This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
It is a dissolved organization. Can we remove it? -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
-- RexxS ( talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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)
References
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)
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)
"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.
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.
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)
and further on it gives examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability: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.
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.* 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
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)
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)
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
It is a dissolved organization. Can we remove it? -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
-- RexxS ( talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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)
References
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)
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)
"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.
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.
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)
and further on it gives examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability: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.
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.* 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
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)
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)
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)