Talk:Professional Association of Diving Instructors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject SCUBA, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Scuba diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Professional Association of Diving Instructors article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Criticism section removal

I find that the reason user Zatharas gave to remove the "Padi criticism" section quite scarce in substance. He just alleged that the original author didn't specify what "short diving courses" are.

Despite not being referenced on the original article, it is not difficult to find on the Internet or on PADI's website that the initiation courses are quite small, requiring no more than 5 pool classes and 2 open water dives to complete an "open water diver certification" and, to me, this qualifies as a "short diving course".

Also, the deleted section, had a few external references supporting it.

The history also shows that Zatharas registered just recently. The subsequent addition, by him, of the "padi course list" makes me believe that this wasn't an impartial edit at all.

COMMENTS ON THE COMMENTS: PADI openwater dives requirement is 4 open water dive, with an optional 5th. It must be done over 2 days, not one. This is the same as SSI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.16.121 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

213.22.32.116 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Tggm

I agree, I read the critisim section on the google cached page when I couldn't access wikipedia earlier, and then I found it had been removed. I do believe it (or other articles of critisism) should be added to this page, since it gives a more balanced perspective to the whole article. PaddingtonX 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, so find some sourced criticism. The bulk of the section that was pulled had no sources, and of the other two sources listed, only one actually spoke about PADI (the one with PADI's response). The main critical article was criticizing short courses, which isn't unique to PADI; PADI is just the most visible as the largest. In any case, Wikipedia policy requires that any that is challenged or is likely to be challenged be backed up with Reliable sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and that content should not be synthesized to advance a position (Wikipedia:No original research). Claiming that the short courses mentioned in the first BBC article were what PADI does is just such a synthesis. - Fordan (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall that there was an English judgment a few years back where a High Court judge (after hearing expert evidence) expressed real concerns that PADI courses were too short and insufficiently rigorous for the more dangerous diving conditions in the UK when compared against historically British sport diving courses like the old BSAC system. I'll see if I can find the reference and put a cite in. The other criticism I remember hearing about PADI from time to time (and I'm a member just for the record) is that its approach to PI cover was monopolistic, ie. if you didn't purchase your PI cover through PADI, you could not keep your professional licenses as a Divemaster or Instructor or whatever. I'll see if I can dig up a cite for that too.
I do think it is important to include relevant criticism to balance out the article (which at the moment is a bit of a puff piece), but it clearly must be reliably sourced.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the bit about the judge's finding (my error - coroner's inquest not a HC judge): BBC news article. I think the same coronor made a similar finding in a different inquest: Times online article. Here is some other pretty good criticism: CDNN editorial (never heard of CDNN myself, but it comes high on the Google hits). This is a slightly more balance critique: Review. Plenty of material for a criticism section now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like my mistake on the insurance point - must have been an urban myth that I took too seriously. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

IMHO, even if I know it wasn't in the author's intentions, this article sounds too much as ad advertising space, specially with the link at the bottom (and without a wiki link to SCUBA, at least); I would also advance a doubt about NPOV.

It is true that PADI is all the things that are in the article, and I don't discuss given numbers (proportions are credible, at a first sight), yet the article doesn't mention a specificity of Padi - apart from commercial success - in comparison with other schools (why don't you add those too, and correctly put a link to Scuba organisations or whatsoever?), nor there is a way in Wikipedia to know anything about cathegory (Scuba schools?).

Might I specify that I am a Padi customer and a well satisfied one (I personally would warmly reccommend it), so this is not at all against Padi, but more pro-Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.144.10 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2002

I hope its better now Gorm 09:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If the author by chance has any kind of involvement with Padi, however, he could perhaps ask the company the permission (©) to use their vaste and interesting material about underwater activities and techniques for Wikipedia purposes :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.144.10 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2002

I am a PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor ;-) Quoting from PADI's material would be to extensive and detailed, often filled with special terms and definitions. I dont believe this would be a good contibution to Wikipedia. On the other hand, me sitting down and writing an article on basic SCUBA would be fine, I think. Gorm 09:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Just an FYI: The part about PADI teaching warm clear water dive environments are the same as diving in cold water with poor visibility is rubbish. I don't have my Open Water Cert manual anymore but the Advanced Cert book discusses these differences in Chapter 1 and continues throughout. (Product 79101 ver 2.07 Date: 12/06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.197.182 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2007

[edit] Org Structure

I also would like some more information on PADI's organizational structure. There has to be a board or something like that etc. Seems to be hard to find out the real who is who about PADI's HQ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.160.2 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2006

[edit] PADI History

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)

[edit] Anti-trust

Should there be something on this page about concerns about PADI's insurance regulations being in violation of anti-trust/competition law PADI requires that all its instructors and divemasters maintain indemnity insurance with PADI's captive insurance provider rather than obtaining insurance in the open market as a condition of their licence. Seems to me there should be something about it within the article alongside the blurb from the PADI media page. --Legis (talk - contributions) 13:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been a PADI member for 15 years. During the whole of that time there has been NO requirement such as you state. In fact I am currently insured under a cheaper policy provided by a competing training organization! 58.174.242.29 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This comment is completely incorrect, and based on assumption and lack of knowledge. PADI specify that their Memebrship must have insurance (if appropriate in the region they operate) that meets specific requirements, but does not specify the provider for this. Membership are free to choose their insurance provider. Many fallacies regarding PADI are founded from Membbership of other organisations who hear 'stories' and pass on 'Chinese Whispers'. I've never yet see a negative story about PADI that has documented evidence to back it up, and that's in 40 years of diving education?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.238.137 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2007
Do you have any cites for the Anti-trust claims, or is it Original Research based on your legal training? In Googling around for anti-trust issues involving PADI, I found Nova Designs, Inc. v. Scuba Retailers Ass’n, 202 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2000) where PADI was sued for trying to stop mail-order advertising in a magazine. PADI won that case. Not seeing a lot else, but I'm also not using real legal research tools either. - Fordan (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm traveling right now and don't have access to Westlaw or Lexus, but there are specialized legal databases that would give info on suits, info you wouldn't likely find via a google search unless a lot of publicity was generated. Plenty of big law suits against highly visible companies never get media attention, even in the communities served by the corporation. I think I still have some free access time on the Westlaw, I'll try to remember to check this out. (Also, I don't think you are implying otherwise, but obviously any information found in such a database would not count as "original research"--these databases merely record and complile existing court records which otherwise are difficult or impossible to search electronically. Mjgilbert 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Those would be the legal research tools I wasn't using since I didn't have access to them. If you can find information, that'd be great. With respect to my comments on original research, citing court cases generally wouldn't be original research, but making a statement about PADI's policies being in violation of anti-trust laws based on one's interpretation of the law would be original research unless you could cite a case or a reliable source indicating that interpretation, even if the editor in question was a expert/lawyer. - Fordan (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

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)

Did some cleanup to this Talk page: Moved it from Talk:PADI to Talk:Professional Association of Diving Instructors (since that's the article's main title), added heading, attributed anonymous comments, and added a header to the page. - Fordan (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Padi.jpg

Image:Padi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the fair use rationale template to the image page. - Fordan (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Projectaware.gif

Image:Projectaware.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

added fair use rationale to Image:Projectaware.gif. - Fordan (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)