Talk:Duane Chapman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Duane Chapman, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing attention.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks:


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duane Chapman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Contents

[edit] Baby Lyssa's daughter??

So, does baby Lyssa really have a daughter who was born in 2002, when she was either 14 or 15 years old? (Not that it would be out of the question for a 14 year old to have a kid). There is no citation, and I've never heard anything about her on the show. Anyone know?

It is mentioned numerous times on episodes of the show that Baby Lyssa has a child herself. There is one early episode where she "comes home" to live with her Father bringing her child with her. Tangerines 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I was busted by the Dog

...and it touched my life in a special way, forever. I can never pay back the Dog for what he gave to me. Thank God. Thank Dog.

[edit] No Guns?

I tend to recall seeing a TV show (quite a few years back) in which Dog was shown using a gun to collect on a bounty, which turned into a shootout, and Dog ended up getting shot in his bullet proof vest, but the bullet almost missed and made it into his chest. I'm 95% certain it was Dog. Can anyone confirm? Is this why he doesn't use guns?

He doesn't use guns because in the U.S. convicted felons are not allowed to purchase handguns. That's federal law.

he has said numerous times on the show they don't use them out of choice. His felony wouldn't stop the others if they wanted to carry.--Xiahou 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hair extensions

I suppose it's worth noting now that Chapman wears hair extensions that cover his bald spot. Seems strange to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.250.218.213 (talk • contribs).

He acts tough and consideres his apparel a "uniform", so it seems likely that the hair extensions fit with his uniform, and the persona he creates to intimidate criminals and discourage altercations. 71.103.114.85 22:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racist?

If he married a woman named LaFonda, I'm thinking she was probably African-American? Doesn't that seem pertinent to thoughts of him being racist? 24.130.61.61 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt LaFonda was African-American since the son she had with Duane (Leland) is featured prominently on the show and does not look remotely African-American. I would research rather than speculate... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.17.26.4 (talk • contribs) 14:03, September 18, 2006.

[edit] Burglar? Murderer?

I don't see a cite for why he is listed as a burglar, nor as a murderer. Complicity is not quite the same thing. Unless this can be justified, I think we should remove these categories. --Mr. Vernon 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On the show once he mentioned that he was the seargent-at-arms of a biker gang. He then said that he was convicted of manslaughter(99% sure) or murder (1% sure) -- 71.131.23.183 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
He was convicted under 1970s Colorado law as an accessory to murder because he did not a report a murder at which he was present. In the show, he mentions that he frequently engaged in illegal activities as a gang member. However, he seems only to have been convicted of murder at that time. So, he is a convicted murderer (although he never murdered), and a reformed burglar. What other crimes he was ever convicted of, or what crimes he committed without conviction, if any. 71.103.114.85 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If "He was convicted under 1970s Colorado law" he really got screwed since he was tried and convicted in a Texas court, sentenced by a Texas judge and did his time in a Texas prison. Duke53 | Talk 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Got a cite? That was from memory of the tv show. Also, is he being called a murderer because he was convicted of being an accessory to murder, or because he took part in a murder? 71.103.111.242 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da Kine Bail Bonds

I removed the passage that stated he started Da Kine Bail Bonds. His son Leland started the company. Source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stacy83 (talk • contribs) 10:52, May 20, 2006.

Leland opened the da kine bail bonds in kona, dog and beth already owned the company in oahu, maui, and denver. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.68.223.53 (talk • contribs) 18:54, September 20, 2006.
I wish we could start this type of service here, but kicking in someone's door just doesn't seem American. Ha. Like his sermons coming out in him from his mom. My mom got a kick out of how Beth runs the house. j brown —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.233.28 (talk • contribs) 19:51, July 28, 2005.

[edit] Inspiration for Renegate tv show?

In the late 1990's there was a television show by Stephen J. Canell called the "Renegade" starring Lorenzo Lamas. Storyline is he is a fugitive ex-cop framed for murder and takes the alias Vince Black and makes a living as a bounty hunter while riding his Harley Davidson motorcycle. Would anyone happen to know if Duane "Dog" Chapman is the inspiration for this television show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.235.28.50 (talk • contribs) 19:52, December 17, 2005.

Renegade was on from 1992-1997. I don't ever recall the creator, Stephen J. Cannell, ever indicating in any interviews that Duane Chapman was any influence on this show. Chapman was not even well known until 2003 anyways, so it's very doubtful. - Russell

[edit] Tim Chapman

Lets get this correct once and for all. Tim Chapman is NOT Duane's brother, they are not related. Please see their official site http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/main.php "Tim, who shares a last name with Dog and is called "Youngblood," is not actually related." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohbe (talk • contribs) 11:53, August 3, 2006.

