Talk:Chupacabra/Archive 2

Image

I deleted the drawing of the creature, giving the explanation: there's no basis for treating it as an authentic image based on eyewitness accounts, which is the minimum we'd expect for an encyclopedia entry on a cryptid. It was then restored, and the explained deletion was called "vandalism." I deleted it again, on the same grounds as before; the question should be discussed here until consensus about its appropriateness is reached. Good comparison articles would be Nessie and Sasquatch. DavidOaks (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this removal. User-created images are an admissible form of original research, but as per WP:OI, only if they don't introduce new concepts. This image did just that; for example the black spotting and lack of nose or tail directly contradict the descriptions given in this article. -kotra (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a haste, but please read my comment on DavidOaks' talk page concerning the issue. In any case, if we remove the "original" version, we should remove the Mexican "mange-dog" version as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your conviction that the image you linked to ([1]) is an "original" version based on eyewitness reports, but until we get some sort of reliable sources describing that "original" version, we're left with the fact that this article and all the citations in it describe a different physiology for the chupacabra. The "mange-dog" version is described verifiably throughout the article, so it doesn't need to be removed. I've removed the "original" version again, but I'd be happy to re-add it myself once reliable sources can be procured describing it (or even better, picturing it like your linked sketch does). -kotra (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed both, lets keep it that way for now. Now if by "conviction" you mean, living in Puerto Rico during the initial craze and seeing the image on newspapers, then you are right. Otherwise, we shouldn't give undue weight towards the "Mexicanized" version, remember that this is actually a Puerto Rican myth. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the "mange-dog" version should be removed, since it's verifiably sourced, but I suppose it doesn't hurt the article much by not being there for a little while.

