Talk:Professional Association of Diving Instructors

message: Perhaps it would be better to include some history of diving instruction rather than the unofficial meanings of PADI and muppets. :)
Also the article uses Weasel words in the phases "some people believe" and "Many claim that the...". Also watch spelling "baautiful".
If I can get hold of a copy of the Best of the Undersea Journal, I might be able to revise the article. The Undersea Journal contains a fair bit of history on PADI and diving.
--TimSC 11:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: PADI History

message: Cleaned it up a bit. Fixed some spelling and grammar, added some headers for easier reading and logos for PADI and Project AWARE. elusive 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Others are abstract either with reference to skills or locale (it is possible to take specialties in "Golf ball diver", "Zen/Yoga diver" and even a "Wreck of the Rhone diver" specialty course).
I am fairly unsure of this sentence.
Golf ball diver has some merit as it involves some low-visibility diving and I found a shop with a quick Internet search that discuss it:
http://www.mds-scuba.com/edu/golfball.htm (I personally like the note that the dive shop keeps the balls recovered in training)
http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050701.html
"Zen/Yoga diver" needs a reference. I cannot fathom (what a pun) what that is about, if real. I doubt it to be real, though.
"Wreck of the Rhone diver" was found here:
http://www.sailcaribbeandivers.com/dive/Specialize.asp
These items really are not that abstract, though. There are many specialties that revolve around a particular popular dive site if it has some particularly unusual features. For example, MBT Divers offers the "USS Oriskany Diver" Course:
http://www.mbtdivers.com/Instruction/Specialty.htm
As mentioned, some of the other Distinctive specialties revolve around the use of specific equipment or less commonly used skills or activities. Nonetheless, most specialties are locale specific.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.245.185 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zen/Yoga diver" in "Distinctive" specialties 

message: Kudos to Legis for adding this section. However, the last paragraph (true as it may be) looks like synthesis. Does anybody know of any article that might be usable to source that paragraph. Optionally, if anybody thinks the conclusion is self-evident (i.e. doesn't need a source), then please remove the tag. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I felt obliged to remove the :File:Projectaware.png logo as it's non-free and there is no fair use rationale given for this page. The FUR on the file page is specifically for Project AWARE. It's a pity since this article would benefit from more images. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Project AWARE logo 

message: Anyone able to update this site regarding PADI's new DSAT training protocols?
http://www.padi.com/padi/en/kd/tecrec/default.aspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Kidd (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   DSAT  

message: Many parts of this article are rife with biased information, especially the Criticisms section, where it reads like PADI trying to directly dispute each criticism.
Needs to be fixed.  I would, but I've run out of time.
John 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: {moved to the end per convention} I take your point, John, but remember that the most simplistic view of WP:NPOV is to present both sides of an argument, so that could be responsible for the impression it gives you. I'd like to help you improve the article, but you'll need to be a bit more specific about what sources you feel should be included, and the wording you'd like to change as a result. Don't worry about time – we have no deadline, and you can come back to the article whenever you find time. There's a project, WP:SCUBA, where you can ask for further input from interested editors. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on POV

message: A goodly number of the reference point to gray literature with authors who work for PADI, or PADI publications that are, in essence, just self published vanity press.  While this is fine for references to the "what" PADI does, it is not acceptable for the "why."  If every item in the article that rested on such shaky support were to be removed there would be very little left.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all in favour of culling content that is not verifiable from reliable sources. I guess it's obvious that most of the sources listing what PADI does are likely to be PADI itself, and as you say, that's fine for the "what". I think I would disagree about the amount left if cuts were made, because I don't see much substance in the article anyway. I'd say either go ahead and cut the stuff that's not properly sourced, or make a note here first and it can be discussed before removal. There's only a handful of editors regularly active in scuba-related topics, so I doubt you'll get much disagreement with what you propose. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is my intent to do such a cull on all of the agency sections, preserving the "whats" and deleting the "whys" that depend on self published references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 02:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A "why" based on a published agency policy standard may be quite valid, but others may not. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of the References

