Talk:Steven Seagal/Archive 1

Arrisa
I just noticed that his daughter with his third wife has the same name as his mistress which he was cheating on that wife with. Did he name his daughter after his mistress?

according to IMDB, yes.Keviiinn 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)keviiinn

"Black belt" in Kendo?
I'm not sure what this is supposed to say, but kendo doesn't have belts and there is no real equivalent to a "black belt". I did some poking around and he holds a 1st Dan rank, possibly higher. Until then I'm going to site him as a 1st Dan. Katsuhagi 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seagaliana
by a consensus of wikipedians, it was determined that this useful category be eliminated. however, i maintain this valuable resource on my user page --Ghetteaux 12:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Davis
Surely the Andrew Davis who directed Above The Law is not the Andrew Davis the link suggests?! JamesEdmo 16:24, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Link to Andrew Davis removed. JamesEdmo 10:36, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Marraige
His first marriage ended in 1986, yet his second marriage began and ended in 1984. how is this so? did segal commit bigamy? was he ever charged?


 * Read the paragraph after the marriages are listed; it will answer your question. He separated from one wife, then married another before the divorce was official. Technically that's bigamy, but only in a legal sense, not a practical sense (once you sever relations with your wife, the marriage is essentially over regardless of what some bureaucratic paperwork has to say about it). -Amatulic 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Opened a dojo in Japan?
Did he actually open a dojo in Osaka? As I heard it, he took over his father in law's dojo.Habj 20:39 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Needs editing
This article seems to be mixing up facts, speculation and argument. I was considering having a go at tidying it up, but I don't think my wiki skills are up to the task. Anyway, here's a couple of good sources I found if someone wants to have a crack at it:.

His Aikido Credentials
I know that many in the aikido community really, really do not like Steven Seagal. I'm pretty sure his rank doesn't come from Hombu or anywhere else reputable. I think there should be some note of this on the page, though I am unsure the proper way to do this.


 * His rank is Aikikai. Habj 09:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

in his official site he claimes to be 7th dan from aikikai
in his official site he claimes to be 7th dan from aikikai. is there any kind support to the 8th dan rank published here?


 * There seems to be little support for him having 8th. That has been changed in the article. Habj 09:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"his legacy will always live on"
Does this mean he's dead, then?


 * The overall tone in the article is not so encyclopedia-like... Habj 09:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seagal has received personal tactical training from Ken Turnupseed, world renowned pistol expert, and is as deadly in real life with a handgun as he is on film.


 * I have to agree, and say that parts of this article sound more like a melodramatic advertisement than a Wiki article. WTF? - Eric 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag
I'm not exactly his biggest fan, but he's a well known actor, and should have a better written article than this. I get the feeling this is not much more than an article from a martial arts magazine and therefore possibly even a copyright vio Coyote-37 6 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

Many thanks to the user who just did the cleanup here- you improved the page a great deal! I've just done a spelling tidy up, but kept the essence of the article Coyote-37 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Aikidovideoclips from Steven Seagal
http://www.akkaly.be

Photo
Berhaps a better quality photo for the page of the man? 131.181.251.66 00:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The photo, F16.JPG‎, is not that nice. Ceacal 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Terribly POV
This article is a hatchet job on Segal, especially the Trivia section. I am personally no fan of the guy, but the tone of many of the comments is simply unprofessional.
 * Unfortunately this page seems to be ruled by people not interested in making an encyclopedic entry. In the past myself and some other users have attempted to clean up here, but all the POV stuff soon found it's way back in. I've a sneaky feeling there's just a martial arts cabal here with some sort of vendetta against the man. Like you, I'm not even a fan, it's just that the way this page is written, it's an embarrasment to Wikipedia. Coyote-37 13:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Give examples. What areas of the article are NPOV? You mentioned the Trivia article, but the only one I can think of is the Saturday Night Live one, and even that is simply opinion by outside sources, not those reflected upon users of Wikipedia. --Antoshi~! T 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Examples? Anywhere that says "citation needed" for one thing. The article is filled with loaded language ("egocentric and irrational", "self-indulgent" etc.) that should be replaced with neutral language or eliminated. There's also a definite emphasis on anything negative whether rumor or not; for example, allegations about stuntman abuse have speculations cited as references! Allegations aren't appropriate for an online encyclopedia. I could make allegations on any Wiki page about any subject and provide citations to my own web pages that contain those allegations. That's ridiculous. As was said above, this article is a terribly POV hatchet job.

No mention of the Lama's Daughter?
There should be some mention of Yabshi Pan Rinzinwangmo here. See http://tibetoffice.org/en/index.php?url_channel_id=8&url_publish_channel_id=786&url_subchannel_id=13&well_id=2

How does this sound
"People are generally very parted on their opinion of Seagal. Fans calls him "The great one", and calls him one of the best martial artists of today, while non-fans are critizing his acting talent, his weightgain in the later years, and his extensive use of bodydoubles in fightscenes."

I think that the article needs something like this, but I dont think it is quite NPOV enough, somehow. Any suggestions, or is that paragraph not needed? 82.192.146.25 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

there probably should be a crit section as he's has been found in many "false" claims about being s secret agent. And as a funny side note he was choked out by Gene Lebell and peed his pants : P

He also claimed he could beat up Bruce Lee in their prime, but after his choke out from Gene...most concur that its was mostly talk as he did eventually apologize for the comment

Gene LeBell
Apparently, according to speculation and rumours, Seagal and Gene LeBell had some kind of disagreement on a movie set. Gene LeBell ended up grappling Seagal rendering Seagal unconscious. Segal has neither admitted or denied these rumours which lends credibility to them.

If someone doesn't cite a reliable source on this, I'm going to remove the information from the article soon. Seagal being choked out by LeBell is a rumor that's been repeated a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is anything more than that. The only "source" in the article right now is a link to some speculative gossip on an EZBoard BBS. If I have to explain to you why that's laughable, you should be editing a grade-school newspaper and not Wikipedia. I'm by no means a Seagal fanboy (I'm actually a bigger fan of LeBell), but something as serious as a guy getting choked into unconsciousness, crapping himself, and putting a gag order on someone needs a more reputable source than unconfirmed gossip by anonymous jokers on an Internet forum.

It's a fiction. Over the years I have been following Martial Arts, I have heard stories about 'Judo' Gene LeBell physically man-handling Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jean-Claude Van Damme, even Jeff Speakman after 'The Perfect Weapon' came out. Apparently, since Gene is an older fellow and really heavyset, those enthusiastic about his judo and weapons techniques feel the need to 'prove' he can hang with the more well-known movie action stars by making up stories like this.

I really hope that the story is true (Seagal runs his mouth, gets choked out by an old man, and shits all over himself) becuase it is like the best story I have heard all Year, even if it is false I'm telling everone I know about it!

Jewish?
Is his father really Jewish? I'm trying to locate a site were it claimed his father was actually of Native American ancestry...  which I really thought he was since many claim Seagal has native american features? --Dynamax 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to say that you can't be Native American and Jewish?

On a slightly different track, but is he related to George and/or Jason?

Navy SEAL
How about a bit of information about how he used to claim to be a former Navy SEAL, yet was discredited as a liar by the Department of the Navy. Batman2005 07:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Phoney CIA Agent
He once claimed to have been a CIA Agent. He has made loads of other bogus claims too.

Takeshigemichi and Chungdrag Dorje
It has been suggested that the two entries be merged with Steven Seagal. Actually neither entry contains information that is already not in the Steven Seagal entry and are only linked via the Steven Seagal entry and User:Ghetteaux. I suggest the two entries are simply deleted. And while we are at it - who exactly refers to Steven Seagal as the Great One. Curious minds want to know.Peter Rehse 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

a response
Regardless of how we (as individuals) feel about the man, his impax have been in multiple fields -- thus, he is known by many names. I note that PRehse seems interested in reducing Seagal-related content generally, based on his reversion pattern, and the deletions he suggests above.

I would suggest that deletion is not a step forward by any measure. Do the libraries of the world delight in culling books and periodicals? Only when space becomes an issue do they reluctantly deaccession. Since space is moot here, deletion "for expedience" can only be justified through contextually-determined criteria. Since context undermines neutrality, our best course of axion remains leaving those works alone which we cannot contribute to.

PRehse, I respeckt and admire your abilitiez in the aikido-knowledge realm. Therefore, I have no cause nor wish to delete your efforts. So I ask, what motivates you to "burn the books," as it were? I am certain that you would not go out of your way to step on a precious flower, just because you were not its gardener, nor because it was not your favorite; why then to delete someone's honest effort?

