Talk:Professional Association of Diving Instructors

Criticism section removal

I find that the reason user Zatharas gave to remove the "Padi criticism" section quite scarce in substance. He just alleged that the original author didn't specify what "short diving courses" are.

Despite not being referenced on the original article, it is not difficult to find on the Internet or on PADI's website that the initiation courses are quite small, requiring no more than 5 pool classes and 2 open water dives to complete an "open water diver certification" and, to me, this qualifies as a "short diving course".

Also, the deleted section, had a few external references supporting it.

The history also shows that Zatharas registered just recently. The subsequent addition, by him, of the "padi course list" makes me believe that this wasn't an impartial edit at all.

COMMENTS ON THE COMMENTS: PADI openwater dives requirement is 4 open water dive, with an optional 5th. It must be done over 2 days, not one. This is the same as SSI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.16.121 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

213.22.32.116 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Tggm

I agree, I read the critisim section on the google cached page when I couldn't access wikipedia earlier, and then I found it had been removed. I do believe it (or other articles of critisism) should be added to this page, since it gives a more balanced perspective to the whole article. PaddingtonX 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, so find some sourced criticism. The bulk of the section that was pulled had no sources, and of the other two sources listed, only one actually spoke about PADI (the one with PADI's response). The main critical article was criticizing short courses, which isn't unique to PADI; PADI is just the most visible as the largest. In any case, Wikipedia policy requires that any that is challenged or is likely to be challenged be backed up with Reliable sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and that content should not be synthesized to advance a position (Wikipedia:No original research). Claiming that the short courses mentioned in the first BBC article were what PADI does is just such a synthesis. - Fordan (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there was an English judgment a few years back where a High Court judge (after hearing expert evidence) expressed real concerns that PADI courses were too short and insufficiently rigorous for the more dangerous diving conditions in the UK when compared against historically British sport diving courses like the old BSAC system. I'll see if I can find the reference and put a cite in. The other criticism I remember hearing about PADI from time to time (and I'm a member just for the record) is that its approach to PI cover was monopolistic, ie. if you didn't purchase your PI cover through PADI, you could not keep your professional licenses as a Divemaster or Instructor or whatever. I'll see if I can dig up a cite for that too.

I do think it is important to include relevant criticism to balance out the article (which at the moment is a bit of a puff piece), but it clearly must be reliably sourced.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the bit about the judge's finding (my error - coroner's inquest not a HC judge): BBC news article. I think the same coronor made a similar finding in a different inquest: Times online article. Here is some other pretty good criticism: CDNN editorial (never heard of CDNN myself, but it comes high on the Google hits). This is a slightly more balance critique: Review. Plenty of material for a criticism section now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like my mistake on the insurance point - must have been an urban myth that I took too seriously. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have finally gone ahead and done this. I have tried very hard to (a) ensure that it is all properly sourced, and (b) that the commentary is balanced. I don't doubt that others will disagree, but let's try and be constructive on the relevant points. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to challenge this first paragraph.... the first source listed goes to a page written in japanese... which doesn't seem like a source at all. And the second source is a deadlink. I would like to delete this statement about "dumbing down" and "profiteers"

Also this paragraph has already been flagged by another user that the citations and sources are needed....but the original author never included them. Without sources I think it should also come down. Every sentence is flagged with either "by whom", "citation needed" and "original research?".

Lastly, I question why PADI has a criticism section when none of the other scuba training organizations do: [[Scuba_Schools_International|SSI], BSAC etc, I believe that BSAC was also cited in that coroner's report. Why don't we either delete this criticism section on PADI or add criticism to the other training agency pages. It seems like there is negative bias only toward PADI? — TotalConversionMarketing (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The absence of a similarly named section in another article is not a valid argument for removal. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with users (like Fordan, RexxS, Eyrryds) who've expressed similar suggestions over the years on this talk page for either credibly sourced criticism for all scuba training agencies, or deletion of this criticism section for PADI. Nearly the whole section has been flagged for sources or credible links, but none have been added. I am fine with criticism if that section is also added to BSAC (also in that lawsuit mentioned with PADI) or SSI, etc. Since there are no volunteers for that project, in the meantime I have deleted this poorly sourced criticism section. TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)TotalConversionMarketing

The first source was originally given on 16 May 2009 by Legis as:

• "Unsafe at any Depth: PADI Scuba Diver". CDNN. Retrieved 2009-04-16.

which now seems to be an advert for green lemon juice in Japanese. Using the Internet Archive, we can see the page as it was on 12 May 2008:

• Suzuki, Stanford. "Unsafe at any Depth - PADI Scuba Diver". Internet Archive. Cyber Diver News Network. Archived from the original on 12 May 2008. Retrieved 1 July 2014.

It's not a great source, but I don't think we can remove it without getting some consensus here about its suitability for a 'PADI criticism' section.

The source bundled with it is a dead link but we can see it at:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20132220033100/http://folk.uio.no/valeryw/

That's a student project from Oslo University and I wouldn't fight to keep that.

The next source is from University of Georgia and on 11 December 2008 looked like this:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20081211160257/http://www.uga.edu/cuda/scuba.html

That's a sizable resource from an experienced diver, but it's just one person's opinion. I wouldn't use it.

The next source is the Times and the BBC. Impeccable quality publishers and Philip Bryson's comments carry the weight of an acknowledged expert. I can't see any reason why those, along with PADI's response shouldn't be in a criticism section.

The remaining source, Dive Herald, is another blog.

I don't think that an organisation as large as PADI is going to do business without attracting some criticism, but we must ensure that the content of our articles reflects fairly and proportionately what reliable sources say about a topic. The danger of over-reliance on blogs and personal opinions is that almost any bias can be reflected by the choice of those sort of sources. It is certain that criticism of PADI exists and that some mention is appropriate for this article, but we really ought to be looking for more sources, preferably recent ones to update the section. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rexxs, Thanks for taking the lead on the validity of the sources! TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you have this all under control here (sorry for being late, I have been on holiday), but for the record, with the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have cited CDNN as a source. I think I now know that they are a bit sensationalist and headline hunters, and don't really qualify as a proper RS (although in my defence I didn't really know that back in 2008). But as Rexxs said, the article in The Times and by the BBC are pretty reliable. The article might be better served with something more up to date (assuming the same criticisms prevail today). --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

PADI has been referred to facetiously as a mnemonic for 'Put Another Dollar In'.[39]This link goes to an archive page. When the link is selected is goes nowhere, so this comment is not source referenced accurately and should be deleted until it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovediving (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just scroll down the archive page until you reach the section "PADI: put another dollar in?". The archive didn't preserve the style sheet, so the stuff down as far as "* Yellow Rose's Garden" on each archived page is actually just the navigation/side bar contents. I assure you the article is there on the page.

