Talk:Juggernaut (character)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconComics: Marvel C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
WikiProject iconFictional characters C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Image of Juggernaut[edit]

That's a pretty lame picture of Juggernaut. I believe it would be worth considering obtaining a better one.

Remember the Picture of the Juggernaut before this one? Where he is on top of a car and is smashing it? There were mountains in the backround? Can we change it back to that one? That one is the best pic of the Juggernaut.

Further to this, the latest image feature just the Juggernaut in a full frontal pose. If anyone can find and source another one, fine. Just needs to be a frontal shot with no other characters. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Naysayers should also read this [1] before reverting. The image of the character grappling with a beast fails as not full frontal; contorted and has another character, which are according to the Guidelines not desirable. Asgardian (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, if someone can find another one that meets the criteria, fine. Just be able to provide a source and the artist. Asgardian (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know where the old image can be found? I'm at a loss to where to find it on the internets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit war[edit]

User:Asgardian continues, as he was done on other pages, to mash-up the fictional and the real-life by removing the "Fictional character biography" subhead and proceeding to blend in-universe and real-world material in a confounding jumble. I support User:Ghidorah's efforts to revert this non-consensus insistence that has caused trouble at Rhino (comics), Abomination (comics), Awesome Android and elsewhere. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An inaccurate and even inflammatory statement. Had Tenebrae actually checked, he would have noted that the PH and Biography have been split as per consensus. I even stated this in an Edit Summmary [2]. The corrected version was also supported by another editor here: [3]. All Tenebrae is "supporting" is what User:Ghidorah is trying to push: a version that is lacking many crucial appearances; has mistakes; missing sources; filled with colloquial language and an overemphasis on the most recent issues, which of course may be all the younger fans have read. I have repeatedly advised the user of the issues at his Talk Page: [4].

Tenebrae has also rather oddly tried to encourage this user - who may be a sockpuppet for a repeat offender - to join in a "Request For Comment" on myself. Despite a claim of neutrality, the faux pas above says otherwise. Asgardian (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how is Juggernaut fighting Colossus in a bar a crucial appearance Ghidorah (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a minor question and answered on your Talk Page. Asgardian (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know that User:Ghidorah is a sockpuppet. How do you know this? -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His appearance was, like that of EmilBlonsky, (a proven sockpuppet of DrBat) was extremely convenient. A check reveals that the two are apparently not related (although who can say in cyberspace), so it may be another issue (just ultra young or medical condition etc.). Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, feel free to add to the corrected version. I have been adding something each time while trying to maintain it, as our fellow editor seems hell-bent on reverting to an inferior version, full of all the mistakes I have already pointed out. He/she doesn't seem to realize that the old version has already been revamped, and that it cannot read like a colloquial fan site. Same thing has been going on over at Deadpool if you're interested. Asgardian (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that two editors favor a version that Asgardian keeps reverting while making unproven accusations against an editor seems a serious and significant breach of consensus and Wiki etiquette. I'm going to ask for help on this. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asgardian, you're a fine one to talk about sockpuppets since you've had one or more yourself. --DrBat (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
!!! DrBat, you've just been unblocked. That was not relevant, civil or wise. I'd advise restraint. Asgardian (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Pointing out your own history with sockpuppetry? You keep on talking about how I'm "guilty of this offence" like you didn't do the same thing (and my alternate accounts were never used to bypass restrictions, like yours were).--DrBat (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is exactly what I am talking about. There was no need to say anything here. Don't create strikes against yourself over nothing. Let's move on. Asgardian (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then stop talking about me being using sockpuppets when you've done worse. --DrBat (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two editors favor a version of this article that one editor, Asgardian, continues to revert in a manner that does not conform to WikiProject Comics MOS. Asgardian has also made contentious, unproven claims about one of the other editors (see immediately above). --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, see the links above. The revised article is Wiki-correct, which Tenebrae knows. He is welcome to make additions if any are required. I have repeatedly attempted to mediate with the second user, as the link above indicates. It was also perfectly reasonable to ask for a Checkuser if sockpuppetry is suspected, as there has been a recent rash of this behaviour, with DrBat being found guilty of this offence. I would also ask Tenebrae to desist from making inflammatory and inaccurate statments. There is no "serious and significant breach of consensus and Wiki etiquette."

I am trying to deal with a user who appears to have an obsession with this article, given the fact that they only appeared recently and as per their Edit Summary fixtate on it :[5]. Their use of langugage would suggest one of three possibilities:

1. An editor intent on deliberate vandalism. 2. The editor is very young and does not understand Wikipedia rules and practices. 2. The editor has an undisclosed medical condition.

I would ask Tenebrae to assist, rather than exacerbate, the mediation process here.

