User talk:RexxS/Archive 13

Retrocolic hernia
Thanks for your help, RexxS. I've removed the speedy tag, this short article now makes some sense. Best regards. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for the title bolding (which I'd forgotten). It's now claimed and assessed for WPMED, so should be in no further danger of deletion. It's possible that it ought to be merged and redirected to a section of the larger article on hernias, but someone with more expertise than I needs to make that sort of decision. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Surface supplied diving
Hi RexxS, I am doing a rehash/upgrade of Surface supplied diving. I am writing from memory as most of this is stuff I teach. I may not put in enough references, as much of it seems obvious/common knowledge to me. I would appreciate if you would take an occasional look and label anything that you think needs a citation, so I can go back and look it up and list it. I dont want to over-cite things that dont need references, but if anything looks doubtful, or you wonder where I got it, go ahead and mark it. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, Peter, I'm probably the worst person on-wiki to ask as, like you, I teach it all the time and so much of it seems common knowledge to me. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to take a look when you get closer to finishing. I suppose I could suggest "if in doubt, reference it" is a good maxim, as you will find complaints of "over-referencing" are rarer than old, bold divers. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Harry, for the kind words. Thanks are very much due to both of you for the organisation, and to WilliamH for all of the hard work that each of you put in on the day. I know how much the "students" appreciated it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Colours, flatlist, and accessibility
Hi, RexxS. I invite you to join the discussion about colours and the technical aspects of flatlist that is underway at Template talk:Physical oceanography. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dianna, I think that you and D have already covered most of what I would want to say. I've added a note about how it it affects my own colour impairment which may help to add some perspective on the issues. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

idea of merging into "alternate air source"
Don't think this merging would work at all. In diving usage the terms are very separate, even if the different systems may be attempting to solve somewhat similar problems. Users looking up any of these separate system (eg spare air, pony bottle etc) will NOT think of them by the term "Alternative Air Source". So for ordinary users referencing Wiki this common catagory is confusing. Nor is the usage of All Alternative Air Sources the same.... A Pony is only used as a backup for carrying an emergency ascent, a twinset for use during the dive itself, the octopus is not a redundant air supply itself etc etc. The single catagory also produces information overload, because of the many DIFFERENCES and methods of use. The more I think about it the more I see this restructuring as VERY confusing and unhelpful

Best Regards HowieKor — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowieKor (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Howie, thanks for notifying me of your concerns. All of the pages involved are on my watchlist, so I saw your comments at Talk:Bailout bottle. I see that Peter Southwood has replied to you there, so I'll comment at that article talk page if there's anything useful that I can add. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Octopus wars
Hi Rexx Re your statement" An improved system is to equip the regulator that is normally used throughout the dive (the "primary") with a long hose, typically 2 metres (6.6 ft) long. This is the regulator that is donated to a buddy who is out of air. The octopus or "secondary" regulator is then reserved for the donor diver and is on a short hose, mounted just under the chin. The principal advantage is that the diver who is in trouble will receive a regulator that is known to be working." I'm afraid the jury is still out on your claiming that this Hogarthian rigging style is actually "an improved system". I'm sure you're aware this is HIGHLY controversial( you only have to track most scuba discussion boards), and this alternative is specifically criticised as unsubstantiated by BSAC http://www.bsac.com/page.asp?section=3201&sectionTitle=Clarification+statement+on+Alternative+Supply+training+and+going+diving. But that isn't my main criticism here.... I think having a small battle over the best octopus rigging on a general topic area such as Buddy Diving is totally defocusing and irrelevant. Remember, I did make room to say that systems did vary in "standardisation"... I think this is enough in this topic area, but I would be interested in you're views Respect Howie --HowieKor (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Howie, but in Wikipedia, the only thing that counts is verifiability and my text is firmly sourced to a reliable source, while your text is unfortunately unsourced. It is irrelevant that I am of the opinion that it is an improvement, but it is highly relevant that my source holds that opinion.
 * From a personal perspective, I'm afraid that BSAC once again fails to keep up with developments that actually improve diver safety. It was the same story with nitrox, with trimix, with rebreathers. BSAC was slow to accept all of these - heck I've been diving long enough to remember BSAC preferring ABLJs to stab jackets because of fears that the diver might end up face down on the surface. Look at the statement they make. It admits three incidents of a diver's reg being snatched out of their mouth, and then fails to understand that training for that eventuality would reduce the stress in such situations. It boils down to "There's nothing wrong with Hogarthian configuration, except that we don't teach it". The only problem they can find is if the diver is using twin independents - and everybody knows that that configuration is only used for solo diving, so has no relevance to buddies.
 * It may be surprising to find that we cannot simply write what we know about about a subject, but we have to report what others (reliable sources) have already written. Feel free by all means to give a reference to a RS for the configuration that you wrote about. When you do, I'll be happy to attribute the statement about "an improved system". At present according to WP:ASF, only claims that are disputed among reliable sources need to be qualified. I have no intention of having any battles – and I'm very happy that you're contributing so much – but you really need to provide a lot more reliable sources for what you write. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re your recent additions to Buddy Diving
Come on Rexx, don’t you think it’s totally over the top to have such an exhaustive discussion of the alternative ways to configure hoses and their consequential hand-over procedures, in such a general overview section such as Buddy Diving. Why not move this very specialist discussion onto a separate topic in its own right? After all, we are supposedly here to help expand subject knowledge for people who are generally unfamiliar with a topic, not to take general subject area and confuse or bore readers with obscure areas of specialist contention. You are obviously very passionate about hogarthian long hose arguments, but cant we put this all into perspective.

