Talk:Chupacabra/Archive 1

Repeated Vandalism

This page, like many in Wikipedia, is subject to schoolboy vagina licking. I once swallowed my fathers testicles. DO you find this amusing? I noticed that too. Honestly, it's like the internet is full of nothing but 5-year-olds.

True, Including a picture which was President Roosevelt. - 86.140.63.210 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, The Roosevelt picture is actually funny. Especially if it was Teddy. 69.214.48.133 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont speak spanish very well

The following was removed simply because it was not very professional and badly worded anyway.

It is a common mistake among people who don't speak Spanish very well to think that "Chupacabras" is necessarily plural. In Spanish, compound words such as this very often include a plural term, even when the resulting word is singular.

I would think that this page just isnt the place to get into *excessive* discussions on spanish plurals.

Mexico

It's also supposed to exist in Mexico, and yes I knew that before I saw it on X-Files.  :-) People there made jokes about it and there were T-shirts of it at all the little tourist traps. Kind of like Bigfoot in the U.S., most people don't believe in it but every now and then you meet someone who does.

California

Xeno: I didn't believe in it until I interviewed more than one person who'd seen it (they didn't know about eachother's stories) in the same area (Calavaras County California!) http://www.xenophilia.com/zb/zb0004.htm (Intended more as a fun and speculative page than an Encyclopedia entry.)

Before the 1980s

Is there any evidence whatsoever for reports of "Chupacabra" earlier than the 1980s? Wondering simply, -- Froggy

Jersey Devil

I think the Jersey Devil reference should be deleted. The Chupacabra is described as an upright reptiloid with spines on its head and back; the Jersey Devil is a much older phenomenon, and is described as a winged creature. Pictures I've seen make it look like a creepy pterodactyl-like critter.

Changed the Jersey Devil reference and added a bit more data. -- Storm

I say chupacabras, you say chupacabra

The title of this article should be "Chupacabras", as it is a shortening of "goat sucker" ("Chupador de cabras", in spanish - note the final s. "Chupador de cabra" makes no sense and sounds odd in spanish). The problem lies in the direct translation of "goat" as singular; in spanish, the usage es in plural whenever describing something. For example (mesa=table, auto=car) "limpiador de mesas" (table cleaner), "corredor de autos" (car racer), etc. -- AlanMB

Isn't the Spanish form Chupacabras? (plural = singular). It's my understanding that English speakers dropped the final "s" because it makes the word seem plural. -- Error

Well, anyone remember "pease" porridge soup? (A pease used to mean a pea.) We changed that one too. Wiwaxia 14:39, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Both "chupacabra" and "chupacabras" are accepted on Spanish and Portuguese, but the plural IS NOT the same as the singular. The "chupacabra" form relates to an attack to a single goat, while the "chupacabras" form relates to an attack to a an entire group. Since there really isn't any difference on the meaning of the term, both forms are accepted and used everywhere. Mackeriv 02:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The section entitled "Naming convention" is messy, verbose, contradictory and confusing. It looks like an ongoing wrangle on a Talk page, rather than part of an encyclopaedia article:

The creature is known as both "Chupacabra" and "Chupacabras" throughout the Americas, although the plural is not the same as the singular. The "Chupacabra" form relates to an attack on a single goat, while the "Chupacabras" form relates to attacks to several goats. Both forms are accepted and used everywhere.

The name can be preceded by the masculine definite article ("El Chupacabras"), which means roughly "The goat-sucker" in Spanish. It is considered grammatically correct, despite the common mistake of thinking "Chupacabras" is necessarily plural. Compound expressions such as this often include a term in the plural, even when the phrase is in the singular. Examples from the Spanish language include "correcaminos" ("road-runner"), "lavapiés" ("feet washing", a ceremony of the Catholic Church included in the preparation for Easter) and others.

Such phrases end in "s" because the second term is already in the plural and have no distinct plural form, except for the change of every other term of the sentence referring to them. Example: El chupacabras apareció ("the goat-sucker appeared"), los chupacabras aparecieron ("the goat-suckers appeared", plural).

However, to conform with the grammatical rules of the Brazilian Portuguese, the correct name of the beast would be "Chupa-cabras", with a hyphen.

