Jump to content

Talk:Chupacabra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.233.178.130 (talk) at 07:38, 15 January 2009 (→Urban Legend?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request Edit

{{editprotected}} Under History, the sentence "The first known attacks attributed to Denise Padilla occurred in March of 1995 . . .". I am sure that name does not belong there. GLKeeney Talk  19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and downgraded to semi protection. Mr.Z-man 20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://mnweekly.ru/world/20070906/55273282.html

who knows how valid this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.202.26 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Rapist

It says under history what you may not know is that chupacabra means cow rapist which is untrue. Im removing it--Primetimeking 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Chupacabra Sighting should be added:

On July 5, 2008, a 32 year old female was driving with her brights on when she witnessed a strange grey kangaroo like creature digging in a trash bin next to the road in Holly. It appeared to be over 3 feet tall with large glowing red eyes and a long pointy face. The creature reached for the ground with its front arms and jumped forward with its back legs swinging in front of it like a rabbit before it disappeared into the woods. Source for 'Strange Grey Chupacabra Creature Spotted in Holly Michigan:'http://www.mufon.com/mufonreports.htm Artist rendition of sighting can be seen at these urls: http://www.theblackvault.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/45984/normal_coraschupacabraJ.jpg http://www.theblackvault.com/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/45984/chupasketch2small.jpg—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenimue (talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There has been a video posted from a police officer who has claimed to have spotted a Chupacabra. http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/9256876 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorponis (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GAC

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

1 The prose tends to be wordy. Example: 'March of 1995' instead of 'March 1995'. First sentence of the history section appears to be using the wrong word and the article needs a copyedit in general. With my date correction, the MOS appears to be followed, although there is a bit too much bolding.

What on earth do you suppose is meant by the expression "by the animals" in the sentence which begins (subsection "Reported Sightings", paragraph 2): "Reports from Central Russia beginning in March 2005 tell of a beast that kills by the animals....(?)" Hag2 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 One of the sources links back to Wikipedia and it is unclear whether they used the Wikipedia page or if Wikipedia used them as a source. Of course, if both happened, we might be citing ourselves.

3 While the coverage is on topic, I've read several sources that mention the Chupacabra as far back as the 1950s or 1970s neither of which have been included in the text. The text also mentions every recent sighting which is not very good when the article needs to be focused, only the relevant where info surfaced warrant mention.

4 In several places 'supposedly' and 'purported' are inserted when it's really not needed. When you say a person stated something, it's already clear it's their opinion or testimony. This way of writing tends to have a POV glow.

5 Heavily vandalised by IPs but otherwise stable.

6 Image use is fine, although it's sparse. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 I edited this article around November 1 (can't remember the exact date) primarily to reduce excessive use of the passive voice in sentence constructions (eg., '...is a cryptid said to inhabit...' WHO said?). Several passives that I removed seem to have been re-inserted, and there is one link error I made that needs to be corrected: 'north american vulture' should be changed to 'new world vulture'. Manner of Speaking (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic

We're covering a popular culture phenomenon seriously as if it's some kind of a myth. The urban legend was made up out of whole cloth barely 10 years ago. I'm not sure how many people actually believe in it and the article ignores the issue. Encyclopedic coverage would discuss the incidents that gave rise to the phenomenon, how it spread, who spread it, how it was promoted/marketed, and why it resonated with people. Th lead sentence should establish its context as a new phenomenon. It's probably closer to a jackalope or bigfoot, or perhaps UFO visitors, than it is like pixies or werewolves or worse demons dun dun dun!!! . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of those misinformed guys that think this is from Mexico right? well the "phenomenon" as you put it was created way before the people of Mexico plagiaraized it, all the way back in the 70s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.90.211 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first incidents may have been in the 1950s in North Carolina, but it was not reptile in appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.18.206 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of January 6 2008 the http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/04/27/chupacabra.shtml link no longer works, as the site has been removed. The newspaper "Moscow News", which for a time used mosnews.com domain, still has sites mn.ru and mnweekly.ru, but there are no articles about chupacabra in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.160.253 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection

Why are some sections under semi-protection? What is the reason for this, and is it still relevant to do so? 210.176.70.2 (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Chupies

I normally don't watch cryptozoology articles, but the chupacabra has always fascinated me. Has anyone seen the connection between Kokpelli and the Chupacabra? Both have spines, both have short limbs, and a stick figure chupacabra could as well be Kokopelli.Metalraptor (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact Chupacabras are often depited as quite muscular figures, besides why would a North American diety spend its time killing farm animals in the Caribbean? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why Not? Greencircle (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Thylacine

Does anyone think Chupie is a Thylacine? Both creatures do suck blood (Don't me why the Tassie Tiger sucks blood, just saw it on TV). And both of the animals shot or photograph look the same.--4444hhhh (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chupacabra legend began in Puerto Rico, there aren't any Mexican Thylacines in that island, the Chupacabra is just a myth and like all popular myths it expanded across its region. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But how can you explain about the animals being killed in those gruesome ways in Puerto Rico and Austraila? I seen the photos of both of the slaughtered animals from Puerto Rico and Australia. And what about the photo of that hairless beast, that could be a Thylacine in mange, no canid has that kind of structure.--4444hhhh (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puerto Rico's climate can substain several imported exotic species, the government's possition was leaning towards monkeys or some other feral species. All I can tell you about the photo is that it isn't a Chupacabra, the bald dog (or canine like) beast theory is usually used by members of the US media wich aren't familiar with the progression of attack accounts, in Puerto Rico and the rest of the Caribbean there were no reports of 'dog-like' Chupacabras, those come mostly from Mexico or the US wich are rather far from the myth's origins. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then name one, large, known carnivore that can suck blood from it's victim. The only other carnivore do that is the Thylacine, which according to farmers it was a vampire to their live-stock.--4444hhhh (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you say chupie is, not one, but two different kinds of animals? --4444hhhh (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm saying that all of the reports claiming that the Chupacabras resemble "bald dogs" or other canids are inaccurate. To solve a mistery one must look at its source, unless a group of Mexican Thylacines crossed the Gulf of Mexico swiming there is no real basis to the theory. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the question I asked about which large modern carnivore can suck blood? Also the Thylacine could have been imported there, like a secret conservation project. Also it may be not a living Thylacine, but rather a new species of Thylacinus, one that either migrated there or got imported there for something else.--4444hhhh (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is highly unlikely, the wild life laws in Puerto Rico are more strict that the ones in most the United States due to the island's complex ecosistem, no "secret projects" of this kind could have taken place without going public. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Thylacinus isn't the creature, then who is?--4444hhhh (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we knew that it wouldn't be a myth now, would it?

