Talk:Shark attack prevention

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sarahschmale.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft

Note that 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 the the "jurisdictions" section of the WA shark cull can be deleted. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This article will also expand / be a sub-page of the "Protection" section of the Shark attack page Ilenart626 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Is also my first article so any suggestions greatly appreciated :). Ilenart626 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes/Proposal

Wikipedia users:

I revised the "USA" section under "Shark attack prevention." The section makes no mention of the controversy over culling that arose in Hawaii.

Further discussion is need on the assertions made by some shark conservationists (worldwide) that shark culling is ineffective.

RATIONALE: In 1994 shark researchers in Hawaii published a study that concluded that Hawaii's culls had "do not appear to have measurable effects." (A Review of Shark Control in Hawaii with Recommendations for Future Research.) In the intervening 22 years the study has been cited by some shark conservationists as evidence that culling is ineffective (particularly during the 2014-to-present controversy about shark culling in West Australia).

On Feb. 9, 2016, the Herald (S. Africa) (re-printed in Press Reader) reported that "Deakin University...professor Laurie Laurenson’s analysis of 50 years of data on shark mitigation programs...in South Africa and New South Wales has found that shark nets do nothing...'I can show statistically that there is no relationship between the number of sharks out there and the number of shark attacks' he said.

...KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board head of research Geremy Cliff refuted the claims...'Durban beachfront suffered 21 shark attacks, with seven fatal, between 1942 and 1951,” he said. “Shark nets were installed in 1952. In the ensuing 63 years, there has not been a significant shark-inflicted injury...' He said Laurenson had erred by publicising findings that had not yet been peer reviewed."

This makes two studies that challenge the efficacy of shark culling. Another high-profile culling critic is Christopher Neff, Save Our Seas Foundation (project: Rebranding Sharks). On Feb. 21, 2017 another shark attack death occurred off Reunion Island. Surfer Kelly Slater's subsequent public call for a shark cull on Reunion has renewed the debate on shark culling. Coverage on the EFFECTIVENESS OF SHARK CULLING is overdue. # MarkDougherty (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC) MarkDougherty March 17, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDougherty (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Mark, sounds like a good idea. However I would suggest a separate page to highlight the issue, which could be linked to the Shark attack prevention page. There is also plenty of controversy besides Hawaii, refer to the West Australian Shark cull page. Also a Senate enquiry has just started in Australia looking at this very issue refer. Ilenart626 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for input. Will address your ideas. See more comments on your talk page. Aloha MarkDougherty (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Parties interested in this topic might wish to read a February 28, 2017 commentary "Culling Sharks Won't Protect Surfers" by International Shark Attack File Director George Burgess and the extensive letter response that followed (especially detailed comments by Steve Shearer) MarkDougherty (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Edit of recent change to Drumline section

I have just made an alteration to the edit to the Drumline section (LumaP15) by deleting the words "...which are lethal to sharks and other marine life" . In fact the majority of by-catch are released alive. In addition, the Brazil shark programme utilises Drumlines to catch and relocated live targeted sharks offshore. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversal of recent edits to "Other protection methods" sections

Note that I have today reversed two edits made by Allenmt92 to the "Personal shark repellent" and "Shark shield" sections. The changes stated Removed promotional links citations and subsequent claims that weren't citing references that meet wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. and Removed promotional links citations and subsequent claims that weren't citing references that meet wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources

The references deleted were to the Australian Choice website and a report prepared for the NSW governemt. Both appear to be references that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

Other details deleted are supported by the references, for example:

1. Shark Shield has been independently tested by a variety of independent bodies
2. a shark repellent spray is only useful prior to a shark being detected, and
3. There are question marks on whether products manufactured from dead sharks will attract sharks that eat other sharks (including white & tiger sharksIlenart626 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I am responding to the above points to clarify the above points made by Ilenart626 