Respect Howie --HowieKor (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved this down to the proper location. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gene :)
 * Well, look at it from the other point of view, Howie. Should the article describe just one way of gear rigging as if there were no alternative? Because that's how I found the article before I added the paragraph on a Hogarthian-style configuration. I certainly don't think there should be an article in its own right, as the scuba diving coverage on Wikipedia is already fragmented into a huge number of stubs and under-referenced articles. We should be trying to collect together similar topics and build decent-sized articles with quality references. For heaven's sake, we have Gene Hobbs who runs Rubicon Research Repository and who can find references for us on almost any diving topic where a reference exists. Why do we still end up with paragraph after paragraph of unsourced claims – or just as bad, stuff sourced to somebody's blog or personal webpage? If we want to improve coverage of scuba diving, let's get back to the basics: read what the good sources say, and then dispassionately summarise them with citations.
 * To answer your point, I actually think that breathing a long hose is more relevant to the topic of Buddy diving than to almost any other, since it is only in the context of diving with a buddy that the long primary makes a difference. I do understand though that you may not see it the same way.
 * For what it's worth, I stopped being passionate about the long-hose arguments sometime around 1999 since by then the debates on rec.scuba and Scuba-L had reached a firm conclusion. I'm merely surprised that the same old well-refuted arguments are still being trotted out as if Jarrod Jablonski et al had never put any thought into how to configure diving gear. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't say that you've convinced me Rexx, but I'll respect what you're trying to achieve on this subject. I do think that with the material you've added, the logical flow is rather disjointed at the moment. Why?-it attempts to encompass both octopus rigging convention in ordinary sport diving and that done in certain segments of more technical diving, all together.  What I'd like to do is keep what's there now and restructure it along lines of sport diving and tech diving practises.  will try to get this done in the next few days and will be interested in your comments.....

