Talk:Doing It Right (scuba diving)/Archive 1

DIW
I think that definition by incomplete exclusion is probably doing a disservice to the reader wanting information about DIR diving. I am willing to take a stab at adding to the article and trying to keep it neutral in tone. I think that then I will pull the DIW section again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgekwatson (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the four sources I listed below, so I can help with sourcing if needed. I would suggest that the article might have a structure containing a main section on the DIR system, with subsections on philosphy and equipment, at least. No need to go into great detail, but an overview of the salient points would be valuable to the reader. JJ's page on evolution of DIR could help to expand the History section; and as Legis suggests, it would be good to try to make a Controversy section, if we can source it. Once that is done, I think the unsourced DIW section should go. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I am combing through Doing It Right, The fundamentals.. at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgekwatson (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK this is enough of a go at it that I think I will leave it lay for a bit. It still needs more citations and could probably be fleshed out a bit more.--Georgekwatson —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Controversy
This is probably asking too much, either in relation to DIR diving or Wikipedia, but would it be possibly to include a reasonably neutral summary (with sources) of the controversies within the diving community relating to the DIR movement? I know it is a subject that flares tempers on both sides of the divide, but all the more reason why it would be really valuable to have a balanced middle line summarised on Wikipedia. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think that finding sources that meet WP:RS about the controversies would be difficult as most of what I remember took place on usenet and and several techdiving forums. Although posts by George, JJ, etc. would be usable as their opinion, I don't know if the other side has such notable persons to present as their opinion. Nevertheless, if something could be put together, it would enhance the article. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

frogkick.nl

 * What makes frogkick.nl a reliable source for information in an encyclopedia? If it cannot be demonstrated to meet the standards for reliable sourcing, then the information taken from it has no business being in this article. The DIW section remains an opinion piece and - no matter how much I agree with what it says - without reliable sourcing, it needs to be removed. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is much controversy about what is correct in DIR. I was in an email group that was discussing DIR, and some of the bad language and flamage on it was unbelievable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think DIR controversy breaks down into two areas. There are the "DIR flamewars" which tend to be between DIR newbies who often haven't even taken a DIR fundamentals course but have simply bought the gear and argue many of the DIR gear "rules" without even understanding them. Then there are perhaps the real controversies which come from the arguments GI3 has had many times with others in the tech community - perhaps the best known being the use of "deep air".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.136.106.126 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, definition by incomplete exclusion is probably not the right way to go with this article so I have rewritten it extensively, with numerous citations and am now interested in opinion as to the neutrality of its tone. The extensive DIW list from frogkick.nl has been removed. Nothing against frogkick.nl, but this, again, was probably not the way to help people understand what is meant by DIR diving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgekwatson (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored ==DIW==: I can't merely put an external to frogkick.nl link in, because most people can't read Dutch. Please either leave this matter in, or replace it by a direct external link to an external description in English of the features of DIR: a direct link, not sending the reader to some big site's head page and forcing him to ferret for the information. It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No in fact it's not better than nothing. We don't write articles by making links to external websites and directing the readers there. Nor do we add 4,556 bytes of information from a source that simply doesn't meet the standards for sourcing in an encyclopedia. We write articles by finding WP:Reliable sources on the subject and then reporting what it says. As this is now developing into an edit-war, I'm going to advise Georgekwatson not to remove the disputed text for the moment, and I'm going to remind Anthony of the first paragraph in WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed; any editor has the right to remove material that is not backed up by a reliable source, and the onus is always on the editor adding the material to show it is verifiable. Nevertheless, we can either seek a third (or fourth) opinion or take the issue to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please let me know what you would prefer. --RexxS (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am content to get another opinion. I will point out, once again, that definition by incomplete (and unsourced) exclusion gives a pretty poor picture. In addition DIR (as stated in the sourced 1st paragraph) is a holistic approach and that it is equally important to maintain, for example, good physical fitness as it is to have a bolt snap as opposed to a suicide clip. The article as currently composed begins to convey this then splats a big bolus of DIW equipment information. A few of these (as examples), sourced, might be useful, but to have this stuff dominate the article does not inform nearly as well. User: Georgekwatson —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC).
 * RexxS asked me to drop in here and give an opinion on this subject. If I understand the situation correctly, the problem isn't so much that frogkick.nl is a non-English source (at which point I'd suggest reading WP:RSUE), but that you're all working on a controversy/DIW section and can't get good sourcing that there is controversy. In the current article, I see the controversy section as being quite problematic. George Irvine's posts to Techdiver would appear to be primary sources for the information they're being used to reference. For example, while the first post might be a good instance where "stroke" exacerbated tensions, it doesn't show that the term has done so in a general sense.
 * The same seems to be so for the parts about braggadocio and name calling-- primary or self-published sources... though the last one (inspired training) might not be so bad for the factual information, I wouldn't use it for sourcing opinion. Other sources in that section... the GUE.com one looks good for facts, maybe for opinions (even better to use the sources it uses). The document in the proceedings of the AAUS is good. The rest of it is OK, save the blog post at the end. It might be good for sourcing that such a trip occurred, but you might also want to find a source to state that this is significant.


 * To sum it up- we cannot use someone's inflammatory newsgroup, mailing list or blog post to say that something is contentious or a source of flaming. We need a secondary source to state that there is such contention or flaming, otherwise we've got original research.
 * As to the DIW section itself, as it's contentious what should be in that list, the whole damn thing should be removed. Jimbo Wales put it well when he said, "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" (quoted in WP:UNDUE). This means that if DIW is what frogkick.nl says it is, then it should be pretty easy to find other sources which support it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need other refs, then provide them; do not merely delete useful information. If http://www.frogkick.nl/index.htm had an English version, I could have merely linked to it; but most people cannot read Dutch. (I can read Dutch; I taught myself Dutch for 2 holidays motorcycling round Holland.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In section ==DIW== I do point out that that text is one site's opinion and that many would disagree with some of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How can information that is "one sites opinion and that many would disagree with some of it" possibly be considered encyclopedic? If you want to focus on the equipment of DIR diving there's a whole page on the GUE website which lays out the equipment guidelines in the affirmative.  The "DIW" section should clearly just get pulled.  And my background is as a GUE diver since 2003, Cave 2/Tech 1/Instructor Intern Lamontcg (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DIR CCR, DIR evolving, agencies other than GUE
In my humble opinión, it is time to fix a simple definition that can not be freely interpreted creating confussion: "set of technics and procedures originally used by WKPP". "Holistic approach to scuba diving" can be also said for many other organisations and systems. What is not/ has not been ever used by WKPP is not DIR, right?

I also miss the OPTION #1 as a tenet. DIR was created with a set of rules and most important was the safety option #1:"Do not dive" —Preceding IB comment added by 83.39.57.137 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by BUEX (talk • contribs)


 * I am not sure that simply cross referring to "procedures used by WKPP" will help a lay reader understand what DIR really is. More clarification is necessary.  Further DIR has evolved beyond the original standards used by WKPP. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the lead paragraph: "Doing It Right (DIR) is an holistic approach to scuba diving. According to the DIR approach fundamental skills, teamwork, environmental awareness, and the use of highly optimized and streamlined (minimalist) equipment configuration are the primary fundamentals of diving. DIR proponents argue that through these essential elements, safety is improved by standardizing equipment configuration and dive-team procedures for preventing and dealing with emergencies, in particular out-of-air emergencies. This approach to diving encompasses specific equipment requirements, dive planning mechanisms and team procedures."


 * I understand your arguments about what it should not say, so why not make a suggestion about what the definition should be? --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Three Revision Rule "3RR" - bordering on clear violation (May 2010)
Based on recent Edit War flavored activities on the main page, I suggest:


 * an immediate revision & freeze to the main page to its prior configuration
 * a discussion here on the various desired changes before changing anything further.

The alternative is to punt this problem to an Admin and have the offending account shut down. Let's please avoid having to do this.

-hh (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

update: main page is now reverted, as per first bullet above. -hh (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hugh. It's always much better to discuss big changes and get some idea of consensus beforehand. We're fortunate that there are at least two admins, User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Crum375 who have a good understanding of scuba. Both are approachable and always willing to give advice on when and if admin intervention is appropriate, so you can always drop a line on their talk pages if needed. Good to see that NED is not dead (with apologies for the in-joke) --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken another look at the revision histories and I see that the entire Controversy section was deleted on 01:16, 7 May 2010. As such, my prior revision may have been incomplete.  However, rather than to simplistically (and bluntly) restoring this as well, I think it would be worthwhile for us Wikipedians to discuss this section and update it accordingly - - IMO, probably re-introduce it as more historical (and less contemporary) in nature.  The facts are that these were the ugly early days of the DIR movement, in which there was a lot of confusing tangle of topics - partly due to the very strong personalities involved - between Hogarthian diving philosophies (which ultimately lead to DIR and then to GUE) and how these philosophies were put into practice with the WKPP exploration effort.  Today, a decade's worth of perspective can guide a historically-based reexamination, which is appropriate.  What is clearly not appropriate is to delete it entirely, since that effectively would be an attempt to whitewash.  -hh (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Strokes
Just noticing that the "strokes controversy" part of the article seems to have dropped off. Was that deliberate? I thought that was a good explanation of some of the hostile language that went around for a while. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just putting an excerpt of the original text here for those who can't recall it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For some images of "stroke rigs", see http://sukellus.info/stroke.shtml, http://sukellus.info/pics/stroke_14.jpg, http://sukellus.info/pics/stroke_15.jpg . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unique Features
Just was doing a holistic read of the page and noticed that there's a noteworthy discontinuity in the Unique Features section.

Specifically, when items are called out and DIR's position is discussed, they are given contrasting illustrations of what other Agency positions are - - the discontinuity is that in some cases, these positions are based upon what other TECH Agencies do ... and in other cases, the position is based upon what some REC Agencies do.

For example, on dive computers, it says: DIR: No  Others:  primary+backup (a position of Tech)

Similarly, on age: DIR: 16-17 years Others: pretty darn young (looks like PADI to me)

Before we embark on fixing this, the question I see is if this section should discuss it as "Tech vs Tech" only, or to help the general public understand it better, to have "Tech vs Tech vs Rec". My personal recommendation is the latter, since it is probably more likely that a Wiki reader is going to have a more Rec-centric background.

