Talk:Great white shark

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edixon426. Peer reviewers: Ieatchurros, Trask00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Breaching behaviour details inaccurate

The section on Breacing Behaviour cites Chris Fallows as the person to first document breaching behaviour in False Bay. It is widely known that Rob Lawrence was also on this historic trip and they were both partners in the use of decoy towing to encourage breaching in False Bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardoeliaslacombe (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, updated the page accordingly. --Stefan ^talk 07:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Add to information about the great white harvested on August 31,2011

He was released on October 25, off the coast of Santa Barbara by the aquarium's animal care staff. Based on the shark's behavior and condition prior to release, the Aquarium's white shark team had every confidence that he would do well back in the wild, and that the release would be a success. He appeared to be doing well before the release team lost sight of him as he swam away. However, according to data from an electronic tracking tag, he died soon afterward.

From the Monterrey bay aquarium website.

Candyxvi (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

Update information accordingly with what reported in the information source.

• • • OLD***

Since the year 2000 there have been a total of 66 unprovoked great white shark attacks, with 14 of these attacks being fatal.

• • • NEW***

Since the year 1990 there have been a total of 139 unprovoked great white shark attacks, with 29 of these attacks being fatal.

203.176.108.99 (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Done (and simplified the wording a bit). Rivertorch (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great white shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Hi! I shall review this. I am leaving some preliminary comments, may have more also. I go section-wise, it is convenient.

Lead

• A common word like 'ocean' need not be linked. Special terms ought to be linked (for example 'maturity', good you linked it).  Done
• There need not be much referencing in the lead section, unless the facts are not to be discussed anywhere in the rest of the article. ✗ Not done
• I think you should write 'sexual maturity' and not just 'maturity'. It can have various meanings. ✗ Not done it links to sexual maturity
• ' It is the only known surviving species of its genus; Carcharodon' No need of semicolon after 'genus'.  Done
• 'The IUCN treats the great white shark as a vulnerable' Better rewrite it as 'The IUCN lists the great white shark as a vulnerable species'.  Done
• I found the IUCN link (footnote 2) is dead. It must be removed.  Done - Fixed!
• I think this needs some clarification - 'It is the only known ... and is ranked first in having the most attacks on humans' implies humans are prey of this shark, while 'In reality, humans are not the preferred prey of the great white shark' contradicts the statement. Perhaps (if I think right) you could write 'and is ranked first in having the most attacks on humans, though it does not intend to prey on them'. I think this statement should be in the last paragraph of the lead, and 'In reality ... great white shark' can be omitted if you write as I have suggested. ✗ Not done humans may be prey as they may be rouge sharks. But still it is ranked first but it doesn't imply that.

Overall : This part looks fine, no more comments!

Etymology Taxonomy

• I suggest you make a new section 'Taxonomy and evolution', and put information about who first described the species, when and the genus, family and so on of the species. You can make another paragraph and use the information in 'Ancestry and fossil record'. ✗ Not done Taxonomy and evolution is etymology.

OK, but I suggest at least rename the section as 'Taxonomy', it would look proper, with the fossil records along too. For one thing fossil records do not have much to do with etymology, do they?  Done - changed to taxonomy

• I think you should use any one picture of fossils, else the text gets squashed.  Done
• In the last line of 'Ancestry and fossil record', there is no reference. If it is footnote 11, add it at the end. And the footnote 11 need not be repeated everywhere. It can be written just once after the text, which implies all that text is based on this source.  Done

Overall:Pass

Distribution and habitat

• 'After they arrive,...for up to 10 minutes' Write 10 as ten, numbers till ten (including it) should be written in words according to MoS. But these does not include numbers in which convert template is used, or decimals (of course!)  Done

Missed one more, corrected!

Thanks!

Overall:This section is done!

Anatomy and appearance

• The introduction is unreferenced.  Done
• In 'size', the metric units are linked. This is not required at all.  Done
• 'ichthyological' should be linked (to icthyology').  Done
• I think this section is too long, could you make it smaller, with necessary details? The records and observations seem to be consuming too much space. ✗ Not done it is fine.
• Who is J. E. Randall? ✗ Not done - it is a quote.

Fine, but good if you can identify him.

• Anatomy and appearance of the animal seems to have nothing to do with its adaptations and bite. So why have it in this section? Adaptations could be another section and bite force as a part of behavior. ✗ Not done - Bite force is an adaptation, and adaptations are apart of anatomy.
• In the Section Adaptation there is an incorrect calculation of temperature, 14 C is incorrectly labeled as 25 F, instead of the 57.2 F, that 14 C actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.11 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Overall:This too, pass!

Ecology and behavior

• You can make Ecology and behavior on section, and add the thing about bite force in the previous section, Natural threats and Breaching behavior a part of this. Diet and Reproduction can be independent sections. Many articles do this. ✗ Not done - per above.
• If the introductory part is wholly based on footnote 32, cite at the end of each paragraph. That is proper.  Done
• I see 'Diet' needs linking, so do not delete links here. But remove the one for 'carnivorous'. ✗ Not done explain.

Seems too common a word. And also fish.

Took away fish but not carnivorous since not that many people know what it means. Obtund^Talk 01:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, as per MoS, write numbers from one to ten in words.  Done
• In 'Reproduction', the part about sexual maturity should be before the part about gestation and birth.  Done

I rewrote the first line. Now it looks fine!

