Talk:Steven Seagal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

How Did this "Macho" Guy Born in 1951 Dodge Service in Vietnam?

This fellow was clearly the proper age to serve in Vietnam. Given his purported machismo, why didn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.124 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Look up his lottery number. jmcw (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The word choice, "purported machismo" shows the unsigned author has issues. They don't belong here. --JT (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Under a selective service system, qualities such as "machismo" are not relevant criteria. Either he lucked out on the lottery or perhaps he was out of the country at the time. Yeng-Wang-Yeh (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Career Areas

Well, it seems that we are having issues with people removing FACTS from this article. I've reverted the Other Career Areas section. I'm the one who put in the Deputy Sheriff info and this is a verifiable FACT (aka, it can be looked up). Stop removing facts simply cause you don't like the man! (Not directed to most people!)

Fr33kMan 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• The man's a fat fraud. You're the gushing fanboy of a fat fraud. So, he got some sheriff to deputize him and let him ride around in a SWAT truck. That's the reality of he FACT you're talking about. Special:Contributions/24.30.97.106|24.30.97.106]] (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Having studied under the guy you call a "fat fraud" I can state with certainty that there's no fraud in his abilities, and would wager a year of my earnings that he'd have you in full control in a few seconds. Put your ego and personal issues and insults away and stick to the facts. --JT (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No Kidding, I second that on his abilities. One of the best martial artists I have ever seen personally. Amazing speed for a big man. THE BEST hand speed of anybody I have ever seen or heard of for that manner. The truth is he is way, way better than people realize and if anything his abilities are understated. Yes his personality can be grating and he can come off as really really bad but if we live in a time that gives every idiot in Beverly hills their own reality show than I would certainly like to see one of somebody that can actually do something.131.247.83.135 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (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)

Dealings with mafia?

see article 16

See Court TV's article about his shakedown by the Gambino Family http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/scams/steven_seagal/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.51.169 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the shake down with the mafia is important..while it didnt get a huge amount of publicity..it was a important part of his life...in addition, it could well be argued that it hurt his career. The Gambino's where heard joking about how weak Seagal acted compared to his movie persona...that may have hurt him in his career, in a similar way to how Van Damm's image was hurt by getting beaten up by Chuck Zito at Scores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.89 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2009 (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.— 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)

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

The press conferences for Above the Law, to promote the movie, had to be curtailed due to antagonism between the press and Seagal. Who started it, and how it got out of hand were not dealt with. But Warner Bros executives were worried that the contention would lead to a plethora of bad reviews that would affect the box office success of the movie.

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)

I gotta admit

the statement "quality of his films compared to his 1990s movies went down" is absolutely right. although i'm a big fan of Seagal, his recent direct-to-dvd films don't match quality of 1990s. so that shouldn't be fixed, i don't think it's biased. I do think that Seagal is getting quiet lazy, a little fat and dull in movies, he needs to get back in shape and make better movies. But he is truly a good activist, I am also an activist for Animal-rights and Native American rights movements. Me as fan got a lot of respect for him for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.143.122 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-02

'Because I think this opinion agrees with my own, it's not biased?' How is that in any way logical? 172.203.62.55 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You could legitimately say they have had reduced production values and lack hollywood backing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.148 (talk) 10:53, 9 September 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 24.147.163.179 (talk) 14:58, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

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.

• Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. --NeilN ^{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. --NeilN ^{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)

Around the time of release of Out For Justice, Segal was alleged to have injured an unnamed stuntman during an energetic fight scene, and which allegedly resulted in a hospital visit for the stuntman. However, no complaint was made to the police, and no complaint or representation made to the studio. It was said that the stuntman did not believe it was in his interests, or future employment prospects, to make an official complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmex2010 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (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)