Cheers......Howie --HowieKor (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok for us to have different opinions - and it would be a dull world if we all thought the same, so I'm never going to worry about convincing you :) The main remaining difference is that I think you're still viewing the long hose as inseparable from tech diving, while I consider that a false distinction. I expect to be diving with approximately the same configuration whether I'm doing a 7 metre training dive for a novice at Stoney or a 100 metre trimix dive on the pump house at Dorothea. I hope you might take a look at some of the GUE training materials sometime - it's just as much a recreational programme as a technical one. It might just make you think again about trying to draw a distinction between rec and tech that actually does not exist. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rexx I’ll have a look at the GUE material you recommend. I do think that you and I will however remain at opposite ends of this amazingly emotive diving controversy. I’ll give you my views on the matter here, heaven knows we don’t want arguments to spill over into the subject text on Wiki. Don’t even know if this posting is appropriate HERE on a talk page, I’m a bit of a newbie on Wikipedia. I think the long hose system, if attempts to adopt for recreational diving succeed, will not only fail to improve emergency practises in this area, it will become a convention that will lessen diving safety (for areas outside of specialist tec areas such as wreak or cave diving that is). I also believe that in general the premise for the long hose system is a false premise – and that premise is that of the “panicked out of air diver grabbing for the regulator in his buddies mouth”. Such incidents may occur occasionally, but all sorts of things happen occasionally… there is no sense in making major (and I would say dangerous) changes of sensible safety practises to deal with them. The BSAC incident study I referenced earlier on this talk page backs up what I’m saying. The present Alternative Supply system continues to deal effectively for the REAL distribution of diving problems– including rare “panicked diver”ones. Your argument that BSAC, in its history, “fails to keep up with developments” cannot make it appropriate to dismiss EVERYTHING that BSAC has to say. You yourself point out the potential problems in long hose for recreational diving, it is “more cumbersome, requires greater skill to wear, deploy and recover”. To this I would add that the practise of BOTH divers, in a highly stressed situation, having to switch over to an alternative (untested) regulator source is a worse scenario than that of a donor knowing that through the process of getting a regulator to a buddy that at least HE can breathe freely throughout the process. In most cases any “out of air buddy” notices the worsening state of his air supply before it stops flowing completely and total panic cannot be accepted as the norm. Even if one’s octopus is “grabbed from his mouth” simple training to IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE reach for one’s own secondary is more prudent than changing the system entirely. Finally, I will end my little diatribe with this point. Most changeovers in diving practise, say the acceptance of Nitrox as well as air based diving, occurred “naturally” - where the existing practises and procedures did not alter as the new ones came in – they didn’t INTERFERE or CONFLICT with one another. What happens when an “old style” AS diver needs to share with a long hoser, and in a “panic situation” that you folks worry about so much? Diver A reaches to donate his primary, diver B goes for Diver A's secondary. Ooops, no – all change. Ooops – wrong again. Now these chaps have supposedly worked this all out in pre-dive discussions…. but if this was the case and nobody really will panic, what is the point of the more complex, more “cumbersome” long hose primary system in the first place? There are many other issues in OOA problems that exist that need sorting out and addressing, as seen in the BSAC incident report I referenced. Long hose issues are a defocus in getting them sorted. Sorry to go on like this, my background is in Engineering and I’ve spent tediously long hours doing system reliability/redundancy risk analysis… but the bottom line in this whole area is this - “if it ain’t broken – don’t try to fix it” Cheers Howie--HowieKor (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine to post here, Howie. User pages are just for this sort of discussion that's rather more abstract than simply how to improve a particular article. Have you figured out how to use an article history yet? Here's the article history for Buddy diving for November: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddy_diving&action=history&year=2011&month=11 – you can click that and have a look at 8 November. By clicking on the diffs, you be able to see I added a paragraph about breathing the long hose and sourced it to the DIR Manual. I never added any text that indicate any problems with a long primary. The "more cumbersome, requires greater skill to wear, deploy and recover" wasn't added by me and I'm quite likely to remove it soon if there is no reliable source to back it up, because it's simply untrue.
