![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Shark attack.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Edixon426. Peer reviewers:
Ieatchurros.
i love pie more than anything in the whole world expecially chocolate 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)
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.
These statistics for deaths have nothing to do with shark attacks, and mislead the reader abandoning neutrality. Most of this article as it exists now is largely speculative and opinionated and could result in over confidence by humans around sharks endangering their lives. Wikipedia itself has an article about Orcas and their social groups including those that hunt sharks. This invalidates the shark as an apex predator. This article goes too far downplaying shark attacks in history. The question is not of how many died, but of overall shark behavior. Regardless of whether a person is consumed any death caused by a shark is still death from a predator. This article reads like a shark lover's motivational speech and is filled with misleading and inaccurate information. While it is understood that predators are not evil by nature but simply predators, endangering the lives of people with misinformation is inappropriate. If this article can not be changed to be neutral and accurate, it should be removed in the interest of public safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
DID U KNOW THAT I LOVE PIE nooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.107.57 ( talk) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What about the USS Indianapolis? Sharks allegedly ate hundreds of sailors in that incident. Rotten 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
The use of the term unprovoked attack needs a definition for the contexts of shark behavior and statistics.
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)
I removed the following three un-referenced paragraphs from the "statistics" section:
and
and
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)
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)
One of these is wrong:
or
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)
" '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)
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)
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)
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)
According to this site http://www.thedorsalfin.com/shark-news-stories/100-million-sharks-killed-each-year-research-vs-magic-numbers/ the 100 million sharks killed per year may be exaggerated and not based upon any scientific data. We are still killing them off though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.226.26 ( talk) 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Firstly I think the idea of a shark attack map on the page is a good thing, however:
Deleted the picture with the shark attack map because is completely inaccurate. There has never been recorded a shark attack in Greece for example since historic times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.37.170 ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have created a new article called Shark attack prevention, which is currently being reviewed (see /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:Shark_attack_prevention ) I created this draft after suggestions in the Western Australian shark cull talk page that Shark threat management in other jurisdictions" details belonged in a separate page. I used the "jurisdiction" section as a base, which I expanded. If this draft is accepted suggest it can be used to expand / as a sub-page of the "Protection" section of this page. Ilenart626 ( talk) 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Have just moved the "Protection by dolphins" section to the Shark attack prevention page and replaced it with a summary of other protection methods (beach patrols, education, etc). Reason for this change is that protection by dolphins is a rare and unusual event and by having it detailed in the "Shark attack" article gives it prominence that it is not warranted. Beach patrols, education, etc are much more relevent and effective for preventiing shark attacks than relying on dolphins. Ilenart626 ( talk) 02:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Removed this paragraph because it is unreferenced and the second sentence is an editorial and interpretation of a primary source (a series of numbers), making it WP:OR. The rest of the section is not much better:
Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Have reversed a number of edits that changed the article to a "emergency medical" article, I believe the medical side of shark attacks is only one aspect with many sections (ie prevention, issues with culling) not being related to medical emergency.
This type of change to the article should also be discussed and ageed on the talk page before it is implemented Ilenart626 ( talk) 09:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc James, no problem with any of these changes Ilenart626 ( talk) 23:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
References
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Killer shark. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Sonicwave talk 21:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shark attacks in Australia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Sonicwave talk 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This is cited in the Pepin-Neff/Hueter report and referenced elsewhere but I'm not sure where to include it. Mapsax ( talk) 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The 1982 boat incident involved sharks, so it would be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:10F4:7FAE:ABE9:6417 ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The photo descriptions list the highest fatality rates by species as Great White Shark as the highest, then tiger, then bull. However, according to the University of Florida page cited, the fatality rate for unprovoked attacks is as follows: Great White ~16%, Tiger ~27%, and Bull as ~21%. 2600:1007:B036:D1B:92B:ACD2:E461:9A4F ( talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe the Heather Boswell attack should be listed under the notable section. Video of the attack has been on multiple shark week episodes, animal attack videos and Boswell has recounted the incident in public forums including Oprah. The incident is listed as a full paragraph on the NOAAS_Discoverer_(R_102) page. @ iienart626 Sydtrolls ( talk) 16:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Base notability would be having a Wikipedia article. So this list should contain notable shark attacks that have their own Wikipedia article ( these, some missing on the list btw), and notable people (have their own Wikipedia article) who were attacked by a shark ( these). Listing/linking article sections describing shark attacks would be iffy. Heather Boswell should not be listed, listing every person in the world who was ever attacked by a shark would be an impossible list and an exercise in WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The last paragraph in attack statistics states: "in the southwest of Western Australia the chances of a surfer being fatally bitten by a shark in winter or spring are 1 in 40,000 and for divers it is 1 in 16,000"
An article is cited, but there is no mention of the 1 in 16,000 stat for divers in the research paper: /info/en/?search=Shark_attack#cite_note-Spri-25
Can anyone find this reference to 1 in 16,000? Promasternoob ( talk) 08:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The table is nuts.
I can’t find it (using old or current links, or with google).
The cited link [4] takes (me) to a tally from 1580 for all attacks (fatal aren’t listed).
Last 10 years (with fatal) are at [5].
The link for Australia [6] says; for fatal;
This site is from 1580 to (possibly) 2022, but doesn’t match the separate Australia data. I’ve summed USA, AUS, Hawaii. [7]
MBG02 (
talk)
12:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Shark attack.
