Talk:Duane Chapman

Switching Family and current events section?

Would it be better to have the Family section before introducing the current news section? I figure it would be better to introduce his family members and history first before the reader gets to recent news. - Cyborg Ninja 03:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, current events are pretty important for this newsmaker. Just my view legacypac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) the first tv appearance of Dog is on Fox News Nov.6 at 9 pm eastern on Hannity and colmes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rykerbabe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Date links

that he hated rapists with a passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.192.11 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

True enough, but the real reason is the under US law convicted felons aren't allowed to

POSSESS "FIREARMS". Know your role, Jabroni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Unless they have their own felonies. What do you think the odds are? Anyway, would you want to shoot someone taped for broadcast? That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. A&E's risk management people probably have their own guys with guns out of camera range (maybe even operating the cameras). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

September 2006 (UTC)

Noa 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)

It mentions on the page that he was convicted of FIRST degree murder and only sentenced to five years? Has anyone been able to find a copy of the State of Texas Vs. Duane Chapman? I would like to read the details of the case from the court itself and figure out exactly why the judge thought his involvement in a murder warranted this slap on the wrist.. I'm sure the family of Jeremy Oliver isn't thrilled with his celebrity. 75.207.193.110 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I put in his side of the story, he says he was outside the house and heard a shot and knew something happened and because he didn't call police and was part of the gang, he was an accessory. He claims the law at the time didn't have provisions for accessory. Believe it or not but normally you don't get five years if you pulled the trigger. Fanra 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

His credibility is absolute zero. I suspect the length of the sentence had more to do with the proof available rather than the alleged innocence. Bulbous 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is January 2012 and I'm watching Chapman carrying firearms on multiple trips, multiple days. I really think the text should reflect this. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The only source I found that spoke about what weapons the Chapmans carry said that they only had paintball guns that were modified with pepper-spray loads (here at Zimbio.Com). Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Da Kine Bail Bonds

I removed the passage that stated he started Da Kine Bail Bonds. His son Leland started the company. Source —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.233.28 (talk • contribs) 19:51, July 28, 2005

Just a thought: Hawaii IS part of America. =P SkittlzAnKomboz 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah bounty hunting is also legal in other states, including Texas I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno-Etile (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Each state regulates it differently. Although Bounty hunting is the common term, many states call it "Fugitive Recovery." And Bounty Hunters are called "Fugitive Recovery Agents." Most states require them to wear a vest that says agent or a badge, or a combination of both. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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

Duane Chapman was never a wanted fugitive on the run. Incarcerated for a period of time, but not a fugitive. Marc S 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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." —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

In the credits at the beginning of the show Tim is referred to as "Dog's Brother"

It's a Hawaiian thing. If you notice DOG calls alot of people "My brother" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.197.18 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not a Hawaiian thing. People all over the United States call people Brother, or Bro. The main difference in Hawaii, is Hawaiians call strangers Bro. And Hawaiians have a weird pronounciation. It sounds like "Bra" or "Brow" when a Hawaiian says Bro. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

Does anyone know what has happened to Dog since March 7. 2007?

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen, and you should be forever banned from Wikipedia for daring to say somebody who disagrees with your opinion as to the nobility of the action is a "rapist". --SlayerRob 11:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

Relationship with 'Beth' and 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).

I wanted to clarify a piece of information about Beth. It states here that Dominic Smith was taken by the state at three years old. This is incorrect. In an episode of Dog The Bounty Hunter (the ep where Dominic turns 21) Beth says she gave birth at 17 and wasnt able to look after him so she and her mother privately adopted him out. Dog then searched for and found Dominic about a year before his 21st.

Just wanted to run this past you guys before it was officially changed on the wiki.

