Talk:Professional association

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Merge[edit]

This list should be combined with "List of Professional Organizations" and the name of this list should be "Professional Organization". (unsigned comment added by User:Azlib77

I dont see why this move was made. Please explain. This seems an unjustified move, and should not have been made without discussion. Anyway, if Professional organization is thought to be the preferred name, why should it not be moved there. See WP:MOVE. DGG (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

"Professional association" - 5.1 million
"Professional organization" - 1.69 million
"Professional body" - 1.02 million

Given that "professional association" is by far the most common, I'm moving the page. Neutrality^talk 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basing a move purly upon the number of GHits each term has. Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Especially when some of these groups specifically do not call themselves an "association". Does this mean any group that does not call themselves a Association is liable to be removed from this list. "Body" seems a much more umbrella-like term that would allow all these groups to be listed without hesitation. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without any response, I am going to request the Move back. Reasoning: Neutrality of redirects "Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." I feel the term Association is not as neutral, or inclusive, as Body is in this instance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move off of Professional association; this is by far the most common usage. "Body" is mostly a British term, and even there tends to be used in headlines more than in actual names of organizations. Seedless Maple (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly my point. The term "Body" is all inclusive of all types of these organizations and we all understand what is & is not included. Whereas an "Association" has only GHits to back it up, and is full of pitfalls in and of itself. Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance. Technically, International Council of Shopping Centers would not be eligable for a list of associations because nowhere does it state itself as an association, yet we surely agree it does belong, no? Or are we about to create seperate pages for "Professional Councils" "Professional Institutes" "Professional Societies" "Professional Guilds" & everything else ?Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not robots; we can figure out if something is an association. "Body" is just plain weird and is non-specific; people know that "professional association" is attempting to be all-inclusive. And the G-hits rule is more for notability than for name disputes; with 5.1 million hits it far outweighs the others, even if we believe your unsubstantiated claim of "pitfalls." Seedless Maple (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stating that anyone was a robot. But like you say, "professional association" is attempting to be all-inclusive, but it is not. Anything named a Society, could arguably, not be covered. Whereas the term "Body" is nonspecific to any one type of group, and is then all inclusive. The pitfalls of GHits are relevent to all of WP, not just WP:N, and are well know if you care to read Wikipedia:Search engine test Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge of a Cite[edit]

The source you Cite for 2 of the quoted definitions are from a Site that seems to only have a singular person as its editor.
The source you Cite is only about the Term "Body" which this Article was moved away from.
The source you Cite, Cites Wikipedia as a source

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article may violate Wikipedia's unbiased neutrality[edit]

"Such bodies generally strive to achieve a balance between these two often conflicting mandates. Though professional bodies often act to protect the public by maintaining and enforcing standards of training and ethics in their profession, they often also act like a cartel or a labor union (trade union) for the members of the profession, though this description is commonly rejected by the body concerned."

With no citation or justification for the claim that professional bodies are like cartels/unions this article comes off as biased and in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality. There is no evidence to support this claim and it is intuitively absurd. I suggest that we remove it, so I am presenting this for discussion. Arthur.science (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire entry refers to the laws or traditions of various countries, and does a poor job of explaining just the basics of such associations, or then breaking it down into issues that might be different in different countries (if it even wants to go there).

For example, in the U.S. this kind of organization can be unincorporated, or it can be incorporated under the 501(c)(6) nonprofit laws. It is VERY complex. I'm thinking the entire entry must be much longer, or much shorter. Shoe (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Professional Order[edit]

Given the amount of variability in what either terms refers to, according to the respective articles, it's hard to say that they're distinct topics. The Professional Order article even once uses "professional association" as a synonym. Largoplazo (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But I have realized that a section I inserted some years ago on Inter-professional associations does not really fit in here, particularly if the merger goes ahead. So I have started a new article Inter-professional association and will expand this based on the French article on the same topic. Agricmarketing (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IF a merger is to happen, I strongly advise merging Professional Order (ex: Order of Quebec Dentists - ODQ) with Reglatory college (ex: Royal College of Dental surgeons of Ontario - RCDSO), since these are functionaly the same and protect the public by regulating the profession : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_college while associations protect the interests of it's memebers. 206.47.13.49 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Overlap is very large. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge; the scope of Professional Order and Professional association are quite different. For example, within the UK medical profession an order might be the Royal College of Physicians, while the matching association is the British Medical Association; as the articles point out, these types of institutions have different aims. A merge of Regulatory college into Professional order might be reasonable, but should have a separate proposal. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]