Talk:Shark Week

disambiguation page needed

I'm pretty sure "Shark Week" has a very well-known meaning that isn't related to some recent television production.

This page should be a disambiguation page that then redirects to a page about the TV show or a woman's menstrual cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AF8:1:1500:0:0:0:4239 (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

vandalism

changed chinchillas back to sharks in the opening paragraph. "average person have a greater respect for sharks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.217.104 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

20th anniversary

Am I missing something, or should the 20th anniversary of 1988 be in 2008? — thesublime514 • talk • 00:40, July 14, 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This will be the "20th Annual" Shark Week, not the 20th Anniversary. I'll make the correction. 65.126.170.168 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

internal inconsistency

one section ("hosts") says les stroud hosted from 2007-2009, but the previous section says differently 67.173.44.126 (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

20th

Wasn't the 2007 one Hosted by Les Stroud of Survivorman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhawkman (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Start year inconsistency

The show is listed as beginning in 1988 yet it says it began in 1987 in two different places on the page. The 20th anniversary/annual seems to have caused that confusion. 71.169.13.85 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In English?

The article currently has a line: "2009's Shark Week began the evening of August 2nd; the 2 word title phrase trended on Twitter the following morning, reaching as high as 2nd." Could someone who speaks Twitter please replace "trended" with a suitable translation (or delete the second half of the sentence if it doesn't belong here at all, which could well be the case)? Thanks. HenryAyoola (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the programs about?

The whole article seems to be dedicated to listing the hosts. There is almost no effort to explain what the shark-related programming actually is. Wouldn't that be useful? john k (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Episodes

Usually, TV programs have a link to another articles citing and explaining individual episodes. Suggesting that it should be done here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcscrooge (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC) What would be gained from that though? I don't think Shark Week is that big for it to be done. If they missed it, they missed it. I'm sure another site has it posted already. (AutoRacingGenie (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

Shark Week Uncaged

But what with Shark Week Uncaged with Nigel Marven - Uncaged: Shark Week with Nigel Marven or the Uncaged: Žraločí týden s Nigelem Marvenem? It's from 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogorgonopsid (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability outside of Discovery Channel?

Hello,

Is it notable enough to mention Shark Week events that occur outside of the Discovery channel? I don't feel strongly about it, and can't remember the notability policy for adding sections to existing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Longest-running cable television programming event

To avoid edit-warring, I'm providing an explanation for the distinction between an annual marathon event and a weekly, episodic TV show. The citation states, "[Shark Week is] now the longest-running cable TV programming event in history...", and this is explicitly different from a seasonal TV show with regular weekly episodes. Shark Week happens for one week on an annual basis, during which shark-related programming is broadcast nightly. This is similar to the Twilight Zone marathons that are broadcast annually on New Year's day (except Shark Week is an extended version of that).

The editor who is disagreeing with the cite ([1][2]) is using Monday Night RAW and ESPN SportsCenter as counter-examples. Those shows are not annual events. The first is broadcast weekly on a seasonal basis (like regular TV shows with ~20 episodes per season), while the second is a daily news show. For all the puffery it contains, the phrase "longest-running cable TV programming event in history" is not incorrect (unless a counter-citation proves otherwise).

—Samatict (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section?

I think we should probably start up a criticism section, as the last few years of Shark Week has garnered quite a bit of criticism in mainstream (and not so mainstream) press. (, , , , , ) Most of it criticizes DC for perpetuating myths, inaccuracies, and going for sensationalism over fact, but there are a few articles now that say that SW has encouraged more people to eat shark, which is putting them at more risk of endangerment. The stuff I'm listing is just from this year- I know that last year there was a big to do over a fake documentary that DC made, which apparently didn't get clearly labeled as being such. Basically, there's been too much criticism to not list it, but I figure I'll try to get some discussion going here rather than just add it myself and not start a discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I came here to see what was listed in a criticism / controversy section after hearing multiple podcasts discussing it. Taraba (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The entire opening paragraphs of the article look like a massive bashing-fest of "Shark Week", and frankly, I call BS on the notion that it is somehow not promoting shark awareness and conservation anymore. The Megalodon row is hardly anything to get butt hurt about: it's a dramatic documentary of a real fish. I don't get the problem with sensationalism in documentaries if it doesn't change the facts it's reporting. Sensationalism and excitement make learning a whole lot more fun. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shark Week. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808041048/http://gawker.com:80/shark-week-opens-with-fake-megalodon-documentary-1028053485? to http://gawker.com/shark-week-opens-with-fake-megalodon-documentary-1028053485