...and what this also highlights is that the basic DIR page does not appear to clearly state that historically, DIR began as an exclusively "Tech" discipline for existing advanced divers, and only later did they diversify (?) down to basic Recreational OW-I..esque training classes. This is useful in helping to understand why they appear to be so different from NAUI, PADI, YMCA, etc. -hh (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Physical fitness
Should there by something the article relating to the "superior physical fitness" aspect of DIR? I have always thought of that as one of the key differences, although it is perhaps only a degree of emphasis. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New attempt to sort out old problems

 * I started revising the DIW section, and soon bogged down on the mixture of unreferenced policy claims with editorial explanations, comments, and occasional rebuttals. What I propose, and have started, is to clear up all rebuttals and comments other than simple definatory explanations from this section, eventually to leave it containing only clear and referenced DIR policy and published opinions of notable DIR figureheads, and start a new section where the opposing policies of DIR and other groups can be compared each under its own subheading. I dont know if this will work, but I think it is worth a try.
 * Comments and suggestions welcomed. Also looking for good refs on the DIW items Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to be worth a shot. It is pretty shambolic at the moment.  I think much of it derives from a poorly translated Dutch website.  We just need to try and tie it more closely to published sources.  The front office at GUE are usually pretty helpful if we need to track down published stuff. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.frogkick.nl/ is the ref for them all. I have updated the links to the external images. I am not relying merely on autotranslaters :: I learned Dutch for 2 holidays motorcycling round Holland. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anthony, I can read Dutch, but only slowly, and not 100%. Perhaps you could check which of the commented items are actual equivalents from the site? I will ref all the items in the list to frogkick so if anything is added to the list we can tell it is from another source. If the explanation comes from the site, please remove the comment/query and shift the ref to the end of the sentence. The frogkick site looks mainstream DIR, but how would I know. I guess that DIR is as DIR does, and there isn't really any way of positively distinguishing most of the stuff that claims to represent the DIR point of view from Brand X. If it looks like DIR, smells like DIR, tastes like DIR and calls anyone who doesn't toe the line a stroke it must be DIR? Tricky. The point is, What makes frogkick.nl a reliable source? I am not disputing that the site is an accurate representation of DIR policy, because it looks like is probably is. However as far as I can see it lacks the characteristics WP calls for in a reliable source. Maybe it will have to do for now and fill in better refs later. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, does anyone know the origin of the term "stroke" in this context? With reliable references? I have my hypothesis, but no evidence whatsoever... Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Someone who allegedly strokes/comforts his own ego and thus refuses to convert to DIR"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could be right, I have seen that one before. I prefer the hypothesis that it derives from the expression "different strokes for different folks", meaning that different systems, equipment etc may be more suited for some people than others, used to defend/explain the "personal preference" viewpoint, and taken up by the DIR proponents as a derogatory term for the "different folks" who are not DIR compliant, therefore different from themselves. I really like this version, but that doesn't mean it must be true. ;-( Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is plain: http://www.frogkick.nl/ does not meet our standards for a reliable source. However, I'll take it to Reliable Sources Noticeboard for outside opinions. On the aside, it's fairly certain that George was the original propagator of the term "stroke", but it's hard to prove. Although I was very active on the scuba boards at the time, my memory of the events is not a RS. There's a section above that discusses the term and the references given might be useful in reconstructing the early days. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but at the moment it is more useful than no source at all, and as I think it is not a bad representation of "truth" in spite of a poor example for "verifiability", I am having a go at improving some of the translations, in the hope that some time we will find better sources. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too. Does the source need to be online?  Most of the GUE publications either expressly state those as "not approved", or imply it by not listing them as "approved".  However, the manuals are copyrighted so the versions which can be found online are usually copyright violations, and so presumably we can't refer to them? --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the source must be online. Printed books and journals are generally acceptable. Trade magazines less so. Online is merely convenient. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I swapped a few e-mails with Jarrod Jablonski. He promised he would publish a few of the early "basic" articles about DIR online so we can cross reference and link to them easily.  Hopefully that should help close the gap on authoritative sources.  He also said he might take a look at the page and make suggestions himself although he seemed a bit unsure about how appropriate that would be.  I'll repost some links once I have them and we can sort through for sources for relevant aspects. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read this article again and it is if anything more cringe-worthy than ever. The fragmented structure and tone perhaps reflect the lack of source-able cannon on what 'DIR' really is. Perhaps this is the tone to take in the article. The history of the term, the controversies surrounding it and the lack of actual cannon concerning it. No one at this point 'owns' the definition and I maintain that the definition by exclusion in the DIW section is a very poor way to go about this.--Georgekwatson (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * George, I agree that defining DIR by what unverifiable sources say it is not is not the best way to go about it. Nevertheless a large amount of the information available, and discussion on the subject, is about things which are not DIR, and this aspect therfore should be covered. If you can suggest  or produce some better information on what it IS it would help. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try contacting the guys at GUE. They are normally enormously helpful on public-image related things. Will circle back if they provide some useful links, etc. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have arranged to borrow a few books from a friend who is an enthusiast. I hope to pick them up tomorrow night. Then will see what I can do. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * People including divers will come here for information what diving DIR is, and we should provide that information. (There is a good autotranslater at http://www.google.com/language_tools ) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, but DIR originated in USA, their language is not so different that we should need an autotranslator :-) Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An autotranslater may be needed to understand http://www.frogkick.nl/, which is in Dutch. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble understanding what frogkick.nl has to do with providing information on this topic. Since we are attempting to cast light on the term DIR, I believe we should start by looking at the progenitors and then the major evolvers for information. While frogkick.nl is interesting in that it seems to have contained an early 'in your face' attempt at definition and constraint, it's hardly in the main stream. The materials available through GUE, the writings (rantings) of George Irvine and possibly the continued writings found at UTD would better serve, I think.  The idea of non-divers being able to contribute is an interesting one as I had always thought domain expertise would be requisite. Perhaps not.--Georgekwatson (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The stuff from frogkick was there in the article. Apart from the source being less than optimal, the information looked mostly a reasonable approximation of reality. Good enough to leave until something better comes up. Feel free to improve on it any time. Challenge any specific item you diagree with, Best of all, provide improvements with good refs.
 * Getting back to basics is fine, I have just borrowed "Doing it Right", so now I have a better class of reference (it is printed on paper from a recognised publisher and has an ISBN. It is as verifiable as it gets without a peer reviewed third party analysis). Expect some new stuff as I read through.
 * Most of GI's stuff that I know of is also not good ref by Wikipedia standards. Do you know of good source for GI?
 * This is Wikipedia. Any idiot can contribute. Any expert can contribute. Anyone with internet and the ability to find the edit tab can contribute. This we all know, so what do you mean by your comment about non-divers? Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... not to get drawn into the quicksand that makes up the detailed debate on the Wikipedia treatment of DIR I'd just like to make a few general points.


 * I think that unless there is a clear and definitive treatment of the type of diving that DIR was originally conceived for and what particular emphasis this type of diving puts on selection of kit configuration, the Wikipedia reader has no way to understand the emphasis on standardisation, the rational for what is chosen to be "right", or the reasons others say it is "wrong" (and wrong in what context)


 * Wherever some group claims to have all the answers, and treats those with contrary views as misguided (and perhaps even contemptible?) then it is especially important to make sure that a clear expression of the case against that particular point of view be allowed to be made. Of course all the criteria of sourcing need apply.....  Importantly, the DIR system (once positioned) should be treated  in a full, clear, and comprehensive way first  - then the criticisms can be stated and the reasons behind them.

I think it's possible to salvage much of the present content if a readjustment is made following these guidelines. To do this I would suggest the Doing It Wrong section be put in a TABLE - the tabulated form given point by point, and the particular rational and usage area where this DIR practice is contended as not applying, or not be useful (sourced on a case by case basis) is shown. I can make a "mini-table" to show the concept if you'de like.

Anyhow, best of luck in trying to bridge the unbridgeable on this particular subject --HowieKor (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @HowieKor: I am currently trying to move the emphasis to what DIR IS rather than what it is NOT. I agree that an analysis of the history would be helpful to show among other things, how and why it is what it is today. If you have any good references for that, please let me know, or do it yourself if you have the inclination.
 * I am also trying to show that it is not the core policy of DIR to be confrontational, as you can see from JJ's quotes. However it is a characteristic of people who believe they are right to tell people who don't do things in the way perceived as right that they are wrong. The more well meaning they are, the more insistent they tend to be. You can see this in any religion. The worst of it is that the most avid zealots tend to be the ones with the least understanding of the realities and logic underlying the policies. DIR (at least the GUE version) is flexible and can accommodate improvements, but the proposed changes must be shown to be improvements within the entire context of DIR, not just for special cases. Personally I feel this is too dogmatic, but I am not DIR by their definition. The problem here, is that someone can be a complete ****** and still be right about a specific point, and also be wrong about others.
 * Please go ahead and mini-tabulate the DIW section.
 * I don't think this is unbridgeable. It does however need to include enough that the extremists and believers in revealed truth on both sides don't feel immediately obliged to defend their sacred and precious point of view by vandalizing the article. NPOV is our friend here. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter I really like how the concepts table turned out once you had edited it. I think it puts the DIR perspective in context in a reasonably clear and concise way. Perhaps I am a little bit "table mad" but I think the way the objections (fully attributed) to DIR thinking on specific issues (eg diving alone, deep air, use of dive computers) can also be best be treated as a table now that the rationale of DIR thinking has been set. I'll do a mini-version and just post it here to see what you think. In the meantime, in case you havn't seen it before I leave you with what I think is a rather amusing DIR thinking based piece Keep smiling! --HowieKor (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi HowieKor, A table is a great tool for comparisons, It should work very well for the controversy sections, where much of the content must necessarily be comparisons between DIR and other opinions/policies. With luck it will be possible to illustrate where the line between assumption and demonstrable fact lies, and similarly where logical fallacies have been used to promote policies. I look forward to you untangling the web of bullshit. (now there's an unpleasant metaphor...wear gloves) Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Loved the divegirl piece. I will be sending the link to several unsuspecting friends. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi All; glad that there's some attention back on some of these areas. I'll be on the road for most of December, but will offer what help I can.  I did a quick re-read of the entire page and Peter's table and what jumped out at me is that I think we might want to provide a bit more historical perspective to help readers understand where DIR fits.  Specifically, DIR was an outgrowth of the objective of conducting dives in a very high risk environment...it wasn't just cave diving, but it was (a) Cave, and (b) Deep, and (c) Long, and (d) Exploratory, and (e) Etc.  It really were the significant level of danger  involved which was leading to fatalities and ultimately to the heat & flames (and personality conflicts) in a crucible that boiled down and focused the core tenants.  It is also noteworthy to point out that part of its relevance is also what differentiates it from classically very low risk Recreational diving, even though Rec Diving is also classically the  candidate pool from which new DIR participants come from, which differs from Military & Commercial diving, where most candidates weren't necessarily a Rec diver for several years before "moving up" (so to speak) to "harder" (and higher risk) forms of diving. I'm going to take another look at Peter's table in this light and see if it might benefit from being reorganized into slightly different columns; when I get to it, I'll post it here as a draft rather than update the main page so that it will be a bit easier for us to cross-walk, and to see if it is useful.   -Hugh  -hh (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hugh,
 * That must be Howie's table, as I haven't created one for this article :-)
 * Point taken on the historical perspective. It would be useful. Do you know of a good reference? Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Back at home, finally)...the main page is looking good; kudos to all those who did the heavy lifting. Peter, my thoughts on the 'historical' stuff here has been mostly addressed (eg, genesis of DIR being the objectives of WKPP deep cave exploration).  The other, deeper layer of this is touched lightly on Wiki's Cave_diving page on US History, which refers to the 1970s ... FYI, this Wiki page probably could benefit from a few more cites too.  In any case, my recollection was that during the DIR GIII years, there had again been some rumblings by the State suggesting that the Woodville Karst may be closed to the public, which also would have contributed to the stridency.  Plus, as can be seen in this report, that roughly 90% of cave fatalties were still occurring on non-cave-trained divers even in the 1990s, which of course contributed to an us-vs-them negative DIW posture/attitude towards the non-caver dive community.  Unfortunately, its probably hard to suscinctly boil down these sorts of elements that underlied some of the participants' motivations without it appearing superficial and overly simplistic.  -hh (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