Having said that, I personally don't think the source is good enough for an encyclopedia (Dive Herald is a blog). I'm not affiliated with PADI; I don't have any PADI qualification; and I'm not a fan of teaching to the bare minimum necessary, but I don't think that sentence belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of anecdotes. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the Open Water and I am currently taking AOW through PADI. From my experience, the instructors are what makes the training qualitative, not the agency. My PADI instructors have been very thorough and have provided challenging training, highly focused on safety. I don't think its fair to say that PADI is dumbing down the training because their curriculum is actually very good. Its up to the instructors to teach at high level of competency. Some do and some don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.194 (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi RexxS & Legis I agree that the put another dollar in antecdote should go, but after the last experience I am super gun shy of deleting. Would either of you like to do the honors deleting that sentence? Thanks, H20below (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. I'd prefer to wait a little while for Ian.thomson, who re-wrote the section, to have a chance to comment. I also see that Peter Southwood, an experienced contributor to scuba articles, has commented to an earlier thread today. Perhaps he'll spot this discussion and have a useful insight as well. If no more debate occurs, remind me in a couple of days and I'll remove the paragraph. In the meantime, WP:TIND, cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

On reading through the article again I am struck by a few impressions.

• Someone who does not appear to edit content of scuba articles (presumably unbiased) has tagged the page with {{Advert}} and {{COI}}. The article itself does seem to be written in a way that emphasizes positive details, and omits anything which could be construed as critical or negative with the exception of the rather small Criticisms section, which is proposed for deletion.
• I stand by my earlier comment that the absence of a section in other articles is not a valid argument for removing it in this one. If there is valid criticism the section is justified. If there is none, there would be no content for the section and it would fall away until some valid criticism is found, at which point it would be added again. The same applies to other articles. If there is appropriate content, the section is justified.
• The claims of Advert and COI appear reasonable at first glance. There has been a lot of effort applied to make this article more positive to PADI, to the extent that it really is starting to look like a puff-piece. Removing the criticism section would reinforce this impression. It is unusual for an industry leader to escape criticism entirely.

• I request User:H20below, who apparently previously edited as User:TotalConversionMarketing, to declare any and all connections with PADI as a step towards clarifying whether there is COI or not. {My own diving affiliations can be seen on my user page)

• The referral to PADI as "Put Another Dollar In" has been around for decades. This is admittedly from personal memory, which is not admissible as a reference. However it should be possible to amass sufficient evidence that the expression exists and is/has been in use by linking to instances of its use.
• Similarly, the statement that PADI has been criticized for "dumbing down" diver training makes no claim that this is a fair or correct accusation, which would require a high level of verification, just that the criticism exists, and that can be shown by linking to instances of such criticism. Whether this is notable enough to include in the article is another question, and my opinion is that if it has been made by a person or organization which would qualify for a Wikipedia article, it would be sufficient.
• Much of the new material is fairly superficial stuff. This in itself is not unusual, but I would like to see more on what makes PADI unique in the article.
• There are also unreferenced claims in the lead which are not substantiated in the other sections, so I will tag them. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

IMHO, even if I know it wasn't in the author's intentions, this article sounds too much as ad advertising space, specially with the link at the bottom (and without a wiki link to SCUBA, at least); I would also advance a doubt about NPOV.

It is true that PADI is all the things that are in the article, and I don't discuss given numbers (proportions are credible, at a first sight), yet the article doesn't mention a specificity of Padi - apart from commercial success - in comparison with other schools (why don't you add those too, and correctly put a link to Scuba organisations or whatsoever?), nor there is a way in Wikipedia to know anything about cathegory (Scuba schools?).

Might I specify that I am a Padi customer and a well satisfied one (I personally would warmly reccommend it), so this is not at all against Padi, but more pro-Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.144.10 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2002

I hope its better now Gorm 09:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If the author by chance has any kind of involvement with Padi, however, he could perhaps ask the company the permission (©) to use their vaste and interesting material about underwater activities and techniques for Wikipedia purposes :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.144.10 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2002

I am a PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor ;-) Quoting from PADI's material would be to extensive and detailed, often filled with special terms and definitions. I dont believe this would be a good contibution to Wikipedia. On the other hand, me sitting down and writing an article on basic SCUBA would be fine, I think. Gorm 09:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just an FYI: The part about PADI teaching warm clear water dive environments are the same as diving in cold water with poor visibility is rubbish. I don't have my Open Water Cert manual anymore but the Advanced Cert book discusses these differences in Chapter 1 and continues throughout. (Product 79101 ver 2.07 Date: 12/06) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.197.182 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2007

This article is IDENTICAL to the PADI description given on several PADI dive shop websites. Here is one example, http://www.idc-in-asia.com/PADI.shtml So either this shop in Vietnam is using a Wikipedia article for its promotional page about PADI (that would indicate a very poor support system by PADI for its affiliate shops) or else this Wikipedia article is just a copy of PADI internal promotional materials provided to dive shops. It seems more than likely that this fluff piece originated from PADI and went to WIKI, not from WIKI to PADI. Given that this piece has no NPOV and is in fact PADI promotional material, it is obviously a COI and most likely 'black hat.' and it should be removed in its entirety and re-written from scratch by a writer with NPOV.Gst.steven (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

To check out your theory, I used WikiBlame to search for the words "several modular courses instead of the single universal course then prevalent" which appear at the end of the first paragraph of both our article and the website for IDC-in-Asia.:

