Talk:Shark attack

Sharks B‑class Top‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger

The merger I proposed would change this from a disambiguation page to an article, with a disambiguation line at the top for the films. The reason for the proposal is that "Shark attacks" takes up a disproportionate amount of space on Shark. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say: go ahead. It seems a quite obvious move and IMHO it may not even to be discussed. Janderk 08:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd also like to give anyone watching the disambig page a few jdays to respond. And of course I agree with others that a few paragraphs should remain in the original article. This seems to be the practice with other articles when sections are spun off into new articles. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it! I still thinks a small part should be part of the main shark article, but yes merge! I will do it in a few days unless you beat me to it and/or we get lots of opposition. Also make sure you move the small part doen to the end of the Shark article. Stefan 12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gets my vote. I agree with Stefan that a couple of lines at the end of the main article would be appropriate. Yomangani 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i highly doubt that 1.3 to 3 million people die each year in the US from lightning strikes. i'm guessing that someone misread the paragraph above this blatantly false statistic and ran with it. i'll try to delete it, but i've never edited wikipedia before, so it might not work so well.

Table year 1580

The table is titled as starting as year 1580, but as the International Shark Attack File dates back to 1940, the year is misleading in my opinion. The International Shark Attack File does say they have reviewed files from that far back, but their list could hardly be considered comprehensive. Could the table be better titled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.201.242 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted changes by 207.219.117.254

I have done a quite drastic reversal of the changes that user 207.219.117.254 added to the shark attack section when this part was still on the shark page. It totally reads like a sensational article from around the time Jaws was released. It is full of unreferences pieces and has no neutral point of view at all. I think it is better to start from the smaller though much more neutral part that existed before the edits by 207.219.117.254. Janderk 12:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Whitetip

I reverted a change to include the Oceanic Whitetip into the most dangerous sharks species. Mainly because it is not as high on the species list (1 killed in an unprovoked attack) as the Tiger, Bull and Great White. This page also only names the three above. However user Hokeman pointed out that Oceanic have killed large amounts of humans during the WII sea disasters. What should we do? Maybe it would be best to write a separate paragraph about this guy. Janderk 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Oceanic have killed more people than any other species, and I put it as one of the four man eating sharks long time ago, but the Shark Attack Files does not seam to agree with me. I have searched for references but not found any good one, I'm fine with what you have done now and would be fine with it moved up to the top three(four) also, but it is hard to find a reference for that especially if we take ISAF as our main reference and that is the best reference there is, even thouogh it is not very good. Stefan 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with my friend Stefan. During my reseach for the fatal attack page, I found that the ISAF for all its hype and headline-grabbing is not the best source of information on the web. I would suggest putting the Oceanic whitetip in the paragraph with Tiger, Bull and GW. Use some of the references in the Oceanic whitetip shark article. That's one of the best shark articles in Wikipedia and has just missed being Featured.--Hokeman 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK you guys convinced me. I have reverted my changes back to Hokeman's version. We probably still will have to add a paragraph about the Oceanic whitetip and air/sea disasters. Janderk 10:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Man-eating sharks

There is a new category, I do not like it, I would like to remove it, but if that is not agreeable I would like to reduce the number of sharks in it? Comments? Stefan 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensationalism often seems to get the upper hand when it comes to large creatures from the sea people are unfamiliar with. I'd say go ahead and remove it. Janderk 11:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so easy, only admon can remove, we can take it up for TfD but it is hard to argue with the rules there, and Im not sure what a 'normal' wikiuser would vote, and starting to crate Category:Man-eating cats and dogs would be WP:POINT, so not sure what to do. Should we try for TfD? If so what is the argument, Sensationalism works for me, but would it work in the vote? Stefan 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category links from all the shark pages and marked the category for speedy deletion using the patent nonsense tag, which it is as no sharks targets humans for prey us being not tasty enough :) Hopefully I did not forget part of the deletion rules. Janderk 10:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a paragraph on the Oceanic Whitetip. Improvements are welcome. Janderk 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Indianapolis

What about the USS Indianapolis? Sharks allegedly ate hundreds of sailors in that incident. Rotten 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep we need a paragraph on WII disasters which we could combine with info about the Oceanic Whitetip Shark which the species most typically involved in these disasters. Being in the water with a few hundred other bleeding people around is quite a dangerous situation with Oceanic Whitetips around. Janderk 10:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have added it to the article. We still need a proper authoritive reference though. Janderk 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been able to find an authoritive reference as to numbers killed or sharks involved in the Indianapolis incident (not surprising really). I've added a citation to the Nova Scotia incident which I believe is right, but is copied from some notes I made about 10 years ago, so if anybody can check it that would be good. Yomangani 09:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack frequency

"In short, both files indicate the rarity of shark accidents. In comparison, several hundred people die annually from lightning strikes[3] and 1.3 to 3 million[4] people die from diseases transmitted via mosquito bites."