MUCH nicer IMO. One small suggestion in the section that discusses skills - mask clearing - in particular. This skill is considered part of the "Basic Five" in GUE parlance and "Basic Six" in UTD parlance. These include Regulator Removal and Replacement, Regulator Exchange, Modified S Drill, Mask Clear, Mask Remove and Replace (5) (UTD adds regulator recovery). These skills are considered foundational. Perhaps this area could either be expanded to cover these or remove discussion of specific skills and focus on the fact that the teaching of DIR diving emphasizes a complete mastery of foundational skills. I wish I could actually contribute more to this article, but time time time Georgekwatson (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @George,
 * Fair enough, those are pretty basic skills, most of them are taught by most agencies. If we want to distinguish DIR from others, we need to identify the differences. This, to me, implies at least specifying what level of performance is required to indicate complete mastery, and where relevant, what variation in technique makes the DIR system different. Can you recommend a reference? I have a borrowed copy of Fundamentals but that information doesnt appear to be in there. I will look again, but as you say, time is the problem. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility of tables
Tables need to be accessible (see WP:DTAB). I can't update because of edit conflicts, so I'll drop the accessible table here. We lost a sourced paragraph that needs to be integrated back in if we want to answer Hugh's criticism that there's insufficient historical perspective: The article is still very thinly sourced at present and we really don't want to be losing more sources. --RexxS (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Doing It Right" as applied to diving is thought to have appeared in 1995 in an article by George Irvine III. Irvine and Jarrod Jablonski eventually formalized and popularized this approach as DIR, promoting its practises for all forms of scuba diving. Irvine's polemic style and inflexible stance led to a great deal of controversy and, while popularizing the style among some people, repelled many others. This has begun to ameliorate somewhat., there are two US-based dive training organizations, Global Underwater Explorers (GUE) and Unified Team Diving (UTD), and many independent dive instructors who teach a DIR style of diving. GUE renamed its 'DIR Fundamentals' course to 'GUE Fundamentals' in 2007, distancing itself somewhat from the acronym.
 * Well spotted! That paragraph was removed between two of my edits in a totally different part of the article, and I didnt notice at the time. Same IP cut a reference to George Irvine on the WKPP page which I reverted.
 * The paragraph is back and the accessability changes have been made to the table. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ad-hoc diving versus planning

 * This was mentioned in a recent edit. It can be summarized by: There is an advice: "Plan the dive, dive the plan". Someone humorously changed it to "Plan the dive, dive the wreck, wreck the plan". I.e. circumstances sometimes arise after the planning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed tabular format for criticism section
(note accessibility format of table) This text and format (below) is proposed as an improvement on the similarly named section in the article: Evidence and arguments are provided, conclusions are up to the reader.
 * It is more clearly laid out
 * It provides a more neutral point of view
 * It can be easily extended, and encourages completeness and neutrality in additional edits

Comments, criticism and proposals for improvement are requested Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I think this format will extend quite well. -hh (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned about the lack of sourcing for the criticisms. It is very tempting for us to write what we know, or believe, and then try to find sources that support our point of view. However, we should never work like that on Wikipedia because it would drive two differing views into an endless reversion loop with no way of deciding what the text should say, or the most persistent editor "winning" and forcing their POV into the article. What we must do is find reliable sources, summarise them, and only then write the article text, including the citations to the sources we used. That way the text depends on published, independent sources, not on the determination of one editor to impose their own view. Here is what the second Pillar of Wikipedia says:
 * "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person."


 * At present, I can't find the criticisms that are presented here and in the article in published reliable sources. In fact, the criticisms section contains a massive amount of unsourced conclusions with references only providing verification of things like PADI's 20 million certifications. Mark Powell's presentation on Solo Diving is interesting, but neither relevant nor a reliable source here. Mark is a fine diver and a fellow SAA National Instructor, and we've both made seminar presentations at the Birmingham Dive Show, but that doesn't make him an expert on DIR any more than it makes me an expert on the sea-life of Tenerife. So please, can we cite high quality, published sources, or (failing that) remove any material which is patently unsourced? --RexxS (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I take your point. I did not think it would be so difficult to find a reference for most of those points, but it is, as you say, nearly impossible. I know from personal experience that a snorkel is of great value in a srong wind and chop, and when negotiating kelp or a rocky shallows, but it doesnt seem that anyone has bothered to write it in a book. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be one of those obvious elements that haven't been written down for a long time; I'll check in some of my old (pre-1980) diving tomes over the Holidays; the personal libraries (and brains) of David Strike and Mike Grey might be another good resources too, for where we get stuck. -hh (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Does the DIR system optimally satisfy all the requirements of the full range of scuba applications?
Deep cave diving and conventional open water recreational diving have significant differences in some of the things that are likely to occur during most dives. Long surface swims typically found in open water ocean diving is one of these differences. This difference drastically changes the arguments concerning the relative usefullness of a snorkel.

As a substitute for:


 * The claimed lack of benefits likely stems from DIR's historical context of being cave diving centric: caves rarely have air pockets to breathe from in the event of running out of breathing air.
 * Similarly, the snagging concerns also are cave diving centric: the head/mask concern stems from the snorkel interfering with the deployment of the 'long hose' regulator; the leg snag alludes to a risk of breaking a guideline used in cave diving (guide lines minimize the risk of getting lost from a silt-out). 
 * Surface swims (dive exits) in cave diving often occur in highly-protected calm waters, where such floating is both of short duration/swim distance and the water surface is predictably benign due to lack of wind to make waves. Open water conditions are not as reliably benign.
 * Overall, the snorkel illustrates that what can be an excellent risk-assessment based decision for one specific diving environment (here, cave diving), such a conclusion is not automatically transferable to all other environments without due consideration.

This is a very comprehensive treatment Peter, and I admire the level of understanding of both sides of the issue that goes into it. My concern here is that this type of treatment requires an almost a full repetition of specifics of the DIR system and a counterargument on a point by point basis. It takes a lot of room, on an already long subject treatment. And it tends make criticism seem just a matter of criticised specifics, and not criticism as against a way of diving, a philosophy. That's why I gave up on a strictly table based approach... more background discussion seemed essential and the tables served just to give some "case in points". I like the snorkel issue in the fact that it really is so trivial in comparison to whether one has a computer or not.. but the question is - why should it's use be so disparaged when it can be of real use - the option should rest with the diver. To me this situation is repeated over and over again in all general directives in the DIR system and that is where I think the critical focus should be. The criticism is of the rigidity and excess of DIR standardisation, not in many of the fundamental ideas that form the basis of choice, and that is truly what I believe my sources are saying. Anyhow... interested in what you think Regards --HowieKor (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is a problem finding references so I am abandoning the concept at this stage. The problem with background discussion is avoiding drawing conclusions from the points unless you can show that a verifiable source has drawn the same conclusion. I ran into the same problem with the tabular approach. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've searched many times for reliable sources debating these issues, and of course, they generally do not exist. The real debates took place 10-15 years ago on Usenet, like rec.scuba, and on the mailing lists like Scuba-L and the tech list and these did not leave a coherent body of work suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. But as we're indulging ourselves, I thought I'd take the time to express my own unsourced views by adding another column to the table here. Hope you can appreciate the difference between what I know I know, and what I know I can source. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, no worries, and I agree with a lot of it anyway, but there are a few places where your rebuttals don't seem to be addressing the points. Possibly a matter of neither of us making ourselves sufficiently clear. Since it now a purely academic point I am happy to leave it there unless you want to discuss the relative merits of the policies somewhere else. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"I thought I'd take the time to express my own unsourced views"

Well, I AM sourced Rexx.

It all seems pretty straightforward, it’s only logical that if “expert” A says X is universally optimal, and “expert” B says under case Y something other than X is optimal instead, B is criticising A's position. QED.