 * As for your assertions above: you have it back-to-front. The system of clipping an 1.2 m octopus somewhere on the front of a BCD - or stuffing it into a pocket, is a recipe for failure in a real emergency. I've seen so many divers dragging their octopus along a sandy bottom that I wonder if that valve ever gets breathed from until somebody's life depends on it. With my configuration, my secondary is inches below my chin; I can deploy it without using my hands; and because it's for me, I make damn sure it's in A1 working condition. Nevertheless, in the event of an emergency I can donate my primary in the knowledge that the panicked diver is getting a guaranteed working valve, and as I dip my head to let the wrapped hose come loose, I can take my secondary into my mouth at the same time. In the exceptionally rare case of a problem with that secondary, it is sorted out by the diver who is not out of air (me). If I'm wreck diving, our buddy pair can still exit in single file past obstructions. The simple point is this: my system works in exactly the same way, with the gear rigged in the same way, no matter what diving I'm doing and I practise the same drill without modification for any air-sharing situation. In a pre-dive buddy check, it's easy to explain to a first-time buddy that I'll donate the valve from my mouth if needed. Believe me, there's never any problem finding where that is. Now just try to see how well the system you refer to actually performs: the divers have to find a valve (probably) clipped somewhere (or in a pocket); there's likely no guarantee that it's working; the person who receives it is probably panicking - and they are the one who has to sort out any problems with the DV. When you also take into consideration that anybody who wants to dive any overhead environment has to re-learn a whole new system of rigging, then you can perhaps see why I'm so dismissive of many of the current practices that I observe.
 * Now, you ought to remember just how the changeover to nitrox occurred in the UK. Naturally??? In 1992 BSAC banned BSAC divers from diving on nitrox! It didn't matter if they were fully qualified by a nitrox-certifying agency; the 'devil-gas' was banned. The SAA accepted nitrox, and PADI followed suit soon after. Eventually BSAC realised that when used properly, nitrox was a step in improving diver safety, and then tried to pretend that their earlier pronouncements never happened. I really don't think you help your case by quoting that debacle as an example of no "CONFLICT" :D
 * Finally, what actually happens in your Diver A and B scenario? My primary is in my mouth with bubbles coming out of it. My secondary is under my chin, behind the primary. How on earth is Diver B going to even notice it, let alone take it? And what if he does? He gets two working valves; he can't put both in his mouth at the same time. At worst, he's no worse off than with your system. At best, he's on 7ft of hose with a known working valve in his mouth. I've even had an out of air buddy complete his deco by breathing off my long hose with me floating on the surface. Now just figure out the outcomes if a buddy takes the primary of a diver who has never practised donating the primary. There is the potential for a fatality; even if it happens rarely, it is an avoidable fatality. You will need to ensure that you don't end up with a motto that reads "If it is broke, don't fix it". Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Headings in Buddy diver
Hi RexxS, I see you reverted the heading changes. I was wondering about that myself but couldn't find a reference in the MoS. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place, as I have a vague feeling I have seen it before somewhere. Usually I write that off to confusion with Wikitravel, where I do most of my work. Anyway, if you could point me to the page, I would appreciate it. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, you may not always find the thing you're looking for in MOS - or sometimes it's split over more than one page. The MOS is, of course, only documentation of currently accepted guidelines describing how we do things - and not everything is documented. In this case, I'd suggest that Help:Section will provide you with the guidance on using sections in articles, with expanded detail in WP:Layout and shows how we use section headings to break up an article into smaller subsections. Problems with using html tags in articles is described in WP:ACCESS, particularly the section WP:Deviations. The problem of marking up a piece of text so that it resembles what you think a heading ought to look like is that we allow editors to set their own styles (e.g. high contrast for visually impaired), while someone using a screen reader like JAWS don't see the formatting that you've put in place, and don't hear a section heading at all at that point. You'll really need to browse through WCAG 2.0 to get a clearer picture of how good web design helps accessibility, but a typical example is G64 which explains how properly marked up sections will allow a table of contents that is useful to non-visual user agents. No single point of reference, I'm afraid, but I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks that looks useful. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Buddy Diving -Problems with long hose
You have misunderstood the point I was making about “conflict” between changing systems, my example being Nitrox and Air. My point was that although there were emotive arguments about the merits of the alternative systems at the time the two systems could be used side by side without conflict – i.e. the use of one system did not interfere or endanger someone using the other. This is not the case here, where DIR proponents such as yourself try to alter, or create mixed practises in recreational diving away from existing agency designated practise, to your own Hogarthian conventions. The dangers of this, if you bother to read any of the BSAC directives in this matter, is this "conflict" is EXACTLY one of the main things they are concerned about. The points they make are compelling, and backed by considerable research into incident reports. The DIR system is based on anecdotal theorising… fine for those who want to use it, useful in certain more technical diving practises, but DANGEROUS when proponents try to stuff it done the throats of others involved with recreational diving. I am going, as I said, to treat this octopus discussion as practise in the recreational area and practise in more technical diving areas. That is what it IS. It is what the agiencies that are charged with recreational diver safety say it is. I will be doing this in about a week –I’m in London away from my sources library. What I will write will be fully attributed. Hopefully we can progress from there.
 * Cheers