Many thanks

Asgardian (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how about none of the above? i already gave you my reasons: id rather you just add to the previous version instead of just completely replacing it with your version, erasing the work of everyone before you --Ghidorah (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you looked closely you would see that the revised version incorporates all the relevant information. You have yet to acknowledge the weaknesses I have pointed out. Asgardian (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
youre still replacing everything that was written before with your own version Ghidorah (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're on the RfC Noticeaboard page. Please let the mediation process take its course. I would ask how Asgardian details of another editor's age and "mental condition." That last seems a remarkable claim to make against someone. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. One editor with a serious medical condition is already known to us. It is one possibility. Age should be fairly obvious. Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be aware that accusing other editors of mental illness can been construed as a form of personal attack or harassment, and such comments have a history of resulting in blocks. Dekimasuよ! 14:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How dare any one editor insert his own contentious and dispute version and unilaterally declare it "Wikicorrect," which is not any official term that I can find on Wikipedia policy pages. And then to threaten other editors, as Asgardian has done? Asgardian, if the RfC has not generated comments, then we move on to the next level of mediation. We DO NOT unilaterally declare ourselves "King of the Hill." Go up the mediation ladder — DO NOT revert when other editors are far from in consensus with your personal version.
I think I speak for many editors when I saw how frustrated we are by one editor who engages in frequent edit wars here, at Rhino, at Abomination, at Awesome Android and elsewhere, and despite this cannot seem to learn that other editors do not universally find his edits helpful. Nor his behavior. When an editor finds himself in frequent edit wars with not one but a number of others, how can that not be cause for self-reflection? -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed changes regarding World War Hulk[edit]

May I just add that the fight between World War Hulk and the newly empowered Juggernaut was not a fair fight. The particular issue was World War Hulk - X-Men #3 of 3 of the Marvel Limited Series. During the fight at the X-Men Mansion Professor X calls out to the Juggernaut that they cannot continue to fight without undermining the foundations of the mansion (as a huge crater had been formed that was soon to cave-in on top of the injured Beast who was in the cellars below). It was during this time of hearing his step-brother's pleas that the Hulk launched Juggernaut through a wall and into the nearby lake. I feel this has to be included in the article as it is not indicative of the events that led up to Juggernaut's 'stoppage' as earlier described. Juggernaut had a conscience and the Hulk had used it against him, thus Juggernaut was not utilizing his full potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyB144 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to this the contributor writes "Juggernaut is tricked by Hulk who uses Cain's own strength against him..." yet in no way explains 'how' the Hulk manages to trick him, all the while at the same time failing to take into account that Professor X inadvertently turned the fight in Hulk's favor by distraction together with the imminent threat of losing the mansion and the people within. I feel that you have overlooked a crucial aspect of the story by merely putting it in such a way as to make the fight immediately forgettable, in that it was Marvel's intention to make this one of his last great acts of heroism highlighted (specifically) with Juggernaut's refusal to accept Xavier's thanks. This is a critical moment - it may be construed alternatively (and which is rather more plausible) that Juggernaut had 'intentionally' lost to Hulk for the welfare of others.

New topic[edit]

I apologise in advance if this is in the wrong place and/or if you wanted me to go about adding the reference myself, but the issue you need whereupon Skaar hits Juggernaut into space is Incredible Hulk #602


I've protected the page.

Please use the talk page to resolve the content issues, rather than edit warring.

If you feel that a consensus has formed, please let me or any other uninvolved admin know.

And of course, any other uninvolved admin may alter or remove the protection as they see appropriate, just please frop me a note on my talk page. - jc37 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Note: The following two posts were posted on my talk page. Moved it here in the hopes that discussion can continue.) - jc37 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. This one is unfortunately nuisance value. Despite repeated attempts at advising Ghidorah as to editing practices [6], this editor continues to revert, despite my making some suggested changes and that version being supported by another editor on several occasions [7]. I am a tad suspicious as this editor appeared out of the ether recently and it appears only remains on Wikipedia to attempt to maintain an inferior version of one article [8].

I was surprised by Tenebrae's involvement in a simple matter [9] , but was not when there was no discussion over what were very straight forward edits, which have again been supported. Ghidorah's blind reversions and unwillingness to cooperate seem to be the issues here.

Regards. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ive already explained why
instead of just improving the pre-existing article, you've completely rewritten it with your own version, erasing everything that came before it Ghidorah (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again you fail to acknowledge to everything that was explained to you here [10]. The revised article incorporates what can be used from the old, as you've been told. We do not, however, keep incorrect or weak material. That may be fan preference, but it is not Wikipedia policy.

You could be blocked for violating the spirit of the 3-Revert Rule [11], as you come out of left field after no editing for days and perform three blind edits, despite consensus being against you. There is then no activity on the account once more [12]. This is not collaborative or helpful.

Asgardian (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you're also guilty of 3RR
and what consensus? the only person who agrees with you is dcincarnate --Ghidorah (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not here or anywhere else that I know of. Yes, another user agrees. That aside, you have failed to acknowledge any of the points raised. Asgardian (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note here regarding the "spirit of the 3-revert rule despite consensus against it". Asgardian most definitely does not follow this practice in regards to the Dormammu article, and has a long history of edit-wars and bans because of this. (This is just the tip of the iceberg, as he usually manages to rationalise his way out of it.) I've tried to again give the benefit of doubt and to reason with him recently, but it doesn't appear to help. Dave (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dishonest edit summary[edit]

