Talk:List of diver certification organizations

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

External Links[edit]

External Links should be kept to a minimum per WP:LINKS. Please avoid links that are not necessary. - Gr0ff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.216.216 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technica diving[edit]

In your opinion what kind of organizations can be inserted in "Technical diving Nitrox training organizations" section? I mean: are some trimix and decompression diving courses enought? (eg. FIAS) -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA SCUBA[edit]

It is a dissolved organization. Can we remove it? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think not, it is of some historical interest and there are still a lot of YMCA certified divers out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of list[edit]

  • The title of this list does not specify whether the organisation must independantly certify divers. This should be clarified, otherwise it is reasonable to claim that every dive school in the world gets a mention. This has already started. So, is this a list of training organisations or certifying organizations?
  • There is also a conflict between the title and the lead paragraph. The title does not limit the scope to scuba training, but the lead does. Either the lead or the title mus be changed.
  • My guess is that the original intention was a list of diver certifying organisations, but I am not sure if it was intended to limit these to scuba certification. My suggestion is that the scope should be left open for professional certification as well as recreational, but this is no big issue, as if it is limited to recreational, it is easy enough to create another list for professionals. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These sort of list articles always deteriorate because spammers will see them as an opportunity to advertise their own dive centre. No matter what selection criteria you use, the spammers will claim to meet it, because there's not a universally-recognised definition of what a "diver training organization" is. I'm going to put this up for deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory, and that is all that this list has become. You might as well have List of retailers that sell diving equipment. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. List of diver certification agencies would be more useful. Alternatively merge the valid certification agencies into an article on diver certification. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deletion - it's almost become classified advertising. Mark.murphy (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in 2 minds about this - my comments follow. Should we have a test for what ‘diver training organisation’ is? For example, if an organisation claims to be a ‘diver training organisation’, there should be evidence of existence, say, of the following: firstly, published standards (i.e. in-house or borrowed from someone else such as CMAS, ISO 24801 & 24802 series etc); secondly, a certification system; thirdly, an instructor training system; fourthly, a system of instructor examination and finally, a quality system. I looked at the article called Recreational diver training and could find any such criteria to describe a ‘diver training organization’. Alternatively, is there a definition in either ISO 24801 & 24802? It could be a good idea to break up the ‘list’ into separate articles. This may dilute the problem. For example, it could be broken up by diving techniques such as snorkelling, freediving (or breathhold diving), open circuit scuba closed & semi-closed circuit scuba, surface-supplied system (i.e. hookah and snuba) and even diving bells. There could be further sub-division within the new lists for the so-called recreational and technical limits. Also, training for commercial and professional diving could be moved to new lists. Also, the entries that do not have an article should be deleted. I have also noticed the same problem exists with ‘Category:diver training organisation’ - on a number of occasions, I have removed this category from an article.Cowdy001 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be sufficient to restrict the list to agencies/organisations which issue certification with their name as the certification agency. ie. PADI issues the card, so they get on the list, Joes dive shop does not, they issue certification through PADI.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the lead to specify which organisations qualify. Please take a look, and comment. I am sure it can be improved. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when you actually come to decide whether a given organisation fits the criteria. It's easy to tell the difference between PADI and Joe's Dive Shack, but there's a lot of grey area in between. Not only that but our western bias is obvious. For example Inner Space Explorers has an article (one line & completely unreferenced that I've just prodded); it issues certifications and runs courses, but does it train and examine instructors? On the other hand, Persartuan Olahraga Selam Seluruh Indonesia (POSSIISSA) has no article, but it's the CMAS affiliate for Indonesia (a country of 240 million people and 17,000 islands), and I'd be willing to bet it would fit all of the above criteria and be notable if we could only read the sources. I'm presently taking a hatchet to the lists - I'll go section by section starting with the last - but I'll pause for a while each time to see if there's any pushback from the spammers. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added Inner Space Explorers with references to their instructor list and instructor training information and some well-known equipment manufacturers and internet forums that recognize them. They are, like UTD (which by the way also is neither EUF nor CMAS member), another GUE spin-off mainly tec training agency. Hope you can re-consider your decision from over 4 years ago, as ISE has grown steadily over the years. ࿇ (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(mainly copied from user talk page, as it is probably of interest to a wider audience) @࿇: Yes, I understand the problem faced by a small agency in gaining wide recognition, and I'm sympathetic to ISE, but we have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the list would contain every dive shop that claims to be a training agency on its own say-so. I hope you can appreciate why we have decided to list only organisations that have much broader recognition, and request some evidence of that. If you look at the recreational list, you'll see that the only exceptions to the CMAS/WRSTC/EUF recognitions are the ones recognised by the Egyptian Chamber of Diving and Watersports (i.e. for Red Sea diving) or the UK Health and Safety Executive. One other exception exists, which is Unified Team Diving, a small DIR-based agency like ISE, which is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so has been accepted onto the list as sufficiently well-recognised. One option for you would be to read about WP:notability and see if you can find sufficient coverage of ISE in multiple independent sources that would allow you to write a Wikipedia article about Inner Space Explorers. Let me know if you do that, and I'll help you with any problems you encounter.
None of the other agencies have links to their programme or instructors, etc. as that is not independent evidence of their meeting the inclusion criteria, which is notability - i.e. substantial independent recognition. I mean, anyone could fabricate a programme and training scheme, so we have to rely on external, trusted sources to validate each agency. The sort of details about training programmes are more useful in an article about the agency itself, and I'd encourage any agency wanting to be included in the list to consider whether it is possible to meet our general notability guidelines and hence deserve an article. If you've got "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", I'll even offer to write the article for you.
Frankly, I don't think the recognition afforded by a manufacturer like Scubapro, or a forum like Scubaboard (both of which I have a lot of time for) is in the same class as that of a national or international body concerned with regulating diving and its training, do you? Nevertheless, I'll let it stand for now and I'll ask Cowdy001, who does a lot of curation of the certification agencies, for a third opinion. I have removed or commented out the non-independent links you gave from the rec section: I see that it's more usual to have them in the tech/cave sections, so I left them there. I hope that's a reasonable compromise for you. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is worth reading the discussion below at Talk:List of diver certification organizations #Citations for a more detailed account of what the scope of this list should be. Peter's six criteria seem to me to be the minimum standard we should accept for inclusion. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-AfD cleanup[edit]

