Talk:Steven Seagal/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arrisa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Black belt" in Kendo? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seagaliana 

message: Surely the Andrew Davis who directed Above The Law is not the Andrew Davis the link suggests?! JamesEdmo 16:24, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to Andrew Davis removed. JamesEdmo 10:36, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Davis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marraige 

message: 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)
thread_title:  His Aikido Credentials 

message: 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)
thread_title:  in his official site he claimes to be 7th dan from aikikai 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "his legacy will always live on" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  cleanup tag 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  How does this sound 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Navy SEAL 

message: 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)
thread_title: the update: towards a more balanced seagal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Takin' a break -- catch you dudez on the flip side 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Steven Seagal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Distancing from Buddhism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: pleeze see sexxion below, "honorabul deletors." --Ghetteaux 13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WikiPOVia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay 

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mystical Dog Incident 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's not the only thing wrong about this... CPT Spaz 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  SEAGAL IN NEW ACTION MOVIE WITH VAN DAME 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I'm editing this page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vegetarian? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the woofactor source 

message: 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.— Discography 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, first-hand factual knowledge: Seagal-Sensei speaks fluent Japanese. VERY fluent. --JT (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steven Seagal CIA ties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was he really killed? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal Friendship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strong advocate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal story in Above the Law? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Associates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Stunt Man Abuse? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The marriages of Steven Seagal. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistant references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tone? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations. 

message: 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)
replies: text: He's from the Fullashett tribe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.22.153 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What is Steven's nationality? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  bigamist?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  steven seagals fights 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs some serious editing 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Steven Seagal/Fat Man Disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vegetarian?