Asgardian here gives the simple edit summary "Added 3rd party source" — even though this edit was a COMPLETE REWRITE reverting the article to his controversial, edit-war version. This is a blithely dishonest edit summary, and one more example of Asgardian's contentious and disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest you be civil and please consider the case history. Asgardian (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going by that my experience is that your given rationales generally have extremely little, if anything, to do with what you actually do, which other editors have noticed as well, whereas Tenebrae is one of the most honest and most sensible editors I've ever encontered in Wikipedia, I'm obviously inclined to take his word for it, and, as multiple editors have also told you, always stating "civility please" when anyone simply points out exactly what you are doing, is not remotely acceptable either.
For anyone else's interest, here is that old list of a fraction of Asgardian's past offenses that I had the energy to look up at the time. Feel free to pass it around and add multiple instances of your own:
Asgardian being a proven sockpuppet user, which turns suspicious whenever various anonymous ips have reverted to his edits: [13]
Asgardian's block page for consistent edit-warring, before starting to simply do one revert a day or so to get away with it, regardless if this is in direct violation of consensus, like in the Dormammu case: [14]
Newer conflicts: [15]
User: J Greb noticing that Asgardian has continually written edit-summaries that have little, or nothing to do with what he's actually doing, or even flat-out contradict it, and Asgardian stating that he'll continue to do so as long as he can get away with it: [16] "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." Response: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia."
User: Nightscream noticing Asgardian's tendency for dishonesty, to then accuse anyone who points if out for "incivility", which given that he does what he always does makes it impossible to even respond: [17]
Asgardian recently apparently systematically vandalising page-structures just to make a point, and various other users making a plea to finally shut him down: [18] [19] [20]
Only the most recent situation of distorting profile content and deleting multiple references regardless that the information was entirely correct, and that the entire Talk population disagrees with him, and going by my experience on other pages such as Thanos he will eventually revert everything at a time when everyone else has mostly lost interest, even if he has to wait half a year to do so: [21]
(This proved prophetic, as most recently User:Duae_Quartunciae [warned] him of a ban if he continued to remove valid references, and he left the pages Dormammu alone for a few weeks after this, but then returned and did exactly the same thing all over again, despite that nobody agreed with him, with my main problem being that he essentially replaced referenced exact quotes with personal opinions.)
In addition, there was this old hint that he finds this behavior funny: [22] ""insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you?"
That said, I have been reluctant to view him as a troll, since he does seem to try doing much more useful things than simply being a neverending nuisance for everyone in this "community", myself in particular, despite User:Tcaudilllg another editor asking me if I considered him as one given that some of his tactics correspond to those of a sophisticated troll, and have given him chance after chance to find compromises, and he has occasionally made minor attempts in this regard, but generally just completely reverts to the same version over and over. Recently we tried again, with the deal being that I'd keep my temper in check/stay as polite as I can, and give benefit of doubt, and him supposed to prove that he's willing to change, and turn more trustworthy and compromising. I'd be fine with if he simply changed for the better, and stopped deleting references, or reinsert factual errors, and for a little while he seemed to make some effort in other cases such as The Stranger, but reasoning and compromises (i.e. rewrite the sentences for better structure if you wish, but keep valid references and accuracy corrections, and don't reinsert speculation if there are better alternatives available) haven't worked very well so far with either Dormammu, Mjolnir, or even this page, although I don't really have much problem with his version here. Dave (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dave, you've made a number of inaccurate statements that are easy to argue. Again, I'd refrain from making emotive statements and try and come to terms with what has ben explained to repeatedly re: Wiki conduct and style.

I have also yet to see the original dissenter refute any of my points, which were explained in an amicable fashion.

Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Original dissenter"? "Refute any of my points"? Unclear who and what you mean. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ghidorah. This user seems to only exist - as has already been shown from evidence - to insist on a weak - also demonstrated - version of the article. There was no RFC. No one was interested in commenting. 10 days went past. The article was also brought up to speed - also demonstrated - and then had a cherry added on top in the form of a third party source. Seriously, why are you even trying to argue this? Asgardian (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very interested in the "easy to argue" part. As for why anyone bothers to argue, well, as seen a small sample of above, you frequently indefinitely force through agendas that nobody agrees with, without a trace of compromise. That does get to others after a while, and if ewven Tenebrae gets somewhat upset with your tactics this should be taken as quite noteworthy. Dave (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a very limited grasp of the situation here, and your own history is still a great concern. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already explained myself. --Ghidorah (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you've offered almost nothing. That said, I am now taking formal steps to deal with this situation as it has become ridiculous and needs attention. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you always do that, and as seen in BOZ's page, you have been warned multiple times by admins and editors alike that it is entirelly unwarranted and "self-serving" way to use "fear" as a manipulative weapon. Dave (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was not a sensible thing to say. Asgardian (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean in the "something to use as a weapon" against me sense? Not really, given that I'm not the one who said it in the first place. I'm literally quoting the admins you contacted the last time around, as linked to within BOZ's page above. Dave (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continued edit warring[edit]

I've reverted the article to the last version before the edit war between Asgardian and David A started. From what I can see, Asgardian has simply continued to reinsert the same disputatious, non-consensus version as always, with tweaks and tucks here and there, but essentially the same material.