Anyhow, I must say, it seems to me that someone who makes high risk 26,000ft deep penetration dives himself yet has no experience whatsoever in the particular practises of the California beach diving fraternity, can tell 200,000 such divers that THEY are endangered "storkes" just for using a snorkel it's all really too funny…..if it wasn't so offensive to so many skilled and experienced professionals that I have had the pleasure to dive with back in my home state. Well, I suppose my thinking is somehow perverted by my background in mathematics, because what DIR claims for universal optimality is mathematically impossible. But then again, perhaps JJ may not only be the arbiter of everything that is right and wrong in diving, but that he also might deserve the Fields Medal for overturning all of Optimization Theory. Cheers --HowieKor (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this deliberate trolling or have you simply failed to grasp the principles of sourcing on Wikipedia? The section on Criticism of DIR is ludicrously undersourced. Where did you read that "DIR system has sparked such controversy and negative comment by many critics"? Who are these critics? Are they notable enough to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? Who found it surprising? And that's just the first sentence. Where did you get the information from that there are two main themes, and who defined what they are? You haven't a single relevant reference in the first three sections.
 * "Therefore it is argued, it becomes quite illogical to object to an alternative form of diving with a different but lesser set of risks, when to mitigate those risks a totally different equipment configuration is required" - is this argument made in Von Maier? Do me the favour of providing a quote of where he levels this criticism of DIR.
 * The fact is that you've personally created an argument with DIR's aversion to solo diving and simply found sources that argue in favour of solo diving. You're the one who is making the criticism of DIR by synthesising criticism that does not exist. The example you quote where "expert A says X; expert B says Y; therefore B is criticising A's position" is exactly the sort of inexpert analysis that we are not allowed to do. Read the text of No original research because I'm going to be using it very soon to remove the content which is original research as well as the unsourced material, and from what I can see at present, there is going to be very little left apart from some 15 year old criticisms of George Irvine's behaviour which actually predate DIR in its present form and belong in the History section. There is no modern criticism of DIR based on anything GI says.
 * I'm perfectly happy to see any or all of the present content remain in the article if it is cited to reliable sources, so please feel free to tell me to hang on if you are just about to quote all of the sources you used to write those sections. On the other hand, if you were working from no sources when you wrote, I'd advise you to remove the text yourself that you can't honestly say can be verified from reliable sources. If you're unsure whether a source is reliable or not, ask here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I resent your inference that I am a troll, and expect an apology on that front. I invite you to look at my contribution to Wikipedia in science/mathematics and say that any of this is the work of a troll. The problem that YOU seem to have with me in the scuba sections is already well documented. Offline we have stated quite clearly our own respective opinions about diving practises … your leanings are DIR oriented, mine are not (but this may seem strange to you, I strongly support almost all of the underlining principals behind DIR thinking). When I say or organise something, that stretching to some obtuse interpretation could be called “synthesising” or “unsourced” that is pro-DIR, e.g. my summary of DIR approach at the beginning of the article… not a peep, when I say something or organising some sectioning that contains material against DIR thinking the accusations of synthesising and inadequate sourcing fly thick and fast. We have seen this same effect in my merely describing conventional octopus rigging in recreational diving. When I source even more, it is said to be inadequate because of “lack of notability” of my sources or some such thing (even in one case were my source was in the Scuba Hall of Fame). This obstruction goes on and on. For example – DIR’s position on solodiving. I source “notable” spokespersons both in cave diver originations and other leading cave divers who argue solodiving is appropriate, as well as non-cave diver authorities, and yet you want to remove this material as you say there is no conflict with the DIR solodive position. Re your intention to remove my contributions, I totally object. I will add even further sourcing  - I’m quite used to it now - I had to add 8 sources just to show that recreational divers are recommended to have a yellow octopus is stowed in the midchest area in the buddy diving section. If that level of sourcing here will not be enough I’m afraid this will all have to go to a higher authority before I will see you remove it. One thing that should please you – I have decided, because of my experiences with your editing and the unpleasantness of it all, not to make any further contributions to Wikipedia. --HowieKor (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your continual personalisation every time I try to explain when your edits breach our most basic principles. I am simply no longer prepared to sit back and see you add reams of unsourced opinion and destroy articles that many editors have spent considerable time in researching, sourcing and writing. It's as simple as this: you don't get to just write your own unsourced POV, and then try to deflect criticism by suggesting that others are editing from an agenda. I'm editing from reliable sources every single time, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and I've put a lot of effort in over several years learning how to do that properly. The descriptions of DIR methods by people who developed those methods is relevant to DIR, and they are a reliable source for their own opinion. What makes you think that a member of Scuba Diving Hall of Fame is automatically an expert on DIR is beyond me, and despite having it explained to you, you still insist on pushing forward such irrelevances. Nobody cares what my diving inclinations or your inclinations are - we can discuss those anytime on a user talk page or outside Wikipedia, but in article space, you source your contributions or remove them when challenged. Reliable sourcing and verifiability are not optional here. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * About "the requirement to plan a dive and dive that plan", once someone humorously changed that to "plan the dive, dive the wreck, wreck the plan": but it is said that "many a true thing is said in jest": sometimes things arise underwater and encourage or force a variation from the plan, and the dive computer is needed to keep track of the changed decompression needs. When I go out on land I can carry a road atlas in my backpack, but underwater it is not so easy to carry a wad of decompression tables about, except those small decompression table stickers sometimes seen stuck to the front thigh of a wetsuit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so, it has happened to all of us, (well, make that all of us who plan the dive) but is it verifiable by the standards of Wikipedia? "Verifiability not Truth" is to me the strenth and the weakness of Wikipdia, It stifles at times, but without it there would be chaos. Nevertheless, millions of divers habitually do recreational dives with little planning beyond an idea of maximum depth and a rough idea of a critical pressure to start the ascent, and rely on the dive computer to avoid getting into a decompression obligation. Remarkably few of them get bent based on the total number of dives, and considering the lip service buddy diving by ill matched pairs, it is sometimes amazing how few get killed. I wonder if this record would be better or worse without computers. I am also a commercial diving supervisor and instructor and that means I get paid to make sure that the planning and risk assessment gets done, and the dive is acceptably safe within the reasonably practicable constraint of the laws we work under, the authorised codes of practice, contractors operations manuals, etc and that there is a plan to deal with reasonably forseeable contingencies. Recreational divers are free to do things that professionals would consider ludicrously and grossly irresponsible, because thay do it from personal choice and accept the risk. Technical divers go even further. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS:In my capacity as a supervisor and instructor, I really like my divers to use a computer. Aside from allowing them to compensate for minor changes to the dive plan, it is a very valuable black box recorder of the dive profile if anything does go wrong. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthony, you make it sound like divers never had a backup plan in the days before PDCs. We're both old enough to know that your wrote your dive plan on your underwater slate, along with a deco schedule that covered a dive which was 10 feet/3 metres deeper and at least 5 minutes longer, which allowed you a backuup in the event of problems. I still teach and examine every student on the use of dive tables, and try to install in them some concept of what a sensible no-decompression limit (NDL) looks like (in case their PDC goes on the blink). Even knowing very simple rules of thumb like "NDL (mins) + Max-Depth (metres) < 50" can be a sanity check or provide an emergency schedule for a PDC failure. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RexxS, Do you really read that in Anthony's comments? I dont. I am also old enough to know that you wrote your plan on a slate if it was reasonably possible that you might go past the NDL, if not you didnt bother. In my experience a lot of divers also did things like assume that a 10 litre cylinder didn't have enough air to get you into deco before the pressure hit reserve, and other dubious practices. I used to do multilevel dives planned on the fly using NAUI tables so that I could stay with the customers who had computers (in the 80's, working as a divemaster). It worked for me, but no way I would do that now I can afford a computer. It was heavy task loading. The stress was trying to remember the whole dive history. I was one of the more careful divers, and a dab hand with the tables, but you still had to rely on a watch, which can fail about as readily as a computer. (No I have no data on relative failure rates, I am making what I think is a reasonable assumption). Also the accuracy of our old depth gauges was often questionable. Seldom got the same reading as your buddy. I think dive computers are much more reliable now and if you dive with a buddy that is not bad backup (assuming similar history). If you dive solo, a backup computer is a pretty safe bet. Do the maths: Probability of two computers failing on the same dive is very low. Chance of cocking it up on tables? who knows... Depends on the diver. I am assuming you advocate mechanical gauges and watches with hands, as the electronic bottom timers are subject to the same reliability issues as computers, and also lose everything when they flood, leaving you in a very similar position as when a computer fails. This is not to say I dont agree that a written backup plan is highly desirable if the dive requires deco at more than one stop, or more than about 5 minutes. (I have had to estimate decompression times by counting down the seconds, it is not fun, but a lot easier than guessing the depth - a calibrated DSMB reel line is your friend here)). Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes Peter, that's what I thought Anthony was saying: "Rely on a PDC because carrying tables is too bulky". I'll be seeing him this afternoon, so I'll ask him if that's what he meant for certain. Let me make it clear that I believe PDCs are a good thing and I've dived with an original Aladin Pro almost since they came out. I've never had any problem other than having to change the batteries, although one of my regular buddies went through three "Monitor" PDCs before he found one that worked reliably. The failure mode unfortunately was to give totally inaccurate deco schedules - potentially lethal if you didn't already have an idea of your deco obligation. However, it's SOP to carry a watch and depth gauge as well, because that redundancy is so easy and cheap, it's a no-brainer. Yes, your buddy's PDC is also a good backup - I'm certain that there is sufficient conservatism built-in to allow any decent buddy pair to share a deco schedule from either PDC. All of that also applies to planning using tables of course - you check your plan with your buddy beforehand, so do the maths there - what's the chance of both of you making the same mistake? As for failures, anecdotally I've seen far more cheap watches and mechanical depth gauges fail than PDCs, but that still doesn't address the criticism that PDCs make divers lazy about planning dives, particularly having a backup plan for a schedule if all else fails. The "Baker's Dozen" in Fundamentals goes further than I would, and even then GUE don't forbid PDCs, but they do agree with me that divers need to be able to plan dives. --RexxS (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Surfmats
@User:138, The image has been tagged for speedy deletion on licencing, but has other issues too. The Halcyon logos suggest that it is Halcyon material, but the cartoon speech bubbles do not. This may be a trademark violation. A search of the Halcyon website failed to find any reference to surfmats. There are no references for the text. The reference to Dan Volker is of dubious notability and unreferenced.

Unless some verification is forthcoming the entire section will have to be deleted. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While the Halcyon website might not reference Surfmats (they call them SurfShuttles or something equally gormless), Dan Volker certainly references them. Frequently. If the image was modified to exclude any logos, then it will no longer be a trademark issue. User:138 —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC).


