This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sharks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fishes Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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))Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Shark Week. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. Summary of request: Review Shark Week creator attribution using Washington Post, CBS News, and Discovery founder John Hendricks' published account The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 660 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

(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)Reply