• http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?user_lang=en&lang=en&project=wikipedia&article=Professional_Association_of_Diving_Instructors&needle=courses+instead+of+the+single+universal+course+then+prevalent

The result was that Legis added those words in this edit on 26 March 2009. I checked his source and I am convinced that Legis created those words himself based on a source independent of PADI. The first appearance of the IDC-in-Asia website on the Internet Archive was 9 April 2010 and it used Legis' wording. It is not unusual for other websites to make use of Wikipedia content - in fact it's part of our mission to enable them to do that - so I have little doubt that the Vietnamese dive shop (and several others) used Wikipedia as the source for their webpage. Nevertheless, if you have concerns about NPOV, please feel free to offer alternative, sourced, wording for any section that bothers you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Org Structure

I also would like some more information on PADI's organizational structure. There has to be a board or something like that etc. Seems to be hard to find out the real who is who about PADI's HQ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.160.2 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2006

The organization is completely lacking any reference to the fact that PADI is no longer a corporation which operates independently. Any NPOV article about PADI, and not a 'black flag' advert as is this fluff piece (see citations in other sections) would obviously discuss the changes of control and ownership of PADI, most recently the acquisition and restructuring of PADI by Lincolnshire Management, a venture capital firm which purchase, in leveraged buyouts, "a leading private equity firm focused on generating superior returns for investors by acquiring and growing middle market companies across a wide range of industries." citation from their website http://www.lincolnshiremgmt.com/Printable_LMI_WebSite.html.. The fact that PADI is no longer focused on diver training as a priority, but only as a product used to generate superior returns to investors through growth should be central to a Wikipedia section on its organizational structure. This information was easy to find, the author was either a poor google searcher or else a PADI 'black flag' rellations person. Further, it should mention issues in management, such as the firing of marketing research director Cheryl Gilmour for irregularities and a history of public outbursts coming to light through a petition in 2013 https://www.change.org/p/padi-replace-cheryl-gilmore-or-have-her-examined?utm_campaign=petition_created&utm_medium=email&utm_source=guides and http://swtimes.com/sections/news/fort-smith-animal-board-boss-resigns.html as well as previous ownership history such as Seidler Equity Partners https://www.pehub.com/2012/08/ny-firm-inks-second-deal-after-year-long-drought/

Also relevant would be a list of PADI management departmens and their relative staffing/budget, or at least a note saying that PADI refuses to give this information to the public.

Again, as with the entire article, it is obviously PADI POV and 'black hat' and should be removed for COI and misrepresentation, and the writer barred from Wikipedia, imo.Gst.steven (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are offended by the quality of the article, the appropriate response is to make improvements. Nothing stops you from making edits to correct errors, and to add facts, provided the edits comply with Wikipedia policies, particularly NPOV and adequate referencing. If you adequately support each change it is more likely to survive review by other Wikipedians. If you prefer, feel free to propose any specific changes on this talk page for discussion. This is particularly recommended if you have any conflict of interests (which should be declared if they exist).

Your objections to the work of previous contributors are insufficiently specific for any reasonable action against them. I assume you are aware that the article is the work of several contributors over a considerable period? You can find out who made which edit by analysing the page history (see tag at the top of the page). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do - I am new to this wiki thing; Joined to edit entries on linguistics, this PADI piece will take time and effort to re-do. I will start trying... But FYI, I have dealt with PADI (Not employed nor have monetary or other interest in the biz, just a long-term diver who has done much training) and I recognize their promotional materials, which are the part and the parcel of this entry. They have teams of dedicated staff who do nothing but press releases, social media, scan forums, etc. It is their main function, administratively speaking, to manage their public perception and reputation. The fact that this article "is the work of several contributors over a considerable period" should not be taken as an indication that it was not written and edited in a concerted effort by PADI staff and/or affiliates with monetary interest. That's just my 2 cents to you, and does not negate the truth of what you said to me - I should fix it, not just call it BS :)Gst.steven (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to any improvements you can make. While it is quite probable that some of the previous editors are PADI staff, most of them probably are not. The article goes through pro-and anti-PADI phases, while it should be essentially neutral, and provide accurate information of both the positive and negative aspects of the organisation. There is no requirement that these aspects must be evenly balanced provided that the information is reasonably verifiable, but as this is an encyclopedia we aspire to fairness and neutrality. Occasionally we get it right.

I am also a long time diver, and although I have no personal PADI qualifications or training, I have seen their products, both in the form of certified divers and instructors, and training materials and business model, and there is no question that their business model is successful from the shareholders' point of view, at least on the short to moderately long term. The quality of their divers and instructors appears to be highly variable. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I loved your phrasing - "If you are offended by the quality of the article..." That does sum it up.

I have started a comprehensive re-write, and am finding that an article about a large, complex commercial entity is difficult in the extreme. Everyone has an opinion, promotional materials are ubiquitous and obfuscate real information, and studies and journalistic pieces are often overt slam pieces or covert marketing tools. There is little that can be said about the product, because the product is difficult to explicate: Are they selling instruction? Materials? A training system?? A license to use this system?? Who is "they??" Is PADI just the staff of PADI employees, or is every instructor part of PADI??

In this context, I am writing a commentary as I write the article, and parsing the process. I am convinced that this commentary will be of much more value than the article, as it can be refined into a procedure for dealing with complex topics, especially commercial entities which do not make their management structures or business models publicly available, which are heavily promoted through public relations, and which may be controversial in unusual ways (I could compare this to writing an article about Nike or Apple). I will poke you when I start to post, because you seem to be very thoughtful and objective and I would value and appreciate your critical assessments. Besides, you are the joker who told me to fix it. Kind of shamed me.....:)Gst.steven (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PADI History

Perhaps it would be better to include some history of diving instruction rather than the unofficial meanings of PADI and muppets. :)

Also the article uses Weasel words in the phases "some people believe" and "Many claim that the...". Also watch spelling "baautiful".

