Talk:Profession/Archive 1

Hi there, I don't think it is true that all professions require regulation and membership of professional organisations. I'm a scientist and there are no professional bodies or statutory regulations in my profession. Indeed, in theory you are not required to gain a PhD to become a scientist, although this qualification is in practice pretty much universal. The closest we come to professional bodies are organisations such as the Royal Society and United States National Academy of Sciences, but these are more honorary than usual. Tim Vickers 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically you may be correct, as regulation and membership are only two characteristics of a profession listed in the article. However, they are two key elements of professional work when it comes to earnings because they give rise to:

• the existence of a “labor market shelter” by which the profession is shielded from competition; and
• the retention of professional control (as opposed to client state control) over judging and evaluating professional work.^[1]

These two elments enable professionals who are regulated and hold membership of professional organisations, such as doctors and lawyers, to earn substantially more from their work than with those who do not, such as scientists and university professors who are paid relatively less. Whether this is should be the case is an issue this article address.

All professions do require regulation and membership. Unfortunately, you are using "profession" in the vernacular, meaning you have advanced knowledge of the field in which you work. Science is almost always an occupation, not a profession (the exceptions being medicine, pharmacy, etc., and engineering and certain other disciplines depending on where you live). The word "profession" is technically a state/province-regulated term that can only be applied to specific groups of people. These days, people call these "regulated professions" to allow for the vernacular definition of profession, but this is VERY recent. I'm pulling this straight out of exam notes, but I'll be hunting down the reference so I can post this information in the article. P.S. I realise this is an old conversation, but I am updating it here as this is a common misunderstanding. — Skittleys (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is now a proposed WikiProject or subproject to deal with wikipedia's content relating to employment, including the articles on the various professions and jobs, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Employment. Any interested parties should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard a quote that all professions ultimately conspire against the society within which they operate. If confirmation/citation was known inclusion may be worthy. 79.72.248.113 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago I noted the following quote, which I believe may well be the one to which you refer. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices" It is from Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations". Lancastrianexile (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: the reference is Adam Smith "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" [1775] Book 1, Chapter X, Part II (page 105 in the version I accessed). Lancastrianexile (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you mean this:

"SIR PATRICK. And a very good profession, too, my lad. When you know as much as I know of the ignorance and superstition of the patients, youll wonder that we're half as good as we are.

RIDGEON. We're not a profession: we're a conspiracy.

SIR PATRICK. All professions are conspiracies against the laity. And we cant all be geniuses like you. Every fool can get ill; but every fool cant be a good doctor: there are not enough good ones to go round." G B Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma, Act 1 Peter morrell 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we are both 'right' and it is debateable which of us is referring to the same thing that the original contributor had in mind. I will just say that Adam Smith came first and I suspect but can't prove that GBS had the character in the play (mis)quote him. Lancastrianexile (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While this article certainly is thorough, it is in need of more recent references. What first caught my attention was the "male-dominated" characteristic. While it is arguable that, in today's society, the top positions within the profession are male-dominated, the profession itself is not. Of course, being confused, I clicked the reference link...and discovered this book was from 1992. In today's evolving world, characteristics like this can't be defined by references that are 16 years old. I don't have time to go on my own reference hunt at the moment, so if someone else would like to do this research, that would be wonderful! In the meantime, I have put an {{outdated}} tag up—I felt this was more appropriate than the {{update}} tag as I am not 100% certain the information IS out of date—and have placed some {{old fact}} and {{Updateneeded}} inline tags around as appropriate. Skittleys (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is jumping back and forth between the common use of the term "profession" and the one that was accepted until the past few decades. Historically, the term "profession" is restricted to certain groups of people, as listed in the article. Yet, the intro defines it as "an occupation, vocation or career where specialized knowledge of a subject, field, or science is applied." That is the vernacular definition. This needs to be clarified somehow...but it does bring the factual accuracy of the article into question. — Skittleys (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points re main article:

1. There is no mention anywhere of the origin of the word (and concept) of profession: L., "to swear (an oath)". This is an unfortunate omission. It helps toward clarification of what properly is and what is not a profession - a distinction that has become murky, if not altogether lost, in current common usage.