1. This is misleading as the article citation quotes "Shark Shield is the only ELECTRICAL repellent on the market that's been independently shown." In fact the same article points out that the shark repellent spray "has evidence sharks don't like being around their dead brethren".
2. This is purely an opinion and is actually not in accordance with the company's product guide on how to properly use the product
3. This is a misleading and inaccurate statement as the semiochemicals have been validated by numerous independent studies including confirmation on tiger sharks. For instance, one 5 year study was conducted by scientists from SharkDefense Technologies and Seton Hall University. The study's results were published in the scientific journal Ocean & Coastal Management in 2013. The study concluded that the existence of a putative chemical shark repellent has been confirmed. Additionally, SharkDefense used the same semiochemicals found in SharkTec's product to reduce shark by-catch by 71% in a government grant initiative. The government agency NOAA released these findings in a report to Congress.Allenmt92 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Allenmt92, my responses are detailed below, plus I have made some proposed changes to wording to try and reach consensus. Note that I had edited the formatting of our discussion for Readability.

1. The statement "...only electrical device on the market that's been independently verified..." Is to contrast Shark shield to a multitude of other electrically based repellents that have not been idependently verified; for example, NoShark and Surf Safe. To make it clearer that the "...independently verified..." Is not just the Choice article, suggest that we directly reference the studies ie "...independently verified..."
3. I believe the statement " Plus the reality is a spray is only useful prior to a dangerous shark being detected, which may limit its usefulness " is more than an opinion. It is a limitation when using chemical base repellents, which other personal repellents do not have, ie Shark shield is alway on and repelling unseen sharks. So is wearing interruption patterned or camouflage wetsuits, they would also potentially repel unseen sharks. In addition, this point is also made in the Lifehacker article (the one that is supporting the use of Anti Shark 100). To quote Second, it's only useful when you know a shark is there – and how many on the receiving end of a shark attack can say they saw it coming. Would suggest that we add back this statement, plus add the reference to Lifehacker, to show its not just Choice that are saying this.
5. I do agree that there is evidence that supports the effectiveness of chemical repellents. However I do have concerns with describing them as "independent" as all the articles you quote include "Shark Defence Technologies", which appear to have commercial ties with Sharttec, the makers of Anti Shark 100. However the main issue is that none of research you have quoted includes testing to ensure that White and Tiger sharks (that feed on dead sharks) are not attracted to products made by dead sharks. To quote the NSW government report "It is plausible that for shark species that scavenge on conspecifics, necromones may be a feeding stimulant. This potentially includes white and tiger sharks". You have stated that the research "...including confirmation on tiger sharks." Can you advise which research that confirms that tiger sharks are not attracted to chemical repellents made from dead sharks? In the meantime, perhaps the reference could be reworded to state "however there are concerns that RepelSharks, another personal chemical deterrent made from dead shark tissue, may attract white and tiger sharks"Ilenart626 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Ilenart626, below are my responses to your above points, I appreciate your willingness to ensure only accurate statements are published.

1. I agree that the actual research publications need to be listed instead of the Choice article as it appears Shark Shield does have commercial ties to the Choice article which brings up the validity of the claims.
3. In regards to your comment that the chemical base repellents have more of a limitation than other repellents, this is false as the same chemical in the shark repellent spray has been developed into a longer lasting version used to reduce shark bycatch. Additionally, Scientists estimated that if the chemicals are applied globally then 4,258,080 – 8,279,600 sharks a year will be saved.. Furthermore, a study by FAU points out that Chemical repellents may be more effective than magnetic or electrical repellents In terms of the spray itself, The American Lifeguard Association has endorsed sharktec's product as a way to clear away the area of post-shark attacks so the lifeguards are not endangered. Additionally, the product is meant to be used proactively, even if there are no sharks in the area as it clears a quarter mile for 30-45 minutes
5. I apologize for only including one study as there are a large number of reputable studies to choose from. One of the most reputable studies is from the government agency NOAA, which in a report to Congress, states 'These messengers produce flight reactions in the carcharhinid sharks (including Tiger sharks) tested to date'. Similarly, as reported in a peer-reviewed research journal, the semiochemicals have been proven on Carcharhiniform sharks. Additionally, national geographic wrote an article on how effective the semiochemicals are in repelling sharks, including awakening them from tonic immobility. To note, RepelSharks (no longer selling the spray and an old sharkdefense partner) used the same semiochemicals that have been proven to work in sharktec's product. Lastly, you are going to see "Shark Defence Technologies" on many of the research publications because this is the scientific entity that has patented and exclusively owns the rights to the semiochemical in question. Just because they are named in a publication does not invalidate the results published by government entities, peer-reviewed scientific journals, gov't grants, etc.

