Talk:Controlled emergency swimming ascent

Merger proposal
This article describes the same technique as Free ascent. I suggest that they be merged under one title, and the other made into a redirect. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I know they are the same procedure under different names. I think Free Ascent is the earlier version, but controlled emergency swimming ascent is probably a better description. Suggest use CESA as the article and redirect Free ascent. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

More Reference Sources Needed
All of the reference citations, although from different articles, come from the same medical journal, The South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal. I don't know if this is considered acceptable by Wikipedia's citation standards, but there exists the possibility that it could violate NPOV. I say this because all of the articles are from the same year and journal. Ideally, it would have no agenda, but as history has evidenced, sources can emphasize what they deem appropriate at the time, and collect articles accordingly. Let me be clear, this is not to discount the information, nor to accuse The South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal of bias; I just think it would be more appropriate to cite another source reflecting this information. Lmt 7816 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, the only reference in the article is to Samson & Miller from the 15th Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Workshop. The SPUMS articles are in the section for visitors who might want to read further about the topic. Having said that, I agree that the article suffers from a massive lack of references and really needs inline sources for many of the statements made. The question of NPOV actually doesn't arise here, because the article content is so far away from being verifiable that nobody could possibly judge how well balanced its use of sources is. Please feel free to add any citations that support the text, or if you prefer, just name on this page some sources that you find supportive of the text, and someone will add them as citations to the article. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To go a little further, please also feel free to add references to any verifiable text which provides an alternative viewpoint. The current article is primarily an explanation of what the term means, largely by comparison with similar procedures, as a way of discriminating between them, and as such was not expected to be very controversial. The Samson and Miller reference is the proceedings of a fairly representative workshop attended by a large number of people from the industry, and the descriptions are fairly close to the agreed terminology of the workshop. It is possible that more recent usage differs, but this is not obvious, and there is no easily accessible documentary evidence of consensus for alternative terminology. If there is any doubt about the accuracy of a particular statement, please add a template in the text at the dubious item, and we will try to provide a more specific reference to support it. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Another merger proposal
This article is never likely to be more than a small stub. I suggest a merge into Emergency ascent with redirect, as the material already in emergency ascent on this subtopic is very similar. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)