The oath referred to dictates adherence to ethical standards, which invariably include practitioner/client confidentiality, truthfulness, and the striving to be expert in one's calling, all three of these being practiced above all for the benefit of the client. There is also a stipulation about upholding the good name of the profession. This has been perversely cited as a rationale for protecting incompetent or unethical members, but it is in fact quite the opposite, to make sure that such practitioners never enter the ranks of the profession, or are punished and/or removed from it as their behaviour is discovered.

2. The article states that there were classically three professions (medicine, the clergy, and the law), but I was always taught that there were four, the fourth being the military. The oath for the military contains the same criteria as the others, keeping in mind that the "client" for the military is a government or leader.

(Unfortunately I have been unable to find anything like a definitive reference to support the second point above, and the results of my search of the internet have been equivocal.) Gbdoc (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with all your points. For me, please feel free to go ahead and add this material to the article. I don't see any objections to that. thanks Peter morrell 10:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In reference to point #2 above, US Army Field Manual (FM) 1, "The Army" dated June 2005 identifies the military as one of the four professions on page 1-10. The exact verbiage is as follows

To fulfill those societal needs, professions--such as, medicine, law, the clergy, and the military--develop and maintain distinct bodies of specialized knowledge and impart expertise through formal, theoretical, and practical education.

Might also be worth mentioning that in many jurisdictions professional do not enjoy limitation of liability which further distinguishes those listed from other occupations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.96.75 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this helps.

Marcus 209.22.11.219 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you put something like that in an article with only one example citation and consider it NPOV? If not already, male domination of certain professions, per se, is well on its way out. In 2007 women comprised 63% of students enrolled in professional pharmaceutical programs and 51.3% of PhD candidates in that same field. Women comprised 47.3% of entering law students in 2007 and have comprised as much as 49.4% of law students at the turn of the decade. None of those figures speak to domination.

I'm not a Wikipedia memeber so I'll leave it alone, but allowing these beliefs to persits on weak evidence, when hard numbers are available, is ridiculous. This is not 7th grade social studies here, let's get real. --24.128.25.245 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that view of US situation, just because entry numbers are shifting that way, does not mean the professions are no longer male dominated because they are. Look at the numbers of practitioners and you see a different story PLUS salaries for women are STILL only 75% at best those of men...plus the 'big wheels' and top jobs in all professions are STILL held by men. Overwhelmingly that is still so. So a range of factors are needed before the kind of change you suggest can be made, but your info can certainly be added to the article. Peter morrell 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

have tried to add some of this to restore balance Peter morrell 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit on Oct. 1 that you reverted. The reason I removed the stuff that I did is that it relates to economy-wide gender gaps - note that it specifically refers to all full-time workers. You are more interested in stuff on gender gaps within occupations. There is certainly a literature on this, but what you are citing is not particularly relevant. You might, for example, cite Sasser (2004) or Joan Williams's 2000 book Unbending Gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.73.31 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask...

But... is an economist a professional by definition?

220.238.34.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC).

Take a look at this paragraph: "Although in Britain, "the fulltime gender pay gap has shrunk in the past 30 years, it is still 17%, while for part-time work it is stuck at a shameful 40%....all this is happening when, at school and college, women are outshining men. In the medical and legal professions there has been a 'genderquake,'"[19] which means these professions are gradually becoming female-dominated. Yet their pay continues to lag behind that of their male colleagues." Now, I don't know how to fix it, but it is filled with facts. However, the tone is definitely not NPOV. This paragraph needs a lot of cleaning up. Contributions/142.1.145.228 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is absolute nonsense. There is no inequality in pay between men and women. See Warren Farrell's presentation to the Cato Institute. It is true that men EARN (take home) more. There are several reasons for this. But hour for hour, men are not PAID more. Editor0982 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your side of the issue, and tend to agree. However, both sides of the issue need to be portrayed. Double-however (I can't say "However, however", hehe), your side of the issue is not only not portrayed in the section at issue, the section is written in such an absolute tone that one would never guess that your side of the issue exists. I would certainly agree with some careful, careful rewriting of that section to incorporate both viewpoints in as neutral a fashion as possible. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is absolute nonsense. There is no inequality in pay between men and women. See Warren Farrell's presentation to the Cato Institute. It is true that men EARN (take home) more. But men are not PAID more. In fact, in high-earning occupations, Farrell's research shows that between similarly qualified, similarly positioned men and women, the women are actually paid MORE than the men.