Concerning "conviction", let me be clear: I believe you. But unfortunately, we need reliable published sources, not just your word. This is Wikipedia policy ("verifiability, not truth"). I certainly don't want to give undue weight to any particular version either, but we can't balance the article without reliable sources ("Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.", from the other policy). Not to worry though, if the image was in newspapers (which would probably be reliable sources), we just have to find them. I'd be willing to help look if you have any leads (particular newspapers, general time periods, locations, etc). -kotra (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The variety (sans the nose) is already described in the article. In any case, the job of actually finding a funtional image from a decade ago in an archive will be tedious or at least costly. El Vocero changed its servers last year, which leaves us with several archives in archive.org. El Nuevo Día must have something, but I'm not going to pay a $10.95 monthly subscrition to see outdated articles. Anyways, acording to this webpage (not particularly familiar with it...), this was El Vocero's first image. Altough it doesn't really look like any of the varieties here, its face slightly resembles the image that was used in the infobox. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We'd need documentation that this version has been affirmed by eyewitnesses, and from WP:RS. This should really be non-negotiable. Because of the squishiness of documentation, cryptid articles are areas where we have to be especially careful of the standards of the encyclopedia. It would be nice to have an image of the sort we have at Nessie or Sasquatch, and these are reliably sourced to someone who claims to be an eyewitness (although both images are generally thought to be fraudulent, I think). An "artist's conception" is a very uncertain place to go with a creature whose very existence is disputed. DavidOaks (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we could upload a fair-use image of the "original" kind. I'm not a fan of fair use content, but it could be a happy-medium. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not finding any old chupacabra stories in the El Vocero or El Nuevo Día website archives... because El Vocero seems to only go back a year or so, and El Nuevo Día's search tool doesn't work at all for me. However, I don't think we really need an old source to put the image back up; we only need an old source if we want to say it's the "original" version (which, if xenophilia.com is correct, may not be completely true anyway). If we can find a reliable source (old or new) describing the upright, alien-like version, then I think that's enough to re-add it. -kotra (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Where's that picture? It was the truest rendering to that chupacabra I saw one time. Tomjoad187 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting back in the "mange-dog" image. It's properly referenced and it comes from a reliable source (and it's part of a Video Recording, which even is more reliable). Plus nobody gave me any notice of it's impending deletion, which is an insult to me as a contributor to Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding it (I was about to). It already qualifies as fair use for this article, but I'm trying to find out if it's actually in the public domain, which would be even better. The image had been deleted since it was tagged as fair use/non-free media and hadn't been used in any articles for 7 days (unused non-free media are routinely deleted for legal reasons). The administrator who deleted it was happy to undelete when I asked them about it yesterday. I don't think they were trying to be insulting for neglecting to notify you before deleting, but feel free to take it up with them. -kotra (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you are failing to illustrate the actual source of the myth, only adding the "mange-dog" version is misleading. Now, if nobody opposes, I'm uploading a fair-use version of the "spiky" kind, then we could add the other one back, with both varieties being represented. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose you adding a fair-use version of the "spiky" kind, but until then, let's keep the "mange-dog" version up. A single picture, even if it only illustrates one version, is better than none. It wasn't presented as the most representative version, and in fact the article says otherwise. If it was placed at the top of the article, with a caption of "Chupacabra", I can understand it being misleading, but it was displayed far down the page to illustrate a specific incident. Besides, if you're going to re-add it anyway, removing it in the meantime isn't helpful. I regret not arguing this before, since its removal was what lead to the image being deleted, requiring me to bother an admin to undelete it. In light of these reasons, I've re-added the photo for now, and, just to be safe, tweaked the caption so there's no chance anyone will be mislead. -kotra (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, In my search, most newspapers, including this Pravda article, only seem to discuss someone called "Madelyne Tolentino" as an eyewitness to the "spiky kangaroo-like" version.This is the sharper image that I have found of Tolentino's Chupacabras. It is dated "9/12/95", so its safe to say that its pretty close to the beginning. Can we all agree on this one for the infobox? On an unrelated note, I also found this BBC article, which can serve as an online reference. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the image and placed it in the infobox, I think we are settled here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. -kotra (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, the same problems remain as before, plus the additional issue that there's a fair use rationale claimed, but it's not valid -- this is apparently copyrighted work, and reproducing it here significantly infringes on the owner's ability to profit from it. We've used the whole work. Even if that were not so, this is an artist's conception of something not known to exist, and its presence undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. There's no record of a proper "eyewitness" interview resulting in this image from a qualified artist, published by a reputable journalistic source. That is, it's not WP:RSDavidOaks (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not an artist's conception, its an sketch done by Tolentino, it actually bears her signature. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fair use rationale is valid. The image is low, web-resolution quality, nowhere near the sketch's original quality. Therefore, it doesn't infringe upon her ability to profit from it (not that she appears to have any interest in doing so). Nor is it replaceable: it's the original and most widely-circulated depiction of a chupacabra. If there is an authoritative depiction of a chupacabra, this is it. -kotra (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's a black-&-white drawing. So is the image. No reproducible detail is lost. It does not matter whether the artist wishes to profit; unless he or she releases it into the public domain, it's unavailable. Replaceability is a very limited rationale, but there are gazillions of claimed images of cryptids. Which leads us to the problem of appropriateness for illustrating an encyclopedia. We still don't have WP:RS -- just a blog or two. What is the authority to which you refer? We need to see it linked to reputable journalism or publication. I haven't yet seen any such source claiming she's the artist or informant (though I have seen unacceptable sources making the claim). Please understand -- cryptid articles are already magnets for criticism of the encyclopedia's quality. DavidOaks (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The drawing is attributed to artist Jorge Martin here[2]. DavidOaks (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also seen some sources that attribute it to Jorge Martin (based on an account given by Madelyne Tolentino), but nothing reliable for those sources either. I'm reasonably sure it's one of those two (drawn by either Jorge Martin based on his early interview with her, or drawn directly by her). Unfortunately, yes, no sources Wikipedia would consider reliable. That seems to be the main issue here. The image is low-resolution (I was referring to the resolution, or DPI/PPI, not the color), and so it doesn't approach the level of detail of the original, so I'm reasonably sure it wouldn't detract from the original's saleability (if in doubt, we could just shrink it further). And I agree that the copyright holder's current apparent lack of intention to try to gain revenues from the work is irrelevant, it was more of an aside than an actual argument. It still remains the most widely distributed depiction of the chupacabra, and if not drawn by the eyewitness herself, was by her interviewer based on her account. But yes, none of this is backed up in any reliable source I'm aware of. So I won't re-add it until we find such a source (funny thing about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, though: they don't tend to talk much about cryptids). -kotra (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As to whether the image is properly included, I have no opinion. It should not, however, be in the infobox; it needs to be somewhere in the body of the article. Placing it in the infobox makes it seem that this is what it looks like, and presents a certain point of view (see WP:POV) that cannot be verified. --2008Olympian^chitchat 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We are using a low (common web) resolution version of the image, hence its not a copyvio based on that fact. Regardless of that, we can find some one to reduce its resolution, if you are so concerned with it. If we have two contradictory sources on the author, that is another story, but not copyvio. Regardless of the case, the image seems to be used broadly with attribution. Now, the image is only used in the infobox because its earlier, one of the first Puerto Rican versions to appear around. I'm currently watching a boxing fight, so this will be my last reply for today. Please hold undoing until tommorow, otherwise I will ask another admin to remove both and protect the article, I'm not interested in seeing this degenerated into an edit war. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, there are three separate issues. One is the appropriateness of the image itself -- it's poorly sourced, and doesn't really give any insight into the subject. That's a bigger problem for articles of this type than for others. It becomes relevant to the second problem insofar as the claim for fair use is one of necessity -- we have no choice but to use it (the "replaceability" canon). That just won't wash. The fact that it's copyvio'd all over the web is irrelevant to repeating the offense at Wikipedia. Please understand that low-res does not itself represent part of fair use defense, it's something we are required to do once fair use criteria are met. Fair use criteria have not been met. The third issue is the lack of reliable sources. Any one of these is reason enough to exclude. But the copyvio is decisive. Look at WP:FU -- the entire item is used; I don't think we can claim the reader's understanding of the subject is compromised without this image;

"An image in use in an article and uploaded after 2006-07-13 that does not comply 
with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid
deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing 
non-free-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria. For an image in use in 
an article that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended 
to seven days." DavidOaks (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Due notice: I've listed the image for deletion. DavidOaks (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice :File:MysteryCreature (Chupacabra).jpg is being nominated for deletion, but i've added the story title and a link to KTVT's Video Library to the boilerplate. I don't know why, but the link refuses to go to the search function results for even Chupacabra or the video story itself. Anyone can help a Wikipedian out?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you need another person to chime in, I also think the image is inappropriate. Original art is always going to be inappropriate unless it's notable in some way, and just some guy off the street drawing something isn't notable or reliable in conveying any encyclopedic information. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided?