message: I'ce created a new chart showing class dependency which might make it clearer just which classes follow which class (what needs to be taken first).  Perhaps it could mostly replace the Program section.  You can view it here.  What do you think? Banaticus (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Banaticus, the chart looks fine to me & I would support its inclusion.  However I would not support the notion that it should replace any part of the existing 'Program' section. Cowdy001 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think it'd be redundant to have a list of everything followed by a list of everything? Banaticus (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I think the list must stay so that any wikipedian who is interested has the opportunity to edit the article.  The chart that you prepared is a bit more difficult to edit.  BTW, I noticed that the chart is not up to date when compared to the relevant page on the PADI website (i.e. PADI Courses). I would also suggest that the box on your chart that lists the speciality courses should be split into 4 separate boxes (without the list of course names) to reflect that the speciality courses have 4 levels of entry (i.e. Bublemaker/skndiver, SD/OWD, Adenture diver & AOWD).Cowdy001 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section showing class dependancy 

message: I would like to add details about the validity of PADI courses with regards to college credits, etc.  Could we include a new section for the following: TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi TotalConversionMarketing,  I do not personally object to a new section re ‘Contributions, Accreditations, Recognitions & Affiliations’ as I have done similar edits to other articles.  However, I think what you have written does have some  issues including neutrality of point of view (POV), notability etc.   ONE - the proposed text looks very promotional and suggests that PADI is more exceptional than it actually is.  For example, PADI is not the only and probably not the first supplier of diver training to the Boy Scouts of America.  TWO - the proposed text is also lengthy and repetitive in some respects.  For example, you have listed all of the state & territory bodies in Australia in respect to Vocational education and then elsewhere in the article, you mention that PADI is a Registered training organisation recognised in Australia.  Would not it be easier to just say ‘PADI is recognised as a supplier of vocational education in Australia, Japan, UK ….’ and support the statement with suitable citations.  THREE - you should add links to other WP articles in order to reduce the amount of text, simplify it and to assist the reader.  For example, as a minimum, there are WP articles about the following - AQF, BSA, EUF, FFESSM, ISO, NQF, RTO and VET.  FOUR - you will need to edit the rest of the article, particularly, the content re WRSTC.  FIVE - you have not mentioned the PADI-CMAS agreement re mutual recognition of diving qualifications.  SIX - in respect to ‘Contributions’, it may be more appropriate to combine this subject area with the content of the ‘Criticism’ section.  SEVEN - can you cite reliable sources?  Cowdy001 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As Cowdy0001 says, no problem to add it, but it should probably (a) be tightened up a little (it is more flowing and prosey (and full of marketing speak) than ideally necessary for an encyclopedia article), and (b) you need to include links to reliable sources verifying. I feel it should be a standalone section rather than shoved under "criticisms", but I don't have very strong views on that. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions, Accreditations, Recognitions & Affiliations 

message: PADI has earned its fair share of criticism, but I think it's notable that it has earned a variety of awards over the years.  These awards are important to include because it shows credibility for what the organization does.  TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi TotalConversionMarketing, thanks again for providing the opportunity to review your proposed additions to the article.  I have the following comments.  ONE, can you please review what you have written; it needs polishing up, it reads as being promotional and it is a bit difficult to follow?  TWO, the word ‘recogition’ should be struck out as it appears in the title of the section that you previously added.  THREE, the awards should be listed in chronological order with the early award(s) first.  FOUR, content should only refer the awards given to PADI, not those given to its senior officers (i.e. Messrs Lavanchy, Cronin, Erickson and Icorn, and Dr Richardson) as the article is about PADI and not about its senior officers.  FINALLY, with respect to the matter of the use of ‘in-line’ external links in lieu of citation, can you please use the standard method of citation?  It is not hard to do.Cowdy001 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no PADI family, it is an organization of unrelated people. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: PADI has been around since 1966. It is big, and it is an industry leader. There should be a history section. The article needs more substance, not just a distillation of current PADI website.
*For example, when did PADI start tec training? Is there any good reference, preferably not an in-house history. There must be a load of references in dive magazines and newspapers somewhere.
*When was DSAT formed, what is its relationship to PADI? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Peter, PADI Launched its TecRec program in January 2001 with the 'Tec Deep Diver' course (i.e. air to 50 m with accelerated deco) - please refer 'DSAT Launches Tec Deep Diver', Sport Diver, Vol.9 No. 2,  March 2001, p.103, .  Unfortunately, Sport Diver is effectively an 'inhouse' publication. However, there is a thread on Scubaboard from January 2001 that contains some links that may be recoverable via The Wayback Machine - refer http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22684.html.  A search on http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ reveals that DSAT was founded on 19/11/1986. The corporate structure of the group that owns PADI, DSAT and other legal entities is not explained in any detail online apart from liability releases where DSAT is sometime mentioned as being one of the 'subsidiary' or 'affiliated corporations' described as forming PADI. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Cowdy. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needed 