Howie--HowieKor (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Howie, up until now, I've assumed that you were simply trying to defend the BSAC position, which I'm quite familiar with. But you have no familiarity with the DIR position which you denigrate. The simple truth is that the history of WKPP provides clear evidence that the switch to DIR rigging eliminated the string of fatalities that had occurred in previous years and allowed hugely difficult dives to be carried out safely. Just to make this clear: GUE is a recreational diver training organisation. That is clear from the courses they provide and the associated training materials. The system is based on years of practical use - I've been diving a long hose for about 15 years now - and there's nothing theoretical about the WKPP statistics. The BSAC pronouncements contain absolutely nothing other than speculation about DIR, and can be seen to be empty of any real analysis. The people trying to stuff a particular gear configuration down recreational divers' throats are the ones banning divers and instructors from using any other. That's why I pointed you to the nitrox fiasco - BSAC didn't understand it, so they banned it. There's nothing side-by-side about that. The British Diving Safety Group is the body formed to promote recreational diver safety in the UK, and the last time I looked neither PADI nor SAA nor GUE nor even the HSE had banned long hoses.
 * Now then, you turn away from our discussion about our personal diving philosophies and have made some serious accusations about my editing at the article. That is stepping well over a line and you need to retract those. I understand you are new, but you are going to have to learn that you cannot accuse other editors of misconduct without providing evidence. To claim that you were reflecting "the specific recommended practises of all the major recreational diving agencies" is patently false. You did not provide a single source to support what you wrote. See WP:Verifiability:
 * * "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question ... This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material ... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed"
 * I will always refactor text that reads like an instruction manual (see WP:NOTMANUAL), so please take care to write descriptions, not presciptions. The edit where you accuse me of censorship is where I changed:
 * The octopus is clearly marked (in yellow) and is stowed in a standardised way – i.e. carried mid chest in an easily located and easily accessible position.
 * to read:
 * The octopus should be clearly marked and stowed in a standardised way in an easily located and easily accessible position.
 * This was for two reasons: (1) many divers do not mark their octopus, and of those who do a significant proportion use fluorescent green; (2) mid-chest is not the only standard, so the "i.e." is inaccurate.
 * Can you see that what we write in an article has to reflect reality, not a theoretical ideal, if we are to write it as if it were fact? If you want to write "BSAC recommends that the octopus is marked in yellow", then that's fair enough, because you are describing the fact that BSAC recommends something. If you write that "The octopus is marked in yellow" as if it were a universal truth, then I'll call you on that because we both know it is untrue. At the same time I'll keep reminding you that text that you write which is unsourced may be removed by any editor. The burden is on the editor who adds text to show that it is verifiable from a reliable source (WP:BURDEN).
 * Please do your best to keep the discussions about our diving philosophies separate from discussions about articles. I have no problems with robustly defending my philosophy, but we both know that we can agree to differ. However, with articles, I want to make it clear that your comments above are unacceptable. I have edited only to reflect what my source says. You appear to have only edited to reflect your personal opinions because you have not provided the sources that you wrote from. I challenge you to try to quote an edit of mine that is not founded in the source I give. I'm sorry to be so harsh with you, but on that point you really need guidance. I'm happy to help you as much as I can, so please take this advice in the spirit in which it is intended. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rexx: I have edited only to reflect what my source says This is a fairly absurd sort of argument. One can always find a “source” that can justify writing ANYTHING. In the Evolutionary Biology area where I also contribute you can find organisational "sources” that dispute every scientifically validated finding on Darwinian evolution. If Wiki treatment of these pages followed your sourcing guidelines these pages would become scientific nonsense. BSAC, along with PADI and NAUI is responsible for recreational diver safety.  They do not approve the long hose procedures as you describe them on the present Buddy Diving page for recreational diving purposes.  To find some other  “source” that doesn’t agree with these agencies and represent  practises disapproved by them as valid for recreational divers is misleading. GUE focuses on progression to cave/penetration diving and is not in any sense a mainstream agency for recreational divers... and it is NOT a valid source of standards in this particular area. You sould take a long hard look at how you use GUE to project what in fact is minority movement opinions against what is the recommended SAFE PRACTISES of those who  truly responsible for recreational diver safety. I may be aggressive with you about these matters and I apologise if I seem so Rexx, but it is only because it is dangerous to distort what is proper practice to novice divers who may refer to Wikipedia on this area. As I said before, I feel having a long sections detailing the exact procedures of stowing and handing over hoses for alternate air sharing in the general topic of Buddy Diving is totally and grossly excessive… however, you have continued to insist that it is worth doing. Therefore I can only continue to make every effort to insure that these procedures are described in the correct context of industry approved safety practises. That will be my objective over the next few weeks. Regards Howie --HowieKor (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Howie, you really are talking nonsense now. There is nothing absurd about editing to reflect what a reliable source says. That is precisely how we work on Wikipedia. If you are having problems with Evolutionary Biology, then it is possibly because you have differences between what reliable sources say. The solution to that is to describe both positions as neutrally as you can and carefully attribute each stance to its originator. Have a look at WP:NPOV for some good guidance on how to deal with conflicting sources. There's also a section called WP:SUBSTANTIATE that may be useful in explaining how to attribute. Of course, you never use an unreliable or questionable source to dispute a reliable source. We have a Reliable sources noticeboard where any editor can ask for an independent opinion on the reliability of a particular source in a given context.
 * Where on earth did you get the idea that "BSAC, PADI and NAUI are responsible for recreational diver safety"? In what jurisdiction? Here in the UK? Rubbish - I already pointed you to British Diving Safety Group] which has 14 members and NAUI isn't one of them. Did you mean responsible for recreational diver safety in a different country? If so, which one? GUE is a member of BDSG, teaches recreational diving, and teaches the use of a long primary hose. Surely they are responsible for recreational diver safety as well. What about the SAA? Responsible for recreational diver safety or not? IANTD? Yes or no? (hint). What is misleading is to portray BSAC's stance on Hogarthian rigging as somehow representative of authority in the diving world. This is the English-language Wikipedia and it has a world-wide scope. Most of the world never even heard of BSAC. Please understand that the GUE chapter that I cited gives the GUE view that BSAC practices are the ones which are unsafe. It is not my opinion; it is the stance of the source. I'm only writing what I find in my source. You must do the same.
