Talk:Steven Seagal/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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: [1] [2].

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 | C 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 [[3]]).
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 [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]) 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—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:

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—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)

References

I created a references section at the bottom of the article and converted all the hyperlinks to sources in the article to reference notes. While I was doing that I took out some of the links, most of them linking to forums. Furthermore there were one or two references to a Japanese site featuring several photos of an old Japanese blacksmith (?) posing together with Steven Seagal on one of the pictures. [11] Those links might somehow prove a point - like that the trivia is mentioned, without any decent sources elsewhere - but that doesn't make them reliable. A link to a profile site (Celebritywonder.com) is still there as well as a link to his IMDB bio, but I don't think those two sources qualify as to being reliable (the bio on IMDB is written by some user, for example). If nobody objects I would like to remove those sources out of the Seagal article. mensch • t 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I took out the references to Celebritywonder.com and IMDb. I left one reference to IMDb - referring to quotes by Seagal. mensch • t 09:51, 9 May 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 Wikipedia: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.