The name of the thing is the chupacabras. One chupacabras, two chupacabras. The singular ends in an s and the plural is the same. Easy. The fact that an alternative form chupacabra exists does not change that fact. A statement like "The "chupacabra" form relates to an attack to a single goat, while the "chupacabras" form relates to an attack to a an entire group" shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the word (and many others like it in Spanish) -- as the examples quoted show. This section should, I suggest, be deleted. Flapdragon 02:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand. Deleting the section would only bring more people to the article ranting about the name and adding their views to it. Trust me. That's because I've created it. Now, what you are saying might make enough sense in Spanish, but you should know that the article can't only reflect the Spanish language view of this issue. This also owes a lot to Portuguese. I live in Brazil. I know how it is. About the state of the section, when I created it a long time ago, it seemed good enough to me. I made it "straight to the point" the most I could. The clearest I could. Sure, other people came in and made their changes, and since those weren't any absurds, I didn't do much about them. Perhaps that's why you're getting confused, but in that case, I think the content should be a little better improved. That way it won't look "messy" or "contradictory".--Kaonashi 04:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to explain where you see the "getting confused" in what I said? An article that says that chupacabras is not the same as chupacabra, but it's the same really, and it's known as "both "Chupacabra" and "Chupacabras" throughout the Americas", but in Brazil it's actually "chupa-cabras" with a hyphen -- now that's getting confused. Someone who says that I might (eh? might?!) be right about Spanish, but there's Portuguese to take into account too, but has already admitted that the situation is exactly the same in Portuguese (singular noun ending in "s") -- that's someone getting very confused. A sentence like "Compound expressions such as this often include a plural term, even when the phrase is singular" -- that's pretty confusing for the poor old reader, as well as unnecessary. Since you use the word, yes it is "absurd" to have an encyclopaedia article that repeats and contradicts itself and can't seem to make up its own mind what it's saying. Incidentally, since you have now deleted it, do you no longer stand by your bizarre claim that the beast actually has a different name according to whether it attacks one goat at a time, or several? ("A chupacabra has attacked my goat! Oh no, it got both goats -- must have been a chupacabras instead!") Or were you "getting confused" when you wrote that?

The matter of the name is extremely simple, and the article, even as amended, makes very heavy weather it. It's the chupacabras, or chupa-cabras in Portuguese if you like, meaning "sucker of goats", but you also find it called the chupacabra, perhaps because some English speakers wrongly assume chupacabras must be plural. That's all that needs to be said.

As for people coming back to add their views and tinker with what you've written, well yes, that's what happens on Wikipedia, it's kind of the point really, and you just have to get used to it. "Trust me", as you would say. As it tells you every time you edit a page, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it". Flapdragon 11:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I didn't know Wikipedia's point is teamwork, and that its content is there to be edited by anyone, I'd never even consider applying for adminship. If I didn't know people here are only here to work together in order to make a better encyclopedia, I wouldn't bother being here. So it's useless pointing me what Wikipedia is or not. As for the "confusion" you insist of talking about so much, you'd do best to remember who brought up this confusion in the first place. It wasn't me. Guess who was. The section where you made your first post here was long dead, bud. Whether you like what was in the article or not, people weren't minding it. Now just don't go pointing your finger at others and telling whether they are confused or not. Instead, if you were that unhappy with the section, you should have gone there yourself and fixed it, instead of leaving the legwork for someone else.

It's done now. Hope the confusion is gone. See you.--Kaonashi 16:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's obviously still some confusion in someone's mind about who started pointing fingers! Why not glance back through your posting and practise what you preach?

I don't know, first he complains of the risk of "bring[ing] more people to the article ranting", then he says people "weren't minding it" anyway, then he says go ahead and do what you like! -- which is indeed what I should have done in the first place and avoided all the silly backchat. Funny boy... ;-)

Seriously though, it's a shame to see such a display of arrogance and bad temper from someone who's supposed to be an "admin" in response to a perfectly reasonable point. He must have forgotten to read all the stuff about keeping it polite and constructive. Flapdragon 00:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category

I see someone decided to add this article to the "Puerto Rico" category. I don't think it should be related to that category, since it's obvious this article deals with a subject that is related to several regions in America. That is well clear to anyone who reads that article. If it has to be affiliated with a category, it should be something like "Monsters" or "Mythical Creatures" (yes, I know this one doesn't exist). Anyone agrees with that? – Mackeriv 02:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed. – Mackeriv 03:01, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Texas

The hairless creature that is suspected to be Chupacabra caught by a rancher in San Antonio, Texas is discovered in November of 1996 according to several websites including http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa051898.htm ; I thus made a amendment to the article changing the date from July 2004 to November 1996. --Da Man

Apparently, both news are different. An article posted by the same person who added that bit of information to this article says it happened in July '04, and not November '96. I don't know about this, but until someone proves otherwise, the article will remain the way it was. – Mackeriv 04:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah i guess i made a mistake. They are indeed obviously two different incidents after i read the article which i missed the first time round. Sorry. --Da Man

No problem, sir. – Mackeriv 23:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the Legend

As a native Puerto Rican I am familiar with the development of this urban myth, so I'd like to add my comments. (I'll let you people decide if they should be added to the page or not.)