• In 'Natural threats' convert 500 m to ft.  Done

Overall : OK, Pass, now!

Relationship with humans

• In 'Shark attacks', who is John McCosker? Same with Tricas. Remember, the people must be identified to the reader.  Done
• In 'Attacks on boats', write 5 in words.  Done
• In 'Great white sharks in captivity', no need of comma after August.  Done
• In 'Shark tourism', 'Cage diving is most common off the coasts of South Australia, South Africa, and Guadalupe Island which is off the coast of Baja, California, where great whites are frequent their' is incorrect. It can be rewritten as 'Cage diving is most common off the coasts of South Australia, South Africa, and Guadalupe Island (which is off the coast of Baja, California, where great whites are frequent).'  Done
• 'Conservation status' could be made into a new section, and the material from 'natural threats' can be used to describe the dangers to the species' population.  Done

Overall:Also a pass!

Rest parts

• In footnotes, many references are not properly written with cite templates.  Done
• External links uses too many links. But I may not be right, at the same time. ✗ Not done - I agree with you but is there a rule saying that there is a certain amount?
• Could you tell me how you have classified the citations as references and footnotes?  Done - I have changed it to references and removed the other reference section because the sources were listed above.
• Another comment- About the photo captions. Those which are not full sentences, just phrases, should not have full stops in the end. And those which are sentences, need full stops. Check the captions for this. And just a normal comment, look for disambig links using the tool in the toolbox on this page (up above, you will find it).  Done

That is all for now. Fix these problems and reply here. If you wish to contact me, you can write here or on my talk page.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Obtund^Talk 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Seen your talkback. I have summed up the comments on the sections, if they are pass or not. One or two are left, resolve them, then the article is well and truly done. Cheers! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The first link to the Ocean Portal needs updating and the title is way too long. Proper link - "http://ocean.si.edu/great-white-shark" and maybe just call it "Great White Shark - Smithsonian Ocean Portal" Attaboygirl (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

On the refs

I have rewrote many more references.

• I think ref 29 (jawshark.com) is not such a reliable source. It does not even properly mention its own source. Better remove it.  Done

Once done with this, I shall make this a GA!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Obtund^Talk 01:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work! So now, for the final evaluation:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Great life-like images, good! Even a video to satisfy the reader!

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great article; it had to be a GA!

Cheers! --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Date for Great White Shark Caught Off Coast of Prince Edward Island

The year quoted in the article is 1988 but the correct year is 1983. http://www.jawshark.com/great_white_recorded_sizes.html, actually quotes two years in their article the first, and correct one, being 1983 and the second as 1988. Other sources: http://www.geerg.ca/shark_white.html http://new-brunswick.net/new-brunswick/sharks/species/greatwhite.html http://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/shark/english/facts.htm http://www.elasmo-research.org/publications/pdfs/COSEWIC%20Status%20Report%20on%20White%20Shark_April%202005.pdf http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CW69-14-507-2006E.pdf http://www.bookofeverything.com/website/docs/PEIBOE_NaturalWorld.pdf

All of the above sources cite 1983 as the correct year.Optimus past my Prime (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But the sharks these sources tell about seem to be different from this shark. You can not be sure.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The last sentence is a complete non sequitor, Jaws never makes the argument or even really insinuates that humans are the preferred prey of great whites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.249.191 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but it does insinuate that Great Whites actively hunt humans. douts (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited source does not support the premise that Great Whites never actively hunt humans. In fact, it mentions 108 times that Great Whites attacked humans on the Pacific coast of the United States. No where in Jaws is it suggested that this is an ordinary Great White displaying typical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.249.191 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue with Jaws is that anyone with only basic general knowledge about great whites could be misled into believing that they actively hunt humans. In fact the film is one of the main reasons for the stigma around sharks in general which marine scientists are still trying to rectify. So the sentence about Jaws should defo stay in the article. douts (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine if it was changed to say 'in reality, Great Whites have attacked humans 108 times on the Pacific coast of the United States' so that it actually reflects the cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.249.191 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lengths are quoted in metres to 3 digits precision when the source material only gives them (in feet) to 2 digits. The metric units should be rounded to have no greater precision (2 digits max.) than the original units had. Even better would be to reference a source in metres, since the units in feet are likely already approximate. (Indeed the reverse conversion back to feet also over-quotes precision: the source articles give lengths in feet, while the wikipedia article gives them in feet and inches). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.112.186 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding new white-shark policy from Australia

Good morning,

I thought it might be useful for the latest Australian Government White Shark recovery plan to be included in the conservation section

Old: Australia's population of great whites was revealed in a study published on July 7, 2012 was revealed to be two separate populations separated by the Bass Strait into eastern and western populations, and may require regional protection. [86]

New: Australia's population of great whites was revealed in a study published on July 7, 2012 was revealed to be two separate populations separated by the Bass Strait into eastern and western populations, and may require regional protection. [86] In 2013, the Australian government made a new Recovery Plan for the White Shark ( Carcharodon carcharias). The plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its Australian range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species' long-term viability in nature and the parties that will undertake those actions. This is a revision of the 2002 White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan (EA, 2002) and should be read in conjunction with the 2013 Issues Paper for the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)(DSEWPaC, 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.63.177 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Done (I omitted the provided text as it was copied verbatim from the government website, but expanded on the suggestion to create an entire section on Australian great white shark conservation status.) Librarywild (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No natural predators