Following the AfD's recommendations to clean up the list by limiting it to notable organisations and by removing external links in the body of the text, I've started to pare down the list. I'll place here a list of what was removed from the section Other diving related organizations, so that if any of the organisations below acquires sufficient notability to have an article and meet the selection criteria, it can be re-instated. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other diving related organizations[edit]

--RexxS (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of article?[edit]

The current name is List of diver training organisations.

The lead paragraph states This page lists notable SCUBA diver certification agencies. These include certification in cave diving, commercial diving, recreational diving, technical diving and freediving. Diver certification agencies are organisations which issue certification of competence in diving skills under their own name, and which train, assess, certify and register the instructors licensed to present courses following the standards for the certification they issue.

Most commercial diver training includes surface supplied diving, the restriction to scuba conflicts with inclusion of commercial diver training to some extent, it also excludes free diving. I suggest removing the constraint to scuba diving in the lead.

The lead also specifies certification agencies, as opposed to training organisations, and the content appears to be consistent with this restriction. The title should be changed to List of diver certification agencies (or organisations} to give a more accurate description of the content, and to discourage addition of training organisations which do not themselves issue certification. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I have three comments. Firstly, I agree that the focus should be on the broad topic of underwater diving rather on just scuba. Secondly, I support the inclusion of the word certification in the article's name as this is already used in a number of articles (& categories) used within the Underwater diving portal. Thirdly, the layout of the article is not most convenient. I would suggest reorganising the sections as follows; move 'Recreation' to the top of the page and move both 'Commercial' & 'Scientific' down the page to just above 'International Standards'. Cowdy001 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial diving schools.[edit]

These schools were listed, but so far I have found no evidence that they issue certification of their own. They can be replaced as and when this evidence can be cited. The list restricts entries for other classes of diver to certification organisations, so this should be applied to commercial diving equally. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks a list of commercial diving schools is justified as a full article, this could be used for a start. Personally I think that is a bit too much of a spam magnet and commercial directory. It would also no doubt be followed by a directory list of recreational diving schools. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I think it is necessary to provide citations, specially for the organisations that do not have a Wikipedia article (they would already be referenced). This may not be easy, and I would prefer not to eliminate organisations just because they are small or new. I suggest that any one of the following criteria should be considered reasonable reference unless there is evidence that it is not genuine.

  1. Listing by EUF Certification International (http://www.euf-certification.org/index.php?id=6583&no_cache=1)
  2. Listing as a CMAS affiliated federation
  3. Membership in a coordinating standards organisation such as WRSTC
  4. Registration by a national government (as in France)
  5. Listing by a national or international sporting body as a recognized certification agency
  6. Other evidence of notability as accepted on Wikipedia, and evidence that certification has been issued in the name of the organisation, that is has published training standards, and that it has registered instructors.

External links to the organisation's website should be part of the citation and only used when they link to pages providing evidence of eligibility for listing here:- Links to training standards, statements of membership in international organisations, statements of national authorisation etc.

A statement on the website that certification is internationally recognized is virtually meaningless on its own.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with providing citations for organisations without an WP article. I noticed that the CMAS or EUF numbers are being added to the article; I think these should also only be added to organisations without an WP article, otherwise the article will became too cluttered.Cowdy001 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean listing, not article. Fair enough. Feel free to remove the redundant if I miss any. Those numbers should probably be moved to the articles if not already there. I have made the assumption that membership in the CMAS Technical Committee implies that a federation issues certification, otherwise not. Do you know if this is correct? I am working my way through the CMAS federations, which is easy but tedious. The non affiliated organisations will be more difficult, but also tedious. So it goes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Membership of the CMAS Technical Committee, as far I am aware, includes the option of issuing CMAS certification on the proviso that the National Federation's standards are aligned with those of CMAS. I can, at a later time, update articles for EUF members who have received EUF accreditation. I think the 'non affiliated organisations' should be considered on the basis of merit (i.e. are there any reliable sources?). Cowdy001 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, lets see what we can dig up. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, I have done the EUF edits but I am having problems with an editor named User:ConcernedVancouverite who considers my edits to be original research. Can you please have a look and get involved if necessary? Cowdy001 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken a hatchet to the main list and removed all the entries that have no citation, except Unified Team Diving which seems to be notable enough to have an article, despite a lack of independent references in the article. I don't believe there's any justification for external links other than as a starting point for anybody wanting to write an article on the organisation, so I've made sure they are inside html comments. I expect some pushback, so any extra eyes are welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apnea Total[edit]

Hi everyone, Recent edits to the entry for an organisation called "Apnea Total" have been undone twice after an anyonomous edit had added the words "Freediving Organisation and Education System" on two occasions. The "Apnea Total" website was visited twice to confirm that "Freediving Organisation and Education System" is not the organisation's proper name but rather an internal description of what the owners of the organisation consider it to be. As the article is a list of organisations sorted by their diving certification specialities, the inclusion of this description is both not appropriate or necessary. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Technical & Recreational Diving[edit]

I've now removed the entry for "Professional Technical & Recreational Diving (PROTEC)", based in the Seychelles, three times. The CMAS list of federations at http://www.cmas.org/federation-list makes no mention of them, but they are claiming to be "affiliated to scuba divers federation seychelles", whose website lists them as one of 9 members. That is far short of the recognition required by other certification organisations that are on this list. Per the consensus above, we should be listing only those organisations that have recognition from well-know standards bodies, such as CMAS, EUF, WRSTC, etc. --RexxS (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISTC and World Divers[edit]

I have just undone edits re the two organisations listed above in the Subject Line. I will write to the responsible editor to remind them again of the requirements for adding content to the article. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've also commented at the editor's page, as this is the second time they have tried to push their organisation. They don't seem to have taken any notice of the message I left last time. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding IFDI to the list[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors,

Could you update the list of this article?