Let the knowledges blossom, my friends; any wise sensei would ask no more of you. --Ghetteaux 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just redirect the articles here, and mention the other names he is known as? Four different articles (and from what I noticed, four different pictures) are absolutely not necessary to describe one person. Bloodshedder 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghetteaux If you look at my edit patterns overall it is to make the Aikido articles consistent. I've put Steven Seagal back where he was removed by others and treated him as any other Aikidoist that put his time in. The whole point of all my edits is to make the Aikido articles encylopediac rather than a glee club for any one man. So you are a fan - hey I like his movies, rented one last night - but lets get real here. Its not deletion for space but to be consistent with the purpose and practice of Wikipedia. I suggested by the way - I haven't deleted it yet.Peter Rehse 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bloodshedder I think that whoever originally suggested the merging had that in mind. Its been done that way in other situations.Peter Rehse 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said earlier I'm not too worried what goes on in the Steven Seagal page but I did ask an administrator if there was a specific policy regarding multiple bio entries for one person. Apparently not but he did say "Myself, I'd say we should have one article and redirects as necessary. There isn't a stated policy, but there has been a strong tendency to avoid this kind of cruft." End result as it stands now I'll say my piece here but let others deal with it. Have fun guys.Peter Rehse 02:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete As someone who has not been involved in this debate, this Chungdrag Dorje does not deserve its own article... I don't even know what it means, but Steven Segal is NOT the dalai lama. pm_shef 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * CHUngdrag got merged, and I think that works. as for Takeshigemichi, it deserves its own category, as the aikido work of seagal is an art unlike any other. --Ghetteaux 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. It doesn't matter how good an aikidoka he is, there's no reason to list a famous individual separately by each one of their titles. Gichin Funakoshi doesn't get a separate article for his pen name Shoto (for that matter, neither does Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain), and various royal historical figures, regardless of their importance, do not get dozens of articles separately noting them for their many titles. The article should be merged.


 * Halloween jack, in many ways you are correct: the honorable Seagal is multidimensional, much like the hypercube. But should each plane of his life be picked apart and separated? I will agree that adding articles such as The Brickster (Steven Seagal's old basketball nickname) or Dominatrius (his longtime "sex name") would be stretching it a littel too far. But with that in mind, you must note that Takeshigemichi has made his mark on this world separate from the (albeit much, much larger) impacct of Lord Steven. --Ghetteaux 23:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't need to be separated, which is why the articles should be merged. --Halloween jack 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

the update: towards a more balanced seagal
my colleagues, we are forever bound by the study of the Seagal. Your collective guidance and thoughtfulness have made this part of the internet a better place to be. my unending, deep thanks to Halloween jack and Peter Rehse in particular for keepin it real. --Ghetteaux 13:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder on what grounds he is addressed as a "modern polymath."

There doesn't seem to be anything that points to that referenced, so if someone could do that, because the claim would be tough to make stick in the average viewer's mind.

Takin' a break -- catch you dudez on the flip side
to my homies on the Seagal page: thanks for keeping the real knowledge flowin, and the ponytails growin.

But, like the guys in high school who come back after graduation, I'm startin to pheel like i ain't welcome no more. seems like some dudes didn't like my style of linkin up the articles.

4 reel, homies -- cheque it: the beat down I'm talkin about.

so i'm gonna just chill out an kick it in the "RW" 4 a few days. I hoap 2 see you guyz again soon.

Piece out. --Ghetteaux 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed most of the "abuse of stuntman" section
Here's what I took out:


 * One incident is widely repeated: On one movie set, upon injuring a friend of stuntman Gene LeBell, as well as making the statement that his high level of "ki" could prevent him from being choked out, Gene was reportedly forced to place a choke hold on Seagal, as again he made it clear he was attacking the testicles (see []).


 * Due to the rumored legal actions related to these events, the rest is unclear. However, many recounts (including material originally appearing in the New York Times and Vanity Fair ; ; ; ; ; ; ) relate these common elements: Gene apparently choked him out, and Seagal made the statement that he wasn't ready. A second time Seagal was put in a chokehold, he became unconscious and lost bowel control. Upon waking up he threw Gene off the set. A writ was filed against LeBell; if LeBell speaks of this event, Seagal intends to sue aggressively.


 * Seagal and LeBell have neither confirmed nor denied these events.


 * Seagal has been included in a list of personalities of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism that have been singled outfor criticism of their actions by a site that is made by Buddhists themselves and want to clean up a religion that's dogged by mad behaviours and error.

Here's why: these sources are iffy, and these statements are potentially libellous. On top of that, the first paragraph is complete gibberish that I can't parse. It's all hearsay at best, of course, since the article itself notes that neither side has confirmed or denied that they happened (which is total BS, by the way; you know, people usually don't confirm or deny most things that didn't happen). Some of the many websites cited here give conflicting accounts, and all of them are just spouting rumours. You know, I read on a forum one time that this thing with Gene LeBell didn't happen&mdash;should we cite that? As for the American Buddha paragraph, I hope that won't require an explanation. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing iffy about the sources. It is one of the most well-known stories about Seagal.  If LaBell recanted, we should absolutely include that and cite it. --Mr j galt 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Recant what? The above says he has neither confirmed nor denied that this happened. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood you. You said "I read on a forum one time that this thing with Gene LeBell didn't happen."  If it is a reliable source, let's cite it!  But by all means, this is an important story about Seagal that requires inclusion. --Mr j galt 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's review the sources that are being cited here:
 * http://p102.ezboard.com/fsfuksubmissionfightingukfrm1.showMessage?topicID=266.topic ; SFUK Forum
 * http://www.steven-seagal.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158815 ; stevenseagal.net forum, in which someone describes a story told to him by someone named Bob Wall who says he heard it from LeBell
 * http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsdraeger_alivsinoki.htm ; "JCS/The Great Enablers" by Donn F. Draeger. Seagal is mentioned in a footnote which mentions "Persistent but unconfirmed stories" about him and LeBell.
 * http://www.thievesjargon.com/content/workview.php?work=14 ; "All the Dead Pro Wrestlers" by Hollywood. Contains one relevant sentence: "Me and the Producer heard about how he got choked out and pissed himself on a movie set when he tried to push around his stunt coordinator, a 60 year-old Judo Master Badass named Gene LeBell." If he pissed himself, why does Wikipedia say that he lost bowel control?
 * http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=989112002 ; "New twist to Seagal saga" by Mark Coleman. Certainly the most respectable of the lot, but the relevant text is this one sentence referring to something somebody else wrote in Vanity Fair: "The piece, which appears under the headline "Seagal under Siege", also disputes the actor’s abilities as a martial artist, recounting how a stuntman, Gene LeBell, once choked him unconscious during an aikido demonstration." That's a bit less dramatic of a story that the way we have it, and it says nothing about how Vanity Fair claims to have learned this.
 * http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=25&Number=15806220&page=0&fpart=all ; fightingarts.com forum. Relevant portions starts with some guy saying, "I heard two stories ..."
 * http://www.1wrestlinglegends.com/columns/interviews/inrd.htm ; Interview with Ric Drasin, "the Equalizer". He gives the same story that is available elsewhere on the web, but doesn't say how he claims to know it.
 * http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/steven_seagal.htm ; Website of Luke Ford (whoever that is). Quotes the NY Post as saying that Vanity Fair said that LeBell "once choked Seagal unconscious". In fact, this appears to be a near-quotation of the Mark Coleman article cited above.

None of these really seem to me like acceptable sources for the claims we're making. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is like the greatest thing I have heard in like 10 years. Steven Seagal shitting all over himself after running his mouth. This is like the best news ever, way to make my year wikipedia!!!
 * I think that this content should be put back on the main page. Face it people your hero got choked out by a 60 year old man then he shit his pants, end of story.


 * As noted above, it's hearsay and has no place in an encyclopedia article. None of the sources point to anything definitive; all those "sources" are also hearsay. Just because an allegation exists doesn't make it true. Amatulic 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Added an extra note to Gene LeBell, people should not get the idea that Seagal was choked out by just "a stuntman". LeBell is a twice over Judo champion and been named as the "Toughest Man in the World".