If I can get hold of a copy of the Best of the Undersea Journal, I might be able to revise the article. The Undersea Journal contains a fair bit of history on PADI and diving. --TimSC 11:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can add some of the main PADI milestones & history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalConversionMarketing (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-trust

Should there be something on this page about concerns about PADI's insurance regulations being in violation of anti-trust/competition law PADI requires that all its instructors and divemasters maintain indemnity insurance with PADI's captive insurance provider rather than obtaining insurance in the open market as a condition of their licence. Seems to me there should be something about it within the article alongside the blurb from the PADI media page. --Legis (talk - contributions) 13:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been a PADI member for 15 years. During the whole of that time there has been NO requirement such as you state. In fact I am currently insured under a cheaper policy provided by a competing training organization! 58.174.242.29 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This comment is completely incorrect, and based on assumption and lack of knowledge. PADI specify that their Memebrship must have insurance (if appropriate in the region they operate) that meets specific requirements, but does not specify the provider for this. Membership are free to choose their insurance provider. Many fallacies regarding PADI are founded from Membbership of other organisations who hear 'stories' and pass on 'Chinese Whispers'. I've never yet see a negative story about PADI that has documented evidence to back it up, and that's in 40 years of diving education?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.238.137 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2007

Do you have any cites for the Anti-trust claims, or is it Original Research based on your legal training? In Googling around for anti-trust issues involving PADI, I found Nova Designs, Inc. v. Scuba Retailers Ass’n, 202 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2000) where PADI was sued for trying to stop mail-order advertising in a magazine. PADI won that case. Not seeing a lot else, but I'm also not using real legal research tools either. - Fordan (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm traveling right now and don't have access to Westlaw or Lexus, but there are specialized legal databases that would give info on suits, info you wouldn't likely find via a google search unless a lot of publicity was generated. Plenty of big law suits against highly visible companies never get media attention, even in the communities served by the corporation. I think I still have some free access time on the Westlaw, I'll try to remember to check this out. (Also, I don't think you are implying otherwise, but obviously any information found in such a database would not count as "original research"--these databases merely record and complile existing court records which otherwise are difficult or impossible to search electronically. Mjgilbert 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Those would be the legal research tools I wasn't using since I didn't have access to them. If you can find information, that'd be great. With respect to my comments on original research, citing court cases generally wouldn't be original research, but making a statement about PADI's policies being in violation of anti-trust laws based on one's interpretation of the law would be original research unless you could cite a case or a reliable source indicating that interpretation, even if the editor in question was a expert/lawyer. - Fordan (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do not remember the details, I do remember that there was such a case, in fact, the founding of Project Aware was a penance that PADI agreed to as part of the settlement. The plaintiff was Don Dibble and it was tried in the 9th circuit. Ah ... it's coming back to me: A major dive agency starts as a nonprofit, probably with good intentions in the basement of US Divers (I think) Growth happens, along come Don Dibble from Texas, problems with the agency and unfair business practices, clearly not what a nonprofit would do, and not operating as a nonprofit and other stuff. Don's business suffers due to "stuff". The nonprofit dive agency sees that they will be fined heavily, they disband just after selling the "name" to "Iname" and re-incorporate as a for profit. Disbanding a nonprofit to escape a lawsuit (if corporations are people it is like dying) is not legal (can't do it if a lawsuit is pending) but yet the corp is dead, and the 9th (maybe 11th) circuit court order a 3 part remedy that the major dive agency must pay for, involving education, environment and.....I forget. Don was left twisting in the wind instead of getting a settlement. The real problem is they sold the name to all the insiders and in effect "stole" a 501(c)(3) corporation from the public. Took it private and the public got virtually nothing. One of the parties is well connected to Republican politics and when the stars aligned, cut a deal to create a new non-profit (which it controls) to replace the one it "stole". An absolute sweetheart deal. That should be enough to let someone ferret out the details.

Then there also was: In 2001, Diverlink carried an article by Walter Wilt, who holds several instructor certifications, stating, “All three agencies have room to improve. PADI’s system is very rigid, allowing little room for an instructor to improve the course by presenting skills in a different order.” Wilt also wrote that “PADI has been removing skills from its requirements since the late 1970’s.” While conceding that a person could dive without the removed skills, Wilt asked, “Will the diver be confident and knowledgeable enough to deal with problems and emergencies as they arise?” His own response was: “I fear PADI standards do not allow us to answer ‘yes.’ It seems PADI standards are designed around time constraints instead of around learning to dive.”

PADI sued in California, claiming that the Diverlink site “is full of inaccuracies, half-truths and outright misrepresentations regarding PADI’s business, instructional materials, instructional methods, and policies.” One Diverlink statement singled out in PADI’s complaint was, “If you want to learn to be a good diver as opposed to just being certified to be a diver, then most responsible divers would suggest getting trained by the higher standards that agencies like the YMCA and NAUI have maintained over the years.”

A federal judge threw out PADI’s complaint, citing a California law prohibiting suits brought to silence legitimate public debate. PADI was ordered to pay Diverlink’s attorney’s fees, but PADI appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last summer, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the dismissal, because the Web site made obvious that “the action arose from its acts in connection with a public issue in furtherance of its First Amendment rights.” The court further held that Diverlink was immune from the charges of defamation under the California law known as anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”). Since Diverlink did not write the statements but was simply the publisher of Wilt’s article, the court said that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Wilt was not named as a defendant by PADI.

The Ninth Circuit Court agreed that Diverlink, as the prevailing party, was entitled to attorneys’ fees and court costs. Wilt told Undercurrent that PADI has advised the Ninth Circuit that the case has settled and that it is no longer pursuing legal action. The settlement agreement calls for PADI to pay Diverlink $311,187.

Additionally, Wilt himself was awarded $3,000 attorneys’ fees as sanctions against PADI by a Florida court, his home, where PADI had tried to fight the anti- SLAPP motion. Says attorney Paul Meyer, who was not involved in the suit, “This is unusual. Lawyers have to pretty much behave like complete miscreants to earn this kind of sanction in the U.S.”

Eddie Rhodes, Diverlink’s webmaster, says, “The case is exactly what it appeared to be at first look, a big bully trying to get their way even though there was no grounds for it ... They [PADI] played dirty along the way, and they were chastised by two federal judges in different districts for their unethical and improper behavior.”

