Talk:Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apnea[edit]

Apnea is a sport? Pedrocelli 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are several competitive disciplines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-diving#Competitive_freediving Ganglandboss (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CMAS150x120.jpg[edit]

Image:CMAS150x120.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of introductory section[edit]

The final paragraph of the article's first section is clearly biased, describing CMAS as superior to other dive training organisations. The point of view that the paragraph represents is a common one among CMAS divers, less so among divers trained according to other systems. It is true that there are differences between the various organisations and their philosophies - sometimes significant ones - but the current way of describing them is hardly NPOV. -- jla (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that paragraph rather unsatisfactory. It might be worth noting, however, that CMAS is not a dive training organisation. It has many functions and one of them is in setting standards for diver training. These then become minimum standards for national member training organisations. It would probably be a better analogy to compare CMAS to ANSI in that respect. It can be shown by comparing, for example CMAS 1* and 2* course content[1] with PADI OW[2] and AOW, that the CMAS content is more comprehensive (e.g. rescue and first aid skills). Nevertheless, that is WP:Synthesis, so not usable in order to verify the paragraph. The best course of action for the article would be to find reliable third-party sources that have made the statements found in that paragraph of the article - and preferably to source the opposite POV as well. I'll tag a request for citation and see if anybody can find any. Failing that, I'd support removal of the paragraph. --RexxS (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word 'the' in the introductory paragraph implies it has some form of official standing. In the UK, BSAC is recognised by the Sports Council as the governing body of sub-aqua diving but agencies such as PADI, who appear (in my opinion) to be becoming the most popular choice of new divers, are not bound by their rules in any way. I have edited accordingly. Ganglandboss (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes dated 28 August 2012[edit]

  • Redraft opening and move content re ‘recreational scuba training’ to a new section entitled ‘Technical Committee’. Also move the following tag to the ‘Technical Committee’ section’ -
  • Rename section ‘History’ as ‘Origins’ as the current section only discusses the origins of CMAS.
  • Add new section entitled ‘Organisation’ and add a discussion about the structure and operation of CMAS
  • Relocate existing section entitled ‘Qualifications and certifications’ to ‘Technical Committee’ section.
  • rename section entitled ‘Sports’ as ‘Sport Committee’, delete Underwater target shooting as this is not currently offered as a sport by CMAS and rename Underwater photography as visual. Arrange all of the sports in the same order as shown on the CMAS website. Also add link to Underwater sports page.
  • ‘See also’ section - delete links to Scuba diving, Snorkelling and Underwater hockey as links to these pages already exist in the body of the page. Delete link to History of swimming page as there appears to be no content of relevance on that to CMAS.
  • Arrange the sections for Sport Committee, Technical Committee and Scientific Committee in order of seniority. Cowdy001 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Technical committee section[edit]

The section of technical committee used to imply that CMAS is the governing body of all recreational diving activity in the world and it is superior to any other training agency(which is clearly written by a CMAS diver or instructor) and it did not have any references for the claims that made, the pov tag was completely fair. i am a technical cave diver and i have dozens of certifications including CMAS certificates. I edited that section in the way which i think completely fair and i referenced it to CMAS and non CMAS systems course syllables, and i think any body who knows a few things about science and skills in diving and being exposed to different training systems in diffrent parts of the world agrees with me but it is always edited back, clearly by some users biased toward CMAS. here is what i think that section must be it shows both pros and cons of CMAS diver training system:

Members of the CMAS Technical Committee are representatives of affiliated national diving federations that guarantee the CMAS standards are upheld within the constraints of local diving conditions. These organizations award CMAS qualification cards which have the appropriate CMAS grade on one side and details of the relevant national organization and the person they have qualified on the other.