Like most editorial comparisons, the giving of these figures is entirely rhetorical and so not non-POV. Indeed, the comparisons cited are of questionable fairness because the world's population is far less exposed to shark attacks than to, say, lightning: you have to be in the sea to meet a shark. More man-hours are spend outdoors, or in tropical countries where there are malaria-carrying mosquitos than swimming in the ocean. Further - if it is appropriate to "justify" the statement that shark accidents are rare - why those comparisons? I understand what the lightning statistic is designed to show - that shark attacks are rarer than something that most of us consider to very rare, but the mosquito-borne disease statistic makes no sense. Why not just give figures for the top three causes of death worldwide? I'll delete the quoted text shortly unless people object. --Danward 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the malaria statistic. The lightning strike should be enough to indicate the rareness of shark attacks. Janderk 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the statistics section it claims that the annual number of shark attack deaths is one, but it also states that there have been 464 shark attack deaths since 1958, which is far more than one per year. I suggest removing the sentence that says that there is 1 death a year because it comes from a worse source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.96.223 (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 feet of water.

Maybe someone can add the fact that most shark attacks occur in 2-3 feet of water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.24.54 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean close to the water's EDGE? Because unless sharks are walking around on land now, I'd expect everyone already knows shark attacks only occur underwater. --King ♣ Talk 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between Shark attack article and main Shark article

In the main Shark article under the section Shark attacks it states, "Out of more than 360 species, only three have been involved in a significant number of fatal, unprovoked attacks on humans: the great white, tiger and bull sharks." However in the Shark attack article it states, "Out of more than 360 species, only four have been involved in a significant number of fatal unprovoked attacks on humans: the great white, tiger, oceanic whitetip and bull sharks." Which is it, three or four? The reference link on both pages goes to the same statistics table which lists the 4th highest number of unprovoked attacks as requiem shark and the oceanic whitetip is 16th. Since the Shark attack article goes into further details regarding the Oceanic whitetip in the next paragraph, I have changed the sentence in the Shark attack article to match the main Shark article. Stephoswalk (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree, this edit from shark removed the four. The problem is that ISAF is not very good. It shows oceanic white tipped as 0 unprovoked attacks. But see the page on oceanic_whitetip_shark and the refs [1] and Leonard J. V. Compagno (1984). Sharks of the World: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 484–86, 555–61, 588. Both stating this shark is very dangerous and have attacked numerous times and probably have more victims that [greate white shark]. I will revert your edit and this edit, but am open to more discussion. --Stefan ^talk 13:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify the oceanic whitetip role by indicating why it does not show up in recent statistics. I think we should state that that only 3 species are involved in modern day shark attacks. The paragraph about the oceanic whitetip should than clarify that it has been involved in periods in history when open sea disasters occurred a lot. Janderk (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: It is all right with me too if we mention 4 species. As long as it is indicated why oceanics do not show up in current statistics. Janderk (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hum, good addition, but I do not agree about changing three to four, the propose is to state which sharks does unprovoked attack on people AND kills them, ( hum I usually argue about the sharks beeing not so bad, what am I doing :-) ), anyway if it is consensus to change to three it should state recent statistics, now it only states 'have been involved in a significant number of fatal unprovoked attacks on humans', nothing about recent. --Stefan ^talk 13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically we agree, both is OK with me, at least after your addition. Just decide. I prefer that we say four and no time constraint, but ok with three if we state recent statistics. --Stefan ^talk 13:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection was to the Shark and Shark attack articles not agreeing with each other. I am okay with the edit as it stands now but I think it might be improved if we used the big three in that particular sentence and let the next paragraph in the Shark attack article explain in furthur detail why oceanic whitetips are also considered dangerous. There is a big difference in my mind between sharks that attack close to shore where the average person may run into them and a shark which is usually only involved in attacks on shipwrecks. I think most of us agree that great whites, tigers and bulls are probably the top three culprits in unprovoked attacks in the last fifty years. Stephoswalk (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins protection

WHERE, precisely, is it mentioned in the reference given?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.166.175 (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was pushed off the page by 600 question marks. --King ♣ Talk 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition: Unprovoked Attack

The use of the term unprovoked attack needs a definition for the contexts of shark behavior and statistics.