During the 1970s the southwestern area of Puerto Rico suffered similarly mysterious livestock slayings. In that ocassion, the slayings were also blamed on a fantastical creature, but in that case it was refered to as "The Moca Vampire" (after Moca, the town where the slayings first started.)

It should be noted that at the same time, mysterious slayings of livestock were also happening on some southwestern United States. Those ones spawned their own urban myths: that the slayings were due to alien experiments, and that the animals had several organs surgically removed. Another take on the story (that was adapted into a TV movie) claims that the animals died due to a secret US nerve gas experiment and the "aliens" story was a coverup operation.

When the animal slayings started again in the 1990s, the 'alien experiments' theory had reached the island and was at first used to explain them. However, at one point a local UFO magazine featured an article that theorized that the slayings could be the product of a creture unleashed (or lost) by aliens. The article included a drawing of a reptilian monster, clearly indicating that it was an artist's conception of what the creature might look like. Despite this, the public at large accepted this unsubstantiated story (and the drawing) as being true and the Chupacabras legend was born.

To be fair, neither the 70s nor the 90s animal slayings were ever officially resolved. A local newspaper attested that pictures of the supposed chupacabras victims (that showed signs of being eaten) were sent to an expert on animal attacks in Florida, who dismissed them as wild dog attacks. But he never personally studied the bodies. -Wilfredo Martinez, Puerto Rico

Hey. I don't know much about the subject, but what you wrote there sounds good enough. I also don't know about the sources for that information, but if you're positive on it, maybe it could be added to the article.

Also, the comment about nerve gas reminds me of the MKULTRA project, which is kinda conspiracy-ish, I think. Probably doesn't have anything to do with the slayings, but that's what the supposed "coverup" you talked about reminds me. – Kaonashi 03:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1997

In 1997, lot Chupacabra's cases appeared in Brazil. In that year, chupacabras had been notice of many national's periodicals and magazines.

If anyone has any information on the "El Chupacabra" please email me at Kgrnett21@yahoo.com my name is david phair.

72.159.133.25 13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reggie Labow

In August 2005 Reggie Labow, a Texas farmer, trapped a kangaroo-like creature which could be the first definitive evidence of the creature's existence. He set the trap after a number of his livestock were killed. The animal was sent to Texas Parks and Wildlife for examination and testing. It's physical appearance is distinctly different than the Elmendorf creature.

I moved this out of the article... it looked suspicious, and Google returns 0 hits on '"Reggie Labow"' or '"Reginald Labow"', nothing relevant with 'Labow Texas', including news search. --Jake 05:54, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

I found the link that says it here http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4895053/detail.html its from the local news station in LA, sadly no other news is talking about it. -- sirevil

Its Reginald Lagow, not Labow http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=970&category=Environment --mhocker

Caption

I edited the caption of the topmost image. It originally claimed to be a photo of the creature caught by Reginald Lagow a month ago, which is impossible considering I've had that exact same photo on my hardrive for years. - Boiler Bro Joe

I have seen chupacabras in California, it chased me to my house and started banging on my house. Me and my cousin went into the mountains with a gun to shoot it and after about ten minutes it came from behind us and made a undescribable sound. It eventually chased us back to our house. We want to go out with a group of people and catch it.

Edit Issue

K, someone edited in something in the beginning of the article about it looking like someone; it quite obviously is off-topic, but upon attempting to edit said information, it doesn't show in the edit window. Fix?

The true fact???

I am unable to find any references (internal or external) to the following: Bive Teknos Institute, caneratto, caniratto, kiro kiro. This section appears to be completely fictitious. Anyone have any information about it that I'm unaware of?

I've reverted it twice now. If this was real, there would be online sources to confirm it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

my two cents on "the true fact"

I did find the bive-teknos website, and it appears to be either some sort of scam or joke. Many of the photos of creatures that are "for sale" are either poorly photoshopped, and/or pictures of actual animals. I.E, one picture- of a gremlin, I believe- is what appears to be a sugar glider. In the absence of any other sources, I'd recommend deleting the "true fact" section.

I'd do it myself, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of editing yet.

my two dollars on "the true fact"

No, the page exists, the Bive Teknos exists, and their animals too. Names as gremlins or goblins have nothing to do with the creature created in lab. Those names were given by the students -still owners of the site- that live in Lybia. They have no money and no experience in the art of computer-graphics. They are not designers, because their study is only limited to biology. They work in a biochem lab and are economically supported by BTI. Their idea is to sell the pets created in Maghesh at the purpose to make money and help their researchs. The European BTI institute knows this fact, it takes no money and allows them to do that. The animals are not recognized officially. They are not accepted as fauna in some countries of the world, but they exist. They are new species of dogs, cats, monkeys, horses, squirrels. And some dog-breeders of the US and America Latina know this fact very well. But I think their webpage is off or under-construction now. I do not know exactly.