Since CMAS effectively started as a volunteer organization for hobbyists, its courses tend to reflect the full range of European and world diving standards. Compared to other diving organizations which may be more geared towards holiday and tropical water diving. While organizations like PADI or SSI tend to bring divers into the water immediately, CMAS entry-level training is more extensive, featuring more "classroom" delivered theory.[11]

On the other hand systems like PADI and SSI recreational(nontechnical) diver program is specially designed to avoid any kind of accident and safety complications but there are a few practices by CMAS guidelines that are considered highly unsafe by the diving community including: 1.teaching and doing decompression dives in nontechnical diving gear without having proper knowledge of decompression models and limits of of navy tables that are used by CMAS, not teaching diving skills necessary for decompression diving and teaching decompression diving to their beginners program(one star). [11] 2.no emphasize at all on skills such as bouncy control which is vital to safe diving.[11] 3.allowing air dives to 55m in recreational diving gear(nontechnical) and while CNS toxicity is a major risk in such dives there is no word of CNS toxicity calculation and consideration in their diver training program.[11]

Where is the source for this "diving community" that considers the teaching of decompression diving highly unsafe? CMAS in the UK is taught by SAA which uses Buhlmann tables, so where is this rubbish about Navy tables coming from?. The instruction has always included buoyancy training and it's an integral part of the syllabus, not an add-on course that's not even included in the entry level - so where's that piece of nonsense coming from? There's also this clueless rubbish about "CNS toxicity is a major risk" at 55 metres. That's less than 1.4 bar ppO2 and there has never been a confirmed ox-tox CNS hit below 1.4 bar in the whole of recreational diving history. The major problem at 55 metres is narcosis as anybody who understands deep diving can explain to you. This is just ill-informed propaganda for the non-CMAS agencies. If you think a system that allows two divers with 4 dives each and no rescue training to dive together "specially designed to avoid any kind of accident and safety complications", then you need to get your blinkers off. This rubbish needs to be reverted to the last good version before this garbage was introduced. --RexxS (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me tell you i am not a fan of PADI,SSI or any similar agency(I have technical and recreational certificates from both of them)this agencies designed to make money not to teach diving but they stayed on the safer side of recreational diving(probably because of fear of class action lawsuits). that CMAS which you are talking about is the modified SAA version of CMAS training not what CMAS originally is(actuality this is one of biggest problems with CMAS that there is no standard CMAS text book and each licenses holder can write a book and put CMAS logo on it a). still the general trend of CMAS books is using navy tables (either French navy or US navy), and if you ever talk to a CMAS diver or instructor in France,Switzerland or Austria they will probably confirm this fact(the areas which CMAS is less modified) i have even seen CMAS books in some countries which was the direct copy of PADI books, so the conclusion is before making a judgement especially about CMAS you must be exposed to different versions of it(and as being said the existing of different versions of a training system which in some cases there is day and night differences between them is the biggest problem). about the CNS issue: the NOAA table(if you don't agree with it like some others this is a different argument)limit for 1.4(PO2 @ 55m is 1.365 and we round it up to 1.4 ok? or you want the interpolation of 1.4 and 1.3) is 150 min for a dive and 180 min for a day(even the us navy exceptional exposure limit for 1.4 is 180 min) even if you put the CNS half time(which if you don't teach CNS the diver doesn't have any idea about its half time) it is very easy to reach 180 min of exposure a day so it is a valid risk, and ox tox does not exist below 1.4, please go to Florida and see all the dozens of cases of ox tox fatalities between cave divers there using nitrox @ po2 1.4 for the working portion of the dive which the new trend is setting your po2 for the working portion to 1.2 instead(same as a rebrather). Even if using Buhlmann or any other deco algorithm i don't know if you consider doing deco dives to PN2 of 5.1 (55m) with out any gear redundancy, with no gas redundancy and with out any backup deco plan, safe then i don't know how you define unsafe diving(55m narcosis is such a clear risk especially with recreational gear setup i didn't mention it before in the previous post but to some people po2 level 1.4 for a day of diving still