https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra Why is the article so negative here? They describe it as a "legendary creatu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra Why is the article so negative here? They describe it as a "legendary creature". Uh-huh. Meanwhile, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse ...no mentions of horses possibly being other things. Why? What are they hiding? > Sightings in northern Mexico and the southern United States have been verified as canids afflicted by mange.[2] According to biologists and wildlife management officials, the chupacabra is an urban legend.[3] And then you go to the article for horses and...hmmm, no citations referencing articles written by those who argue horses aren't real. Oh, so nobody's ever seen something they thought was a horse but actually wasn't? Why won't Wikipedia present both sides? Why is the existence of horses taken for granted? It's shameless censorship, and it won't stand.