Its known that Orcas prey on White Pointers. I believe this needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.164.108 (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this information so that it can be incorporated into the article. Thanks XFEM Skier (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Feb 2024, They have another predator, the cookie-cutter shark https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/what-bit-this-great-white-shark-a-cookie-cutter

583118755 (linked seemingly contradictory statements)

Erm, why would you link them, they were separate sentences and didn't contradict, it's perfectly possible for the shark most responsible for unprovoked attacks on humans to also not have humans as one of its preferred prey species, your edit has made them sound contradictory. If you just drop the and, you're probably ok, "shark,and of all shark species, the great white", or you can just revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.220.119 (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"swam"

it should be "swam" here:

...a great white with a satellite tag was found to have immediately submerged to a depth of 500 m (1,600 ft) and swam to Hawaii.[59]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.136.239.87 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 

Opinion/Soapbox under "Reproduction"

The section on "Reproduction" closes with the following statement:

"If the Sea of Cortez is such a breeding ground, it is imperative that the area's laws be better enforced to ensure the survival of the breeding population."

This seems to me like opinion or advocacy (WP:NOTSOAPBOX). Would a more experienced editor care to comment? JeffBuckles (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This sentence should be removed.

Lifespan

Please update article to include new research on lifespan, Great Whites can live to 70 years old. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25655666149.241.190.125 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.149.241.190.125 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed in Conservation Status

The last paragraph under the Conservation Status heading seems suspect or superfluous without any citations.

"Fishermen target many sharks for their jaws, teeth, and fins, and as game fish in general. The great white shark, however, is rarely an object of commercial fishing, although its flesh is considered valuable. If casually captured (it happens for example in some tonnare in the Mediterranean), it is misleadingly sold as smooth-hound shark."

Who considers it valuable? What is the source that says it is sold as smooth-hound, or that it is rarely an object of commercial fishing?

Babymustard (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Great white shark population

In a recent study in California, it has been found that there are over 2,400 white sharks off the coast of california, instead of the 2013 findings that there were only 340 sharks. Someone should edit the article to reflect the new findings as soon as possible.

Can you provide a link to this study?XFEM Skier (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the offical study:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098078

Additional link to National Geographic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140626-great-white-shark-recovery-conservation-oceans-animals-science/

--92.109.122.240 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to edit the following sentence

The great white shark is an apex predator of the seas and has no natural predators other than the Orca.[10]

While this sentence is quoting a book, the author clearly does not have an understanding of what the words "APEX PREDATOR" means as the author has contradicted the term "APEX PREDATOR" in the very sentence that he used the term.

Apex Predator = A predator with no natural predators.

The same sentence indicates that the Orca is in fact a natural predator of the Great White, thus excluding the Great White from the classification of "Apex Predator"

I suggest that the sentence be read worded to not copy the book author and instead say something like. "The great white shark is a top predator of the oceans who's only natural predator is the Orca." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tws101 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, correction made. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The shark that was killed by orca in Farallon Islands in 1997 was an subadult only 10~13 feet long(). It should be noted that fish are animals that grow throughout their lifetime,and even between the adult great white sharks,the size differences can be astronomical. The average great white shark is around 15 feet long,which is far larger than the 10-foot shark eaten by killer whale. Some large free-swimming great white sharks are around 500~580cm(16.5~19 feet)(), and they are not uncommon.

The type of orca that eats sharks,on the other hand,is offshore killer whale,which are smaller than other killer whales in size,with less sexual dimorphism (). The group of orcas that ate the white shark in 1997 weren't offshore killer whale,but they,too,were very small in size compared to other types of killer whales. (The female that attacked the shark in 1997 was 4.7~5.2m in length) (

There are no records of great white sharks larger than its average size eaten by killer whales,and since large great whites attain sizes close to killer whales that eats sharks,the attacks are very unlikely. Also,as mentioned before,the shark that was killed by killer whale is one of the smallest adults,way behind the average size. My point is that great white sharks should not be excluded from the classification "apex predator,"and the sentence "The great white shark has no natural predators other than the orca." should be changed to,"Great white sharks have no natural predators,though small adults can fall prey to killer whales." It should be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csw0219 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Conservation status

The Great White Shark has long been fully protected in South African waters, and the fishing ban is generally obeyed.CRJ Taylor (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Remove,"The great white shark has no natural predators other than the Orca." because this sentence could be a contradiction, "has no natural predator", then names a predator, "Orca"

Replace with, "The only great white shark natural predator is the Orca." Charliewoolery (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)charliewoolery

It's not a contradiction; grammatically, it's fine as-is. But, if you'd like to change it, you could have it read "The only natural predator of the great white shark is the Orca." JoelWhy?(talk)

Age of Maturity

The introduction contains conflicting information on age of sexual maturity that should be resolved one way or the other. Looking at the source referenced for each fact, numbers 64 and 9, it seems to me that number 9 is superior though I would reference the source material for the article rather than the article itself. Here are the edits I propose, I would make it myself but cannot due to my unconfirmed status:

Introduction

"This shark reaches its maturity around 15 years of age and was previously believed to have a life span of over 30 years. The true lifespan of great white sharks is far longer; now estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, making it one of the longest lived cartilaginous fish currently known."

becomes

"This shark was previously believed to have a life span of approximately 30 years, but its true lifespan is now thought to be far longer at 70 years or more, which would make it one of the longest lived cartilaginous fish currently known."

