a "return to the status quo". It is a story that expands greatly on The Juggernaut mythos. It delves into his (and Cyttorak's) motivations in detail. It also explains exactly how one becomes a Juggernaut. It points out that Cain Marko was not the first Juggernaut. It is also the catalyst of his return to a villain. Which leads directly into WWH. Without it your only telling half his origin story. You have no idea how or why he became The Juggernaut again. Trust me....it wasn't to help the X-Men. To ignore it is to ignore the most basic aspects of The Juggernaut. For example. The fact that it is a mantle or title and not his name.

If we go by your (brief) description. Onslaught traps him in the Gem. He fight Exemplars. Joins X-Men. Fights Hulk, becomes Juggernaut again. That really tells us nothing. Certainly not the how or why. The word "deficient" come to mind.TheJaff (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

None of that is an argument for importance. The Draco radically rewrites Nightcrawler's origins, and there's an infamous Punisher arc where he becomes an angel. Neither of these can be said to be important because they were largely ignored afterwards. Until Unredeemed has lasting impact, it is unimportant. That said, as I said - if you want to attempt to get the Unredeemed-WWH arc to gel in a paragraph, go for it. But keep it brief, as is our policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lasting impact? Without Unredeemed there would be no "Juggernaut" In WWH. Without Unredeemed what he did in WWH would have no meaning. His appearance in X-Men Legacy he is still The Juggernaut. How is this not "lasting impact"? Those two stories did not "radically rewrite" The Juggernaut they simply built upon what was already in place. Filled in some blanks and answered some questions. To change that would require said radical rewrites. So your examples have no merit. (now if you had made that argument about Austins run or Onslaught then we would have grounds for agreeing)

Also why do you keep telling me (and others) to be brief? Why is this page the exception? Look at any number of just X-Men related pages. They make this one look like a brief paragraph compared to an essay.TheJaff (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the WWH title and Juggernaut's appearances in it count as major impact. As for brevity, the other X-Men articles are also bad. When this one is resolved, if I have time, I may go trim Gambit. He's pretty out of control for a character with less than 20 years of appearances. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unredeemed is easily the most significant Juggernaut story in recent memory. It doesn't require wait time to see it's importance because it deals with already long established aspects of the character and already has had notable impact. Along with WWH:X-Men it is essentially a 5-part story arc that not only changes the character's current status quo but connects with and fortifies the character's published history over the last 40 years. To not mention Unredeemed would be like leaving out the events of Planet Hulk in Hulk's entry or the Reigning in Thor's.

I've edited some of the key developments of Unredeemed into the revision using just three sentences. As well as corrected some of the more pronounced errors. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And now DrBat is wiping out changes without providing reasons. After having his fabrictations exposed I'm wondering why he's even still allowed to make edits. At the very least he should be forced to source his objections.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unredeemed being the most significant Juggernaut story is very debatable. It started to return things to the status quo by making Juggernaut a more morally grey character, but that's it.

And we can have something like how Juggernaut discovers there have been other avatars later in the article, but not right in the first sentence. And if we do mention it, we should also mention how it was a retcon that came out recently.

And give me a break. My "fabrictations?" --DrBat (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There; the stuff about the other Juggernauts has been mentioned now. --DrBat (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fabrications. Outright. You made something up and when asked to source it you couldn't. And it had been implied before that there were previous Juggernauts, just not actually shown. I don't know whether that constitutes a retcon or not.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only one to say that he threw away his pardon to work with Tom; his spotlight on UncannyXmen.net says the same thing. It's not like it's something I just made up.

And it's a retcon. Unredeemed had Tieri adding stuff to Juggernaut's background that wasn't there before. Before, he just grabbed the Gem and became the Juggernaut, before the cave collapsed in on him; nothing about him fighting the previous Avatar or whatever. --DrBat (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A fansite? You can find lots of things on fansites. Fansites aren't canon and if you've been called on it before and you continue to assert the same falsehood then you're fabricating. You knew it was wrong when you added it. I didn't say Unredeemed didn't add to Juggernaut's background. I said that the particular part in question(previous Juggernauts) had been implied long before.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(bangs head against wall) Even his Marvel.com profile says "Soon after, Cain was drafted into the service of the Commission for Superhuman Activities as a super-powered bounty hunter. However, this new career was short-lived, and Cain eventually found himself working alongside Black Tom once more."

Furthermore, where and how was it implied that there were other Juggernauts before Marko? --DrBat (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, using a fansite isn't substantially better than asserting that a story is significant without any secondary source or evidence of its impact. Which is to say, both of you, seriously, this isn't Newsarama. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, in X-Men Forever we saw him realize how he had been wasting his life, and it ended with him agreeing to be a bounty hunter for the Commission for Superhuman Activities in exchange for receiving a pardon. There was nothing to suggest he wasn't being genuine, and for it all be a lie wouldn't make sense with what had happened earlier in the story. Then in Cyclops #1, he was back to working with Black Tom and he made a throwaway comment saying how it was all a ruse, and he was just trying to infiltrate the government.

