Talk:Frogman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Some reverts on User:CLW's editings

"needs" / "requires" ; "wrong" / "incorrect" :: I see no reason to prefer Latin words.

Deleting `unsourced quote' "It has been said that "sport diving experience is not necessarily ...": The source is that an ex-naval diver-trainer said it to me.

The demonstrative pronoun "this" (meaning "the indicated, the following, this near me") has been in English since Common Germanic times and I see no reason to stop using it now.

"more powerful versions of sport-diving diver-tugs": I saw a statement that combat frogmen found that many of the commonly available sport diver-tug are not fast enough or long enough duration on a batteryful. Anthony Appleyard 07:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "needs"/"requires" - OK, that's a personal preference so if changing it causes offence, I'll leave that be. However, in terms of "wrong"/"incorrect" I do feel that "incorrect" sounds much better in these instances. Would you object to me changing it back? CLW 10:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer "wrong", which has been in English since Viking times and was in England around 800 years before a scholarly Latinism tried to replace it. Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, changing "this" to "the following" was a matter of personal taste. Although I think my change sounds more elegant, I'll leave it be if you don't like people changing your wording (but please, be assured that changing your wording wasn't intended as any kind of personal attack - this is a wiki, so people should be able to make stylistic tweakings).
However, the quote from the ex-naval diver trainer does need to be removed. Relevant quotes from sources such as publications and on-line journals which can be correctly sourced and referenced are suitable for inclusion, but "someone once told me"-type quotes aren't encyclopaedic. CLW 10:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He was describing a common UK naval opinion. I can treat his statement as authoratitive. At the time I was under him having a commercial diving course. It was not in casual conversation. Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not dispute this. However, quotations need to be referenced as per WP:CITE, and this type of quotation can't be. CLW 11:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Re referencing it: It was between 8 and 18 May 1973 at a commercial diving school (now closed) at Eye, Peterborough in England. The ex-naval diver-trainer was known as Ginger Snell; a look through naval records for the surname should find him. The information in the paragraph under dispute is relevant information in connection with training frogmen and other work divers. If the information is to be rejected because he is not available now, what about all the other information in Wikipedia that came from books which are now out of print and old copies of them cannot be found, or from web sites which have now gone 404? Anthony Appleyard 12:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, please don't take my changes as attacks - it's all just part of the wiki process whereby all users should be able to make reasonable changes. CLW 10:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

  • This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion, and as per that request, I have read over this discussion. My opinion is that if the quotation is not published anywhere, and is only by the personal recollection of an editor, it has no place here. If it is possible to convince the diving instructor to post the relevant quotation somewhere (even if it is just a webpage, but much better in a diving 'zine or something like that), then it should be re-added. User:Anthony Appleyard, even there is any way you can get in touch with that guy, and ask him to repeat that quotation somewhere published, we would all be grateful. Pending that, the quotation should be removed, put on the talk page with perhaps some details of the instructor so others might try to contact him. Thanks for your time spent on reading this! MosheZadka 10:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I replaced the following section on frogman training, since it to my opinion is condescending towards recreational diving, and therefore POV:
This contrasts with civilian sport scuba diving training which tends to be one evening a week, being 30 to 60 minutes swimming pool time, followed by two hours or so of dry meeting (often in a social-club-type environment with an open bar), until the trainee has reached "open water" standard; and the general environment at dives is liable to encourage a casual tourist-type attitude to being underwater. Kjaergaard 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On 9 Nov 2006 someone put a "cite needed" marker on this statement. But it is common knowledge to countless people who go to sport diving club meetings. I had years of it :: as the evening wore on, most people there got drunker and more talkative. Anthony Appleyard 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian frogmen

  • Someone in Canada's armed forces please check anonymous User:207.216.182.234's 2 November 2006 additions to Frogman#Canada. (I tidied and NPOV'ed the addition.) Anthony Appleyard 07:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Neutrality

To be politically correct, the title of this article be changed to “frogperson.” •DanMS 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That is a joke, I take it. Spoken and Navy etc usage has always been "frogman". Anthony Appleyard 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You took it correctly. After I made the comment, I began to wonder if someone would actually take it seriously. On my occasional forays into RCP, I have noticed that some anonymous contributor is apparently changing every instance of the word policeman in the Wikipedia into police officer. That is the kind of person I had in mind. •DanMS 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of duplicate US frogmen

I removed the section for two reasons

  1. All groups listed are listed RIGHT BEFORE these deleted bullets and in better details, including the Marines, Ranges and SEALs.
  2. The section is also a generalised description of US Special Forces which is complete irrelevant to this "list of nations with military diving groups".

--Deon Steyn 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the messy section on the US, by splitting it into the 5 service branches and removing the 'special operations command' which is itself an umbrella command, NOT the parent of any of these units (SEALs belong to the navy, Rangers the Army etc. but they all fall under USSOCOM so it is duplicate and ads no value). I have also included specific external links and removed some of the fluff: create a page for the topic and expand there; it is a LIST not an essay section. --Deon Steyn 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with PADI

I don't think this section belongs in this article.

For example, the PADI Open Water Diver (the most basic rank) course takes 5 dives in a swimming pool and 4 dives in open water (i.e. sea, lake, etc.); after the course the qualified diver is allowed to dive to 18 meters = 59 feet depth. The next step (Advanced Open Water Diver) allows him to dive to 30 meters = 98 feet, which is considered safe for civil scuba diving.

If there were some detailed discussion of the equivalent ranks in military units, it would make sense, but as it is, it should be replaced with a link to the main PADI article. -Athaler 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/o/Talk%7EFrogman_6edd.html"