If gender inequality is to be discussed at all, perhaps the special privileges/preferences that girls/women receive at EVERY of education should be pointed out. An example would be the numerous scholarships available exclusively to women, which blatantly discriminate against men. Perhaps the actual CAUSES of the so-called "gender-quake" should be examined... Namely femo-cratic legislation designed to reward girls/women and hold back boys/men.

It should also be pointed out women's percentages in the universities and the professional schools have increased only because the male numbers have dropped. Medical school is a prime example. The percentage of female med students has increased only because male enrollment has dropped, dramatically and steadily since the mid-1990s.

Overall, this section is garbage. Lies, followed by delusions of eventual female "domination". Wikipedia should be ashamed. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's feminist propaganda.

Editor0982 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your points would be much better taken if you didn't make them in such an angry fashion. It's an encyclopedia article that you can edit, not a bill up for vote in the Senate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article to be checked for neutrality based entirely on the Gender Inequality section, which presents only one side of the issue and in a fashion that is rather essayist in nature. There are compelling arguments to the contrary regarding gender inequality. These counter-arguments should be presented and/or the current tone of the section pushed significantly to the neutral. Gender inequality is not a -fact-, it is a -stance-. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The information on this topic in the article is sourced, so if you can provide sourced info for your POV on this, then go ahead. It would be a very useful addition to have some well-sourced data on gender equality/inequality in specific professions and/or specific places if you can deliver that. Peter morrell 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the adjective "disinterested" not only because it is taken directly from the succinct decription given by the Webbs in 1917 but also because it clearly means "not influenced by considerations of personal advantage" rather than "having no feeling or interest in something". Salisian (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two credible, published academic papers on project management as a profession, that of Bill Zwerman, Janice Thomas et al from the University of Calgary and my own PhD research, entitled "Is Project Management a Profession? And if not, what is it", which can be downloaded here http://www.build-project-management-competency.com/download-page/

Probably the most salient criteria to determine a profession comes from Andrew Abbott in his "Systems of Professions". Basically, he says that to create a profession, an occupation has to be able to own or control the body of knowledge, and without being able to do that, you cannot have a profession.

Other great references on this topic is the work of Eliot Friedson 1) Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, philosophy and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2) Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3) Friedson, E. (1988). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge (reprinted.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

But you may want to think about this analogy I produced as part of my dissertation-

Tiger Woods is unquestionably a talented golfer. One would be very hard-put to dispute the obvious, which that he is very competent at what he does, perhaps one of the best ever. Therefore he meets the first test of being a professional (n) – skill and competence. In fact, he is sufficiently competent that he makes a very handsome living performing for pay what most of us consider a hobby; hence, applying the second criterion, he meets the ‘earnings test’ to be considered a professional (n). He is not an amateur. Having met both tests (highly competent and earning a living at what most do for a hobby) entitles him to be termed a professional (adj.) golfer. However, just because Tiger Woods meets the criteria to be called both a professional (n) and a professional (adj) golfer, golf does not qualify as a profession, although Woods might call it his profession (his paid job).

It is no wonder that many in the community of practice of project management confuse what is means to belong to a profession. There is the tendency to make the connection that if they are in fact professional (extremely competent) in the way they work, then what they do must, by association, be considered a profession. This is false logic and a semantic trap easily fallen into.

Dr. PDG, Jakarta Dr PDG (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone create it as a seperate article using the content below. The sections obviously will need expanding, but I am short of time. Their ought to be seperate articles on Professions, Professionalism, and Professional. Lumping them together is like writing an article on Communes and trying to lump it together with a bit about Communism.

I think Professionalism is very important. This article will help teach people what it is. Places without professionalism, such as many corrupt places in the third world, are horrible miserable places to live.

(Moved someone elses responce placed here, to the end).

My article:

This was the intro to Category:Professions...