Steven Seagal
This person is embroiled in various scandals and conflicts that are more cases of street-fighting than anything a moral and responsable religious figure could be accepted to be seen in. (excerpt from American Buddha Online Library) Thanks Mr j galt for defending the posts here, as Nat Krause has a hidden agenda from the cult behind Seagal and that's all embroiled in hidden agendas from the Tibetans that don't know what to make out of all this stuff anyways and think they can get some advantage out of this all for themselves, even if no morality remains in the end. They couldn't give a darn though because they're way over the edge already. Geir Smith 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out idiot-Nat Krauses interventions on Wikipedia. He's a specialist in abusive deleting of articles about Buddhism aiming at eliminating everything that's not part of his cult. Looks like he's the one the joke's on and the one on the ground getting his testicles beat in on this. Geir Smith 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nat Krause, you can't just impose your views in a POV way on this non-Buddhist page about Seagal. Thousands of people don't buy his being a Buddhist whether they be Buddhists or not and you're not in the majority here. You're POV because you post to a lot of Buddhist pages and are thus not NPOV but Buddhist-influenced. You're not irreproachable on your Buddhist level either because you follow the views of a cult of Buddhism such as in American Buddhism, Trungpa or else the splinter, anti-Dalai Lama group of the Shugdens. Your contributions show your track record of very heavily Buddhist posting so how can anyone take your impartial view for granted ? Three reverts here without talking about them makes you eligible for editing-rights confiscation and this will not be a threat, because anyone here on this page, that are aikido specialists, will pull the plug on you this time around, eh ! I may not do it, being a Buddhist, and a compassionate person who would not do something harmful to others, but here on this page I don't guarantee they won't jump you ! He he he ! Aikido ! You don't get it that the theme with Seagals misdeeds is a case for law not ~for whatever faith you and him have in common : a misguided and misunderstood interpretation of Buddhism as a whitewash for messing around like this page describes for Seagals deeds. You just don't get it, Krause, that Buddhism also is about being good not bad. Seagal is bad. Do you get that ? Maybe I should say it in Tibetan  ! Ha ha ha ! Geir Smith 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Geir Smith, I have no idea what the FUCK you are talking about. Could you explain what edits Nat Krause has made which you object to so vehemently? I have no idea what you're trying to start and argument about, or what it does (or doesn't) have to do with Buddhist religion.


 * Nat Krause objects to Steven Seagal being on a list of Buddhists that a Tibetan Buddhists site has created and is also on Wikipedia, and the people on ths list are singled out for criticism for bad behaviour like Seagals. Krause doesn't want that and wants to use his editing rights to just outright delete without talking about it. Nat's deleted twice in a day : and three times takes his editing rights away. It's forbidden. He always deletes like that. He just browses through Wiki and takes out whatever he doesn't like and doesn't excuse himself to anyone. He thinks he's in a garden cutting roses or sauntering through a supermarket picking stuff up and putting it in his little cart ! Not any more though. Three edits and he's out of WIki. He's on whatever Buddhist topic there is on Wiki and fights for his cult whenever anything crops up about it. Seagal, Trungpa or anything with Tibetan Buddhism. Geir Smith 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering the fact that the article you linked me to doesn't even include a link to the website it's about, is a possible candidate for deletion, and most of all, is written in terrible and largely nonsensical "English," I'm inclined to agree that no link between Seagal's page and that of the ABOL or related categories should be established until it's been decided that the ABOL page meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, quality, and NPOV. Given that the controversies surrounding him have been fairly well-documented in his own article, I think that most people will be able to figure out that Seagal hasn't been the ideal Buddhist without being referred to another article/webpage that tells them so in boldface. This is not the crisis situation that you're making out of it, and all this shrill carping about Nat Krause being a fascist Wiki editor is aggravating. --Halloween jack 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that the subject has generated some sort of controversy, I suppose it is only fair that I explain my rationale for removing the "included in a list of personalities" passage. The complete text in question was, "Seagal has been included in a list of personalities of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism that have been singled outfor criticism of their actions by a site that is made by Buddhists themselves and want to clean up a religion that's dogged by mad behaviours and error." I removed this partly just because it was in the wrong section: this stuff has nothing to do with a Stuntman abuse controversy. Second, it is making its point not by actually telling us what Seagal has been criticised for and by whom, but instead it just tells us that he was included on a list by some website that seems to exist only on-and-off lately. Third, it is awkwardly written so that its meaning is a bit unclear (should "and want to clean up ..." be "who want to clean up ..."?). Fourth, the bit at the end about wanting "to clean up a religion that's dogged by mad behaviours and error" is just POV rambling. The situation is unfortunate, really, because I do think it would be good for balance to have something criticising Seagal qua Buddhist: he's certainly controversial, to the extent that people bother to have an opinion of him at all. However, the above, I think, does not constitute an acceptable contribution on this topic.

For the record, I'm not a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism, and, for that matter, I'm not a fan of Steven Seagal, either&mdash;I've only seen one of his movies, which was the godawful Into the Sun. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 09:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Distancing from Buddhism
OK I looked at the site talked above and frankly the whole entry seems more an advertisement for a particular site and view than anything to do with Seagal. It is enough to say that the nameing of Seagal as a Tulka is not without controversy under Chungdrag Dorje and just delete the Distancing from Buddhism section. Any comments.Peter Rehse 10:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "Distancing from Buddhism" section. First of all, it's not necessary-Buddhists and non-Buddhists have criticized Seagal's professed religious convictions in the past, as well as his status as a tulku, and the fact that a particular organization feels they have a particular axe to grind is of no consequence. Second, Wikipedians have not yet reached a consensus on whether or not the article on the American Buddha Online Library even deserves to be on Wikipedia. Third, the section itself (as well as the article to which it refers) is written in such terrible "English" that I'm not even confident enough that I understand the original author's meaning well enough to try to correct it. Finally, I'm now convinced that this issue is just a manufactured controversy created by Geir Smith, who appears to either have some kind of grudge against those he sees as "false" Buddhists, or an agenda to propagate the viewpoint of the ABOL across Wikipedia as the dominant one. --Halloween jack 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is all sweeping things under the carpet. First of all it's Seagal not me who's made his recognition known across the globe. If this is bringing in comments by people other than me, it's not my fault. Seagal has to live with the flak or popularity this particular item is bringing him. Please comment but I'm afraid the paragraph has to remain because just saying he's "criticized" is not enough. In Buddhist circles, I can tell you that Seagal is a nuisance big time. Buddhism is a one billion comma five-strong religion throughout Asia and this guy hogging the limelight with this reincarnation thing is not good. This is not just talking about an action hero but far further than just that. It's the soiling of the worlds third largest religion. He's the only Westerner recognized in this fashion and it's not going well for him in it. So this has to come out and be aired correctly. Covering up on fallacious pretexts is not going to work. This guy has to come clean about all the aspects of his life; that's what real celebrity is about : being ready to face the camera in your personal life too. You have to be irreproachable to face the music big time or else you're dead. Geir Smith 22:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seagal's willingness or unwillingness to "come clean" is completely irrelevant to this debate. Seagal has been widely criticized, but as it stands, I don't believe the majority of Americans do not strongly associate Buddhism with Seagal or vice versa. What you're really doing here is trying to find a flimsy justification to include an entire section in the guy's article just to make note of the fact that you don't like him very much. You also seem to think that this is some sort of high-emergency crisis situation in which Seagal's actions run the risk of bringing about some sort of backlash against the Buddhist religion across Western civilization. No such danger exists. Seagal's article already makes extensive notes of the things he's done which are widely considered incompatible with Buddhist beliefs-the segment is unnecessary. And there's no attempt to "sweep it under the rug" here-Seagal is already a widely-criticized figure! Very few people are trying to hold him up as an admirable "holy man." As for the nuisance he causes in "Buddhist circles," there are lots of Christian groups who have openly criticized figures like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell-that doesn't merit including entire sections in those persons' articles for each and every grievance brought against them. --Halloween jack 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're comparing Seagal with Falwell or Robertson. Tell me you're joking. No, you're way out left field and have no sense of perspective. Seagal is more like Waco. This cannot be treated this easily in an off-the-cuff way like you're saying. I think you're making much too big an issue of this. Just let Seagal go and don't be attached like this. Relax. He's got to go. This is a closed issue. Better just forget it. Forget Seagal. Geir Smith 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response is contradictory and makes no sense. I'm making too big an issue out of it, but I'm also treating the matter too casually? I should just let Seagal go because it's not a big issue, but Seagal is as radical and crazy as the Branch Davidians? (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about when you mention "Waco.") I should relax because it's not a big deal, but you think that Seagal's reputation is a major offense to Buddhism?