I would remove references 8 and 9 from the introduction in accordance with the wishes of a previous editor since these references appear later in the article.

Ecology and behavior: Reproduction

"Great white sharks also reach sexual maturity at around 15 years of age."

becomes

"Great white sharks are currently believed to reach sexual maturity at ages 26 and 33 years for male and female sharks respectively." Reference here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/view/journals/dsp_journal_fulltext.cfm?nid=126&f=MF14127

I do not understand why the subject of lifespan is included under reproduction, but I will leave that to a more experienced editor to decide. I would make this minor edit regardless of where it should be:

"the true lifespan of the great white shark was revealed to be up to 70 years or more,"

becomes

"the true lifespan of the great white shark was revealed to be 70 years or more,"

Bemis Ampleforth (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

204.47.172.84 (talk)Ubiquitousnewt204.47.172.84 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "33 years"? Nonsense. No way do these things reach sexual reproduction as late as this article claims. The citations provided are bad; 2 are "science-o-tainment" sites, and the last isn't relevant and doesn't support the text.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=80729&inline=1 "Individuals of this species mature late (females 14-16 years; males 9-10 years), and have few offspring (Cailliet et al. 1985; Francis 1996). Females breed every two to three years (Francis 1996; Compagno et al. 1997; Domeier 2012a). Although parturition (live birth) has never been observed, it is believed to occur in or near the warm waters of the SCB and northern Mexico in the late spring and summer."

Somebody fix it

Western Aus part of Australia?

THere is a section on Australia that says the sharks are protected. AND a bt earlier saying in Western Australia they are caught and killed as a matter of policy. THESE 2 bits are not clear together, expecilly to know if the latest polica in West Aust has changed the national / federal policy or if the sate is in breach of it somehow. Can someone that knows the situation beter makes these 2 bits clear?

Most attacks on humans ranking number 1.

National Geographic disagrees with this unture statement. The bullshark is number one. Please fix this false information. HeliosGnosis (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Great white shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/Statistics/species2.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100527182623/http://fishbull.noaa.gov/983/13.pdf to http://fishbull.noaa.gov/983/13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

lol hay gurlllllllll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.31.120.81 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Distribution map

The map in this article needs an update. Great white sharks do not frequent tropical waters, however this map shows a homogenous distribution throughout the tropical, subtropical and temperate seas. Berkserker (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great white 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/Statistics/species2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Size

There is a debate between editors regarding the biggest great white shark ever measured. This article has been marked as a good article, and all of us have the responsibility to keep it that way. Therefore only publish confirmed and up to date information, while citing your findings. The two largest verified specimens that are currently accepted by official sources are the following.

- A 19.7 (or 19.8) footer caught off Western Australia , in 1984, and is accepted by shark expert J. E. Randall and later by José Castro from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in the US

According to shark expert J. E. Randall, the largest white shark reliably measured was 6.0 m (19.7 ft), found near Ledge Point, Western Australia in 1987 (the shark was actually caught in 1984, but tooth measured and findings published by Randall in 1987). [hubpages.com/education/The--Biggest-Great-White-Shark-Ever-Found#] (hub pages is in general blocked so I couldn't provide the link, you need to copy and paste) “The largest white shark believed to have been measured reliably is a six-metre [19ft 8in] specimen from Ledge Point, Western Australia, caught on March 22 1984.” [1]

- A 20 footer caught off Canada's Prince Edward Island, in 1988, and is accepted by the Canadian Shark Research Center

According to the Canadian Shark Research Center, the world's largest accurately measured great white was 20 feet in length. This was a female caught in 1988 at Canada's Prince Edward Island. Local fisherman David McKendrick landed the toothy catch. Experts mainly agree that 20 feet is the more common maximum size for a great white, with these larger individuals weighing around 4,200 pounds. Females tend to be larger than males, so they can fall into the 20-footer group. The majority of great whites, however, measure between 13 and 16 feet with an average weight of 1,500 to 2,450 pounds. [2]

@WelcometoJurassicPark: As for the second 1945 Cuba specimen, you need to present your sources, otherwise there is only one specimen that is being discussed by officials and it has recently been proven to be much smaller. So I will be publishing these verified figures, if you have new and reliable sources please discuss. Berkserker (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You can read in the soureces that there are two specimens. This one says 7000 lb (3175 kg): Echenique, E. J. "A Shark to Remember: The Story of a Great White Caught in 1945". while these says 3324 kg (7328 lb): https://ia800704.us.archive.org/21/items/cbarchive_109514_predatorybehaviourofthewhitesh1982/predatorybehaviourofthewhitesh1982.pdf http://www.bio-nica.info/biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdf Two different figures, two different specimens. User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 10:55, 03 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cojimar specimen has never been weighed, therefore the weight figure is just an estimate. No source I have read cites two separate specimens. These are basically different estimations of weight for the same specimen, that has been downsized in recent studies. I have cited two of the latest accepted max figures by 3 separate organisations. Did you know that even 11 meter specimens were accepted as legitimate and published as a maximum size for the white shark for decades? Scientific literature corrects its mistakes over time, therefore if there is a more recent study, proving the older one inaccurate, it is taken as principle. Therefore until the new analysis was present, all authors cited the Cojimar specimen. The sources you cited are written in the 80s, and a lot has changed since then. Plus you can see from the regression analysis on that article that it is an outlier. The cluster of max size is limited to 5.5-6 meters, and after a huge gap you see the Cojimar specimen. However authors at the time didn't question the data since it was accepted as legitimate at the time. You can see the same author mentioning the larger specimens once being accepted as legitimate, the exact thing has happened once again in the last couple of decades and the accepted size has changed once again. So the Cojimar specimen can only be mentioned on "Relationship with Humans" as a big fish tale. Berkserker (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to all editors. I have taken out the unverified reports and organised them under a separate title. These could actually be completely removed in the long run, however for now placed them in a cultural context under relationship with humans. Berkserker (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