It's a moot point now, anyway, since the events of X-Men Forever aren't mentioned in the article anymore. --DrBat (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say, can someone explain to me why this particular arcane continuity point matters to our article? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. CosmosKeeper just brought it up again when he accused me of fabricating. --DrBat (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It matters to the credibility of the editor and whether or not he should be allowed to continue making edits when he's proven that he will make edits he knows aren't true just to support his POV.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You should check out WP:GOODFAITH before accusing another editor of adding deliberately false information. --DrBat (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cosmos Keeper, I find it funny you accuse me of fabrications, then add only the part of Gages's quote that supports your agenda. --DrBat (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

I've unprotected the article, as J Greb shouldn't have reverted before protecting, and I'm troubled by his enforcing of his version over my (as I said accidental) edits given that. I encourage discussion so that further protection is not needed, but invite anyone to re-protect on an arbitrary version if need be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I am not comfortable with folding later material about how the mantle of the Juggernaut corrupts into the early origin - it confuses continuity and publication history. Better to deal with this in a later section. In Cosmos Keeper's proposed version it suggests that this was a part of X-Men #12 - it wasn't.

I am also opposed to changing the lead of the fictional character biography away from a general statement of the character's plot arc. The section should open with a thesis statement as per Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary.

Finally, the parenthetical about the Hulk is unencyclopedic and sounds fannish. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:5, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What? That the Juggernaut power turns you evil is not later material. I'll deal with this now and the other points later. The evil of the power is mentioned in no less than the Juggernaut's first two if not three appearences. A few examples.

From X-Men #12(first appearence):

Jean Grey:"BRR! You speak of him(Juggernaut) as if he's a machine, rather than a human being!"

Professor X:"I'm afraid, my dear Marvel Girl, that he ceased being human many years ago, on that fateful day in the temple of Cyttorak!"

From X-Men #32(second appearence)

Professor X:"Now, if my calculations are correct, a mere switch shall drain my stepbrother of the awesome power which courses thru him--and send it back to the nameless void between dimensions where dwells the sinister Cyttorak himself! Then, when the subhuman Juggernaut is no more, perhaps I can cure the embittered mind of Cain Marko!"

From X-Men #33

Cyclops(as Jean Grey reaches for the gem of Cyttorak):"No!! You dare not touch it! Or else you too would become--an EVIL Juggernaut!"

Jean Grey:"Oh..I..I forgot!"

--

This is not new. That the Juggernaut mantle automatically makes a person evil is a running theme throughout the character's history. Why do you think he goes on so many rampages with no regard for all the innocent people he's killing? Cosmos Keeper (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Juggernaut is usually portrayed as a bully and a brute, not as a mass-murdering sociopath. Yes, Xavier said Juggernaut was evil, but in Stan's run he referred to the Brotherhood and to the other enemies the X-Men fought as being evil as well; it wasn't like the Juggernaut was unique in that regard. Things were simpler in that time.

The Juggernaut is usually portrayed as being a bully and brute,not a mass-murdering sociopath. When he actually saw the people he had accidentally hurt (X-Men Unlimited v2 #4) he was remorseful.

Also, the word is "appearance," not "appearence." --DrBat (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point you're just in denial. X-Men Unlimited #4 was during his hero period and while he didn't have the evil power. Let me guess, you "accidentally" forgot to mention that part? Honest mistake that you left that out? You speak of good faith and say that people shouldn't assume you're misleading deliberately, but you're a repeat offender. In this discussion page alone there are at least 3 different people who have called you on your continuous slant and fabrications. Given your history I don't know why you're still allowed to even participate in the Talk page much less edit. Your unsubstanciated edits only hamper the article and your posts only serve to distract. It's unproductive to speak to you anymore. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. :)

And it's "unsubstantiated," not "unsubstanciated." --DrBat (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like both sides of the "nature of Cyttorak" debate here are solidly in OR land. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"OR land" meaning...? Cosmos Keeper (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, huh? I'm confused. Are you saying that, even though I've cited direct, published, verifiable sources saying in no uncertain terms that the power of the Juggernaut is evil and mentally alters it's possessor thus, I'm somehow giving speculation and unpublished research? Cosmos Keeper (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we just blank the page? Because if we can't have it be accurate I would prefer it say nothing at all. The page is a mess.TheJaff (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Until "Unreedemed" is itself retconned it is a part of his origin story. You can't choose to simply ignore it at this point.TheJaff (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be part of his origin, but it is not part of his origin story. His origin story is X-Men #12, and Unredeemed isn't in it. Nor was it part of his origin for the vast, vast majority of the time since. Mixing Unredeemed material with X-Men #12 material gives a false sense of the character's history. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of his origin but not part of his origin story? I'm not entirely sure what your hold up is on this. If unreedemed is changed at some point in the future, well that is why God made erasers on wiki.TheJaff (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

His origin story refers to a specific publication - X-Men #12. Unredeemed is not a part of that comic. Nor is it a part of any comic that came out after it but before New Excalibur #13. This is a tricky business in superhero comics, because retcons are common, but it's something we have to be very, very careful with. It's very, very misleading to put Unredeemed early, since that implies that it was a factor in what came before it. There is a very real sense in which the Juggernaut who appeared in X-Men #12, or the Onslaught storyline, or any other appearance of the character prior to NE #13 had not killed his predecessor. And that's a tricky line to walk.

