Talk:Oceanic whitetip shark

message: "without the verification of a scientific community in each instance, it is best to assume the accidental or non-predatory intent of the encounters." 
Honestly? How many "accidental" meals are there on other species by sharks in the sea? How many "non-predatory" meals? The very idea that Sharks, when biting, are not aware that their target is food is ridiculous.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.231.236 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: (Contested - July 13)
* Object. Needs a picture, at least. Compare Humpback Whale to see how good an article on a sea creature can be. — Matt 02:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oceanic Whitetip Shark]] 

message: There's no question that this is one of the best, if not the best article as far as individual shark species go.  If you want to see something bad go to Tiger shark; and if you want to see something really, really bad go to Bull shark. I have been on a personal crusade to try and get people interested in improving these articles.--Hokeman 04:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I have not read the real requirements for FA status for a long time. I think that to make it featured we need to improve the references, i.e. make more of the individual facts referenced. What more that needs to be done I'm not sure, but we should be able to make that happen. I'm very busy IRL now but will support as much as possible. Stefan 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important facts are referenced directly and there is good list of references at the bottom. I've put it up for peer review anyway to see what others think. Yomangani 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what more needs to be done to get to FA status? I would really like some references for the naming section, but do not have access to any books that talks about this, and my limited google searches give me nothing of value. I think it will still be considered to be to small and contain to few facts when compared to other animal FA articles, but as argued before I'm not sure we can write much more? Stefan 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with the behaviour section - I haven't found a single source for anything after 'sea dogs'. I tracked down the original editor, who turned out to be User:Auto movil, to ask if they had a source, but as you can see from their user page they didn't have a particularly fun time with this article and haven't replied yet. I think the naming section lists its references inline, although I suspect they are from intermediate sources. Most of that is listed in the FAO catalogue though so we can use the Compagno ref there. I've just got the FAO catalogue back so I'll go through and fill out what I can. Yomangani 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the best individual shark species articles 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article. Stefan 10:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated 

message: :The oceanic whitetip, unlike the great white, is highly opportunistic and aggressive; and will attack humans for food.
:Even though this is one of the most dangerous sharks, divers have swum with this shark repeatedly without being harmed (it is a popular draw for dive tourism because of its size and the perceived danger). 
I can't resolve the apparent contradiction between these two statements:  help?  Sandy 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "will" should probably be "has been known to" for the sake of clarity. I'll fix it. Yomangani 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how can people swim with them, if they attacked all those sailors?  Sandy 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trusting to luck and experience I guess. I'll see if I can reword it slightly without adding POV. Yomangani 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with  all animals, it will only attack weak opponents and will only attack when hungry, so they do not kill those sailors minutes after they fall into the water, but days later when they are very weak. Lions and tigers have killed many more humans than any shark, still watch discovery and see photographers walk 10's of meters from both lions and tigers, they would NOT do this if they where hurt or if the lion/tigers where hungry. But most of the time it is ok. Sharks are see as to be dangerous killing machines (but this is POV), they are actually not. Have you seen the video clip of Jean-Michel Cousteau hitching a ride of a great white shark? The point is that shark are not as dangerous as you think, so when someone states that this is one of the most dangerous shark there is (that is correct), but you read that as a very very very dangerous shark which kills instantaneously (which it si not), that is because you are brought up on JAWS and does not know how sharks really behave in the water, so many people have dived and snorkeled with this shark (me included) and I'm still alive, so there is no contradiction! Stefan 10:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more link that shows how not so dangerous a great white shark really is , this guy also swims with it outside the cage. Stefan 14:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On a related note, how can it be responsible for most unprovoked shark attacks when it is so far down this list? Bendž|Ť 14:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Talk:Shark_attack for old discussion about the same topic, wich give you a answer. --Stefan talk 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolve contradiction?

message: Until the 16th century, sharks were known to mariners as 'sea dogs'.  C. longimanusThe oceanic whitetip, the commonest most common ship-following shark, can exhibits rather dog-like behavior when its interest is piqued: when attracted to something that appears to be food(comma) its movements become more avid and it will approach cautiously but stubbornly, retreating and maintaining the minimum safe distance if driven off, but ready for a rush of boldness if the opportunity presents itself.
Sandy 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some commas and things here and there:  please go through and doublecheck them, since I'm no grammarian.  Sandy 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: The picture (the one at the very top) isnt very good, to say the least.  Could someone find a decent one? There's tons of them on google images, and im pretty sure a nice email to the webmaster/copyright holder would work wonders if anyones concerned about those kind of issues.  Id do this, but i really have no good clue.  PAX Schafer71.107.69.226 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture 

message: I first learned of this species many years ago, as the "pelagic whitetip"; in a general sense the two words could be pretty much interchangeable, with "pelagic" being more precise. However, when tying down distinct zoological entities, is there such flexibility? Is the "oceanic whitetip" NOT a "pelagic whitetip"?
It seems like splitting hairs, but since this is a "featured article", I didn't want to just charge in with my opinions.....
Thanx, cheers,
- pterantula
:You are correct, but the common name is "oceanic whitetip" and this is what is given in the FAO catalogue and Fishbase which we've pretty much used as the authoritative sources on the shark articles (personally, I don't recall  having seen it called the "pelagic whitetip", but that means nothing). From a quick Google "pelagic whitetip" gets 10 results, oceanic whitetip 44,000+ (even ruling out the irrelevant ones it's still going to be substantially higher). I have put redirects in for pelagic whitetip and pelagic whitetip shark now though. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 10:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "oceanic" = "pelagic"? 

