Talk:Ice diving

Source for regulator setup

I'd like to see a source for the following quote from this article:

• Good practice—two unfreezing regulators arranged as follows: first stage number 1 with primary second stage, BCD inflation hose and Submersible Pressure Gauges, first stage number 2 with secondary second stage (octopus), dry suit inflation hose and Submersible Pressure Gauges.

As placing the BCD inflation hose on the same first stage as the primary second stage seems contrary to common sense. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I can help you with a source for part of that:

• Jablonski, Jarrod (2006). Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving. Global Underwater Explorers. p. 92. ISBN 0971326703. To provide additional redundancy when using two first stages, the inflator hose should always be run from the right post. This requirement is illustrated in the case of a diver's left post rolling off or breaking. If the inflator is run from the left post, the diver will simultaneously lose not only the use of the backup regulator around the neck but also the ability to inflate the BC. These two problems together could be inordinately compounded by an out-of-air situation in which a diver would not only be without the means of controlling his/her buoyancy but would also be deprived of the use of a third regulator

The primary first stage is always on the right post of twin cylinders, and the concern is that contact with the roof while travelling forward in any overhead environment will tend to turn off the cylinder valve mounted on the left post, but cannot turn off the cylinder valve mounted on the right post. So, although some may think it only a small point, there does seem to be logic in recommending that the power inflation hose should connect to the right hand regulator first stage. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a credible source. However, since alternative configurations are widely used (I don't have a source, outside of DIR circles it seems that people really don't recomment specific configurations) it might be better to rephrase the text along the lines of Although many configurations are possible, Jarrod and Jablonksi recommend ... instead of the rather blunt "this is good practice". 78.245.228.100 (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that other configurations are used, but - like you - I don't know of a source that says "this other config is good practice" in the same way that JJ does for the DIR setup. We have a convention on Wikipedia that we assert simple facts, that is, where a reliable source is not contradicted by an equivalent reliable source, we assert it, not attribute it. "Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree." The attribution is of course still there in the reference for the reader to follow if they wish, but it remains probably better not to attribute in-text without a source which differs from the one we have (then we could say something like "JJ recommends ... as good practice, while XYZ recommends ... as good practice" to retain a neutral POV). --RexxS (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a simple fact that DIR/GUE recommend one particular configuration, but given the level of controversy surrounding DIR and/or GUE practices (and I'm sure there would be no difficulty finding sources for that) I'm still not convinced that presenting that particular configuration as unqualified best practice isn't some sort of undue weight. Not a biggy, though. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it is quite hard to find sources that contradict DIR/GUE that aren't forum posts or self-published sources (and those really don't rise to the level of WP:Reliable sources). A source was found showing BSAC argued against a long primary hose, but that's about it. You can see some of the problems by visiting Talk:Doing It Right where all sorts of sources have been considered. If you know of any that would meet WP:RS and which directly advocate gear configurations opposed to the DIR rigging, please let us know as they would be helpful in trying to demonstrate a balance of opinion in several articles. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So it seems that there is a source which says "The DIR way of ice diving is...", but not a source which says "Ice divers dive the DIR way".

I know that PADI offers ice diving courses and although I don't have access to it I wouldn't be at all surprised if their course material recommended a specific configuration. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement them that presenting techniques attributed to one particular authority as common or preferred practice is either misleading or a case of undue weight unless there are reliable sources which indicate that techniques are actually applied within the domain.

Unless I hear otherwise, I shall be updating the artice accordingly.