Dinho Callero de Curitiba, Brasil/Brazil.

IMHO

IMHO Ilmari Karonen me parece una racista ;-) I know it is off topic, dear Ilmari Karonen, but above I read your raccist line. Am I wrong? Do u perhaps hate the blacks? Or do you work for a rival lab? This would explain your recent editing... JJuan - PR.

PS. Any info on chupacabras is welcome here. We are looking for people with experience in this field (witness or writer or scholar).

Videotape

The Johnson Smith Catalog/company used to sell a documentary tape called "La Chupacabra". It asked if this was a failed US experiment or was it a alien creature. You could order the tape from their catalog, as of 1998. I do not know if they're still around. The place was located in the US state of Florida. The website was http//:www.johnsonsmith.com. Do a Google Search on "Johnson Smith Company". It was a novelty company selling gag stuff, like Whoopee Cushions and Stink Spray, which was to be sprayed into the Whoopee Cushion, so that when the "victim" found it, he/she would not be believed and be blamed for "breaking wind". They also used to sell what looked like viscera, so that you could say, "My guts hurt", then you splatter the mess on the floor, as you watch how people react to what looks like a disgusting mess hitting the floor. Please stand by while I find out if this company is still in business. Martial Law 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Site is still online. The link is Johnson Smith Company Homepage This is the only place to purchase the "La Chupacabra" tape and/or DVD. Someone should do a article about this company. The tape and/or DVD is sold through this company from time to time. Martial Law 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to see the section called: Things You Never Knew Existed Martial Law 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its own link is: Things You Never Knew Existed This is where the tape is sold via the catalog itself and/or via this link. Martial Law 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Martial Law 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

MAYBE Maybe they are they are the same BTI or linked to the BT institute. Not sure, however. User: JJ - 03.20, February 1 2006 (UTC) If you go to Mexico city you can find lots of VHS videos about the caneratto chupacabras. The J.Smith Company has no exclusiveness.

"Recent USA sightings"

I have removed the following recent addition from the article:

In January of 2006 in the Oconee and Clarke counties of Northern Georgia several Chupacabra sightings were reported to local police. A local livestock farmer reportedly recieved a shipment of venezualian goat-hogs and upon unloading the shipment was attacked by a beast. Athens-Clarke County sheriff Athony Saunders was quoted describing the wounds from the attack as "resembling fangs, like what you'd find in one of 'em horror movies". On January 23, a school bus full of deaf orphans were witness to a create mutilating an obese stray dog on their way back from a martial arts exposition at 10pm. Local resident Jan Douglas Schotman called in an account to the forensics team at Above-Top-Secret.com. Schotman (pronounced scott-man) apparently saw one of the beasts feeding on chicken carcasses in his apartment complex dumpster at 2am on January 28. His account has not be substantiated by local paranomal experts. Since the report of the sightings local school officials have imposed a curfew on school-age children until further notice.

No sources have been provided for this claim, and I was unable to find one online. In particular, Googling for chupacabra schotman yields no hits. If a verifiable source can be provided, I have nothing against adding this information back into the article. In the absence of sources, however, including it is against Wikipedia policy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably just your average, everyday cannerato sighting (j/k)--Rockero 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can read all that text here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.130.208.174 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Demonic Phenomena???

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I find it interesting that on some of the sightings of the Chupacabra that the witnesses smelled sulfuric smells. In some of my demonic encounters, I have smelled sulfuric smells. This leads me to believe that the Chupacabra, along with ghosts, poltergeists, aliens, and the lizard men that this is a demonic presence. LordRevan 01:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I smell sulphur after I fart... am I a demon? ---J.Smith 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not an alien

Ilmari and LordRevan the canerato exists but has nothin to do with sci-fi. It is a hybrid beast born in lab and you can find him in the Southern part of America. It is a sort of wild dingo, the australian dog, I think, and is perhaps related with the odd dog of Peru, but its fangs are longer and the muzzle, color and tail are different. I never saw him however. Just read few lines on a newspaper and heard some nice comment in a barber shop. Hope this helps a little. User:N.Albai 02:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not a bit. :p ---J.Smith 00:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

they May not be aleins but they are defently not dingos, you should study more.--Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

May be a alien

There are some UFO incident reports that state that this thing has been seen with UFOs. See the UFO Casebook article, go to the link, then go to the "Alien Contact" files. This thing and other creatures are covered there. The Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Organization also discusses this thing. On this site, see "Alien Races/Alien Species". Martial Law 04:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) :)

It does seem quit likely that they are lost pets or animals from the homeworld of the Greys --Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag removed

I made a huge amount of edits to the page, and I think it no longer warrants a clean-up tag. Please make any corrections as you see fit, and let me know! Thanks! Elchupachipmunk 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you no shame?