 * I found an advertisement for a Halcyon surf shuttle on the DIR direct web page http://www.dirdirect.com/Halcyon-Surf-Shuttle.html and on the Halcyon site at http://www.halcyon.net/?q=node/11 This establishes that the equipment exists, not that it is approved in the DIR system. It also does not look like item in the photo you posted. Can you clarify this and provide a reference for any of your edits? The photo and reference to Dan Volker will be removed from the article until this is clarified. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I very strongly believe that this Surf Shuttle stuff should be promptly and completely deleted: (1) there's been no clear evidence (citations) that this piece of kit is in any way a core & integral part of the DIR Hogarthian approach; (2) a float mat makes utterly no sense to have in a cave .. particularly in the context that the mere snorkel was banned by DIR as having no place in a hard overhead environment; (3) even if it is demonstrated that this is a genuine piece of DIR acceptable gear for Open Water, the scope of this Wiki page isn't intended to be hardware comprehensive.  For example, no specifics on DIR-approved regulators, let alone DIR-approved reels, or various types of cave lines are present, despite every one of these being far more profound to DIR's cave-centric origins and holistic philosophies; (4) from an advocacy standpoint, Dan Volker is not even a noteable figure, let alone an individual who I would recognize as a conflict-of-interests-free technically recommendable SME authority (sorry Dan); (5) at present, its content contains utterly zero information as to how it is in any way relevant to contributing to DIR principles; (6) its inclusion smacks strongly of being a crass marketing insertion attempt to sell Halycon products.  In summary, it has zero redeeming values in terms of adding anything of meaningful material benefit to the page's topic.  -hh (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @-hh. (1) I can't argue with your first point. There is no citation. (2) DIR is historically rooted in cave diving, but now extends its influence to most aspects of recreatinal diving. Use of an auxiliary surface floatation device at distances offshore that you wouldn't want to try to swim makes some logical sense. However, as you point out, a snorkel in those situations also makes some logical sense. (3) The page is still growing, and a surf shuttle is representative of a generic class of equipment. If it is officially sanctioned (no evidence so far), I think it has a place as a mention, without trade names. (4) Dan Volker is cited as one of the presenters on the copy of the DIR3 video that I got from a friend, along with GI3 and Bill Mee. I dont know if this information is correct, I haven't had time to check, but it would make him at least slightly notable in the field, though obviously partisan. Being partisan is a standard characteristic of those divers who developed DIR, and created its policies, so he can't really be discounted as an authority on those grounds. This still needs to be verified, but does count for something while on hold. The DIR3 video does seem to be considered DIR canon by a large number of people who would claim to be DIR divers. (5) Also can't argue with this point. (6) To me it looks more like someone trying to make a joke at Dan Volker's expense, based on the quality of the photo, the speech bubbles, and the text referring to Dan, but your interpretation may be correct.
 * I would not oppose deletion of the section, but on the proviso that if evidence is provided in the form of acceptable citation, both that it is DIR sanctioned equipment, and under what conditions it is sanctioned, then it can be replaced. DIR equipment policy as explained by JJ in Fundamentals and elsewhere, does not proscribe additional task related equipment. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember Dan Volker (and I expect Hugh does as well) from usenet 15-20 years ago. If I recall correctly, Dan also writes South Florida Dive Journal and has done so since the early 1990s. I don't claim that makes him an authority on all things diving-related, but it is indicative of his status in the diving community. It probably also means that the picture is meant as a joke at his expense, albeit an affectionate one. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DIR - Halycon relationship?
Looking at the surfmat section has raised another potential topic area for discussion, although I do so with the warning that this is probably a political third rail that would require due dilegence to maintain NPOV. The facts are that DIR has historically had very strong business affiliations with Halycon. One of the longstanding cynical jokes was that a piece of gear couldn't be DIR unless it was the version that Halycon sold. The question is .. to what degree should the DIR page disclose and discuss this? -hh (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it may be more accurate to say that Halcyon had (has?) strong business affiliations with DIR, but the converse may also be true.
 * I dont have particularly strong feelings about this detail of history, but if someone thinks it is important a properly cited entry in the 'History' or 'Controversies' section might be appropriate. I intend to wait and see. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ratio deco
Does it really belong in "dive planning"? RD is as much (or more) an operational procedure as a planning aid. Wiki4Thal (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever means a diver uses to determine their deco schedule is part of planning the dive. So yes, just like the use of deco tables or deco software, it belongs in Dive planning. --RexxS (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wiki4Thal: It is not out of place in dive planning, but it can be considered an operational procedure too. where were you thinking it should go? Also, do you have any sources for more accurate information on what it actually is, and how central is it to DIR principles? Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I've always seen (I know it is heresy to express this} RD as more of an ad hoc kinda way to do deco calcs in one's head than as a serious planing tool kinda more like a dive computer than a set of custom tables hot off the printer, but you are right, it could go anywhere.

As far as having a source that defines how central to DIR RD is, well ... not to be too cynical (but I'm old enough and have been diving long enough wear my sarcasm and cynicism tags permanently) ... the issue is that I can find you lots of sources that will swear that RD is the holy grail of DIR, without with the unwashed are doomed to eons of strokery in Purgatory prior to their redemption, and an equal number that will maintain, quite emphatically that it's not all the important. So one is left with the (un)enviable position of, "how central do you want it to be?" if you know what I mean. Best, ThalWiki4Thal (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Both in my Tech1 course with Bob Sherwood in 2007, and again in 2011 with Richard Lundgren, Ratio Deco was presented as tool which needs to be validated against other decompression software -- with 30/85 GF or VPM-B with +2 conservatism being the recommended standards. It is also presented, however, as a bit more than just for ad hoc modifications to plans in the water.  Once validated against decompression software, RD can be used as the primary planning tool after building up experience with similar depth and time profiles.  Most routine tech diving using RD would involve no more planning before the dive than agreeing on the planned depth and time, and the planned amount of deco.  The courses are very consistent about this approach, while what gets posted on the internet is another matter.  And UTD has a different take (they appear to be more of a "holy grail of DIR" approach, but that isn't very NPOV).  Quoting from the 2.0.1 version of the GUE Tech1 Student Workbook:  "It is important to remember that as exposure increases, risk increases, when using ad-hoc tools such as ratio deco and pragmatic decompression.  Prudent divers will always confirm their assumptions using decompression software". Lamontcg (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DIR criticisms and controversies
I'm making an effort to bring the DIR criticisms and controversies section into a form that meets the requirements that Wikipedia has for sourcing. The current section is riddled with unsourced commentary and unsubstantiated original research. I'll place here any text that I believe fails our policies and ask that discussion ensures if others disagree with me.


 * For a system that had attempted to consolidate and promote many useful diving practises into one comprehensive system and philosophy it may seem surprising that the DIR system has sparked such controversy and negative comment by many critics.
 * No source offered. Who is surprised and what controversy & negative comment? Who are the "many critics"? See WP:WEASEL.


 * In the exact words of Casey McKinlay, Project Director for the Woodville Karst Plain Project - "I recognize the WKPP for numerous reasons has never been popular with many segments of the diving community."
 * What makes a second-hand report in the Yorkshire Divers forums a reliable source? Is "ElvisTheKing" an acknowledged expert on Casey McKinlay, or does he enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?


 * Controversy is reflected in the fundamental DIR text "Doing It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving by Jarrod Jablonski which catagorises other divers and diving agencies - "Today, there are dozens of diving agencies, offering many more different certification courses, in skill-sets ranging from basic open water to advanced Trimix instructor. Though divers emerging from these courses often possess vastly different skill and experience levels, nonetheless, the fact is that most seem to lack sound fundamental diving skills."
 * Who says that controversy is reflected in DIR Fundamentals? A Wikipedia editor or a reliable source?


 * Reaction to such charges is reflected in counter-criticism and counter-charges that the proponents of DIR have no direct experience or understanding of the diving conditions in which alternative forms of diving is carried out and are unqualified to make such charges e.g. The British Cave Diving Group.
 * What "such charges" are these, and who is making them? Where is it stated that DIR have no direct experience or understanding of alternate forms of diving? Certainly not in the reference given, which is a specific reply to a post made by George Irvine on the tech-diver mailing list.


 * ===Universality Controversy – can “one size fit all?”===
 * No source for this question


 * Historically the DIR approach to dive procedures and equipment configuration began from very advanced diving – deep cave penetration. An operative philosophy in extending this DIR system to other forms of scuba diving follows the argument that if it’s safest for that extreme, it must be safest elsewhere. The DIR approach to equipment configuration is claimed to be the best system for all forms of scuba diving. The rejection of this claim is seen as the major controversy with respect to DIR.
 * Who says that the rejection of the claim is the "major controversy"? No source, just an editor's opinion. See No original research.


 * From a purely mathematical point of view this criticism echoes the fact that any optimal solution cannot exist in all possible changes in system variables, but is confined to a more limited set of these variables.
 * What maths and whose criticism? This is simple editorialising dressed up in pseudo-academic language, and is again unsourced speculation.


 * But proponents of the DIR system maintain that optimality can be achieved over all variations of condition without allowing modification of configuration or practise.  In Jarrod Jablonski's words " DIR is a holistic system and although incorporating one part of it into another system is possible, it is not DIR. It is also likely to be fraught with complications. The same is true within the equipment configuration itself. Divers who opt to make changes to any part of the equipment configuration are likely to upset the carefully arranged components that are structured to complement one another."
 * What makes http://scubaadventures.eu/ a reliable source? JJ's comments could be sourced to Fundamentals.

I've re-written those sections to eliminate as many of the sourcing problems as I have been able to, and I've tried to maintain a neutral tone. I'd be happy to discuss comments by others, and any assistance in paring back the original research, synthesis, and unsourced speculation would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another problem: "For these novice divers the jacket style type of BCD provides better heads-up surface flotation necessary to mitigate such risks, instead of the wing type BCD recommended by DIR" which is a problem only for single Al80s that are improperly weighted with the bulk of the diver's weight around their waist.  With a weighted STA and some tank weights, which would be recommended by a DIR diver in order to trim out single Al80s horizontally in the water, the additional weight behind the wing will pitch the diver backwards and float their face out of the water.  As moderator of the DIR forum I've seen this argument for about 8 years and would consider it to simply be a troll there, its not an 'encyclopedic' criticism of DIR, it is based around a misunderstanding of applying DIR principles and not seeing the big picture -- diving a backplate and a wing is more than just strapping one on and going for a dive, and also involves proper fit and weight adjustment of the rig.   Lamontcg (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, I've dived with wings for close on 20 years now, and I can assure anyone who takes the time sort out their trim that no such problem will exist. However, I'm not a reliable source, but I can point to:
 * where the issue of trim in the context of proper weighting is discussed and the viability of wings for surface flotation is asserted. That needs to be compared with the source offered as criticism of wings:
 * I'll have a look in the next few days and see if the criticism is broad, or restricted to being a problem for novice divers only. --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also personally have the not the reliable source caveat, but the suface trim issue isn't somthing to be blamed just on Novices, nor on just gear either: it requires an understanding of the Mechanical Engineering principles of Moment Arms between one's center of buoyancy and center of mass, and with the understanding that it is a 2 DOF problem from which Open Water divers have traditionally tried to address two main optization points of interest (horizontal & vertical), but within the DIR's contextual history of hard overhead environments (eg, caves), one of these optimization points become highly secondary (no surface floats in hard overheads).  As such, the risk from DIR developers ignoring that factor has minimal applied negative consequences...BTW,also note how this parallels the snorkel isn't useful inside a cave observation too.
 * Some years ago, I made up a set of illustrations of the applied Mechanical Engineering principles present on trim: centroid definition, the horizontal trim and vertical trim moment arm based trim principles.  If they'll be useful to apply here, just let me know and I'll formally update my copyright to allow their use on Wiki.
 * So while Mechanical Engineering principles indisputably identify that a BP/W will result in a vertical surface trim orientation that's different (worse) than a Jacket style, and while the BP/W can certainly be compensated by moving weights rearwards to a weighted STA (to reduce the moment arm length), that's not what's of significance here, per se. The relevency is that DIR did select the BP/W for a variety of reasons, some of which relate to how it contributed to mitigating the risks for their dive objective priorities.  The question is that with DIR reportedly having suggested optimality for all objectives/dive conditions, these trim compensation elements could potentially be evidence to the contrary.  But in counterpoint, given that many diver deaths are found to have failed to ditch their weights, perhaps DIR's on the right track even though I'd probably opine that it is for the wrong reasons (fail to ditch = inadequate OW diver training).  -hh (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some years ago, I made up a set of illustrations of the applied Mechanical Engineering principles present on trim: centroid definition, the horizontal trim and vertical trim moment arm based trim principles.  If they'll be useful to apply here, just let me know and I'll formally update my copyright to allow their use on Wiki.
 * So while Mechanical Engineering principles indisputably identify that a BP/W will result in a vertical surface trim orientation that's different (worse) than a Jacket style, and while the BP/W can certainly be compensated by moving weights rearwards to a weighted STA (to reduce the moment arm length), that's not what's of significance here, per se. The relevency is that DIR did select the BP/W for a variety of reasons, some of which relate to how it contributed to mitigating the risks for their dive objective priorities.  The question is that with DIR reportedly having suggested optimality for all objectives/dive conditions, these trim compensation elements could potentially be evidence to the contrary.  But in counterpoint, given that many diver deaths are found to have failed to ditch their weights, perhaps DIR's on the right track even though I'd probably opine that it is for the wrong reasons (fail to ditch = inadequate OW diver training).  -hh (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem of synthesis
There is an important Wikipedia policy which prohibits synthesis of published material that advances a position and most of the "criticism" section is a classic example of a breach of this policy.