The whole article is essentially miscellaneous information. Why single-out one section? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If "In the episode "Got Your Goat" of Dexter's Laboratory the chupacabras is pictured[25]" is valid for use in notable media culture, I suggest that we add the Futurama-episode as well. Otherwise, delete the entire paragraph or work it into a written part (such as "use in western popular culture"). 212.10.48.104 (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a hairless wold source http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2008/hoaxes/hoaxes-03.html

Video

Does anybody know if this is actually the critter in question? http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/03/05/kotv.chupacabra.found.cnn Odoketa (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

date of first reports inaccurate?

There is quite a bit on the net about the chupacabra, including some clearly trustworthy sites like National Geographic. As usual with myths, a lot of the info. is contradictory but, for a balanced article, more of these should have been included or, if discounted, it whould have been explained why this was done.

Some items omitted:

1) It would seem that in South America, the chupacabra myth (and animals so killed) has been around for at least 50 years. It became more widely known in the mid to late 90's in North America after the occurences in Puerto Rico in 1995.

2) The description of the chupacabras physiology do not reflect a large enough body of the myth's out there. For example, according to National Geographic, there is a report the chupacabra has "small membrane-like wings".

3) The similarity of the name "chupacabra" to the Spanish name for Nightjars, "Chotacabras" presents another logical explanation for the origin of the myth, which has been ignored.

According, again, to National Geographic, "Nightjars are nocturnal birds with an almost supernatural reputation stemming from their silent flight and mythical ability to steal milk from goats." Nightjars are sometimes referred to as goat suckers from the mistaken belief that they suck milk from goats." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.97.165 (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing the first sighting was as recent as 1995. I recall reading that the first modern day sighting was in Puerto Rico in 1987. While I cannot back that, I do remember reading and hearing about the Chupacabra in my youth, which would have been long before 1995. The S (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Chupacabra sightings have taken place prior to 1995. I first heard of Chupacabra from a Spanish TV show called "Occurio Asi." This was between 1989 and 1991. --Kramerino (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a Bonanza episode made in 1961 that describes the chupacabra as a bird of which it was always known to be before the current canine BS. I also know two people that were attacked by this thing that flew at them in Oklahoma in 1969. The current canine chupa is nothing more that imaginations running wild about mangy coyotes. The real deal has always been a bird type —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.77.69.109 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

improper credit for the name

The goatsucker is a well-known bird of the family caprimulgiformes (goat-milk-form) which has been said to suck goats from ancient times. The nocturnal bird is owl-like and arguably spooky (http://resources.edb.gov.hk/biology/english/images/bird/!White-winged%20Nightjar.jpg). It is absurd to give credit for coining this long existent name to a comedian in 1987. ("Puerto Rican comedian and entrepreneur Silverio Pérez is credited with coining the term chupacabras soon after the first incidents were reported in the press.[5]") And the citation is hardly to a reputable source - follow the link. Can some registered user remove the attribution of the name to a comedian? As it stands it is a false claim, and it amounts to promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.153.178 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, so my apologies for any incorrect procedures. This video on the CNN homepage (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2009/09/01/roldan.chupacabra.KSAT) details a recent sighting of a potential chupacabra discovered and preserved in Blanco, Texas. Dschinker (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an itzcuintli? alive? in person? The image from the Blanco, TX taxidermist is an itzcuintli, a mexican hairless dog. I "dog sat" for a weekend a female, in 1969, and I fell in love with her. At the time, an iztcuintli was beyond my budget, but I gladly would have got one for my children. They are sweet, they have a "smile" baring their imposing canines and the effort pulls their nose upwards. This one had a crest down her spine of spiky hair, crisp but not stiff, with a crown on top of her head. The rest of her was hairless, not leathery, her skin was soft and warm and not black like the yolo, but rather dark brown. She did not bark, made a sort of whiny howl to call attention. Her front legs were a bit longer but not excessive. She was obedient, housebroken, friendly and curious about us, but recognized her owner as soon as he arrived. She joined in the family as a house guest. Now I see a picture of her sister, dead because of poisoned rat, not livestock, without a sweater in the cold night, cast out. Her breed is dying out, itzcuintlis face extinction. A few breeders want to get a lot of money from a rarity that is not a standard beauty and requires expensive maintenance, will not impress the Joneses (a what?), that might have us thrown out by the landlord (a puppy maybe?), etc., so what to do? Cut their losses, cast them out and let them die or prey on other animals and be a nuisance to be shot. So what I saw was a lost love, dead and exposed, unwanted. Yes, she was described to me by her owner as a "nightmare of a dog", but iguanas are uglier. Yes, their long canines will leave deep paired punctures, but they will eat their kill, not suck it, just like other carnivores do. And, given the choice they will eat dog food. So please, don't call itzcuintles "chupacabras", they are their own sort, and their varieties include the yolos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.159.6.176 (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92971?fp=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.117.233 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Links

It seems like a lot of the links, especially ones to news stories, are essentially broken. They just turn up 404 errors where an article no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disturbed286 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it the chupacabra?

