Talk:Bull shark/Archive 1

Article in dire need of improvement
I don't know how much the contributors of this article read the articles on other species of sharks. Let me enlighten you. Some are top-drawer, first-class pieces of work (e.g. Oceanic Whitetip Shark & Great White Shark). Others really stink. This one really, really stinks. Let's get busy people. This is an important species - not the Spiny Dogfish. Hokeman 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If your interested look at WikiProject Sharks, we are trying to get the shark articles to a good class of work.--chris_huh 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Eye contact
I'm tempted to remove the "maintain eye contact underwater" bit. Seems unlikely to have any scientific backup. Does anybody have a source for that? Yomangani 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hard to quantify scientific evidence, but I have been told numerous times as a diver that if you want to come close to shark you should not look at them direct eye-to-eye, it is bad to point a camera with a big lens directly at them since they will swim away, and if you are attacked always keep eye contact. (that was the unecientific, own research part) as for direct references do a [google search on ,eye contact shark attack] and you will get [] not very sceintific but still, [] see point 6, I would say very scientific and [] again stating to keep eye contact but not talking about it much, none specific about bull shark though. There are many more web pages stating the same in general, most not very scientific. I tried to find a real book reference and the best I have is Shark Smart, by Richard Martin, the same authour that now calls hims self R. Aidan Martin on the elasmo-research web site above, he is a expert in sharks and have dived with sharks for 10's of years. That book also states to get close, do not look directly at a shark, but does not state that looking directly reduces the risk of attack even though it has a list of things to do to reduce the risk of attack. So I would say that this is at least not wrong (as least as good as we know now) and we should keep this, but I can not find any specific bull shark reference, therefore I will not add the reference but maybe add it as general reference ... I do not know. Stefan 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In general there may be some anecdotal evidence for it (maybe it should go on the shark attack page), I was more concerned with its inclusion in this paragraph on bull shark attack patterns, especially as the preceding sentence it talks about shallow and dirty water - this would suggest you crouch down and push your face up against its eyeball. Doesn't sound a particular appealing plan to me! Yomangani 09:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree on that, can remove from bull shark page, I plan to write a new section on the shark attack page about how to avoid shark attacks and how to behave if you are harassed by sharks, but not much time now. Stefan 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would love to see some more scientific backup for this, since I KNOW this to be true from first, second, and third-hand experience. I dive with some hardcore shark people, and the consensus - along with my own experience - is that they know when you're watching, and will generally demur. pterantula 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I found one more reference for this, see, I used this ref in a new section in shark attack on how to avoid attacks, that I have planned to write for a long time, please read and update. Stefan 02:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

yo cody i remember when u put this on like 2 years ago. the kid got his arm bit off i found the article. but, im still wondering obout how they got the shark onshore. can any one tell me?

KC: Being more prone to attack has nothing to do with eye contact its about not being caught off guard so keeping the shark in front of you is whats important as can be seen by watching a seal avoid a great white attack. Sharks rarely attack prey thats aware of the predator for the simple reason that the prey being fish, seals and turtles are fast and agile. Its certainly not a documented attack style. Besides that, how close would you have to be to see where the the sharks eyes are actually looking and vice versa? If your looking into eachothers eyes then guess what? Your already being attacked.

a shark attack
there was a kid that got his arm bit off by a bull shark. Then his uncle pulled the shark onshore shot it, then pryed the sharks mouth open then took the severed arm out. And then they sewed the arm on. Isn't that weird!

not really, why?Lokon40 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add another section so i'll put it here. Shouldn't there be a section about bull shark attack. The great white has one yet bull sharks have a higher record of attacks.


 * Just add the text, there already is the behaviour section that talks mostly about attacks, if you think you can split that into two sections go ahead, be bold. Stefan 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason the guy was able to pull the shark onto land is that he had been surf fishing and had hooked the Bull Shark who then attacked the child. While I am not necessarily blaming the uncle for the attack, it's not a very good idea to surf fish near bathers simply because it is precisely the type of thrashing (and blood) that occurs when you hook a fish, that attract sharks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.243.36.2 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual correction
Even more rare, due to cooler waters, bull sharks have made their way up the Illinois River and into Lake Michigan such as an encounter off the coast of Chicago, Illinois.