This article seems to be very biased and there are parts where it almost whole heartedly says the chupicabra is real, not just a urban legend, which is all that is proved.

Can't understand yer' point, what's this supposed to mean?and if you're trying to say the proved their fake, you are 100% wrong. Cryptologest are still looking, status is NOT confermed. and thiers more proof of theam being real than fake. --Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)--Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chupacabra in Russia

I added Russia to list of countries which Chupacabra has been spotted in

The link to the story

Two too many categories?

I don't think this article should be in the Legendary creatures category (Cryptids is a sub cat of it) nor Paranormal phenomenon category (Cryptids is a sub cat of it also). Just my thoughts on it. -- J. [ tlk | con | #'s ] @ 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

it seems as if some of the wording, particularly in the "Sightings" section, is taken verbatum from the cited websites, but without quote marks. This would make it plagerism? At the very least, there should be quote marks, or else it should be rewritten using the author's own words NCartmell 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent sightings?

Have there been any other recent aightings besides the one in Russia? Punk18

Define "recent".

I've been reading this article, and it always says "recent". For all I know, recent could've been put there 2 years ago. That doesn't seem too "recent", agreed? I say, if someone doesn't put a date on those "recent" sightings, we either take it off or put it as "It's been claimed (as there has eben no citation) this so-and-so" happenned. Abby724 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maine!

I live in maine and there was a mysterious dog/rodent sighting when it got hit on route 4 in turner, Maine it was supposedly hit by a car as it was chasing a cat across the road no game wardens would come to see it and told cmp to pick it up. I think it is a part werewolf part rat part coyote alot of people said it was a dog or wolf hybrid or a chow with a long dewclaw. It is not an alien but it is a new Maine legend. I spotted and heard the creature and then got very dizzy and passed out but the last thing i heard was a very blood curdling screech and then another and hissing and then a gurgling sound then rustling in leaves then it all went black. When i came to i had claw marks all over my left arm and the plastic bat i was holding had 2 circular bite marks 6 or 7 inches apart now i never go outside at night and when i fall asleep on the aneversary of the night it happened i hear the sounds that i heard that night in my head and i hear hundreds of people sreaming that all ended up as a screech and a gurgling sound just as i heard the night it attacked me. For pictures go to sun journal.com.70.33.224.47 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Maine citation in the article is no longer good (Cit. #4). This link needs to be changed or removed: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MYSTERY_BEAST?SITE=WWL&TEMPLATE=STRANGEHEADS.html&SECTION=HOME

Creepy. It must have ran up and attacked you, but it might have been a coyote. Did it bite you? Thylacine lover 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

me

That last one was by me jason haynes!70.33.224.47 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

about the chupa cabra

about the chupa cabra, as I search in the internet I can help thinking that all is a mythical gov, lie they just trying to cover the spill of the monkeys that would harm the people in puerto rico so they came out with this story to keep the people from fear, I believe that the real chupacabras was the monkeys that were running wild in the town of toa baja check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.171.8 (talk • contribs)

Comment moved from the top of page... ---J.S (t|c) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jason, if it was a part werewolf part rat part coyote alot of people said it was a dog or wolf hybrid or a chow with a long dewclaw maybe it is a wild caneratto, as the one showed on CNN. User: Tim Taylor 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, monkeys don't drink blood, kill livestalk, or have sharp fangs that leve bitemarks, how could anyone be that stupid? use you'r head and common sence.--Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point but no.

Tim,the caneratto is a fictional animal coming from the cane part that would meen canine and the ratto whould meen rat. so that is somehing cnn made up.But it would be a cool animal!maybe it is a wild caneratto, as the one showed on CNNWhich that last sentence was a qoute from tim taylors message. Jason Haynes

Correction

I heard the Turner Beast of Maine was thought to be a wendigo. (though I think that one is incorrect as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.128.166.238 (talk • contribs)

Hearsay. Need secondary sources. ---J.S (t|c) 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read it in the Lewiston Sun Journal.

Do you have the name/date of the article? A link to an online copy would be excellent too. ---J.S (t|c) 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Version in Chile

I lived in Chile from Jan. 2004 to Jan 2006 where occasionally the Chupacabra was mentioned on the news, usually half-jokingly- but everytime someone mentioned it down there they described a winged bat-like creature... not once did I hear of a ground dwelling lizard type creature- perhaps someone could pull up an official reference to that version and add it to this page?

I think the governments invovled.