Garonyldas (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chupacabras Remains Found

I removed a section saying Chupacabras remains were found because the reference was... questionable at best. It was a UFO theorist site, and it had quoted a veterinarian saying that the animal might be a genetic experiment gone awry. Genetic science has not developed to the level that we can make nightmare chimera creatures. --Bijhan (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all these references questionable at best? Kingturtle (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say in popular culture the chupacabra also appeared in the cartoon "Jackie Chan Adventures" in season 2 episode 21 called "The Curse of El Chupacabra" and was aired on 2001-10-15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Legend?

Just in case no one realised it, "urban" implies the legend circulates the realm of a city. Chupacabras are -however- a myth of the countryside. Perhaps "rural legend" would be more suiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.84.118 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be "folk tale", but it's all the same. --Satyricrash (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "urban legend" (or worse still "urban myth") is incorrect for any of these phenomenon. Both Jeffrey Victor and Jan Brunvand have shown pretty damn conclusively, that these legend-clusters grow in large rural centres. This is true, even when the legend's subject is wholly urban; the alligators in the New York sewers, for example. The correct term, accepted by sociologists and folklorists, is "contemporary legend". 220.233.178.130 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?

I saw the episode of "Monsterquest" that talked about the chupacabra, and after the DNA analysis, they said that the X chromosome of the hairless dog-style chupie was coyote, while the Y chromosome was lupine in origin. How does this translate into the experts deciding that chupies are coyotes?Cyrus Beautor (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I think the article needs a better picture. For one thing, the current one looks like it's standing on 2 legs, which is very strange. The eyes seem much too big also. It looks more like some kind of spikey martian than a chupacabra. We need a more coyote-like or dog-like picture. Deepfryer99 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take some time to read the article, you will notice that the "spiky martian" is the original description of a Chupacabras. The mange-infected coyote image only became popular after people in Texas and Mexico began attracting media attention when claiming that these coyotes were "blood-suckers". - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Pop Culture References

If Chupacabra references from the X-Files and "Scooby Doo and the Monster of Mexico" are worth inclusion, I can't see why the notable reference from Futurama (a show with at least as many viewers as "Scooby Doo and the Monster of Mexico") should not be included in the same section. If the Futurama reference isn't worth being mentioned, then most of the references in that section should be deleted (and perhaps the entire section altogether). ChargersFan (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to include the trivia back, however comparing two full productions that use the Chupacabras as a base to a passing reference that doesn't even use the actual name, is just ridiculous. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it makes sense to include the movies. However, the appearance of the creature in comic books and other TV shows should be held to the same standard of relevance as its satirical appearance in Futurama. ChargersFan (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An entire paragraph is overkill, maybe a mention of the program's title. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance on Futurama was more than a "passing reference." The episode revolved around the existence and appearance of the creature. More importantly, when this episode aired in 1999, many (if not most) Americans were completely unfamiliar with the Chupacabra myth. After this episode aired, a number of viewers (myself included) were undoubtedly prompted to learn more about the origin of the myth. We shouldn't be so sidetracked by the fact that Futurama changed the name (slightly) for comical effect. ChargersFan (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By 1999, the myth was already known in Mexico, I doubt that it was unkown by Americans. I have seen the Futurama episode and the character is clearly not a Chupacabras, the background given isn't even simmilar to this. Thus, its rather easy to conclude that taking a funny jab at a myth and displaying a few minutes of footage is indeed irrelevant. Assuming that "a number of viewers were undoubtedly prompted to learn more about the origin of the myth" is an assumption, we don't include material based on that, that's what WP:OR stands for. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are assumptions being made, such as doubting that the myth was unknown to Americans in 1999 -- although I actually said "many (if not most) Americans". Saying "Thus, its rather easy to conclude that taking a funny jab at a myth and displaying a few minutes of footage is indeed irrelevant" is, ironically, an assumption on your part. Some people didn't know anything about the myth before the episode, and wanted to learn about it after seeing the episode. Therefore, it was not "irrelevent" to this myth. I didn't assume anything at all when I said "a number of viewers were undoubtedly prompted to learn more about the origin of the myth." I, myself, was one of them (and one is a number, so the statement was as factual as you can get). Another fact remains that the reference to this myth on Futurama nearly ten years ago via prime-time network television was one of the biggest cases of media exposure it had received in the United States at that time. ChargersFan (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's terrific, now find a reliable source that shows the "revolutionary nature" that a single five-minutes long exposition opened the eyes of a signifficant ammount of the American population, that it had an impact on you doesn't mean that it was for more people. Otherwise we keep the trivia out. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chupacabra&oldid=264215154"