Perhaps the real issue is that we're calling the section a fictional character biography. "Evolution of the character" might be better. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be an issue if you would allow a proper unbiased recount of unreedemed. Instead we get "THIS CHANGED THINGS A LOT JUST FYI!". I'm still not sure what your worried about. This is not being chiseled in stone. Things change. And can be changed again.TheJaff (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This would certainly be an issue if Unredeemed were shoehorned into the opening paragraph in a way that is misleading in understanding what comes after. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care where the developments of Unredeemed are mentioned, but the level of resistance to everything so far has been abit ridiculous in general. It's taken tons of posts and numerous days just to get to changes that should go without saying. Storylines that are obviously key were called unimportant, heavily sourced referrences were dismissed as "OR", corrected errors were repeatedly reverted back to the same mistakes, etc. Looking at the current draft I suspect this about as good as the page will be allowed to get. It's thankfully better than before but that's a really low bar. The pictures are outdated(that's not even the Juggernaut armor in the main pic) and the text is stunted and jumbled. Some stuff is just silly. Being brief is supposed to be key, yet unnecessary and excessiveley long blocks of writer quotation have for some reason been stuffed into the article. It's explained that Cain went to reclaim his lost power after a beating from the Wrecking Crew, but due to the random brevity there's no previous mention that Cain lost his power in the first place. "Huh?", says the reader. It's better now than before, but I wouldn't want to be someone trying to really learn something about the Juggernaut from this page. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic that DrBat accused us of trying to make The Juggernaut seem like a villain by citing comic examples. Now he is trying to make it seem like The Juggernaut isn't a villain by inserting a massive paragraph into the biography section that is a summery of a forum post.TheJaff (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Cosmos Keeper added that quote; I just added the full version. Also, that quote was from an actual interview, and not a forum post.

And it's spelled "summary," not "summery." "Summery" is an adjective related to the season. --DrBat (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I only added the proper quote because DrBat had given the wrong one. In his (needless)revision, he said the quote he was providing was Gage's response to being asked about the whether Juggernaut was a villain or hero. But actually it was in response to Gage being told that Juggernaut being a villain again "sucked". So I provided the quote where Gage was actually asked, and Gage said yes, he's a villain now. Knowing DrBat would go through and extend the quote beyond Gage's core answer. I wanted to see if DrBat's lengthy quote block would get reverted like all the other changes were, or if it would be allowed to remain without challenge. My suspicion was that, despite it's length, DrBat's would be allowed with no resistance. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced and real-world information would be very, very hard to justify. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Tieri and others have some rather choice quotes about the Juggernaut's villainy. I didn't add them because I didn't think such things were article material. But I'll keep that in mind.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You have some odd idea about what should be allowed Phil. You want the bio to be brief. Yet you want to allow a massive paragraph about something that did not happen in the comic to be included in the bio? We could quote writers all day and fill the page with them. If that's what you want. ALSO I have used Chris Gage's words on CBR to prove my points and they were dismissed. So which is it?TheJaff (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The ironic part is I doubt even DrBat felt he could justify that obtuse block insertion. Unlike his other edits, he didn't bother to re-insert it when removed. Only after he saw he'd been given the greenlight did he put it back in. It seems even DrBat was surprised by the randomness. DrBat, would you mind updating the main entry pic? Cosmos Keeper (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our policies? Yes - I want substantial detailed coverage of real-world material, and brief, concise plot summary. Like our policy actually demands. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait. So you want lots of "real-world material" about a comic book character? What exactly is the policy that wants that block of information put in the page? In the biography nonetheless.

This isn't publication numbers or proper comic book titles or dates. This is a statement made by a writer on a forum. Sure you can use it to back up assertions. But what makes it Bio worthy?TheJaff (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, when giving writer comments is it necessary to censor the curse words, or are they allowed within the context of a quote? Cosmos Keeper (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Browsing a few other entries I see that the whole word is allowed in quotes. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Cain's abused childhood and his resentment of Xavier for using his powers to excel were revealed long before Chuck Austen. Why someone keeps attributing these revelations to UXM #429 I don't know.Cosmos Keeper (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Cosmos Keeper (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

Juggernaut was NOT a mutant in the TV Cartoon he was magical. In the first episode he appears in "The Unstoppable Juggernaut" he explicitly denies being a mutant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.160.88 (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page.

