Talk:Kasai rex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
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.)

Template:Rationsl Skpecticism

Contents

[edit] Rex or rex?

This mysterious creature is not related to the Tyrannauraurus Rex, it is called "rex" because rex by definition means king

This assumes that Kasai Rex is a scientific name, which it isn't; if so it would be Kasai rex. "Kasai Rex" works as a nickname. Quite appropriate really as there was only one original report... Totnesmartin 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Is A Hoax

The subject of this article is a hoax. [1] The article should be rewritten to reflect this or deleted. -Gavin 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote it. -Gavin 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The mention of the fact that Kasai Rex is a hoax keeps being removed from the article. I am once again going to include this fact, and wish to avoid an edit war. -- Huysmantalk 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 65.32.8.70

I reverted edits by 65.32.8.70. This user removed the words "alleged to be," which are important because Kasai Rex's existence has not been substantiated; yet, this user's language presents Kasai Rex's existence as a well-established fact. The user, who also removed the justified statement "Kasai Rex is a hoax" and the external link that explains why, also removed important qualifying language in the article Ngoubou, again implying that the creature actually exists. Huysman 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar things keep happening to Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu. My repeated requests for refererences (per WP:VERIFY) are removed. I'll give it one more try. Mr Stephen 09:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded article

I've put in lots in information about this, hopefully to show the story of the hoax, and why problems within the reports show it be so. I think the use of the Rhodesia Herald article is justified, as it shows the tone of the original story. I'll be keeping an eye on this, and if the revert wars start again, I'll take it all the way. If someone wants to believe in a real-life T-rex, then fine, imagine away; but don't impose your fantasies on an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuetrality

The article seems nuetral now, maybe we can remove this tag. Puddytang 08:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Hoax or not, real or not, and cite whatever sources, the bottom line is that there is really no greater or lesser amount of evidence for this cryptid than there is for any other paranormal subject on Wikipedia. If you let one stay up, let them all stay up. Jjn91270 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)jjn91270

I left the tag over after my big edit. It was a leftover from the edit war days last year. A lot of similar articles to this were badly researched and POV-ridden, which isn't true now. The tag can go, I think. Totnesmartin 15:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The only part lacking sources is the criticism part. Puddytang 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)