I think that Seagal is a B-list celebrity who has had a colorful, varied, and somewhat shady career, who is inextricably tied up in some religious practices that don't seem to mesh with his lifestyle. That's it, as far as my concerned. You are the one who seems to think that his involvement in Buddhism is some kind of big deal, not me. --Halloween jack 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point of view there Hallo, but it's like a drum that sounds louder when it's amplified on the other side of the skin. Seagal is not big in Buddhism to those who are outside Buddhism but his fame makes him more than his size when he comes into the little arena of Buddhism. It's like you take a rock star coming off stage, the sound volume has to be taken down to a reasonable level when he enters a small room. So, a deafener being put on this all about his Buddhist "career" is essential and even just the one-line sentence that's now on the page is better than nothing. One needs a different version being given and that that comes from the Buddhist gallery and not from outsiders to it. I thought people should at least realize that Buddhists don't just take all this stuff blindly and in fact accept any of the weird things he does. Just putting the record straight is what I'm doing. Even if the Buddhist gallery doesn't get more than one line to represent it, at least that has to be right and express what it does now, which is that the Buddhists feel this is ridiculous. A message for PRehse : I can put the link to the site directly but one has to Sign in then. If that's OK, why not ? But other links that are cached also are on the site and really it's much easier to just click on it and get it outright isn't it ? Geir Smith 17:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos
I just noticed...there's now a total of 8 or 9 photos on this page. Is that many really necessary? --Halloween jack 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How many of them are fair use? We should certainly get rid of all of the ones that are; I suppose, if they are all, we could maybe keep 1. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * pleeze see sexxion below, "honorabul deletors." --Ghetteaux 13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiPOVia
obviously there are many north american buddhists, fans, and aikidoka out there (c.f. Asiaphile, Japanophile, Wikilawyering). But seriously, will deleting all the photos from Steven Seagal really advance the cause of your adopted cultures? not really -- all it does is make this page look boring. Congratulations -- you made this look like geocities circa 1997. --Ghetteaux 13:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, look, I like images, too. However, Wikipedia is for free content. The images that you have uploaded are copyrighted. If you can find some free (i.e. Creative Commons, GFDL, or public domain) images of Steven Seagal and upload them, that would be great. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Gay
I have heard Seagal is gay and supports same-sex marriage. Is this true?

I have noticed that there is 2 COMPLETELY different statements made in this article. Firstly it states that he uses a homophobic point of view in many of his movies and then it goes on to state that he advocates same-sex (HOMOSEXUAL) relationships. If he is homophobic then how can he advocate homosexual relationships ??

I removed that entry from the trivia section. There are no sources to back up that claim and I also couldn't find any on the net. mensch • t 11:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In the past week I have removed two instances of vandalism that modified a sentence to say that Seagal attempted to pursue a career making gay porn movies. Amatulic 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Aikido Name?
What the *!@& is an "Aikido name"? Practitioners of Aikido are not given names by their teachers. Instead of "Aikido name", this should be called Seagal's "Japanese name" or something like that.

Uncited Trivia
The trivia section of this page has become a clearinghouse for idiotic vandalism and unfounded bullshit. If no one voices their objections here, I'm going to go through the trivia section soon and remove everything that seems suspect which does not cite a source. --Halloween jack 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No objections whatsoever. I think the trivia section will look very slim and minimalistic after your cleaning session, don't know how long it will last, because the spamming by anonymous users in the Trivia section is getting worse and worse.  mensch • t 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. Have done some clearing myself, and would do some good seeing how long this article is. Blue80 15:58 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Halloween jack, I think it is about time someone stepped up and cleaned out the trivia sexxion. i agree that some young bucks are really adding a bunch of weird weird things up in there. does it sort of seem that alot of the weird trivia is coming from Scotland? --Ghetteaux 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the trivia comes from Scotland because he has a massive fan base there


 * to the Scots: mad propz 4 keepin it reel, keepin the internets full of seagal info. the "massive fan base" you speak of gets my madd respect. REPRESENT! --Ghetteaux 13:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Which items of trivia are incorrect?


 * To be honest? I have no idea. I'm certain that some of the really outlandish ones are false, like the claims that Seagal rehearses fight scenes without pants. For all I know, Seagal really does own a signed 1st edition of Mein Kampf, adores the Mike Flowers Pops, etcetera. But with so much junk floating around, I think it's necessary to remove stuff when the person who inserted it fails to come up with a citation in a reasonable amount of time. Also, having reviewed the history of the page, I'm noticing that even some of the more believable entries (including ones which appear to include a source) were inserted by users who also have a history of contributing outright vandalism to the page. I hate to be a WikiNazi, but this crap is getting out of hand, and I'd have to be a fool not to be automatically suspicious of any new entries which appear suspicious and don't cite a source which can be independently verified, especially those made by anonymous users with a history of vandalism. --Halloween jack 05:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I happen to know that Seagal does collect vintage telephones, as i've sold to him on Ebay several times, mainly fully intact trimphones but also plugs and wire so it looks like he may refurbish them too. --Fastmacuk 20 April 2006


 * Until a reputable source confirms the existence of "Scent of Action", I will be blocking any and all users who re-add it to the article. Consider this a warning. DS 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether or not Scent of Action exists, but the news article confirms that he was asked about it on the radio show.--Halloween jack 17:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Granted. But from what I can tell, that's a denial of its existence. DS 14:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs New Photo
Seagal looks quite a bit older now, and he's gained a ton of weight. It's probably time to add a new photo, if someone can find one that's licensed.

I agree. A new photo is definitely needed. The man in the picture at the beginning of this page does not resemble the Steven Seagal of today at all.

Mystical Dog Incident
I removed the paragraph about the Mystical Dog Incident, because 1.) it had nothing to do with Seagal's "Animal Rights Work" and 2.) It is ultimately insignificant and doesn't contribute much to the article as a whole; at best it was merely an extended trivia item.

Blue80 22/06/06


 * hey, Blue, your work on The Great One's page has helped alot. but i might argue that 1) that story was offered by steagal as a reason for animal rights, and 2) if it was significant to steagal, it is significant enough for his article. I did alter the text to give it some context, based on your suggestions. keep on doin what you do, homie. --Ghetteaux 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SEAGAL IN NEW ACTION MOVIE WITH VAN DAME
THATS RIGHT STEVEN SEAGAL LAST NIGHT CONFERMED HE WILL STAR IN THE NEW MOVIE HELLS HIGHWAY CO STARING VAN DAME AND CHUCK NORRIS,SEAGAL WILL PLAY LA COP JOHNNY STEAL THIS IS A MUST SEE MOVIE.
 * I think you forgot to turn your CAPS LOCK key off... mensch • t 23:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the only thing wrong about this... CPT Spaz 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion page and the article itself has had me crying with laughter. Its better than most of the Uncyclopedian articles. I beleive it is quite possible that he is a tulku, that he saw a mystical dog that warned him of a fire at his dojo in Japan, that he is a funnier guy than Keenan Ivory Wayans, can speak Indigenous Australian dialects to convince the locals to come to his movies in Australia, has been known to "kick guys nuts to see if they were wearing cups" [11],has long-standing peer relationships with animals. This is the first time I've read the article... I was doing research for an essay on martial arts... The article just looks like it has many random Uncyclopedian jokes carefully laid among the facts about his life. Peace!Drakonicon 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing this page
Yeah, I'm anonymous. Still, 'anyone can edit', right? So I'm removing the speculation, rumor milling, and all the crap about his career going down the tubes. I don't see how it adds anything to the article. Even if it does, the way it is written now is more like a tabloid or a scathing review, rather than an impartial fact based summary, and therefore it has no place on wikipedia.

And to the admins, get off my jock.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Thank you and goodnight.


 * I suggest you lose the belligerent attitude — but at the same time I applaud your efforts to make this article more NPOV, and I reject any admin's assertion that your edits constitute 'vandalism' as is alleged on your talk page. Any admin who restores highly POV content to an article has no credibility. I would like to see an administrator respond to justify reverting your deletions, as this article was a POV travesty before. Amatulic 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like taking a beligerant attitude, but after having my changes reverted repeatedly with threats of being blocked from wikipedia for 'vandalism', I'm a little agitated. The article was a POV travesty, filled with negativity towards Steven, speculation, and unverifiable 'facts'. Perhaps I'm in the wrong on this, but I feel putting a suggestion for a cleanup really wasn't enough. I don't think the pieces that I removed should be on the page unless they have citations that can be proven as fact, instead of referring to tabloids, and if that makes me a 'vandal' then so be it. I also agree that the administrators who continually threaten me and revert the changes are of questionable credibility. I mean, have they even bothered to read the stuff that was removed? It's all POV garbage that has no place on this site. As I've said before, if people want to read tabloid garbage, theres plenty of other outlets for that. This site aspires to be a fact based encyclopedia, and should be held to a higher standard.