While I am a string supporter of being bold in editing, I'm also a proponent of the WP:BRD cycle. And it's clear that at least a "bit" of "fait accompli" has been attempted here. Too many accusations of "preferred version" questions.

So I have reverted to the Last edit on July 2nd. With the next edit being a jump in time to July 6, and the "discussion" threads above seem to be time stamped after that date.

I ask that neither User:J Greb, nor User:Phil Sandifer be the ones to lift the protection, due to concerns of how this was previously handled. I consider User:Emperor a neutral third party in this, and welcome his (and of course others') insight. - jc37 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that several editors aren't happy with other editors' actions in the past. Let's please leave that in the past, and work forward. (Which it looks like some comments are attempting to do. Though I'll start a new thread header below for clarity.)

Since one editor has made it fairly clear he will not choose to start or join in the discussion, per his comments on his talk page, it's apparently up to the rest of you to find a consensual resolution to everyone's concerns.

While you're welcome to move the discussion forward however it helps, as a suggestion, perhaps each of you could list numerically your main concerns. And compar "old text" with "proposed new text".

I won't be "joining in" the discussion, but merely observing.

Good editing all : ) - jc37 07:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

is the page going to be edited from the point it is now? Or is it going to be reverted to the "wrong version" that was up before Phil came in?TheJaff (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Any and every version is welcome to be discussed. If there is a concensus on a version you (plural) wish to move forward from, I (or another neutral admin) would likely be happy to update the page to that version. So it's something else you would all have to agree upon. - jc37 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Objections

I strongly object to rolling back to July 2nd - many edits in that period are uncontroversial, and rolling back and then discussing will make merging those in excessively difficult. This smacks of reverting to a preferred version, which is not allowed. Furthermore, though I agree that the talk page and edit summaries have been heated, more seems to be being agreed upon than reverted - it is my sincere belief that progress was being made. This protection stalls that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that more was being agreed upon. It was simply people trying to fit within the mold you were allowing. I need a couple days to get my thoughts in order.....ugh.TheJaff (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of when it's reverted to I see little possibility of an accurate, solid article so long as one individual is allowed to wipe out everyone else's revisions without a valid or sourced argument. Even the admin's somewhat settled 18:47, 13 July revision was freely edited by DrBat. This creates hollow edit wars by trumping up the number of edits made and getting the article frozen. While his "arguments" are just him giving POV and highlighting people's typos. That the working admin has been so complicit with him is very strange. DrBat has made by far the most edits since this started. Yet looking at the revision history, so far as I can see DrBat is curiously the only person who's edits Phil didn't change prior to my Talk post at 23:13, 13 July.

First the updates weren't allowed because they were too long. Then after they were shortened into just a few sentences the entire edit is reverted because all of a sudden the problem was that they weren't in Juggernaut's first issue. Then the admin doesn't want the evil of the power(a significant plot point in the Juggernaut's last couple of storylines) being mentioned in the origin because it's claimed to be a later development. But when it's shown that it's actually in Juggernaut's first appearances and not a later development, it's removed just 'cuz.

If any real attempt is to be made at getting this entry up to par, the goal post has to stop being moved. Otherwise it's just random editing. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you actually believe it or not, or if you're just trying to stir up trouble, but my arguments have included more than just my own point of view, as anyone viewing the discussion can see.

You've also accused me of deliberately adding false information to the article, before you disrupted the article to prove a point (when you added half of Gage's quote, knowing I would add the full version, just to see if my edit would get reverted [6]). --DrBat (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't disrupt the article. I corrected your edit because your link wasn't to what your edit said it was. Normally the whole thing should have been removed since not only was it misleading but it also didn't belong. But since it was already there, I left it so that the point would prove itself. No disruption required. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The link was to the quote that was mentioned in the article; just because Gage also talked about his Juggernaut storyline in WWH:X-Men somewhere else doesn't mean it was false. And you were still making an edit just to prove your point. --DrBat (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What made it false was that your edit said the Gage quote it contained was Gage's response to be asked if Marko was now a villain. This wasn't true. Gage wasn't being asked anything(that Marko is a villain was obvious in the story and didn't need asking) in your link. He was being told by a fan that they were unhappy with him making Marko a villain again. So I corrected your edit. That my point was proven by it was a natural consequence. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the quote was still Gage talking about the Juggernaut's status quo after WWH. It'd be false if the quote was made up, or the page it linked to didn't have the quote.

What you did was more misleading, having the part of the quote where Gage says the Juggernaut was going back to being a villain, but leaving out the rest ("Juggernaut was never an all-good or all-bad character; that's what I like about him. He may be on the wrong side of the law again, but that doesn't mean he'll be kicking puppies or killing senior citizens, and it doesn't mean you won't ever see him do something positive") because it conflicted with your idea of the Juggernaut being an evil mass murdering sociopath.