IFDI is not mentioned in your list of diving organizations. IFDI is already 5 years old with instructors in 47 countries by now. More info about IFDI at: [1] I am at your disposal if you have any questions. You may find my email address in the contact page of IFDI.

Being the founder of IFDI, updating this list by myself could put me into a conflict of interest. I would feel ethically disturbed to do so, per respect for the neutrality of the information... But, on the other hand, is it really fair that IFDI is not listed as all the others?

Thank you very much for your attention.

Best regards. H Olivier Dauxais. Founder of IFDI. 77.204.146.172 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ifdi.info/
Thanks for respecting our conventions on conflict of interest. However, because of the huge number of diving organisations, we reserve the lists for organisations that are notable, that is, they have a Wikipedia article that satisfies our notability guidelines or are recognised by one the established transnational organisations such as CMAS, WRSTC or EUF, as described at Talk:List of diver certification organizations #Citations.
I can't find "International Fun Diving Instructors" or IFDI on the lists of recognised organisations/members, but if I've missed it, please do include a link to the recognition in any reply you make. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RexxS,

Thank you very much for you reply and for all this great job that you do as a volunteer. I have to admit that I am rather surprised by your answer.

The sens of notability automatically induce a judgement of values that contredict the fundamental neutral position of Wikipedia. IFDI does exist. Why its existence should be ignored?

Indeed, IFDI is not recognized by CMAS because IFDI is simply not affiliated to CMAS... And it will never be because it is simply not appropiate. The word "recognized" is not appropriate when talking about the EUF or WRSTC. Have you explored in depth the structure of the EUF or WRSTC? Are they officially accredited by any european or international laws to supervise the recreational diving industry? I invite you to read this information page at IFDI: https://www.ifdi.info/?I There are 2 small chapters about the EUF and WRSTC around the 2 third of the page.

IFDI regroups diving instructors from many various diving organizations. At the moment, IFDI is, by far, the most NEUTRAL diving structure that we could ever wish. It's a complete different state of mind at IFDI. I invite you to discover more in depth IFDI.

I fundamentaly love and respect wikipedia for its neutral information. And therefore, in this logic, IFDI should be mentionned among the others regardless any judgement of values. IFDI does exist.

77.204.147.169 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Olivier Dauxais. Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever created, but it is still finite. Because there is some measure of prestige in being included in Wikipedia, it is common for aspiring organisations to want to be included in the coverage, but unfortunately it is not possible to provide reliable coverage of every single business, pop group, sports team, or individual in Wikipedia. Therefore the Wikipedia community have agreed that topics should have some degree of "notability" in order to be included in Wikipedia. Simply existing is not sufficient.
There is a lot of information about what criteria a topic has to meet to be eligible for a stand-alone article at WP:Notability, but individual articles will also often establish their own criteria for inclusion in the article. That is the case here where it was agreed at Talk:List of diver certification organizations #Citations that an organisation would have to fulfil one of a list of criteria that showed recognition at a high level.
None of that undercuts the ability of Wikipedia to report neutrally on notable topics. We only reflect what the sources say about the topic, but of course we need reliable, independent sources before we can summarise them.
As a leading instructor in one of the CMAS affiliates, I am thoroughly acquainted with the principal international scuba training organisations, so perhaps I can clarify my previous comment.
CMAS is the international federation for underwater sport and activities and it provides agreed standards for instruction across at least 130 national federations from five continents. I'm not sure how recognition could be considered "inappropriate", although I do understand that CMAS only normally recognises one organisation in each country.
The WRSTC recognises local councils that consist of individual training organisations who collectively represent at least 50% of the annual diver certifications in the member council's country or region. Membership of the local RTSC means that the organisation is recognised by the WRSTC.
In the UK, Health and Safety legislation, such as The Diving at Work Regulations 1997, for example, rely on the standards established by the national diving organisations to govern the activities of unpaid divers. In the USA, the American National Standards Institute allocates the task of establishing standards for scuba diving to the US Recreational Scuba Training Council. The ISO standards that you quote at https://www.ifdi.info/?WP originate with the standards established by the CMAS Technical Committee. I hope that gives you some idea of the degree to which the principal international organisations influence or establish the laws and regulations that govern recreational diving.
I respect your intentions in setting up International Fun Diving Instructors, and I wish you well with your enterprise. If your training programme is not able to gain recognition by the major international bodies, you might look to establish its notability by finding multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage of it and be able to write an article on IFDI. There is guidance at Help:Your first article. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RexxS,