While it is technically true that Tim Chapman is not of blood relation, there are unfortunately at least two documentaries on Dog in which Tim is stated to be his "blood relative." Which while false, under current Wikipedia guidelines would allow someone to state that as fact. Kind of messed up, but thats how it is. We're not here for truth, we're here for reporting what we can reference.--Arkcana 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the references (and there are more than two) by Dog state that Tim is his "blood brother," not a "blood relative." The term "blood brother" is a "relative-by-choice" situation, where two people consider themselves bound together by "blood," whether or not any was actually spilled. Duane and Tim feel a special bond: in their careers, their faith, their sharing of a surname. They consider themselves related ... so they are "blood brothers." But not "blood relatives." I trust the difference here is obvious. F117-A 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use?

Wouldn't using this picture fall under the category of a significant event in the history of a famous person? http://www.midweek.com/content/paina/image_full/3707/ --Mr T 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Arrest

Note: This section contained many opinions reacting to the arrest. From Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought:

“ 3. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

4. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

 ”

I have removed the opinions discussing the arrest so that the talk page will be consistent with the WP:BLP and WP:What Wikipedia is not policies.--Burzum 09:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP has absolutely nothing to do with Talk pages, as far as I know. I think in deleting all that discussion you have crossed the line. — NRen2k5 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be false. In the second paragraph on the BLP page:
We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
Cheers.--Burzum 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh... Go to the top of the page. Read point four. Says something like "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Unless I'm stupid or something, I think that means this discussion page is for improving the article, not gabbing about stuff thats going on in the subjects life. Remember, ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not message board.--Arkcana 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, sorry, didn't catch your post...--Arkcana 03:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just was watching CNN Headline news 5 minutes ago when I heard about his, at this very moment in time it seems that no one esle has reported on this, though if someone checks in about 4 hours, I imagine this will be all over the place. Avador 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the last post by ErinHowarth; his court date was not set for three years from the date of his crime: one condition of his bail back then was for him to report to the Mexican court each Friday. He never reported in once. As far as being smart enough to catch bail jumpers: he got a phone call telling him where Luster was. Pure genius on his part.Duke53 | Talk 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"At the time Chapman failed to appear in the Mexican court he was in a Ventura, California court trying to get $320,000.00 of the one million dollars in bail money posted by Andrew Luster claiming he needed the money to cover his expenses in the case. Duane Chapman does not have any legal claim since there was no surety involved to contract with. He took it upon himself to be a vigilante by taking the law into his own hands. On August 5th Ventura County Superior Court Judge Edward Brodie ruled that Duane Chapman is not entitled to any of the bail money. The Judge stated he does not condone ‘vigilante justice’. In his ruling, Brodie cited the pending case in Mexico and Chapman’s tactics, saying, “To come into this court and ask this court for my stamp of approval is another matter. He went to Mexico and failed to comply with the law. I cannot condone vigilante justice.” Chapman then walked out of the courtroom while the Judge was still speaking".[1] Duke53 | Talk 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Chapman had absouluely no right to take the law into his own hands, no matter what you say. He saw a chance for money and fame and it's backfired on him ever since. He and his people have lied about the incident since it happened. Show a source that says that Luster was found with GHB; I have one that says that it isn't true. Duke53 | Talk 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that the punishment is a little harsh? Erin may be right; it could be that Chapman just didn't trust the Mexican officials to make the right moves. Or, if he had attemped to gain entrance into Mexico legally, or do all of that other B.S. that the poster above Duke had mentioned, it could be that the rapist could have gotten away by then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk • contribs) 02:54, September 21, 2006.

Damn Mexican Police. No, that isn't racism. I hate racism. But the Mexican Authorities shouldn't be able to arrest one of our citizens. WE should be able to arrest our citizens who escape for refuge in Mexico. They shouldn't have a say in our own citizens arrest. --66.218.13.66 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the guy who said Dog was doing it for fame, don't talk. Should we let a rapist get away? If you say that, you support him and must be a rapist too. --66.218.13.66 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship between 'Beth' & Duane

