Talk:World Recreational Scuba Training Council

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.

[edit] Sources

I've tried to establish the position of the WRSTC by referencing its status with the ANSI. This is about as good a third-party as we are likely to get as it demonstrates that the US RSTC is recognised as the secretariat of the ANSI ASC Z375 Committee. That should affirm its primary function (standardizing scuba training) and thus the principal point of the article. For the other main content (its organisation of membership and a list of its affiliate training agencies in the USA), surely that can only be a matter of record as laid out on its own website - which was previously referenced.

I'm going to be bold and remove the Sources tag - in my very humble opinion, improving this article would be easier if fact tags could be inserted to show where editors thought there was a statement that required further sourcing. RexxS (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The major expansion of this article by User:Divinghistory is welcome in that it provides a lot of background and history missing from the original stub. However it does lack sources, or to be more precise, relies almost exclusively on [1] the external link provided by Divinghistory. So much so, that (having now checked) a lot of the new content seems to be a cut-and-paste from that article. Since the NAUI website contains the following: "All text, layout and images © 1998-2005 NAUI Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.", it may be that this article is in violation of NAUI copyright and needs to be reverted to its previous stub. I'll defer to those with more experience of WP:C but it certainly seems copyvio to me. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does all the mean? Alternate opinions concerning the RSTC

I'm very much in favour of including POV that may be critical of the information presented in an article.

However, this section owed much of its source to http://naui.com/pdffiles/ANSI%20or%20RSTC%20Anyway.pdf and currently that is a dead link. Without any referenceable statement from NAUI (which would per se have an authority as criticism), this section lacks anything to back up the statements made. Is it in fact WP:OR? In addition "There are many in the diving community... " is weasel words. Finally the rhetoric "Since these are, as indicated by the authors, non-optimum standards, why are they wasting all of our time?" is written in first person and reads like an debating point, rather than encyclopedic content.

I've taken this to the talk page, rather than deleting the section as I believe that an alternative view adds balance (as well as substance) to the article. I would much prefer someone familiar with the criticism to summarise it (with references, if possible) and replace this content --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)