" My neighbor Maria Zuniga had a goat and one morning when she was going tho go feed it, the carcass was found dead with two punctured holes. She thought it might have been the chupacabra, but there wasn't any footprints or markings left or as they usually say it has a disgusting smell. There was only a small hole where the chupacabra my have torn it and ripped it. The goat had no blood it was only swollen with air. Her and her family reported it to the police and they had said that there was many reports in 1978. They had said from that year on there had not been anymore reports." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.89.71 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.71.55 (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 

Why is this page protected?

I skimmed the discussion and did not see any talk about why this page is protected. I was going to add an excellent news account by a major news organization of a reported sighting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34881574#34881574 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34881574>

Also, I am disappointed that too many pages on Wikipedia are becoming protected. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction, "How can I contribute? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page...." It seems that this page is inconsistent with Wikipedia's principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkj3i32 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some pages attract a lot of vandalism, or there may be a history of edit-warring. That second thing was the case with this page. Seems to have stopped, and I'd agree it's time to take the protection off. DavidOaks (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe actually the last protection was due to persistent vandalism. This article did attract a lot of vandalism due to its urban legend subject matter, but I would agree with a tentative unprotection. Therefore I've unprotected it now, let's see if the vandalism returns to a level we can't easily deal with.

By the way Fkj3i32, the operative word in that quote is "almost any page". Right now there are under 6,000 protected articles, out of over 3,000,000 total; this is about half a percent. It is still "almost any page"... but I agree, we should remain vigilant that we don't protect pages unnecessarily. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Caribbean H.Q. for re-protecting it. I agree, there is just too much vandalism here from IPs for the few editors who watch this page to handle effectively. -kotra (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetics

the chuparcabra is dna realted to the coyaoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snugglebare101 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

chupicabra

ussaly live on the border of mexico. ussaly kill humans they suck blood and eat meat legend some think they are aliens others wolfs .......... Italic text'they were found in pourtu rico texas and mexico find out more on lost tapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupohg (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Absurd cartoons

Chupacabra

The current cartoon is an amateurish spoof of this folk myth at best. It should be removed. Zapotl (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Did it -- and have done it many times. An encyclopedia should not have an "artist's conception" of a creature not known to a certainty even to exist, unless the illustration has some basis in eyewitness accounts, or comes from a forensic scientist -- i.e., WP:RS. DavidOaks (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Glepoura, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In episode one, season two of Futurama "I Second That Emotion" El Chupanibre is a direct reference to the Spanish legend of El Chupacabra, because El Chupanibre comes at night and eats the mutants' crocodiles. Glepoura (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done:Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

shooting of them

Beyond hunting purposes which never seem to occur for Chupacabra why is it legal or not enfourced to kill those animals? Its on national tv and nobody asks if its legal? I find it a bit surprising? Maybe because texas was the last incident people just associate Texas with guns but that's obviously a poor thought out answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chupacabra captured "Prince Chupa"

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.185.126 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A possible sighting occurred around June 1, 2012 near Austin, Texas. Check www.ynn.com news archives. It includes photos of the "creature." Speculation was that as a result of the drought coyotes and other wild animals were searching for water and possibly suffered from skin diseases, but the photos are interesting to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.160.92 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

CHOTACABRA HOAX = CHUPACABRA MYTH

ENGLISH: http://forgetomori.com/2007/criptozoology/chupacabras-in-the-bible-the-chotacabras/

Coleman also mentions the birds called “goatsuckers” in Spanish, of the Caprimulgiformes order, which means literally goat-sucker in Latin. According to Mexican researcher Luis Ruiz Noguez work on the Chupacabras, those birds are indeed called popularly goatsuckers in Spanish, but the actual term used is “Chotacabras”.

“Choto” or “Chota” is the name given to the goat offspring when it’s sucking milk, and the popular (and erroneous) legend is that these birds are able to open their beaks so wide they could suck milk not only from goats, but from cows as well.

But the relationship between the Chotacabras birds and the Chupacabras is more interesting than a mere similarity of names and alleged behaviour, because the main promoter of the Chupacabras in 1995 was also involved on one Chotacabras case some years before.

In 1989, Puerto Rican Jorge J. Martín promoted the case of a bird with snake-like fangs allegedly found and captured by relatives of María Ortiz Hernández while they were fishing. It was promoted as the “serpent-bird of Gurabo“, and if you may wonder where such chimera idea would have come from, you just have to read how it was immediately related to the Quetzalcoatl legend.

Much was made of the creature, which was available for examination, until one policeman visited the house where it was preserved, grabbed the creature and removed its fangs. They were merely parts from the feet of a rooster, attached to a common bird’s beak.

Perhaps more importantly to our post here, the bird was a chotacabras.