I get the feeling that this family creates some of their 'history' out of whole cloth at times. Many details change from time to time, including names, dates and times. I keep putting in citations for Alice Barmore a/k/a Beth Smith a/k/a Beth Chapman and they keep getting deleted. Why? If the purpose of Wikipedia is verification then I feel that they should stay. Someone who keeps going by different names during the same time period deserves a bit more investigating.Duke53 | Talk 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I think I'm one of the people who deleted your references to the name Alice Barmore. When I found the alias Alice Elizabeth Smith, I thought you had the wrong alias. That was a stupid assumption. I apologize. Both aliases now appear. I also changed the format of your citations to match the rest of the article. I think she was born Alice Elizabeth Smith. She probably changed her name to Barmore when she married Keith Barmore. I can't guess why she switched between Alice and Beth, but I'll bet there's a story there. ErinHowarth 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I bet there's a lot of stories about them which we will never hear.Duke53 | Talk 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
According to this Colorado Government website [2] this woman is still signing legal documents (as of May 26th, 2006 **) ... names, places and dates seem to be not that important to these folks. (** didn't she get married in a very highly publicized TV wedding on May 20th, 2006?) Duke53 | Talk 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As an answer to "why was she still signing documents as Alice E. Barmore six days after her marriage to Duane Chapman?" - as a married woman, I can attest that it took a little over three weeks from the date of my marriage for my name to be legally changed with all government agencies AFTER filing the appropriate name change paperwork; it took three weeks alone for the Social Security Administration to update my information and send a card with my new name. Until all legal name changes to my married name had been registered, I was advised by my family's attorney to sign legal documents with the name I had used before my marriage (in my case, it was my maiden name as I had not been previously married), as it was still my legal name. Obviously, I can only back up my own personal experience, and cannot account for Beth Chapman's experience, but it could explain why, six days after marrying Duane Chapman, she still used the name "Alice E. Barmore" on legal documents - she was simply waiting for her legal name changes to be registered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.186.143.34 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] How he got his nick name

Copied from his to his site:

How'd you get a name like Dog?" Oliver once asked the biker, who was relatively new to the Lone Star state. "We have a guy in the gang who's always mad at God," explained Dog, the Disciples' sergeant-at-arms. "He's always flipping God off. So I started praying for him. Since we already have a 'Preacher' and a 'John the Baptist' in the gang, I became known as Dog -- God backwards."

I think this should be incorporated into the article (rewriten ofcourse), but I can't really think of, just how it should go in to the article.--74.130.131.120 15:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nndb and about.com as sources

I don't believe that nndb and about.com are reliable enough to source negative information, per WP:BLP. nndb does not seem to cite its sources, and about.com is the same thing as citing Wikipedia as a source, which is not allowed. Bios on living persons must have any negative info solidly sourced by reliable, verifiable secondary sources, or it should be immediately removed. Crockspot 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but ppl kept reverting to it, so I joined the crowd ... I still think that it's a crock, but "when in Rome ...." I also thought that the movie database place was inappropriate as it is created from reader contributions that are unsourced. Oh well.Duke53 | Talk 18:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I posted this article on the WP:BLPN, and it is being brought into compliance as we speak. Crockspot 18:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not post the fact tags, the negative info must be removed until the sources are cited. This is the policy laid down by WP:BLP and reiterated by Jimbo Wales. Fact tags are not appropriate for negative info on living persons. Crockspot 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I sourced everything that I added. You are preaching to the choir. Duke53 | Talk 21:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About lists its references. Example it references SFGate article Duane `Dog' Chapman Arrested by Feds By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer Thursday, September 14, 2006. Don't delete anything verified by this AP source. WAS 4.250 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About very often uses Wikipedia as a source; in fact, it is often word-for-word the same as Wikipedia, Duke53 | Talk 21:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. If About.com has good references, then cite those here directly, don't cite about.com Crockspot 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His son

Shouldn't it be noted that one of his sons is in jail right now on drug charges? Duane talked about it on the show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raven6247 (talk • contribs) 22:22, September 30, 2006.

I think that he got out on parole. I wonder who keeps track of probation(s) & parole(s) for the (extended) Chapman family ... it's gotta be close to a fulltime job. Duke53 | Talk 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dog said on his show recently that his son was paroled.

Tucker is not only out of jail, but he is living in Hawaii with Dog. He was at the court house with his father and Beth the day Dog was released on bond. This is him:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n219/honoluluhoney96825/Tuckerinthemiddle.jpg

Pattyanns2003 03:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional Letter