Is this meant to say "Warmer waters?" CopaceticThought (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It's not especially well-worded, but the "due to cooler waters" is intended to modify "even more rare" - it's even more rare because the waters are cooler. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
Someone should check the diet part of this wiki i think it has been messed with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.166.95 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since undone. Thanks for the tip!  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line: Bull sharks have been known to use the bump-and-bite technique when attacking their prey. This is effacious and effective because it kills them dead.

because it was just plain ridiculous. -clomle44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clomle44 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 31 August 2008
 * Fully agree with that edit. user:Everyme 08:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That reference to "Shark Week" looks like a shameless commercial placement and really isn't necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.72.144 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was most likely added in good faith, as the contributor was merely citing the source of the information. I've converted the mention to a proper footnoted reference. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Marine sharks?
Why does it say "marine sharks" in te intro? Are there any sharks that aren't marine?--217.225.162.205 (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See River shark. Those are exceptional, though, so I've removed marine from the intro.  Thanks for the tip! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bull sharks in the Great Lakes
I didn't find any support for the claim bull sharks have been found in Lake of the Woods in the article. I did a google search and came up with an April Fools joke article "Shark Tales No More. Live Sharks Caught in Minnehaha Creek " from April 1, 2006. It states it is a prank in very fine italic print at the bottom of the article which makes me wonder if that is where the idea of the bull shark being found in the Great Lakes area originated. If there is evidence of bull sharks being found in the Great Lakes could the statement be cited? I would love to read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.207.247 (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I was about to refer you to this article, until I realised that was also a hoax.  For now I've removed the claim as it is uncited and your findings cast doubt on its accuracy, but if you'd like someone to look into this further you could leaving a message at the talk page of Wikiproject Sharks.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Solitary?
uhmm.. been to SA, seen the indian ocean.. surfed... these sharks are NOT solitary and the are NOT sluggish. They are pack hunting animals and they KNOW what you are.


 * This puzzled me as well - bulls travel in packs, from everything I've seen - including several dives with them, feeding en-masse. "Sluggish"? No moreso than any predator out for a stroll, so hardly worth the mention. When they smell food however - be out of their way!! They are the fastest shark I've experienced thus far, and I didn't even know it was physically possible to do a 180 like they do in the water. It's amazing to witness. pterantula 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have now searched all sharks books I have and used google to the best of my ability and can not find anything thrustworthy that states that they hunt in pack, I do find 2-3 resonably good references that states that they are solitary hunters. I also find the fishbase reference that staes that they can travel 'up to 180 kilometers in 24 hours', which contradicts that they are sluggísh, my guess is that they are both slow and fast, have you seen them in non feeding mode? Are they still fast? I took sluggish away from the article, and it already states 'Despite their apparent docility, they are capable of surprising bursts of speed' so I guess that states that they can be considered sluggish but also move fast, I think that is as this without better references. Not sure what to do about the pack thing, does anyone have any reference for them beeing pack hunters?? Stefan 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

- pterantula 13 June 2007
 * "Bull shark is a species that hunts alone." - this statement REALLY bothers me; it carries the tone of absolute fact when it is false in my personal experience, as well as that of those with whom I have dived. Bulls swarm. This can also be seen in every documentary I've ever watched (see Dr. Erich Ritter on Discovery's Shark Week, or Manny Puig's "Ultimate Predator" video).


 * I agree it is a clunky sentence. But the point is that they aren't co-operative hunters or schooling fish (like tope or basking sharks), and even if they congregate around a rich feeding ground that doesn't mean the sharks are interacting with one another beyond defining status, checking for prospective mates, etc. Speed is relative of course, and compared with swimming humans of course they are fast. But compared with, say, blue sharks, I doubt they are especially fast for their size. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Be very careful about quoting from Discovery Channel type things. As a scientist, I know within my field that TV shows often distort what I and colleagues have told the researchers. Spend any time with any bunch of zoologists or palaeontologists and you'll hear similar things. TV producers spin facts and edit comments to get the most punchy subject matter that they can. While that makes for great entertainment, don't for a second assume it is unbiased fact. Rely on published papers by scientists in the first instance and trustworthy non-fiction summaries in books second. Web sites and TV shows are a far distant third. Cheers, NEale Neale Monks 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood Neale, thanks for the input. Let me just add that I've shared the water with many sharks, and bulls are indeed FAST!.... As for "quoting" Discovery Channel, I apologize - I was not; I was referring to footage of Dr. Ritter, which has been shown in many different documentaries. On the subject of packing vs. solitary behavior, I wonder: how would/should we categorize reef whitetips, blacktip reefers, or grey reefers? I doubt it could be said that their efforts are coordinated, the way we would expect in lions or humans, so are they "solitary" hunters, even though they are known to hunt in large numbers? - pterantula 13 June 2007