I have a friend who lives in Arkansa, and he claimed to see a beast-like dog, in his back yard. He said he believes it's some sort of goverment tested creature, only because his friends and him found small, empty closed gates with hazard signs in the woods down there. So my beleifs is it has something to do with the goverment.

Chupacabra- or rabid maned wolf?

A friend and I were at a playground. I thouhgt I saw a patch of red fur, but it turned out to be leaves. But then, my friend saw something that looked a bit like a fox, but bigger, much, much bigger jump from a tree. I thought I heard a growl. Then I heard leaves rustling. Suddenly I realized that this might be a chupabraca! I told my friend to run, and when I looked back, I could have sworn I saw a rusty-furred thing standing were we were standing! it was about 2.5 feet tall, and it didn't look like a dog. It had little bumps running down it's back and tail. Otherwise, it looked like a giant fox that was all red.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHmnfgON4A What is that? Who put the link there? Is it fake? I don't think it's a chupacabra, but creepy. Probably a coyote that killed the bird, and a human is what tehy saw..Thylacine lover 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean like a red fox? Superm401 - Talk 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A giant, mutant rabid red fox is a very unlikely possibility. But alot of people who know a lot about cryptids say that it's probably a chupacabra.

3 forms.

But only 2 are given..Where is the second? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.234.75 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

out of sequence dates

The legend of cipi chupacabra began approximately in 1947, when Puerto Rican newspapers El Vocero and El Nuevo Dia began reporting the killings of many different types of animals, such as birds, horses, and, as its name implies, goats. However, it is predated by El Vampiro de Moca (The Vampire of Moca), a creature blamed for similar killings that occurred in the large town of Moca in the 1970s.

How can 1970 be noted as predating 1947? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sceptisism

Maybe the article should mention that it is just a hoax. A bipedal amniote with wings? It should have an evolutionary history of millions of years, and nothing has been found of fossils or anything, and suddenly it appears all over the world in just a few decades? And it is not a genetic experiment, the scientists doesn't have the knowledge or a reason to create such beings. And an alien? I don't think so. 217.68.114.116 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

MIGHT be a hoax. I'll do some more research on it and try to find out if it's real.Thylacine lover 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be hoax, but we shouldn't just present our opinion, but rather attribute key sources. Superm401 - Talk 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

well you can't disprove theam being lost pets of aliens! we've got tons of prof of theam!, and I am not a lier, but i've seen a ufo with my own eyes! and a chupacabras' apperance is simaler to the look of the Greys.try considering this theroy,nore can you just go ahead and call something a hoax like that! thats idiotic ,stupid, and you need 100% proof of it being a hoax to call it a hoax! besides, theres more proof of Chupacabras being real than fake! and were getting close to 100% proof of being real!--Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

DNA Analysis

If the creature captured for the museum is tested for its DNA, perhaps the truth may be established. Maybe it's not in everyone's interests to test such a creature, to define its evolutionary heritage.

Maybe, this is because the study of evolution is banned in Texas and other states by fundamentalist Christian groups. Darwin is banned in some schools.

David (UK)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.32.130 (talk)

While there certainly are people who are anti-evolutionists, and who promote teaching creationism in schools, I must say that evolution is not banned in any state. To claim that it is is hyperbole, at best. Aleta 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The teaching of Evolution is NOT banned in Texas, though there are compalins about it. It IS taught in the public schools (not particularly well, but that is probably true everywhere...) Vultur 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Two varieties

The page talks about different kinds of chupacabra.

The two different creatures called "chupacabra" have almost nothing in common. The one pictured (the bug-eyed monster with spikes) is not possible - it just doesn't fit ANY known group of animals. This is the sort of thing that gives cryptozoology a bad name.

The other, "Elmendorf Beast" type, seems to just be a canine (possibly hybird, possibly diseased or mutated) and real - though likely not a new species.

The article should be clearer on the difference - but I don't know a NPOV way to express this.

Can anyone help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

More than one

In Some Sightings in Russia People said the've seen entire packs of Chupacabra and other sightings very in apperince in most sightings around the world and some parts of the article claim ther is only one. shoulden't we cange it to say that there is more than one chupacabra, it is an entire species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonicobbsessed (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Theories

I removed two theories due to lack of citation and general strangeness of them (the spider and ancients-drinking-out-of-skull theories, to be precise). Though all of the entries under 'theories' could do with citation... Burnage13 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unknown