As for "That my point was proven by it was a natural consequence." No, your words were "Really, I just wanted to see if this lengthy quote block would get revised like all the other changes were, or would if it would curiously be allowed to remain without challenge. My suspicion was that, length aside, it would be allowed." That was your intention. --DrBat (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My words don't contradict. That the double standard is predictable doesn't make corrections disruptions. I corrected your edit knowing the likely sequence of events afterward that would illustrate the point. I knew you would go back and go beyond Gage's answer as to whether Marko was a villain or not. And be allowed to violate the (alleged)length restriction by adding in the superfluous and overly lengthy opining after he answered the question. This was predictable, but for my part I only corrected the edit. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So far I have seen your only real argument be that X-Men Forever should be taken more seriously than it deserves. Considering the only aspect that is important was reviled to be a plot by Cain to further his own ends. Other than that your other argument seems to be that we are trying to make Cain seem "meaner" than he really is. Which is an odd point for a mass murdering terrorist.TheJaff (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Juggernaut being a "mass murdering terrorist." And yet I'm the one who's POV?

And yes, I think trying to portray a character who's more commonly portrayed as a bully and a brute as some horribly evil monster is wrong. --DrBat (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh...whats POV about him being a mass murderer? He has killed lots of people. It's pretty cut and dry. Also if you don't call someone who knocks down a skyscraper to kill more people a terrorist then I don't know what you definition is.TheJaff (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess the Hulk is a mass murdering terrorist too? --DrBat (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well according to WWH, Hulk has never killed anyone intentionally. Certainly not civilians. And like Frank Teri said. Just because you play nice and say your sorry does not forgive your past crimes.TheJaff (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And according to The Illuminati, the Hulk has killed people before. Different books say different stuff. Furthermore, I think most of the Juggernaut's victims are either people unintentionally injured when he's fighting another superhero or unintentionally injured when he's going from one place to another.

As for what Tieri said; tell that to all the other reformed supervillains out there who've been given second chances.

And Tieri mentions "in the real world." If the Marvel characters existed in the real world, it'd probably be some horrific tale like Warren Ellis's Ruins, where the Kree are put in internment camps, the Hulk is mass of tumors, and the Avengers are shot down by the government. --DrBat (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of his victims are people he has unintentionally injured? Where are you getting this from? Are you saying that if he knew he was hurting so many people. Like let's say here [7] Or here [8]. That he would care? Or how about the times he has attempted to kill civilians just because they were handy [9]? Or just because he felt like killing them[10]? Or how about when he left madam Webb to die because she was of no use to him anymore?

Or how about the times he has attempted to kill Hulk [11][12]? Or offered to kill Spider Woman without a second thought[13]? He also got a chuckle when he thought he killed Venom. But let's not forget his brother, X-Force, Dr. Strange, etc etc.

So yes he may have unintentionally killed people. Except the times when he has intentionally killed people either by malice or simply not caring. In fact he had to kill someone to keep his Juggernaut title. He knows he will have to kill more people in the future[14]. That seems pretty dang intentional.TheJaff (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first example is from "Unredeemed." Essentially, Tieri retconning an atrocity into Juggernaut's origin. And while it's canon, that's the first time Juggernaut's ever done something that bad. As one review (which gave the storyline a positive review anyway) said, "For some reason Tieri decides to give the Juggernaut a new atrocity in his back story, which seems a bit gratuitous and actually does make the character retroactively worse than he was to start with. That doesn't quite work for me - the story would have been better working within the existing parameters of the character, rather than redefining them simply in order to hammer the point home." And even then, Tieri's storyline had him showing remorse for what he'd done.

Second example; it'd be nice to see the whole page, as opposed to what you cropped, and the context of the storyline (I mean, I don't see any corpses littering the ground). That being said, that looks like it falls under the "unintentionally injured when he's going from one place to another." The third example falls under "unintentionally injured when he's fighting another superhero." His goal is to defeat Thor, so he throws the heaviest object he can find. I don't think he's even thinking about the people inside

As with the first Thor image, I'd like to understand the context better (also, Hulk saying he doesn't mind the Juggernaut smashing soliders doesn't really help the "Hulk's never killed anybody argument.") Are they at a military base, what?

And then we have the Juggernaut battling superheroes; that's different than him just going after innocent civilians.

I'm really not seeing anything more heinous or evil than any other regular villain. I'm especially not seeing anything that warrants him being labeled as a "mass murdering terrorist" or a sociopath, which is something I'd reserve for truly evil characters like the Red Skull. --DrBat (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I think you should just quit now. I show you several scans of Juggernaut killing or attempting to kill people. I cite other examples of when he has done similar feats. I show you a scan where he knows he has killed people and will need to do again. Blowing that whole "I didn't know I was killing people" theory out of the water. Yet you continue to try and excuse it for....I really don't know what reason.