 * To fish scientists, aggregating, shoaling, and schooling all mean very specific things, but to non-specialists these can often all seem to be the same thing. An aggregation is merely fishes all together in one place because one or more desirable resources are there. So a bunch of whale sharks might aggregate around a particularly rich patch of plankton, like when corals spawn. A shoal is a loose association of fish that forage independently but are mutually attracted to one another for various social purposes. They're each doing their own thing, but they stay within range of one another and adjust their behaviour to keep other members of the group in view. This is the kind of behaviour you'd associate with goldfish. Finally, a school is where the fish tightly synchronise their movement with one another and forage or migrate as a swarm. I'm not aware of any sharks that do this. But among bony fish, this is like anchovies and herrings, where the school almost behaves like a single super-organism. Anyway, for a lot of sharks, I'd assume that when seen in groups they're merely aggregating, drawn together by a rich supply of prey or for breeding purposes. So, the question is, when people have reported sharks as "schooling" or "shoaling", which of these three terms did they actually mean? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is the word for what of scalloped hammerheads do? shoal or school, or maybe somewehere inbetween? I would have called it school, but not sure if your definition of 'tightly synchronise their movement' is a good description? Stefan 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly a shoal if the group is somewhat stable. Schooling isn't really typical of predators but of prey fish, where the school is an anti-predation behaviour. All the fish swim at the same speed in the same direction, turning simultaneously. Shoaling on the other hand allows each fish to hunt by itself and swim about, they just "stay in touch", keeping an eye on where other members of the shoal are but not actually synchronising their speed or direction. But in most cases I'd imagine sharks merely aggregate. This doesn't mean there aren't any interactions, there are, but they're social behaviours rather than swimming behaviours, and fish will swim away and forage on their own on join other aggregations whenever they want. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 13:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

KC: hammerheads school as they have been shown to follow set paths together for long periods of time regardless of hunting (its suggested that they follow magnetic fields). No shark species hunts in packs or groups of any description nor has any social interaction been proven to exist. Bulls are merely found together just as any predator can be found in the same areas, because they know there is prey there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC) They can be seen in rivers and oceans, usually independant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkGirl012 (talk • contribs)

Sharks Attack Shrimping Boat, Setting it Adrift off Florida Coast
FORT MYERS BEACH, Fla. — A crew of two fishermen was stranded 100 miles off Florida's coast after a pack of bull sharks that had been following the shrimping boat for days smashed a hole into the ship's hull and broke its propeller. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250503,00.html Crocoite 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

KC: Being attacked solid by a group of bull sharks for 4 days but staying at sea? Not being eaten alive by this group straight from a bad shark movie? and of course, lets not forget that the main leader of this elite shark group happened to be bigger than the record! Great story, not for some fact.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy
In the section on taxonomy it has been indicated that bull sharks are considered a delicacy by Bengali people. Being a Bengali I raise objections to this claim. We eat a lot of fish, but I am pretty sure that sharks do not figure in our diet. --Tank Jr (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it; any editor can go ahead and re-insert it if they can source it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that the Ganges shark is actually a species of Glyphis (at least one reference: http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/sharkfish/freshwatersharks.php), and this seems to be supported in the contradiction with the Wiki article on ganges sharks; I'm looking for some more detail on this, but if anyone beats me to it I'd love to see this point updated. Pterantula (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This article stated in Etymology that "In India the the bull shark is often called the Sundarbans or Ganges shark." This is contractdicted further down the article in the behavior section where it states "... the bull shark cruises up the Ganges River where it has killed and attacked a large number of people...Many of these attacks have been wrongly blamed on the Ganges shark, Glyphis gangeticus" clearly denoting that they are different. Also refer to the Wikipedia article on the ganges shark which clearly states they are different. I have changed it to say that it may be confused with the ganges shark, and changed the link from the Ganges river to the Ganges Shark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.76.194 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. I've also removed the claim that the bull shark is known in Australia as the "whaler shark", since "whaler" seems to be a generic term for many different sharks, eg see this Australian website. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

