 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from Free ascent was copied or moved into Controlled emergency swimming ascent with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Controlled emergency swimming ascent was copied or moved into Emergency ascent with this edit on 6 October 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge and redirect (with disambiguation) as proposed (no opposition) Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This article describes the same technique as Free ascent. I suggest that they be merged under one title, and the other made into a redirect. Any thoughts? -- RexxS ( talk) 02:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. As far as I know they are the same procedure under different names. I think Free Ascent is the earlier version, but controlled emergency swimming ascent is probably a better description. Suggest use CESA as the article and redirect Free ascent. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
All of the reference citations, although from different articles, come from the same medical journal, The South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. I don't know if this is considered acceptable by Wikipedia's citation standards, but there exists the possibility that it could violate NPOV. I say this because all of the articles are from the same year and journal. Ideally, it would have no agenda, but as history has evidenced, sources can emphasize what they deem appropriate at the time, and collect articles accordingly. Let me be clear, this is not to discount the information, nor to accuse The South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal of bias; I just think it would be more appropriate to cite another source reflecting this information. Lmt 7816 ( talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be accurate, the only reference in the article is to Samson & Miller from the 15th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop. The SPUMS articles are in the section for visitors who might want to read further about the topic. Having said that, I agree that the article suffers from a massive lack of references and really needs inline sources for many of the statements made. The question of NPOV actually doesn't arise here, because the article content is so far away from being
verifiable that nobody could possibly judge how well balanced its use of sources is. Please feel free to add any citations that support the text, or if you prefer, just name on this page some sources that you find supportive of the text, and someone will add them as citations to the article. Cheers, --
RexxS (
talk) 20:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- To go a little further, please also feel free to add references to any verifiable text which provides an alternative viewpoint. The current article is primarily an explanation of what the term means, largely by comparison with similar procedures, as a way of discriminating between them, and as such was not expected to be very controversial. The Samson and Miller reference is the proceedings of a fairly representative workshop attended by a large number of people from the industry, and the descriptions are fairly close to the agreed terminology of the workshop. It is possible that more recent usage differs, but this is not obvious, and there is no easily accessible documentary evidence of consensus for alternative terminology. If there is any doubt about the accuracy of a particular statement, please add a {{citation needed}} template in the text at the dubious item, and we will try to provide a more specific reference to support it. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is never likely to be more than a small stub. I suggest a merge into Emergency ascent with redirect, as the material already in emergency ascent on this subtopic is very similar. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| Text and/or other creative content from Free ascent was copied or moved into Controlled emergency swimming ascent with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Controlled emergency swimming ascent was copied or moved into Emergency ascent with this edit on 6 October 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge and redirect (with disambiguation) as proposed (no opposition) Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This article describes the same technique as Free ascent. I suggest that they be merged under one title, and the other made into a redirect. Any thoughts? -- RexxS ( talk) 02:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. As far as I know they are the same procedure under different names. I think Free Ascent is the earlier version, but controlled emergency swimming ascent is probably a better description. Suggest use CESA as the article and redirect Free ascent. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
All of the reference citations, although from different articles, come from the same medical journal, The South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. I don't know if this is considered acceptable by Wikipedia's citation standards, but there exists the possibility that it could violate NPOV. I say this because all of the articles are from the same year and journal. Ideally, it would have no agenda, but as history has evidenced, sources can emphasize what they deem appropriate at the time, and collect articles accordingly. Let me be clear, this is not to discount the information, nor to accuse The South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal of bias; I just think it would be more appropriate to cite another source reflecting this information. Lmt 7816 ( talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be accurate, the only reference in the article is to Samson & Miller from the 15th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop. The SPUMS articles are in the section for visitors who might want to read further about the topic. Having said that, I agree that the article suffers from a massive lack of references and really needs inline sources for many of the statements made. The question of NPOV actually doesn't arise here, because the article content is so far away from being
verifiable that nobody could possibly judge how well balanced its use of sources is. Please feel free to add any citations that support the text, or if you prefer, just name on this page some sources that you find supportive of the text, and someone will add them as citations to the article. Cheers, --
RexxS (
talk) 20:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- To go a little further, please also feel free to add references to any verifiable text which provides an alternative viewpoint. The current article is primarily an explanation of what the term means, largely by comparison with similar procedures, as a way of discriminating between them, and as such was not expected to be very controversial. The Samson and Miller reference is the proceedings of a fairly representative workshop attended by a large number of people from the industry, and the descriptions are fairly close to the agreed terminology of the workshop. It is possible that more recent usage differs, but this is not obvious, and there is no easily accessible documentary evidence of consensus for alternative terminology. If there is any doubt about the accuracy of a particular statement, please add a {{citation needed}} template in the text at the dubious item, and we will try to provide a more specific reference to support it. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is never likely to be more than a small stub. I suggest a merge into Emergency ascent with redirect, as the material already in emergency ascent on this subtopic is very similar. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)