great white ansh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.107.193.213 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been allegations of giant white or whitish sharks, as mentioned in this link in "See also". Leo1pard (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Great white 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biology.duke.edu/wraylab/papers/Nyberg%26al_2006.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/16855/great%20white%20shark%20amazes%20scientists%20with%204000-foot%20dive%20into%20abyss/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Cc/A_Shark_to_Remember.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Cc/Cc_list.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Cc/Mike_Cappo.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Cc/Ken_Jury.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Gc/Gc_large.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120151638/http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_whiteshark/whiteshark_ours.aspx to http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_whiteshark/whiteshark_ours.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Pre FAC look

Right, needs:

• more synonyms and taxonomic history
• Fix tags and cite uncited sentences
• review external links

just on first look. Would torpedo FAC to go without addressing these: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Great white 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/6Dp1d1EUS?url=http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2005/DiLuzio/index.htm to http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2005/DiLuzio/index.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Dp6E545h?url=http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1499 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1499
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403003541/http://www.oceans-research.com/media/publications/SeabirdPublishedManuscript.pdf to http://www.oceans-research.com/media/publications/SeabirdPublishedManuscript.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Dp6JaCfp?url=http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/predation.htm to http://www.sharkresearchcommittee.com/predation.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Dp6XhFzJ?url=http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/whiteshark.aspx to http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/whiteshark.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Evolution date

I feel the claim that it evolved around 16 mya is inaccurate considering the common ancestor with mako sharks lived 6 to 8 mya according to this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

But seriously, I think this is a complete lie. I can’t find anybody that’s not citing Wikipedia who says that the shark evolved 16 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

The Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion in the adaptations section is wrong. 14C is approximately 57F. You know it is incorrect because any Celsius value above 0 must be above 32F. Jerfdurf (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The temperature is 14 °C above that of the water. Here 14 °C is a temperature difference, so we do not add 32 °F. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

In June 2018 the New Zealand Department of Conservation classified the great white shark under the New Zealand Threat Classification System as "Nationally Endangered". The species meets the criteria for this classification as there exists a moderate, stable population with a population of between 1000 to 5000 mature individuals. This classification has the qualifiers "Data Poor" and "Threatened Overseas".Ambrosia10 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems good, go ahead and add it to the In New Zealand section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Comparison of size of orca and great white shark.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

would be great to add the following external link:

• Photos of Great white shark on Sealife Collection

Thank you PauBatlleV (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We seem to have a pretty good collection of links already. Is there something in particular that is good about the link you are suggesting that is not captured by the already-existing links? Please also review WP:ELNEVER and verify its suitability. Izno (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was added on 7 June 2019. I removed the link. It doesn't seem to add anything helpful to the article. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

              wd,cj4rhk vtv u7v ggtbigvnhfcmnkg   g  y f  `v1g gtv 1/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.96.52 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2019

"In 2017, along the South African coast, four great whites were found washed ashore with their livers removed with what was described as "surgical precision". Local scientists claim that pods of orcas in the area were responsible for the attacks."
Please correct this sentence according to the accompanying citation. In fact, THREE great whites were found washed ashore, which had been "torn apart to reveal their body cavity" with no mention of "surgical precision". There is no mention of "local scientists" but a South African DEA spokesperson stated that "wounds and bite indentations consistent with what would be expected in an Orca attack". 79.72.142.226 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, rephrased according to source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Shark Populations

it says in this article Great White Shark populations have been going down since the 1970s but it looks like they've been going down as early as the 1960s https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-018-0233-1 I suggest a update to the information in the article to include this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:607F:FFC9:C467:714C:301:5A1C (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Two attacks on live humpback whale off South Africa?

The two attacks sound very similar. Both involed live, engtangled humpbacks off South Africa, one off Port Elizabeth and another just off Mossel Bay. One whale was 23 ft (7 m) while the other was 33 ft (10 m). One involved two sharks the other one, but both involved sharks of 13 ft (4 m). They also both occurred at the same time of year but allegedly in different years, February 2017 vs February 2020. They also both involed attacks to the tail first and then to the head. Is this just a coincidence or do this involve the same attack? BulbousCow (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Great White Sharks use magnetic fields in the ocean floor for navigation, but this page has no information, update needed by experts

I was watching PBS Nature show, I think it was this one, Sharks of Hawaii:

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/about-sharks-hawaii/24807/

..and in the show I recall learning these things:

1. Sharks have sensors to detect magnetic fields 2. Ocean floors have many magnetic poles 3. Sharks have, in them, the map of these semi-permanent magnetic poles 4. Sharks can use the magnetic detector and the map to navigate the ocean

One piece of evidence, cited in the movie, is that sharks swim in near perfect straight lines to their destination, and; they do so at great depths so that the sun and stars are not of use for navigation, and; they stay straight even though there are dramatic currents that we expect would sweep them off course.