KC: latest thought is that whats called 'bull sharks' could be actually 6 or 7 different species. In fact, 5 years ago it was claimed that Bull and Zambezi were in fact not the same species but this has now been changed back again. 'Whaler' does indeed relate to pretty much most sharks in Australia as the GW is known as a 'Bronze whaler' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Presence in Ohio River??
I can't find any evidence for Bull Sharks being found in the Ohio River - I've seen some support for the missippi but the Kentucky claim at the very least needs a source. It may very well be true, but if it is it needs sourced. 19:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)BDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.235.109 (talk)

Testosterone
I've changed the previous version which stated that the bull shark has the highest testosterone levels of all animals to read that it has one of the highest, this because I am sitting with a brief guide to elephant seals I got while visiting Año Nuevo State Reserve. It claims that Elephant Seals have the highest levels of testosterone of any animal and this is one of the reasons they were nearly hunted to extinction. Anyone with a field speciality in Sharks and Elephant Seals care to weight in? --Mecil 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing this claim from the article. The current reference does not contain the word "testosterone" (as of 3 Apr 2007). Most google hits for bull shark testosterone seem to be taken straight from wikipedia, although this full transcript contains the quote: "I guess it has the highest testosterone level of any animal."  My guess is that this speculation might have turned into a "fact", Chinese whispers style.  In any case, the claim is meaningless unless we know how many animals have actually had their testosterone levels measured.  Adrian J. Hunter 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hawaiian grad student Christie Wilcox shared my skepticism about bull sharks and testosterone and wrote a blog entry about it. Her conclusion: "...the idea that bull sharks are super juiced-up compared to other animals just isn't true."  Of the two sources the Wikipedia article previously cited to support the claim, one says nothing about aggression, and the other doesn't mention testosterone at all.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * She has just updated her post with new data, in which she further dispels this myth: ""Let’s say, for a hypothetical moment, that there is a time of year, size, or whatever where you could go out with a shark hook and some dead fish and guarantee getting a big boy bull shark with upwards of 300 ng/ml in his system. [...] So let’s say you want to replace that 40 mg pill you bought with bull shark blood. Even if you catch that one shark that had 350 ng/ml in his serum, that means you'll have to drink down three cups of shark plasma to equal one pill. A shark tends to be about 12.3% blood by weight according to previous studies – that's 6.8% blood cells and 5.5% serum, which has a specific gravity (weight per volume) of around 1.03. So say you caught an average bull shark, weighing only 350 lbs instead of the max of 500. He'll have around 44 cups of blood in him, which is only 44% plasma, so you'll need to drink 6.8 cups of blood per pill. So at 2-5 pills a day, that shark will only last you one to three days.""
 * No, thanks. — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 18:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated
I have added information into the diet, reproduction, freshwater tolerance, and behavior and interaction with human sections.

The information I have added has to do with the behavior of the bull shark rather than just facts such as appearance. Citations have also been added to all the sections that I have worked on.

A lot of information on why freshwater is important to the bull shark has been added as well basic behavioral information on reproduction and feeding patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsu.shinn (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Updates and Suggestions
I changed some wording and sentence structure in the opening section. A lot of the wording was stretched out too much, so I compressed a lot of your sentences, some of which were redundant. For example, removed “The species has a distinct preference for warm currents” due to its redundancy. I also took out: “in order to breed with bull sharks of the other sex” for its redundancy. I broke up the first paragraph in the Freshwater Tolerance section. I compressed some sentences in the Ecology section, which were repetitive.

Some specific sentence changes I made are as follows. I changed: “it was observed that the bull sharks that were being experimented on had died within four years” to “the bull sharks in the study had died within four years.” A couple times, the author says things like: “It was found that”, so I took a lot of these out because these phrase are unnecessary. I also took out the phrase: “ in addition to the other fish that it preys on” in the Diet section. I completely needed to rework this sentence: “Unlike most sharks though, the bull shark does not rear their young like other sharks, the young bull sharks are born into flat, protected areas” which I changed to: “Unlike most sharks the bull shark does not rear their young, so the young bull sharks are born into flat, protected areas.”