I've asked admin BOZ to consider protecting the page again. Since that would be the third protection in a short period of time, I wonder if, for the sake of the article's stability and to save other editors' time, that the warring parties be blocked from editing this article for a cooldown period of three to six months, as happened with me myself and Scott Free at John Buscema. If I remember correctly, I may even have suggested it myself. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, your edit is the issue here, and has only created problems were there were none. The article was completed and left alone for some days before this unnecessary reversion. The changes were laid out - one at a time as requested - in the Edit Summaries, and a fully formed and accurate PH was added. As was also pointed out, there is now also more detail in the Biography. There was an attempt at a blind revert for no reason, and it was prevented. So, please study the comments I made to DrBat here: [23] as it all still applies. The removal of valid information does not help. Please feel free, however, to add to the more complete version. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the by, can we have no more emotive accusations such as "same disputatious, non-consensus version as always", as the information is all entirely valid. There is also no edit war. Just add to the extra information presented, as removing it is again, counter-productive. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Asgardian version is so disputatious, it even continues to flaunt the basic grammar of formal outlining, to which an encyclopedia should adhere. Just because an editor who disagrees with him may have taken a couple of days off for the holiday, or was concerned of running afoul of 3RR, does not give de facto permission to keep a disputed version up. There is more than ample reason than over a half-dozen editors are involved in an RFCU to rein in Asgardian's increasing anti-collaborative and contentious behavior.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, and this is what outside parties will notice, I'd suggest you begin by actually helping on the article. All you have done is perform another blind revert. If you think the grammar needs work, then fix it. Demonstrate. Do not, however, delete valid information that is vital to painting a full picture of the character. Unfortunately, your action here is the increasing anti-collaborative and contentious behavior. Please, think it through. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done that. You reverted anyway. I've pointed it out in edit summaries. You've ignored it. Why do you think so many editors have signed on to an RFCU about your behavior? Because it's fun and easy for us to do? Because we get some sadistic enjoyment out of doing so? Why can't you face reality? You tell me: Why are so many editors, many of them experienced and responsible editors, doing that? In all seriousness, what do you think the reason is? -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you haven't. Try, section by section. Again, please do not revert legitimate information. What has been ignored? We would seem to have dispensed with the problematic editor, and another has been told not to make blind reverts. So, that only leaves you. Let us work this out. This can be done, yes? Re: the RFC, the "many" editors are not as experience as you might think. Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sincerely wish you would have answered my question: "What do you think the reason is that this RFCU exists?" Self-reflection ... that's not too much to ask for given all the time you've taken from us. -- (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's edits: Offering to work with Asgardian[edit]

With my edits just now to this article, I hope to reach out to Asgardian, and demonstrate how editors can work together by giving reasons for each edit, rather than going in wholesale. I don't know whether I'll be rebuffed, but, to me, this free encyclopedia for everyone in the world is too important not to have anyone who can reasonably edit do so. During his three weeks of being blocked, I'm hopeful that I can provide things like the following without having to worry about an edit war.

Now, the version that Asgardian was reverting has its own problems, most notably a mashup of the types of the material that should be found separately in the real-world "Publication history" and in the present-tense, in-universe "Fictional character biography" (or whatever one chooses to call that section. Me, I'll go with the phrasing people spent a lot of time hashing out, with reasons for each of the three words).

I've just worked on the intro and the PH on this initial pass. The PH can sill use some injections of real-world creator names, but I wanted to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible for now.

Below, I've taken two sections of Asgardian's edits, and given each the edit that I've done today, followed by very specific reasons for each edit. I can only hope this effot helps shed some light and reduce the heat.

  • Asgardian edit

Debuting in the Silver Age of comic books, the character has appeared in over four decades of Marvel publications, featuring prominently in the X-Men titles and starring in the one-shot publications Juggernaut #1 (April 1997) and Juggernaut: The Eighth Day #1 (Nov. 1999). The character has also been associated with Marvel merchandise including clothing; toys; trading cards; animated television series; video games and a feature film.

  • My edit

Debuting during the period historians and fans call the Silver Age of comic books, the character has appeared in over four decades of Marvel publications, featuring prominently in the X-Men titles and starring in two one-shot solo publications. The character has also been associated with Marvel merchandise including clothing; toys; trading cards; animated television series; video games and a feature film.

  • Why

The lead is a general overview; it doesn't have to get bogged down in laundry lists of specific titles, particularly of minor one-shots over a decade old. I've also used the standard phrasing we have throughout the Project that defines "Silver Age of comic books" in context for general readers, for whom Wikipedia policy says we write.

  • Asgardian edit

==Publication history==

=== Origin ===

Writer Mike Conroy stated "The characters who debuted during the early years of Marvel's mutant X-Men have been remarkably long-lived, and Cain Marko is no exception."[1]

The character debuted in a storyline in X-Men #12 - 13 (July - Sep. 1965), and throughout the first issue of the story rampaged largely unseen through the X-Men's defences while Professor X related the villain's origin in a series of flashback sequences to the team. Marko is the step-brother of Charles Xavier, and developed an intense dislike for his sibling which was only exacerbated when Xavier's mutant abilities began to develop. While the pair served in the US Army and were stationed in Korea, Marko found a hidden temple dedicated to entity Cyttorak. On entering Marko finds and holds a huge ruby, and reads the inscription on the gem aloud:

The gem channels Cyttorak's power into Marko, transforming him into what Xavier - witnessing the event - called a "human Juggernaut".