Bobbleheadqueen (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobbleheadqueen, I don't think it necessarily is incorrect that Dominic Smith was taken by the state. The reason for this is that Beth also have said (on a show I recently watched) that she "lost her son" due to her own actions. She said this when they had arrested a young mother who was doing drugs. She then used her own history as an example in order to get the young woman to understand that if she didn't change her life for the better real soon, she too could end out losing her child, just like Beth had learned herself "the hard way". It seems to me that they do give somewhat conflicting information at different times on the show, the reason may e.g. be that they do not give the whole story or explain it further (there could be a perfectly good explanation for the conflicting information in this case, e.g. the reason could be that she first lost her son, then later agreed to let him be privately adopted rather than being in the foster care system - point is, I do not know, there can be more to the story). Bottom line, I do not think that only a comment on the show can be used as a source for information about such an important detail about living persons on Wikipedia. It has to be otherwise confirmed/cited to be a reason for changing the information in the article. Peapeam (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Dog's relationships: In the paragraph about family/relationships, there's something that just does not add up timewise. It says that Dog married Tawny Marie in 1992 and that they filed for divorce in 1994 (divorce finalized 2002). But then, later it says that Dog married Beth in 2006, after being together for 16 years. Basically they then have been together since 1990. But Dog married Tawny Marie in 1992, two years after he supposedly got together with Beth. Was he with Beth in 1990, then in 1992-94 together with Beth *and* married with Tawny Marie? Not very likely! Bottom line, something must be wrong with the timeline somewhere. Is the correct thing that he had NOT been with Beth for 16 years when they got married, even if they say so? Or did they get together in 1989/90, then had a break in their relationship where he got together with Tawny Marie, married and separated her, before he got back together with Beth? If so, maybe the article shouldn't say that they had been together for 16 years when they got married, but that they married 16 years after they first got together? Hope somebody can check this up and edit the article so that the timeline seems logic and is correct. Peapeam (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They were together, meaning in a romantic relationship, beginning in 1990. During this time he and she both married other people, they broke up & got back together, still met up from time to time, apparently carrying on an affair with each other through all of it. Not judging them, but that's according to his book and things they have said on the show. On the episode about their 4th anniversary (May 2010), which just recently aired, he said he had been with her for 20 years, not just 4. They made a commitment to be together & live together in 1995 and got married in 2006. CucFan (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.134.236 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding his relationship with Tawny Marie: The paragraph about his relationships says they got divorced in 2002, but the frame on the right at the top of the article says 2003. The source cited (#1, about.com) says "around 2003". Could somebody check the court records which the article refers to, to see when they really got divorced, and edit so that the two places in the article does not contradict each other as they do now?Peapeam (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Renesmee-ej (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

      How about in the trivia section? Me, I think that his religion should be moved to there, instead of under the 
      "perceptions" category. FlaviaR 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)FlaviaR (I sure hope this signature thingy works)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

On Hannity & Colmes Dog says Tucker went to jail for armed robbery (with a BB gun), but the wiki says it was for drug charges?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter what Dog's son did if the article is about Dog and he didn't do anything that affected his father? (Now the whole racial slur thing is another matter.) 74.103.47.216 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Release

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

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)

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)

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Duane_Chapman&diff=106429902&oldid=106383635 71.103.112.246 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on his book reads like an advertisement. Details his life as a "loving father, loving husband" and "hero". Really? Is him being a hero an accepted fat? 76.88.141.142 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

02/02/1953 what shows in Denver Colorado crimanl public records

In the episode "Guns and Ice," Dog says he was born on Groundhog Day. 69.174.134.236 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)CucFan

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)

5ft 7 inches tall? Wow! Who'd have thought it! Is he a mini-me to a much bigger Dog?

The article currently reads:

Chapman has been married five times. He has twelve children and eight grandchildren.[citation needed]

I've been looking for some sources on the number of children and have come across several sources that appear to conflict:

1. http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/chapmansmith.htm: Lists 11 children, including one that has died. Several updates have been published, the last of which was on 2007-02-20. Has he had a child in the last three months?
2. http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-duanechapmandogthebountyhunterweddingdaughter,0,976802.story: Claims 10: ... his remaining 10 children ... Published 2006-05-22. Note "remaining" -- one of his daughters died on 2006-05-19, before the article was published. If we factor that in then we get 11. This agrees with source 1.
3. http://starbulletin.com/2005/11/27/news/story01.html: Claims 12. If the url is to be believed, the publication date was 2005-11-27, well after the date given (2000/2001) in source 1 for his most recent child. But this article was published before the other two. Typo?

Thoughts? --Chris (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and used the first one, since it's been cited numerous times in the article already. (I updated the citation tag as well.) The <ref> after the first paragraph under "Family" covers the whole paragraph, as follows:

• Chapman has been married five times (the source lists four previous marriages)
• and is the biological father of eleven children (the source lists eleven)
• one of whom is deceased. (Barbara)
• His oldest son, Christopher Chapman, was born in 1969. (the source says "c.1969", assuming this is good enough)
• Duane Chapman was not married to the mother (the year of the first marriage is 1972, three years later)
• Christopher was put up for adoption. (the source says he was "reportedly adopted at a young age")

Hope I'm not going overboard with WP:BLP by explaining all this, but it makes me feel better.  :) I also removed some stuff I couldn't find a citation for. --Chris (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I count 14 blood children, just based on what has been entered into Wikipedia:

• Christopher from his first realtionship (put up for adoption).
• Duane Lee and Leland from his first marriage.
• Zebediah (deceased), Wesley, and James from his second marriage.
• Barbara-Katie "B.K" (deceased), Tucker, and "Baby" Lyssa from this third marriage.
• James, Nicholas, and Leilani from his fourth marriage.
• Bonnie Jo and Garry from his fifth to Beth (and he's adopted her daughter Cecily Barmore).