The author did a good job with the writing amount of hyperlinks, and good job with the citations. Overall, the writing was clear and informative.

Suggestions:


 * 1) The author mentions multiple times that the bull shark sometimes goes up the Mississippi as far as Illinois. They should pick just one place to say this and take out the other times.
 * 2) The author should definitely break up their sections further into subsections, because they are very long right now.
 * 3) They also mention multiple times that the bull shark can live in both fresh water and saltwater. The author should choose which place in which you want to keep it in. Otherwise, it just sounds repetitive.
 * 4) The Anatomy and Appearance section is informative, but also pretty dull since it is mostly measurements. Add in some qualitative information about their physical features.
 * 5) The author should fix this sentence: “The bull shark prefers coastal water which is less than 100 feet.” Less than 100 ft from what? In depth? From the coastline?
 * 6) The author should clarify what they mean by “born alive” in the Reproduction section: “Bull sharks are born alive in freshwater.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgolds1203 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Rgolds1203. Was there some reason you reverted your edit?  It looked like a very good edit to me.
 * Like most Wikipedia articles, this one has gradually grown over many years through additions by many contributors. The "author" you refer to above is actually many Wikipedians who have helped write or edit this article.  The textual redundancy you keenly identified is a common problem throughout Wikipedia (have you seen Tony's guide?), and there's always a need for editors who can spot and fix it.
 * As for point 6 above, I believe "born alive" means that, unlike many sharks, Bull Sharks do not lay eggs.
 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision suggestions and updates
On the "Diet" section: -Condensed this section and rewrote the sentences that could have been more straightforward-Made sure it was grammatically correct and made adjustments as needed -Kept the tense consistent and the tone formal -Omitted certain information that was not as relevant, such as a sentence about Great White sharks.. -Clarified pieces of information, while also adding hyperlinks -I still believe this section could improve in clarity and organization

On the "Behavior and interaction with humans" section: -Omitted pieces that were not exactly relevant, and reworded certain sentences -Rearranged the order of the paragraphs -The part about the novel Jaws could possibly be moved to a "Popular culture" section instead. -The bit about the mesh netting colors is quite interesting, therefore it'd be nice to have more information about the bull shark's sensory systems. -Elaborate on the bull shark's conservation of energy and the changes the systems undergo in order to achieve this? -This section was well written and clear! Lucialemon (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "Energy Conservation": section, the sentence: "This large movement of young bull sharks were found to be moving as a response rather than other external factors such as predators." is awful; moving as a response to what? At the moment it just reads as redundant and incomprehensible - the movement were (should be was) found to be moving. 154.5.59.130 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)anonymous commenter.

Confusing section
"While theoretically, it may be possible for bull sharks to live in purely freshwater, it was observed that the bull sharks that were being experimented on had died within four years. The stomach was opened and all that was found were 2 small fishes that were unidentifiable. The cause of death could have been starvation since the primary food source for bull sharks resides in salt water.[28]"

I find this part kind of confusing. If there was an experiment, it feels like the reader should have more information about that. Did they specifically put sharks in a freshwater lake? When I think experiment, I think in a lab, but if that was the case, the fish wouldn't be unidentifiable. Are the two fish in the stomach important? Do sharks usually have more fish in their stomach? What is everyone else's take on this? Does this part read okay to you? Bali88 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

New Records: Size and Distribution
"Long-standing fishermen's tales of huge Zambezi sharks in the Breede River have been confirmed - and huge means just that.

Last week, researchers on an expedition to confirm the presence of this species - also known as bull sharks - not only caught one of these sharks, but the catch proved to be a world weighing more than half a ton.

Another record: it represented the most south-westerly distribution of bull sharks in Africa."