So, as Noguez pointed out, you can add the “serpent-bird of Gurabo” hoax involving a Chotacabras to the predecessors of the Chupacabras mania that swept the world around ten years ago. According to the Mexican researcher, the term “Chupacabras” is a simplistic and erroneous use of the more widely known term Chotacabras.Lillith90 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Elsner2010, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to add information to the "History" section of the Chupacabra page;

Please update section with recently discovered information, because it is relevant to the origin of the legend.\

The following edit is submitted for inclusion in the "History" section, with sources cited (sources marked with "(A)", "(B)", "(C)", etc..):

"New information from researcher Benjamin Radford(A) in 2010 revealed that Madelyne Tolentino, the original eyewitness, had described a creature she had recently seen in the science-fiction horror film Species as the chupacabra.(B) The alien in the film, named Sil, is nearly identical to Tolentino’s chupacabra eyewitness account: “It was a creature that looked like the chupacabra, with spines on its back and all….The resemblance to the chupacabra was really impressive,” Tolentino reported.(C) Radford revealed that Tolentino “believed that the creatures and events she saw in Species were actually happening in reality in Puerto Rico at the time,” and therefore concludes that “The popular image of the chupacabra—the one appearing on thousands of books, magazines, and Web sites as a credible eyewitness description—is in fact based on a science fiction film.”(B) This, Radford believes, seriously undermines the credibility of the chupacabra as a real animal."

Sources:

(A) Wikipedia Page for Mr. Radford;  ; Mr. Radford's Website;

(B) Radford, Benjamin. 2010. Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. ISBN 978-0-936455-11-2.

(C) Corrales, Scott. Chupacabras: And Other Mysteries. ISBN 1883729068 Elsner2010 (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigbin

To David: the parts I added are uncited because they have plenty of citations in their respective articles. Do note that BOTH the Sigbin and the Peuchen were linked to the article before I did my edits. I only expanded the relationship with a few sentences. The Philippines was also a Spanish colony and shared much of cryptozoological myths and legends with Latin America (and much of the same superstition). --Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected request

{{Edit semi-protected}} I think that they should add an image of the photographed Chupacabra corpse becaus. File:1Chupacabra photo.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXMocke (talk • contribs)

Not done: No such file exists. -Atmoz (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mtoro5791, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There has been a recent siting of the Urban chupacabra in Bogota Colombia. Recent attacks include small children, as the urban chupacabra does not indulge in small farm animals. Furthermore, the marine chupacabra has also striked in the gulf of Morrosquillo as well as in ponds and lakes of cordoba. These attacks have been intently focused on marine life,however it is probable that the marine chupacabra may expand its horizons to eat mammals such as human beings. Mtoro5791 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Link please, preferably to a news article. Musings on what 'its' intentions are are unacceptable, I'm afraid.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Chupacabra in Piner, Kentucky

Pretty sure we saw this creature while sitting outside last night. Piner, Kentucky is in northern Kentucky. 69.171.171.103 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a section added for 'other stories,' or 'local perspectives.' In my hometown of Holyoke, MA in the U.S., the story goes that the Chupacabra was a governmental experiment into genetic engineering gone wrong - a pair of laboratory animals are said to have escaped into the wild, where they began breeding and spreading across the world, mutating into several different forms as they encountered new enviornments. There are said to be aquatic versions and flying versions as well as the reptilian and dog-like ones. The stories people tell locally are just as interesting and important to document as the ones that garner national media attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.135.184 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A little young and/or naive to be posting on here, aren't you? SHFW70 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1994 we were driving in central Baja California on a long, straight dirt road off of Highway one. Along a particularly featureless and flat section, we passed what appeared to be a mummified goat (teeth exposed in a horrible grin) propped up at the side of the road, just off the road. After driving on about a mile, we flagged down our friends driving just ahead of us, and the first thing they asked was "do you want to go back to photograph the goat?". I said yes and we drove back. The goat was gone. The desert in this area was flat and there was no cover for the goat or anyone manipulating a goat carcass to hide. We spent twenty minutes trying to find the goat, up and down the highway for several miles past where we first saw it. It was gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

There are a number of grammatical errors in this article that could be fixed, as well as sentences that could be combined to improve fluency. Also, this article seems very biased against the possibility of Chupacabras actually existing. New species are discovered every day, so why does anything with a mythological history or anything that evolutionists claim is extinct get shot down by most people? Hawkrawkr (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I reckon its because most individuals in current times are feeble minded and shortsighted brainwashed cronies. The majority of crypto creatures that are alleged to be in exsistence are in exsistence and have credentials reinforcing that all over the evidence that these evolutionists find. The only reason why there considered mythical is because the idea of a creature looking like how the chupacabra or bigfoot appear in reports is difficult to explain in the ecosystems and enviroments they are thought to be dweling in. That however is there only logical argument and is hogwash when compared to every thing else that is being unearthed about these creatures every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.62.133 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 184.146.158.107, 12 June 2011

Please change the main photo for this page, as it's extremely incorrect and leads many people to believe that this is some kind of alien being. i have provided several links to correct photos of a chupacabra and feel as though these are far more relevant to providing correct information. http://www.canadatop.com/uploads/chupacabra_2330.jpg http://elsuenoamericano.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/chupacabra-texas1.jpg http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim//2010/01/19/119_cavazos_chupacabra_480x360.jpg http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/CBS_Production_News/791/256/chupacabra2_082108_480x360.jpg Chupcabra resembles a hairless type of canine with elongated snout and protruding teeth. the current image is ... stupidly misinformed.

184.146.158.107 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only use images compatible with CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license, so it looks like those would not be suitable replacement images. See Wikipedia:IMAGE#Finding images on the Internet for advice on finding appropriate images. The current #Appearance section gives a main description reasonably in line with the current drawing, and describes the hairless jackal appearance as an alternative description. I think that a compatibly-licensed and well-sourced rendition of this description would be an appropriate addition to this article. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I didn't leave an edit summary because the explanation seems a little long-winded, but here goes...