Also, "I'm especially not seeing anything that warrants him being labeled as a "mass murdering terrorist" or a sociopath". Well let's see. He has killed lots and lots of people. He causes destruction with the intent of killing people. He has done so with the full knowledge with what he was doing and shown no remorse while doing it. I think that pretty much is the definition of a "mass murdering terrorist sociopath".TheJaff (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do find the description of the character as a mass murderer misleading, mostly because it has generally not seemed like the point of his actions, so much as an incidental byproduct he's wholly unconcerned with at worst, and a standard case of odd comic book ethics at best. Yes, he endangers civilians and probably kills people, but such things are largely ignored in superhero comics, and have been for decades. Big action setpieces with buildings and busses being thrown are the norm, and the reader is generally not expected to think through the consequences. The claim of "mass murderer" isn't so much wrong as misleading - it doesn't seem to me like a major aspect of the character. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass murderer misleading? Just look at our lovely wiki page on the subject. Also the fact that the power itself compels The Juggernaut to cause massive destruction and yes kill is a very important aspect of his character. One which Frank Teri and Chris Gage explore in Unredeemed and WWH in some depth. But this has not been a new thing (sorry DrBat) my scans show that since his earliest he has been a killer with little or no remorse for his actions. And as I have further shown he knows exactly what he has done.

Also Phil when he throws a bus at Thor you can see people in the bus and Thor comments on his disregard for human life. If that is not spelling out consequences than I don't know what is. To ignore this part of him as "unimportant" or even "misleading" would be akin to ignoring that Batman or Superman don't kill people. Or That The Punisher does. It's really important to them. So why not Juggernaut?TheJaff (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for human life is, especially in comic book ethics, a far cry from mass murderer. I just don't see the case that murder has ever been important to the character. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to see the case Phil. That fact that killing is an important part of his character is not really debatable. It comes with the job. Cain knows he is a killer. And he accepts the fact that he is going to have to go back to killing to please Cyttorak. This is an essential aspect of his being The Juggernaut. He knows full well what the price of power is. And he takes it anyways[15][16]. That is very important.TheJaff (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That, in a pair of recent storylines, it is established that in order to please Cyttorak he will have to engage in "Rampaging. Destroying. Killing." (Note the phrasing there - killing is not the primary objective, but something he tacitly admits is a part of the larger goal of destruction) In one story. One very recent story. That hasn't been followed up on. That does not make it important to the character, considered broadly and historically. And that's the problem I'm having - I'm not OK with using one or two recent storylines as the basis to refocus the entire article. Especially because I still find Gage's ending to the WWH plot deeply ambiguous for a number of reasons - note, specifically, the two pages that end with the Juggernaut's "You won't like what you find." The Juggernaut's expression - facing down, frowning - is a mirror of the Hulk's expression when he says "You're already living in hell," and further a mirror of Xavier's expression as he turns away from the Hulk. In all three cases the implication is a level of shame in the decisions. Cain embraced the power of Cyttorak - yes. But he seems to me to have done so reluctantly, and to be conflicted about it. The power of Cyttorak is a destructive, deadly power, yes. But I'm skeptical that killing its its goal, as opposed to an accepted byproduct. And I'm very skeptical that the statement that the Juggernaut is a mass murderer can be made given the larger context of how rampant destruction is treated in comics. Given all of that, I think it's a muddy, unclear issue that we can't easily be definitive on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"In one story. One very recent story. That hasn't been followed up on. That does not make it important to the character". No. It's two stories from two different writers. And this is nothing new. As Cosmos showed you above. The evil nature of the power of The Juggernaut has never been in doubt. It's effects on Cain are undeniable. He kills. He destroys to kill. He destroys just to destroy with no thought to the lives lost. He knows all of this. He takes the power anyways. Not to save anyone or out of some noble gesture. He takes the power for the sake of the power. He will have to rampage, kill and destroy. Also by any definition, comic or real world. Cain is a mass-murderer. Just because in a comic a fishboy's mother can say he isn't a bad guy anymore and he gets off doesn't change that.TheJaff (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think... no, let me be blunter. It is my professional opinion as a published scholar on comics that you are approaching the texts in an unproductive way that does not capture how they work or adequately historicize the character. I re-iterate my opposition to basing the article's overall presentation on Unredeemed and WWH, which I find to be far more ambiguous texts than you would suggest, and which I am deeply skeptical of the importance of in the overall scheme of the character. I am not persuaded by the arguments made, and oppose changing the article in this way unless a new argument is presented. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WWH and Unreedemed are nothing new Phil. They simply build upon what has been established. You have been shown this. Why do you choose to ignore it?TheJaff (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Make the case that the identity of mass murderer (as opposed to the mere fact of deaths and endangerment) is important to the Juggernaut's overall character without referring to either story. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's break this down. The whole point of this discussion was the fact that I and others were accused of trying to make The Juggernaut seem "meaner" than he is by saying he killed people. DrBat had a real problem with this. He was shown that The Juggernaut had in fact killed many people and had attempted to kill many more. Knowing full well what the consequences of his actions were. Once it had been shown that he had indeed killed lots of people the fact the he was a mass murder would seem to be a no brainier.