 * Let me make this quite clear: Wikipedia is not censored, nor does it provide advice or instruction on the topics where it has articles. The purpose of our encyclopedia is to set out what is known in a dispassionate fashion, not to make subjective judgements on how safe one organisation or another is. I understand your appeal to WP:WEIGHT - that a minority of divers breathe off a long hose, so their position does not deserve equal weight with the commoner practice. Agreed, but WEIGHT still insists that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" (my emphasis). So that does not give you licence to insist on the censorship of a minority viewpoint. I still maintain that you need to make the effort to bring forward reliable sources, as so far they have been in short supply in Buddy diving. Let me point out that Bob Halstead is probably not a reliable source in his own right (although the SPUMS articles are). BSAC website is a reliable source for BSAC's opinions, but that is a long way short of their pronouncements being treated as gospel as it's not an independent source. Also B.A. or M.A. theses are not generally considered reliable sources (although PhD theses are, because the peer-review procedure is accepted as sufficiently rigorous). Don't blame me for this guidance, I'm only the messenger. --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rexx:  "Sorry Howie, but in Wikipedia, the only thing that counts is verifiability and my text is firmly sourced to a reliable source, while your text is unfortunately unsourced. It is irrelevant that I am of the opinion that it is an improvement, but it is highly relevant that my source holds that opinion.  From a personal perspective, I'm afraid that BSAC once again fails to keep up with developments that actually improve diver safety". All these Wiki policies that you have quoted are indeed very noble in their objective of impartiality but the reality here Rexx in that you yourself have only added sourced information on the configuration/use of alternate air in recreational diving that reflect your own stated opinions and not any alternative (and mainstream) views. So I would say it is one thing to be able to quote chapter and verse, it is quite another to actually live by the good book. I must say all the time and effort just to get a balanced representation of diving practise that you don’t approve of is becoming a real burden for me. If your intention is to make me go away and do something else you are doing a very good job of achieving that end. --HowieKor (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: Just a quick question Rexx, when you say that BSAC is not an "independent" source what exactly do you mean? Is GUE an independent source? How does anyone reach the status of being an independent source (disinterested party?) and supposedly make more credible statements on safe diving procedures that the agencies themselves can make? When you say that Bob Halstead is not a reliable source, what does someone have to do beyond being elected to the Scuba Diving Hall of Fame in order to become a reliable source? --HowieKor (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Howie, Wikipedia is littered with multiple policies and guidelines, and my sole intention here, I assure you, is to help you through the maze of competing demands as best I can. I really wouldn't put this much time and effort into doing that, if I thought you were likely to go away. Perhaps you can reduce the burden on yourself by not worrying about me adding text that happens to reflect my personal view. Examine the source I used and see if I've accurately summarised what it says. Take a look at the editing history of Buddy diving and you'll find that the present text that concerns you was expanded and reorganised by Peter Southwood. He's not part of some conspiracy to push a dissenting view down the general public's throat. He's just taking reliable sources and adding to the article from what they say. Honestly, I'm no different. It's how we work here on Wikipedia.
 * Thanks for taking a look at the problem of reliable sources, Howie. Here's our definition (WP:Identifying reliable sources):
 * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
 * I said the BSAC WEBSITE is a reliable source for BSAC's opinions (and almost certainly for facts about the organisation). For example, if the website says BSAC was formed in 1953, that can be considered to be a fact. It's unlikely to be disputed by reliable sources. It's not a "third-party" however when considering any appraisal of its own courses and teaching methods. It could state on its website that those are the safest procedures possible, but that would not be a fact; it would only be BSAC's opinion, and you'd almost certainly be able to find other reliable sources sources that disputed such a claim. On the other hand, if a survey of diver training organisations published in SPUMS (or an equally well-regarded journal) concluded that BSAC's courses were the safest in the world, that would be an independent (i.e. third-party) claim, and must carry more weight than BSAC's own claims. Exactly the same applies to GUE, PADI, or any other organisation. Remember that books are generally published by third-party publishing companies, and it is in their interest to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", so they have the benefit of editorial oversight to help establish their reliability. Academic journals are generally "top of the pile" because the best ones have a peer-review system as well as editorial oversight (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP).
 * Now consider the section called WP:SELFPUBLISH concerning self-published sources. Wikipedia is rightly suspicious of these, but we make a very small exception for "expert opinion". For example in Oxygen toxicity I quoted Simon Mitchell's dissenting opinion on lifting a convulsing casualty, from http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebreather-accidents-incidents/16705-standardizing-ccr-rescue-skills-3.html#post163661 - a self-published source. When it was challenged at WP:FAC, I was able to show that Dr Mitchell was a published author in the field and the chair of the diving committee of the Underwater and Hyperbaric Medical Society, i.e. an "expert" and sufficiently well-known to have his own Wikipedia article. Now I'd have to ask you what is there in the membership of the Scuba Diving Hall of Fame (an organ of the Cayman Islands' Ministry of Tourism) that demonstrates that the individual has "a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy"? Now Bob Halstead unfortunately doesn't even have a Wikipedia page (there's a project for someone, as I'm pretty sure sufficient sources could be found). My recommendation is to stick with his articles in SPUMS or similar, or quote his books, but you'll find that his unreviewed comments in "On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted" will face challenge as a reliable source. I hope you can see the difference: journal articles and books normally have processes that enhance their reliability to us; self-published sources have to rest solely on the scholarly reputation of the author, and you have to establish that the reputation exists. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine Rexx. I guess we’ve both cleared the air now on what we think with respect to these octopus configuration debates as well as the complexities of Wikipedia standards. I do respect the commitment in time and energy that individuals like yourself put into the general editing processes, and know that Wikipedia would fail without it. To me as a general author, I must say that dealing with such extensive and sometime interpretively conflicting guidelines makes the effort of writing seem like trying to swim through treacle. The example of Bob Halstead is a case in point – how can a person of such stature and standing have their published findings dismissible – when alternatively some newbie novice publishing in some totally secondary supposedly “peer reviewed” publication be acceptable? Believe me Rexx, the standards that seem to be set for Wiki makes referencing in academia seem utterly lax – and this certainly cannot be right. To an author such as myself it makes making progress in attributing sources for well established factual information tediously effortful. Anyhow. I will now try to focus strictly on writing and less on this sort of background discussion and I hope to make some progress on that front. I know that both of us are committed to the same things, excellence in the Wikipedia project and excellence in diving. PS: I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the Scuba Divers Hall of Fame if I were you Rexx – it may be centred in the pokey little Cayman Islands and not in Britain or the USA, but have you actually had a look at the stature of the Board of Directors that select its recipients?

