Talk:Chupacabra

Chupacabra captured "Prince Chupa"

[1] — 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)

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)

"Teen kills possible chupacabra"

I'm not able to edit this, but it's worth editing, with this news report that just came out:

Teen kills possible chupacabra http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/15113551/tx-teen-kills-possible-chupacabra

HOUSTON (KPRC/CNN) - A Texas teen is claiming he shot and killed a real live chupacabra, but many biologists suspect the hairless animals are in fact sick coyotes or another wild animal.

Across an open field in Texas, Carter Pope spotted a strange animal.

"It just walked across and started shaking, slowly moving across," Pope said. "No hair on it at all, the back legs were shriveled up, and I honestly think it was a chupacabra."

Pope said he ran to his parents' room to wake up his dad to come see what he had discovered.

"I thought, 'I'm dreaming or this kid is crazy, but probably a little bit of both,'" Pope's father Will said.

Will said when he came outside with his son, he was amazed by the creature.

The animal was about 200 feet away when Pope fired three shots before the animal stopped moving.

Stories of alleged chupacabra sightings have been around for years, and pictures have surfaced on the internet.

Some believe a chupacabra is an animal that sucks the blood of livestock. It's reportedly a strange looking creature with barely any hair.

For many, it is a thing of legends. Some wildlife biologists believe it is a sick wild animal.

"I can believe it either way, it looks like nothing I have personally seen before," Will said.

Carter took hair and skin samples to get tested to put an end to the mystery once and for all.

Copyright 2011 KPRC via CNN. All rights reserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangeWriter (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Good find. "Carter took hair and skin samples to get tested to put an end to the mystery once and for all." Hopefully more on this story later. Shriveled up back legs, creature shaking before he shot it, almost no hair on it, looks like a sick coyote. Dream Focus 00:04, 29 July 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 [2]. 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: [3]. 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 [4] for background on Adolfi, and [5] 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 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)

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)