Curretly: There is a suit going on over the legitimacy of PADI's insurance. It seems that PADI has not been actually buying insurance with the premiums that folks paid, but rather was "self-insuring" the first few million bucks, buying secondary insurance and pocketing the difference. The claim is that in doing so PADI was operating (illegally) as a California Insurance Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clean up

Cleaned it up a bit. Fixed some spelling and grammar, added some headers for easier reading and logos for PADI and Project AWARE. elusive 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did some cleanup to this Talk page: Moved it from Talk:PADI to Talk:Professional Association of Diving Instructors (since that's the article's main title), added heading, attributed anonymous comments, and added a header to the page. - Fordan (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Zen/Yoga diver" in "Distinctive" specialties

Others are abstract either with reference to skills or locale (it is possible to take specialties in "Golf ball diver", "Zen/Yoga diver" and even a "Wreck of the Rhone diver" specialty course).

I am fairly unsure of this sentence.

Golf ball diver has some merit as it involves some low-visibility diving and I found a shop with a quick Internet search that discuss it:
http://www.mds-scuba.com/edu/golfball.htm (I personally like the note that the dive shop keeps the balls recovered in training)
http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050701.html

"Zen/Yoga diver" needs a reference. I cannot fathom (what a pun) what that is about, if real. I doubt it to be real, though.

"Wreck of the Rhone diver" was found here: http://www.sailcaribbeandivers.com/dive/Specialize.asp

These items really are not that abstract, though. There are many specialties that revolve around a particular popular dive site if it has some particularly unusual features. For example, MBT Divers offers the "USS Oriskany Diver" Course: http://www.mbtdivers.com/Instruction/Specialty.htm

As mentioned, some of the other Distinctive specialties revolve around the use of specific equipment or less commonly used skills or activities. Nonetheless, most specialties are locale specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.245.185 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Kudos to Legis for adding this section. However, the last paragraph (true as it may be) looks like synthesis. Does anybody know of any article that might be usable to source that paragraph. Optionally, if anybody thinks the conclusion is self-evident (i.e. doesn't need a source), then please remove the tag. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a citation to backup the claim that reads:

"they are so low that they serve no useful purpose."

recreational SCUBA diving has very low rate of accidents and the accidents that do happen are easily traced back to rules that were broken, same rules NRSTC establishes ... so it is surprising such a statement can remain without further scrutiny. Eyrryds (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Project AWARE logo

I felt obliged to remove the File:Projectaware.png logo as it's non-free and there is no fair use rationale given for this page. The FUR on the file page is specifically for Project AWARE. It's a pity since this article would benefit from more images. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DSAT

Anyone able to update this site regarding PADI's new DSAT training protocols? http://www.padi.com/padi/en/kd/tecrec/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Kidd (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on POV

Many parts of this article are rife with biased information, especially the Criticisms section, where it reads like PADI trying to directly dispute each criticism.

Needs to be fixed. I would, but I've run out of time.

John 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

{moved to the end per convention} I take your point, John, but remember that the most simplistic view of WP:NPOV is to present both sides of an argument, so that could be responsible for the impression it gives you. I'd like to help you improve the article, but you'll need to be a bit more specific about what sources you feel should be included, and the wording you'd like to change as a result. Don't worry about time – we have no deadline, and you can come back to the article whenever you find time. There's a project, WP:SCUBA, where you can ask for further input from interested editors. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality of the References

A goodly number of the reference point to gray literature with authors who work for PADI, or PADI publications that are, in essence, just self published vanity press. While this is fine for references to the "what" PADI does, it is not acceptable for the "why." If every item in the article that rested on such shaky support were to be removed there would be very little left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of culling content that is not verifiable from reliable sources. I guess it's obvious that most of the sources listing what PADI does are likely to be PADI itself, and as you say, that's fine for the "what". I think I would disagree about the amount left if cuts were made, because I don't see much substance in the article anyway. I'd say either go ahead and cut the stuff that's not properly sourced, or make a note here first and it can be discussed before removal. There's only a handful of editors regularly active in scuba-related topics, so I doubt you'll get much disagreement with what you propose. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my intent to do such a cull on all of the agency sections, preserving the "whats" and deleting the "whys" that depend on self published references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Thal (talk • contribs) 02:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A "why" based on a published agency policy standard may be quite valid, but others may not. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New section showing class dependancy

I'ce created a new chart showing class dependency which might make it clearer just which classes follow which class (what needs to be taken first). Perhaps it could mostly replace the Program section. You can view it here. What do you think? Banaticus (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Banaticus, the chart looks fine to me & I would support its inclusion. However I would not support the notion that it should replace any part of the existing 'Program' section. Cowdy001 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it'd be redundant to have a list of everything followed by a list of everything? Banaticus (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I think the list must stay so that any wikipedian who is interested has the opportunity to edit the article. The chart that you prepared is a bit more difficult to edit. BTW, I noticed that the chart is not up to date when compared to the relevant page on the PADI website (i.e. PADI Courses). I would also suggest that the box on your chart that lists the speciality courses should be split into 4 separate boxes (without the list of course names) to reflect that the speciality courses have 4 levels of entry (i.e. Bublemaker/skndiver, SD/OWD, Adenture diver & AOWD).Cowdy001 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Contributions, Accreditations, Recognitions & Affiliations

I would like to add details about the validity of PADI courses with regards to college credits, etc. Could we include a new section for the following: TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