Cheers --HowieKor (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Howie, I hope I'm never dismissive of the accomplishments of the folks associated with the Hall of Fame - so many of them have been key figures in the development of the scuba diving industry. The point I was trying to make is that if I'm asked by another editor "What makes On Your Own: The Buddy System Rebutted a reliable source?" I would have difficulty pointing to a process or academic credentials that could establish that. It's possible I could make the case, based on his articles published in SPUMS, but it's always better in the long run to stick with the material that's gone through peer-review as nobody is going to challenge that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow this has been a long discussion... RexxS, I don't see you as being disrespectful here at all and you did give the best method for meeting the requirements for inclusion of the information.
 * HowieKor, Your info in very valuable and all you really need to do is prove Bob's notability to include it. I realize that the requirements put on wiki editors to support their statements are a pain in the rear but they they are there for a reason. This project has had to defend itself against attacks for being what it is, a living encyclopedia. My favorite example is the discussion back and forth in the Nature journal a few years ago (Reliability of Wikipedia). For your interest though, RexxS has told you what you need to do to make Bob Halstead notable and establish that he is an expert to non-diving wikipedians. We have had to do this many times before since our little field of diving does get questioned a ton in here. I am quite sure this will not be the last time either.
 * Here are a few references to get you started on Bob's notability (these should be more than enough):