Allenmt92 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Allenmt92

Hi Allenmt92, Agree that it is best to work together and ensure that the article is as accurate as possible. However note that where there are competing claims and viewpoints we need to ensure that we comply with Wikipedia' policy of neutrality as detailed here Wikipedia:NPOV

1. Ok, I'll add the references as discussed. I will leave the Choice reference as I am comfortable in stating they do not have commercial links with Shark shield. Choice is non-profit Australian consumer advocate organisation, similar to the Consumers Union in the United States and Which? in the United Kingdom. They do not have commercial ties with anyone. Refer to the Wiki pages if you want more details.
3. Thanks for all the references, however it still does not change the point that the majority of users would only use the product after a shark is sighted. This is the point that both the Choice and Lifehacker articles are making. I also note that your reference to lifesavers using the product is after a shark attack has occurred. Again, I would recommend that we add back this statement, plus add the reference to Lifehacker, to show its not just Choice (an independent consumer advocate) are saying this.
5. Again, thanks for all the references. However in reading through the details, none of the references refute the very serious concern made by the NSW government report to ensure that White and Tiger sharks are not attracted to products made by dead sharks. Note that this is a similar concern raised with Shark shield - that the product may actually attract sharks. This point has been specifically reviewed and refuted in an independent review (ie no connection to Shark shield / The authors have declared that no competing interests exist), where they concluded Furthermore, the findings provide no support to the theory that electric deterrents attract sharks.. I cannot see a similar statement in any of your references. They mostly concern reducing bycatch of sharks in commercial fishing. Plus I still have concerns that most of your references include Shark Defence Technologies. You describe it as a "scientific entity" which "patented and exclusively owns the rights to the semiochemical in question". In other words, it is a private company owned by the inventors. Therefore I believe it does place a question mark over the results as they have a vested interest in promoting the technology and products using it, and presumably are making money every time a can of the chemical shark repellent is sold. I am concerned that this is starting to sound less like research and more like advertising. Again, I suggest we need to include something along the lines of "however there are concerns that RepelSharks, another personal chemical deterrent made from dead shark tissue, may attract white and tiger sharks

In summary, I still have concerns with the way the section on Personal shark repellents currently reads, which is:

  One example is a product called Anti-Shark 100[30] which is an aerosol can that contains an extract of dead shark tissue. There is a range of evidence that supports the effectiveness of this product,[31]. 

I do not believe this is a balanced view. You can contrast it with the section on Shark shield which both highlights the benefits and disadvantages (ie does not work all the time / divers have been killed whilst wearing Shark shield).

Note that I am the editor that included the reference to Anti-shark 100, when I updated the Share repellent section on the 5th June, 2017. I did this largely on the basis of the Choice article. And like the Choice article, I included a balanced review that highlighted the benefits, as well as the disadvantages of this product, which is exactly how the Life Hacker article reads (note that I failed to say How bad the stuff smells. To quote Lifehacker For one, this stuff stinks. Like, really stinks – probably enough to make a human swim in the opposite direction too. If you like we can add this quote in as well :)

I have now made a number of suggestions for alternative wording. Please either agree to my suggested wording, or propose alternative wording that aligns with Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. If we cannot agree to the wording we should revert to what the Shark attack prevention article stated prior to the 5th June, 2017, ie no mention or reference to "Anti shark 100".Ilenart626 (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No further comments received so have amended the wording, as detailed above. The section on shark repellents how reads

 One example is a product called Anti-Shark 100 which is an aerosol can that contains an extract of dead shark tissue.  There is a range of evidence that supports the effectiveness of this product.  However there are concerns that RepelSharks, another personal chemical deterrent made from dead shark tissue, may attract white and tiger sharks. Plus the reality is a spray is only useful prior to a dangerous shark being detected, which may limit its usefulness.