Has this monster ever been filmed or photographed? Any documentary of this creature? If this creature really exists then one question,was any report any time earlier like 500 years before,If yes it might be animal,if not it might be a result of genetic modification.And I know a clue why any alien life-form can not live in earth.The currents of earth are only suitable for earth based lifeforms.Aliens from another planet with different life currents there can not even enter earths atmosphere and please which planet with life is near earth? 82.114.68.29 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few corpses that have been found to be unknown species of the canine genus, and quite a few people have branded them as the chupacabras. Have a look on google for them, they're not hard to find. To my knowledge the earliest reports of them were in the late 80s; this, however, does not mean that they are necessarily genetically modified animals. It could well be that due to overpopulation humans started to live within their territory, or some similar reason. As for your point about aliens - and this is assuming that the chupacabras, if it exists, is at all related to an alien presence - well, if they were carbon-based, then the atmosphere of earth might not be poisonous to them. Although I've got no idea what you mean by 'life currents'... Of course, this is wikipedia, no original research. :P At some point I'm going to go through the main article and find citations for everything. Burnage13 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I found 1 video showing a chupacabra, not sure if its real, but if its an hoax, its really well done for sure: [1]

--Elronir 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chupacabra Image

Can we get a better drawing? One that fits descriptions batter would be good. The current one looks like a stereotypical alien. --Savant13 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Gargoyle Epidemic of 1678?

What the eff does that mean? I'm deleting that item as I believe it is pure nonsense. 69.214.48.133 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"In July 2007, there was a rash of citings in northern New Jersey. In seperate incidents, a woman in Allendale, NJ reportedly witnessed a Chupacabra eating all of her Christmas lights in front of her house, while they were still illuminated. A Garfield, NJ delicatessen owner found a Chupacabra in his parking lot dumpster, snacking on a package of expired kielbasa. A custodian for Public School #5 in Paterson, NJ claimed that a Chupacabra ran off with the 4th grade gymclass' basketball and disappeared into a reputed crackhouse. And the Mahwah NJ police department responded to a call from a man who claimed that a Chupacabra stole Budweisers from his garage refrigerator and escaped on his riding mower."

It's only been July for three days, and nowhere near Christmas, so this is obviously vandalism. Not that it isn't funny vandalism, though.

Why myth???

Why does it say that the status is Legendary creature whean we haven't figured out wether it's fake or real.--Sonicobbsessed 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed

I changed it to Unconfirmed, becuse the existince of the being is not proven or disproven.--Sonicobbsessed 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep it like this, chances are low that in a Island that is 100x35 miles an "animal" can manage to stay hidden for a few years without any carcass of it appearing or them being seen walking troght the highways. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Depiction?

Uh, that depiction looks like science fiction. This article would be better off without it.--76.203.124.88 16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This picture doesn't suit the description and seems to be more inspired by standard depiction of extraterrestrials (eyes, form of head). It is misleading and should be removed. --Zinnmann 08:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the closest thing available to the original version, even though it was depicted as a more agile and slender animal, but it wasn't anywhere close to a canine so an image of such a thing would be inappropiate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

not true, there is a picture that was recently taken of an animal that was in close proximity of a dead goat that couldn't be classified as any known animal. it kinda looks like a kangaroo though.209.137.230.93 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the existence of the creature but where can this image be found? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i was reading through another article cause I'm writing a big report, and that certain one was discredited as a coyote with severe mange. my bad209.137.230.93 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

This page is almost exactly the same as the Chupacabra page on Skeptic World (http://www.skepticworld.com/cryptozoology/chupacabra.asp). It looks to me like the original author of this page simply took sentences word for word from this page.--AeolianWind 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Chupacabra Possible discovery

I was watching CNN and they stated that the Chupacabra may have been found. It think that a section needs to be open to this possibility. Some one appears to have made mention of this discovery Rgoodermote 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The same CNN story also interviews a wildlife expert who says the rancher has nothing more than a gray fox suffering from advanced mange.http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/03/kens.mythical.roadkill.afflPalewook 17:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't know that at the moment. I was watching it on the TV. They only said it was possibly the Chupacabra. But you know it is a possibility...and I never did say they found it. Rgoodermote 20:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the "discovery" look nothing as it was we Puerto Ricans (yeah its not real) created which is exactly how that image in the infobox depicts it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The part about Diablo I boss should probably be placed in a section called "pop culture references" and not in "reported sightings", since nobody counts video game bosses as sightings of real life legendary creatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.27.22 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cuero, Texas Chupacabra is such an obvious hoax! Look at the Wikipedia article on Mexican Hairless Dog to see what the more likely answer is. This breed of dog is uncommon, but certainly more common in south Texas than in most other places. Phylis Canion clearly has a reason to further her claim: "If everyone has a fun time with it, we'll keep doing it," she said. "It's good for Cuero." Thankfully not everyone is falling for this bunk -- Mongabay Article -- pity the AP forgot about Occam's Razor... doplgangr 20:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image containing a coyote with mange from the "reported sightings" section, while there are cases that they should have been coyotes there are certainly others that are other kinds of canine, since the image there isn't of an alleged chupacabras I don't think this was a proper location for it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism revert.