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shark Week. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302082627/http://www.lesstroudonline.com/blog/?p=37 to http://www.lesstroudonline.com/blog/?p=37

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Original request

I would like to request a review of the creator attribution in the lead of this article.

Conflict of interest disclosure: I work at REELZ, where Steve Cheskin is an executive. Because of that connection, I am not editing the article directly and instead am asking uninvolved editors to review the available reliable sources.

The article currently states that Shark Week was "created and produced by Tom Golden." However, multiple independent reliable sources attribute the original concept for Shark Week to Steve Cheskin.

For example:

The Washington Post (August 8, 1999) states: "The series was a serendipitous idea suggested by Steven Cheskin..." and describes Cheskin proposing "Shark Week" during programming discussions with Discovery founder John Hendricks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/tv/1999/08/08/into-the-jaws-of-danger/d82017d7-d38c-4afe-987f-7650574d5613/

CBS News, in "How Shark Week Became Cable's Longest Running Brand," states: "It was Steve Cheskin... who blurted out the words that would make Discovery Communications and change cable forever. Shark Week."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-shark-week-became-cables-longest-running-brand/

Given these independent sources, I respectfully request that editors review whether the current lead accurately reflects the published record. If there are reliable sources supporting Tom Golden's role as creator, it may be appropriate to present both perspectives with proper attribution rather than presenting one account as undisputed.

Thank you for taking the time to review this request. TravisOSLC (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add one additional source that may be helpful.

In John Hendricks' memoir, A Curious Discovery: An Entrepreneur's Story (HarperBusiness, 2013), Hendricks describes the brainstorming session that led to Shark Week. On page 218, he writes that Steve Cheskin proposed the idea, stating, "Well, what if we created Shark Week?" Hendricks then writes that "The room erupted with that rare laughter that comes with encountering a brilliant new idea" and that they immediately moved forward with implementing Steve's idea.

This appears to directly support Steve Cheskin's role in originating the concept and may be useful when evaluating the lead's current attribution alongside the other independent sources already provided.

Hendricks, John S. A Curious Discovery: An Entrepreneur's Story. HarperBusiness, 2013, p. 218. TravisOSLC (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to review creator attribution

How should the lead of the Shark Week article describe the creation of the programming block given the differing published sources regarding Steve Cheskin and Tom Golden?

The current lead states that Shark Week was "created and produced by Tom Golden." The citation currently following that statement is Matt Cohen's 2014 article in The Week. That source discusses the origins of Shark Week as a brainstorming process involving a Discovery scheduler and founder John Hendricks, but does not appear to identify Tom Golden as the creator.

Other published sources attribute the original idea for Shark Week to Steve Cheskin:

• A 1999 Washington Post article, "Into the Jaws of Danger," describes Shark Week as an idea suggested by Steven Cheskin and recounts Cheskin proposing "Shark Week" during discussions with Discovery founder John Hendricks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/tv/1999/08/08/into-the-jaws-of-danger/d82017d7-d38c-4afe-987f-7650574d5613/
• CBS News, in "How Shark Week Became Cable's Longest Running Brand," similarly attributes the original proposal to Steve Cheskin: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-shark-week-became-cables-longest-running-brand/
• Discovery founder John S. Hendricks provides a firsthand published account in his memoir, A Curious Discovery: An Entrepreneur's Story (HarperBusiness, 2013), p. 218. Hendricks describes the original brainstorming session and recounts Steve Cheskin proposing, "Well, what if we created Shark Week?" Hendricks subsequently describes the group discussing how to implement "Steve's idea."
• A 2015 Washingtonian feature also describes Cheskin proposing Shark Week during the original brainstorming session: https://washingtonian.com/2015/07/01/the-ridiculous-bloody-scientifically-questionable-history-of-discovery-channels-shark-week/