A profession is a specialized work function, or economic activity, within society, generally performed by a professional. In a more restrictive sense, profession often refers specifically to fields that require extensive study and mastery of specialized knowledge, such as law, medicine, finance, the military, nursing, the clergy or engineering. In the latter strict sense, a profession is a regulated occupation usually requiring entry by examination. Many professions are regulated by statute. A profession is usually a job requiring mental adroitness, as compared to a trade, which requires manual dexterity.

It has been suggested that there are four main criteria that identify a profession:

1. Custody of a clearly definable and valuable body of knowledge and understanding associated with a long period of training.
2. A strong unitary organisation which ensures that the profession generally speaks with one voice.
3. Clearly defined and rigorous entry standards, backed up with a requirement to register with the professional association.
4. An overriding responsibility to maintain the standards of the profession for the public's benefit.

From Collin's, Ghey and Mills (1989)

The criteria above miss out selfless ethics. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As Skittleys says above, the poor quality of the Profession, Professional, and (lack of any) Professionalism articles may be due to people confusing them with the vernacular use of the words. Eg. in vernacular American-english, being a hamburger cook is apparantly a "profession"; but being a lawyer or doctor is a profession. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The following defintion has been taken from Accounting and Society by R.W. Perks:

"A profession is defined as a vocation in which skill based on theoretical knowledge aquired through training and examination of competence by a professional body or educational institution is applied to the affairs of others or in the practise of an art in order to meet their needs. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between a professional who is engaged in a full-time career (such as a professional singer), and a member of a profession. The term is generally used to imply some favourable status and many different trade groups representing people following a similar occupation aspire to professional status for their members."

Having re-read it, I think it is quite long winded, but it contains certain key points that are expanded on later in the article. To demonstrate that it is not original research, I will quote verbatim some of the points made by Perks in his book fro which this definition is derived:

(Perks, p2) "A profession may be defined as a vocation in which professed knowledge of some department of learning is used in its application to the affairs of others or in the practice of an art founded upon it."

(Perks, p6) "Professinals are assumed to have extensive theoretical knowledge (whether of medicine, law, the Bible or engineering) and to possess skills based on that knowledge that they are able to apply in practice.

(Perks, p2) "It is necessary to distinguish between a "professional" (in the sense that a person can be a professional footballer or singer) and a "profession" in the sense of a grouping of persons following a similar occupation".

(Perks, p2) "The word is generally used to imply some favourable status and many different occupations aspire to professional status".

I think the lead should be rewritten, as this an other sources about Profession provide more insight into this subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with it, but is has none of the brevity, sagacity, completeness, aplomb or long-standing authority of the Webbs' description. Salisian (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the definition from Webbs really works given the change that has happened since it was first written (1917) . The idea that professionals "supply disinterested counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain" is a bit naive, particularly in the I think a more realistic and up to date defintion is required.

For instance, in the light of Holocaust, in which many German professionals acted as instruments of a disfunctional state, which would tend to indicate that "service for others" may not be have the intention, but was taken to a tragic extreme. Likewise the recent financial crisis would tend to indicate that profession of banker (if it is a profession) has shown to conducted wholly for business gain (i.e. higher profit, larger bonuses), whilst other professions have shown themselves to be very interested in business gain, often to the detriment to the business (e.g. accountants in the Enron scandal).

I am not saying that Perks is the ideal source of information, but would suggest we need to cast around for a better definition, and one that is couched in more modern language. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• How about: A profession is a customer insight journey grounded in service transformation and won through targeted educational experience, delivering to the service user end-to-end service gains that impart to the brand joined up holistic service deliveries irrespective of the role of the delivery organisation and/or collateral opportunity? Salisian (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a more realistic defintion might be suggested by parapharsing Dr. Magali Sarfatti Larson's introduction to her book The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis (pages x-xi):

"A profession is a service oriented occupation that is centered on a body of knowledge, techniques or skills that have been mastered through training, whose members form a community who share a relatively permanent affiliation through professional associations, professional schools, and a self-administered code of ethics."

