Talk:GROW model

Link alert
08-Nov-2010 -- External links -- "The Inner Game", pointing to http://www.theinnergame.com/, should probably be removed. This URL currently points to a Plesk placeholder page, suggesting that it is a site under construction. The original Web site has probably lapsed. Link to be removed if the site is not fixed in reasonable time (e.g. two weeks).

Oct 28, 2011. The section "The GROW principle and the Inner Game" is poorly written and rather narrative. Rewrite would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.182.36 (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

May 22, 2015. Also, the part that says "Gallwey asked the player to say 'bounce' out loud when the ball bounced and 'hit' out loud when she hit it." does not appear to be supported. Gallwey never mentions this in the book itself, so the source is unclear. Doppelgangland (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevance of 2015 copyright record
In a couple of recent edits (for example, Special:Diff/918419540 and Special:Diff/918314367, which were similar to an Idaho IP edit from several weeks earlier: Special:Diff/913145129) attempted to add a claim that the GROW model is "copyrighted", and a couple of the edits included this link to a 2015 record in the Copyright Catalog. Any intellectual property lawyer, or anyone who has read a book on copyright law of the United States, or indeed anyone who has simply read Wikipedia's article on copyright, can tell you that the claim that the GROW model is copyrighted is either transparently self-serving bullshit or a deliberate lie. The GROW model is an idea, and ideas cannot be copyrighted; only creative works can be copyrighted, as anyone who is familiar with copyright knows. The aforementioned 2015 record is for a creative work with the title "The GROW Model". It's a mystery what type of work it is, because the "type of work" field in the catalog record says "Entry not found." So we don't know, from the catalog record, whether the registered creative work is a book, periodical, oral lecture, musical composition, map, drawing, photograph, or motion picture. Whatever the 2015 registered creative work is, we know what it is not: it is not the subject of this Wikipedia article, which is about an idea, or a set of ideas, called the GROW model. The 2015 record is irrelevant to this article, just as would be the copyright registration of any other creative work with the title "The GROW Model". Ten thousand people could register the copyright for various creative works of various types, all called "The GROW Model", and all of those Copyright Catalog records would be completely irrelevant to this article. One more fact should be mentioned: a quick Google search for "Tracie Grant" + "InsideOut" (from the username of User:TracieGrant) shows information about a Tracie Grant who lives in Idaho (just like the IP address of the aforementioned edit) and works for InsideOut Development LLC, a company founded by Alan Fine, the copyright claimant on the aforementioned 2015 record in the Copyright Catalog. And by  prominently included an WP:ADVERT for InsideOut Development LLC. So there appears to be some conflict of interest in these edits, or what we call COI editing, which would be entirely congruent with the aforementioned transparently self-serving nature of the claim that the GROW model is copyrighted (see also: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide). Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion (WP:PROMO) or for false claims of "copyrighted" ideas. Biogeographist (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I, the aforementioned admit it! I don't know all the rules for Wikipedia. Trying to put accurate information out on Wikipedia is not a sin. The fact is that the GROW model is copyrighted and the copyright is registered. While the theory of GROW may be an idea, the GROW model and additional writings related thereto is the expression of the idea in the additional writings by the co-creators is beyond that idea. It's an actual tangible, documented creative work and the registration of the copyright thereof should be noted. Now the theory of GROW is an idea. I don't see anywhere on the page in question that we are discussing the theory of GROW. This page is for the GROW model. It's not self-serving. It's just accurate. I'm not some sneaky Idaho spy sent by anyone to upset the apple cart. I was simply out searching about the GROW model for work, saw that this page was inaccurate, corrected it, saw the correction disappear courtesy of Biogeographist, had no idea why it had disappeared, thought I had to have a login or my input would be deleted, created a login, and tried to make it accurate. It got deleted again so I bolstered it with additional links including (heaven forbid) links to the business sites of the co-creators. Then I happened upon the history page. Since that discovery (and now the discovery of this page upon which I type) I've tried to restrict my additions to stay within the lines. Good grief, if I had nefarious intent, don't you think I would have tried to hide my appearance with a generic name like Biogeographist too (No need to look, it's gone -- now). I simply seek for accuracy but don't think I'll be finding it here. The web is a cold, cruel place. 174.27.13.83 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We all make mistakes sometimes, it's no big deal, but you are mistaken about copyright law. I stand by my previous comment, although I will assume good faith and upgrade "transparently self-serving" to "unwittingly self-serving". John Whitmore agrees with me, as can be seen by what he wrote in "The impact of the Inner Game and Sir John Whitmore on coaching: a commentary" (2009b, cited in this Wikipedia article): Whitmore said that the GROW model "is, as I have stated before, not copyrighted, definitive, obligatory, exclusive or any of that; though another colleague, Alan Fine, later inappropriately but unsuccessfully laid claim to its exclusive use in the USA." Inappropriately indeed, and your addition to this Wikipedia article of the 2015 copyright claim is just as inappropriate.
 * Regarding my username that you mentioned, there are legitimate reasons for not using one's real name as one's username, reasons that are very clearly outlined at Username policy. For instance, not using one's real name allows one to put forward arguments and evidence on talk pages (such as this talk page) that may be inconvenient truths for individuals or companies that could retaliate if they knew one's real name. By the way, I reverted your edits for the aforementioned reasons, but your edits were deleted from the public record by an administrator,, for copyright violations (see Special:Permalink/918517255), which is ironic indeed. Biogeographist (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being understanding?? Whitmore actually backtracked those comments at a later date, but not in a currently-published manner, so there is no record available to the public regarding that at this time, but I thank you for providing me additional pieces of the puzzle. I shall leave this issue to the IP attorneys. And yes, I can see that having a different username is advisable. I have a new username that if I ever use again, shall bring a smile to my face. I'm not sure to which revisions you refer as I've been reverted quite a few times by a couple of different people. Would that reversion could take me back to my 30s. 174.27.13.83 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, we would all like to be reverted back to being young—but not too young! Thanks for adding a little humor. Biogeographist (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia can have its own challenges even for those with some experience, and one of those is how those who are new to it begin editing and learning how things work. One of the challenges we have is how we support those who are just learning, along with how receptive those on both sides are to a decidedly simple, yet infinitely complex, system. Suffice it to say we have all been there, and while it can be an initial set of hurdles, all things worth doing come with their own learning bumps, right? Glad you are still here. --- FULBERT (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The importance of obstacles
Recent IP edits attempted to remove the "obstacles" row from the table of GROW stages. As I said in the edit summaries when I reverted to the previous version, the version with "obstacles" included is more comprehensive/inclusive and has been well established in this article for as long as this article has existed.

But there is another important reason to include the "obstacles" row: psychological research in the past decade has suggested that identifying obstacles is an important part of these kinds of goal-setting and problem-solving processes; see, for example:



Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)