Talk:Global Underwater Explorers

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Florida may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Draft Article

Following the previous speedy deletion of this article, Legis has been preparing a draft article at User:Legis/GUE to address issues of notability, etc. --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am rushing to go off on holiday, but I have done some crude surgery stitching in lumps of bits from the draft article at User:Legis/GUE (most of which was actually written by User:Gene Hobbs rather than me) into this article. I'll try and finesse it a bit more when I come back. It is certainly a much more professional article, and much better referenced, than the stub which I put in place which got deleted. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job, guys! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butchering the lead - no doubt it can be thinned out into other sections (e.g. "History") later. It is crucial to show GUE's importance - in this case the difference from other diver training. An article that asserts its importance cannot be a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. That should give us time to fully establish notability if it gets nominated via Articles for deletion. --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Neutrality

To me the article sounds quite single-sided. It claims that the GUI approach has lead to reduced incidents in cave diving quoting the WKPP, which is not a neutral source. Furthermore it suggests that the GUI methodology is superior to the other training agencies'. The article avoids any discussion of the controversies surrounding DIR. --nshver01 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the article makes any claims in cave diving in general, just in the Woodville Karst Plain system. I would be better if a third-party source could be found to support the fact that incidents ceased in those caves after 1995, but I wasn't aware that it was a controversial statement. Does any source suggest something different?

I've looked for the suggestion that GUI methodology is superior to that of the other training agencies, but can't find it. Could you quote the part that gives you that impression and we can try to reword it?

There is an article on Doing It Right and that (naturally) is where the coverage of controversies surrounding DIR is located. It would not be appropriate to duplicate the information, but you could suggest that whole article should be merged into this one at Talk:Doing It Right. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me the following quotes

"resulted in the significant reduction in diving incidents within the cave system since 1995"

"marking an important difference from the programs of other diver training organizations"

"In 1998 members of GUE and Woodville Karst Plain Project set a world record in cave penetration at 5.6 km (3.5 mi), in Wakulla Springs, followed by new records in 2001 and 2006."

seem to promote the GUE approach over the others. They may not read directly "GUE is superior", but that is a subtext, which is rather obvious. Of you take them out, then the article would be perfectly neutral and informative.

Also, mostly all the references point out to the GUE site and various Jablonsky publications, which to me are far from neutral. But that's less of a problem. --nshver01 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a big neutrality problem when discussing DIR/GUE. The trouble is that there are very few neutral third party sources which comment upon it. Sourcing is a perpetual issue, but I don't see any reason why the text couldn't be rendered more NPOV. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@nshver01:

How about "Following WKPP's introduction in 1995 of a standardized approach to gear configuration and diving procedures, there was a significant reduction in diving incidents within the Woodville Karst Plain cave system"? - both of those facts (standardized approach and significant reduction) should be verifiable somewhere, the latter hopefully from a independent source. Removing the assumption of cause and effect should improve NPOV and naming the cave system should avoid the impression that cave diving in general is being discussed.

The GUE system is different from other diver training organizations - just as CMAS is different from PADI. I don't agree that that statement contains anything non-neutral.

Those world records were set as stated and that fact is sourced to a third-party newspaper article. Just because an organisation can claim something others cannot, that is not a reason to remove the information. It would be like removing the fact that PADI trains more divers than any other agency on the grounds that is not neutral.

I agree that it would be better if we had more independent sources to support the article, but as Legis points out, independent sources discussing diving agencies are hard to come by. Even the PADI article has about half of its references sourced to PADI or to websites affiliated with it - and other agency articles are worse. --RexxS (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS:

Ok, the first NPOV proposal is fine. Now, about the statements of records, I can't agree that they belong in this article. You see, for example the fact that Pascal Bernabe, a world record holder, is a TDI instructor does not mean that TDI is a better system or is in any way responsible for his record. Even if a team belonging to a certain organization or following a certain system sets a record achievement, this is an achievement of the team and hardly implies anything about the training agency. Any agency out there can claim record achievements by their members. However such mentions add no value to the article about the particular agency and do sound like propaganda. --nshver01 (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the text concerning the first point. I think we'll have to disagree about the relevance of the records. Although I can see the point of your analogy, I think there remains an important difference. As you say, Bernabe does not claim that TDI was responsible for his record. But you surely know that JJ commonly attributes the success of the long-distance cave penetrations to the system of team diving that he has used to create GUE. If JJ is to be believed, it is the very principles that GUE espouses that not only differentiate GUE from other agencies, but also make those records possible. Such an intimate linkage is an important and well-attested part of the description of GUE, and properly belongs in this article. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the underwater records validate the superiority of DIR/GUE over other systems is a claim by JJ/GUE as discussed in the DIR article's controversies section. To make the article NPOV, you'd have to make sure that claims of validity and facts are disambiguated. Actually, I just noticed that the record is mentioned in the "Outreach" section and feel that it is fine there as an example of outreach activities by GUE members. --nshver01 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for the DIR article (the proper place to discuss it); but here, you're reading into a statement of fact something that this article makes no claim about. I still don't agree that this article is POV, and don't see that Wikipedia makes any distinction between 'facts' and 'validated claims' - we only report what we can verify with reliable sources. Nevertheless, your second point about the coverage in the Outreach section is compelling. I've taken the isolated mention of the record out of the lead and combined it with the text in Outreach. If your main objection to that text was its undue prominence in the lead, does the relocation into the Outreach section satisfy it? --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag removed. Good discussion. --nshver01 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. It's a big part of the pleasure of working on wikipedia to thrash out issues amicably. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Global Underwater Explorers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Global Underwater Explorers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.euf-certification.org/index.php?id=7667&id=7667&type=98

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Global Underwater Explorers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advert tag

Mean as custard, I don't see the issues described in Template:Advert/doc in this article. Would you be kind enough to explain your concerns in more detail, please? It may be worth you reviewing the section Article Neutrality above for some context on previous concerns. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the mission statement, which is copied verbatim from primary sources without any comment - "Working to redefine the ties binding the average underwater enthusiast to underwater explorers, conservationists and scientific researchers, GUE is committed to the overall goal of promoting the interests of the underwater world and of those who seek to engage it". . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mean as custard: It is normally accepted that a primary source such as an organisation's website is a reliable source for information about the organisation itself, particularly in the article about the organisation - see WP:SELFSOURCE. Although I can see that a mission statement would generally be viewed as "self-serving", I don't think it is "unduly self-serving". If that were the case, we could never include any organisation's mission statement (which we demonstrably do include in many articles).

Nevertheless, the entire section turns out to be a copy-violation, lifted directly from https://www.gue.com/about, a copyrighted website ("© 1998-2018 Global Underwater Explorers"), so I've removed the section.

Do you have any other significant promotional issues, or is it time to remove the maintenance tag? --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of publications also reads like an advert, but I have removed the tag for the sake of peace. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I could find in the list of publications that remotely resembles advertising is the statement These are generally available through their website, other online retailers and bookshops, which is cited, probably true, and if so is a simple, unadorned statement of fact about the topic of the section. It is probably not necessary, and may not be encyclopaedic, so I would not object to removing it. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mean as custard: I hope there's been no war! Generally, adding tags to WPSCUBA articles will attract a response, so they have done their job and the article has been improved. As for the statement that Peter refers to, I agree it's not encyclopedic, and I'd have no problem if it were removed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]