You certainly know that the letter "C" of CMAS stands for the french word "confédération"... Which means the regroupment of federation from various countries. IFDI is not a national federation, and therefore, IFDI is not appropriate to be affiliated to CMAS. The fact that CMAS has historically contributed to the setting of the ISO norms has nothing to do with our present subject.

As well as CMAS, IFDI is as international as many other organizations such as PADI, SSI, NAUI, SDI... Which refer to the ISO norms. Would you suggest to PADI, SSI, NAUI or SDI to affiliate to CMAS ??? I bet not !

You also suggested to me to eventually create, at first, an article about IFDI at Wikipedia. But, you perfectly know that this would put me into a position of a conflict of interest. Would you do it?

Is it normal that each diving organization rejects the instructors from another? Why should we keep the traditional diving organizations with heavy and expensive structures while Internet could considerably improve this point? (Eg: Heavy encyclopedia vs Wikipedia) ;-)

While still being based on the good and old ISO norms... Don't you see that IFDI offers a totally new approach to the recreational diving world? Don't you see that IFDI could free all instructors from yearly license fee? Don't you see that IFDI could generate a much healthier structure of the recreational diving? Don't you see all the benefits of IFDI? Don't you think that it's time to think again?

Do you still think that IFDI is not notable enough to be mentioned by her majesty, the "prestigious" Wikipedia? If really so, I'll simply end this talk with humour: "God save the... Wikipedia."

Best regards. H Olivier Dauxais. Founder of IFDI.

77.204.246.173 (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Dauxais, you raise a number of points and I'll try to deal with each of them.
The word confédération simply means a group in French, for example the CGT is a confédération, and there's no connotation of what the members have to be. In the case of CMAS, of course, the choice is to accept only one member from each nation, but that's not inherent in the the word confédération.
The fact that CMAS originated the ISO standards (ISO are standards; EN are norms) for diving has a lot to do with your prior question "Are they officially accredited by any european or international laws to supervise the recreational diving industry?" to which the answer is clearly "yes".
"Would you suggest to PADI, SSI, NAUI or SDI to affiliate to CMAS ??? I bet not !" You'd lose your bet. I was involved as long ago as 1990 in talks with NAUI to examine ways in which cross-affiliations could be created, and I'm pleased with the degree to which PADI and NAUI now recognise CMAS qualifications and vice-versa.
I have no independent sources to work from, so I'm not in a position to create an article. If you prefer to avoid a CoI, there is Wikipedia:Requested articles where you could ask for editors to create your article, but you would have to supply them with the sources to use. Optionally, a note at WP:SCUBA might find a quicker response.
I'm unaware of any diving organisation that rejects the instructors of the others. I've dived all over the world for the past 40 years or more and have yet to find anywhere that did not welcome my qualifications. I have a good friend who owns a diving business in the Canary Islands and he's been both a BSAC and PADI instructor for 30 years and his qualifications to instruct are accepted by FEDAS, the Spanish national federation. I don't recognise your characterisation of the traditional diving organisations as having "heavy and expensive structures". As a life-long educator and IT specialist, I was involved since the 1980s in the early efforts to teach remotely, and I'm as aware of the issues involved as anyone. You will find that while knowledge can be learned by multiple pedagogies – reading, listening, seeing – the acquisition of skills is something that happens only through performance and feedback, and you can't do that over the internet.
I don't pay any licence fee as a diving instructor. My membership fee is exactly the same as any other diver who is a member of my association, and much of that is the third-party insurance cover that all of our divers pay for, and which is now seen as essential in this increasingly litigious world.
Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever complied, available in over 300 different languages, and with its deserved reputation for accuracy and timeliness, it is consistently one of the top ten most visited sites on the internet. I think it's earned the epithet "prestigious", don't you? --RexxS (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello RexxS,