I took the picture down for several reasons, some of which are a little hard to articulate. But the picture is a user-drawn rendering of what some fantasy creature might look like. I don't think it quite meets the criteria for being encyclopedic, any more than my niece's crayon drawing of Barack Obama would be appropriate for his entry.

This is obviously a special case, because we're dealing with something for which no photograph can exist and there will never be any way to prove what the creature looks like. Just the same, I don't think that means we need to lower the standard for an illustration so low that we'll permit anything to post up whatever drawing they crap out. If that's the case, I can just say I think it's invisible. Or anyone else can draw something with entirely different features that they think are characteristic.

I think some kind of standard needs to apply, even if that standards is not particularly high. An image published elsewhere or widely associated with the legend would be appropriate, as would a picture of any chupacabra from any of the various TV shows or movies that have included them. But this Martian/stegosaurus/lizard hybrid doesn't seem to cut it, especially when the consensus seems to be that chupacabras are actually just coyotes with mange. This picture certainly doesn't suggest that.

I'm really not trying to get into any kind of edit war or anything, so if you feel strongly that this picture is the best we can get, and that it's better than nothing, I'm probably not going to revert. But I think we can probably do better.

— Bdb484 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No Bdb484 I don't want any problems. I just wanted to know why it was pulled down. I knew that if there was a good explanation my revert could easily be replaced. Did you know that the chupacabra page got 104,379 hits in June 2011? Thats the English version! Whatever changes we make affects a lot of viewers. Wondering out loud...if we could interview people who say they have seen the chupacabra and also this Wiki page would describe that picture you just took down, as opposed to people who haven't seen the Wiki page? Sgerbic (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the picture again. As Bdb484 mentioned above it the picture doesn't represent the typical assumed features of a chupacabras. It misleads the readers. --Zinnmann (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sad the picture is gone. When my Guatemalan friend spoke to me about the chupacabras, the description was about a hopping bipedal creature. When I went to show the picture previously in Wikipedia, it was gone.216.250.178.63 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article needs an illustration, pronto. --RThompson82 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest Sighting

Just here recently There was a news story about the Chupacabra being found. It had video and eyewitness accounts. The article was from MSNBC and the Creature was dubbed Prince Chupa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

These kind of stories show up fairly often, though none as of yet have been credible. Mosemamenti (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That latest video of a captured chupacabra shown in news is this [4]. It's a mix, a dog, a rat, a kangaroo, and also possibly a hyena.Ksmdr (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

here is another one: [5]. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep that's the one. We should mention this in the article.Ksmdr (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It's just a "Mexican Hairless Dog". Look it up. All these "sightings" ever been was just that dog, and people looking for publicity.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.153.38 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"regularization"

The article currently claims that chupacabra is a regularization of chupacabras. Is that really true? My Spanish is not great, but I would have thought that chupacabras was in fact the regular form (imperative transitive verb + plural noun). Presumably each chupacabras has to suck more than one goat, after all.

I think it's more likely that chupacabra is a back-formation based on the misapprehension that the final s in chupacabras pluralizes the whole noun, rather than just the goats. --Trovatore (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not about Spanish. This is the English Wikipedia, and the overwhelmining current English usage is with chupacabra as the singular, and chupacabras as the plural. The title of the article is -a, NOT -as, and I am quite satisfied that this article should be changed to reflect that throughout. I tried to do that this afternoon: I patiently did the work and saved it, but someone called Dougweller reverted it, on the grounds that I had called it a minor edit when (he says) it was major, and that the respective numbers of millions of Google hits on the two forms (over 4.31 million for -a and 1.8 million for -as) were not evidence of usage. I am not going to get into an argument about it. As far as I am concerned, spelling the English the way the Spanish is allegedly spelled, with the singular and plural indistinguishable, is unacceptable.

• In Spanish, at least you have a way of distinguishing numbers by the definite article (el /los); but in English with "the" you don't.
• The article's title is -a
• The overwhelming English news item spelling is -a for singular. See for example Are these the legendary Chupacabras... or just mangy coyotes? where a sentence using the singular reads "Thus, the legend of the chupacabra was born." and another "′Anybody that calls in a chupacabra — it′s a coyote with mange′ Jack Bonner, Williamson County's trapper, said" .

There is no reason to keep using the un-English, disfavoured (by English language users) Spanish spelling for this thing that has millions of usages in English just on the web, even if somebody at Wikipedia central has made a rule that Google searches are not evidence for some reason. There. Have I said enough to convince you? I am too busy with other website work to waste any more time. Iph (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to convince me, we just don't use Google as a source. I've changed the lead. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, regarding Mr. O'Connor's theory

Disclaimer: I don't believe the Chupacabra to be anything more than an urban legend, having lived in Puerto Rico during its heyday. My request simply addresses a very obvious flaw in Mr. O'Connor's theory.

Actual request: While Mr. O'Connor's opinion is useful in explaining some cases of alleged sightings in the US, it does not offer any insight into the origins of the myth, since there are no wild coyotes in Puerto Rico. However, this section of the article states "Barry O'Connor concluded that all of the 'chupacabras' were simply coyotes infected with the parasite Sarcoptes scabiei".