Ilenart626 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Ilenart626, I am going to keep this short. In regards to the NSW government report, these were clearly dispelled by U.S. government agencies, international scientific journals & organizations, and numerous academic sources. Besides the point that there are numerous reptuable studies proving one report wrong or inaccurate should be enough. However, you are referring that the article talks about Repel sharks, which no longer sells the spray and was using the same semiochemical. This statement is false and must be removed.

The sources I listed which mentioned Shark Defense include government & academic grant reports, international scientific agencies reports to the U.S. Congress, multiple peer-reviewed scientfic publications, and more. These are all very reptuable sources,based on scientific results & facts. Contrary, news publications like Choice & Life Hacker are based mostly on opinon and is considerably less reptuable as can be seen by their lack of research into shaktec's usage. Sarktec's spray is clearly indicated on their website and in references that it should be released in water where "How bad the stuff smells". In fact, if you are smelling the product, you are very likely using it wrong can be dangerous. As such, these reports are reporting false statements which questions their reptuablity.

Allenmt92 (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Allenmt92, unfortunately, instead of offering alternative wording you have chosen to revert my wording. I see no point in further discussion and instead will trigger dispute resolution Wikipedia:Third opinion. In the meantime I have placed a warning template on the Personal shark repellent section, so readers are not mislead. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ilenart626, I only reverted the statement about repelsharks as that is a false claim. Similarly, I have placed a warning under the Shark Shiled section so readers are not mislead either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenmt92 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that there is a problem with neutrality with the Sharkshild section, or a dispute between ourselves over the Sharkshield wording. Please state clearly what your problem is with the Sharkshield section, so other Editors can understand why you placed the warning. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. The discussion above has been lengthy, to the point where I don't understand the exact details of the issue. Is it that the mention of the product in question is promotional? I will say that, if a warning or caution is required, the product should not be mentioned at all, rather than mentioned with a caution. Will the two parties please each state, in one paragraph, what the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for providing a third opinion. The issue is whether to include the product "Anti-Shark 100" (an aerosol spray made from dead sharks) in the Personal shark repellents sub-section. As we cannot agree with the wording, my recommendation is to delete all reference to Anti-Shark 100. Reasons are (1) the supporting references given by Allenmt92 include "Shark Defence Technologies" which has patented and exclusively owns the rights to the technolgy used in Anti-shark 100. Therefore, all these references connot be considered independent and should be treated as advertising rather than research. (2) The Cardno report raises a concern that products made from dead sharks could attract White and Tiger sharks, as both these sharks eat dead sharks. (3) Both the Choice and Lifehacker articles raise a concern that Anti-shark 100 is only useful after sharks are detected. Also note that, subsequent to me asking for a third opinion on Anti-shark 100, Allenmt92 is now raising an issue with the neutrality of the Shark shield sub-section. I do not believe there is any problem with the Shark shield sub-section, particularly as the technology has been independently verified by the Kempster and Huveneers studies, which have no connection to Sharkshield (unlike Anti-shark 100 / Shark Defence Technologies). Plus there is a separate Wikipedia article on Shark shield here which goes into more details of Shark Shield, including the supporting evidence. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Only one party has explained what their view is. I can't give a Third Opinion after the request has been up for eight days and will be withdrawing the request. I suggest that the editors need a moderator to help them discuss, and suggest that they request moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Moderated Dispute Resolution

