Talk:Lifeguard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chipb75.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexis Caplan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Criticisms[edit]

this page has ALOT of problems, POV, directory listing, plain old inaccurate information. I'm not even sure where to begin. A few proposals: * split into lifeguard (very generic) and make lifeguard(ocean) (maybe)

  • link to ILS and over reaching national organizations only, don't like your club's directory listing to the page. These need to be removed. The page is too long already!
  • No link to rip current. This must have been written by someone unfamiliar with rip currents, as not every current is an emergency.
  • anyone notice there is no article on RESCUE BUOY ????? that's our meat and potatoes

Well, lets hear it 71.200.92.220 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow, this page has been DESTROYED in the year since i have last seen it. I'm tagging this for major rewrite/clean-up. Why was the link to the british soldier removed. This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive site for your particular brand of lifeguard. If you do not know what this means, do not edit the page 71.200.92.220 00:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the article is going to go in depth on countries with types of lifeguards I think there needs to be an addition to the rescues section based on the fact that the type of save (more detail than just passive or active) is one of if not the most important things about performing a rescue.Milsteadsr (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ellis[edit]

someone called Jeff Ellis keeps using this page to promote themselves and their website.

This is so stupid. the person insisting on keeping jeff ellis in is *NOT* concerned with education and information but purely and simply marketing their company.

Has anyone checked if the IP address is from the commercial company???

I agree the JE content reads like a marketing flyer.

Jeff, please leave this site alone. JE is just another commercial training company

tru tru, this is not the yellowpages A ctually, Jeff Ellis and Associates is a lifeguard training company in the US. On the other hand, you may be talking about someone using that name to spam... + I agree the JE content reads like a marketing flyer. Why don't we put the iceream man from bondi beach there as well?

No, the information on Jeff Ellis is legit. Please leave it; it is relavent and accurate.

<unsigned expletive removed - 71.200.92.220 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC) > the JE content reads like a marketing flyer. Why don't we put the iceream man from bondi beach there as well? Jeff Ellis & Associates is the largest trainer of waterpark lifeguards (and has thousands of pool guards too) in the United States. That makes it legit. Training for lifeguards in the US is done commerically; hence the layout and look oFAGf the site. Regardless of the site's look and feel, E&A has done alot to improve the training lifeguards receive in the US (first to introduce AEDs to the indoor aquatic environment, first to switch to all-equipment-based rescues, and many others). Some folks might think inclusion of E&A is here to promote them. It's not. E&A does alot in the field of lifeguarding, both in the US and abroad. The fact that it's a commercial company is just how the capitalist world works. It's legit - deal with it.[reply]

Big deal. By your logic, entries under 'Steel' would have a precis on BHP (the largest steel producer in the world) and Car would have Toyota and Ford ... but they don't. This is not the yellow pages. If you really want to contribute put 'in the US there is no government organisation to train lifeguards - it is done commercially'.

Actually "steel" does have descriptions and links to all of the major steel producers, including BHP (under "Steel Producers," a separate article linked to by the "steel" article). And "car" has links and such to GM, Toyota, and Ford (near the bottom, under "Current Production"). That information, as the info on ARC, E&A, and the YMCA, is there because it is relevant to understanding how these concepts work in the modern world. I've re-added the disputed paragraph. If you delete it again, I'll put it up for arbitration, as per the recommended Wikipedia course of action. I've looked at recent actions like that which center on similar disagreements and those decisions support my point-of-view. Lifeguarding is a commerical entity in the US. Descriptions and links to those commerical entities is vital to understanding that, just like links to Toyota and such are relevant to understanding cars.

wow, someone removed the discussion leaving only one viewpoint. that's a new low. 

   * Does no-one know how to use wikipedia here? It's not hard to indent or sign your comments. (195.92.168.168 11:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