After an initial defeat, the Juggernaut returned in X-Men #32 - 33 (May - June 1967). The character reappeared in Doctor Strange #182 (Sep. 1969); Amazing Adventures #16 (Jan. 1973) and Hulk #172 (Feb. 1974), and in keeping with the strong focus on continuity in the Marvel universe the combined stories formed a narrative that tracked the development of the Juggernaut's powers.

The Juggernaut returned in X-Men #101 - 103 (Oct; Dec & Feb. 1976), the relaunched title that featured the first generation of "new" X-Men. Storylines in Spider-Woman #37 - 38 (April & June 1981) and Amazing Spider-Man #229 - 230 (June - July 1982) explored the Juggeranut's relationship with ally Black Tom Cassidy. The X-Men and Spider-Man proved to be regular foes for the character, with storylines in Uncanny X-Men #183 (July 1984); Marvel Team-Up #150 (Feb. 1985) and Uncanny X-Men #194 (June 1985). The Juggernaut guest-starred in Secret Wars II #7 (Jan. 1986); battled an all-new generation of mutants in X-Men #217 - 218 (April - June 1987); and appears in a flashback story in Marvel Saga #21 (Aug. 1987) and a humorous episode in Excalibur #3 (Dec. 1988).

The Juggernaut also participated in the Acts of Vengeance storyline in Thor #411 - 412 (both Dec. 1989) and returned in Thor #429 (Feb. 1991). Other memorable appearances included an encounter with creator Cyttorak in X-Men Unlimited #12 (Sep. 1996); Juggernaut #1 (April 1997); the "Eighth Day" issue Juggernaut: The Eighth Day #1 (Nov. 1999); Avengers vol. 3, #23 - 25 (Dec. 1999 - Feb. 2000); an attempt at reformation in Uncanny X-Men #410 - 413 (Sep. - Dec.. 2002); X-Men #162 - 164 (Nov. 2004 - Jan. 2005) and an encounter with step-brother Xavier in X-Men: Legacy #219 (Feb. 2009).

The magazine Wizard ranked the Juggernaut #188 on their list of the "Top 200 Comic Book Characters of All Time".[2] In 2009, Juggernaut was also ranked as IGN's 19th Greatest Comic Book Villain of All Time.[3]

  • My edit

The character debuted as an antagonist of the titular mutant superhero team in X-Men #12-13 (July - Sept. 1965). In the first of these issues, he rampaged unseen throughout the X-Men's headquarters as the team's leader, Professor X, related the character's origin in flashbacks. After an initial defeat the following issue, the Juggernaut returned in X-Men #32-33 (May-June 1967), then fought the sorcerer Doctor Strange in Doctor Strange #182 (Sept. 1969); the X-Men member the Beast in Amazing Adventures #16 (Jan. 1973), and the Hulk in The Incredible 'Hulk #172 (Feb. 1974).

After the canceled X-Men returned in the mid-1970s, the Juggernaut returned to fight new iteration of the team in X-Men #101-103 (Oct. 1975 - Feb. 1976). Storylines in Spider-Woman #37-38 (April & June 1981) and The Amazing Spider-Man #229-230 (June-July 1982) explored the Juggeranut's relationship with ally Black Tom Cassidy. The X-Men and Spider-Man proved to be regular foes for the character, who appeared in Uncanny X-Men #183 (July 1984); Marvel Team-Up #150 (Feb. 1985) and Uncanny X-Men #194 (June 1985). The Juggernaut guest-starred in Secret Wars II #7 (Jan. 1986); battled a new generation of mutants in X-Men #217-218 (April-June 1987); and appeared in a flashback story in Marvel Saga #21 (Aug. 1987) and in a humorous episode in Excalibur #3 (Dec. 1988).

The Juggernaut also participated in the Acts of Vengeance storyline in Thor #411-412 (both Dec. 1989) and returned in Thor #429 (Feb. 1991). Other appearances included an encounter with his creator, Cyttorak, in X-Men Unlimited #12 (Sept. 1996); [[Avengers (comics)|The Avengers vol. 3, #23-25 (Dec. 1999 - Feb. 2000); an attempt at reformation in Uncanny X-Men #410-413 (Sept.-Dec. 2002); X-Men #162-164 (Nov. 2004 - Jan. 2005); and an encounter with his step-brother Xavier – the X-Men's leader, Professor X -- in X-Men: Legacy #219 (Feb. 2009). He also starred in two solo one-shot publications, Juggernaut #1 (April 1997) and Juggernaut: The Eighth Day #1 (Nov. 1999).

  • Why

Standard outline form does not include an A) subset if there is no B) subset, as I've noted many times, so I del'd the "Origin" subhead. The Juggernaut's history isn't so long and convoluted that his PH has to be broken down into small chunks. Also, the opening quote has got nothing to do with a factual roadmap of the character's appearances, and read as some sort of chapter heading or epigram that is not encyclopedic WP:TONE

Del'd "in a storyline": He's a fictional character; it can't be anything but a story that he's in. Better to say what role he served in the story – in this case, antagonist.