I am not an expert but I came here to learn more about this idea that the sharks have the compass and the map inside them and use it to swim straight for hundreds of miles of ocean.

The show Sharks of Hawaii is great. One shortcoming, in my opinion, but also lacking on this page, is the idea of putting trackers onto sharks. It seems to me that putting public tracking systems onto shark fins is going to reveal information to bad fishermen about where sharks cluster and where to find specific sharks. Maybe its okay but it struck me as extremely foolish and not good for the protection of great white sharks.

Botanyhelp (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have any sources to back this up, then feel free to add it. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some links I see today, 20210506:

https://www.wired.com/story/sharks-use-the-earths-magnetic-field-like-a-compass/

https://www.businessinsider.com/sharks-animals-use-earth-magnetic-field-navigate-2021-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botanyhelp (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. Maybe you could add these into the main page Shark? Ddum5347 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Aberrant Colouration (Albino, Leucistic & Piebald)

It has been stated in the article that Leucism is extremely rare in the species, quoting the beached baby in Australia. There are however two other records of different aberrant colouration in the literature for the Great white shark.

1. Albinism. A baby was caught on rod and reel in 1996 in South Africa, decribed as being white with red eyes. The specimen is in the possession of the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB). Pictures of it can be found here: https://www.saiab.ac.za/saiabnews/iconic-specimen:-a-fish-of-a-life-time.htm. Source: Smale, M. J. and Heemstra, P. C. 1997. First record of albinism in the Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias (Linneaus, 1758). South African Journal of Science 93:243–245.

2. Leucism/Piebald. A juvenile was filmed alive in the Aegean Sea in 2020 near Turkey. The white colouration extended in a broad area from the undersite up the flanks to just below the first dorsal fin, which also showed a broad white posterior margin. The rest of the body was coloured normaly. The authors linked the colouration to either environmental stress or possible inbreeding effects of the isolated population in the Mediterranean Sea. The complete article with pictures can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347561389_A_LEUCISTIC_WHITE_SHARK_CARCHARODON_CARCHARIAS_LAMNIFORMES_LAMNIDAE_FROM_THE_NORTHERN_AEGEAN_SEA_TURKEY. Source: Kabasakal, H. 2020. A LEUCISTIC WHITE SHARK, CARCHARODON CARCHARIAS (LAMNIFORMES: LAMNIDAE), FROM THE NORTHERN AEGEAN SEA, TURKEY. Annales: Series Historia Naturalis 30(2): 187-190.

Could the article please be updated and the references and links be inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.68.4 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

Under “Size”:

“ Among living cartilaginous fish, only the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and the giant manta ray (Manta birostris), in that order, are on average larger and heavier.”

This is partially incorrect. The Greenland Shark is also larger, both in length and in weight, than the Great White Shark. 2601:602:D000:94F0:B473:6FFE:6BC4:AEA (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022 (2)

Under: “Size”

“Among living cartilaginous fish, only the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and the giant manta ray (Manta birostris), in that order, are on average larger and heavier. These three species are generally quite docile in disposition and given to passively filter-feeding on very small organisms.[58] This makes the great white shark the largest extant macropredatory fish.“

Upon further investigation, this entire section is simply incorrect and should probably be removed. The greenland shark, tiger shark, and great hanmerhead all are larger on average than the great white. 2601:602:D000:94F0:B473:6FFE:6BC4:AEA (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Shark speed

In the lead, it said "can swim at speeds of 25 km/hr (16 mph)" but in the body of the article it said "40 km/h (25 mph)" 2 times. I'm confused which one is correct or if I've mistaken something. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Big White Shark" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Big White Shark and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 7#Big White Shark until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

name change

the name great white shark is out dated and through campaigns to protect them the name has bean changed to white shark, as well as attempting to combat discrimination (its a breach of the anti discrimination act). Also "greater" and "lesser" animals (ie greater and lesser adjutant stork) are commonly used to differentiate between two similar species, the white shark is the last extant species in its genus (none named lesser white shark) also great white could be confused with lesser white sharks (an other name for white tip sharks) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You will have to demonstrate a solid shift in name use in reliable sources for this to be an option, and that is clearly not happening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In the scientific literature there seems to be a preference for 'white shark' over 'great white shark'. This is based on pubmed search results, compare:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22great+white+shark%22 (38 results, 13 in the last 5 years)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22white+shark%22++NOT+great (83 results, 46 in the last 5 years)