PADI courses have been recommended by a variety of institutions for college credit or funding in various countries throughout the world. In the United States, the American Council on Education (ACE) College Credit Recommendation Service (CREDIT) connects workplace learning with colleges and universities to help adults receive academic credit for formal courses and examinations taken outside the traditional classroom. ACE CREDIT was established in 1974 and ACE is the national leader in the evaluation process for education and training obtained outside the classroom. PADI is the only recreational scuba diving organization whose courses are eligible for ACE credit. Currently 20 separate PADI courses are recommended for college credit by ACE. http://www2.acenet.edu/credit/?fuseaction=browse.getOrganizationDetail&FICE=300799 In Australia, PADI and Emergency First Response (EFR) courses can credit toward several different certificates and diplomas. Regional training providers recognizing PADI and EFR courses include Training and Further Education (TAFE) South Australia, Australia Fisheries Academy (AFA) South Australia, Victorian Tertiary Admissions Center (VTAC), Western Australia Curriculum Council (WACC), Tasmanian Qualifications Authority (TQA) and Queensland Studies Authority (QSA). Vocational Education and Training (VET) recognizes training on a national scale. Other countries that offer academic credit for adults who successfully complete different PADI courses include the United Kingdom (National Qualifications for Vocationally-related Qualifications), Canada (British Columbia Ministry of Education’s External Credentials Program for Industrial and Occupational Courses), Japan (Vocational training under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), and New Zealand (National Certificate of Diving: Foundational Skills). In the United States, PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor Examination fees qualify for licensing and certification tests reimbursement for veterans and military personnel under the G.I. Bill. Veterans Administration GI Bill reimbursement PADI courses comply with the international ISO Recreational Diving Standards by the European Underwater Federation (EUF) Certification Body. ISO is the International Organization for Standardization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ISO. PADI is a Registered Training Organization with Australian Government. Recognitions and or equivalencies has been established between PADI and the Chilean Navy, the Colombian Naval Officers School, the Chinese Underwater Association, and FFESSM (the French Federation).

The Boy Scouts of America recognize PADI training for its Scuba Merit Badge Boy Scouts of America Scuba Merit Badge. PADI Instructors are authorized to conduct training for the Scouts Canada Scuba Program. PADI’s reputation for state of the art instruction and supporting materials reaches beyond the recreational scuba diving industry. In 2012, EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit association and the foremost community of IT leaders and professionals committed to advancing higher education, referenced PADI training its book, Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies. The publication explores the tools and processes that can improve the quality, flexibility, and scalability of postsecondary education. In the section entitled “Mozilla Open Badges” (page 279) which explores “alternative ways for learners to receive recognition for skills and achievements gained outside of the school environment, such as open credentialing and accreditation for all types of learning, including informal and interest driven. A ‘badge’ is a symbol or indicator of an accomplishment, skill, quality, or interest. From the Boy and Girl Scouts to PADI diving instruction, to the more recently popular geolocation game Foursquare, badges have been successfully used to set goals, motivate behaviors, represent achievements, and communicate success in many contexts.” The 2007 book, New Frontiers in Marine Tourism, describes the responsibility that the PADI organization takes for a healthy diving environment and a healthy recreational dive industry in its section, Dive Tourism, Sustainable Tourism and Social Responsibility: A Growing Agenda - Environmental management and education: the case of PADI, in Chapter Seven. Excerpts include “For a number of years, much of the diving industry has recognised its responsibility for and interest in environmental conservation. PADI, as well as other diver certification organisations and individual businesses, has put significant resources into conservation and developed public awareness programmes”. . . The same work cites PADI in its discussions of social accountability as well. In Student Scholarships and Social Responsibility: A Growing Agenda for PADI, it says, “The PADI Scholarship programme requires a joint commitment from PADI itself, a dive centre and the student. Such a partnership between sectors and individuals is a good example of the way that various disparate parts of an industry, each with limited resources, can pool their efforts to help more people from developing countries to enter the diving profession. As more and more dive centres are set up in developing countries, PADI recognises that good relations with the involvement of local people is essential both to business development and to environmental protection. The scholarship scheme makes entry into the dive business more possible for some students who have the backing of their dive centre.”

Hi TotalConversionMarketing, I do not personally object to a new section re ‘Contributions, Accreditations, Recognitions & Affiliations’ as I have done similar edits to other articles. However, I think what you have written does have some issues including neutrality of point of view (POV), notability etc. ONE - the proposed text looks very promotional and suggests that PADI is more exceptional than it actually is. For example, PADI is not the only and probably not the first supplier of diver training to the Boy Scouts of America. TWO - the proposed text is also lengthy and repetitive in some respects. For example, you have listed all of the state & territory bodies in Australia in respect to Vocational education and then elsewhere in the article, you mention that PADI is a Registered training organisation recognised in Australia. Would not it be easier to just say ‘PADI is recognised as a supplier of vocational education in Australia, Japan, UK ….’ and support the statement with suitable citations. THREE - you should add links to other WP articles in order to reduce the amount of text, simplify it and to assist the reader. For example, as a minimum, there are WP articles about the following - AQF, BSA, EUF, FFESSM, ISO, NQF, RTO and VET. FOUR - you will need to edit the rest of the article, particularly, the content re WRSTC. FIVE - you have not mentioned the PADI-CMAS agreement re mutual recognition of diving qualifications. SIX - in respect to ‘Contributions’, it may be more appropriate to combine this subject area with the content of the ‘Criticism’ section. SEVEN - can you cite reliable sources? Cowdy001 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As Cowdy0001 says, no problem to add it, but it should probably (a) be tightened up a little (it is more flowing and prosey (and full of marketing speak) than ideally necessary for an encyclopedia article), and (b) you need to include links to reliable sources verifying. I feel it should be a standalone section rather than shoved under "criticisms", but I don't have very strong views on that. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have carefully considered it, and have edited it to the following version. Also, SSI did qualify a number of years ago for ACE, but didn’t renew it . PADI is the only one listed on ACE. If there are no major objections, I'd like to go ahead and post the edit version below into the actual article. TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)TotalConversionMarketing

Contributions, Accreditations, Recognitions & Affiliations PADI courses are recognized, recommended and cited by a variety of institutions and organizations throughout the world for both recreational recreational diving and vocational training.

In the United States: PADI is the only recreational scuba diving organization whose courses are eligible for the American Council on Education (ACE) College Credit Recommendation Service (CREDIT). Currently 20 separate PADI courses are recommended for college credit by ACE.

PADI Open Water Scuba Instructor Examination fees Instructor Examination fees qualify for licensing and certification tests reimbursement for veterans and military personnel under the GI Bill.

Since 2009, PADI and the Boy Scouts of America have maintained a Mutual Support partnership . PADI is the only scuba training organization with this formal relationship with BSA. The BSA’s Florida National High Adventure Sea Base has a twenty year partnership with PADI, citing PADI’s leadership in developing the Snorkel BSA Award, Scuba BSA Award, and the Scuba merit badge. The Sea Base exclusively offers PADI certifications. The PADI Dive to Adventure Scholarship Program for the BSA provides training materials and/or course fees for various levels of scuba training for up to 100 scouts each year. The value of these annual scholarships is $23,350.