Qualified and non competant critics have said that Seagals AIKIDO skills are very good, but that his punches and kicks were mainly feeble. However, his forward front snap kicks show obvious power. But a slow roundhouse kick, in the original Under Siege, is executed, whilst holding onto an actor to assist the technique. Seagal was assisted by wires in Exit Wounds. This was at the request of the director, to assist his vision and execution of how he wanted the fight scenes to be, not at the request of Seagal. The only jumping spinning kicks are performed by much smaller, and obvious, stunt doubles, in movies after Fire Down Below. Tall and well built, or tall and heavy, martial artists are not well known for jumping spinning techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmex2010 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A big reason why there is such a polarisation of pro and anti Seagal people must be due to some of the things he said, at the height of his fame,in the 1990´s, about other martial artists/actors. These range from the untrue, to rude, and even amusing. His opinion of Bob Wall resulted in Wall ringing Seagal, and stating he wanted to come round to see him over his remarks. Seagal told Wall to stay away, as he had a gun. Wall accepted this request. Seagal said that Jackie Chan was an Acrobat, rather than a martial artist. He laughed at the idea of Jeff Speakman being a ´Perfect Weapon´. But that movie did not ascert that Speakman was ´The Perfect Weapon´, but was about a character in the movie being a perfect weapon. Seagal even said that he had forgotten more about the use of the japanese sword, than Toshiro Mifune would ever know. However, Seagal has, over the years, apologised for things he has said about others, and the offence they caused.

One fact is so, that, to date, no one has beaten him in the kitchen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmex2010 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 March 2010 (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 [1], but first appeared on his unofficial website [2] 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)

First L.A. Dojo Location

Dunno who got Burbank or where they got it from, but the dojo before West Hollywood was in North Hollywood (about 1/4 mile away from my old pet shop.) --JT (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, there was a dojo in Taos, NM, with Craig Dunn (who appears in the earlier films doing stunt work and is also an Aikido instructor.) --JT (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well,

as far as I have seen , the information about Oomoto is lacking. [3] of course this unofficial link can be put here only.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.68.114 (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaves out a film in his filmography

"Words of my perfect teacher (http://wordsofmyperfectteacher.com/)."

It's a documentary; it's on imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387694/) ; it came out in 2003.

Mumon7 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

It may be changed some time in the near future but as it stands now Steven Seagal's date of birth seems to have suddenly changed from 1951 to 1952. Someone obviously altered it, so for liability reasons and to protect his identity we'll just call him S. Seagal. No wait that's too obvious we'll call him Steven S. Now listen here Mr. S I advise you change it back to its original date, otherwise you leave me no choice but to take you to the bank... to the blood bank.. aiight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.93.16 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you Vern?Addistheman (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I am not Vern, but I do adhere to the his diverse guide on Seagalogy. I am simply a young man with a great respect for Steven Seagal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.91.48 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chungdrag Dorje

I saw the page Chungdrag Dorje is redirected to Steven Seagal, I am just wondering if any one knows that is Chungdrag Dorje a title of a monk in Tibetan Buddhism that pass on through reincarnation or is it a special title given only to Steven Seagal? --Chadsnook (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the answer: http://www.sangyetashiling.dk/kt/seagal.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.207 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

When did he first go to Japan?

The article states SS saterted his adult life (a strange phrase) as a sensei in Japan and later says he reutrned to Japan but does not say WHEN he first went to Japan. Any chance of adding this info? (08:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.190.69.142 (talk)

Am i going mad

i was on steven segal page this morning and i'm sure it said on the 25 Aug 09 steven segal had a heart attack on the film set did i read this or am i going mad

26 Aug 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Check the news reports, nothing at all about it. It's become a common form of vandalism on Wikipedia to add fake death information to the articles of living people. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Freshman Guitars endorsing him be mentioned?

http://freshmanguitars.co.uk/stevenseagal.asp

He asked them to make him a signtature model, with they did. 87.232.53.149 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish

I removed the cat tags of Jewish assuming it was vandalism. I now see that his father was Jewish. Do we identify Seagal as Jewish? Reform Jews would say yes and Orthodox & Conservative would say no. What occurs to me in this case is that Seagal does not identify as Jewish. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, he can be referred to as Jewish. In fact, he's been a deputy Rabbi for 20 years. There's going to be an A&E series about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.30.104 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New show

Please do not add things such as "rave reviews" and other such non-neutral opinions. The current source being added to supposedly demonstrate this simply states that there is an upcoming show, nothing about any reviews. Let's try to keep this sourced properly and neutral. Wperdue (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is it kosher to site commentaries are good sources in an article? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the same league as Schwarzenegger and Willis?