Well then you come along and say that the fact that he has killed is unimportant. Even going so far as to say that despite the fact that he had killed a lot of people he shouldn't be considered a mass murder. Now here is the fun part. It has been established as early as his first appearance that the power of The Juggernaut is itself evil. You have been shown this Phil. Frank Teri and Chris Gage did not make this up.

So why the resistance? What is your motivation for wanting to keep the nature of The Power itself ignored? How could the very thing that makes The Juggernaut, "The Juggernaut" not be something that should be even mentioned? Please, give me your "professional opinion".TheJaff (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, two things. First, my objection is to the label "mass murderer." I have much less of a problem with noting that he has killed people, though I point out that there's a fair amount of dispute over the basic nature of destruction in the Marvel Universe. (There was a really interesting exchange between Dan Slott and... I forget who over World War Hulk, with Slott arguing that the Hulk has never killed anyone. Very interesting.) I'm not sure it's important as such, but my attitude there is very much "whatever." Go ahead and mention it somewhere. That's different from the claim that his killing is important to the character - that I don't think it is - at least not in the way that, say, killing is important to Michael Corleone.

The corrupting nature of the gem is trickier. Clearly the gem corrupted him, but the nature of that corruption has been pretty fungible over the years - certainly I see very big differences in how the character is presented in X-Men #12-13 and how he's presented in Unredeemed and WWH - even on the specific issue of the Cyttorak gem. This needs to be handled deftly - I don't think the character who appears in X-Men #12 is the one who committed the atrocities shown in Unredeemed. By which I mean, I do not think Lee and Kirby envisioned anything like that when they crafted the character. That's a tricky issue. I'm, again, not opposed to dealing with Unredeemed and WWH. But any treatment of them has to respect the fact that they are a retcon, and has to integrate that fact sensibly with the history in a way that respects the development of the character over time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That you go out of the way to tack on disclaimers to Unredeemed as containing retcons is pure double standard. Unredeemed added and explained more than changed. What's called a "soft retcon". You didn't add a disclaimer to the much bigger retcon of 8th Day which outright changes Juggernaut's original origin. Nor do you make any mention of Austen's stories containing retcons to transform Cain Marko into a hero and those were egregious contradictions to his previous history. Unredeemed is the only story you singled out. You also try to present the murderous corruption of the power as recent and isolated, when there have been a number of stories before Unredeemed that explictly say that the Juggernaut is destined to kill those around him. X-Men Unlimited #12 going so far as to show a possible future of the Juggernaut walking amongst piles of the skeletons of those he's killed, friend and foe alike, due to the evil of the power compelling him to do so.

Though if history is any indication I suspect that you will say that this is somehow ambivalent or unclear. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Unredeemed and WWH stuff are kept to one paragraph, situated in publication order, and not used as the basis for claims outside that paragraph and especially for claims before that paragraph, I'm fine with it. The Austen and 8th Day paragraphs keep to themselves. (I did have some Austen material that had made it into the origin area of the article, which I explicitly flagged as a retcon. I wasn't terribly happy with it - it was an existing blending I didn't undo when I shortened the article. I am happy to see it go and have the origin area go pure X-Men #12 for its sourcing.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But you yourself rewrote (what you thought was)the Austen stuff into the origin, Phil. Those sentences didn't previously exist and there's no mention of them being origin-altering retcons. As for being "glad to see it go", as can be seen by the page history you re-inserted it after I removed it. And let DrBat continuously re-add it. It was re-inserted so many times in fact that I specifically commented on it in the Talk page at 06:07, 14 July. The Austen material being in the origin is why I added the Unredeemed material there in the first place:to follow the existing format. There was no objection made about later stories in the origin until Unredeemed was added.

The Austen and 8th Day descriptions also didn't keep to themselves anymore than the Unredeemed one. And it's apparent that that isn't your real concern, as even after removing the Unredeemed developments from the opening paragraph, you still went out of your way to staple on a questionable disclaimer about it "significantly" altering his origin. Your true objection seems to be the story's subject matter rather than origins or retcons. As you apparently deem anything villainous about this villain unimportant or unclear. No matter how vital or unambiguously clear-cut it is. Cosmos Keeper (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Not used as the basis for claims?" Like what? That The power of The Juggernaut is evil? That "The Juggernaut" is a title and not Cain Marko's name? I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Also keeping it to one paragraph is fine if we can fit all of the proper info in there. But if it goes to two. Well then so be it.

Also I know you want to keep his origin "pure" by it just being X-Men #12. But you know it's funny. Professor X was just re-retconned back to a Korean War Vet. But seeing as the X-Men have been around less than 15 years and Cain became The Juggernaut in Korea. Then what the heck was he doing for 40ish years? Meh...we will let marvel figure it out I guess.TheJaff (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Villains

Starting at the top the first thing that stands out is the line "In contrast to X-Men villains like Magneto, Mister Sinister, or Apocalypse, the Juggernaut is generally portrayed as aggressive, angry, and brutal.". This is completely different than either the "wrong version" or the revamp version that was trying to be put through. First it implies that he is only an X-Men villain. Second why bothering to mention those three villains at all. They have never been Brutal, angry or aggressive?