consider extremely safe that is why i emphasized on it) . and about the training and emphasize on trim and bouncy, as said before you should be exposed to different versions of CMAS around the world not just SAA style CMAS to make this judgments(even places that you can buy CMAS instructor certificates without diving and CMAS has no supervision mechanism and the licenses holders can do any thing they want)(why associations like SAA don't give the divers their own SAA certificates while their training is miles away from real CMAS trend) and because of the no rescue training that you mentioned among other problems with PADI style diving i don't want any body who i care about take a course with such systems but it does not mean that CMAS has no problem in its training system.(the fact that PADI style systems put the limit of 40m and no deco on recreational diving i think that made their system less prone to accidents not the quality and extent of their training). And please don't make this kind of debates personal,i am technical diver with dives in the 120m range both in cave and open water so i know what i am talking about, and you are a 20 year experienced recreational instructor so you also know what you are talking about lets keep it scientific and professional and not to make any personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.154.29 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I've dived in Spain, France, Malta, Greece and other countries with plenty of CMAS instructors and divers, and don't recognise the picture you paint. My anecdotal experience is at least worth yours - which in Wikipedia terms is nothing. Where are the sources that back up the assertions you make in the article? Your argument above is riddled with inaccuracies that anybody who has looked at the CMAS training programme can spot see CMAS Diver *, **, ***, **** TRAINING PROGRAM VERSION 2007/01 for example.
  • Who says "there are a few practices by CMAS guidelines that are considered highly unsafe by the diving community"? You? What makes you the spokesperson for the diving community?
  • If "systems like PADI and SSI recreational(nontechnical) diver program is specially designed to avoid any kind of accident and safety complications", then how come "in 2006 PADI was severely criticized by a Coroner's court in the United Kingdom for providing what experts regarded as short and insufficient training." McGrath, Ginny (August 9, 2006). "PADI scuba-dive course slammed". London: The Times. Retrieved 2009-04-16. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "Inquest warning on diving courses". BBC News. August 8, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-16. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)? Do you want me to put that sourced statement into this article to balance the unsourced POV you inserted?
  • CMAS establishes minimum standards for diver training for its affilliates and of course SAA, FFESSM, FEDAS, etc. issue their own certifications, but all are eligible for a CMAS card that proves a common standard that is recognised when diving in other countries.
  • Unlike PADI et al, A CMAS 1* diver is only allowed to dive with a diver of a higher grade who has a leadership qualification, so there is a much more effective system of keeping divers within their level of experience and training. See the definition of CMAS 1* diver: "A diver who is competent in the safe and correct use of all appropriate open water scuba diving equipment in a sheltered water training area is ready to gain open water diving experience in the company of an experienced diver" - again from CMAS Diver *, **, ***, **** TRAINING PROGRAM VERSION 2007/01. Have you even read the CMAS training programme?
  • I've dived many times in Florida over the past 20 years or so, thanks, and I'm aware of none of these "the dozens of cases of ox tox fatalities between cave divers there using nitrox @ po2 1.4" - where are the sourced reports? I'm aware of one accident where a solo caver died in a system where he could have been exposed to 1.5 bar, but many thousands of dives are done at ppO2 of 1.4 bar (divers using nitrox are much more likely to be exposed to 1.4 bar ppO2 than those diving deep on air). Do the maths, EAN36 at 28 metres is the same ppO2 as air at 55 metres, and the exposure time is many times greater on any realistic dive on open-circuit.
  • The NOAA tables are irrelevant to deep diving on air because open circuit divers won't be carrying enough gas to approach those limits. Have you ever dived past 55 metres on air? The deco clocks up so fast that it's simply impractical to consider getting anywhere near 150 min of exposure. Give us all a break and think about what you're writing and criticising. If you really want to understand the risks of oxygen toxicity, go and look at Christian Lambertsen's work. Or just read the Wikipedia article Oxygen toxicity, there are a few useful references there and whoever wrote it obviously knew a lot more about ox-tox than you seem to.