67.160.20.49 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • What is the story behind James, Nicholas and Leilani? I have seen several websites that say these 3 are his children but this is the first I'm hearing that they are the children of his fourth wife Tawny Marie? Other sites just say he has 3 other children with those names and no details are given on their mothers. Are they Tawney's children? Are they bastard children with other women? Are they fictitious all together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.208.23.16 (talk) 20:36:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

A question: is it really important to list out all the children etc? This article is a bit of a mess because of so much of this sort of stuff.. NathanLee 17:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially when under the children cited it attempts to link which women they're from. (Example: Barbara Katie Chapman They had three children) Makes the Dog sound like he's committing incest. Very confusing Zinza 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that specific passage. Bulbous 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

Well, I was just thinking. Yesterday on Dog's TV show, he said that he was born on Groundhog's Day and that is February 2nd. But here in the article it says that he was born on February 1st. So I think that is wrong. Unless Groundhog's Day is on February 1st in Hawaii. 'Coz my father was born on the 2nd and it's marked as Groundhog's Day on every calendar I've seen. MissEnnaira 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, his birthday is verified to be February 2nd in his new book. I changed it some time ago. 68.150.5.250 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

what happened today

apparently, you need to have a citation to have it on wikipedia, if something major happened, would we just have to have a citation to put it on this website?

yes, the event in question I reverted you edits has yet to be confirmed the website you pointed out in the edit summary itself (for now) said "may have been dropped" once confirmed cite the link and add away. Hopefully its true. --Xiahou 01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone on wikipedia "hope" for anything. We report facts. We do not advocate, mollify or protect. Those not able to put there personal opinions aside need to edit other entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.104.50 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Audiotape of Chapman using racial slur

This sentence (in addition to its misuse of 'lead' in place of 'led') clearly reflects a rightwing point of view that defends the use of an unquestionably racist slur and blames civil rights leaders for standing up against it: "The audiotape, which Tucker sold to the National Enquirer,[21] has lead one civil rights leader to call for Chapman's popular Dog the Bounty Hunter show on A&E to be canceled by means of the politically correct situation and liberalism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.103.21.225 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. The reference I just added has no mention of any of those claims about political correctness and liberalism--it seems to be just unsourced POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny-mt (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuz, y'know, you're not allowed to use certain colors when you paint, and certain notes when you write music. Amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unquestionably" racist? It's very questionable. Unquestionably questionable. It looks like he just didn't want someone to take his use of the word "nigger" out of context. It looks like he stated this multiple times, and yet half of the US have dug out the pitchforks and torches they used for Imus. We can't know for sure what he meant by using the word, but it's pretty obvious, based on his multiple explanations, that what he said wasn't based on race.--69.149.212.184 02:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what this thread is about, however. The issue raised was regarding the insertion of an editor's individual point of view into the article and the fact that it needs to remain excised per WP:NPOV. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention but using the n-word, in ANY context, for ANY reason is being racist (with some very, very specific exceptions, for instance in a class on racism, or when explaining to somebody NOT to use the word). If you disagree then speak to just about any African-American, they'll tell you that even when other Africans use it, it's STILL offensive... anyway, I know it's off-topic, just sayin'. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 02:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Armed" Robbery

This article alleges "Dog" has 18 "armed robbery" convictions, citing a New York Times article from 2006 in which it is stated he has 18 convictions of robbery. There is a difference. 18 'armed' robbery convictions and he wouldn't be out policing the streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.28.154 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He isn't out "policing the streets". He is capturing people that owe him (or occasionally others in his line of business) money. There's a big difference. -- Bulbous (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bulbous, he isn't merely capturing people that owe him money. He is capturing wanted criminals that have jumped bail and have active warrants issued for their arrest. Yes, there is a big difference. FCGreg (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's agreed, Chapman is not out "policing." Period. He is a bounty hunter, nothing more and nothing less, he has no power more than anyone else, and none less either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.104.50 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Source cited says, "robbery" not "armed robbery". Find a source that says "armed" and it can say "armed", otherwise it is "robbery". Might be seen as nitpicking but Wikipedia is pretty strict on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -- Fanra (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourced -> Honolulu StarBulletin. Many other less reliable sources report same information. Bulbous (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So.... Why is there nothing in the article about his criminal past, other than his murder conviction? There used to be more info in this article, but there appears to have been a fanpov whitewash... AlaskaMike (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Children: Lee Chapman

On this page it says that he has 11 children, including Lee Chapman. Lee Chapman's father is in fact Roy Chapman, as stated on the 'Lee Chapman' Wikipedia page. Plus Lee Chapman is English, and is only six years younger than Duane Chapman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.222.47 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is his social standing in hawaii noteworthy?

The man has burned quite a few bridges here on o'ahu and is usually spoken of unfavorably in casual conversation. Would this warrant addition to an article with appropriate sources? Spellbook (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is he a convicted felon?