 * I agree, but now after looking at your deletions, I think you got a bit too enthusiastic with the axe. There's a difference between surgical editing and outright amputation. Some content you deleted could have been fixed up as more NPOV instead of cutting out. I notice that another user BertieBasset has re-started what you were doing, only more slowly and methodically, deleting small phrases like you did, but trying to make the larger sections more NPOV. Give BertieBasset a chance to finish these efforts before you go deleting more stuff. BertieBasset appears to agree with you too! You can help out by surgically removing things. If you want to amputate something big, discuss it here first. Amatulic 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Seagal, in fact I recall seeing maybe one movie he was in, but I have to say I'm impressed with the way this article is turning out, NPOV-wise. I've been watching it evolve. It's a great improvement over the hatchet-job of a month ago. It seems like every passage backed up by questionable references or rumor has been removed. -Amatulic 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Promotion
Yup - huge improvement over time. I rated the article a B.Peter Rehse 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to B where it should be. There is a process for promotion - the next step up is to nominate it for Good Article (GA) status. Although GA status is not a requirement for A there are too many issues with this article for direct promotion and besides "No editors involved in the writing of an article should self-assess their article at this level" (see WikiProject Biography/Assessment.Peter Rehse 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Seagal lives in a suburb of Memphis called Collierville. His daughter has a terminal disease and goes to St.Jude. Please dit the page with this information. SickFreakMKO 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)SickFreakMKO

Cite is retarded. Why in the hell is the Rinpoche article on the Internet considered to be worth a damn? It's just some freaky BS and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Vegetarian?
he's in the vegetarian category at the end of the page, but it doesn't actually say anywhere that he's a vegetarian. is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.99.64 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

About the woofactor source
I'm a bit confused -- several critical claims are supported by the third citation, but the link is to a site that generally reproduces the wikipedia page and cites it. What's the basis for this? A13ean 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Steven Seagal CIA ties
I remember there being some controversy regarding Steven Seagal and CIA ties. He apparantly mentioned this in a magazine or newspaper interview however then "neither confirmed or denied" the reports in a television interview. Before creating a topic in the wiki it's probably best to discuss it here first as I don't have the facts. In addition the the documented case of tormenting stuntmen I got news (maybe just a rumour) of Seagal being badly beaten on set by supporting actors.&mdash; Discography 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Having worked for "the agency" The CIA folks have always joked about Segal. He never, ever worked there. He has aluded to a relationshop which simply does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.149.90 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

- So you have the list of all current and former officers and contract employees in front of you? Of course it sounds unbeleivable, but why should anyone believe you either. You're not on my list.

- Not sure if wikipedia - verifiability includes personal conversations with the author of the comment. I participated in the joking amongst agents, but obviouly I cannot prove it or name folks in the conversation.

Professor Gibbs here at Kansai University said that Seagal had no interest in Japanese culture or language but was instead only interested in the girls. 121.94.38.75 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

- I see no problem with that.


 * Uhm, first-hand factual knowledge: Seagal-Sensei speaks fluent Japanese. VERY fluent. --JT (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Was he really killed?
I can't find any sources that say Seagal died by being in essence "Humped" by an elephant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolkider (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Seagal didn't actually get 'humped' to death by an elephant, but there is an internet video spreading around with Seagal's head edited (poorly) onto the body of an actual elephant 'humping' someone. The man at the end falls over exhausted and its a common mistake to think he's died allthough in the last few seconds he moves slighty as if to get up. Hope this makes things clearer.

Seagal Photo
Who ever chose that first photo of Seagal mustn't like him very much! :)--Mateo2006 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone ??? 85.22.21.252 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Backtable 00:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Royal Friendship
This is utter bunk, beyond the semi-related truth that his Majesty has, at one point, stated that he's enjoyed some of Seagals movies. Any point of 'friendship' is wishful thinking, at best. 213.113.252.64 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo, added a couple of new facts about Steven
Hi all, I've added a couple of new facts about Steven Seagal that he told on a TV show in Britain. He is an active Deputy Chief Sheriff with the SWAT team in his home town of Jefferson Parish in Lousiana, USA, and also used to be a personal bodyguard for Desmond Tutu! Fr33kMan 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seagal himself is not an especially reliable source for biographical information about himself. What he says about his exploits should be treated with caution, if not outright scepticism, and requires verifiable corroboration. --Rrburke(talk) 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been no subsequent attempt to substantiate these claims, so I'll yank them after a decent interval unless somebody can marshal some evidence. --Rrburke(talk) 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put these back, because I think that Steven Seagal is probably a better source of his biography than you are! Unless you can prove that you know more about the man than he does himself. Also the fact of him working for the police was backed up by CCN's Anderson Cooper during the Kartina crisis. Also the Sherrif of Jefferson Parish also told MSNBC that Seagal was responsible for their training. I think that this is a better source of info than your belief that he is a liar. Can you back up that your belief that he's not a cop is true and that he is a liar, or should we take what he, Anderson Cooper and Sherrif Lee have to say? Or are you more knowledgeable than those people? Fr33kMan 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed yet again the section claiming that Seagal is or has been a deputy sheriff. Please do not re-add this material section unless you can offer reliable sources that would make the claim verifiable. You assert that evidence for this claim is available from more than one source, but the only evidence offered is the following:


 * Seagal's own self-report, which is not adequate without corroboration.
 * A claim which cites another Wikipedia article as its source (please see Verifiability: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.")
 * A comment responding to a blog post in which a poster says: a) he saw Seagal on MSNBC wearing a badge; b) he heard the Sheriff say Seagal trained his SWAT team (please see Verifiability: blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.)  If a blog is not a reliable source, then what a comment-poster to a blog says he saw on TV is obviously not a reliable source.  Even if what the poster claims could be corroborated from a reliable source (like the transcript of the MSNBC show in question), the sheriff asserting that Seagal helped train his SWAT team does not make Seagal a deputy; nor does Seagal wearing a uniform.
 * A CNN transcript of Anderson Cooper 360 in which Cooper says, "You know, you see a lot of surreal things here in New Orleans these days. One of the most surreal, Steven Seagal dressed up in a SWAT uniform. I don't know if you can see him, that's his back, I think, is turned to the camera. He's driving around, with the SWAT Team from Jefferson Parish. Not sure why. Just he is. One of the strange things you see here in New Orleans." Needless to say, this does not establish that Seagal is a deputy sheriff.


 * In fact, not only do none of these, taken singly or together, add up to a verifiable claim from a reliable source for Seagal being a deputy sheriff, none of them even attempt to make such a claim at all -- or even use the word "deputy".


 * In addition, you appear to be confused about where the onus lies: you ask, "Can you back up that your belief that he's not a cop...?" Please see Sources: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."


 * In other words, it is not up to an editor who doubts an unsourced or poorly-sourced claim to justify removing it: the onus lies with the editor who wishes to include material to offer a verifiable, reliable source. If you have such a source -- i.e. a reliable source that can be checked by other editors which states explicitly that Steven Seagal is or was a deputy sheriff -- feel free to restore this section. Until then, please leave it out.


 * You ask, "should we take what [Seagal], Anderson Cooper and Sherrif Lee have to say [as true]? Or are you more knowledgeable than those people?" You have offered no verifiable, reliable source in which either Cooper or Sheriff Lee claims Seagal is or was a deputy Sheriff, so this question is moot.  Moreover, what I know or don't know is quite beside the point: the issue is solely what claims are attributable to reliable, verifiable published sources.  Those that are not, like the claim that Seagal is a deputy, don't belong in an encyclopedia article.


 * Finally, please do not edit other editors' talk page comments, as you did here. --Rrburke(talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have requested oversight on this issue, you have called Steven Seagal an unreliable source about himself, which is tantamount to calling him a liar. Also I did not edit your comments, I merely asked YOU to back up YOUR claims that he is not a reliable source of information about himself. I have also reported the matter to Mr. Seagal's management company for their information. Fr33kMan (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the following:


 * 1) A picture of Mr. Seagal in uniform exists here http://www.steven-seagal.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7866&highlight=swat, 2) Sheriff Henry Lee himself told Rita Cosby on MSNBC that Seagal trains his SWAT team and was given a commission [as a deputy] 15 years ago. Here's the transcript page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9326665/ and here is the quote "COSBY: Yes, how do you two know each other? A great friendship here. LEE: We got to be friends—he actually was trains my SWAT team, pistol and hand-to-hand combat. And I gave him a commission 15 years ago. He was filming in Romania. And we get calls all the time, but he wanted to come down, so he finally made it today. So he‘s getting ready to ride with the New Orleans SWAT team for a little while, and then he‘s going to come back and just answer calls with us tonight." 3) Anderson Cooper on CNN stated ""You know, you see a lot of surreal things here in New Orleans these days. One of the most surreal, Steven Seagal dressed up in a SWAT uniform. I don't know if you can see him, that's his back, I think, is turned to the camera. He's driving around, with the SWAT Team from Jefferson Parish. Not sure why. Just he is. One of the strange things you see here in New Orleans." Which is located at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/13/acd.01.html Fr33kMan (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To repeat for the sake of anyone besides us who may be reading this discussion, I am satisfied that the Sheriff's comments from the MSNBC transcript you provide are sufficient to establish that Seagal was employed by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff to train their SWAT team and that he evidently rode with them, for how long is unclear, in the aftermath of Katrina. Whether he is still connected with them is open to question, as his connection to the office appears to have have been rooted in his personal relationship with Sheriff Lee, who died last October.