• have requested moderated dispute resolution. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• moderated dispute resolution was abandoned as Allenmt92 failed to respond Ilenart626 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Discussion

To resolve the issues detailed in the above discussion, I propose two edits to the Shark attack prevention page:

Edit No 1

In the Shark shield sub-section, delete the warning template which Allenmt92 has added. No justification had been provided for adding this warning. I do not believe there is an issue with the neutrality of this sub-section. The technology has been independently verified by the Kempster and Huveneers studies, which have no connection to Sharkshield. Plus there is a separate Wikipedia article on Shark shield here which goes into more details of Shark Shield, including the supporting evidence. There are no issues with neutrality mentioned on the Shark Shield talk page.

Edit No 2

Delete the following wording and associated references in the Personal shark repellents subsection:

One example is a product called Anti-Shark 100[30] which is an aerosol can that contains an extract of dead shark tissue. There is a range of evidence that supports the effectiveness of this product,[31]

I believe all references to Anti-Shark 100 should be deleted. Reasons are:

1. The supporting references given by Allenmt92 include "Shark Defence Technologies" which has patented and exclusively owns the rights to the technolgy used in Anti-shark 100. Therefore, the neutrality of the supporting references is questionable. The supporting references connot be considered independent and should be treated as advertising, rather than supporting references.
2. The Cardno report raises a concern that products made from dead sharks could attract White and Tiger sharks, as both these sharks eat dead sharks. This concern has not been directly refuted in any of the supporting evidence provided by Allenmt92.
3. Both the Choice and Lifehacker articles raise a concern that Anti-shark 100 is only useful after sharks are detected.

Once this edit has been done the neutrality warning on the Personal shark repellents subsection can be removed.

Ilenart626 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Request for Discussion and new recommendations

I propose a different solution based on the following responses and additional information to the statements made above:

1. Like Shark Shield, Shark Defense has its own Wikipedia page. In fact, the two wikipedia pages highlight that the difference between Shark Shield and Shark Defense is that Shark Shield is a commercial company where as Shark Defense was formed as a research organization and think tank.
2. Shark Shield also exclusively owns the rights to the technology they use and owns multiple patents in numerous countries. According to your logic used against the Anti-Shark 100, the neutrality of the support references is questionable.

I believe that the shark shield sub-section should be deleted and included in “personal shark repellents section” as no other shark repellent has a dedicated sub-section nor such in-depth details. Some of these details are promotional including a statement marketing a specific Shark Shield product that receives a $200 subsidiary and highlighting that consumers will receive a rebate upon purchasing the product. The Choice article, which is the main reference, is on Shark Shield’s website as promotional material. Such sources are considered by Wikipedia as rarely reliable sources for statements of fact: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy”

Both main references of Choice and Lifehacker are commercial entities while the supporting evidence for Anti-shark 100 comes from references including:

1. peer reviewed scientific journals such as Ocean & Coastal Management
2. Field tests conducted by the university of Miami and reported by National Geographic
3. Supported in a report to Congress by a U.S. government agency
4. One of the government biologists at NOAA publicly stated that Shark Shield developed a chemical shark repellent that works
5. Endorsed by the American Lifeguard Association
6. Numerous studies were able to be conducted as a result of government and university grants awarded to Shark Defense.

As such, the claim that the neutrality of the supporting references is questionable is not only baseless but is stating that government agencies, educational universities, and peer-reviewed scientific journals are not reputable sources. Regardless of opinions, Wikipedia’s reliability guidelines makes it clear that these references are reliable. In fact, the guidelines state “Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available.”

As mentioned previously, Choice & Lifehacker sources are stating opinions, not fact. There is absolutely no credibility to the claim that the repellent is only useful after sharks are detected. The sources neglected fact checking and have made erroneous claims which adds to the argument of Choice & Lifehacker being entirely unreliable sources.