All my apologies in using the word "norms" while I should have use the word "standards" for ISO. I have never paid attention to this tight difference between these 2 words.

Anyway beside that, I thought that you would have understood what I was meaning with organizations rejecting the instructors from another. After reading your answer, it sounds obvious that you did not get my point. Let me highlight it with an example: A CMAS instructor "M2" ISO 24802-2 cannot certify PADI divers without paying a crossover fee to become a PADI "OWSI" ISO 24802-2. A PADI instructor "OWSI" ISO 24802-2 cannot certify SSI divers without paying a crossover fee to become a SSI "OWI" ISO 24802-2. And so on... Instructors have to pay again and again... In a way, you're right, they are not really rejected as long as they can PAY... !!! Obtaining every time a new diploma that is, at the end, referring to the exact same ISO number: ISO 24802-2 You may call that a cross-affiliation. To me, it appears as another opportunity for organizations to "vamperize" the wallet of the instructors. A "real" cross-affiliation would be the recognition of the instructor diploma from one organization to another by pure equivalence... Without any fees. At IFDI, we do recognized the instructors' diploma of other organizations by pure equivalence at no cost. Many PADI, SSI, NAUI and CMAS instructors have already understood this point and they have happily joined IFDI.

About my question in a previous message: "Are they officially accredited by any european or international laws to supervise the recreational diving industry?" This question was regarding the EUF or the WRSTC and not the CMAS as you appear to mix it with. I invite you to read again my previous message with attention.

I also thought that you would have understood what I was meaning when I said that the historical contribution of CMAS to the ISO standards had nothing to do with our present subject. Let me then rephrase it differently: The historical contribution of CMAS to the ISO standards does not implement that the CMAS has any property rights. The ISO standards are not exclusively reserved to the contributors. They are meant to be used by anyone willing to do so.

Furthermore, in general, I have noticed through our exchange that you answer to my questions... Without even seeing my questions as a potential diplomatic or polite hint that would allow you to step backward and observe more objectively our diving world... I'm afraid that I have miserably failed on that point... ;-)

You have appreciated that I do my best to avoid being in a position of conflict of interest. But, on your side, "As a leading instructor in one of the CMAS affiliates", aren't you concerned by a potential conflict of interest? Indeed, IFDI is a potential concurrent to CMAS... This fact could influence you to avoid IFDI to be listed at Wikipedia... !!!

I have kindly informed you about the existence and benefits of IFDI that stands on the side of the instructors for a better world. I did my part and I won't lose more time on that. The potential updating of this list at wikipedia is not any more my concern... Farewell.

H Olivier Dauxais. Founder of IFDI.