So I think there is some evidence for the preference for 'white shark' over 'great white shark'. I do not know any convenient ways of comparing more "popular" literature. Carcharias taurus (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/ws_or_gws.htm

also many ichthyologists and other scientist are beginning to use the name signaling a shift in naming (example http://elasmollet.org/PublicationsOthers/Francis%20white%20shark%20reproduction.pdf with no mention of "great white shark" rather "white shark") Realfakebezalbob (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You have a good point about the general scientific trend of preferring "white shark" over "great white shark," but it's not clear whether this shift is prominent enough vernacularly (see Etymology and Naming History in Taxonomy). There's a reason why it took so long for Killer whale to be moved to the more appropriate name Orca despite the latter's prominent usage for decades. I recommend making a move proposal and laying out your arguments, with focus on evidence of a trend in greater vernacular usage for "white shark." Macrophyseter | talk 18:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well if there's a shark called the lesser white shark as you've said with Triaenodon, then it makes sense we should specify great white Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The oceanic whitetip shark. But that's also an obscure historical name that you would only find in very old books.Macrophyseter | talk 22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

yay but greater/ lesser is used to distinguish between similarly related things (greater/less stork) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

in fairly certain greater/ lesser is used for close relatives, under the same genus Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I didnt know you could do that! (otherwise I would have) how would one do such a thing? Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to this change. It doesn't matter what scientists prefer, because neither "great white shark" nor "white shark" are scientific names, they're common names. Scientific sources are an authority on what the taxonomy of the species is, but not on what the common name is. Just like our own article Common name says: "a common name of a taxon or organism (also known as a vernacular name, English name, colloquial name, country name, popular name, or farmer's name) is a name that is based on the normal language of everyday life". No non-scientific sources are using the name "white shark" because almost no one outside scientific circles would know what that refers to, whereas the name "great white shark" is probably one of the most well-known shark names in the English-speaking world. Steven Walling • talk 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"But before we go any further, some technical clarification is needed.  Most shark scientists refer to Carcharodon carcharias by its official common name, “White Shark.”  I think calling them “Great Whites” was something that stuck in the public’s mind when that’s how fictional marine biologist Matt Hooper referred to the shark in JAWS" there is great effect on pop culture on science and vise versa. In addition it is an understatement that nonscientific sources dont use the term "white shark." Also I find it very hard to believe someone would be so, brain dead (for lack of better words) to think what they know to be a 'great white' referred to as a 'white' and not connect the dots; then again there are those types of people out there!

https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/animals/animals-a-to-z/white-shark

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-11-07/california-swimmer-describes-seeing-shark-attack-her

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-11-13-shark-spotters-safety-outfit-comes-to-plettenberg-bay-giving-conservation-a-vital-boost/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/14/glassy-fangs-and-glowing-fins-amazing-deep-sea-animals-found-near-cocos-islands

these use both white and great white

https://wror.com/2022/11/14/shark-found-in-massachusetts-lagoon/

https://www.newsweek.com/great-white-sharks-mysteriously-washing-ashore-north-america-1755165

https://www.newsweek.com/great-white-sharks-mysteriously-washing-ashore-north-america-1755165 Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There's an even simpler example that proves my point. Even if you search for "white shark" specifically in quotes, nearly 100% of the news stories have titles and article content that say "great white shark". The same is true in Google Books search. Steven Walling • talk 23:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

only the last three have great mentioned in them Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

no one is doubting it is still used Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

in addition the majority of government sources prefer white over great white Realfakebezalbob (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You just cherrypicked a tiny number of source examples when there are thousands of results that favor "great white shark" as the common name. Not very convincing. Steven Walling • talk 01:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy (Etymology correction needed)

Based on the Romanization of the Greek and meaning prescribed to it, I believe this section is incorrect: [It is a portmanteau of two Ancient Greek words: the prefix carchar- is derived from καρχαρίας (kárkharos), which means "jagged" or "sharp".] Rather than καρχαρίας (karkharías), I believe they meant to use κάρχαρος (kárkharos), which means "jagged" or "saw-like". 141.239.93.31 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Maximum Size

I found the article slightly inconsistent with the maximal size of this species. The lead threw a data of 5.8m while the section mentioned 6.1m (verified length) with this source. Do we have to make it 5.8 to 6.1m in the lead?

Besides, other articles, including Saltwater Crocodile & Black Caiman, adopt data of maximum sizes from those "unconfirmed reports" as well. Do we have to at least mention some of those largest estimations in the size section? For instance, the salt croc page has its lead throwing a maximal length of 6 meters & a mass of 1300 kilograms while claiming the largest estimated statistics of such as 7 meters & a jaw-dropping 2000 kilograms (crazy for a land reptile). RoyalRover (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

The Etymology section refers to the Ancient Greek word for rough/jagged, but the Greek text and its anglicization don't match each other, and neither is correct (which also means that the Wiktionary link is broken).

According to Wiktionary, the correct word is κάρκαρος, anglicized as kárkaros.

Suggested changes: in the sentence '...the prefix carchar- is derived from καρχαρίας (kárkharos), which means "jagged" or "sharp".', change the text "καρχαρίας (kárkharos)" to "κάρκαρος (kárkaros)". Also, change the Wiktionary target on the Greek text from κάρχαρος to κάρκαρος. 97.126.28.92 (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done except that I used κάρχαρος kárkharos in line with the source given in the article, instead of κάρκαρος kárkaros. They seem equivalent, so I've also linked to wikt:κάρκαρος. small jars tc 16:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Apex predator