This version is much more accurate "he doesn't have the megalomania common amongst super villains. Unlike Magneto, Dr.Doom, or Apocalypse, who devote themselves to an ideology, Cain's motivation is primarily financial profit and the mystic compulsion to destroy".

This is just the first thing that needs to change. More to come.TheJaff (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he has fought other characters, he's primarily an X-Men villain - I'd still drop Dr. Doom in favor of Sinister. I'd also tighten - "In contrast to other villains like Magneto, Mr. Sinister, or Apocalypse, the Juggernaut is motivated not by ideological goals, but by self-interest and destructive urges." Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say he is originally an X-Men villain. But he has probably fought other people just as much if not more. In fact The X-Men nor his brother have really been his focus in decades. Also the switching of Doom for Sinister seems like a move to more closely associate himself with X-Villains. When he has had more interaction with The Red Skull than Mags, Apoc or Sinister.TheJaff (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggernaut Bitch

Where is the article for the video parody? It redirects here now and the article about the meme itself seems to be gone without an AFD or anything. 78.102.42.111 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently in all the fanboy obsessed edit warring someone totally screwed up the re-direct so the entry for The Juggernaut, Bitch!! gets re-directed here and bypasses the entry for that meme altogether. 78.102.42.111 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggernaut_(comics)#Internet_parody. --DrBat (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh...NO...the meme had its own entry, it even survived an AFD...but now suddenly it re-directs here....which means the meme's article CANNOT BE ACCESSED. Is this some sort of way that certain disgruntled people, who failed in their AFD two years ago can now censor the meme's entry? 78.102.42.111 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was put up for deletion again in January, where the consensus was to delete it.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch!!

If you want, you can see the article here, via archive.org. --DrBat (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How typical. well I'll just go recreate it and get a proper review then instead of the last rigged one. 78.102.42.111 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a random user, I came to this page explicitly looking for an explanation of the meme. A google search showed that it should be here, but it wasn't until I came back and looked a few hours later. --193.144.81.43 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hulkbuster?

I realize this isn't a place for general discussion, but since this can be answered with a simple no/yes, could someone tell me whether there is any relation between the Juggernaut and the Hulkbuster Iron Man armor? There's a pretty good resemblance..  Aaron  ►  06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing can stop the Juggernaut.... except

I've heard this statement numerous times explaining the Juggernaut's power: Once in motion, virtually no obstacle or force is able to impede his movement. My question is what is the obstacle or force that can impede his movement?68.194.167.208 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

P & A

This statement about the Juggernaut's durability:

"It has even withstood Thor's "god-blast", which has been able to pierce the armor of a Celestial, and driven away Galactus."

is inappropriate for several reasons. "It has even withstood" is colloquial and smacks of the "gee whiz!" factor, and what it can actually prevent should be limited to objective and quantifiable factors, such as an avalanche. The story may indicate that the Juggernaut's armour can withstand Thor's God-Blast, but both are fictional and subject to change. It also smacks of a subjective decision to "match-up" the characters on some kind of power scale that is based purely on opinion. Then making a reference to an apparent feat by Thor's hammer only reinforces the point, as that too is a subjective inference, and also inappropriate as the focus here is the Juggernaut, not what someone else did with something to another unrelated character.

Just stating As the Juggernaut, Marko possesses tremendous strength; being capable of shattering mountains and lifting and using buildings as weapons, and durability, which is amplified by a mystical force field that grants near invulnerability. The forcefield, however, can be neutralised by magic. encompasses the whole ball of wax nicely. Asgardian (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There usually aren't any real-world objectifiable high-extent gauges available, and in this case not even nuclear weaponry would be comparable. It is the only true extreme test of the force-field's extent that I know of, beyond comparatively minor exploding tankers and the like, and given that Thor stated both of those occasions at the time, and that the Celestial instance even was handled by the same writer, I don't see the problem of any inconsistencies. You could always remove the "even" if you want. Or if you definitely want to be minimalistic, write amplified by a virtually indestructible mystical force field. The forcefield, however, can be neutralised by magic. and include all the cited instances (Thor, Exitar, Galactus) in the linked reference without comment.

Also, another part of the Juggernaut is his supposedly iterally inexhaustible stamina, as in "does not tire ever". It may be worthwhile to include some reference about matching Thor's level of strength as well (given the lack of particular references beyond harming characters that have more explicit feats), although it's tricky as it is usually amplified by his unstoppability effect. The "8th Day" probably doesn't count as Cain was supposedly further amplified then. I don't remember Juggernaut shattering any mountains in his first (horrible) fight with the Hulk btw. Although he most likely could. Dave (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)