Talk:Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916

Removed (lost a limb) from Joseph Dunn. Am actually reading 'Twelve Days of Terror' by Fermicola and this book mentions that the youth made a full recovery. Saint Mahone 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Close to shore additions

There is no way to verify most of the information in this addition, so I have removed it again. Please don't put it back again without addressing the original research and guesswork. I've highlighted the problems below:

Although basicly unprovoked (how do we know that?), the reason of the attacks may be more than a rogue shark.When Charles Van Sant was attacked, he was not in a group, and was likely thrashing in the water(?), attracting the shark, whom had been without food(?) for it had been caught in the Gulf Stream(?), and was without sustained prey for a period(?). . Charles Bruder, was swimming with his dog almost alone. The swimming of a dog is well known to attract sharks(?) due to the thrashing of the dog in the water. Lester Stillwell was swimming in a group, whom splashed alot as they jumped and dived in the water carelessly, the shark saw the kids as easy, small prey(we can't possibly know what the shark is thinking). Stanley Fisher, had, after his attack said he found lesters body, still being devored by the shark. When he tried to recover the boy's body, the shark acted as to protect its prey(?), something which can be seen in the wild. It may (supposition) have been a case where the shark was treating him as another shark, takeing its prey. Joseph Dunn was swimming in a similer way to Lester, and was attack by a likely panicked shark(?)- Either if it was a Great White; suffering from the fresh or semi-fresh water, the cramped spaces, or the attention of the local towns-people, or a Bull shark, now uneasy possible from Fisher's attack, the shark may have realized humans are capable of fighting back, and was hurried to get out.(This whole sentence is complete guesswork). Yomangani^talk 01:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"It is believed that the particular paddling rhythm of Van Sant's dog was what attracted the shark to the scene." - By whom? Why? Is there any reason whatsoever to believe this? - 201.51.221.66 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest sharks be advised to not eat humans due to their high mercury contentObbop 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article doesn't have an introduction, but rather because of someone's deletion starts out in the middle of some argument or controversy. Could someone who knows something about this subject fix this?

Update and revision

I have greatly revised and expanded this article as it doesn't seem to have been edited rather frequently in the past.

• I moved the article to a new namespace to adhere to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on events . The article may need to be moved to 1916 Jersey Shore shark attacks, the guideline isn't very precise.
• I have expanded sections on the background to the attacks, the attacks themselves (without going into too much detail, I hope), local and national reaction to the attacks, the search for the shark, the revision of scientific knowledge about sharks following the attacks, and the impact of the attacks on popular culture (political cartoons, Jaws, etc.).
• I am a historian, not a biologist, so the tone of the article is written to describe a historical event.
• There was no citation or notation system used, so I used the method I am most familiar with, Chicago Manual of Style.
• All of the images are in the public domain since they were published prior to 1923.

I will soon be posting article at peer review and hopefully later at FAC. I haven't been a major editor in a while (my last FA was in January), so if policies have changed or something then I apologize in advance. Dmoon1 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaws quote

I'd like to see reference 69 include a little more of the dialogue which you're referencing. I don't know why, I think I'm being awkward, but a little context goes a long way. Weird request I know, but as soon as I saw it, I wanted to know the rest of the quote. Seegoon 11:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much the exchange that takes place:

Hooper:

Look the situation, is that apparently a Great White shark has staked a claim in the waters off Amity Island. And he's going to continue to feed here as long as there is food in the water. Brody: And there's no limit to what he's gonna do! I mean we've already had three incidents, two people killed inside of a week. And it's gonna happen again, it happened before! The Jersey beach!

Hooper: 1916. There were--

Brody: 1916! Five people chewed up on the surf!

Hooper: In one week!

Brody: Tell him, tell him about the swimmers!

Hooper: A shark is attracted to the exact kind of splashing and activity that occurs whenever human beings go in swimming. You cannot avoid it.

Brody:

If you open the beaches on the fourth of July, it's like ringing the dinner bell for Christ's sakes!

I don't think the whole exchange should be quoted in the article. Is there any particular part you prefer? Dmoon1 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Scratch what I just wrote. I see what you mean and have contextualized the quote in the article per your suggestions. Dmoon1 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently there's an excess of Jaws information in the article. The name of the fisherman in the movie has nothing to do with the 1916 shark attacks, for example. If "Amity Island" is mentioned at all it should only be to say that it doesn't exist and the actual Jersey attacks occurred over a much larger area. 204.186.59.184 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality of article

I just wanted to throw in a note of congratulations to the recent editors of this article. I remember reading it a while ago when it was very stubby, and being surprised that there was not more information on such an interesting subject. It is now absolutely excellent and I wish you all the very best with the FA review. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