message: Many of the certifications listed are unexplained and often include abbreviations. This makes them somewhat opaque to the man in the street. It would be desirable for each certification which does not have a link to have a short explanation with reference. (A single sentence should do it in most cases). It would be worth getting this article up to a format which can be used as a model for other diver training organizations. Primary sources should be adequate to reference what PADI mean by their certificate names. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a start with clarification of certification in Technical Open circuit. If there is no suggestion to do it differently, I will do more when I have the time and inclination. Anyone should feel free to do some if they agree with how I have done it, or demonstrate by example if they have a better way. I have removed prerequisites in favour of what the certification qualifies the diver to do, as that is what I think most people will want to know from an encyclopaedia. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Professional Association of Diving Instructors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130623025745/http://oceandivers.com:80/training/specialty/Spiegel%20Grove%20Diver.htm to http://oceandivers.com/training/specialty/Spiegel%20Grove%20Diver.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cdnn.info/news/editorial/o050620.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uga.edu/cuda/scuba.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://diveherald.com/2006/07/23/padi-put-another-dollar-in/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The criticism section is an obvious 'black hat' used by PADI to give the impression of willingness to print criticism while really only picking opportunities to promote itself through a 'reply to criticism' format.  This is used more and more in PR campaigns where comment sections have hand-picked negative comments but edits other real negative comments.  See these PR advice sites for advice that says, basically, use negative comments that let you address information, delete and even block users of difficult comments.  http://scottpublicrelations.com/negative-comments-no-problem-how-to-manage-your-companys-group-on-linkedin/    and also  http://www.jeffbullas.com/2012/10/19/tips-for-handling-negative-comments-and-trolls-on-social-media/ .   
More to the point, this 'criticism' section in Wikipedia is IDENTICAL to the PADI promotional materials given to PADI shops to use on their websites and in adverts, as a way to give the impression of replying to negative criticism on hand-picked topics   see  http://www.idc-in-asia.com/PADI.shtml   This is obvious lack of NPOV and 'black hat' advertising, as is the bulk of this article (see other sections for my comments and links)   The entire piece should be deleted and the entry re-written.  By someone not copying PADI materials verbatim, one would hope.Gst.steven (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One line in the article says that PADI "dumbs down scuba diving training courses, making them too short and easy." I have taken the PADI Open Water Certification Course, and it was five hours a day for five days. Plus the certification dives which were five hours a day for two days. It was anything but easy or simple.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.38 (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal experience is not considered a reliable source, whether it is true or not. It is what we call original research. This is nothing personal, it is Wikipedia policy. Part of the reason for the claim that PADI dumbs down training, is that the entry level training no longer includes aspects that were for years considered essential basics. The PADI system splits training up into smaller skill sets and charges and certifies separately for each. This is easier for the learner diver, and more profitable for the instructors and the certification agency, and several competing agencies have followed suit. If your diver training is limited to PADI Open Water, perhaps you lack sufficient background to form a realistically informed opinion on what is necessary and desirable in the required skill-set for an entry level diver. Five hours a day for five days plus 5 hours for two days for dives is more than the PADI minimum requirement for OWD, which is what the course defines, and which should be the basis for comparison. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

text: We are limited to what we can find in reliable sources and by what is due or undue emphasis in particular topics. If you can find reliable sources that balance the "black hat" PR, then please bring them here, or add them to the article, but it's really not realistic to ask others to delete and re-write content without suggesting the sources that would allow us to do that. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticsm section again 

message: This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because the template appears to have been added as vandalism. Suggest user block • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Professional Association of Diving Instructors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140609173601/http://www.emergencyfirstresponse.com/english/ to http://www.emergencyfirstresponse.com/english/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Back in 2013, I posted about making a class dependency graph like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Banaticus/Sandbox&oldid=541806713 because it was confusing to try to figure out which classes depended on which other classes and to try to figure out a path through PADI certification. In the past decade or so, the PADI website (and this article) have only grown more difficult to navigate and not being able to clearly see requirements and dependencies is really starting to bug me. I'm going to start by proposing something like User:Banaticus/Sandbox/PADI which is a rough draft for showing which certifications are required for which classes.
I'll keep thinking about it and maybe make a tree like the last time (link above), especially for the classes which require Advanced Open Water. Please give comments and suggestions. If you want to draw a dependency tree because you've already been thinking about what it should look like then I can code it, and you can email me if that makes it easier to send me a non-wiki file, but I really hate the current table we have and would like to get something finished before I have to step away for another year or something. Banaticus (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Dependency