Talk:Elmendorf Beast
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
This sentence from the original article made me laugh out loud:
”In this instance, the family that owned the house's large dogs would bark at it, but cried and whimpered when they were brought closer to the beast.“
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't these two be merged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmendorf_Creature
- Done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article gave me chills. Is there any Wikipedia guideline that says articles should not be totally spooky?
More information, including the name of a zoo expert (John Gramieri, Mammal Curator at the San Antonio Zoo) who examined the bones: http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=4E470718-F7B0-48AB-AC65-C5A1108E62B0
Contents |
[edit] Another found/killed?
I believe another was killed this Friday in Texas. Can somebody confirm this?Punk18
[edit] Pictures?
Any pictures of this thing? --clpo13 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think this page had one, originally, but there were copyright issues and it was removed. - TexasAndroid 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There are pictures of it here: http://www.unknowncountry.com/lufkin_images.phtml Nsign 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beast has long ago been IDed
This article is a mess and could be much shorter. A UT professor named Pamela Owen who is an expert in canine bones identified the skull as a normal coyote. This article is grossly misleading, there's no mystery here. I'm going to make some changes to reflect this this weekend. Capeo 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please be sure to reference your changes well, and there should be no problem, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Will do. Capeo 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This article still seems to leave quite a bit of a sense of mystery to me...I don't know anything about it though. Mwv2 07:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This page should be more about the urban legend and the local reaction to stories about a creature. The fact that the creature itself is just some sick coyote is background reading required for framing and perspective, but at the end of the day it's the myth and panic that made the story notable so its those elements which are important. - perfectblue (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article contradicts another article
The article Chupacabra claims
"This creature is now known as the Elmendorf Creature. It was later determined to be a coyote with demodectic or sarcoptic mange."
Either this matter has been settled, then the Elmendorf Beast article should be changed accordingly, or the matter is still pending, then the Chupacabra should be changed to make clear that the mange-thing is only a theory. 88.217.71.229 16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paranormal
This is not exactly a case of the "paranormal" since the beasts have gender and are possibly mutations, diseased specimens or a new species. Nothing about this event suggests it is of a paranormal source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.5.135.66 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal on Wikipedia covers modern myths and legends, including urban legends. It doesn't matter if this is somebody's pet dog painted up as a monster to scare kids, what matters is that there is a modern urban legend about it.
perfectblue (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Local update
One of the local TV stations is running blurbs that they have the official DNA results back on this, and will be presenting the results tonight in the local newscast. They're hyping it as results on a Chupacabra, but the images shown were definitly the Elmendorf Beast. We'll see what they have to say, and especially if they put the report up on their web site, I will hopefully be able to update with the results tomorrow. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Not the Elmendorf Beast, but a similar animal found this past July in Cuero.[1] I'll see what, if anything, this latest information will add to the current article. - TexasAndroid 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
