Talk:Elmendorf Beast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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

Another found/killed?[edit]

I believe another was killed this Friday in Texas. Can somebody confirm this?Punk18

Pictures?[edit]

Any pictures of this thing? --clpo13 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page had one, originally, but there were copyright issues and it was removed. - TexasAndroid 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures of it here: http://www.unknowncountry.com/lufkin_images.phtml Nsign 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beast has long ago been IDed[edit]

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)[reply]

Please be sure to reference your changes well, and there should be no problem, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Capeo 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MonsterQuest extracted a tooth from the animal and sent it to a lab, where the DNA was extracted and analyzed. It was determined the animal was a genetic match to a domestic dog, but not a Xolo. Did anyone else see this episode? I'm not going to quote a TV show on here unless I can find some information about the episode. Evil bacteria (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on tape, but have not watched it yet. I'll see what it says and see what I can add from it when I get a chance to watch it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article contradicts another article[edit]

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)[reply]

Paranormal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Local update[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of the references on this page are broken links

Nature of this article[edit]

First of all, this article suffers seriously from link rot.

The only reference for this article that still works did not mention the term "Elmendorf Beast". It was about something else, El Chupacabra.

Looking around for something citable containing this term "Elmedorf Beast", I came up with nothing at all. Please check it for yourself.

Next, I was able to find among the blogs and such mention of the term. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the referent of this article is one specific animal which was shot in Elmendorf Texas by a man named Devin Macanally in July of 2004. If so, out in the Blogosphere they don't seem to use the term "Elmendorf Beast" to refer to that one animal, do they?

Ok, if we are just talking about that one animal, where are the news reports or anything WP:RS about that animal?

Next, if the referent of this article is just that one beast but all such beasts, I think the term out in the blogs is "Texas Blue Dog", so maybe a move request would be in order.

Third, if there are no WP:RS for this referent, why do we have an article about it? I've a mind to start a deletion request if I can't determine either that there are no news reports about Macanally's quarry that day or Blue Dogs in general. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and so on get articles because they are mentioned in news reports about supposed citings, but no news report spoke about Macanally's beast.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elmendorf Beast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elmendorf_Beast&oldid=1207100755"