Here are additional independent additional studies & research directly refutes that the repellent can attract sharks:

1. semiochemicals exist in extremely low concentrations within decaying shark flesh and act as alarm substances for other sharks in the proximity
2. A study conducted by California State University and published by the Environmental Biology of Fishes, an international scientific journal claims that semiochemicals elicit rpapid flight reaction from an area
3. A study conducted by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and funded by a Michigan State university grant established that numerous marine species are chemically aware of its dead and will avoid odors that replicate this awareness. This was published by a Canadian government agency.

Allenmt92 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Response, Request to participate in Dispute Resolution and Confirmation of no WP:COI

I will keep this response short as I see no need to repeat my position. My proposed changes are detailed in Edit No 1 and Edit No 2 above.

Unfortunately Allenmt92's response does not address the keys issues and instead includes arguments and discussions that are either not correct or irrelevant. For brevity I have highlighted only two examples:

1. ...difference between Shark Shield and Shark Defense is that Shark Shield is a commercial company where as Shark Defense was formed as a research organization and think tank. All you have to do is goto to the Shark Defence website at http://www.sharkdefense.com where it clearly states that they are the owners of the patents behind the technology, and they have licensed Sharktec to sell Anti Shark 100. There is even a link at the top of the page entitled WHERE TO BUY which shows you how to buy Anti-Shark 100! Describing Shark Defence as just a research organization and think tank is clearly misleading as they have a commercial interest in Anti-Shark 100.
2. Allenmt92 has now added another three references that are irrelevant. The main issue is whether products made from dead sharks could attract White and Tiger sharks, as both these sharks eat dead sharks None of the new references that Allenmt92 have provided have addressed this point. Instead Allenmt92 has provided references about crocodiles, juvenile swell sharks and Sea lampreys. All irrelevant to this specific issue with Anti-Shark 100.

This discussion has now been going for more than two months. I have twice requested Allenmt92 to participate in dispute resolution including Wikipedia:Third opinion and moderated dispute resolution and both times Allenmt92 has failed to respond. I request Allenmt92 to agree to participate in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as the best way to reach a resolution.

Allenmt92 can you also please confirm that you are complying with WP:COI, in particular that you have no connection with Shark Defence or Sharktec. For your information I confirm that I am complying with WP:COI and have no connection with Sharkshield or any other shark prevention product.

Ilenart626 (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for two months because you are unable to accept or comprehend the multiple different responses and references to address all your concerns. Hence, the reason for the last detailed response as it addresses every single one of your points with additional resources not previously mentioned. This is not meant to be an insult, but at this point, I doubt your reading comprehension abilities and as such, I would be happy to participate in any Dispute resolution moving forward. For any previous dispute resolutions in which there was no response, this was due to my unavailability at the time. Allenmt92 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Allenmt92 please confirm that you are complying with WP:COI. In case your reading comprehension abilities are limited; this means confirming that you have no external relationship that triggers a conflict of interest, particularly with Shark Defence and / or Sharktec. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There has been no progress over this issue for over 12 months. Therefore have removed the templates and made edits that I believe are appropriate Ilenart626 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

References

South Africa

The KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board has too much weight; there are three quotes from their website. They should be given a sentence or two. LumaP15 (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• have removed the neutrality tag as your own edits have addressed any perceived neutrality. Plus your main concern is the length of the section, which has nothing to do with neutrality. The section is well referenced and provides a good analysis of the 40 years that the shark protection have been uused in South AfricaIlenart626 (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversal of Arkpro edits

I have reversed 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 Shark Attack Prevention page include:

• deleting ...and divers have been attacked whilst wearing Shark Shield. The deleted references specify incidents where divers have been attacked whilst wearing shark shields. In addition, there are a number of coronor's reports that have investigated sharks attacks whilst divers have been wearing Sharkshield devices, refer to the details in Ocean Guardian (Shark Shield)#Shark attacks involving Shark Shield Technology. Therefore I do not agree with this deletion.
• the addition of "virtual / electrical shark barriers" do not cite any independent references

Ilenart626 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)