From: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20090128004715423C615732 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariusHR (talk • contribs) 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC) This is referred to as "questionable" in the article, even though it was measured by scientists studying the species. I don't know what's questionable about that record, it's much more reliable than most measurements quoted on Wikipedia, for various species of sharks. I questioned the "questionable" previously in this "talk" section, but my comment was removed. 2.104.66.152 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi River in Minnesota
The statement in the second paragraph of the article -- "hey have even been known to travel as far up the Mississippi River as Minnesota" -- carried a footnote that links to an April Fools' Day story in a local media outlet in Minnesota (http://www.nokomiseast.org/yard/light/creeksharks.html). Unless someone can find better proof than this, the statement should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.207.238 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision to diet section
I cleaned up this area some but there's more I will do later. I removed redundant sentences describing their opportunistic feeding behaviours. I also removed one of sentences about them working in pairs and moved that reference over to the other sentence describing cooperative hunting.

I deleted the sentence " They often cruise through shallow waters, and can accelerate rapidly and be highly aggressive, even possibly attacking a racehorse in the Brisbane River in the Australian state of Queensland. " because it was confusing and might actually belong in the human interaction section? It also didn't make sense for it to start this section. It makes more sense for this section to start with what they actually eat then go into their hunting behaviours.Totoro umbrella (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Totoro_Umbrella

Did a few more edits. I removed the paragraph about scientists studying how they eat other sharks. It seemed both redundant and excessive. I moved the citation for it to the opening paragraph. I am still not completely happy with the flow of it but it does seem alot tighter.Totoro umbrella (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisions and Additions
I added a sentence to the freshwater tolerance section to help further explain the advantage that bull sharks have by reproducing in freshwater systems. Nowhere in the article were the terms "juvenile survival rate" and "fitness" used. I thought adding these two key terms to the section would help identify the evolutionary benefits from this adaptation. Also, the article never discusses the topic of euryhaline organisms. This encompasses all organisms that can live in high and low salinity levels and should not be confused with elasmobranch species that just incorporates cartilaginous fish. One other contribution that should be made is the discussion of the protein hormone prolactin. Prolactin is a catalyst in osmoregulation and therefore helps the bull shark adjust more efficiently. The section of freshwater tolerance discusses a lot of the physiological adjustments made for osmoregulation and the protein hormone prolactin should be included to add detail and clarification to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbins.260 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bull shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/sharknews/sn3/shark3news6.htm

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

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbot II (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018
Under anatomy and appearance it would be helpful to also include the fact that the upper and lower jaw of the Bull Shark have the ability to move which is unlike humans and many other animals.

source: http://www.sharksinfo.com/interesting-facts.html 129.119.235.24 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thanks for the suggestion, but the site says this is a property of sharks in general, not bull sharks in particular. More importantly, sharksinfo.com is not a reliable source.  They provide no "about" page and no relevant information about the author(s). The site appears to exist solely to draw advertising revenue. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018
Deepak soni 123 (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Bullsharks are now Changing their selves and can be survived in many different conditions in the year 2014 a bull shark was found in Nile river and that shark survived
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019
grammar, incomplete sentence

The bull shark is known to be a solitary hunter, although brief moments exist in which the bull shark teams up with another bull shark to make hunting and to tricking prey easier.

change to

The bull shark is known to be a solitary hunter, although brief moments exist in which a bull shark will team up with another bull shark to hunt larger prey or confuse existing prey making for a more successful attack.

or any form of complete sentence

option

The bull shark is known to be a solitary hunter, although brief moments exist in which the bull shark teams up with another bull shark to make hunting and tricking prey easier. 216.57.183.176 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done I went for the second of your options, it reads better to me. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 00:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical nonsense.
'Bright yellow mesh netting was found to be easily avoided when it was placed in the path of the bull shark. This was found to be the reason that sharks are attracted to bright yellow survival gear rather than ones that were painted black'

Makes no fu*king sense. Bright yellow easily avoided then bright yellow attract shark. Pick one, not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.77.89 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020
change viviparous to ovoviviparous 2600:1700:7A20:83D0:99F5:DB79:F3DD:190A (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding comment: everything I can find says that while many types of sharks are ovoviparous, the bull shark is viviparous. Can you find a source and resubmit the edit request? Schazjmd   (talk)  19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
better high quality picture from Commons Albertofuego (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one, please? RudolfRed (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021 (2)
Please change the picture file to Bullshark Bahamas.jpg
 * They're basically the same picture. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 02:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

please

please change image Bullshark Bahamas2.jpg in: Bullshark Bahama.jpg for a better quality pic from me. Albert Kok Albertofuego (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Conservation biology
— Assignment last updated by Sward2 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)