There is a quantity of sourced text which argues in favour of solo diving. The DIR position is that any diving activity can be better accomplished by a team than by an individual. The two are being synthesised into a claim that the sources which favour solo diving are therefore a criticism of DIR. None of the sources given offer that criticism of DIR, and we are not allowed to advance a position that has not been published independently. I'm removing the synthesis from the article. --RexxS (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you. If someone advances a hypothesis that includes a rejection of "X" as a prime concept and two other people advance support of "X," then I do not thing it a new synthesis to advance the view that acceptance of a "X" is a rejection of the initial hypothesis.  If "X" were a minor or ancillary thing, perhaps, but when it is as core as team diving is to DIR, well ... that is not, in my mind a new synthesis.  BTW: I am totally against solo diving, I do not do it, it is anathema to the traditions and regulations of the U.S. Scientific Diving Community. Wiki4Thal (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, please read the policy No original research which states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. None of the sources given contains any criticism of DIR. The only place the argument that (support of solo diving) = (criticism of DIR) is made is the argument advanced by HowieKor. HowieKor is so prejudiced against DIR that he has invented his own criticism and is now throwing all sorts of irrelevant sources in to try to justify his own opinion, which does not exist in any reliable source. --RexxS (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, http://www.caves.org/committee/award/ is not a source showing anything. The page http://www.sidemount.com/?page_id=89 carries the disclaimer "The articles on Bill's Information pages were written by and contain simply the opinions of Bill Rennaker." Bill Rennaker is an experienced diver but not a notable expert - he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page which is effectively the minimum requirement. That actually doesn't matter because the page contains no criticism of DIR. Neither does http://www.cavedivinggroup.org.uk/Articles/Buddy_or_Solo_Diving_in_UK_Sumps.pdf - it is unacceptable to invent controversy where the source simply does not make that point. --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, Bill Rennaker, while not a prolific author, is a "notable expert." Were I to need to dive sidemount, he is one of the experts whose experience I would want to tap.


 * I must admit that I am a new here and a bit at sea concerning the whole reference and source thing. I've read all the wiki pages that I could find on the subject and it still appears to me to be contradictory and confusing.  Bill is an expert, I'd have no trouble qualifying him in a court of law as such.  But at the same time we accept a quote from: Batin, John; "The Scuba Diving Handbook" A.C. Black Publishers, 2007, p.88-89, ISBN 13:978-0-7136-8362-2 that argues: "No serious diver should be equipped without a dive computer, and there are many to choose from. Diving computers probably represent the single most important advance in diving equipment since the invention of the aqualung."  (I should note that the author is not "Batin" but rather "Bantin" and the proper publisher, etc. is:  Firefly Books (August 17, 2007) ISBN-10: 1554072808 ASIN: B0044KMVMM.)  But the point is, who the heck is John Batlin?  I've been in diving for well over 60 years and I've never heard of him.  Does that mean that he is not a creditable source?  Of course not, but have you heard of him?  What does Firefly Books know about diving anyway?  Maybe a lot, maybe nothing.  By contrast, Paul Heinmiller and I wrote NAUI's training standards.  There are four people in the world who were involved directly in the process and are truly creditable sources as to what each section was intended to mean.  But I can't just say as a reference, "I say so."  Even though (except for Paul, Walt Hendricks Sr. and Marshal McNautt) there is no one on Earth who is a more creditable source. Wiki4Thal (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I am doing no more than following policy on Wikipedia. Here's what WP:Identifying reliable sources has to say: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. I'm sorry, but http://www.sidemount.com/ simply doesn't show any evidence of the process described as "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That means peer-review processes such as is found in academic journals, or an editorial policy that reviews and checks what is written as is usual for high-quality newspapers. You don't have to take my word for it, you can see that formula if you look at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard or ask if sidemount.com is a reliable source there. That leaves the possibility that Bill Rennaker fits this description: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Has Bill Rennaker been published sufficiently in reliable third-party publications? I'm not aware of that. More importantly, has he offered criticism of DIR? Or is his support for solo diving being used to generate a controversy that does not exist in reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Problem of synthesis"
Hi Im away on a holiday ski break till Jan5. Hope you can appreciate that I neither have the full Internet access nor the time to respond to editing changes made by Rexx on the DIR Controversy section while away. I did have had the opportunity to read through associated comments made on this page. All I can say for the moment that I consider almost all of the argument for removal of material very unjustified… that the reality of the situation is that it is not ME who is synthesising arguments here but Rexx … in the manner that he attempts to edit out perfectly acceptable (as I see it) verifiable statements relating to the sections he has cut up. Knowing Rexx’s past positioning on these matters I had already taken great care to have Peter Southwood review everything in this area as I produced the present textual revision. While this process took place Rexx had ample time to add any comments of his own. In any case on my return It is may intention to answer each and every specific point made by Rexx and test the views of other editors in the scuba section on the appropriatness of this material under Wikipedia policies. In the meantime I believe it is only right and proper to restore the original text. Jan 5/6 is not so far away. I do however accept Peter as a very fair and knowledgable judge on all these matters, and if Peter feels that on face value these criticisms Rexx is making here are wholly valid, I will accept without question his judgment on the matter – even if I have not yet added my responses to Rexx  yet – I can’t say fairer than that.
 * Wishing everyone a very happy New Year --HowieKor (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made one set of edits and am waiting for comments before I continue. I waited patiently while you wrote for you to supply the sources to back up what you wrote. There comes a point where you need to verify the claims you have been making, and I'm seeing very little sign of that so far.
 * What you have done is to write down your own opinions and prejudices, and then scratched around to try to justify your own position by searching for sources that might be misconstrued for that purpose. That is not how articles are written on Wikipedia. You start by assembling relevant sources; read them all; and summarise what they say. You have consistently failed to follow that basic method and equally consistently smeared me simply because I would not accept your methods of working. I've been working on Wikipedia scuba articles for four years and have over 12,000 edits. In that time I have taken three scuba-related articles through the Good Article process, one through Featured Article, and one through Featured List and I wrote the WikiProject Scuba diving assessment scheme. So you'll excuse me when I say I'm not prepared to see your text restored as I know that it did not meet even the lowest standard of verifiability. With all due respect to Peter, I'd be interested in his opinion, but I don't believe that he is in any position to be a judge. How about you go ask User:Gene Hobbs, who is an experienced Wikipedian and easily the most knowledgeable on sourcing, to referee our dispute? Better yet, why not read some of the policies that I've linked and try to understand why I find your attitude so incompatible with our basic principles of verifiability, reliable sourcing, and no original research? --RexxS (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, all this talk of jacket style BC's vs BP/W made me think of one thing -- Context.... Simply put look at the context in which DIR was created as it relates to the BC.. A cave or tech diver is generally never in a single Tank rig. The Jacket style BC is strictly a single tank rig, at least I have never seen or heard of a doubles jacket style BC. This alone makes the jacket style BC unsuitable for a system which can be utilized in multiple environments without major configuration changes, which is a core tenet of the DIR system. Regardless of the surface buoyancy characteristics, the Jacket style BC is unsuitable for the system or philosophy. DIR was created for double tank systems, but is suitable for single tank systems. my 2 cents  Rlynch356 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For reference, I was diving with independent twin sets in the 1980s, before isolation manifolds were easily available. My regular buddy used steel bands to keep the tanks together and large cam-bands around both tanks to secure them to his stab jacket. I used an Apex twinning kit which provided shaped plastic blocks between the cylinders, four cam bands (two around each cylinder) and a double tank boot to help maintain rigidity when secured to my Seaquest stab jacket. My stab jacket fell apart under the strain eventually, and I moved on to a Transpac and wings. However, it does show that jacket-style BCs were perfectly usable for twin sets, and could be reconfigured for single cylinder use as needed. Having dived both single and double cylinders, using both stab jackets and wings, I can attest to the feasibility of using any of those combinations. I know which I prefer: manifolded twins with wings for all my diving, with the exception of diving on holiday where I'm stuck with whatever cylinder is available. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Oceanic makes a double tank setup for one of thier BCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected - there are jacket BC's that take or have taken twin setup's or at least were solutions to convert a single jack BC to use a twin setup. But i believe that proves my point. From the onset the BP/W design was intended for a twin cylinder setup and then adapted to via an STA or simple cutouts in the BP for a singles mount senario. The twin cyclinder Jacket BC is definitly not DIR, but feel free to put them in the contriversy section as a counter point. I could not find any reference other than "Twin Cylinder Band Adaptor " for the Oceanpro 1000d on the oceanic ww site so it does not seem to be a current product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlynch356 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As YA aside, the current ScubaPro Glide Pro (Jacket BCD) also supports twins (via steel cam bands), but I agree with where I think Rlynch356 is going: contextually, DIR's developmental genesis for safer cave dive exploration, and that requirement lead to a material solution of twins, which lead to the various options to carry twins.  So its not that a Jacket can't do twins, but if it is the best tool for twins?   Particularly when we retain the cave environment for context which may also affect other system trades (eg, surface float orientation).  Of course, now what's needed is a good citation to this effect.  -hh (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

exactly, and well put. I'm working on a context but of course the BP/W was designed by Greg Flanagan in 1979 from an aluminium road sign. http://rueg.org/diving%20articles/backplate.htm for cave diving specifically. Dive Rite marketed the first comerically advailable ones etc. Rlynch356 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Adjunction request -to Gene Hobbs

 * Rexx has suggested (and I concur) that I ask you to adjudicate a somewhat heated controversy over a subsection of the Doing It Right article, where I have authored a fair percentage of the Controversies and Criticism section. I had already taken onboard change suggestions from Peter Southwood, but you might want to check with him on how totally well I have responded to his sourcing requests etc.   Rexx is now editing the section I wrote.  The cuts are what I would call extreme, and I feel they are uncalled for under the Wikipedia editing policies.   Rexx says not.   Perhaps you can set us both some guidance on this matter.  I summarise the issues here, and Rexx’s views are expressed earlier on this discussion page.


 * So I will now “state my case”.


 * '''The issue of Synthesis”....