In other countries: In Canada, PADI is the exclusive sponsor of the Scouts Canada Scuba Program.

Recognitions and or equivalencies has been established between PADI and [1], the Chilean Navy, the Colombian Naval Officers School, the Chinese Underwater Association, and FFESSM (the French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports). PADI is also a Registered Training Organization with Australian Government (AQF). Several PADI courses are identified on the UK Health and Safety Executive’s list of approved diving qualifications.

PADI courses from entry level to scuba instructor training comply with the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Recreational Diving Standards by the European Underwater Federation (EUF) Certification Body.

PADI’s instructional methodology is cited in EDUCAUSE’s 2012 book, Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (page 279)regarding badges as “a symbol or indicator of an accomplishment, skill, quality, or interest. From the Boy and Girl Scouts to PADI diving instruction, to the more recently popular geolocation game Foursquare, badges have been successfully used to set goals, motivate behaviors, represent achievements, and communicate success in many contexts.”

PADI’s environmental emphasis is cited in the 2007 book, New Frontiers in Marine Tourism, in its section, Dive Tourism, Sustainable Tourism and Social Responsibility: A Growing Agenda - Environmental management and education: the case of PADI, (Chapter Seven). “PADI, as well as other diver certification organisations and individual businesses, has put significant resources into conservation and developed public awareness programmes”.

The same work cites in Student Scholarships and Social Responsibility: A Growing Agenda for PADI, that “The PADI Scholarship programme … is a good example of the way that various disparate parts of an industry, each with limited resources, can pool their efforts to help more people from developing countries to enter the diving profession… PADI recognises that good relations with the involvement of local people is essential both to business development and to environmental protection. The scholarship scheme makes entry into the dive business more possible for some students who have the backing of their dive centre.”

• I assume you intend to convert the in-line external links to correctly formatted references before or when the section is added to the article.
• Please make sure that each claim is directly supported by the reference, and that this can be found without having to search the website beyond the cited page.
• Unless all PADI courses comply with the ISO Rec diving standards (I don't think they do, but would have to check), make sure that those which do comply are specified, and it is clear which do not comply.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Peter (Southwood) I went ahead and added it to the article. Also, I looked up the ISO and you were right...(http://www.padi.com/scuba/about-padi/why-padi/default.aspx) so I just edited it to say entry level to instructor training that are compliant with ISO. Thank you! --TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2014

Awards

PADI has earned its fair share of criticism, but I think it's notable that it has earned a variety of awards over the years. These awards are important to include because it shows credibility for what the organization does. TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)TotalConversionMarketing

I would like to add the following section:

Corporate Awards Over its 40+ years, numerous organizations and entities have presented PADI Worldwide, PADI Regional Headquarters and/or its corporate affiliates with awards and recognition. Some of the more recent ones include:

• 2012, Tauchen (Dving), the bronze dolphin trophy in recognition of excellence for the previous year in the Association category
• (2009-2012), PADI Americas has been recognized by the Orange County Register as one of the Top Workplaces in Orange County, California, for four years consecutively.
• 2010 Waste Reduction Awards Program winner, awarded by the State of California for corporate environmental contributions.
• 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003 & 2004, Telly Awards. These awards honor the very best local, regional, and cable television commercials, programs, video and film. PADI corporate affiliate Diving Science & Technology (DSAT) received Telly Awards for various PADI educational videos.
• 2001 Axiem Award and the OMNI Intermedia Award awarded for the PADI Open water Diver Video. The Axiem Award recognizes electronic media excellence in the categories of Television, Video, Film, Radio, Audio, Animation, the World Wide Web and Interactive Media. The Omni Intermedia Award recognizes outstanding media productions that engage, empower and enlighten in the fields of Film & Video, Animation & Effects, and Website Design.
• The Communicator Crystal Award of Excellence was received for the PADI Wreck Diving video in 1996. The Communicator Awards is the leading international awards program recognizing excellence in ten categories of communication. The Communicator Awards are sanctioned and judged by the International Academy of Visual Arts, an invitation-only group consisting of top-tier professionals from acclaimed media, communications, advertising, creative and marketing firms.

Individual Awards and Recognitions Over the years, many people within the PADI family have earned awards and recognition for their achievements and contributions to diving. Among the officers and executives in the PADI corporate offices, these recognitions include:

The Reaching Out Award & DEMA Hall of Fame recognizes those individuals who have made a significant contribution to the sport of diving. PADI recipients are John Cronin in 1991, Ralph Erickson in 1992, Drew Richardson in 2004 and John Nesbit in 2006.

The International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame recognizes those who have contributed to the success and growth of recreational SCUBA diving in the areas of dive travel, entertainment, art, equipment design and development, education, exploration and adventure. PADI recipients include:

2000 -- Jack Lavanchy, PADI Europe cofounder and former CEO as a charter inductee

2002 John Cronin, PADI cofounder and former CEO

2007 Ralph Erickson, PADI cofounder and former president

2008 Drew Richardson, PADI CEO, present

2010 Nick Icorn, PADI Executive Director 1970. Also has wikipedia link

The American Academy of Underwater Scientists (AAUS) presents the NOGI Award to recognize those individuals making contributions to the dive industry in Arts, Science, Sports/Education and Distinguished Service. John Cronin is one of only nine individuals to receive multiple NOGI Awards.