Hi Oliver.
You raise a number of points and some accusations. I'll try to deal with them all.
I did understand what you were implying about crossing over to PADI, for example, which requires a course and naturally a course fee. As your experience is limited to organisations that only have instructors who are paid to instruct, it's natural for you to assume that all diving organisations operate like that. In fact, that's not the case. In the UK, for example, a BSAC instructor can cross-over to the equivalent SAA instructor level, only requiring a simple orientation mainly to cater for differences in the BSAC and SAA tables. Nobody would charge for that as both organisations offer near identical not-for-pay instruction within a club structure. Most CMAS affiliates are similar and are happy to recognise others within the Confederation.
I also understood your business model the first time you expounded it, and I seem to think I wished you well with it. What you haven't yet grasped is that no matter how good an idea is, without some evidence that it has received attention from significant, independent, reliable sources, it can't have a place in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I neglected to mention that in my previous replies.
I already paid real attention to your loaded question (and saw that it was predicated on EUF and WRSTC), so I informed you about the position of the US RSTC with respect to ANSTI, but felt that you ought to understand how CMAS also fitted into the picture, as there clearly was little point in omitting it from the question, unless you intended it to be merely a point-scoring exercise.
I disagree that the position of CMAS and its national affiliates in informing national governments is not relevant to the issue you raised. It is important that major players who set standards for diving instruction have that voice, which unfortunately IFDI doesn't appear to have.
Thank you for your polite and diplomatic hints. What you seem to have missed is that I'm well acquainted with the diving world, and I'm no more in favour of putting costs onto divers than you are. You're preaching to the choir, as we say, but neither your nor my personal views make the slightest scrap of difference to the requirements that the Wikipedia community have created governing content.
Of course I have a WP:conflict of interest regarding the diving organisations to which I'm affiliated, and that's simply a description of the situation, not a judgement. However, I'm retired; I have no financial interest in any of those organisations, and never have. I don't teach diving for pay; it's my hobby. What you're also missing is that I have scrupulously avoided to the best of my abilities any edit that would betray a bias on my part, and I defy you to find a single contribution of mine over more than twelve years to the field of scuba diving that displays a bias. So let's not get too hooked up on that, shall we?
Now, your final misunderstanding: I'm not a "gate-keeper". I'm an experienced editor, and I'm a administrator, but I don't write the criteria that I pointed you to. I'm pleased you're becoming better aware of how Wikipedia relies entirely on quality sources, and I hope that at some point, IFDI will gain the coverage needed to justify its inclusion here. Good luck to you. --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello RexxS,

You wrote: "As your experience is limited to organisations that only have instructors who are paid to instruct,..." How can you say so without knowing me? This is a totally false affirmation. I have also been a benevol instructor at FFESSM (one of the CMAS affiliated federation).

Anyway, your experience or mine has nothing to do with the title of our subject: "Adding IFDI to the list". I respect your love for the CMAS, but putting forward the CMAS as much as you did all along this exchange is simply out of subject. Are we talking about "Adding CMAS to the list" or about "Adding IFDI to the list"? ;-)

CMAS simply has no legal or legitimate authority on IFDI. Neither has the EUF nor the WRSTC. ("US RSTC" != "WRTSC") ;-)

About independent sources, these both links below are displayed on the home page of IFDI. http://www.uw360.asia/the-brand-new-online-log-book-from-ifdi/ http://www.uw360.asia/international-fun-diving-instructors/

I thought that you would have spotted these 2 links, but it seems not. These 2 articles focus more on the digital logbook of IFDI rather than IFDI in itself.

Would these 2 articles help you to consider the "good notability" of IFDI? (This question is a real question and not a polite hint.) ;-)

H Olivier Dauxais. Founder of IFDI.

77.204.244.141 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Olivier, I have a great deal of respect for FFESSM, but you certainly weren't displaying any familiarity with the club system that my French colleagues and I mainly work within. Do you do unpaid instruction any more?
As for your links. Didn't you realise that the first article is a reprint of one of your own press releases? That would never be considered a independent source for purposes of notability (notabilty is essential reading for anybody looking to include their organisation in Wikipedia, by the way). Unfortunately, the second article is an interview with you, and falls on the exactly the same hurdle: Wikipedia wants to see substation coverage written about the topic by others. It's no comfort to you, but we have been facing this sort of situation for many years. There is very relevant guidance at WP:ORGIND that I'll quote for you here:

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.

and further on it gives examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability:

* press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials

* any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) ...