'''
 * Rexx acuses me of synthesising my content to represent an argument that does not exist between DIR authorities and other diving authorities… the context here being solo diving, which is Rexx’s first edit area. Rexx is holding off from further edits while awaiting your opinion.  Rexx accuses me of not even “read the policies”.  I assure you that I have read the policies in detail.  I will get down to answering the particular points raised by Rex here on this discussion page.  The argument Rexx  quotes to reject much of my entry  is that :


 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
 * I want to point out quite clearly that this IS NOT the type of argument I am putting forward as Wiki4Thai has already pointed out here. I do not take reliable source A statement and then use reliable source B statement to promote or imply any new conclusion C.  (In terms of Mathematical Logic this combining is called a “Logical Conjunction” – A AND B - I fully recognise it is not allowable in Wikipedia)  I use instead a pure NEGATION - reliable source A states exactly the OPPOSITE of what is being proposed by the other article authority B.  In the solo diving section I quote several cave diving authorities who EACH SEPARATLY and independently support a practise that is the exact NEGATION of that stated by DIR.   And negation is EXACTLY the very nature of controversy.


 * What is controversy?


 * The Dictionary definition of Controversy is “Argument between opposing points of view” and “disagreement especially in public” – all dictionaries have these meanings.  This is exactly what I show in the area of solo diving and elsewhere in other sections – for example the “Controversy about fundamental philosophy” section later in my contribution (which is probably also due for the chop by Rexx on the same basis).  I contrast statements of contention, I do not CONSTRUCT arguments. I use established authority.


 * Who is an authority?


 * Where I might get by a first hurdle in the “Synthesis” realm the next hurdle I face is the issue of notability – the case in point Bill Rennaker. Rexx says “ Bill Rennaker is an experienced diver but not a notable expert - he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page which is effectively the minimum requirement.”  Therefore Rexx has Rennaker’s statements supporting solo diving in cave diving scrubbed.  Bill Rennaker is in fact one of the highly noted  American authorities on cave diving, an instructor for the NSS-CDS, NACD, and IANTD  - a Fellow of the National Speleological Society, a leading innovator of cave diving equipment configuration, a leading instructor in these techniques, a founding director of his own cave diving facility/centre, a noted cave surveyor/explorer, a cave rescue diver and regional co-ordinator of the IUCRR.  He argues for solo diving in cave diving. His sidemount designs have been structured to improve not just cave diving itself but also to expedite safer solo cave diving.


 * I believe that the fact that solo diving is a practise supported within the American cave diving community is VITAL to the presentation of facts on the matter. The text as edited by Rexx leaves only the British Cave Diving Group as holding a view on solo cave diving contrary to DIR, leaving the impression for American readers that it is only some quaint little British organisation that has this opposing view.  Not True.   I would also put this in the context that British diving and the BCDG in particular has received devastating and vitriolic attack from George Irvine; for example link – www.aktun.com/divehelmets.html - and it is quite unfair in these circumstances to edit down to leave a misconception for American divers that it is only the “stupid” British who do solo cave.  Being an American myself I know how provincial my fellow countrymen can sometimes be.  (and I am utterly mortified that someone prominent in the American diving community can treat such outstanding divers as the British with such clear contempt)


 * Rennaker is a leading American voice for cave solo diving. I am willing to put up a page on Wikipedia on Rennaker if absolutely necessary ( I did it for Bob Halstead under similar circumstances), but in all honesty I find this sort of use of editing is really quite obstructionist – we only have so much time to do Wikipedia work.    We are all knowledgeable divers ourselves in judging diving qualifications- how could any of us reject the views of Rennaker as lacking in authority?


 * Moving on- the next hurdle, Rexx says Rennakers comments re: solo diving are inadmissible anyhow because “… the page contains no criticism of DIR.”


 * What must controversy over DIR contaln?


 * Suppose there are two parliamentarians A and B. A says Britain should join the Eurozone.  B says that Britain should NOT join the Eurozone.  Is there a controversy?  Of course there is.  Is it necessary for B to explicitly say “ I have a position that does not agree with parliamentarian A in particular with respect to parliamentarian A’s view of Britain joining the Eurozone” for us to establish that there is a fundamental difference (controversy) between the politican A and B.  Of course not.  Rexx says that because Rennaker does not SPECIFICALLY state that he disagrees with DIRs position on solo cave diving, so that his advocacy of Solo Diving for cave divers bears not controversy relative to the DIR position.  This is surely total nonsense.


 * The next hurdle – Origin of Source Material


 * At this point I find criticism from Rexx that Rennaker’s statements on the Cave Adventures webisite “carries the disclaimer "The articles on Bill's Information pages were written by and contain simply the opinions of Bill Rennaker”   Well yes, isn’t this exactly what we would expect, and what we want?   Rennaker is quoting HIMSELF and applying his own expertise in this website,  and saying so.


 * On a similar front - to show there is a controversy I quote a senior figure in the WPKK, who states that there actually is such controversy. My words: “In the exact words of Casey McKinlay, Project Director for the Woodville Karst Plain Project "I recognize the WKPP for numerous reasons has never been popular with many segments of the diving community."  This, I contend, is a statement from the DIR/WKPP movement itself, recognising a controversial position in the industry


 * Rexx comment: “What makes a second-hand report in the Yorkshire Divers forums a reliable source? Is "ElvisTheKing" an acknowledged expert on Casey McKinlay, or does he enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?”
 * The Casey McKinlay statement appears on a number of forums, any one could be quoted as a source. It is a formal statement by Casey McKinlay.  Rexx seems to infer that the statement could have been some sort of forgery set up Yorkshire Divers and/or possible by additional person(s) in  these other forums.  Is this infinitesimally plausible? Anything on the internet for that matter could be randomly accused of being a forgery by this criteria.  And for what purpose could such a statement actually be fabricated?  It beggars belief.  Is this the basis to reject material?


 * The One size fits all headed Section


 * This entire section was deleted by Rexx. The claim for universal correctness is a major bone of contention where DIR both claims to be the only correct diving approach and labels all other practises as very poor, dangerous, and born of ignorance.  To set the backdrop my opening statement is a quote from Jablonski himself:


 * “Controversy is reflected in the fundamental DIR text "Doing It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving by Jarrod Jablonski which categorises other divers and diving agencies - "Today, there are dozens of diving agencies, offering many more different certification courses, in skill-sets ranging from basic open water to advanced Trimix instructor. Though divers emerging from these courses often possess vastly different skill and experience levels, nonetheless, the fact is that most seem to lack sound fundamental diving skills."


 * Rexx removes this material and infers that the statement reflects no controversy, and that it is ME as editor who is MAKING this into a controversy.  This is absurd – I am only quoting.  And this is EXACTLY what controversy is.  Without a doubt this is an incredibly contentious and provocative stance.  Why is it rejected as irrelevant by Rexx?  This statement is a very important example.  It shows the mindset of DIR very clearly.  In his editing Rexx never suggests alternative wording, he just scrubs away the subsection.


 * I then go on to state that the claims of DIR of universal optimality are mathematically impossible. Here I will yield ground- it really is argumentative of me  Not that it isn’t true…. it could be backed with endless chapter and verse from Optimality Theory but is this relevant to a diving readership?  To me, with a very strong background in mathematics it is totally compelling argument, but it is an argument which could be construed as original research as applied to this particular case (though it really is universal)  So I am certainly willing to do a rewrite of the One Size Fits all Section to improve sourcing and focus here….


 * So there we are in the main… Rexx promising to edit all the remaining section with the same approach.  I would expect that by this criteria nothing much will remain.  So this request for additional editorial guidance is quite important in this context Gene.


 * Synthesising in my opinion is a two edged sword. An author on Wikipedia can string together an arbitrary number of notable quotes to construct “original research” but by the same token an editor can, out of context, construct an arbitrary selection of editing criteria that bars any particular sources of “truth” from ever seeing the light of day.  I am not accusing Rexx of deliberately doing this, but the effect of his editing has exactly the same effect in this case.


 * Just one closing statement. Without a doubt I do not believe many of the claims made for the DIR system (although I l approve of many of its underlying principals).  I believe my own position on these matters are strongly represented in the dive community as a whole and nothing should be allowed to disguise the reality of this fact.  We should possibly ask ourselves what are the two possible outcomes of this editing dispute- i.e. where will this all end up as seen through the eyes of a Wikipedia reader?


 * 1) A comprehensive treatise on DIR beliefs and a very detailed coverage of the  practises they encompass with the associated rationales for them and a brief mention that some other divers hold some contrary views OR
 * 2) A comprehensive treatise on DIR beliefs and a very detailed coverage of the practises they encompass with the associated rationales for them and an overview of why this system has sparked some real controversy in the diving community


 * I do resent being accused of deliberately trying to establish my own personal views on this thread, this is NOT what I’ve been doing here.. I only seek to have a balanced treatment of the DIR movement here on Wikipedia. I make real effort to abide by the rules established here, an example being my completely refusing to post anything on the Halcyon controversies (although these too have some very notable sources). I believe I have also been quite circumspect in my representation of the controversy itself when I had a wide choice of using such quotes as GI calling PADI itself  “real idiots ….the bottom of the food chain”.


 * I totally accept that my views of DIR are biased, I believe that Mark Ellyatt hit the nail on the head when he humorously described DIR as “Scientology Meets Scuba”.  The movement starts from some very good fundamental principals about scuba practise and perverts them into an elitist, divisive ( and nasty), rigid credo with an assumed infallibility of their own priesthood.   It fosters a terrible  “them and us” mentality which never existed in the diving fraternity before.   I am not concerned about DIR influence among the technical diver community – most technical divers are far too independent minded to accept everything DIR without question.  I worry about more novice divers, the majority of Wiki readers I would assume.  DIR claims of universality of configuration and practise to include recreational diving are not just risible; they are more dangerous for divers of this experience and diving ambition level (eg diving without a computer).  With beginner divers, DIR appeals to an all too human “macho diver” mentality to dress up like the big boys do and swank it about – but they do this at the expense (and cost) of having kit that is actually less safe for their level of diving.  Worst of all, these divers are taught to think that they have “Got it right” – essentially they do not need to take responsibility for thinking through how their kit is best suited for safe diving for THEM and the particular type of diving they do.  I’m not at all trying to infer that all GUE or DIR people aren’t open or fair-minded – but I’d say that in this openness they are acting against the precepts of their own system – for at the heart of DIR thinking is the spirit of George Irvine III.


 * So I do not pretend to be neutral – but I AM trying to stick to the rules. Peter reminds me that on Wikipedia that it is verifiability and not truth that necessarily matters, but certainly within the confines of this important edict we should all seek to get as close to the truth as possible.  I believe this is really possible with understanding, fair and open editing.  And this is all I ask.  If truth really needs to be perverted to achieve “manageability” of Wikipedia, what is really the point of the whole exercise?


