== Recent additions == 

 I've reverted most of the recent additions to the article again, and it seems a more detailed explanation may be in order. 
 *there should not be any citations in the intro, the intro is a summary of the rest of the article 
 *most references don't need quotations, and large-scale copypaste from the source definitely should not be done 
 *the intro is a summary, and specific examples of attacks don't need to be in it 
 *" but the species places sixth in the number of attacks on humans"  this implies that this is the sixth-most dangerous shark, which is misleading. Outside the big three (great white, tiger, bull), all other sharks in the ISAF statistics fall under the category of "not many attacks" and their exact order in the stats is meaningless. Not to mention the source specifically states that ISAF stats are probably wrong for Carcharhinus species and should not be used to gauge how dangerous a particular species is 
 *the number of attacks the great white is responsible for is irrelevant to this article 
 *the 2014 attack in Tathra: the species ID was made by a non-specialist eyewitness and cannot be considered reliable, especially given that even experts have trouble discerning which Carcharhinus species is responsible for an attack. In any case, there's already an example given of a fatal attack (1976 NZ) and there's no need for more 
 *The same goes for the 2011 Bunker Bay attack: non-specialists cannot be considered reliable sources for IDing the species of an attacking shark ("we were pretty convinced it was a bronze whaler" does not constitute proper scholarship) 
 *The fact that 3 of the last 10 New Zealand attacks were by copper sharks gives no insight into the species because it's not generalizable. Is this 3 in 10 figure high? low? typical? These NZ attacks don't even account for a large proportion of the total. It's not important enough to warrant inclusion