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Edixon426. Peer reviewers:
Ieatchurros.
i love pie more than anything in the whole world expecially chocolate 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)
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.
These statistics for deaths have nothing to do with shark attacks, and mislead the reader abandoning neutrality. Most of this article as it exists now is largely speculative and opinionated and could result in over confidence by humans around sharks endangering their lives. Wikipedia itself has an article about Orcas and their social groups including those that hunt sharks. This invalidates the shark as an apex predator. This article goes too far downplaying shark attacks in history. The question is not of how many died, but of overall shark behavior. Regardless of whether a person is consumed any death caused by a shark is still death from a predator. This article reads like a shark lover's motivational speech and is filled with misleading and inaccurate information. While it is understood that predators are not evil by nature but simply predators, endangering the lives of people with misinformation is inappropriate. If this article can not be changed to be neutral and accurate, it should be removed in the interest of public safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird013 ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
DID U KNOW THAT I LOVE PIE nooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.107.57 ( talk) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What about the USS Indianapolis? Sharks allegedly ate hundreds of sailors in that incident. Rotten 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
The use of the term unprovoked attack needs a definition for the contexts of shark behavior and statistics.
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)
I removed the following three un-referenced paragraphs from the "statistics" section:
and
and
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)
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)
One of these is wrong:
or
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)
" '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)
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)
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)
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)
According to this site http://www.thedorsalfin.com/shark-news-stories/100-million-sharks-killed-each-year-research-vs-magic-numbers/ the 100 million sharks killed per year may be exaggerated and not based upon any scientific data. We are still killing them off though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.226.26 ( talk) 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Firstly I think the idea of a shark attack map on the page is a good thing, however:
Deleted the picture with the shark attack map because is completely inaccurate. There has never been recorded a shark attack in Greece for example since historic times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.37.170 ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have created a new article called Shark attack prevention, which is currently being reviewed (see /info/en/?search=Draft_talk:Shark_attack_prevention ) I created this draft after suggestions in the Western Australian shark cull talk page that Shark threat management in other jurisdictions" details belonged in a separate page. I used the "jurisdiction" section as a base, which I expanded. If this draft is accepted suggest it can be used to expand / as a sub-page of the "Protection" section of this page. Ilenart626 ( talk) 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Have just moved the "Protection by dolphins" section to the Shark attack prevention page and replaced it with a summary of other protection methods (beach patrols, education, etc). Reason for this change is that protection by dolphins is a rare and unusual event and by having it detailed in the "Shark attack" article gives it prominence that it is not warranted. Beach patrols, education, etc are much more relevent and effective for preventiing shark attacks than relying on dolphins. Ilenart626 ( talk) 02:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Removed this paragraph because it is unreferenced and the second sentence is an editorial and interpretation of a primary source (a series of numbers), making it WP:OR. The rest of the section is not much better:
Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Have reversed a number of edits that changed the article to a "emergency medical" article, I believe the medical side of shark attacks is only one aspect with many sections (ie prevention, issues with culling) not being related to medical emergency.
This type of change to the article should also be discussed and ageed on the talk page before it is implemented Ilenart626 ( talk) 09:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doc James, no problem with any of these changes Ilenart626 ( talk) 23:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
References
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Killer shark. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Sonicwave talk 21:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shark attacks in Australia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Sonicwave talk 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This is cited in the Pepin-Neff/Hueter report and referenced elsewhere but I'm not sure where to include it. Mapsax ( talk) 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The 1982 boat incident involved sharks, so it would be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:10F4:7FAE:ABE9:6417 ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The photo descriptions list the highest fatality rates by species as Great White Shark as the highest, then tiger, then bull. However, according to the University of Florida page cited, the fatality rate for unprovoked attacks is as follows: Great White ~16%, Tiger ~27%, and Bull as ~21%. 2600:1007:B036:D1B:92B:ACD2:E461:9A4F ( talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe the Heather Boswell attack should be listed under the notable section. Video of the attack has been on multiple shark week episodes, animal attack videos and Boswell has recounted the incident in public forums including Oprah. The incident is listed as a full paragraph on the NOAAS_Discoverer_(R_102) page. @ iienart626 Sydtrolls ( talk) 16:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Base notability would be having a Wikipedia article. So this list should contain notable shark attacks that have their own Wikipedia article ( these, some missing on the list btw), and notable people (have their own Wikipedia article) who were attacked by a shark ( these). Listing/linking article sections describing shark attacks would be iffy. Heather Boswell should not be listed, listing every person in the world who was ever attacked by a shark would be an impossible list and an exercise in WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 19:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The last paragraph in attack statistics states: "in the southwest of Western Australia the chances of a surfer being fatally bitten by a shark in winter or spring are 1 in 40,000 and for divers it is 1 in 16,000"
An article is cited, but there is no mention of the 1 in 16,000 stat for divers in the research paper: /info/en/?search=Shark_attack#cite_note-Spri-25
Can anyone find this reference to 1 in 16,000? Promasternoob ( talk) 08:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The table is nuts.
I can’t find it (using old or current links, or with google).
The cited link [4] takes (me) to a tally from 1580 for all attacks (fatal aren’t listed).
Last 10 years (with fatal) are at [5].
The link for Australia [6] says; for fatal;
This site is from 1580 to (possibly) 2022, but doesn’t match the separate Australia data. I’ve summed USA, AUS, Hawaii. [7]
MBG02 (
talk)
12:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)