  • If you ask me what I consider good practice, then I'll just refer you to GUE training. But we're not talking about personal preferences, we're talking about the CMAS training programme and your completely unsourced and ignorant criticisms of it.
  • CMAS 1* diver: buoyancy is explained in 1T4, 1T7, 1T11 and is practised as a specific learning point in 1P1, 1P2, 1P3, 1P5. It is also generally assessed in 1P6, 1P7 and 1P8. That is documented in the CMAS training programme, so how do you get the idea of "no emphasize at all on skills such as bouncy control"?
  • There is no mention whatsoever of decompression diving in CMAS 1* programme. In fact, decompression is taught perfectly adequately in the 2* programme in 2T6, which draws on 2T4 and 2T5. So how do you justify inserting such obvious lies as "teaching decompression diving to their beginners program(one star)"?
If you had any respect for the truth and for verifiability, you'd revert all that crap that you wrote, but I don't suppose facts and evidence are going to have any effect on your behaviour which is to edit-war you own POV and blatant lies into this article. If you take that as personal, then you accurately discern my view of your contributions. I'm perfectly happy to discuss, or even report, properly sourced criticisms of the CMAS system as it relates to deep diving on air, or lack of properly redundant gear, or the time constraints indicated in the practical part of the programme. But I'll have no truck with the uninformed rubbish you've added. If you can't get hold of a copy of the CMAS training programme, the 2007 version is available at http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/Bish/Diver%20CMAS%20Standards.pdf - so have a good read, then sort out the mess you've created in this article. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Po2 1.4 ox tox I don't have access to accident document right now but you can read it on forums like:(http://divingforme.com/topic/po2-standards-are-we-safe , and many other forums and i said a day of diving not a single dive and GUE recommends 1.2 for OC too, any way my main point of argument is not po2 level but if you teach deco diving you should talk about CNS and such things. for the fact teaching deco to 1 star check their web site(http://www.cmas.org/learn-to-dive) and the standards and syllabus says that 1* star diver should not do any deco dives but the instructor must teach deco dive planning which is very strange teaching deco planning to a diver with 20m depth limit. for the buoyancy skill yes you are right there is absolute emphasize on it in CMAS out line but my experience with CMAS instructors is against that and i know it is impossible to prove my claim but a least i can make a legit claim that this emphasize is not enough for their 3* course which the goals are almost equal to technical deep air of other agencies(with out the technical gear)(TDI extended range is 55m on air and CMAS 3* is 56m on air).(i still think PADI style system made a good choice of limiting recreational diving to 40m no deco) I defiantly agree with you about GUE's recreational training system(long hose,backplate wing,prefect trim/buoyancy,......) it is the best,as far a technical goes for OC they are very good but i don't agree with their rebreather program, but here we are trying to edit CMAS article in a fair way not the GUE one. my edit was definitely not prefect but i think that the previous version was completely wrong suggesting that CMAS is a GOD agency and every thing about any other agency is wrong what about TDI,IANTD,GUE,ANDI,... they all have recreational programs are all of them inferior to CMAS? lets reach a common ground and edit the CMAS article in a balance and fair way, i will write some cons and pros of CMAS and please tell me if you agree with me or not then one of us put them into the article( i think its better to write only decryption of CMAS courses(MOD,deco/no deco..)under the technical committee section and for the arguments against CMAS and for it add another section. pros:1.Has more extensive class room style theoretical training/2.The courses are more inclusive and does not put some important skills like rescue and navigation into specialty courses cons:1.CMAS defines the course guidelines but it does not publish a book or such a thing for any of its courses each of the CMAS license holders can write a CMAS book by themselves and non of this books are confirmed with CMAS it self, this caused some non-uniformity between different regains of CMAS training 2.CMAS has no way of supervision on its license holders and the quality of certifications(quality control of the services left on the service provider itself)3.advocating decompression diving to 56m on air with out having the proper gear setup, in the recreational diving gear(no gear redundancy,no gas redundancy, no deco plan redundancy) which is considered an unsafe practice.