 * On the other hand, as I mentioned previously, Cooper's comments merely establish that he saw Seagal wearing a uniform; same goes for the picture. In none of these sources is there explicit mention of Seagal being a deputy sheriff.  --Rrburke(talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I enclosed the Anderson Cooper transcript because it confirms Sheriff Lee's comment that Seagal would be riding around with the SWAT team from Jefferson Parish in that he was seen and filmed doing just that. I further included the photograph because it actually shows Seagal with the SWAT team, in uniform (you can't wear a badge unless you're a cop, well not and get away with it.)


 * I now consider this matter closed at this point and once again, offer you an apology (in public) for the manner in wich I went about this discussion. I feel you owe one to me also for the manner in which you went around it also. Would you agree? Take care! Fr33kMan (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seagal is not a reliable source for information about himself. He is a known liar. He lied to me yesterday. 121.94.38.75 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Credibility is defined by the whim of people who have nothing better to do than police Wikipedia articles all day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.239.82 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong advocate
Article says: "Seagal is a strong, formidable advocate for solar power." Well, he's definitely strong and formidable, but we would have to demonstrate that he is actually considered a top pro-solar advocate, else those terms become meaningless. Just my thought. --Edwin Herdman 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "an outspoken advocate?" 121.94.38.75 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed
I call BS on this article. This thing reads like it was written BY stephen seagal. It's atrocious and not up to wikipedia standards. Referencing scenes in a movie as evidence that an actor holds a certain point of view is ridiculous. That and many unreferenced claims about seagal, as well as the ridiculous air of superhumanity surrounding the portrayal of the actor in this article make it impossible to accept as neutral. Madness 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, several months ago this article was nothing more than a hatchet job on Seagal, hardly something that could have been written by him. If you sense that the pendulum has now swung the other way, by all means fix it. Find references for unreferenced claims, and if delete claims for which you can't find support. -Amatulic 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I should called this article to be pretty abusive in the sense it doesn't lend much information and should be called AUTObiography, rather than a biography.

There should be some citations for the first paragraph. Is he really a 7th dan? 121.94.38.75 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cites are not required in the lead, if the assertions are adequately cited in the article. However, if this started as a hatchet job, kudos for removing that, but its gone too far the other way, with too much hero-idolizing and too many unsourced stories. Balance, people... sourcing. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started trimming and copyediting, but after removing all the content which was unsourced from one ref, I'm left with strong criticism and one quote. We cannot say "His films show his views" because that's OR; we need a source in which Seagal himself states that, or some other commentator does. and On Deadly Ground is a horrible example of him advocating for Native Americans; that film came under very heavy criticism for its biased and patronizing portrayal of NAs and their beliefs. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to call BS on this article too. I'll use the first sentence as an example.

"Steven Seagal (born April 10, 1951) is an American action movie actor, producer, writer, director, God, raconteur, bonvivant, tapir wrangler, former Dalai Lama, present leader of Church of Satan, flower picker, kitten petter, defeated Oda Nobunaga, armored polar bear, The Matrix, pyromaniac, nymphomaniac, Jesus, Mohammaed, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, father of Chuck Norris, despite being younger, wifebeater, husbandbeater martial artist, singer-songwriter, and activist"

Brad Zeak (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the result of a vandal, and should have been reverted immediately. A year ago this article was a hatchet-job. It's better now, but it's easy to miss vandal edits when there are a dozen or so edits in between the times you check in. -Amatulic (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have tried to return the article to a more neutral stance but, have not removed the tag stating the neutrality is disputed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just stated that I doubt the neutrality of the article under the "Tone" section. ramander 08 June 2009 4:30 pm GMT —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Yes, the pendulum has swung a little too far. Part of the problem, is Segal was his own worst enemy by running his mouth about how badass he is(was). In particular, he was quoted in an interview as saying, "I have yet to meet any man willing to face me." or something like that. That caused a whole bunch of martial arts guys to want to face him in the ring (every one of some group called the Dirty Dozen called him out in print). I know, sources. While I am here, he received criticism for presenting aikido in a very violent aspect (Robin Williams for sure bitched about it). And, I thought he was offering massages somewhere in Asia and that's how he met Kelly LeBrock. Ah, the urban legends :>) Too bad, he had one the best action sequences I have ever seen in a movie.

Personal story in Above the Law?
I've always wondered about the story at the beginning of Above the Law and whether it was talking about Seagal's own personal life. Who was the person who he saw as a boy doing "magical" things? -- Suso 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Seagal wanted to re-create his past, I don't think he served in uniform (and indeed, why would the CIA recruit a martial arts expert to fight a jungle war-that bid never made sense to me). The short man who impressed him was Morihei Ueshiba, the creator of Aikido, who could indeed do magical things, although I don't think Seagal ever trained with him.

216.231.62.12Fernando Cavallo 8/7/07

Associates
Carl XVI Gustaf is only mentioned in the Stevan Seagal portal template and Steven Seagal is not mentioned at all in the King's article. I have therefore removed the link from the template. Please revert if someone can provide a citation. 87.113.3.162 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is there a portal template for this self-effacing fool? I have not seen this for any other actor in Wiki. 85.22.21.252 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We could start with that he's hardly just an actor. He was a very capable and accomplished martial artist long before the first film came out.  He's also a musician, and wields some influence in international circles.  People who know him firsthand, myself included, have a higher opinion than some of you "fools" who yammer on in absence of personal knowledge, spewing your insecurities and skepticism with wanton abandon. --JT (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stunt Man Abuse?
The more I read and learned about Steven Seagal the less I liked him. However, the claims in the section Stunt Man Abuse are not supported by the sources provided. It is claimed that Gene Lebell choked Seagal as a result of is treatment of stunt men but the article cited (from a British newspaper no less-hardly the luminaries of accurate reporting) does not even mention that reason, nor the claim that Seagal lost control of his gonads.

Gene Lebell often demonstrates a Sleeper Hold for classes and seminars (he performed it to a personal friend of mine once) and the article clearly indicates that it was indeed performed at a demonstration, not as a result of bad blood between them.

Again, I don't like Seagal, but this entry should be erased until something credible can be cited.

216.231.62.12 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Fernando Sanchez

08/04/'07

I agree! Actually no one seems to agree on what set it supposedly happened on nor what actually happened! To be honest it seems the rumor was created by people who hate Steven Seagal! Even the original article got it's findings from ONE source! How accurate is that! And in the article you read it said that it apparently happened in a demostration not a movie set! To top it off the person who wrote original article supposedly never liked Steven Seagal.

Mike T.

08/22/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * The most consistent version I've seen is that Seagal was being something of a prick with stuntmen, being rougher than necessary, generally pushing his weight around and in the course of a "demonstration" LeBell decided to put him in his place. Seagal claimed to be impervious to LeBell's sleeper hold. LeBell wasn't about to give him any quarter and it turned out no he wasn't impervious - unconscious pant-soiling ensued. Lawsuit followed, barring LeBell from publicly discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.239.82 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An important distinction between the urban myth and reality is that LeBell didn't just grab ahold of him and force him into it. THAT wouldn't have been possible.  It's an unfortunate reality that many people type trash about him (and Aikido)without any real knowledge.  --JT (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The verifiable link that confirms this is already listed under the mafia ties section. Crimelibrary.com is a highly reputable site. Just shows that these pompous editors dont check before deleting stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.180.76 (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that EVERYONE who has done stunts with Seagal-Sensei, including Aikidoka, will tell you that he wants you very real with him. Grab intensely and don't let go unnecessarily. Be real and committed in your strikes and attacks. It's not him being any harder on stuntmen than necessary. This is the way he has approached the practice of Aikido for as far back as I know of, and also how his version of Aikido became capable and real-world on the streets. Yammer away all you want, but unless you've tried to lay a hand on the man, your opinion is markedly unqualified. I've been one of 13 trying to do so -- in a narrow, closed room. Even with that many people coming at him at once, he was able to maintain control AND able to find time to respond to each of us at the level we were at, and to give us responses that were appropriate to the things we were working on at the time. (Sean, for example, was working on hard falls, so that's what he was forced into.)   Each of us got what we were working on, and at a level we were capable of. Until one of you can step up and demonstrate even half of that ability and control, please put a sock on the insults. You may not like his personality, but you can't deny the ability. And, while we're at it, if you took the time to get the facts instead of believing all this gossip, you might find you like and respect him a bit more. --JT (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The marriages of Steven Seagal.
On this wikipedia file, there is an incnsistency about his second wife, Adrienne La Russa. In the table, it says Seagal was married to her from 1984 to 1984. In the marriages section further down on this page, it says he was married to her from 1984 to 1987. It can't be that he was married to her in 1984, because he was (presumably) still married to his first wife, Miyako Fujitani, as of 1984. The marriage information needs to be fixed on this page.