If so, is he allowed to carry a concealed weapon? If so, is he allowed to be a "bounty hunter", since most states who allow bounty hunters require them to pass background checks? 24.160.69.161 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment that used to be here removed as it had nothing to do with topics on this page. Convicted felons are not permitted to be bounty hunters in Colarado, this is a problem that got Dog. They are not allowed to carry weapons. This is US Law.

There is a difference between being allowed to write bail and being allowed to bounty hunt. This is why for several years he was not allowed to write bail in Hawaii. We have seen him bounty hunting many times in Colorado, so apparently he is allowed, or was at the time of filming. 69.174.134.236 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)CucFan

Epoch era (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Anyone with a record or past aren't allowed to do a lot of things other people take for granted. It is a fact of life in America. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is part of the problem not part of the solution. Epoch era (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dumb Add In

I had posted dog's comment when he left school.. Unfortunately, it was grafitied with "pushing testicles, and spitting" while, I would like to say, that dumb crap people are posting is stupid. If you have something you want to add talk in discussing.

PEACE!!

Bozonessinc (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Is there any good the section on his audio tape is censored? Per WP:CENSOR it should not be. I will move to correct it if there isn't a good reason. --Leivick (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

relationships

Does this wikipedia page suggest he was with Beth while he was still married for 7 years? Is this correct? What is the proof for the longevity of the previous marriage or the dog and beth's relationship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.42.154 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal heritage, verification and relationship to history 'hobby'

In one episode Chapman - several years ago - Dog talks about his sympathy for alcohol problems faced by many Native Americans and makes reference to his own aboriginal heritage, in the sense that it gives him inside knowledge into the issue.

If that is verifiable, (is his claim enough?) would it not make more sense to spell that out than to simply state that he studies Native American history as a 'hobby'? If it is about his own heritage then it ought to be accorded more respect than simply being described as a hobby like stamp collecting, I would imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.66.17 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In his first book, Dog says that his great-grandmother's maiden name was Cochise and that his mother was "half Chiricahua Apache" and that he was bullied in school from other children who apparently could see Native American physical traits in him. He also says "the truth is, I'm not really sure about my heritage." 69.174.134.236 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)CucFan

Shortly after Dog was released from prison, he married Anne M. Tegnell in 1979. They had three children together: Zebediah Duane Chapman (born prematurely, January 1, 1980, died January 31, 1980), Wesley Chapman (born 1980) and J.R Chapman (born 1982) who was born after Dog and Tegnell divorced.

WHY?

Why is this man famous and trying to tell people whats wrong and right??????????? he should be in jail...period. Why do the states insist on making people famous for NOTHING? THIS SHOW IS A JOKE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.209.99 (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, douche: #1: You cant fault Duane "Dog" Chapman for trying to counsel people to stay straight! You want to attack him for trying to do good? #2: What crime is he currently guilty of? Why should he be in jail? For what? for the shooting decades ago, while he sat in a car? Sounds like a bullcrap charge to me! Some dude says "wait here, Im gonna buy some pot" and then shoots the dealer! Duane's friend royally f--ked him! Famous for nothing? Not nothing!! The man is a bounty hunter; they made a TV show around a Bounty Hunter. What part of that do you not understand? Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

then don't watch the program. Millions of others do. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy on Maui

I don't know if this is newsworthy, or article worthy or not. The author claims that he was assaulted by Dog Chapman's body guard. http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-i-2011-04-14-75934.113117-MauiTime-Publisher-Tommy-Russo-Assaulted-By-MPD.html --Eraticus (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this article really has nothing to do with the Dog's bio, I don't believe it is worth adding. Thanks for asking. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Catcher's Mitt

Does anyone know what leather products Chapman uses to condition that catcher's mitt he calls his face? Without some serious grease - maybe some Shineola - that thing would dry up and crack into 1000 pieces. 76.121.143.28 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As much as I lmao'ed at your comment, this sort of thing is non-encyclopedic... at least you were smart enough to put it on the talk page and not on the article itself. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nickname explanation removed

I removed the sentence explaining the origin of his 'Dog' nickname, as the source referenced (London Times online) didn't have the article mentioned. It was also tagged as dubious, so it seemed like a good idea to remove it. I did a quick Google search, trying to find some source explaining where he got the nickname but I couldn't find anything. Don't really have the time to waste on this idiot but if someone wants to, I'm sure there's a reputable source out there with the story that can be cited. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 02:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I also removed the mention of Beth Chapman's arrest in Hawaii for allegedly entering a federal courthouse with a hidden mic. As per WP:BLP, unsourced potentially libelous material must be removed. Both the 'references' listed had no URL in the {{cite web}} tag, and I couldn't find a single mention of this anywhere except for here on wiki. Not that I'm a fan of any of these people but this definitely violated WP:BLP ... /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)