what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.154.29 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 81.169.154.29 (talk), I have a suggestion that you may be interested in. I have been progressively editing the CMAS article over several months in order to improve its content. As the article should about CMAS rather than about its diving certification system or any other activities that it is involved in, I have been thinking about creating a new article on its diving certification system (i.e. CMAS International Diver Training Certification System). The only present barrier to this from my perspective is the lack of reliable reference sources concerning the history of the CMAS certification system. While I understand that it dates back to the early 1960s, there is very little online and suitable paper records (i.e. magazines/journals/peer-reviewed papers) are very rare. ANyway, a new article would provide an opportunity to start afresh particularly as the CMAS certification system is currently being upgraded (refer http://www.cmas.org/document?sessionId=&fileId=1899&language=1).Cowdy001 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of scuba division of CMAS(at least for the past 20 years) is that CMAS is not a training agency but an organization that set standards for recreational diver training and organizations that accept to follow this guide lines are given the right to issue certifications with CMAS name on it without any further question or supervision from CMAS.If i am wrong somebody correct me but if i am right this fact should be projected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.154.29 (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that CMAS is in many ways more analogous to ANSI (and hence WRSTC) as a standards-setting organisation than as a direct provider of training. However Cowdy recently pointed out to me that he had experience of variations in the mode of delivery of CMAS training, particularly "CMAS Dive Centers (CDC) who use dedicated CMAS training materials and who directly issue CMAS diving certificates". Where a country/region has an organisation that is recognised as a national affiliate to CMAS, then that organisation produces its own training programme, but it has be checked quite thoroughly to ensure it meets the minimum standards for the CMAS equivalent grade. As it happens, most European CMAS affiliates have very similar entry-level qualifications which meet the CMAS 1* level (and to be honest, the ANSI standard means that PADI, NAUI, etc. also have very similar entry levels). It is actually in the CMAS 2* equivalences that many affiliates differ, often providing two distinct qualification levels ("club diver" and "dive leader" for example). I'd be quite content with the criticisms you suggest if we can find reliable sources that say that. Please check WP:V and WP:RS - it means that we can't just write what we know to be true; we have to report what someone else (a reliable source) has already written - you'll note that blogs and forums are almost never accepted as reliable sources for Wikipedia. I have found it difficult for all the time I've edited to find good independent sources for so much that I'd like to write about scuba. I think a comparative analysis of the entry-level programmes between CMAS and ANSI compliant organisations should have been done somewhere - we just need to find it because our rules on WP:no original research means we can't do the analysis ourselves. The reason that articles like this often seem biased to one point-of-view is not because the editor is pushing that POV; it's because sometimes only one POV can be found in the reliable sources on the topic. In some ways it's easier to criticise the ANSI-standard programmes, because GUE's The Fundamentals of Better Diving contains quotable critiques of those. It's a pity JJ didn't also turn his attention specifically on the CMAS programmes as well, but there might be some generic issues that we could use. I'll go and re-read it to see what I can find. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://www.cmas.org/technique/general-documents and open standards and procedures documents. there is no distinction between a federation and a CMAS dive center in that document, both of them must apply to obtain CMAS recognition,must show their training program and after getting accepted non of them can make their own CMAS certificate(they get a blank one side white c-card from CMAS and print the white side by themselves) and must give the information of a card holder to CMAS. In that document it seems that the job of making the training material is left to the CMAS recognized agency(either a federation or dive center) so to my understanding(according to the CMAS standards)the difference between a CDC and a federation in CMAS system is just the name(the CDCs are members are technical committee without voting right,the federations are members with voting right and can be a member of scientific and sport committee too)(some federations are only members of sport and/or scientific committee this means that they are not training scuba divers)(I don't think there is any uniform CMAS published book out there if it was CMAS would ask every federations or CDC to use that). I absolutely understand your argument for providing valid references in criticizing CMAS, but for example you can compare the practice of deep air/deco in rec dive gear to the normal practice of same depth of diving in other agencies that require tech gear and redundancy and stating CMAS as being unorthodox and criticized by some people, is that a valid point according to wiki rules? or referring to the same CMAS article and say that there is no rule for quality assurance or supervision of federation or a CDC after they get their CMAS recognition and the only way they may loose this recognition(according to that document) is to print their own CMAS card, is that a valid point according to wiki rules? P.S: CMAS dive centers are not club style, they operate just like any PADI style dive center(at least as far as i know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.154.29 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of working with CMAS is that they will audit every training programme (see 1.4.1.5 in "Universal Standards and Procedures") before granting an equivalence. They expect affiliates to police their own standards afterwards, but that really applies to every diving organisation - bad apples are in every barrel. If CMAS or the affiliate change any part of their programme, then there is a clear expectation that the changes will be reviewed to ensure that equivalence still applies. If anything changes, CMAS have the right (1.4.4.1) to require changes to the affiliate's programme even after equivalence has been granted, so I don't think the system itself is as fallible as you fear. None of that, of course, guarantees that any given club, centre, or individual instructor will adhere to the standards laid down, but I think that's a different issue (and is worth exploring). The difference between CDC and federation is that the CDC will probably be providing the CMAS qualification alone; a federation will have its own qualifications and will provide training for those syllabuses, awarding equivalent CMAS qualifications as an additional certification when the levels are reached.
Comparisons are really difficult to sort out. We know what we mean (more or less) by rec gear and tech gear, but getting a decent definition is harder as one person's rec may be another person's tech. I mean, my primary is always a 2 metre hose, but is that rec or tech? (common sense, I call it). The other problem is that very few agencies are prepared to make recommendations about gear configuration, apart from GUE/UTD (and BSAC who stupidly forbid their instructors from using a long primary hose!), so it's hard to compare what recommendations actually belong to CMAS and what are the national federation's guidelines. For example SAA limits trainees and Elementary Divers to 10 metres and Open Water Divers to 20 metres - but they can't dive without a Dive Leader or higher as buddy (http://www.saa.org.uk/Qualifications/DiveQualifications/tabid/120/Default.aspx). Part of that is CMAS requirement and part is organisation requirement, so how do we separate them out to do comparisons? If we can find a respectable magazine article that does some of these comparisons for us, we're on much firmer ground when adding that to Wikipedia, but I don't think we can rely solely on our own analysis to source what we write. I'll spend some more time looking through the GUE material, as that is probably the most critical of deep air. --RexxS (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update of Technical Committee section[edit]

