Talk:Ocean Guardian

message: A successful shark repellent system would be extremely beneficial for both humans and sharks.  This article makes the startling claim that the "Shark Shield" has been successfuly tested.  If true, this is remarkable news.  If false, it may lead people to buy a useless piece of hardware and maybe be eaten in the process.
There are no references for this article.  It should either (1) be deleted, (2)made a lot more skeptical in tone, or, (3) include links to serious studies proving or disproving its efficacy.
Freddy Hill 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Some of the parts of this articel are just too suspicious. Especially the part about how the creator withdrew all examples before disappearing, very convenient... 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the article, added references and removed unreferenced text about creator disappearing, should be proven not to be a hoax now? --Stefan talk 02:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOax tag 

message: Hi everyone,
I have updated the article to cite the findings of a SARDI (a South Australian government agency) study into the effectiveness of the Shark Shield Freedom 7TM product.  The KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board web site suggests that the above-mentioned product is an ongoing development of the original SharkPOD.   The SARDI report was published on 6 June 2012.  I have also sub-divided the article with some sub headings in order to introduce some structure and to hopefully expand the article.  I have removed the reference to Peter Clarkson as his death is the subject of a coronial inquiry in South Australia. Also, the coronial report will probably clarify if a Shark Shield™ was used by Peter Clarkson.
There are a number of patents that cites the work of Dr Adrianus Kalmijn in respect to electric shark deterrent devices.  As of today, I have not found a paper which discusses Dr Kalmijn’s finding that sharks can be repelled by varying the electrical currents at the site of a potential food source.  I will keep looking. 
I have noticed that there is a series of inter-linked Wikipedia articles, i.e. ‘Shark repellent’, ‘Magnetic shark repellent’, and ‘Sharkdefense’.  The existence of both these and the ‘Protective Oceanic Device‘ suggests that there are 2 separate schools of thought on the matter of shark repellence - the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board in the Indian Ocean and Sharkdefense in North America.
It may be appropriate to bring the ‘Shark repellent’ article under the umbrella of WikiProject Sharks and linked together all of the articles concerning shark repellence.  I have added a link on the ‘Shark repellent’ article page to this article.  In the long term, it may be appropriate to rename and reformat this article to reflect the application of a finding of science (i.e. elasmobranch fish use electric currents to locate food) rather than the history of a product based on the scientific finding in the same manner as the article entitled ‘Magnetic shark repellent’.
Cowdy001 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Matter of Efficacy

message: The article has been extensively re-edited in the recent past with the result of it now reading like an advertisement.   The edit removed all of the inline citations as well as relevant information about the science and technology behind the both the Shark POD and Shark Shield product ranges.   I would to see this restored.  As the edit has moved the focus of the article on the Shark Shield, it may be wise to consider re-naming the article to reflect its current focus, although I would support a move to a generic approach where the article either remains as 'Protective Oceanic Device' or adopts a name that describes the underlying technology.Cowdy001 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up notice (September 2013) 

message: I have reversed a number of Arkpro's recent edits, refer User talk:Arkpro#Reverted changes to Ocean Gardian and related Shark articles for an overall discussion of these edits with Arkpro.  Specific issues I have with Arkpro's edits on the Ocean Guardian page include:
* the addition of "LR1000 Shark Barrier" does not cite any independent references
Note that I have restored one edit which is fine.Ilenart626 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arkpro, yes those independent sources are what I am referring to.  this one here is another example.  https://www.marineconservation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SCP-Modernisation-Proposal-and-Cost-Estimate-Print.pdf Ilenart626 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of Arkpro edits 

message: As mentioned in User talk:Arkpro#Reverted changes to Ocean Gardian and related Shark articles, I do not understand how a company announcing a new product, in this case their LR1000 Shark Barrier requires independent references, if they announced a new product then that's all there is to it. The announcement was covered in the publication I linked to it and the product advertised for sale on their website. So deleting it from their Wikipedia page seems a strange thing to do. 
Maybe these articles help with shark barrier / virtual shark barrier / LR1000: 
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/shark-shield-owners-developing-bigger-scale-virtual-shark-barriers-ng-73ac3a669c72f4ada2405dd9a514a0fa
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-10/busselton-jetty-set-to-open-world-first-shark-curtain/11781330
https://prwire.com.au/pr/96966/ocean-guardian-releases-large-scale-virtual-shark-net-for-beaches-resorts-and-aquaculture
https://www.afloat.com.au/2021/06/07/ocean-guardian-releases-lr1000-shark-barrier/
Arkpro (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arkpro, yes those independent sources are what I am referring to.  this one here is another example.  https://www.marineconservation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SCP-Modernisation-Proposal-and-Cost-Estimate-Print.pdf Ilenart626 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: =========