Reverted to previous version to remove obvious vandalism and profanity. 97.82.247.200 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a memorable (and I am speaking as an occasional viewer rather than a fan) episode of the x-files that was about the chupacabra; worth referencing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.29.156 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Broken link

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why Not? Greencircle (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

If Thylacinus isn't the creature, then who is?--4444hhhh (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if we knew that it wouldn't be a myth now, would it?

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

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)

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

Popular Culture

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)

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)

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

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)

Thanks, I've changed it to "contemporary legend" now. -kotra (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

More Pop Culture References

If references from the X-Files and "Scooby Doo and the Monster of new 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)

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)

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)

An entire paragraph is overkill, maybe a mention of the program's title. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi, User:Caribbean H.Q.

You continue to remove wiki-active reference points in this article for internationally distributed films and then you leave the comment, "ATTENTION: Long lists of your favourite TV show featuring a chupacabra aren't needed, thanks!" First of all, the two films you removed, again, are hardly my favorite films. What they are is films that have experienced international distribution and have pages devoted to them on wikipedia - which thereby adds important reference points for the individual researching the chupacabra in the media. It seems that you have no valid reason for removing these references, except maybe you don't like these films. If you have one, I'm listening. But, you have not made any valid point for their removal. Finally: 1. They are Chupacabra based, both in name and in subject matter. 2. They both have pages on wikipedia. For this reason, I am replacing the reference points your removed. I trust you will understand my logic. Thanks. Alex West (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Actually, "wiki-active points" are trivia, which I generally remove if they are unsourced or unreliably sourced. Someone needs to maintain this article clean, even if I know that it is nothing more than a myth. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, many articles (not necessarily this one, at the time of writing) contain much too many popular-culture references, reaching excesses where a twenty-line article can be followed by twenty one-line references to the Simpson's, X-Files, Stargate, ...

IMO: If in doubt, do not include a reference. Further, the right conclusion from "You included yours, mine is equally worthy", is not to demand inclusion of the latter, but to question the inclusion of the former. 88.77.136.245 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

http://sites.google.com/site/chupacabrafacts/

http://sites.google.com/site/chupacabrafacts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanMcginley (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone associated the Chupacabra with the Book of Revelation?

Does anyone know if there has been an association of the Chupacabra with the those creatures mentioned in Revelation 9:3-12? The most common descriptions of this creature seem to have similar characteristics to those mentioned in the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rumor has it the Chupacabra actually WROTE the Bible. 71.60.21.223 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Title Change

While not really necessary, I thought I might suggest that the title of the article could be changed to “el Chupacabra,” to reflect the full Spanish name. Again not really necessary if you think it doesn’t need it, just an idea. 72.188.17.58 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• "El chupacabra" just means "the chupacabra", it isn't part of the formal name. If you go the Spanish article, you find they do NOT use "el" in the name. [2]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The requested "el" portion is just Spanish for the grammatical article "the" and not part of the actual name. In any event, there is already a redirect from El Chupacabra to this article so that anyone entering the Spanish gramatical article "El" before the actual name will also be brought to this Chupacabra Wikipedia page. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page archives chronology

So, the other day I manually created Archive 4 for this page and transferred numerous stale conversations. However, upon delving through the other archives, it appears there is no rhyme or reason for any semblance of order. All range from the annals of Wikipedia to recent years. I am unfamiliar with the long-term history, but could that be because of bots? If there is a topical order, that is not made clear. Otherwise, I am considering going through and completely overhauling each archive to establish proper chronological order and fill each archive up to ~75 KB per talk page recommendations. TNstingray (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I went through and "filled" each archive to the recommended ~75 KB limit with the oldest material from the subsequent archive. I also moved a handful of misplaced conversations from Archive 1 to Archive 3, as they were dated from 2016-2020. Everything should be more orderly and consistent now, and my efforts meant that Archive 4 was no longer needed and subsequently speedy deleted. TNstingray (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Add to Pop Culture: In a 2012 episode of Workaholics called "To Kill A Chupacabraj" Blake finds what he believes to be the deceased corpse of the Rancho Chupacabra in the pool, though it turns out to be the neighbor's dog. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2154746/ 2601:681:4A04:43A0:1450:2977:EDCA:A834 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done A09090091 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Under “In popular culture”, Change “A 1999 episode of Futurama…” To “A 2011 episode of Futurama…” And edit the episode link to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry_Am_the_Egg_Man

Thanks! 64.18.152.32 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence A 1999 episode of Futurama features a monster called "El Chupanibre" correlates to the 1999 episode. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Chupacabras (Legend and Failures)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chupacabras (Legend and Failures) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Chupacabras (Legend and Failures) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)