Added description of the X-Men, for general-audience reader. Changed "Sep." to "Sept." as per WPC style (and as I've noted to Asgardian many, many, many times).

Don't need to give his fictioanl origin here – that's for the FCB.

"A series of flashback sequences" can be shortened to "flashbacks."

Since he's primarily an X-Men foe, naming his non-X-Men protagonists gives information about his range; a non-comics-fan wouldn't know who starred in Amazing Adventures, for example. Also, both the cover title and the indicia title of that Hulk comic book is The Incredible Hulk, which is also as it's listed at GCD.

Del'd "and in keeping with the strong focus on continuity in the Marvel universe the combined stories formed a narrative that tracked the development of the Juggernaut's powers." First, this is OR without a citation. Second, this could be said of virtually any major character in modern serial fiction … that as the narrative continues, we learn more about the character and, in superhumans' cases, about their powers.

At the beginning of the next paragraph, I brought forward the point that X-Men had been canceled and relaunched, which a general-audience reader would not know. The same sentence gives the added information that there is a new version of the team.

The rest of this paragraph is almost exactly as Asgardian wrote it, with small changes to avoid using the word "storyline" twice in two sentences; to tone down the hype-y phrase "all-new" to simply "new"; and to change the present tense "appears" to the past tense "appeared."

The last paragraph is also mostly as Asgardian wrote it. I del'd "memorable" as POV; moved the solo appearances to their own, separate sentence; defined Xavier for general audience; and del'd "the 'Eighth Day' issue", since without context, I (let alone general readers) have no idea what that means. Also, throughout, I did some minor c/e.

I moved the Wizard part to the intro. It could arguably go somewhere else, but it really didn't belong under "Publication history."

So those are my reasons. Anyone, obviously, is free to add/edit this material, but for the sake of trying to reach out to Asgardian during his three-week block — in an attempt to get him to see how and why other editors have legitimate reasons to disagree with many of his edits, and that his may not actually be "wiki-correct" (to use his term) — please do as I've done and try to give reasons so that Asgardian can see that we're trying to do collaborative, good-faith work. Thanks. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Conroy, Mike. 500 Comicbook Villains, Collins & Brown, 2004.
  2. ^
  3. ^ Juggernaut is number 19 , IGN.


Unfortunately, DrBat insists on making blind reversions with no discussion (over two editors at present), and so the current compromise has been hammered out. The image of the Juggernaut with the Exemplars is more relevant as this ties to the character's origins and why he has the relationship with the other Exemplars. DrBat's choice is fairly poor as the Juggernaut can hardly be seen, and his rationale that the image is crucial because it tells of the character's redemption is fairly weak as it was only temporary. This change necessitated the removal of the film image to avoid picture overkill. Further comment is sought. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. The "No discussion" thing is crap. I've given my reasons several times. Furthermore, you said that "If it was a new costume etc. then fine."
2. What other editors preferred the Exemplars image over the X-Men one? Furthermore, is the Eighth Day crossover really more important to the Juggernaut's character history than his redemption?
3. How is keeping your image and removing mine a "compromise"? --DrBat (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the first instance I would ask you adhere to good-faith and not post emotive statements such as "The "No discussion" thing is crap." (See here as well : [24]).
As to your reasoning, you have blindly reverted on several occasions and have not even provided an Edit Summary. You've been spoken to about reverting for the sake of it before by BOZ. You know this. I also said if another image could be found that was truly signifcant, then it could be used. The Exemplars example is very relevant for all the reasons I have stated, as it supports the text and helps explains why the Juggernaut is what he is. Your current choice features a minute shot of the Juggernaut, who is obscured by other characters. The claim that it shows a reformed character is also dubious as it was very temporary.
When I sourced the Exemplar image, and stated that all that was required was the artist, kindly helped out. You then ignored that and reverted on his good work. That was rude and again, uncivil.
Keeping the Exemplar image was a compromise as I was prepared to accept there being another image present, even though the article really doesn't need it. Until others comment, it was the best compromise possible to prevent you from making another blind reversion. Given that you were also banned for using a sockpuppet to try and undo some of my previous edits, I would have really have expected better. We need good faith and solutions here. Thank you Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing as how you once created sockpuppets to get around a block, you're one to talk.
Furthermore, once again, you said the image would be okay if the Juggernaut was in a new costume. But if you want, we can always go back to the #161 image.
As for the Juggernaut's reformation being temporary; it still lasted five years and was an important part of his character. Furthermore, it may not be over since Juggernaut will be joining the Thunderbolts this year. --DrBat (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the above back and for and the article, some questions, observations, and two very strong requests:

  • Request 1: That both of the above editors learn to consistently indent their posts to a conversation. To the the one that most consistently has a problem with it - not indenting can make it damn hard to decipher who you are responding to and in some cases which point as well. It is not that hard to as one or more colons ( : ) at the beginning of each block of text you are posting. And yes, I'm deliberately de-denting this post as it is nor a specific response to the thread so far.
  • Request 2: Please do not take this post as a reason, excuse, blessing, or other justification to immediately flip images in the article without a full discussion. It isn't.
  • Observation 1: File:Juggernaut2.PNG fills the end requirements of an infobox image quite nicely. The file page itself has some problems. It is unjustifiably over sized - there is no reason for it to be wider than 300px. It also has a faulty file sourcing, a very faulty one. The Marvel Universe Character Bio no longer uses the image, if it ever did. Based on the images that are there, even if the file page had been pointed to there is nil as to where that wiki got the image from.
  • Observation 2: Images within an article are supposed to be there because if they weren't it would hinder the readers understanding of the topic. We tend to get away with playing lose with that with comic book character articles in that it is hard to clearly describe some costumes, visuals for powers, and objects. Showing that a character is/was a member of this group or that one, the apparent primary function of File:TheExemplars.jpg and the secondary one for File:Uncannyxmen437.jpg, doesn't need and cannot support the use of an image.
  • Observation 3: In the same way, the cover of the comic in which the character first appeared, or on which the character first appeared, can only be justified if something about the cover other than the character appearance on it is being discussed. I know this one is a bitter pill for us comic geeks who tend to feel that "first appearance" is notable and significant in it own right and worthy of depiction. Within the Wikipedia context, that is not enough. And yes, this means that File:Uncanny12.jpg, as currently used, fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is policy.
  • Observation 4: As mentioned with Juggernaut2.PNG, there are issues with the image files themselves:
    • Uncanny12.jpg - It is over sized - 300px tends to be the size for covers as published, 1/2 sourced - the original publication is noted but not where the file came from, and lacks a "Fair Use Rationale". The last, even though it is a "legacy" image could get it put up for deletion.
    • TheExemplars.jpg - It is also over sized - and in cases of artwork only the tendency is for 250px, all but unsourced - the comic was the art used in needs to be specified as well as the URL link pointing to where exactly on Comic Vine the image is, and the "purpose" is les than justifiable. In this case the lack of sourcing can get the image deleted.
    • Uncannyxmen437.jpg - Again over sized and mildly miss labeled - a cover is what appears on the comic when published and includes trade dress, UPC, branding material, etc. The file is art for the cover, not the cover.
  • Observation 5: In general, character articles shy away from including images of costume changes, especially when minor. And a color change from red-brown to silver is minor.
  • Question 1: Which is related to Observation 5. How long did the "silver" costume last? And was it related to the "...the Juggernaut's power begins to wane..." comment? Could that point be expanded and justify an image of just Juggernaut in the modified costume?
  • Question 2: Based on costumes being hard to describe, shouldn't there be an image of the Ultimate Marvel Juggernaut? Granted there may be a need to actually discuss the character in the article as well, but isn't the fact that the characters visually distinct need to be clearly shown?

- J Greb (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be willing to get rid of the Larocca image if we got rid of TheExemplars.jpg and Uncanny12.jpg as well.
If you google "Juggernaut2" you can see that Juggernaut2.PNG was the image originally used on their website. That being said, I uploaded a smaller version. --DrBat (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment per request: I agree with J Greb's assessment. Looking at the three images in question, I am in favor of removing all three. The first appearance is not sufficiently notable and itself, the image is obscure, only showing the back. Even as someone who is familiar with the Juggernaut's distinctive costume, it took me a minute to figure out what I was looking at. The Exemplars image is confusing to me, because I don't understand what his role was on the team and how an image of that would facilitate that understanding better than a simple sentence. And as for his role in the X-Men, in the grand scheme of things, while it was 5 years, the use of the character was probably not prominent enough of a conversion to warrant an image. As similar examples, neither Magneto (comics) nor Emma Frost require images depicting their conversions, and arguable, both were just as much of major villains, if not more, in the major X-Men franchise and their switch to good was far more extensive (i.e. Magneto leads the New Mutants, Emma Frost runs Gen X and becomes a central multi-title character as the headmistress of Xavier's school). The main image is fine, so long as it can be appropriately sourced (and perhaps resized). I'll try to flip through a 410 and give it a write up if I find it.Luminum (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good comments. Yes, I realized early on the image for the SHB was not truly from the comic - it is a touched up version. The image in the comic looks quite different. If we can find another suitable alternative, that would be great.

An Ultimate shot could work (this is what the character looks like: [25]) if an appropriate image could be sourced. The main SBH image; and Ultimate image and possibly the film image would be fine.