I recomdend we agree to use her as the opening source, not only because you can view the book online, but also because her book appears to provide significant coverage on the topic and her qualifications indicate that she is an authorative source of commentary on this topic. I suggest we extend this definition substantially if you agree to this approach, and amend it if my chose wording is lacking in some way. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a very good definition but I would say for greater clarity that a profession is an occupation that has achieved high status with the public due to qualifications and expertise, control over its own knowledge base and means of entry, and has become an acknlowedged field of expertise in its own right...etc etc. But the above paragraph is a very good start. Not all professions are service oriented (example?) but there is deemed to be a service element in most, as there is in many other occupations. Peter morrell 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of the above definition is that is taken from a reliable secondary source. Of course my choice of wording is far from perfect, and the it can be extended to include more of the same source, or other sources, but at least it is a verifiable definition. What source could you cite to support your ideas? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can go on trading quotes for some time: "A profession is a high-status, knowledge-based occupation characterised by abstract, specialised knowledge, autonomy, authority over clients and subordinate occupational groups, and a certain degree of altruism." (R Hodson & T A Sullivan, The Social Organisation of Work, Wadsworths Publishing, 2005, p.258) But the work of Eliot Freidson is also excellent in this regard. The definition has to be complete and well-rounded because a profession has necessarily several key features. If it lacks some of them, then it is merely an occupation. Peter morrell 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand Eliot Freidson to be an excellent source, and she is cited by Larson as well (e.g. see page 7 & 8 for a direct quotations from her 1977 essay Health and the Division of Labour):

"..ideal type constructions do not tell us what a profession is, only what it intends to be...my intention is to show how the occupations we call professions organized themselves to attain market power."

I think we can still use Larson, because her book provides more than sufficient coverage to extend the defintion to include these points. So if we extend the defintion further using the content of pages x and xi of her book , we get:

"A Profession is a service oriented occupation that is centered on a body of knowledge, techniques or skills that have been mastered through training, whose members form a community who share a relatively permanent affiliation through professional associations, professional schools, and a self-administered code of ethics. The specific attributes of an ideal type profession may vary, but the characteristics that make it a distinctive from other occupations are the privilege of autonomy derived from self-regulation and the prestige of having competence that is linked to the needs of society."

Of course we cannot cover all the bases in the lead paragraph - this is simply the starting point, and these characteristics will be expanded upon subsequently. The choice of wording for this summary of Larson is my own, but this can be changed if it defective in any way. Perhaps we could split the definition between Larson and Freidson or even throw Perks into the mix. Again, I am open to suggestions on this defintion can be improved upon. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