 * Anyhow.


 * Might I suggest that you read Rexx’s comments and my own comments here and with all this in mind take my original text and edit the material as you see the conventions and situation requires? I commit to accept your judgment in the matter totally.   Or you may have a better approach…. which again I will abide by.

Regards --HowieKor (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm grateful to Howie for stating his case. I feel it illustrates for me the problem he has in grasping how we are expected to create content in Wikipedia.
 * Synthesis occurs when an editor creates a conclusion that is not stated in reliable sources. This is the article on "Doing it right", and the requirement for inclusion in a section entitled DIR criticisms and controversies is simply this: a reliable source must report a criticism or controversy about DIR. It's that simple. For example, what Howie wrote was a compilation of text describing solo diving practices. He then makes the claim that because these diverge from DIR philosophy, then a controversy exists. That is a claim not made in the sources he quotes. Do his sources also criticise PADI, BSAC, SAA, etc. because they disapprove of solo diving? Perhaps they do implicitly, but it is quite wrong to frame differences in attitudes to solo diving as a DIR vs others controversy. Context is vital. In an article on Solo diving, it would be correct to present significant views for and against solo diving, but even then, we must not describe that as a controversy unless a source does so. Look at Chiropractic, an article that has attracted a huge amount of scrutiny because it is such a controversial topic. The lead of contains this:
 * Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.
 * because it is not enough to present Ernst's criticisms and contrast them with Bronfort's review. If a real controversy exists, then it will be described as such in a reliable source and we can quote that source.
 * Q: What is a controversy? A: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. -- WP:UNDUE. Solo dives are a tiny minority of the dives done and no more relevance to DIR than to the article on any training system or organisation.
 * Q: Who is an authority? A: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. -- WP:USERG. Bill Rennaker is not an established expert on DIR (the topic of the article) because has not published work on DIR in reliable third-party publications. He's not an expert on diving philosophy by Wikipedia's standards, and it's doubtful that he's an expert on anything beyond diving using sidemounts. That in no way diminishes him as a diver, it just demonstrates that his blog posts are his opinion, and nothing more.
 * Scuba (as you must have realised by now) is notoriously difficult to source to encyclopedic standards because it publishes relatively little in mainstream publications. If anybody knows whether a reliable source exists, it's most likely to be Gene.
 * Q: What is a neutral tone? A: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. -- WP:NPOV Here's Howie's text:
 * “Controversy is reflected in the fundamental DIR text "Doing It Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving by Jarrod Jablonski which categorises other divers and diving agencies - "Today, there are dozens of diving agencies, offering many more different certification courses, in skill-sets ranging from basic open water to advanced Trimix instructor. Though divers emerging from these courses often possess vastly different skill and experience levels, nonetheless, the fact is that most seem to lack sound fundamental diving skills."
 * Here's the re-write I did (not a complete removal as claimed):
 * From its earliest days, proponents of DIR have been critical of many other agencies, whose training they believe to be insufficient in fundamental diving skills.
 * Which of them is in a neutral tone? Which is sourced? Which contains the editor's own pov, including claims not found in reliable sources?
 * Here's what Howie says about my rewrite:
 * Rexx removes this material and infers that the statement reflects no controversy, and that it is ME as editor who is MAKING this into a controversy. This is absurd – I am only quoting. And this is EXACTLY what controversy is. Without a doubt this is an incredibly contentious and provocative stance. Why is it rejected as irrelevant by Rexx? This statement is a very important example. It shows the mindset of DIR very clearly. In his editing Rexx never suggests alternative wording, he just scrubs away the subsection.
 * The quotation shows a criticism by Jablonski of other training, and that is all. Howie says it is "an incredibly contentious and provocative stance", but what reliable source draws that conclusion? I reject Howie's claim of "Controversy is reflected ..." as unsourced i.e. unverifiable, not irrelevant. Then Howie claims that I "never suggests alternative wording" - well just what is the text that I amended it to, if not alternative wording. It doesn't deserve a subsection, because it's a tiny issue in respect of the DIR article. Read this:
 * Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.
 * It's from WP:STRUCTURE and it's one of the PILLARS of Wikipedia and I don't think I want to be spending much more time banging my head against a brick wall here. Not one of Howie's arguments fit with how we work here. I could refute the rest of it but there comes a point where I'm not prepared to keep on explaining our policies. Howie needs to read Identifying reliable sources (all of it) as well as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research and take to heart the reasons why we don't allow editors to write from off the top of their heads and search for sources to justify the text afterwards. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have avoided comment on this page like the plague but I guess I can't keep quiet any longer.
 * The Jarrod Jablonski edit is interesting but the RexxS edit conveys the information in a more neutral tone.
 * If you have comments by Bill about the DIR topic, please include them but be willing to do the work like you did with Bob Halstead. If you claim the person is notable enough to be a reference in an encyclopedia, be prepared to back it up by writing the article proving they are notable. (And Bill is certainly notable enough for his own article... is it worth your time?) I'd still avoid adding comments that infer anything... RexxS is passing along the Wikipedia party line and his interpretation is accurate.
 * This is EXACTLY why I don't write much content and provide references alone. On the occasion that I do add text, every statement is referenced so that I don't have to go through this argument.
 * As for Casey's comment... I don't like the use of a forum for the reference (especially with an author named "ElvisTheKing" rather than a real person) but it may be the best we can get short of asking Casey for a direct quote. If it is well quoted online, when/ where did he say it? That is a MUCH better reference and credited directly to the man that actually said it. If your go to Casey directly, be prepared to post the email on the talk page to keep from having this conversation again. The forum post issue was a problem we ran into with a quote from Simon Mitchell in another article. (...and Simon was worth my time)
 * On organization of the topic within the main article, could we learn from the Christianity article? Controversy sections should be a short summary of the controversies. If there are enough of them, create another article like they did with Criticism of Christianity.
 * Off topic: Nice job on the Halstead article. I'll try to clean up the references and do some general housekeeping before too long. Some of the Wiki image police may require better proof of permission to use the image you uploaded (like a copy of the email granting the permission), so keep close check on your watchlist. I've been nailed on that rule a few times.
 * Disclosure of my bias… I am the medical officer for the WKPP. My diving is mainly CCR these days but I do support the team how I can. So you can take my opinion or leave it and go to Arbitration.
 * I am going to crawl back into my world of medical related topics and references now. ;)
 * Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

“This is EXACTLY why I don't write much content and provide references alone.” Well, I’m amazed that ANYONE posts any content at all under these circumstances Gene.

I hadn’t exactly realized your WKPP connection Gene, but the very fact that you brought it up indicates you didn’t allow yourself to be biased by it. So I’ve said my piece and I’ll let the matter rest at that. As I said to Peter, I really can’t bring myself to work under a regime of “verifiability not truth” – from my perspective of an academic and scientific background, it’s too big a compromise for any benefits that might ensue. And having to jump through so many hoops to even get a glimpse of reality, as in the case of the Bill Rennaker content, well that’s pretty damn futile too. So I’m out of here. I will however maintain my scientific contributions on Wikipedia whenever I’m requested to do so, and will indeed look after Bob Halstead as you have asked me to Gene. Cheers – Good diving - --HowieKor (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hate to loose an editor HowieKor, but you do have to do what you feel is right. There is nothing in diving worth getting your blood pressure up. I usually have to defend the usefulness of this resource to the diving and medical communities and that effort almost never winds up getting anybody motivated enough to become involved. I really hate to see someone who is actually willing to work and not just complain about the resource leave. Take care, --Gene Hobbs (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gene. I will take that sound medical advice and keep the blood pressure off the boil – and take some extended time off. I’ll then reassess my thinking with a cooler head by summertime – but I can’t imagine I will ever feel very differently. Having published scientifically/academically before I do accept the possibility of having anything I say totally shot down in flames, but the idea that perfectly sound factual information isn’t even allowed to see the light of day – well, that’s just too hard for me to swallow. Anyhow, I’m sure my absence will  contribute to a general state of  improved  blood pressure  for  fellow divers here  Rexx and Peter – who’ve been at the receiving end of my efforts to “bridge the gap” between verifiability and truth. If I've offended anyone in this process of argument please accept my sincere apologies During this interval, I had discussed with Peter, the further application of the engineering FMEA process to many of the gear configuration issues that we have so passionately been debating from either a DIR or non-Dir perspective. I used to do that thing a lot for airborne electronic systems. You know how I’ve maintained that many DIR equipment rationales are both mathematically and technically totally nonsensical. Anyhow, such a treatment should prove these things one way or the other. As Haldane (the great man’s son) once said “an ounce of algebra is worth a ton of verbal argument”. I can’t spend too much time on this exercise –I’ll scope it out in the next few weeks and see. Anyhow, who knows, I may come back to haunt you all as “reliable source” myself. --HowieKor (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Image issue
Problem with the image is being resolved - i have the image owners permission which has been sent into the corect alias at Wiki's etc. He is also doing the same thing again granting consent for Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts

I added it to the image discussion page as well.Rlynch356 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

New Contributor Here
Hello everyone, Thought I would introduce myself and let people know why I’m here and what I’m doing. I'm rob and have been diving since 1988, for the past year I have been learning the DIR style and taking GUE courses so I have background in this area and recent experience with it personally. The topic came to my notice that the Article was needing some help from a DIR diver and I thought I would pitch in. I am a historian via College (this is not my profession however). So in full disclosure; I am a diver, I am GUE trained, I am pushing for more articles to be written on the foundational events of DIR with the principals involved, I am not the author of those articles, I do not work for any company in the dive industry & I will be objective and neutral.

Initially I am going to confine my Edits to the equipment configuration section (Section 4) while I research the foundational events and gather sources that can be cited for this area. I realize that this is a controversial topic to some and will handle it accordingly. I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes here and am willing to post here I the discussion section edits to Sections 1 & 2 which seem to be the most controversial, If needed I can post Edits to sections 3 & 4 however most of this material will come fully cited from the organizations today that support DIR principles (UTD & GUE primarily). Let me know on that.

Speaking of Section 4.13 “doing it wrongly” – this should be part of section 5 and be titled “Doing it Wrong”,  which is how most people would say it. Wrongly doesn’t make too much sense in this context. I could be my bias to American english showing here as well....

Thanks Rlynch356 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rlynch356 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC

dead links
What does one do when they find dead links? ref name="evolution" appears to no longer be available.
 * In the first instance add the template dead link before the tag. I've made that edit so you can see the result in . Sometimes websites are reorganised, and another editor may be able to provide a revised url. Otherwise there is the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php where you may be able to use the dead url and the accessdate to find an archived version of the page. In this case, a search at the GUE site produces this url: http://www.globalunderwaterexplorers.org/equipment/evolution - so it seems that the site was reorganised. I'll now update the cite to reflect that. --RexxS (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)