Thanks for injecting some reason into the equation. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • DrBat has gone ahead and removed all the images, although I think it would have been best to leave it for an uninvolved party. I'd like someone else to review the Ultimate Juggernaut image before moving on. Thank you Asgardian (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the problem now? Both users suggested removing the images. --DrBat (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Ultimate Juggernaut image, I recall what he looks like and while it is distinctive, I think he only appears once. The summary in "other versions" seems to support the brevity of his character in the series. If that is the case, then distinct or not, I don't think it needs an image. Generally, given that his head is still the gigantic dome shape, I think it is a relatively minimal difference. Also, I understand that you and Dr.Bat are having some conflicts, but his action was the endorsed by two other editors and I think we all agree that it is the correct action here. I understand tensions are high, but please try to separate the conflict from the actions taken. If his actions went beyond the discussion, then there would potentially be an issue with being an "involved" party.Luminum (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My point goes to something I mentioned previously to several others about being smarter editors. Yes, a course of action was suggested, but it would have been better for an uninvolved party to remove the images as it maintans a neutral status quo. That said, let us see what else can be found. Asgardian (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I put the requests in to forestall immediate removals in favor of comments. Since two editors other than those two involved in the conflict had commented and the two involved agreed, the next step is/was actually acting on it.
  • Ultimate Juggernaut - that version of the character got some use - [26] - over 5 titles and it looks like 6 arcs. As for the image... I can't seem to get into photobucket to see the one Asgardian is pointing to, though there is one at the Comic Book db link I'm pointing to.
  • I should have noticed, and mentioned, the removal of the film image. Having that image seems like a good idea since, like the Ultimate version, it is a distinctly different visual for the character.
- J Greb (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, have tweaked the film image. It would have been better to have a tad more discussion on the UJ image, but since DrBat when ahead and put it in, I added some missing information and placed it where it wasn't on top of the film image. That's probably as good as things can be, I would think. Asgardian (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like we have a winner! Thanks to all for the input! Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thunderbolts is NOT speculation[edit]

Before it gets removed again I want to point out that MARVEL itself is the source of the information stating that Juggernaut will be in the upcoming revamp of Thunderbolts, so this is NOT speculation. --Spidey104contribs 02:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Wikipedia is not a shill for Marvel. Nor is it proper to include information on plot in an article that is based on a book, comic, film, game, etc that has yet to be released. Since "things can change" and "bait and switch" solicits can be posted, especially with comics. Is this going to happen here? Yeah, it's unlikely. But, since we do not work on a deadline, anything that looks like plot information can wait for after the shelf date of the comic. And to be clear, that is the day that the retailer is supposed to put the issue on sale for the general public.
- J Greb (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here, here. J Greb is completely correct. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juggernuat's Intelligence...[edit]

should it be mentioned that he can be easliy out smarted? after all his offical ratings gave him a "2 out of 7" for Intelligence?(. (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Video game plot[edit]

Before reverting again, it would be helpful to have discussion here. WikiProjects Comics guidelines are to not have video game plots recounted at length in comics-characters articles, but simply to note the character appears in a particular game and to note any unusual circumstances — but not to give a plot, which properly belongs in the bluelinked game's article. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rtkat3 has reverted three times, including once after I asked to initiate discussion here. This is a WP:3RR vio. Please see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to have to concur that we really don't need a full paragraph of plot details for every appearance in every video game (and cartoon appearance, and even movie appearance in most cases) in character articles. For most cases, it should be sufficient to state "Juggernaut appeared as a villain in "Super Awesome Marvel Game", but is also an unlockable character." If we get a RS which states more about the character, such as how they are integral to the plot or something, we can use that RS to add more, but really we don't need a bunch of detail here. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a mutant[edit]

Shouldn't it be made more clear that Juggernaut isn't actually a mutant. I know it's covered in the character biography & the powers and abilities section, but I feel it should be made clear in the introductory section of the article that he isn't. Anyone just skimming the first section and the info in the little box would probably think he was Asaspades (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd have to agree. I think it should be made very clear to the average passer by that he (to the best of my knowledge) is the one mutant that isn't actually a mutant at all. Infact, no where on his entire wiki page is it explicitly stated that hes not a mutant. It only says he was "empowered" and "transformed" by the Crystal Gem of Cyttorak. However, in the film section it says "In this version [X-Men: The Last Stand], HE IS A MUTANT with no explicit connection to Charles Xavier" and his powers also seem to be affected by Leech (the cure) in the film. Which leads me to believe that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Not that I'm surprised the film contradicts the comic books. Maybe a mutation is a mutation, no matter the cause. But I guess that all boils down to whether or not his powers come and go with the gem... like when Onslaught managed to rip it out and chuck him across the country. Either way, the cause of his mutation/powers is a major defining characteristic and worth mentioning up front, especially since its unnatural. (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Juggernaut super humanly endurable?[edit]

DangerousGame has suggested the category:Fictional characters with superhuman durability, I think its a different ability from super human strength, and would be part of Juggernauts power of unstop ability, even if the ability does come from the Crimson Gem of Cyttorak. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Juggernaut (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did Juggernaut join the X-Men?[edit]

Based on this edit, it's not clear to me if the first paragraph under Juggernaut (comics)#2000s which says "Marko remains with the X-Men" means that he had actually joined the team, or if he was just allied with them for a time. 2601:241:4280:161:5D87:8F2A:6A6C:FF7C (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Regardless of the answer, the change being made is under the team affiliations heading of the infobox. Even if he wasn't a full-fledged member, he was affiliated with the team for a time, starting in 2002. Affiliate doesn't definitively mean member. Also, here is a link to a Marvel solicitation in which they say Juggernaut has joined the X-Men. [27] NJZombie (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's clearer now! 2601:241:4280:161:201E:BCA9:CC4C:84F4 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]