"A shark attack is an attack on human by a shark"

As an opening line for this article, A shark attack is an attack on human by a shark, is utterly pointless. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. I can honestly not understand how or why anybody could think otherwise and revert my removal of it, but somebody has [2]. For the love of God, can somebody think of something better, because that is ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack statistics

I removed the following three un-referenced paragraphs from the "statistics" section:

However these statistics must be examined subjectively. Relatively small numbers of human beings have access to or spend substantial amounts of time in the ocean compared to the population worldwide. In comparison almost every human being is subjected to thunderstorms and lightning on multiple occasions throughout their lives. Therefore the chance of being a victim of shark attack by even an infrequent beach-going vacationer is much greater than the rate reported by studies and rudimentary data comparison. As of yet no studies have attempted to statistically correct the disparity presented by this dilemma therefore comparisons drawn from these often cited data associations remain scientifically speculative.

and

Thus when the facts are examined it can be seen that a shark attack is one of the rarest ways for humans to die. However the facts must be considered on their merits compared to the number of shark attacks that go unreported each year and in comparison to global human circumstance. On average, according to recorded data alone, there are a minuscule 5 fatal shark attacks per year worldwide. Elephants and tigers together kill 100 people every year, execution takes the lives of 2,400 people, 22,000 people die from drug overdose, traffic accidents kill an average of 1,200,000 people per year, and starvation kills 8,000,000 every single year. In 2009, more people were killed from being crushed by soda machines than were killed by shark attacks.

and

Despite these figures the frequency of shark attacks must be viewed through a more holistic conceptualization of available data rather than an outright comparison of reported numbers. In other words the occurrence of attacks is likely much more common than reported, especially among individuals who spend any amount of time in the ocean annually. Until further studies are undertaken which seek to thoroughly exhaust extenuating circumstances, and which also raise awareness of attacks in the second and third world, the actual rate of shark induced injuries and fatalities worldwide will remain inconclusive.

Much of this seems highly NOR and non-NPOV. At least one of the ref's earlier in the section explicitly states that their data already consider only the number of people who go to the beach [3].

I couldn't find a ref for the "elephants and tigers" or other stats in that second paragraph. If someone finds legit refs for any of these, go ahead and put back in whatever is supported. Otherwise they don't belong there. Fredwerner (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shark attacks - under or over-reported in the "third world"?

Just to mention, while it may seem obvious that shark attacks are under reported in developing countries this is not always so. In many places of the third world places it is "fashionable" and economically advantageous to declare fishing accidents as shark attacks - especially accidents involving illegal dynamite fishing. Admitting dynamite fishing would get them into trouble while claiming a shark attack provides a "heroic" explanation - and sometimes government compensation. On the other hand it is certainly true that real shark attacks occurring in third world countries do not seem to be registered in a central place. Richiez (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people killed by sharks

One of these is wrong:

In 2000, the year with the most recorded shark attacks, there were 79 shark attacks reported worldwide, 11 of them fatal.

or

But every year only an average of 41 people are killed by sharks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geleto (talk • contribs) 10:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncostumed humans as prey

The following statement (in the section entitled, Species involved in incidents) is not supported by instances reporting on the contents of sharks' stomachs where examination has identified non-meaty objects such as those composed of metals (e.g. cans, license plates) or those wrapped in neoprene (e.g. a diver's limb clad in a wetsuit).

"Uncostumed humans, however, such as those surfboarding, light snorkeling, or swimming, present a much greater area of open meaty flesh to carnivorous shark predators." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.53.5 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of shark bite

"'Shark attack' term misleads people - expert" (The Age, 2012-01-05). This newspaper article has some interesting info on the politics of the term "shark attack" and how it's being rejected as sensationalist and misleading by researchers. Also has who coined the term. Much of it would be useful info to add to Wikipedia. —Pengo 04:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Species involved in incidents

This list from the ISAF is informative and could be incorporated into the relevant sections of the article. It lists the species involved in 1,375 shark attacks. (The ISAF has records of 2,463 attacks in total, but the species could not be determined in approximately half of the attacks.) The ISAF has other useful statistics here and here.--Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

The International Shark Attack File (ISAF) lists 488 confirmed unprovoked shark attacks in Australia, but the Australian Shark Attack File (ASAF) lists 702 unprovoked shark attacks. There is no indication whether the ASAF's list includes both confirmed and suspected attacks, or only confirmed attacks. If it includes only the latter, I don't know why the two databases should disagree with each other, especially since the ISAF and the ASAF are associates and likely share data. The Australasian Shark Attack File, a subset of the Global Shark Accident File (formerly known as the Global Shark Attack File), used to report that they had "over 800 shark attacks on file, in Australia," but their database is down and there was no indication whether their file included provoked and/or suspected attacks. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table is incorrect

It says the table goes to 2011, however, Australia's most recent attack has been listed as 2012... I'm not sure what has to be done to make this accurate, so I'll just leave it for someone who knows what they're doing to fix this. 211.26.143.245 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]