Sources: <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote</url>

I've fixed that section to clarify that it applies only to some cases.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This might be a picture of the Chupacabra found in Free State - South Africa

It was found in the Freestate, South Africa attaching sheep on a farm.

I am not sure how to upload the picture though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melanie.schutte1 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

1995

The article gives the impression that the concept of Chupacabra was virtually unknown before 1995. Is that so?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.127.182.53 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That is correct; although there were "mythical" creatures vaguely resembling a chupacabras (such as the "duendecillos verdes del Yunque" [little green men from El Yunque ]), their function was more like that of boogeymen who'd kidnap children who wandered too far from their parents while at the National Park. Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As Hamlet said, "That would be scanned." If Chupacabras is first reported in Puerto Rico in 1995, how did the "X Files" decide that it was noteworthy enough and have time to develop an episode that aired on national TV in 1997? It clearly was widely established by then and 2 years seems like an awfully short time to have the myth grow, especially since it needed to cross over from Hispanic to mainstream American culture.63.124.22.40 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Futurama reference

The bone vampires in Fry Am the Egg Man may have been inspired by the chupacabras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.50.25 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New dog species?

I have recently looked at an alledged photo of the Chupacabra. The creature was large and hairless, with a small head, long legs and hairless grey-skinned body, perfect for cooling off and maintaining homeostasis in its Mexican desert habitat. I have never such anatomy in any canine or wild dog, not even in cyotes. This beast might actually be a new species of hairless wild dog adapted for attacking livestock.--Superscaryguy (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that we may need to branch this into two pages, one featuring the original Puerto Rican version (i.e. bipedal, muscular, agile, red eyed and spiky) and the other featuring the Mexican-Texan version, which is usually a dog. The fact that the ugly dogs are becoming more well known than the original version is misinforming. The fact that it is called the "Mexican Bigfoot" is just plain wrong. 166.147.120.144 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This article needs an illustration...

And we need to build a consensus to choose one. Now, in 2011 a research was published that suggested that the original depiction was based on the film Species and traced it to a single eyewitness, Madeline Tolentino. I'm not interested in debating the theory, but Madeline is also credited as the first witness in at least 3 books that cover the topic and the drawing based on her account by a police officer (and singed by her as well) is the one that was first published in El Vocero. I am not saying that it needs to be in the infobox necessarily, but Madeline Tolentino's Chupacabras needs to be illustrated somewhere in the article, since all of the eyewitness descriptions during the first 5-7 years (before Mexicans began depicting it as coyotes and hairless dogs in the early to mid 2000s) were based on this original drawing. I only found a smallish picture of it in this page, but larger more detailed ones are bound to be out there. 166.147.120.157 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the page is somewhat over-illustrated, I'm referring to this photo. Notice Madeline's writting the description of the Chupacabras all over the place and her signature above the officer's. 166.147.120.157 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please propose an image hosted on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was one that wasn't 100% loyal to Tolentino's but it was somewhat simmilar. However, as you can read above, someone incredibly ignorant to the myth's origins suggested that it was removed and replaced with one of a mange infected dog or coyote. The image is still on Commons. 166.147.120.148 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you provide a link, other editors can take a look at it and decide. Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How about these - commons:Category:Chupacabra. 124.123.195.151 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Chupacabra is not correct

The original and coherent form in Spanish is chupacabras. The singular form is a confusion by the native English speakers when they compare the term with goat sucker, and doesn't make sense in Spanish at all since the creature doesn't suck one goat, but many.

62.57.222.140 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed above. The spelling in the article is the normal English spelling. It really doesn't matter if it's a confused version of the Spanish spelling, this is the English wikipedia so we use the normal English spelling. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Then, is it chupacabra or Chupacabra? Whatever, make it consistent throughout the article.145.53.180.22 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Other Theories can be added

source:http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptotourism/chupacabras/ Request to add another topic heading involving "Other Theories" on the Chupacabra provided by credible cryptozoologists such as Nick Redfern, from the link above. I am also requesting additions to the "Sightings", "Solving the Mystery" and "Significant Appearances in Media" headings. After having read a couple journal articles on Chupacabra Iconography I would like to add a list of toy conceptions of the Chupacabra and how it became such a prevalent pop culture phenomena. I have been researching el Chupa for about a month and a half now for a library class I am in regarding famous cryptids. source: Radford, B.(2012). Tracking the Chupacacameleon: Chupacabra Iconograpgy. Skeptical Inquirer, 36, 26-27 FrasierE (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. Please see our policy on what sources are reliable and then come back if you can find some.

caticoo

[7ft or bigger] The Caticoo is a large cat that stands on its hind legs, and from being a monster when close by if another young animal or child is indanger will protect and throw itself infront and defend the creature that is in trouble.The Caticoo is a guardian of young animals and children only.Elexia Gonzales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.186.49 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Referenced in Phineas and Ferb

A recent episode of Phineas and Ferb, 'La Candace-Cabra', featured the characters pursuing the Chupacabra while singing a song called 'Chupacabra Ho' - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfX-cCs6dnU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYyqUI4JN6I 94.193.214.181 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Chupacabra investigated on Only In America:Larry The Cable Guy Episode 7/31/2013

Phylis Canion gave a complete different story on this show than is listed in this article. Since the article is locked I can't change all of the new stuff she claims. She shows she has a stuffed Chupacabra during the episode. She never mentions the Texas State University DNA test saying it was a coyote, and that the only part she saved was the head. Her claim is that they did DNA testing and there was no match. Her story is suspect (as all of them are on this particular animal). 64.46.249.163 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Ryan

Correction

In the recent sightings section where Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files is mentioned, it is said that they used a Miniature Horse and a Mexican Hairless Dog.