Backtable 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it could be, if he wasn't formally divorced from his first wife in Japan before marrying the second one. Not an allegation, just a possibility, something to think about. --JT (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Made a correction in the 'Children' section; child 'Savannah' was listed as being born to Seagal and La Russa in 1996; in fact this child was born to Seagal and Arissa Wolf, the former nanny to Seagal and LeBrock's children, that Seagal began a relationship with while married to LeBrock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistant references
Under Personal life it says: "He now keeps a ranch in Shasta, California" Then under Native American issues: "...which seeks to protect sacred tribal ground near his ranch in Siskiyou County." Shasta CA is in Shasta County his ranch is in Siskiyou County nearest town Montague. Sorry only reference is it's local knowledge around here. 209.181.58.163 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This incosistency causes both statements to be questionable. The Shasta ranch claim should go because it's unsourced. The Siskiyou ranch claim has a source, but it's on a video (which I can't watch at the moment) so I don't know if the video actually claims Seagal owns a ranch there, or if he's simply the narrator of the video. In any case, if it can't be verified, it shouldn't be in the article. -Amatulic (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Steven Seagal parodies
I've tried a number of times to add a link to a Steven Seagal parody blog called Steven Seagal Diets (stevenseagaldiets.com). There are no advertisements on the blog, but for some reason my entry keeps getting deleted. This time, I got a message from Wikipedia explaining why, but I still don't get it... I'm just trying to link to a blog with information that's completely pertinent to the subsection of the article...

The originally added it on to an entry that was already on the page, about how Mr. Seagal has been satirized on the internet. That entire section was deleted. I attempted to re-add it the best I could:

Seagal has become the target of Internet-based jokes at his expense, including the blog [http://www.stevenseagaldiets.com Steven Seagal Diets], a food diary that chronicles Mr. Seagal's daily struggle with weight loss. Otnemem22 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to explain a few things about how Wikipedia works.
 * External links clearly states we shouldn't create external links to blogs. There are exceptions if the article is about the blog or about a person who owns a blog. Those exceptions don't apply here.
 * Wikipedia's official verifiability policy clearly states that we shouldn't use blogs or other self-published material as sources of information. By that official policy alone, any mention of this blog doesn't belong in the article.
 * All your edits have focused on this blog, suggesting that it's yours, or that you have some association with it. Please read the Conflict of interest guidelines. You shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a means to gain exposure for this site.
 * Anyone can make a parody online. Just because a parody exists doesn't mean it deserves mention. A parody must satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I see nothing about this blog that establishes or asserts its notability.
 * The parody examples in the article are notable. They have received exposure on notable media outlets. If your blog gets reviewed by a source considered verifiable, and reliable, and notable then it would deserve a mention, but at the moment it doesn't qualify.
 * I hope that explains why your edits continue to be reverted. -Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tone?
The tone of this article seems to veer dangerously in the direction of hagiography, rather than a simple, neutral POV presentation of verifiable facts... as if someone's hack publicist were applying a liberal layer of bovine excrement over everything about the man.

"Hey, look! It's Stephen Seagal, a guy who made a couple forgettable B movies!"

"Why, no, you couldn't be more wrong. According to his Wikipedia article: he's a solar power promoting, Native American protecting, reincarnated lama WHOSE DOJO WAS ONCE SAVED BY A MAGIC DOG!"

When people keep pruning out potentially controversial material while leaving intact fairly trivial tidbits (all of which seem aimed at making Mr. Seagal seem like a swell guy), it's really hard to argue that the article maintains neutral PoV.

Anyhow, I'm flagging it. Someone please help clean this up because it'll be a while before I can look at the article in an unjaded fashion myself.

Sangrito (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone should definitely mention his 8 nominations and 1 win in the Razzie Awards. Nominations included Worst Picture, Worst Original Song, Worst Actor and Worst Supporting Actor.  His big win came in '95 winning the award for Worst Director.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barawks (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply stating that you believe it is NPOV is not a good enough reason to put a flag up. In order to put up a flag you will need to clearly explain which particular wikipedia policys it voilates and why it violates this/these policies. You have not done so. I will put the flag back up once you do so.JS747 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I wanted to check a few facts on Seagal, I cringed when I read the article as it was so biased. I read on in utter disbelief. The whole tone of the article is indeed far from neutral. When Seagal's abilities as a recording artist and guitarist are described, this is immediately followed by the statement that he is a supporter of the Dalai Lama concerning Tibetan independence. This is even true for me, since I have contributed regularly to a Tibetan society. However, there is no third party corroboration that describes how Seagal supported the Dalai Lama. The paragraph finally ends with a quote: 'According to Seagal in a November 2006 interview: "I was born very different, clairvoyant and a healer."' WHat else, I wonder. Not only is the mixture of his achievements a strange one, but my main irritation is with the fact that the source for the quote is an interview which itself only repeats (albeit in a quite ironic context) something Seagal said about himself. Thus, the actual source for the quote in the article is once more Seagal himself. The same interview also quotes Seagal as saying he is a god. Thus, rather ridiculous self-testimony is used to create the impression that Seagal can do almost anything. This definitely has to be flagged! (Yes, I know, Seagal himself should know best whether he is clairvoyant, a healer and a god, but PLEASE find third party corroboration.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramander (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Seagal really is the modern Cúchulainn, but I highly doubt it. This whole article is horrificaly biased towards keeping him in a positive light. Whats worse there seems to be a handful of fans policing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.134.235 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * After more than a year and copious changes, this article seems a lot better than it was... Just for the sake of clarity, for JS747 and others, failure to maintain NPOV is itself a reason for flagging an article.  Perhaps a few moments spent reading (even just the first sentence) of Wikipedia's own article on WP:NPOV is in order.  If you endlessly praise cake and ascribe to it unverifiable, magical properties, a reasonable person would surmise that you hold a bias in favor of cake.  Luckily, others understood both my criticisms and Wikipedia policy and have undertaken the onerous task of revising the article.  My thanks, and enjoy your pie. Sangrito (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Extrenal link
Some of the busy bee editors keep on deleting the external link for TenShin Aikido that I have contributed to the Seagal page. I do not wish to put an assistant on the silly task to reinsert this link every 3 hours in order to keep it there. There are many things that may or may not be accurate on this page. One of the few undisputed facts about Steven Seagal is that he would not be of any interest to anybody if it were not for his extra ordinary Aikido skills. Nowadays it is all about Hollywood, movies, music, CIA, possible Mafia connections, Buddhism, the Dali Lama and celebrity wifes. But none of that has anything to do with whom Steven Seagal is and what brought all your peoples focus to his live. Steven Seagal's biggest and most valuable contribution to the world is his knowledge, abilities and teaching skills with regards to Aikido. Only real Aikidoka's can muster the profoundity of Steven Seagal's TenShin Aikido. Although he has now moved on in his live and is focused on his music, he still is a 7th Dan Aikido Master that does entertain student/teacher relations with only three Aikido instructors in the world. These three Aikido instructors enjoy Steven Seagal's personal blessing to instruct Aikido under his personal direction. Now for all of you celebrity news crazed people, that might be the most unimportant piece of information about Steven Seagal but please consider that for all the Aikidoka's out in the world, that is really all they care about: Sensei Seagal's Aikido teachings. Because of his considerable notoriety there are now thousands of people out there that claim that they are authorized to teach Seagals' TenShin Aikido and take fee's from gullible people. There are very few ways of stopping this fraud. I do believe that the Wikipedia page about Steven Seagal should be much more about his importance to Aikido then all this other gossip but I do not dare to even contribute. But I do believe that one place Aikidoka's go to when looking for information about Sensei Seagal is this page and the least they should be able to get here is one true link to one real, authorized TenShin instructor that actually does have his credentials from Seagal Sensei. Now if you wish to verify this information please go to and check out the heading "Martial Arts Teachers Endorsed By Steven". Now there you have a real and supported fact about Steven Seagal. It will help to direct Aikidoka's to real and endorsed TenShin teachers and not some frauds that cheat people out of money with false claims. So please stop deleting the one link that really matters to the people that are involved with Stevens Aikido. We do not wish to take much space up. Just one true and sincere link that adds real information value to the site. Thank you!(Eldanest (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC))75.202.229.92 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EL and WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  20:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NeilN:

First it was a conflict of interest that bothered you about this link. Well I have nothing to do with neither Steven Seagal nor any of his accredited TenShin instructors. So there is no conflict of interests. Calling me a spammer is a below par remark since I have never inserted one other external link anywhere in Wikipedia. I read the Guidelines of External Links and they certainly do not say anything that would make the TenShin link unacceptable. This is an external link to one of only three Aikido teachers in the world that are endorsed by Steven Seagal. You can verify that on the official Seagal web page. This is clean and neutral and fact based and can be verified through Stevens website that is already part of the external links anyway. You asked me to explain myself on the discussion page which I did in all details and all you shot back to me are generic write ups about conflict of interest, soapboxing and spamming - none of which applies to me or what I try to do here. Maybe you can dignify my sub-intellectual position with answer that actually is written in response to my arguments and not some links to some rules that never were violated in the first place. Maybe you could move from being sanctimonious to actually say or explain something that make sense and is in response to the issue. I can look up the guidelines with out your guidance. Its not the guidelines but their interpretation that is at stakes here. And that is all your opinion is - one interpretation that may or may not be supported by anybody else but you. So try to formulate a position instead of patronizing me. Thanks [User:Eldanest] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.32.166 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you provided has absolutely no information on Steven Seagal beyond one mention of him. It goes against:


 * 1) Links mainly intended to promote a website.
 * 2) Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
 * 3) Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject
 * As an an example, lots of famous people promote various products/services. However links to these products/services are not present in the person's article. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations.
Large part of this article are un-cited for example;

"Steven Seagal was born in Lansing, Michigan. When he was 5 years old, the family relocated to Fullerton, California, where Seagal attended the Buena Park High School, Buena Park, California. It was at the age of 7 that Seagal reportedly first began studying the martial arts under the direction of renowned Shito-ryu karate master Fumio Demura and Aikido under Rod Kobayashi, the President of the Western States Aikido Federation. He earned belts in aikido, karate, judo, and kendo and in his late teens, Seagal became part of Demura's Karate Demonstration Team and performed daily demonstrations in the former Japanese Village and Deer Park, in Southern California."

Unless things can be verified they should not be on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) The one thing that someone would need to do is find out if Segal has a 201 file. If he worked for the gov., including serving in the military, he would have a 201 file. Even Lee Harvey Oswald had a 201 file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.194.71 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

stevenseagalswellserver.com lies
Be extremely careful about stevenseagalswellserver.com. With incredible bad taste, it announces the death by suicide of Steven Seagal. It's completely unacceptable this "sense of humour", in spite of its allegation to be non-factual. Outrageous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.128.67.164 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You sure they weren't just talking about the death of his movie career?

What is Steven's nationality?
What is Steven's nationality? He doesn't look all white. Is he Indian or oreintal?

68.103.14.203 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Tammy01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He's from the Fullashett tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.22.153 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I think he's of partial Jewish ancestry. Note that nationality and ethnicity are not the same thing. Incidentally, I believe that in order to claim Japanese citizenship, you must retract your original citizenship, I wonder if he did this.--MartinUK (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuntman Controversy
This was a controversial section, obviously. I deleted the info because NONE of the citations were verifiable. They ALL led to dead links, one led to a forum post by "some guy". In order for this to be included, you need to add a verifiable and reliable source of this info as stated in WP:Verifiability  JS747 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic: The archived source you re-inserted does not meet WP:RELIABLE criteria. The policy states in part: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. The Unoffical Steven Seagal Resource Page, archived, does not meet the above criteria. It does not even say who conducted that interview, nor does it say where or even when. This is not proper WP sourcing methods. JS747 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear you're letting personal bias interfere here. There's nothing controversial about it. It happened. There may be some minor variations in the details of how it's told but this incident is widely known and acknowledged in the MA community. One of the references was from a martial arts publication which cited a letter from LeBell's office. How much closer to the source do you want? They couldn't give certain specifics ONLY because they were prevented from doing so by a court settlement - which obviously resulted from SOMETHING. The fact that Seagal has never denied it happened should be a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.22.153 (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is well known, then please cite a source that conforms to Wikipedia policy. The source you are referring to no longer existed. Did you read my statements above? They were dead links. How is a dead link a source?? None of the sources that were included were verifiable according to WP policy. Also, according to WP policy, not only does it have to be verifiable, it also has to come from a reliable source. The one source that did work did not meet that criteria. I would hardly believe that asking claim sources to be consistent with WP policy to be considered "bias". In fact, it is not. It is simply conforming to WP editing policy.


 * If it is true or not, I could personally care less. However, you say it is true. Ok, that's fine. I have no problem with the information being included. However, the editor who adds it needs to cite a source that is consistent with WP policys stated above, if one wants to include it in the article. No one has done this yet, therefore, regardless of whether or not it is true, it should not be included in the article until that criteria is met. This is how things are done on WP. If this is a problem for you, I suggest you speak with an administrator or ask questions at the Help Desk JS747 (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

bigamist??
I feel that bigamist is the wrong word to describe whatever is trying to be said in the article. This article claims he is a bigamist but it never mentions him having 2 wives or 2 relationships at once. The closest it comes to is saying he married a woman while he was separated from his first wife (which shouldn't automatically make him a polygamist since their relationship was obviously over if not legally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.189.85 (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

steven seagals fights
only a moron would keep saying(seagal lost all these fights) theres been no evidence and nobody around to verify any of it judo gene labelle also supposedly called out thr oldest gravie its a lie royce called him out after running his mouth and he ran judo gene also madeup beating brucelee beating norris hes the big phoney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.55.207 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some serious editing
Not to step on any toes, but this article is pretty horrible. Dates are mixed up, the writing style is bad, movies are missing, and whole swaths of text are copied verbatim from the sources listed at the end (which probably accounts for the poor writing style). This article is a poster child for what is bad about wikipedia. No, I'm not going to work on it (and I don't think that disqualifies me from speaking up), but after reading it, I felt I had to say something. Sorry, pretty pointless, but if we could get some people to actually put some work into it, I think it would turn out pretty good. --BradTraylor (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the section of Seagal's life from the time he first went to Japan and met Fujitani and the time he came back, which was a number of years, is completely omitted in the article. He's mentioned as living in California in 1974, then all of a sudden in 1983 he's 'Returning To the US' after having gone back to Japan 'again'. Also the fact of how he advanced so rapidly in Aikido going from 2nd all the way to 7th Dan in a very short time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1951 or 1952?
Just found this. --Rambalac (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven Seagal/Fat Man Disambiguation
I was asked by Mr. Seagal to forward his statement on the Fat Man issue directly to Wikipedia. For some reason I haven't been able to get in touch with the Wikipedia people, so, on Steven's orders, I have included below his final statement on the matter. [The text actually comes from his blog, but first appeared on his unofficial website in response to a since deleted entry in the Critical Mass Forum (devoted to Steven's body size)  titled "The Bomb That Never Dropped: A Dangerously Bloated Seagal Almost As Heavy as the Original Fat Man Atomic Bomb".]

"Have been getting way too many 'Fat Man' hits from WWII enthusiasts lately and my technical advisor, Lee Stebbins, thought I might as well disambiguate. The following is my official statement:

''"Fat Man" was the code name for the atomic weapon dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. It was also called "Large Boy", "Fat Boy", "Fat Ass", "Atomic Lard", "Little Boy's Corpulent Cousin", "The Buddhist Sunrise" and, by the Japanese, "One Fat Motherfucka" (which may explain some of the confusion). The explosion it created was equal to the force of 21 Kilotons. But it DOES NOT refer to, have any bearing on, serve as a synonym for or alias of, an obese martial artist named Steven Seagal.''

''I just hope Wikipedia will straighten this out as soon as possible. For further information on STEVEN SEAGAL/FAT MAN disambiguation, please contact my unofficial website."'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.217.59 (talk • contribs)


 * Can you please sign your posts using four (4) tildes (~). Is this still a problem? If so, could you point to the specific place in the article where the "problem" is? Thank you! --Tom 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian?
he's in the vegetarian category at the end of the page, but it doesn't actually say anywhere that he's a vegetarian. is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.99.64 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)