Talk:Juggernaut

Request For Comment

Hey Everyone! I am here regarding the request for comment.

From Just my simple reading there appears to be a few people in this debate. User:CS42, User:Oscarthecat and an anonymous user. Firstly to the anonymous user, I do suggest you log in and get an account. It will increase your credibilty 20 fold. It is very easy, you don't even have to supply details about yourself or an email address. What it does do is allow other users to contact you if need be.

Secondly. Might I refer to the Wikipedia policy "Wikipedia is NOT a Dictionary. Anonymous user, I understand that it would seem relevant to include a definition or a "common use" of the word, But this is not a dictionary. If every country came and placed their own common use of the word "Juggernaut" the article would be full of different definitions irrelevant to what an encyclopedia is. This is not a place to collect the entire sum of human knoledge. BUT alas check out [The Urban Dictionary] It is a fantastic place to put all the different definitions for english words that differ amoung nations. Anyone can contribute and you'd be suprised what cerrazy words come up.

Thus Anonymous user, Ill have to ask that you resist the temptation to add the definition again, but go get yourself an account, as people as passionate as you are more than needed here at the Wikipedia. --DennyCrane 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• GourangaUK's Revert is Supported - --DennyCrane 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated the following:

"Author Alfred Elton van Vogt published a short story named "Juggernaut" in 1944. It's about a strange piece of metal which materialises in a man's room and subsequently causes the downfall of Earth's economy (as far as I can remember - I lost the book which held the story)."

Until someone can verify the information. Obviously the parenthetical is POV and unencyclopedic.

• In the article, is that 45 feet high, or 45 feet long? --Mothperson 4 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

According to Encarta, that's 45 feet high. I've clarified and fixed the gramatical mistake. ~CS 4 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Yikes! That's huge. Thanks. --Mothperson 4 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Bizarre Vandalism

To the person who keep placing links to the Tesco store here, please could you refrain from making reverts. It's not relevant to the page, maybe you could mention it in a short sentence in the Tesco page itself? 81.130.185.75 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the disputed paragraph is:

In the British media, this word is commonly used in reference to the supermarket Tesco. See Google search " tesco+juggernaut ".

It is a relevent "example" of a common use of the word, in the British media. A simple Google search of news articles demonstrates this across a wide variety of sources. It is common practise to give 'examples of common use' of words. It is certainly not vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.235.142 (talk • contribs)

Glad you're entering into discussion about the case to keep such an example in the Juggernaut article. I'm of the opinion that the article should explain how a mighty force should be described as a Juggernaut, but I think the need to mention Tesco is largely irrelevant and rather POV. --Oscarthecat 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very likely the most common 'use' of the word in the uk right now - like it or not. Wether or not you agree with the context of this useage, you can't deny it or cite my example as vandalism. Just because it is not listed in the OED does not invalidate my example. This is the wikipedia not the OED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.235.142 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion it is totally irrelevant to include the Tescos reference on this page. Do you work for Tesco's maybe? Looks like a UK based broadband IP address? 81.130.185.75 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tescos entrys seem to be mixed in with a number of clear attempts at vandalism - refering to Playstation & X-Men jokes so it's hard to take it seriously. I see there's also a similar story on the Tescos page itself but it stopped a few days ago. GourangaUK 10:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The X-Men edits are actually half-legitimate. There is a prominant character called Juggernaut from the comic books, who is already coverd at Juggernaut (comics). The edits are less about vandalism, and more about fans not clicking on the disambiguation page before plugging the character into the wrong place. ~CS 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why I felt deleted paragraph was innaporpriate for the article:

1) The phrasing was unencyclopedic. The last line about Googling was added by the author to justify putting the reference in -- an argument best left for the talk page and absolutly innapororpate for the article itself.

2) It is a specific use being treated as exclusive, when it is really only an example of a broader use. There probably should be a paragraph about modern use of the word Juggernaut meaining any large and unstopable force, but the Tescos line makes it sound like this modern use is exclusive to Tescos, which it is not.

3) The article should not be a catalog of examples of this modern use of the word. There is nothing more notable about the "Tescos Juggernaut," than the "Starbucks Juggernaut" or the "Bush Campaign Juggernaut" or the "Harry Potter Juggernaut." Furthermore, he modern use of the word is incidental, and information about it should be kept as brief as possible, in favor of the historical use.

4) The British media may be on a trend where they have taken to calling Tescos a Juggernaut, but these trends come and go, and there is no indication that this use will have long-term notability.

5) I'm not certain, but I believe that the phrase is an anti-Tescos remark by those who disaprove of Tescos' business practices. This needs to be recognized, or else it is POV.

