Talk:Sharron Davies

Early TV appearance
The first and only time I've seen Sharron was when we went to watch the filming of Celebrity Squares in London back in the early 1980s.

I was very pleased to see her because we all fancied her (and still do) whilst admiring her too. She didn't contribute much but it was probably one of her first gigs like this.

Besides, the show also featured Kenny Everett who as you can imagine took over the whole thing (though he was subdued in the second show - maybe the booze/drugs had worn off or they are warned him to calm it down).

It was hosted by Bob Monkhouse but I don't recall other celebs. But who cares when we got Sharron, Bob and Kenny. All for free too. Royzee (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TV appearance
Has just been on Celebrity Island with Bear Grylls but quit this evening. 12 Sep 17 Just putting this in here as I may forget to update properly, and at least it is noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.65.147 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sharron Davies. 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://www.webcitation.org/5n5A8GRQY?url=http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/489.asp to http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/489.asp

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) 16:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI
Potential WP:COI issue from @Sixonline who has only really edited this article, removed negative coverage and added promotional info like a training series she launched on her website. These are red flags. This article may therefore omit certain issues and may need fixing. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

vandalism?
I've reverted an edit which attributed a position to a prominent person (Madeline Groves), which was the opposite of that which she actually held (see reference in text). I'm unclear as to whether this was intentional or accidental, but as the other edits made by the user appeared to have a clear point of view behind them, I have reverted them all for the time being.

I do think it's important to make sure we present the issue of transgender people in sport in as neutral a manner as possible. Particularly as there is already a wiki page which goes into the matter in more detail.

In my opinion this one should only report the views of Sharon Davies, and possibly the support/criticism of other prominent sports people, with as little as possible about whether those views are factually correct (as this would be involve a duplication of effort). Criticism may be relevant in order to avoid the appearance that her views are universally held, but in that case I think it should be kept as brief as possible

Please could we discuss any further changes to the section "Trans women in sport and modelling" here, before going ahead? 2A00:23C6:2A8F:DE01:B5A0:7675:C6E5:7064 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
The article currently reads as follows: "In 2019, Davies entered the debate about the participation by trans women in female sporting competitions, opposing such participation and citing an alleged biological advantage trans women hold in sports."

I tried to remove "alleged", but that was reverted by User:2A00:23C6:2A8F:DE01:A989:E407:46E1:9B0C with a statement that my edit was non-neutral and that (s)he was reverting "back to neutral language".

There is not enough space in the edit summary for me to explain why I felt that the previous language was non-neutral (I was trying to make it more neutral) so here I am.

Use of the word "alleged" implies "questionable truth" or "declared but not proven" (see ).

I believe using the word "alleged" implies falsehood in this context and is not WP:NPOV: Just because she claims it doesn't make it true or false, so why add the word "alleged" behind what she claims unless it's demonstrably false?

I don't believe it is demonstrably false, as other Wikipedia articles do have cited sources for the statement that "Biological sex differences in humans impact performance in sports" (see Transgender_people_in_sports). That being said, if neutral language is used, the truth or falsehood of her statement should be irrelevant. The point of the sentence is why she entered the debate, not whether she was right or wrong.

I'd like to rephrase this sentence in a way that does not imply her position as being either factually correct or incorrect.

Here are some alternative wordings:


 * 1) "In 2019, Davies entered the debate about the participation by trans women in female sporting competitions, opposing such participation, citing a biological advantage trans women hold in sports." (reverted- and fair enough as I agree that "citing" improperly implies she had a source)
 * 2) "In 2019, Davies entered the debate about the participation by trans women in female sporting competitions, opposing such participation, claiming that trans women hold a biological advantage in sports."
 * 3) "In 2019, Davies entered the debate about the participation by trans women in female sporting competitions, opposing such participation, stating that the "Growing up male will give transgender athletes a lifelong edge that simply cannot be fully negated by a period of testosterone suppression" "

I prefer #2, since she entered the debate prior to the letter cited in #3. As such I will change to #2. If it gets reverted again, I hope that reversion will come along with productive discussion here, with a view to consensus. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 05:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think your choice of #2 is a good compromise, and you make a good case for why "alleged" is inappropriate
 * As you point out there is another wikipedia article that goes into the details of the evidence. Which is one reason why I think we should avoid implying any factual claims here - it would be a duplication of effort. Firstly because if new research is published, there would be two articles to update instead of one. Secondly because there is nuance to the question which would take some work to write out and maintain in the face of hostile edits from either side (for example, there is a question of whether physical characteristics like bone density and grip strength translate into a genuine advantage in every sport). Better to keep it short and non-controversial imo 2A00:23C6:2A8F:DE01:B5A0:7675:C6E5:7064 (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed it to said from claimed, per MOS:SAID. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 03:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Olympic Appearances
The given link doesn't support the claim of 12 Olympic appearances. 2A02:C7C:5A9C:1B00:A03F:56B1:4A58:ED77 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)