I posted the Jeff Ellis bit. I am a EA Guard at a Six Flags park, and i felt that it would be credible info to put up here. As someone here before me said, ellis has done a lot to improve the industry, and I dont really understand why it was taken down(shot down is more like it) If you(whoever deleted the content) would do some research on the topic that youre editing, and not just kill info that someone puts up here, It would be appreciated. Nathanhillinbl 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks like ellis has been removed many times before, i see why my bit was removed, but it was all factual, and as a new wikipedian(is that a word), i dont understand why. Nathanhillinbl 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jeff Ellis is a commercial entity. As a result, its website won't be listed here. A similarity is that, on the wikipedia article for car, there is no link to the toyota website. I think an article about the jeff ellis corporation or whatever might be acceptable, if proper sources were cited etc. SECProto 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Benjad 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't the YMCA a commercial entity too, thus shouldnt be listed here either? Nathanhillinbl 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA is a non-profit entity. Ellis is for profit. Benjad 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Also the last 2 external links are commercial entitys, which shouldnt be listed here if the guidelines set by the above people are in effect. Nathanhillinbl 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The second paragraph of this article states, "The modern lifeguard profession originated in Australia in 1906." With great respect to my Australian friends, this is a very Australia-centric point of view. In reality, the first instance of professional (i.e. paid) beach lifeguarding (of which I am aware) was in the USA in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 1892. There were a variety of reasons for this first beach patrol to be initiated, but the key issues were drowning deaths due to rip currents and commerce associated with one of the first beach resorts. Shortly thereafter a number of other similar services were established. Australian lifesaving emerged as a volunteer (rather than paid) effort in 1906 after laws prohibiting surf swimming were eased. In the US, what emerged was a paid beach lifeguard system, with lifeguards typically employed by local government. What emerged in Australia was a primarily volunteer effort, overseen by local clubs and, ultimately, Surf Life Saving Australia. Today lifeguards (or beach inspectors) paid by local government patrol Australian beaches, as do thousands of volunteers. There is a mostly respectful symbiosis. It is important to note, as well, that beach lifesaving emerged throughout the world, not just in these two countries. When I have the opportunity, I will endeavor to update this article. Meantime I would refer those with an interest to Open Water Lifesaving, The United States Lifesaving Association Manual (Chapter I is the history section) and Between the Flags: One Hundred Years of Australian Surf Lifesaving (which should be available in March 2007).Bcbrewster 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The second paragraph of this article states, "The modern lifeguard profession originated in Australia in 1906." With great respect to my Australian friends, this is a very Australia-centric point of view. In reality, the first instance of professional (i.e. paid) beach lifeguarding (of which I am aware) was in the USA in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 1892."

Do you have references for Atlantic City? My understanding that was George Freeth - born 1883 is broadly credited as the first lifeguard in the US. He would have been a little young to have been a lifeguard in Atlantic City at age nine. In fact he was Hawaiian and lived in California

RC lifeguarding in Canada[edit]

So far as I'm aware, the RC program isn't recognized by law anywhere in Canada. There is talk of it being developed and introduced, specifically in Atlantic Canada, but I don't think that's occurred yet. To the extent that it is used, its basically staff training for waterparks or wave pools, and all lifeguards would be NLS-certified in addition. I'll leave it for now, but that section is misleading or incorrect, so far as I'm aware. I'll change it in a bit unless someone proves me wrong. Mike.lifeguard 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mike.lifeguard 02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmmm thats what I thinks too Doesn't it say on the Health act that YMCA, RC, Bronze Cross and NLS were all fair game for lifeguarding? and I thought RC and YMCA don't exist anymoreDrunkenforest (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Now that National Lifeguard Service has its own article, it might be worth mentioning there. That would require significant expansion of the history section, which I don't have the time resources to do yet. Anyone else who knows about this is of course welcome to add this stuff.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was not to split

Split up the lifeguard page into a generic lifeguard (existing page-- made generic), and then branch off into country specific pages. I propose we use the same model as paramedic, where there is a generic front end, then see also Paramedics in Canada, Paramedics in Austraila, so the structure would look like...

  • Lifeguard
    • Lifeguards in Austrlia
    • Lifeguards in Canada
    • Lifeguards in Ireland
    • Lifeguards in The United States
    • Lifeguards in The United Kingdom.


Please discuss below71.200.92.220 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessary. I would certainly support a split if the article's size was becomming a problem, but currently the article's size seems fine. --24fan24 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I doubt there would be enough significant content for separate articles. --24fan24 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at other emergency service pages, most seem very US centric (and are tagged as such), and this is problematic. This page is very Australia/NZ centric. I have examined other public safety sector pages ( police officer paramedic ski patrol fire fighter ) , and found the paramedic model to be the most encyclopedic format. As for populating each page, look at how the current page has been populated... without much doubt the new pages will fill up quite quickly. 71.200.92.220 13:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lets make this main article cover just the general stuff, nothing nation-centric. It's not helpful to wikipedia to have all the different subsections for all the different nations. Make a series of "See Also" links to new pages for Lifeguarding in different countries. Nswinton 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new articles would be more like stubs due to the lack of content.. Aquatics Guard Alert 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be wrong to divide the Lifeguard listing. It is up to all Lifeguards to ensure that correct and factual information is displayed for the benefit of all Lifeguards. The attraction of this listing is in it's international dimension. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balor Mor (talk • contribs).
I still do believe that this article should not be split up. There is a lack of content for each of those sections. And it isn't like the article is too long.. Aquatics Guard Alert 17:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave it as one article and keep the country-specific content - it is relevant and important. Mike.lifeguard 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Just a note that National Lifeguard Service is essentially an article on lifeguarding in Canada.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally proposed the split by national model statement above. I think it is interesting to see that my suggestion is actually occurring, despite being voted against. Surf Lifesaving is Lifeguarding in Australia, National Lifeguard Service is lifeguarding in Canada. 71.200.68.118 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouting[edit]

are boy scout life guards not accepted nationwide? I know that you can be trained as a boy scout lifeguard nationwide so is that not to be considered nationwide training.


that is a great point. my understanding is that the BSA is an authorized provider of the Red Cross lifeguarding program http://www.redcross.org/news/hs/firstaid/030212scouts.html
Right, so it is the ARC Lifeguard program - not the BSA's. APs exist all over the place, but they offer RC programs. So it is really a question of whether RCLG is nationally-accepted. To my knowledge, it is not because lifeguarding in the US is a fugly mess.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies[edit]

As an American Red Cross authorized lifeguard instructor, I can tell you without a doubt that there are several inaccurate pieces of information within this article.