Currently 29 members of Congress have written a letter saying that they oppose extradition. This is all that needs to be said in my opinion. The remaining members have not said whether they support or do not support extradition. As far as we know they might not have ever heard of this case. We should not make inferences on their positions due to the fact that they have not signed the letter. This is the same logic for any issue. For example, recently a couple of Nobel laurates signed a letter saying they were worried about global warming. Just because hundreds others didn't sign it doesn't mean that they oppose the wording of the letter that was signed.--Burzum 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you go to any of the numerous Chapman fan pages you will see that they brag about having contacted every member of Congress; apparently the GREAT majority of them see no merit in this proposal. The way the article is written now is strictly POV. The remaining members have made their view known by not sending a letter. Duke53 | Talk 01:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Your argument suffers from the False choice and Argument from silence fallacies. Failing to sign the letter does not mean that any specific position has been taken. There are many possibilities why they might not have signed the letter: a) they support extradition, b) they do not like the wording, c) they did not review the letter or have not had the time to sign it, or d) they do not care about this case or think that it is not their job to intervene. Only a) supports your argument. You shouldn't put words into the mouths of members of Congress that they haven't said.--Burzum 02:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
How about you mention something like this. "29 members of Congress recently wrote an open letter to Condoleeza Rice U.S. Secretary of State, stating that they oppose the extradition of Duane "Dog" Chapman. No evidence exists as to whether or not the vast majority of members of Congress who have not commented on this matter are oppossed to Duane Chapman's extradition or not." If you can get backing for the statement about Dog's fans (or family) having written to the entire (or majority of the) Congress then something such as "Although, Chapman's proponents have written to almost every remaining member of Congress seeking their support in oppossing Chapman's extradition. So far, no evidence exists of any further Members of Congress expressing a view opposing Chapman's extradition". That seems fair. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this whole arguement reeks of someone with an agenda. Why can't you just put "29 members of congress sent a letter to C. Rice opposing extradition" and leave it at that. Why do you even have to mention fans of Dog and what they are saying about it. That's their opinion, let them have it, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Report the point as slim as possible so as to avoid POV in any direction. But for gods sakes, fan opinion has no place in a BLP article. Keep the focus directed on Dog Chapman and leave the rest out of it. This is exactly the point I was making up above.--Arkcana 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release

Has he been released form jail yet? Does anyone know? Big Boss 0 02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colleagues

I added that bit about some of Chapman's colleagues not liking his style or methods. I do realize there could be some potential POV concerns here. But my feeling is that having this bit in the article illustrates that not everyone approves of his methods and makes the article more rounded and neutral. JesseG 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The way it is now, the whole piece reads like a litany of his misdeeds. Perhaps there needs to be some quotes from bail bondsmen or other law enforcement officials that eapprove of his methods, his attempts to reform his bountys, or maybe even just the overall message fo the show. DEL 66.57.225.77 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It needs some more approval type factoids from people pretty bad. The article now reads - here is who he is, now here is why people don't like him...Not very NPOV at all.--Xiahou 02:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perceptions of Chapman

this entire section how does it fit in an encyclopedic entry of a person? Stating facts on someone does not mean to you have to dig for critics? You state the facts and leave it at that. What do others opinions mean to an encyclopedia? I am for removing this section. We are here to make an encyclopdia entry on a person not a listing of why such and such people don't like someone.--Xiahou 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the section as written, though part of it is well referenced, is written in a manner pushing an opinion of the subject. I think the Penny Harding part belongs, but it ought to be put at the bottom of the page in a "Criticism" section. And perhaps this is just my opinion, but biography of living persons articles ought to begin with sections most closely relevant to the subject itself, and end with the more trivial facts. Such as this order: Intro, Early Life (I think Family can probably be included into this section), then Career (and probably more information about his actual career and not just the Andrew Luster and 2006 Arrest would be nice to see), then the Andrew Luster and 2006 Arrest, then a Criticism section, then trivia and resources.--Arkcana 05:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but I disagree. It should be made clear that Chapman is not a proper representative of the bail bondsman trade, and so far that's the section that does so. — NRen2k5 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

What the heck is it with people anyway. Seems like any time someone relatively famous tries to do something good, a bunch of people go out of their way to try and knock them down. On Wikipedia here there seems to be this obsession amongst some editors that if some sub-famous celebrity has a "positive message," they have to try and come up with as much criticism as possible to counter it so they can make the article "balanced and NPOV." When it's the exact opposite. The purpose of NPOV is to keep Wikipedia an ENCYCLOPEDIA. An encyclopedia recites facts that can be referenced, usually in the most scientifically phrased method as possible so as to avoid illiciting opinion in the subject. It's not a list of fors and againsts.--Arkcana 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. Since there are no positive perceptions in the section, it seems it should be retitled "Criticism of Chapman" or something similar. Also, "kidnap" and other opinions from 3rd parties need to have the context of who is saying them and why, or else they bring POV into the article.

The following attempt at making this section a bit more NPOV was reverted without explanation or discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duane_Chapman&diff=106429902&oldid=106383635 71.103.112.246 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

I know IMDB is also a collection of user contributed information but it has a different birthdate. IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1738062/) says 2 Feb. NNDB and Wikipedia say 1 Feb. I didn't know if there was a verifiable source for this. JoelSherrill 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated

The whole 2006 section needs to be updated, it's full of "On xx/xx/2006 Champan will". Since it's 2007, they need to be updated. TJ Spyke 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/a/Talk%7EDuane_Chapman_c9f7.html"