The article currently claims "[Seagal] belongs to a generation of movie action hero actors who were featured in many blockbuster action films of the late 1980s and 1990s (such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Bruce Willis to name a few)". It goes on to claim that his movies have grossed $850m "worldwide".

It seems odd to put Seagal in the same "generation of ... actors" like Bruce Willis, whose movies have apparently grossed over $3 billion 'domestically, or Arnold Schwarzenegger with an apparent "domestic" gross of $1.6b. Perhaps more appropriate comparisons might be drawn with other big-screen-then-straight-to-video actors like Dolph Lundgren (who, coincidentally, has the same "belongs to a generation" wording over on his Wiki article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.216.140 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and weasel issues

Some of the material in the article, particularly in the introduction, does not seem to be written from an encyclopedic perspective. Positive, irrefutable references should be discussed and identified prior to making any definitive statements about the subject's biography. Such statements should be written as neutral facts. Yeng-Wang-Yeh (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious LA Times reference to the TV show

I find this quite troubling that a commentary article that does not name POST officials by name is used as a legitimate reference. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth Year Conflict

I looked real quick to see if there were any previous threads on this most obvious disconnect right on Wiki's front page of Steven related to his birth year. How can this be? Can't this be confirmed whether he was born in '51 or '52?

Investorbp (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No previous threads are necessary. The change to 1951 is vandalism. Steven Seagal's official web site http://www.stevenseagal.com/home.html says 1952, and that is what this article cites. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

For a guy who's movies have a pretty clear trend on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, it's odd that his page would choose only to highlight one movie that got lukewarm reviews and then imply that Seagal is actually a lifelong piece of performance art, based on a commercial that he almost definitely didn't write. I mean, there should at least be some mention of his early works (generally positive reviews), later works (worse) and current straight-to-dvd movies (terrible). The section as it stands now pretty much picks all 3 of the positive things you can say about his career, and even some of those are reaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.55.91 (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mixing nationality and faith

His mother is cited as "Irish American" and his father as "Jewish". Be consistent and note both nationalities or both faiths; as a rule do not use faith and nationality interchangeably. I am an atheist, I'm not from there...89.35.130.250 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what the cited source says. If you can find something better, we should use it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe his mother was Italian, not Irish-American. She was born in San Giovanni in Fiore in southern Italy. This should be corrected in the biography. Salmancina (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Early life and career" section

It appears there is copy missing from between the first and second paragraphs. The second paragraph states he "initially returned" but what story is it continuing? And then it mentions "another" period in Japan -- when was the first one mentioned? Someone needs to write the missing part of this information. Frecklegirl (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Akido

Why aren't there any references to his akido stuff, from what I understand (which is granted very little, hence that is why I came here in the first place) he was a very well respected akido dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.207.4 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2010 (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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): "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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): 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 Wikipedia:Sources#Burden of evidence: "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)

Sadly, Rrburke has been proven to be wrong. Mr Seagal has been "proven" to be a police officer! Sad for Rrburke! fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 06:57, 8 June 2010 (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)

Not that I'm an expert on anything but what sort of training has Steven Seagal had other than martial arts? Contrary to many of Seagal's movies and much of Hollywood, most police operations do not consist of long shootouts ending with the bad guys being taken out with roundhouse kicks. What does Steven Seagal know about jurisdictions, legal issues, making arrests, doing searches, sniper positioning, cordoning and searching an area, and so forth. I'm sure he has trained WITH the SWAT but did he train SWAT...I highly doubt it. And honestly...would you want your local law enforcement trained by a movie star? I'm not hating on Seagal but lets not make him out to be more than he is. The Jefferson Parish Police Department has likely agreed to this deal with Seagal because they are getting positive publicity and probably some much-needed money, not because of any great amount of input or advice that he can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.208.239.140 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)