An essential element that is missing from this prolix definition is the supply of "disinterested counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain" that I take from the extant definition. Why is this essential? Because if someone failed to provide it, s/he would undoubtedly be subject to discipline for ethical failure. It also neatly encapsulates the giving of advice as well as the service of doing (such as photographing someone / amputating her leg). Salisian (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Today, the major German newspaper published an article, http://www.faz.net/s/RubC3FFBF288EDC421F93E22EFA74003C4D/Doc~E274496C7F4254A67A3519782422DDEDC~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html, summarizing a scholarly paper, http://www.springerlink.com/content/j3410338v2020827/, that explains how bad this article is. -- 129.187.179.90 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What self-respecting encyclopedia would be without both titles? Is anyone suggesting they are the same? Some brave soul should remove the trite examples list. That is perhaps what some readers are finding irksome and may wish to remove. Salisian (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that both profession and professional are merged together as "professionalism". Profession and professional both overlap with each other and they can be incorporated into "professionalism" which can also include the broad concept of professionalism. "Profession" and "professional" can then be made to redirect to "professionalism" (possibly to specific sections within "professionalism") so those typing in "profession" or "professional" wont get overlooked. --Penbat (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought a far more interesting diversion would be to open a new article for "profession" as being (alternatively) an open declaration that is cynically false. I notice the NODoE gives as an example: "a profession of allegiance". LOL I like that. But "professional" remains in use principally as the adjective in "professional person", the noun being dropped by ellipsis - or at least that is my understanding of standard English usage; I cannot comment on US usage. In the former context "professional" can include "golfer", "homosexual" and "office cleaner" (viz. "I am no longer an amateur" / "I am not as I appear" / "I do a good job"), whereas those occupied in such pursuits cannnot be described as being engaged in any kind of profession. (The prostitute joke is of course a good one, that being perfectly properly classified as a profession, and quite possibly the oldest one.) The distinction between the individual "professional" and the collective "profession" is therefore important - and it would be lost if both were to be merged into "professionalism". IMHO that is merely a lazy term used to describe professional quality or character. The better but less used word word is "professionality". It cuts out the fuzz, which is also what an encyclpedia should do. In my view, "profession" should stand alone. Please remove the template. Salisian (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Another important point is that "profession", "professional" and "professionalism" are all different forms of the same word and in the same sense. Give me any other examples in Wikipedia where different forms of the same word in the same sense have different articles ? --Penbat (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First things first. I have given reasons with examples for retaining "profession". How about discussion your assertion "Profession and professional both overlap with each other and they can be incorporated into "professionalism" which can also include the broad concept of professionalism", giving a few reasons and examples? And if you wish to discuss conflating articles, then please may I hear your views and reasons why you feel the appropriate heading for the collection should be the extension rather than the root? No need to reply, just remove the template please. In my view it's ugly, distracting and unnecessary. Salisian (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll wait and hear what others have to say. --Penbat (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ian Salisbury, that it is a daft idea and that two separate articles are better than one, thanks Peter morrell 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well we all know that these articles share a the common topic of Profession as their subject matter. What we have to work out is how the sub-topics are related, and whether they are notable sub-topics in their own right. I am not sure if the article Professional is a viable article, in that it is a generic term for people who work within one or more professions. That article seems to repeat most of the subject area contained in this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There clearly isn't a consensus for the proposed merge. I also doubt the need for Professional, except as a dab page to Profession, Professional sport, and so on. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A professional is someone engaged in a profession, so professional should be nothing more than a section of the profession article. Is there a separate article for footballer aside from the football article? I thought not. Engineer has a separate article from Engineering but I believe that's warranted because Engineering is not a concept, as profession is, but rather a human endeavour with a long, detailed history and the amount of information in what makes someone an Engineer, and the history of Engineers is fairly distinct from Engineering.

Professionalism is nothing more than acting in manner befitting of a professional, so any suggestion it should have its own article is, IMO, fairly ridiculous.

Therefore I suggest Profession as the main article with a section on Professional, containing nothing more than a note or comment regarding Professionalism and a distinction between a member of a Profession and use of the word to distinguish between an amateur and someone being paid or partaking in an activity primarily for reward rather than enjoyment or societal benefit.

WikiDMc (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course these two articles should be merged. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two articles where one deals simply with the adjective derived from the noun. Roundquarter (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

When I added a Perks' list of characteristics of profession to this article, I thought the article would benefit from the addition of coverage from a reliable source. However, I was not aware that this list of 22 characteristics was controversial, as this article testifies. The points that Perks made are valid, and where intended to provoke questions to be asked about nature of professions, and what makes them different from other occupations. Is the article evidence that the list should split off into its own list article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Teachers should be removed they follow federal and state guidelines for what they teach in most cases. Thus there is little sense of autonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.202.160 (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpreters should be removed. To be an interpreter does not require any formal training (only understanding of 2 languages, spoken or otherwise), nor is there any professional body charged with the development of interpreting as a profession and enforcement of professional standards.

Stockbroking should be added, along with fincial advising; they do meet the above criteria and other usual criteria. WikiDMc (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Several of the alleged "professions" should be removed, as they do not have any sort of licensing regulation. Professors and scientists, for example, are not licensed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.212.197 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole List of Professions section needs to either be removed, or completely overhauled for a number of reasons.

• The list is inexhaustive and which professions end up in the list has no consistent rule. It reads as though they were all added randomly by contributors who felt that their own profession needed to be in the list.
• There is debate as to various inclusions. Comments as to which professions meet the outlined criteria should not be in the article. Debate should take place here on the talk page, never within the article itself.
• The list sits oddly within the context of the article, and jars the reader's flow.
• The references given relate to only some of the list, and are somewhat weak. Perhaps the list would be better of if simply pulled directly from one government source. i.e.
• This list is not particularly illustrative of the rest of the article. It does not continue the points made, or interelate with the concepts of Professionalism.

