Talk:Coaching/Archives/2015

Removal of 'Project Coaching'
As of July 10, 2014, I removed the segment on 'project coaching' as it was linked into a advertisement for 'project coaching training' and does not clearly describe how coaching of projects is different from project management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myilluminatedlife (talk • contribs)


 * It is complete advertising for the purpose of induction to a link. It is better to delete all. -- User:Thomas Ptarmigan — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 'Victimization Coaching'
The one-sentence description of 'victimization coaching' was not clear and described how a victim of past violence might identify a 'dangerous situation' in the future. This sounds more like something that lives under therapy as it refers to a past psychological experience and the avoidance of duplicating this experience again. As such, I removed it as of July 10, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myilluminatedlife (talk • contribs)

Addition of Citation under Definition of Coaching
In light of definite need to provide citation of reputable sources, I added definitions of coaching as outlined by Cummings and Worley in Organizational Development & Change, 9th Edition (2009) in their section on "Developing Talent". I hope this gives more credibility to the profession of coaching and to this Wiki page. I had the honor of learning and working under Dr. Worley in Pepperdine University's Masters of Science in Organizational Development program, during which our entire first course taught the fundamentals of coaching and development. Please add other reputable sources so that we can expand the understanding of what coaching is and is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myilluminatedlife (talk • contribs)

Major Cleanup of Coaching
I just finished major cleanup and reorganization of the article. If you see any issues with my edits please discuss them here or contact me on my talk page.Thurrigorn (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Thurrigorn did a good job of cleaning up the article last month. Today RobertHappy added a subsection on relationship coaching in, which prompts me to ask how the subsections in should be ordered, since there doesn't seem to be any sense to their current organization. I propose that the subsections in  be alphabetized. Any objections? Biogeographist (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Biogeographist and I think it is a good idea to order alphabetically. Otherwise, it implies some relative order of significance. Thurrigorn (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have alphabetized the level 3 headings in as suggested above. Biogeographist (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Article attempts to change history of coaching
This article don't say anything about Timothy Gallwey, who introduced the concept of coaching into use in the 70s (the book series "Inner Game") long before Tomas Leonard and about Sir John Whitmore, who was the main promoter of coaching in the early '90s with his book "Coaching for performance." I have the impression that the article changes the real history of coaching. I am sure, EST of Erhard has nothing to Coaching too.Sillabus (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sillabus: I appreciate Timothy Gallwey's work, but if you are unable to point to multiple reliable books on the history of coaching that all affirm that Gallwey is THE central figure in the development of coaching, then your appreciation of him is nothing more than your personal point of view (see WP:POV). This article is not about the history of coaching, and only four sentences of the article are currently devoted to history. I agree that the content of the last two of those sentences may not be so important—especially since the source cited for one of them is nothing more than an article in the "Fashion" section of The New York Times. In fact, I will delete those two sentences now. We should arrive at well-substantiated consensus about the history of coaching here on the talk page before presuming to declare in the article that any particular individuals are central to the history of coaching. Biogeographist (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sillabus: The "history" of coaching is very questionable concept and I agree that it is better to leave it out of the article. Besides, I also tried to substantiate your statement that Timothy Gallwey introduced the concept of coaching and couldn't find any independent reliable reference to support it. Thurrigorn (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it only the ICF? The reference is also a missionary book. Oh, is the IAC cheap like a low-cost carrier? The great achievement of late Thomas Leonard should be described to maintain fairness and neutrality. About Timothy Gallwey, it is argued separately and should be described. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence (now deleted from the article) that mentioned Thomas J. Leonard cited as support Jane Renton's book Coaching and Mentoring: What They Are and How to Make the Most of Them (New York: Bloomberg Press, 2009). But in that book, Leonard is profiled along with a number of other coaches including Timothy Gallwey. It is just a personal point of view to single out either of these men as uniquely important to the history of coaching.


 * Regarding the professional coaching associations that have established training standards: certainly all of them should be mentioned if any of them are to be mentioned at all. Biogeographist (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The origin of term "coaching" is not surely apparent. There had ever been a surprising description, ah, that Werner Erhard was a believer of Affirmative prayer and only tended to attach "-ing" to the buttocks of specific verbs. The clear facts are that coaching was strongly influenced by EST (Large-group awareness training), Human Potential Movement and the organization act of Thomas Leonard. About the description of Thomas, it may be good, "he established many organizations and companies of coaching". What do you think? --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to mention individual coaches in this section. If you feel inspired to do so, you could create Category:Coaches and/or List of coaches with links to articles about individual coaches, and then add a link to that category and/or article in the See also section. Biogeographist (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary. Many categories of coaching only replaced buttocks of other noun phrases as a catch-all term. In other words, the term "coaching" leaps to the other noun phrases and blew up original words like bomblets. There are categories of coaching that may lead to practicing without a license, and many people are annoyed in worldwide. Thurrigorn did many corrections, and I also added some corrections a while ago. We should describe the origin of the fundamental coaching. Please approve my description plan. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your "description plan"? Biogeographist (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I contributed it to Coaching article. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sérgio Itigo: You keep reinserting the same content into the Origins section without addressing the concerns of other editors that this content gives undue weight to certain coaches. I will continue to oppose these edits until I see more evidence of good and unbiased research based on the best and most reputable recent authoritative sources (WP:BESTSOURCES). Some examples of recent sources that I would consider reputable and authoritative (although these pertain to coaching practice rather than to the history of the field) include:
 * Biogeographist (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Biogeographist (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Biogeographist (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We are discussing the origin of coaching. Our discussion has returned to opening "Why is it only the ICF?". It is most appropriate and fair for us to describe the great contribution of Thomas Leonard. And Anthony Robbins is the outstandingly famous coach in worldwide. It is rather stupid not to describe him. But I compromise about the "Financial coaching". Robbins is called a "finance instructor". He is wise. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the International Association of Coaching. Attributing the origin of coaching to the particular coaches you mention gives them undue weight, as I explained above. The Wikipedia article on financial advisers makes it clear that the common use of the English term financial adviser is distinct from the definition of financial coach used in this article. Biogeographist (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As the sudden and exaggerated description with no reference spoils trust of coaching, it should be deleted and replaced with a description of Thomas Leonard and Anthony Robbins. Undue weight matter is met enough. Even if a domain name of the counseling created 100 years ago, it is clarified in the origin including the names of people concerned. It should be also described the origin of coaching as far as it is publicized. As a matter of course, the authorized persons names should be described. When it is not clarified, coaching loses trust. Adversely the description of the precaution raises reliability of coaching. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What you have just written is incomprehensible. Biogeographist (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to mention the diabetes coaching, but it is difficult for me. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External linx!
The external links added are ICF which is the governing body for professioanl coaching and choice is the profession's magazine.Globalgarry 03:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)