US Dollars

Do we really need the note at the top of the article, "Throughout this article, the unqualified term "dollar" and the $ symbol refer to the United States dollar."? This was a localized event in New Jersey, what other kinds of dollars would the Matawan mayor reasonably offer as a reward? I suppose we could link the $'s in the text to US dollar, if people really think it's that confusing. Anyone else feel the same way? Matt Deres 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The MOS must have changed since I started the draft in April, back then it dictated that the disclaimer be placed at the top of the article. Dmoon1 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To me it sounds like the heading means that all Dollar values are not adjusted for change in value over time. So references to Dollars in 1916, for example, may not have equivalents to current Dollars. This is just my thought, but then again I haven't really gone through the much-changed article recently to see quite where this may apply. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The way that the dollar amounts were displayed with inflation "$yyy.yy ($xxxx.xx as of 2011)" was confusing, as it was possible to interpret it as listing the initial cost which was incurred in 1916 ($yyy.yy) as well as further costs which have been incurred from 1916 to 2011 ($xxxx.xx). To clarify the intended meaning, I have replaced these amounts with the style "$yyy.yy ($xxxx.xx in 2011 dollars)", which eliminates this possible confusion. Tom (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the article be New Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916? I realize that "Jersey shore" is the local term for the New Jersey shore, but Wikipedia is meant to have a global reach. Not a big deal, but as is, it could be the shore of the island of Jersey in the English Channel. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 12:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Is the coast of Jersey referred to as the Jersey Shore as well? The very first sentence of the article states that this event happened on the coast of New Jersey. If the article title were changed, New Jersey shark attacks of 1916 sounds better than New Jersey Shore shark attacks. I think I've seen at least one book refer to the incident as the New Jersey shark attacks. Dmoon1 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the other Jersey on Jersey Shore, but that may just be US bias. Does one usually talk of a "shore" on an island? Cmprince 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be New Jersey as well. Happyme22 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I created this article, I did a lot of research before I titled it. Yes, the shore of New Jersey is most-commonly referred to as the "Jersey Shore". --and the incident is most often referred to as "The Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916", so I think changing the title to something more grammatically-correct would be unwise, as it appears the majority of those familiar with the story (or those whom would be referencing it) would be looking for the most commonly used title.

Here are some source references that use the name "Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916":

http://jerseyshore.20m.com/

http://othellorealty.com/jersey_shore_nj_information.htm

http://nationalgazette.org/topics/jaws

--and thank you, Dmoon, for correcting my capitalization in the title!

--Schmendrick 03:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that Matawan Creek is on the New Jersey bayshore (Raritan Bay), not the Jersey Shore (Atlantic Ocean), so calling the shark attacks a Jersey Shore event is biased towards the more southerly and better known resort towns involved. The area where the Matawan Creek attack took place was just south of Route 35, in an area that used to be called Matawan Township (now Aberdeen Township). Someone has suggested in the Matawan Borough article that the attack took place in Matawan, noting incredulously that it is 11 miles inland. I believe that the whole area was called Matawan at the time, but no more. There is a sizable estuary between Cliffwood Beach, Cliffwood, and Keyport with low-lying reeds and inlets, and it was on the western edge of the small waterways that run through there that the sharks were spawning and the children were swimming. --Pat 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought about proposing a name change once when I read this article awhile back, good job btw. I would say Jersey Shore is a local/regional term, and probably not what should be used in an encyclopedia. IvoShandor 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To your point, the shark attacks were also a local/regional event, not national. While the attacks did gain national coverage, they were almost ALWAYS referred to as the "Jersey Shore Shark Attacks of 1916", as that is what the local residents called it. To call it anything other than its most well-known name would create more confusion than anything else. --Schmendrick 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Jersey shore" is a local term, but if you wanted to get really technical, it'd be "Joy-sey Shore". --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fonzie

I wonder if the perception of sharks as dangerous influenced TV show character Fonzie to go about jumping the shark as a stunt... — Rickyrab | Talk 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the stunt was a demonstration of fearless disregard for getting his black leather jacket wet. --Pat 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Asbury Park Press front page?

Must admit, it seems odd to, when one could use the Asbury Park Press (the local paper for 2 out of 3 of the local shark attacks), instead use the Philly Inquirer for the headline. Were I not mobility-limited, I would head down to the local library (I live in the area, and I can't be the only one!) and pull up papers published around the dates mentioned from microfilm - I would be very surprised indeed if those articles weren't kept on file. Additionally, could someone more experienced at such things than I contact the Asbury Park Press and ask if we could use their (ancient) front page for illustration? (Do we need to, given that it's from 1916? I suppose it'd be polite, given that they're still around.) −Penta 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the recent histories use the images from the Inquirer, for some reason. It may be more accessible (that's how they ended up in the article). Most images I found from other local newspapers were generally of poorer quality, also. Dmoon1 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2001 wave

There were at least three seperate fatal shark attacks in the summer of 2001. Does this warrant an article of its own, even if brief? It would probably already have an article, if 9-11 hadn't overshadowed the attacks. I'm not dreaming this up, either. People were calling it "the summer of the shark attack". (9-11 also seemed to make the Gary Condit thing disappear, too, on another note.) --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

File:PhiladelphiaInquirerJuly151916.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PhiladelphiaInquirerJuly151916.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 11 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:PhiladelphiaInquirerJuly151916.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Location of Matawan

I'm having trouble finding sources to back it up, but the article is incorrect in stating that Matawan Creek is 16 miles inland. Matawan is 2-5 miles inland at the most. Unfortunately, I have only personal knowledge and Google Maps to support that, neither of which counts as a reliable source....--Susan118 ^talk 23:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Jaws not inspired by the shark attacks of 1916

"The attacks inspired Peter Benchley's 1974 novel Jaws"

According to http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/08/nyregion/c-corrections-091162.html?pagewanted=all Benchley's book was not inspired by the 1916 events.

81.233.17.52 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Peter

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://173.12.11.248/DATA/1900-24/1916/1916-07-13.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://173.12.11.248/DATA/1900-24/1916/1916-07-20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016163723/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/books/07/03/review.close.to.shore/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/books/07/03/review.close.to.shore/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)