Given these sources, I am requesting that uninvolved editors review whether the current statement that Shark Week was "created and produced by Tom Golden" accurately reflects the published record, or whether the lead should distinguish between the origin of the concept and production of the original programming block.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I work at REELZ, where Steve Cheskin is an executive. I have therefore not changed the disputed creator attribution in the article myself and am asking uninvolved editors to evaluate the sources and determine the appropriate wording. TravisOSLC (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot). Having reviewed the current source and the ones you mention, I agree. I support removing "created and produced by Tom Golden", as I couldn't find any source that mentions Tom Golden in any capacity (except some which seem to be cribbed from the current version of the Wikipedia article). I also couldn't find anything describing Steve Cheskin as producer or having a role beyond the initial spark of an idea, so I think this text would be best replaced by "conceived by Steve Cheskin". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Noting that TravisOSLC accidentally formatted this wrong and added the RfC chronologically before their proceeding edit request. I have refactored it, but noting that I and the user above me responded before this was fixed. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Remove mention of both from lede - the lede follows the article. Given that neither man is in the body, they cannot be included in the lede. Content about both can be added in the normal editing process. So "... programming block at the Discovery Channel...". I am unconvinced that, even if all the info on Cheskin was added to the article, he would warrant a place in the lede, much less the first sentence before Discovery Channel. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the point about the lead summarizing the body of the article. Based on the sources discussed above, would it make sense for an uninvolved editor to add a brief paragraph to the History section explaining the origin of Shark Week and Steve Cheskin's role in conceiving the idea? The Washington Post, CBS News, Washingtonian, and John Hendricks' memoir all appear to support that attribution.

I would also support removing the unsupported "created and produced by Tom Golden" wording from the lead regardless of whether Cheskin is ultimately mentioned there.

Because of my disclosed COI, I would prefer that an uninvolved editor determine the wording and make any changes. Thanks again for reviewing the sources. TravisOSLC (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed some odd formatting in your reply I agree that it would be wise for an uninvolved editor to edit the article, thank you for your honesty and following of Wikipedia policy. I will probably do so when I am back at my PC. Looking at the sources, CBS News smells like a sponsored piece, WaPo is reliable and they had an interview with Cheskin and concluded he was correct in saying he invented it, and I'll get into the Washingtonian later. This MagellanTV, a documentary site that smells reliable, notes that five differing origin stories for it exist. Cheskin is influential or pivotal in four of them, and I don't much believe the one that doesn't mention him. The Atlantic talks about a legendary origin story that probably involves Cheskin, though they don't go into depth naming him, instead mentioning another exec's claim that he invented it. The Washingtonian repeats the legendary origin story. From this evaluation, which needs to be more thorough since I'm limited by archive.org being down, I would say Cheskin definitely warrants mention in the origin section. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review the sources. I wanted to follow up since it has been a few days. I agree with your conclusion that Steve Cheskin warrants mention in the origin section, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could make that change when convenient.

I am happy to leave the exact wording to editors. My main concern is that the article accurately reflect the published sourcing and that the unsupported "created and produced by Tom Golden" wording not remain as the sole attribution.

Thank you again for the careful review and for helping with the formatting. TravisOSLC (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added a four sentences in the history section detailing its origin. I have also removed any mention of Tom Golden. I have done so under the WP:Biographies of living persons policy, which stipulates that any unsourced information on living persons must be removed. I looked very hard for any mention of Golden, and could not find it beyond IMDB. If this RfC ends in consensus to keep Golden in the first sentence... then we'll need a source that mentions him. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2026 (UTC)