Perhaps this list would be best moved to its own article, so that "Profession" can keep a tighter focus. In short, the current status of this list does not serve this article well. Andrewaskew (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The present article is strongly influenced by current business usage. It could be improved by placing "profession" in its historical context and recognizing the diversity of its related meanings: 1) The Latin word professio means a public declaration or acknowledgement (D. P. Simpson, Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, NY 1960; there are probably more updated sources for this). It is related to the verb profiteor, "to profess," which could at that time include announcing one's candidacy for public office. 2) This original meaning survives today in the "profession of faith" or creed in the Catholic Church and probably other religions. (See Roman Missal) 3) It is also used for "religious profession," in which a person becomes a member of a religious institute by "professing" poverty chastity and obedience through vows or promises. See Code of Canon Law, Canon 654: "By religious profession members assume by public vow the observance of the three evangelical counsels, are consecrated to God through the ministry of the Church, and are incorporated into the institute with rights and duties determined by law." 4) Already in classical Latin, a person could "profess" a science or art, such as law or philosophy, indicating his competence to be of service in that area. The idea of "profession" as an occupation occurs in Suetonius (cited in Cassell). 5) In the early Middle Ages, religious life was considered a "profession" in the occupational sense. John Cassian, writing ca. 425 about his life as a monk, says, "Our profession also has a scopos [goal] proper to itself." (John Cassian, The Conferences, transl. by Boniface Ramsey, O.P., Ancient Christian Writers #57, Paulist Press, NY, 1997, I.3) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives all these nuances and more. I am using the 6th edition (Oxford, England, 2007). SrMElizabeth (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My response is that NOT being an article about history, religion or medieval society, it's hard to see how much of what you say can be fitted in, interesting though it is. Maybe you can insert into the article a short paragraph of just a few lines to summarise your points with citations? And see how others see it. That might be a great starting point. It is up to others to keep or throw out whatever you come up with. thanks Peter morrell 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find the historical background very interesting; it's precisely the kind of information I like seeing in a Wikipedia article. Under its own subheading, I think information like this provides an excellent background context. It's likely, in the coming century, that our concept of professions will continue to evolve. I feel that the historical context contributes by demonstrating how malleable the concept of professions is, by showing how much it has already changed. --EcoChap (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of national associations out there... many commonwealth nations have a Royal Society (not to mention THE Royal Society). America has the AAAS. All of these societies have codes of ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.168.16 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Scientist is quite a broad term. In the UK, the terms Chartered Environmentalist, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Biologist are legally protected and only granted to professionals. --EcoChap (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy does not meet criteria 6-7, but it does meet 5. For example, in America, we have the American Philosophical Association. So I have changed the entry to reflect this fact.

Concerning criteria 6-7: Philosophy does (and probably always will) fail to meet criteria 7, but criteria 6 is a strange standard to apply to philosophy. Given that philosophy takes ethics as one of its topics of research, philosophy is uniquely unable to adopt a profession-wide standard of ethics. If the profession is inquiring into, disagreeing over, debating, and questioning ethics, the profession cannot have a profession-wide ethical standard. Which is to say, you can't have a profession-wide ethics for philosophy for the same reason you can't have a profession-wide theory of physics for science. Inquiry into, disagreement over, debate concerning wildly different theories of physics is one of the subjects of science and so science cannot have a theory of physics imposed upon it as a professional standard.

I am not saying criteria 6 is an incorrect criteria for professions, but this would seem to be a special case given the nature of this particular profession that it only makes sense to judge philosophy by criteria 1-5 and 7. Which is to say, that given the unique circumstances regarding philosophy, criteria 6 doesn't make sense as a criteria for judging whether or not philosophy is a profession. Criteria 6 must be "bracketed"/"ignored" here since philosophy uniquely cannot force a philosophical ethical theory on the field as a whole. Good general criteria often need to make exceptions for unique cases, and philosophy is one of them concerning criteria 6 given that ethics is a part of the subject matter of philosophy.