 * Background information on the man


 * Secondary source, for background (Also gives: date of birth for infobox, short list of why notable for lead section, basic history)


 * 2008 inductee into the International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame (This one gives the year inducted, not listed on his bio there)
 * --Video biography link here could be a great external link if nothing new for reference is in the video.
 * - this also mentions Bob as an author


 * Ref for wife's name and wedding year


 * Interview with Scuba Diving Mag (lists 1983 award)


 * Muck diving - refs to Bob in books


 * He has an Undercurrent blog


 * He is a book author, list them is you want Amazon author link - note that not all are him


 * It took me 20 minutes to find the references, five minutes to format them for you, and it might only take ten more minutes to start the new article... I'd have done it myself but thought you might enjoy it. If not, I can do it tomorrow. Plenty more out there for this true pioneer! Good luck! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Gene I will gladly undertake getting Bob Halstead on to Wikipedia but sadly won't be able to find the time to do it till later in the week. Thanks for the links to give me a kick start. I also notice that the Rob Palmer spot is still open... another much admired diver personality on which I'd like to make a contribution. Best Regards Howie --HowieKor (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'll hold off then. Can't wait to see how it turns out. I agree with you on Rob, one of many more we need to get done. I have two other things I have been trying to get to with MAJOR input from RexxS here so the articles will need to wait for my attention. ;) Also, when you do write the article, please consider a nomination for the "Did you know" section. Scuba could use more attention on the front page. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW - Did you guys see the blog today? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note...
...to make sure you know you were appreciated to day, and to say thanks for the lift—much more civilised than a solitary train journey and a long wait for my off-peak ticket to become usable! All the best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Harry, today was a good day. None of it would have been possible without you and Fi doing all the organising behind the scenes. Kudos --RexxS (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)