6) If it's such a common reference that it warrents inclution on Wikipedia, the appropriate place is in the Tescos article -- in an appropriate, NPOV way -- under the controvercy section. Juggernaut can be linked to from that page. ~CS

Well put. You are welcome to re-edit my addition along those lines. Although i see no harm in the inclusion of an example of common use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.252.127 (talk • contribs)

Maybe you can just say 'Tesco Juggernaut' in 'Tesco' page. You can also start a new subtitle '==common usage of juggernaut=='Carbonferum 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Carbonferum -- please discuss this Tescos stuff on the talk page before putting it back into the article. I feel like it has been discussed a great deal here, and the consensus has been pretty clear. If you'd like to argue the case, please address the above issues before putting it back into the article. We've been going around in circles on this statement for months already. ~CS 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator intervention requested

Could an admin place a sprotect on this page, as it's being repeatedly vandalised by an anonymous user wanting some clause about Tesco in here. --Oscarthecat 07:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not willing to sprotect the page and stop anyone from editing because of one user who isn't really reverting enough. Please continue to be vigilant and revert. I've added this page to my watchlist and will revert/block/sprotect as necessary. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. We've had to revert the same person from doing the same edit about 30 times this month. It's rather tiresome. Maybe they'll get bored soon. --Oscarthecat 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

30 times a month ≈ 1 time a day. That's not enough activity for a semiprotect really. I know it can get really annoying, but it's not worth locking anon/new users out for. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Page sprotected

I realise that technically speaking, there probably isn't enough activity to sprotect the page. But I'm sick of the fact that the only edits to this page are vandalism. But I've sprotected the page. Enough good people have wasted their time dealing with petty vandalism, I think. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! ~CS 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers : your flexibility re the sprotect guidelines is appreciated. --Oscarthecat 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make it in NPOV + statisfying the people who tried to edit the page 30+ times using 'Tesco Juggernaut'. I think stating it as a slang for UK media is appropriate, as this is a usage in UK media. Hope 86.112.252.127 will stop editing. --Carbonferum 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted again -- let's have a discussion here before trying to add it again.

The generic statement you added -- dispite the problem with its use of non-standard English -- simply restates the opening sentence "any literal or metaphorical force regarded as unstoppable." This is not unique to the UK, to UK media, or to business practices. It is simply someone making use of the primary use of the word, and is not notable enough to have an entire sub-section devoted to it. ~CS 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree per CS42. Let's discuss here before adding references to Tesco once again. The Tesco reference appears to be quite irrelevant : why Tesco? Could equally apply to Microsoft, Google, or the USA even. --Oscarthecat 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

New plan to deal with this Tesco juggernaut stuff

OK, well, I have a new plan. Anyone who adds references to the whole Tesco/Juggernaut thing should have a {{User:Deskana/tescobv}} template stuck on their talk page. Then if they add the reference again I'll block them. I don't care about timeframe here- if they've been warned once against this specific vandalism then they can be blocked, even if the two edits are months apart. What do you think of that, guys? Comments/suggestions? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there are only three individuals putting the Tescos line in. One primary vandal posting from multiple 86.112.xxx.xxx IPs, one anonymous user 213.40.131.66 who also characterized the Tescos removals as vandalism, and Carbonferum, whose heart was in the right place. ~CS 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd do a range block but I can't block 65536 addresses... Hm. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's 2 months now since the first report of vandalism, and it hasn't stopped yet. ?? Any new ideas? GourangaUK 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

It's been over a month and they (or he) havn't stopped yet with vandalism. Why not just lock/protect the page and have done with it? They wimped out on the Tescos page after just one or two trys, but are obviously not going away from this one. If they have a BT broadband connection then the IP address will vary each time. 82.163.63.228 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Still happening in 2009

It amazes me that this conversation dates back to 2006. I just came across the article today. Seems like attempts to stop that particular edit failed. Would it be wise to make a small section of current-day uses of the word where it can go and be done with it? Aforementioned Starbucks, etc. Boter (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Large Truck' reference

This is a nice article, the Indian etymology of the word I never knew. I have lived in the UK for many a year, and have never heard anyone use 'Juggernaut' to describe a large truck - in the literal sense I mean, I am sure that the simile 'like a Juggernaut' has been used. I just think it is a shame that an otherwise relevant article has a picture of a truck due to some small section of the population of one small country that (apparently) uses this colloquialism. My 2c. Edzillion 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously never watched the very popular 1980s/90s children's TV show Pigeon Street, then! One of the major characters was a female lorry driver (then very unusual) and the song associated with her began: "Long distance Clara drives a juggernaut. Way down the motorway, to the busy port." As mentioned, this was a kids' programme, and so wouldn't have used deliberately obscure language. (I'm British, for what it's worth, and *do* use the word, albeit only very occasionally.) 81.159.58.45 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to the actual usage in the UK, but it doesn't belong in this article anyway, it belongs on the disambiguation page linked to from the top of the article along with every OTHER use of Juggernaut (there are lots) aside from the one referenced in this article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't spotted it in the disambig page before. Gouranga(UK) 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "Juggernaut" is a term used only by a few in the UK for a large vehicle. I believe that this is the original meaning of the term. Certainly in New Zealand a juggernaut is any very large vehicle.124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When modern semi-trailer trucks were introduced into Britain in the 1950's from the US, they were much bigger than the old small British trucks and perceived as dangerous and likely to crush all before them, and someone gave them this name derived from the Indian source. This usage for large trucks was apparently common in the 1960's but now rather retro. Large trucks were never called this in Australia, when I got books and magazines sent from England when I was young, it was just about the only word I didn't know.Eregli bob (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

copied from the article (concerning pronounciation)

Just to let you know , I don't think that pronunciation sound file is quite complete , kind of cuts short. 19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)76.26.40.115 (talk)

I checked this out and confirm the clip is rather short but it plays fine of some of my audio applications. - phi (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That was in the middle of the article, so I moved it here.