The person who wrote the section on rescue types was clearly not a lifeguard. Having taught swimming lessons also, I am familiar with the "reach-throw-row-go" methodology. We lifeguards and instructors encourage lay persons attempting to render aid in an emergency to use these methods in order to maintain their own safety. Lifeguards, on the other hand, are highly trained in how to perform in- water rescues. Those high chairs we use aren't just there for the view. We jump off of them to get in the water and perform the FASTEST rescue possible, not the safest. Honestly, if there is a single guard here who has thrown a buoy to someone or extended a shepard's crook instead of jumping in and grabbing them, i would both like to meet you and laugh at how stupid you are. Lifeguards are professionals, and we put the safety of our patrons first, not some insane guidelines for the improperly trained.

On the other hand, I know that beach lifeguards may use boats or buoys to rescue those far of shore, in dangerous currents, or in rough waters. Might I suggest separating this part of the article based on the environment the guard is in. Ocean and pool lifeguarding are two entirely different beasts. Right now it seems the article is geared more guards the beach guards than the pool ones.

Finally, for those interested in becoming guards, it would be great to have a section on certifications and training requirements for this job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.172.18 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your gung-ho attitude is a little surprising in the context of most training around the world, but may be reflective of practice in your area, or the US in general. The ILSF advocates non-entry rescue wherever possible and as a multiply qualified lifeguard (pool, open water and beach) and instructor I can tell you that in a lot of areas you might be the one 'getting laughed at'. As a rule, if you get wet, you've failed in your job, as you've not prevented an incident, and you've then put yourself in danger for a rescue. Of course there are exceptions, but every lifeguard i've ever worked would rather use the safest effective method - not the fastest. I've made the mistake of entering the water too quickly before, as many lifeguards have and was quite rightly told off for it, which I accept as it wasn't the best option. Excess speed leads to bad decisions- React quickly but safely. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can see your point of view, this is exactly why a split page would be beneficial. All major westernized lifeguard certifications teach in water rescues. They have been consistently teaching in water rescues as the safest, quickest, and (importantly) most effective saves. When a lifeguard is properly trained in life-guarding skills by an organization such as the American Red Cross, they can execute saves very quickly, in a safe manner, while also providing the utmost care. A widely known 'rule' to go by is the 10-10-10 rule. Ten seconds to see an incident, ten seconds to reach the victim, and ten seconds to make the save. I have been a lifeguard for five years now and while preventative life-guarding was "drilled into my head" every single training, we were never punished for entering the water. Lifeguards do have a responsibility to prevent emergencies, but also have a duty to act as quickly as possible to save a patrons life. And as previously discussed it is definitely more efficient to jump of stand into the water and execute a save. This as opposed to running farther from the pool to grab life saving equipment such as a hook.Chipb75 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History and Law[edit]

I came to this article looking for a brief history of lifeguards, expecting to see something like, The first paid lifeguards were likely in (country X) for a celebration on February 29, XXXX. Then the history of the organizations which created the certification and how there came to be competitions, etc.

I also expected something about how lifeguards relate to the body of law. Presumably there have been lawsuits related to botched lifesaving (just like any other medical profession). But more importantly, communities probably require their beaches to have lifeguards as an alternative to prohibiting people on the beaches. Those seem worthy topics to cover in this article. —EncMstr (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian addtions[edit]

An editor has insisted on the addition of: "In November 2009, the Canadian Red Cross launched it's new lifegaurd program. Red Cross Lifeguard is a two-step certification program designed to provide candidates with the knowledge and skills to become effective lifeguards, focusing on hands-on practice and scenarios. The Canadian Red Cross Lifeguard program has been developed in accordance with rigorous Red Cross quality standards and will meet all provincial/territorial legislation requirements in addition to being aligned with the international lifeguard standards."

He claims that "no requirement to be extraordinary - just true and representative".

Actually, the first screen we all meet is tht WP:WELCOME screen. It says (in part) "Wikipedia is not ... a vanity press, ... an indiscriminate collection of information..." This seems indiscriminate. If the editor is connected to the program, it could be "vanity." It is trivial. It has WP:POV words: "rigorous". The main intent is to hype the program WP:PEACOCK WP:PR. The reference is not from an outside source and is theefore not WP:RELY. It is the Canadian Red Cross promoting itself. This is fine, just not for a neutral encyclopedia.

This is not a blog, nor a .com site. This information might be of more use there, just not in an encyclopedia.

This adds no value to the text and should be removed. The reader is not enlightened. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks[edit]

In Australia at least (I don't know about other countries), lifeguards / surf lifesavers at the beach also look out for sharks, and warn swimmers to get out of the water if one is seen. They may also scare/chase the sharks away (from the safety of a large boat!). The article probably ought to mention that (but I'm too busy to add it myself at the moment). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lifeguard. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifeguard. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing C1[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zlinaa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zlinaa (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lifeguard&oldid=1203591299"