The Technical Committee section has been updated to reflect the current version of the CMAS International Diver Training Standards and Procedures Manual. A paragraph concerning recent discussion about which training approach is better(& the POV template dating back to 2009) has been retained for the time being. The detailed descriptions for the Star prefixed snorkel, diver and instructor grades will be re-added in the immediate future after some reliable sources (& the people who know where these can be found) are consulted.Cowdy001 (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the source for the detailed descriptions of the star diving & instructor grades:
  • Diver and Instructor Standards & Requirements. Version 2002/00. Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. 7 February 2008.
There's a copy at http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/Bish/Diver%20Instructor%20St%20et%20Rs%20V%202002_00_A.pdf - it dates from 7 February 2008 and the author is "dernp" according to the document properties. Please restore the descriptions as they are very informative of the standards represented by those grades. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions have been restored; these time as quotations rather than unattributed text. As the descriptions are circa 2002, I did look for more current versions on www.cmas.org. However, while the current standards for 1 & 2 star diver have suitable descriptions (including performance limits et al), the 3 star diver description includes mention of a maximum depth of 56 metres (which was a key point of argument in the recent discussion about this article - refer above) Also, there is no standard currently available for 4 star diver and the standards for 1, 2 and 3 star instructors all lack a single paragraph description.Cowdy001 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade of the Scientific Committee section[edit]

Add the following sub-sections 'Role', 'Scientific diving codes' and 'Qualifications'. Revise the 'role' of committee to improve clarity. Para-phase the preparation of the UNESCO code which UNESCO funded but which the SC prepared in its entirety. Expand the content re CMAS Scientific Diver to explain the various levels of training et al.Cowdy001 (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. 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:

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) 03:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confédération_Mondiale_des_Activités_Subaquatiques&oldid=1195006104"