message: It would be great if the article included some explanation of why they are always seen accompanied by pilotfish.--Primalchaos 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilotfish? 

message: ...shark-attack indices for the 20th and 21st centuries... When did the 21st century start, & has there been enough time to compile an index? GrahamBould 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 21st century

message: 'ey guys, would anyone object if I tried rearranging the article into a format that might be better suited for education? I'm asking first since this seems to be a poupular page. Shrumster 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try it out. I won't change any text so it'll be easily reverted if the changes are unsatisfactory. Shrumster 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrange 

message: they may be observed with pilot fishes, dolphin fishes, and remoras
I was always taught that, like "sheep", the plural of "fish" is "fish"?  Or is it different for American English?  ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was always taught that there are two different ways to pluralize "fish." If you're talking about multiple fish of the same species, it's just "fish," but if you're talking about multiple fish of multiple species, it's "fishes." But I could be wrong. Douggers 05:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with people and peoples. Mgiganteus1 06:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See fish#"Fish" or "fishes", "school" or '"shoal"? for a good definition of fish and fishes. --Stefan talk 05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of "Fish"? 

message: Why isn't this page protected if it's the day's featured article? I found a bit of vandalism on it just now. --Antonio.sierra 14:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The stat stating that the chances of being killed by a shark is "1 in 300 million" is a worthless, non-realistic statistic IMHO. I'm going out to mow my lawn today in the midwest US and I assume my chances are zero. Wouldn't a statistic based on "open ocean swimmers" be more appropriate? I did remove the comment refering to the "near extinction of the species" as that did not seem to refer to this species. Vespid 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to humans

message: Congrats to all the editors of this articles on reaching feature article status!!!!!!!!! BloodyWednesdayError 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YaY

message: It seems the conclusions in this article regarding the number of humans killed from ship accidents are original research. There is a reference above that says this article "connects the dots" whereas other resources do not - which is WP:OR. If the references sources are inferring this species is responsible for for a great number of deaths, at least this should be explicitly stated as an inferred conclusion which has not been confirmed with the level of certainty normally associated with a reliable secondary resource. Fireproeng 19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific, what in ref 1 and 2 in the article is WP:OR? Are you questioning the references or are you stating that those refs and other are inconsistant? Yes  International Shark Attack File and these refs do not agree, and there are resons, see e.g. recent discussion at Talk:Shark_attack. --Stefan talk 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the comments you are refering to about connecting the dots was for the 2004 version of this article that did not pass FA, at that time I guess there was not that much references and it probably was WP:OR. --Stefan talk 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack conclusions  = Original Research?

message: Dear Writers, I am writing on a german article on this shark and I am a bit confused about Despite the greater notoriety of the great white shark and other sharks habitually found nearer the shore, the oceanic whitetip is considered responsible for more fatal attacks on humans than all other species combined, as a result of predation on those shipwrecked or from aircraft downed in the open ocean. is referenced with Compagno 1984 - there is no hint in Compagno on this dramatical phrase, he just stated This is a dangerous species, responsible for a few verified and unverified attacks on swimmers and boats. and This shark was thought by Bass, D'Aubrey & Kistnasamy (1973) to have
been chiefly responsible for the deaths of many people in the water after the ship "Nova Scotia" was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine during the second world war off northern Natal, South Africa. - that's all! Greetings, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same statement is referenced to two other references in the lead, one beeing Bass 73, I changed it. Thanks a lot!! --Stefan talk 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compagno 1984, wrong reference? 

message: The oceanic whitetip shark article claims that the species is "a danger to survivors of oceanic shipwrecks and downed aircraft — it has attacked more humans than all other shark species combined." The tiger shark article claims that the species is "second only to the great white shark in number of recorded attacks on humans." I haven't checked to see what the great white shark article claims. So which is it? Either one of the articles needs to be reworded or clarified or the statistics are wrong. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shark attacks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oceanic whitetip shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64wDdqFi9?url=http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Baum_Myers_2004.pdf to http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Baum_Myers_2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oceanic whitetip shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512161229/http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-16.pdf to http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-16.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oceanic whitetip shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906062858/http://www.saambr.org.za/uploads/files/oriinvrep33.pdf to http://www.saambr.org.za/uploads/files/oriinvrep33.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was a paragraph under "Relationship with humans" that I removed. It was on the distinction of the terminology "shark attack" vs "bite" or" encounter". Those terminology distinctions are Not particular to this species. They are more appropriate for the Shark Attack page and are already there. This page also already links to that. IllQuill (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack terminology discussion belongs elsewhere 

message: In the Oceanic whitetip shark range map, the species is erroneously shown to inhabit Lake Nicaragua. There are Bull sharks there, not Oceanic whitetip sharks. Would someone who is able please correct the map. Thank you. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  lake