I would like to point out two mistakes. First, the proper name for the Mexican Hairless is Xoloitzcuintli (the spelling commonly used in the USA) or Xoloitzcuintle (the spelling used in Mexico, the Xolo's home country).

The second, and more important mistake is that Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files did NOT use a Xoloitzcuintle. They used a Peruvian Inca Orchid. The PIO is another hairless breed that comes from South America that has many significant differences from the Xolo. As a Xolo owner, it pains me to see my breed being mistaken for another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iorveth (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Lost World Museum

Should this be here at all? See [6] for background on Adolfi, and [7] for the museum. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2013

On September 17, 2013 at 11:29 am Fox 2 News affiliate in Saint Louis, Missouri Posted on on their website that a woman spotted a Chupacabra while "coon hunting." The Valley Park resident caught the animal on photo and video.

W. Edwin Scott (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for contributing this. (The source actually reports two separate sightings. I have described both in the article.) --Stfg (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

1995 date

The chupacabra may have come to be popular in the 1995 after it appeared in Puerto Rico. But I am from the Dominican Republic. I migrated to USA in 1992 and years before that I (Rick) was hearing stories about Chupacabra; probably at the end of the 80s. I remember being afraid to go outside because of it. And as a matter of fact some live stocks my mother had were killed and it was said Chupacabra killed them. By Rick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichiePS (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Chupacabra was detailed in the 1993 book, "Unexplained!: 347 Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences, and Puzzling Physical Phenomena" by Jerome Clark. http://www.amazon.com/Unexplained-Sightings-Incredible-Occurrences-Phenomena/dp/0810394367 24.251.235.49 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible you are referring to the Second Edition of the book?

• Clark, Jerome (November 1, 1998). Unexplained!: Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences & Puzzling Physical Phenomena (2nd ed.). Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1578590704.

Nmillerche (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No. I purchased it in 1994. 24.251.235.49 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Vampire

This is a hematophagic cryptid, why is it in Category:Vampires? It is not a 'transformed' human corpse, does not sleep in its grave overnight, etc etc. Lots of hallmarks of the vampire are missing. A mosquito isn't a vampire either, it's a real blood-sucking animal. If a mosquito is not a vampire, then a blood-sucking cryptid animal shouldn't be a vampire either. One does not simply become a vampire by being a cryptid. I request removal from Category:Vampires. -- Ciaraleone (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

As a registered user, you don't have to request re-categorization. You can simply find a more relevant category and replace "vampires" with that one. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that many of the hallmarks of Slavic vampires are missing, but there are many different vampiric archetypes. Dracula is not said to have subsisted on the blood of livestock, but this is common in some vampire literature. Furthermore the chupacabra, while a relatively young legend, has its own elements of vampiric folklore. Nmillerche (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Vampires per definitionem correspond to the traits ascribed to them in slavic folklore. There has been a gruesome inflation of the term "vampire" to denote any hematophagic fictional entity. As per Dimadick's suggestion, I have created the more suitable category of Category:Mythological hematophages, which is more accurate from both a linguistic and anthropological perspective. The issue why I'm requesting recategorization is that this article is locked. -- Ciaraleone (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not locked, only semi-protected. Autoconfirmed users can still use it. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

General Hospital

They've been reading from this article on the soap opera General Hospital over the last couple of days. RNealK (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Correct link to note #30: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/28/man-shoots-kills-chupacabra-kentucky/ 88.113.164.170 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Done See [8] Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 12:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to edit

I am not sure if this is where you make the request, but I'll do it here anyways. There are somehow the spelling mistake, misspelling chupacabra, in which they spell it Chubakabras. Also, I have found other things to put under pop culture. I would be grateful if you let me slightly edit some things. Thank you.

Format

Per Tracking the Chupacabra, I think that we should create separate sections for the "original spiny lizard" version and the "coyote/dog hybrid" version. Having a single and generic "sightings" section is problematic, given that the two versions vary drastically. Also, listing so many recent "sightings" of the "dog" variant and virtually none of the "spiky lizard" is undue, since the original reptilian had hundreds of supposed sightings. BTW, I think that a photo with Tolentino's original depiction and Sil from Species side-by-side could be helpful to illustrate Radford's theory. El Alternativo (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

24.96.76.139 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Lol i love spongebob , hes the best !

•  Declined. Not an edit request. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dewitt, TX, USA

Should the alleged capture on 3 April 2014 in Dewitt, TX go into the sightings area? Some people believe it is a chupacabra, but others feel it will be proven to be another form of canine. 67.86.177.110 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The local game warden determined this animal was a racoon, and it's been put down. This is reported on Yahoo News. There is video of it. Someone with edit permission should update not just this story, but also say that hairless racoons are also a culprit. Also, is there some reason mange is spreading more since 1995? 86.129.175.167 (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)