Talk:Profession

Suggestion that this article or section be merged into Professionalism.

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)

Characteristics of a profession

When I added a Perks' list of characteristics of profession to this article[1], 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)

List of Professions

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 concept of profession

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)

Science as not fitting rule 5 and 6

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.