Additional awards and recognitions of PADI CEO, Dr. Drew Richardson include:

• 1992 Dan/Rolex Diver of the Year
• Historical Diving Society Board of Directors
• 2010 Distinguished Alumni Award for Nova Southeastern University
• 2012 Wyland Icon Award

Hi TotalConversionMarketing, thanks again for providing the opportunity to review your proposed additions to the article. I have the following comments. ONE, can you please review what you have written; it needs polishing up, it reads as being promotional and it is a bit difficult to follow? TWO, the word ‘recogition’ should be struck out as it appears in the title of the section that you previously added. THREE, the awards should be listed in chronological order with the early award(s) first. FOUR, content should only refer the awards given to PADI, not those given to its senior officers (i.e. Messrs Lavanchy, Cronin, Erickson and Icorn, and Dr Richardson) as the article is about PADI and not about its senior officers. FINALLY, with respect to the matter of the use of ‘in-line’ external links in lieu of citation, can you please use the standard method of citation? It is not hard to do.Cowdy001 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no PADI family, it is an organization of unrelated people. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

References

History section needed

PADI has been around since 1966. It is big, and it is an industry leader. There should be a history section. The article needs more substance, not just a distillation of current PADI website.

• For example, when did PADI start tec training? Is there any good reference, preferably not an in-house history. There must be a load of references in dive magazines and newspapers somewhere.
• When was DSAT formed, what is its relationship to PADI? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter, PADI Launched its TecRec program in January 2001 with the 'Tec Deep Diver' course (i.e. air to 50 m with accelerated deco) - please refer 'DSAT Launches Tec Deep Diver', Sport Diver, Vol.9 No. 2, March 2001, p.103, [2]. Unfortunately, Sport Diver is effectively an 'inhouse' publication. However, there is a thread on Scubaboard from January 2001 that contains some links that may be recoverable via The Wayback Machine - refer http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22684.html. A search on http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ reveals that DSAT was founded on 19/11/1986. The corporate structure of the group that owns PADI, DSAT and other legal entities is not explained in any detail online apart from liability releases where DSAT is sometime mentioned as being one of the 'subsidiary' or 'affiliated corporations' described as forming PADI. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cowdy. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Many of the certifications listed are unexplained and often include abbreviations. This makes them somewhat opaque to the man in the street. It would be desirable for each certification which does not have a link to have a short explanation with reference. (A single sentence should do it in most cases). It would be worth getting this article up to a format which can be used as a model for other diver training organizations. Primary sources should be adequate to reference what PADI mean by their certificate names. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made a start with clarification of certification in Technical Open circuit. If there is no suggestion to do it differently, I will do more when I have the time and inclination. Anyone should feel free to do some if they agree with how I have done it, or demonstrate by example if they have a better way. I have removed prerequisites in favour of what the certification qualifies the diver to do, as that is what I think most people will want to know from an encyclopaedia. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Professional Association of Diving Instructors. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130623025745/http://oceandivers.com:80/training/specialty/Spiegel%20Grove%20Diver.htm to http://oceandivers.com/training/specialty/Spiegel%20Grove%20Diver.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cdnn.info/news/editorial/o050620.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uga.edu/cuda/scuba.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://diveherald.com/2006/07/23/padi-put-another-dollar-in/

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} 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticsm section again

The criticism section is an obvious 'black hat' used by PADI to give the impression of willingness to print criticism while really only picking opportunities to promote itself through a 'reply to criticism' format. This is used more and more in PR campaigns where comment sections have hand-picked negative comments but edits other real negative comments. See these PR advice sites for advice that says, basically, use negative comments that let you address information, delete and even block users of difficult comments. http://scottpublicrelations.com/negative-comments-no-problem-how-to-manage-your-companys-group-on-linkedin/ and also http://www.jeffbullas.com/2012/10/19/tips-for-handling-negative-comments-and-trolls-on-social-media/ .

More to the point, this 'criticism' section in Wikipedia is IDENTICAL to the PADI promotional materials given to PADI shops to use on their websites and in adverts, as a way to give the impression of replying to negative criticism on hand-picked topics see http://www.idc-in-asia.com/PADI.shtml This is obvious lack of NPOV and 'black hat' advertising, as is the bulk of this article (see other sections for my comments and links) The entire piece should be deleted and the entry re-written. By someone not copying PADI materials verbatim, one would hope.Gst.steven (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One line in the article says that PADI "dumbs down scuba diving training courses, making them too short and easy." I have taken the PADI Open Water Certification Course, and it was five hours a day for five days. Plus the certification dives which were five hours a day for two days. It was anything but easy or simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.3.38 (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not considered a reliable source, whether it is true or not. It is what we call original research. This is nothing personal, it is Wikipedia policy. Part of the reason for the claim that PADI dumbs down training, is that the entry level training no longer includes aspects that were for years considered essential basics. The PADI system splits training up into smaller skill sets and charges and certifies separately for each. This is easier for the learner diver, and more profitable for the instructors and the certification agency, and several competing agencies have followed suit. If your diver training is limited to PADI Open Water, perhaps you lack sufficient background to form a realistically informed opinion on what is necessary and desirable in the required skill-set for an entry level diver. Five hours a day for five days plus 5 hours for two days for dives is more than the PADI minimum requirement for OWD, which is what the course defines, and which should be the basis for comparison. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gst.steven: We are limited to what we can find in reliable sources and by what is due or undue emphasis in particular topics. If you can find reliable sources that balance the "black hat" PR, then please bring them here, or add them to the article, but it's really not realistic to ask others to delete and re-write content without suggesting the sources that would allow us to do that. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because the template appears to have been added as vandalism. Suggest user block • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Professional Association of Diving Instructors. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140609173601/http://www.emergencyfirstresponse.com/english/ to http://www.emergencyfirstresponse.com/english/

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) 04:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Class Dependency

Back in 2013, I posted about making a class dependency graph like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Banaticus/Sandbox&oldid=541806713 because it was confusing to try to figure out which classes depended on which other classes and to try to figure out a path through PADI certification. In the past decade or so, the PADI website (and this article) have only grown more difficult to navigate and not being able to clearly see requirements and dependencies is really starting to bug me. I'm going to start by proposing something like User:Banaticus/Sandbox/PADI which is a rough draft for showing which certifications are required for which classes.

I'll keep thinking about it and maybe make a tree like the last time (link above), especially for the classes which require Advanced Open Water. Please give comments and suggestions. If you want to draw a dependency tree because you've already been thinking about what it should look like then I can code it, and you can email me if that makes it easier to send me a non-wiki file, but I really hate the current table we have and would like to get something finished before I have to step away for another year or something. Banaticus (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)