Talk:Underwater sports

Untitled
this is the tag its what you use when a citation or reference is needed. it –  with either CN or fact inside

Sub-aqua diving is a recreational activity, not a sport!
Sub-aqua diving (also called Recreational Scuba Diving or Sports Diving) is usually conducted as a recreational activity and not as a sport, despite the wide use of the term 'Sports Diving'. The only underwater sports that uses scuba diving equipment are underwater orienteering and (from memory) a number of sub-disciplines in finswimming. Cowdy001 (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be reading the word "sport" to mean "competitive sport". "Competitive" is not an essential part of the definition, and dictionary.com gives:
 * 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature
 * 3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime
 * Other dictionaries seem to agree. --RexxS (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with a liberal view of the definition of sport is that the result is a very broad ‘church’. There are already pages on Wikipedia regarding Underwater diving, Snorkeling, Scuba diving, Recreational diving and so on.  Do we shut down these pages and move all of the content to this page?  My view is that this  page should be more focused on competitive sport rather than recreational activity in order to improve this page.  Cowdy001 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:Summary style. It's normal Wikipedia practice to have overview or "parent" articles. As it happens, this article has become merely a convenient coatrack to hang somebody's POV about governance on. The question you probably ought to be asking is "why doesn't this article summarise more of the most important topics that are a part of it?" --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful advice re WP:Summary style and the 'question'; I will take all of this on board. After a close look at the article, I do agree about the POV issue. I also looked at the CMAS website (which I have now linked to this article) to find that most of the content is either out of date, not accurate or simply incorrect. I am now thinking about restoring the 'parent' status of the article. Cowdy001 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go for it, and remember any improvement - however small - makes the article better incrementally. We have no deadline and we'll never achieve perfection. If you're not sure - just do what you think is best, or leave a note here. There's a handful of regulars who will try to help you sort out any problems. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement tagged
The following statement is not factually correct as the BSAC is as June 2013 still the National Governing Body in both UK and England - 'In the United Kingdom, the original governing body for underwater sports was the British Sub-Aqua Club.' Please refer the following - Sports UK - & Sports England -. Cowdy001 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Lifesaving sports
Content concerning lifesaving sports has been removed for two reasons. Underwater Sports & Lifesaving Sports are recognised as being separate sports by organisations such as the IOC and SportAccord by virtue of the respective recognition of CMAS and ILS. Secondly, no reliable sources have been cited in support of the existence of an overlap between both sports. Cowdy001 (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of section entitled 'Controversies'
The following section which consists of five paragraphs has been removed in its entirety. The reasons for its deletion are listed below. Several controversies have arisen with regard to underwater sports.

There is a debate over whether scuba and underwater photography can be considered as sports.

Several of these sports (i.e. freediving and underwater hockey) have alternative world governing bodies.

The European Commission has, allegedly, asked the European Parliament to consider banning commercial spearfishing. Spearfishing has invoked controversy on several occasions, including a ban (for members) on competition fishing of territorial fish by the British Sub-Aqua Club in the late 1970s.

There has always been a debate on funding. In the English-speaking world, the only sport that has a significant following is underwater hockey. However, the more widely spread and more popular sport of finswimming is the only sport that is an International Olympic Committee sport. This has led to issues in funding and governance relationships in some National Governing Bodies. In the United Kingdom, the original governing body for underwater sports was the British Sub-Aqua Club. However, in 1997, CMAS expelled the British Sub-Aqua Club for several reasons. The Sub-Aqua Association was invited by CMAS to take the vacant seats. This expulsion led to many British underwater-sports participants not being able to compete on an international stage. As a result the British Underwater Sports Association was formed to allow for international participation, which is affiliated with CMAS. However, UK Sport (the governmental sports agency in the United Kingdom) has not accepted this change in governance. This has caused some issues with regards to funding and governance control within the United Kingdom.

Paragraph 2 - Firstly, no sources cited to verify the existence of the described debate. Secondly, the notion of the debate appears to be irrelevant in the face of the evidence of the existence within the article of at least five sports using scuba and two sports that use photography, and that some of these sports have been practised for at least 50 years.

Paragraph 3 - There is no explanation to why the existence of ‘alternative world governing bodies’ is a matter of controversy. If there are any controversies that can be supported by reliable sources, would not it be more appropriate to discuss these in the relevant WP articles i.e. underwater hockey, free-diving, CMAS and AIDA?

Paragraph 4 - Discussion about a commercial fishing activity is not relevant to an article about a sub-set of recreational diving. While the second sentence suggests the multiple occurrences, the sole source cited (i.e. The Diver story) briefly mentions one event without any substantive detail and with a stated point of view (i.e. opposed to competition spearfishing). If there is any controversy concerning Spearfishing as a sport that can supported by reliable sources, would it be more appropriate to discuss this in either the Spearfishing or an associated WP article?

Paragraph 5 - The intent of the paragraph is not clear in explaining what the controversy is. It starts with funding, then discusses which underwater sport is the most popular and then jumps to ‘governance relationships in some National Governing Bodies’. The latter relies on a British example of a governance issue. A review of sources available online suggests that as November 2013 there are no governance or funding problems in the UK. In 1997, there was arguably a problem which was quickly resolved by the creation of the British Underwater Sports Association (BUSA). As of November 2013, the BSAC is still the National Governing Body for underwater sports in the United Kingdom and a review of the relevant part of its website reveals the procedure for signing grant funding applications prepared by the SAA and BUSA members - refer Sport England funding. More detailed information is available at the Sport England Funding page - please click the ‘CHECK’ tab to read the detail. Given that the administrative arrangements for underwater sport in the UK are discussed elsewhere on the WP including the BUSA article, any controversies that can be supported by reliable sources should be discussed there or in an associated WP article.

Cowdy001 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Finswimming and the Olympics
The following sentence was removed from the section entitled ‘Governance’

Finswimming is the only sport in this group included within the family of sports regulated by the International Olympic Committee.

Firstly, there is no evidence that Finswimming is ‘regulated by the International Olympic Committee’ (IOC). In fact, a search of the IOC website for ‘finswimming’ just carried out yielded zero results. In fact, there is no ‘regulation’ of any sport by the IOC; the Olympic Charter states on page 53 that ‘each IF maintains its independence and autonomy in the administration of its sport.’ Secondly, the Olympic Charter only obliges CMAS in its role as the IF (i.e. International Federation) recognised by the IOC for  underwater sports to do the following:

The statutes, practice and activities of the IFs within the Olympic Movement must be in conformity with the Olympic Charter, including the adoption and implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code.

The Olympic Charter can be downloaded from the following link - http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf.

Cowdy001 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Section "Definition"
Suggest wholesale deletion of this section. It is poorly written, mostly appears to be POV, and is unsourced. The individual sports are better defined in their own sections, and the general concept is covered in the lead. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Peter, thanks for the suggestion - I think I will follow this advice. I do have a draft that discusses the origins of underwater sports - this will take sometime to finish due to the general lack of reliable sources concerning the subject area.  Cowdy001 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The underwater Rugby section is a direct copy of an uncited source
Exactly what it says on the box. read along as BBC says exactly what's written on this page : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25lqedXeKL0 Pokemonsta433 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Pokemonsta433, I disagree. The Underwater Rugby section has been in the article since August 2013 and the accompanying citation indicates that the information is the CMAS website .  I viewed the BBC News which is dated February 2014 and could not see or hear where the Wikipedia content has been used.  If it has been used, it is possible that the BBC could have used content from this article.  If so, Wikipedia should have been cited as the source.  Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)