- Atfyfe (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried keeping it short, but in some way indicating that while philosophy fails to meet criteria 6-7, criteria 6 may be inappropriate to apply in this case. Here's the way I put it in the entry: "Philosophers (does not fulfill criteria 7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above; also does not fulfill criteria 6, but 6 may be uniquely inapplicable in this case since ethics is a subject in philosophy)" - Atfyfe (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The link of Doctor should be corrected and pointed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28title%29 which is more appropriate than physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.32.71 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is this? I google and only get paint and wood stain colors. As a section it seems trivial and unnecessary. Maaaaaybe it would be worth keeping as a sentence in the History section. 98.116.253.94 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. This 2010 edit was very odd and I have undone it. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this adjective to the principal definition, as originally defined by the Webbs. In this sense being "disinterested" means being uninfluenced by considerations of personal advantage; it does not mean behaving without feeling or interest. Salisian (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Profession. 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/20101205094738/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/20archives/a21/ to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/20archives/a21/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120827010024/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/r4/index.html to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/r4/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510001856/http://www.rcpath.org/index.asp?PageID=28 to http://www.rcpath.org/index.asp?PageID=28

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) 23:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not included on the list of professions, the profession of arms is arguably one of the first and fundamental professions. Far before science and technology lent it's hand to doctors or lawyers it was applied to the profession of arms first I believe the definition has "lost touch" in recent times and would like to engage on any alternate opinions. I believe the profession of arms includes all required criteria. I recognized the following criteria apply to all professions. A defined set of practices. Education and/or training requirements for entry. Some type of measurement for entry (like an examination). A process for advancing its practices. A set of ethics/rules/etc. A controlling or defining body Why the Military is a profession? -- A defined set of practices--Successful Military forces throughout history refer to these practices as "Doctrine", a method by-which they do business. -- Education and/or training requirements for entry.-- All professional military forces throughout history have some variation of a "basic training". -- Some type of measurement for entry (like an examination).-- Standards for mental capacity and physical fitness are more often than not the most common example of this. -- A process for advancing its practices.-- Continuous demand/review to upgrade military capacity, capability, or combat power are a constant effort. The US military reviews/edits/trains doctrine to match changes in science, technology or capability. -- A set of ethics/rules/etc. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Code of Conduct are two examples by-which the US have established ethics and rules. -- A controlling or defining body.-- Militaries throughout history have a Chain-of-Command (CoC). In the US the CoC begins with the President and Secretary of Defense all the way down to Joe in a fox hole. We have executive and judicial oversight by civilians outside the CoC.

With this discussion, I would like the Profession of Arms to be added to the overall list of professions, and should be recognized as one of the fundamental professions alongside Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers.

A cogent argument in opposition to your view exists on the Talk page of List of professions. I don't have a dog in this fight, so I will not express an opinion. I think some 'rules' have been enumerated on several pages regarding what defines a 'profession,' but these 'definitions' are not consistently applied, hence the confusion.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. The sinebot missed your entry, or possibly did not exist when you posted. Consequently, there is no way to contact you on your usertalk page. Thank you. Rags (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree; also theft out is the Profession of Public Service. Jakolaw (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This article feels like an opinion piece based on someone's understanding of where professions are today. Reference to the history of the professionalisation of medicine in different countries shows that the basis of professionalism is the formation of self regulation to ensure quality and to combat devaluation and charlatans. The sequence provided, especially of establishing a training school is largely wrong. Apprenticing was the general route historically.

Professions self regulate until a power group seizes control. Then government regulation and oversight ensure internal processes of control are not abused by the power group for the benefit of the profession and society. Ethical rules are established. Training and education in formal schools and curriculum come later not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider22 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Some parts, such as Characteristics and Autonomy, look like a high school essay, not an encyclopedia. There are too many quotations and in-line citations. I have tried to get the section on prestige up to standards more ...prestigious and professional. TiTJiL (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The muslim scientists had played a great role in the development of biological, physical and other more than thousands of education fields. And they continued their efforts for many years and even centuries, so they deserve a lot of success. They proved that there is a great presence of Muslims. 182.182.119.22 (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by profession 120.89.104.45 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)