Fallacy?

How is this a logical fallacy? 68.84.224.36 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

British usage

I'm British. Age 55.

The word is common parlance for a very large truck or 'lorry'. Must have been in use for at least 30 or 40 years in this context.

A juggernaut is a genuine, if slang, synonym for a large haulage vehicle.

The ref to Tesco however in the UK is simply generic, applying to any overwhelming force, and is not at all particular to Tesco in British usage.

Steve A.

Yorkshire England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.191.246 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This article reads as rather anti-British. Rather than being purely a figment of British invention, Hindu fanatics were widely regarded as throwing themselves under "Juggernaut's". The outside world could hardly have been blamed for such beliefs, given the bizarre and often bloody rituals of the Hindu devoted. This actual term wasn't in fact of British origin, either. It was invented by an American journalist! The 14th century isn't the colonial era!124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree there is a degree of British bias, your statement: "The outside world could hardly have been blamed for such beliefs, given the bizarre and often bloody rituals of the Hindu devoted," is the most biased uneducated thing I've read in a long time.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem also with the statement that this story was invented by colonials (so, say, 18th-19th century) and yet was described in the Travels of John Mandeville in the Middle Ages. 118.70.125.46 (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Travels of John Mandeville date from between 1357 and 1371, and Jehan de Mandeville most likely never actually existed. The book itself is a hodgepodge of legend and myth mixed with descriptions lifted from other sources. Furthermore, I cannot find any mention of anything related to a juggernaut in any of the works attributed to him. This, and the lack of sources for statements made in the Etymology section, are disquieting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip72 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

links

This page needs to be linked to ram, battering ram, and irresistible force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petsteph (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to take care of this while touching up the article.- phi (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Excess skepticism

There were just too many "says who" notes in here. I cannot believe all that skepticism is healthy. For example, there should be no need to question the consensus of a midnineteenth-century date for the figurative sense of this, since it is such a widely researched word. I hope I have improved on the article and hope you all will improve more on my improvements. - phi (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"apocryphally"

I hope, of course, that the story of devotees throwing themselves under the wheels is apocryphal. The word 'apocryphal', though, is not supported by the linked source, which says "European travelers recounting this event told tales of worshippers being crushed in the chariot's path. Such stories were likely exaggerated, but accidents are reportedly common and occasionally pilgrims seized with religious frenzy may try to hurl themselves beneath the wagon's wheels." Perhaps the line should be changed to "an allegorical reference to the Hindu Ratha Yatra temple car, which was reputed, possibly apocryphally, to crush devotees under its wheels. (I also wonder if a tertiary source like marthabarnette.com is an adequate source for Wiki). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Jekyll & Hyde reference

There is a disconnect between the following two statements:

The figurative sense of the English word, with the idea of "something that demands blind devotion or merciless sacrifice" became common in the mid-nineteenth century. For example, it was used to describe the out-of-control character Hyde in Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

This suggests that Stevenson's use of the word was related to the foregoing sense. In fact Stevenson uses the word to describe Hyde knocking over a young girl while running at speed:

"...the man trampled calmly over the child's body and left her screaming on the ground. It sounds nothing to hear, but it was hellish to see. It wasn't like a man; it was like some damned Juggernaut."

"...that human juggernaut trod the child down and passed on regardless of her screams"

This is closer to the definition of juggernaut as a mercilessly destructive and unstoppable force than anything to do with blind devotion or sacrifice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccferrie (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a relationship?

Not sure how to do this, but I'll just try opening this discussion and if it's bad procedure it'll get torpedoed or ignored and I won't be offended - please comment and discuss - Wikipedia is not the place for research but it is a good place to work on collecting known facts. OK, in thinking about the topic of "Juggernaut", I find a correlation between the ancient religious practice of a large cart carrying a figure (idol or govt. officer) and the modern army tank. I think anciently they used to build armored towers on wheels which could be rolled forward to attack a fortress. It could also be used against infantry or cavalry. The game of chess is an ancient battle simulation, and one of the pieces is the rook, which is shaped like a little armored tower, and in fact the king can run over and get "in" it for safety, and it also moves toward him to facilitate this. I think that ancient civilizations had these towers in war, and they paraded them at festivals etc. with maybe the king riding up there, to emphasize his power, which ultimately derived from military might. I seem to remember reading about the Romans using moving towers like this. DaVinci drew plans for an armored tank, and modern warfare has evolved in that direction. Is it possible this was not an entirely original invention in DaVinci's time? Can anyone provide further correlations or verfification? Would it be good to add some words or links or something, to note such correlations if we can identify them? It's obvious to me that some discussion here on the talk page would be less intrusive than just modifying the article. Friendly Person (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)