Talk:British Medical Association

message: The BMA website says:
"An outline history of the British Medical Association
The British Medical Association (BMA) was founded by Sir Charles Hastings (1794-1866) at a meeting in the Board Room of Worcester Infirmary on 19th July 1832. 50 doctors were present to hear Hastings propose the inauguration of an Association both friendly and scientific. 
Called the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association (PMSA) until 1856, the Association's objectives were to promote the medical and allied sciences and to maintain the honour and interests of the medical profession - aims which remain the same today. The Association was registered as a company limited by guarantee in 1874 and became listed as a Trade Union under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974."
The WP article appears to place doubt on this statement.  
Who is right, please? === Vernon White (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to go with the BMA, I've editted the page accordingly and added the reference. However, if anyone has reliable references to back them up, I'd be happy to see the other gentlemen reinstated. GyroMagician (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation

message: This section reads rather like an advertisement for the BMA. Does it add anything that should appear in an encyclopaedic article, or should we delete it? GyroMagician (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to myself, I also wonder if the YouTube and Twitter entries are notable? GyroMagician (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About BMA membership 

message: I have just looked at the BMA website, where one can see that, at the time of typing (2009-2010), Averil Mansfield is current president of the BMA and Hamish Meldrum is Chair of the Council. This information could go here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Staff who lead the British Medical Association

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Medical Association. 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  tag to http://www.bma.org.uk/about_bma/history/BMAStructure.jsp
*Added  tag to http://www.bma.org.uk/representation/branch_committees/general_prac/gptraineemembers.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219062646/http://www.bma.org.uk/about_bma/awards_grants/index.jsp to http://www.bma.org.uk/about_bma/awards_grants/index.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309020207/http://www.bma.org.uk/international/international_development/charitable/humanitarianfund.jsp to http://www.bma.org.uk/international/international_development/charitable/humanitarianfund.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Medical Association. 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/20101129220139/http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/index.jsp to http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/index.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525085528/http://bma.org.uk/about-the-bma/how-we-work/negotiating-committees/armed-forces-committee to http://bma.org.uk/about-the-bma/how-we-work/negotiating-committees/armed-forces-committee
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has too much unsourced content and far too much primary sourced content. Te unsourced content must be removed in line with Wikipedia guidelines and the use of primary sources must only be done in a way where the information is unable to be included in another way and the information has value and relevancy for the article. The organisation is a trade union pure and simple and hiding this fact or mixing this fact with professional body is diluting the fact it is a trade union. the BMA is a trade union and must be called that. it can call itself whatever it wants, it does not make it so. the fact is, it is a trade union, and that is not in dispute. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article the BMA is described as a professional organisation, but recently a user wanted to change the description of the BMA and other medical associations to that of a trade union. In media, generally they are not described as such, and although sources can be found to support the trade union argument, they are not mainstream, so it seems to be creating a slight bias in the article where one did not previously exist. My view is that we should stay with the status quo unless there's strong evidence to do otherwise. But we should at least have a discussion about this in order to get some wider consensus on the matter. I've reverted the changes because they were done without consensus, and this is something we don't have at present. So, should we continue to describe the BMA as a professional organisation or change it to a trade union? It's over to you. This is Paul (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The BMA is a Trade union and is on the UK government list of trade unions plain and simple this is a trade union. Stop trying to deny the fact that reliable sources state this is a trade union and stop trying to add the claim of a professional body. The BMA can call themself this and that's fine but that is a distraction from their purpose and their purpose is to be a trade union. The article is horrific. It is mainly primary sources and this is not good. I have added non-primary sources and these have been dismissed by This is Paul as unreliable. This is purely This is Paul pushing their POV on the sources because they dislike them  This is paul also restores enormous chunks of information which has no source and is acting as the gatekeeper for the content of this article. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The BMA is described as a professional organisation by several sources, including The Glasgow Herald, The Independent and The Guardian (see here) so it has nothing to do with whether or not I dislike your changes, the sources you used, etc. At least one of the sources you added failed to open for me, but that could be a software issue at my end You are right that the article is horrific, but don't make it worse. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and unsourced content and trade union/profesional organisation