* other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people

I'm really not trying to be awkward, but IFDI has no recognition by the major diving organisations, nor sufficient coverage in independent sources that I can find.
Notability is a very real and fundamental concept in Wikipedia, so there's no need for scare-quotes around it. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello RexxS,

Ok. No big deal. The positive point, I have learned a bit more about the behind the scenes of Wikipedia. I see no objection if ever you wish to delete this entire conversation (rather useless) between you and me.

As you seem to care about the proper use of the words. I invite you again to check in depth the structure of the EUF and the WRSTC. You'll realize then that you should use the words "Member of the EUF or the WRSTC" rather than "Recognized by the EUF or the WRSTC". The EUF and the WRSTC are nothing more than a kind of club (which, by the way, charges member fee). May I repeat that they are NOT officially accredited by any laws to supervise the recreational diving world. Therefore, the word "recognized" is totally inappropriate.

Wikipedia claims to be accurate and timeline... Fact is that IFDI is not mentioned at Wikipedia... IFDI is 5 years old and it has already seduced many instructors in 47 countries by now. 47 countries... This is far from ridiculous. Isn't it? We're not talking about a local diving organization in a place such as Redonda or Antarctic. ;-) As IFDI grows, Wikipedia may appear more and more unupdated to more and more divers... ;-)

Another point, because it has cut all useless expenses, IFDI is also a perfect tool for volunteer instructors. ;-) Try IFDI, you and your divers will love it.

All the best. Bye bye. H Olivier Dauxais. Founder of IFDI.

77.204.104.131 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your polite, constructive engagement here, Olivier. Our dialogue may eventually become archived, but it's never lost from Wikipedia, and it will be useful to me, as an exemplar of the issues facing smaller diving organisations who don't yet have enough independent coverage and recognition to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I wish you and IFDI well, and hope you prosper. I'll look forward to the time when IFDI has received sufficient attention from outside sources for me (or another editor) to be able to write a viable Wikipedia article for you. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as answered. This has to be one of the longest, most polite and civil disagreement I have seen on the internet (or elsewere) in a long time.  Darth Flappy «Talk» 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rex

This is the first time that I have ever heard of IFDI. I have the following comments.

In the response to the statement (i.e. Would you suggest to PADI, SSI, NAUI or SDI to affiliate to CMAS ??? I bet not !), I have both read and heard advice that PADI and NAUI have been members of CMAS in the past.

With respect to PADI - I can remember three instances where its CMAS affiliation was discussed or written about. These are a statement made at an instructor course that I attended in Australia during 1983, an article published sometime during the late 1980s in (PADI's) The Undersea Journal (which is probably not a suitable source for citation in WP), and CV style information about a past acquaintance who was qualified as a PADI instructor in New South Wales during the late 1970s and who obtained a CMAS certificate from PADI in America.

With respect to NAUI, I think it had a one page entry in the 1983 CMAS International Yearbook because it was a member of the CMAS Technical Committee at the time - I had a copy of this book but I gave it away when moving house in the 1990s. I have looked online in various major libraries and have not found a copy of it anywhere. I also remember a discussion in the 1980s with a diver who was a NAUI BOD member at a diving event where the subject of CMAS affiliation was briefly mentioned.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Scuba Certification[edit]

The following is for the record. A person associated with an organisation called International Scuba Certification (ISC)added ISC to the list. I made contact and pointed out that a "citation to an independent reliable source" is required and the reply was that ISC has a EUF certificate. I suggested that the EUF certificate be placed on their website and this could be used as the "citation". This has been done - please refer https://www.diveisc.com/iso_euf_certificate. Please refer User talk:110.20.246.239 for more information. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_diver_certification_organizations&oldid=1203638772"