Looking to obtain a consensus regarding the sentence in the intro paragraph, "The great white shark is an apex predator, as it has no known natural predators other than, on very rare occasions, the orca." An apex predator, by definition, is "a predator at the top of a food chain, without natural predators of its own." Would it be fair to say that the great white shark cannot be an apex predator as it does have a documented natural predator, the orca. The word "rare"? I'd argue that is up for debate; it seems to be more common or at least documented more often now (reference is from 2005), particularly in South Africa and sometimes California. I believe this sentence needs to be amended. I propose - "The great white shark has only one documented natural predator, the orca". Thoughts? Bloodyboppa (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be eliminated entirely. It might be true that for adult great white sharks, their only non-human predator is the orca, but newborn great white sharks are only about 4–5 feet long, and great white sharks grow very slowly. Scientists believe that most great white sharks never make it to sexual maturity because of predation from various species of sharks, including larger great white sharks. Why should predation not count if it's only the juveniles being killed? Muéro^(talk/c) 18:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Remove reference 16. Wrong species. 73.157.217.197 (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done The reference 16 stated the following:

"Danger to Humans

The tiger shark is second only to the white shark in number of reported attacks on humans "

This is relevant to the statement, but because there is already a reliable source for it, I removed the citation as you suggested.

Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request, update to mistaken identity & addition of Oceanic White Tips, July 2023

I'm a wiki edit noob, if anyone would like to help it would be appreciated; both corrections are under Shark Bite Incidents:

Currently: "Of all shark species, the great white shark is responsible for by far the largest number of recorded shark bite incidents on humans, with 272 documented unprovoked bite incidents on humans as of 2012." First, it's now 10+ years since 2012 so the stats should be updated but next, for context, it should be noted that the Oceanic White Tip has probably killed more which is noted in the "Shark Attack" wiki. It states: "The oceanic whitetip has probably killed many more castaways, but these are not recorded in the statistics." and here is the source they use yet there are multiple sources: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/fish/most-dangerous-shark2.htm

-Currently: "Contrary to popular belief, great white sharks do not mistake humans for seals." its source is from a 19 year old apparently outdated Nat Geo article. There was a more recent 2021 well-fund study that says the exact opposite and even Nat Geo cites this in various articles. Perhaps something like the following could be added: "A study provides the first evidence in agreement with the ‘mistaken identity theory’, in which white sharks bite humans because of their visual similarity to their natural pinniped prey. " https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0533

NotBond007 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversation Status Graphic

Graphic shows that the species is critically endangered whereas the text indicates that it is vulnerable. The graphic should be corrected accordingly. 47.199.208.41 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Semi-done I think you're a little confused. Great whites are considered vulnerable worldwide, but the IUCN assesses the European and Mediterranean subpopulations separately, and considers those specific subpopulations to be critically endangered.

That being said, there was a small error in the speciesbox's conservation status graphic; the status reference for the European subpopulation was a link to a page ran by the European Environment Agency instead of the actual IUCN assessment for the European subpopulation. I have since corrected this. I also added a sentence to Conservation status section mentioning that the European and Mediterranean subpopulations are considered critically endangered, since that wasn't mentioned in the article itself.

Hope that clears things up.

Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Mexico banned Guadalupe shark diving in 2023

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/mexico-bans-great-white-shark-related-tourism-on-guadalupe-island-180981616/ NotBond007 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

GWS cage diving comes to Nova Scotia, Canada

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cage-diving-great-white-sharks-nova-scotia-1.6803592 NotBond007 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding GWS liver context for how large and nutrient their livers are

Many assume a GWS's liver is tiny and wonder why Orcas kill them for their "tiny" liver...First they have two sides or lobes of their liverhttps://dlnr.hawaii.gov/sharks/anatomy/the-shark-inside/#:~:text=Shark%20livers%20are%20huge%2C%20consisting,lobes%20surrounding%20the%20digestive%20tract.

Second... "Great white shark livers are huge, weighing in at hundreds of kilograms. And they're packed with calories, obtained from the fat of the seals they eat. According to a 2013 paper, a 456-kilogram (1,000 lbs) great white shark liver contains around 400 litres of oil - delicious, calorie rich oil. This helps to keep the sharks buoyant and supplied with nutrients as they migrate.

It's also a really tasty treat for orcas: like eating a fatty doughnut, or bacon fried in butter - not just a delicacy, but a deeply sustaining meal in the often harsh conditions of the oceans." https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-orcas-surround-and-scare-off-the-ocean-s-most-terrifying-predator NotBond007 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Hello, my colleagues and I are releasing a scientific publication on the Mediterranean white shark this month. We wanted to include a naturalistic illustration of the species hunting a school of bluefin tuna in the diet section. Is this possible? Regards, Tanguy

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White_shark_hunting_a_school_of_bluefin_tuna_V5.jpg TanguyCAR (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Attacks fewer than 10 per year wrong

Argument in Description that attacks occur fewer than 10 times per year is wrong. As stated in the source nr 18, "deadly attacks" (!) are mostly fewer than 10 times per year. In the same article 2020 is called a low year for attacks with 57 reported attacks. 2A00:6020:5023:F700:3908:89D5:642B:25B0 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

In Anatomy and Description, under size, there seems to be an error: "In great white sharks, sexual dimorphism is present, and females are generally larger than males. Male great whites on average measure 3.4 to 4.0 m (11 to 13 ft) in length, while females measure 4.6 to 4.9 m (15 to 16 ft)." Trnsfrcashcorson (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify I'm... not sure what the error is? Nothing about that quote is self-contradictory, and it's directly supported by the reference at the end. Could you clarify what you want changed and why?

Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)