Talk:Hayley Cropper

Family

Hayley Cropper has the following:

A father, unknown name, deceased.

A mother, unknown name, unknown whereabouts.

An Aunt called Monica

An Uncle called Bert

A PARTNER called Roy. They are not yet legally married and as such cannot be categorised as such. (A complete missed opportunity by the story team, given transsexual people's ability to legally marry since 2004)

That is IT for the time being. There will be more relatives revealed at a soon to be screened funeral, and another more important one as a result of that event.... Which leads me to my next point...

Future Events

It is bad practice, not to mention a SPOILER, to add detail about future events onto a character page. Although the press is currently full of this rather salacious and ill-considered storyline, it is surely nothing more than pre-emptive oneupmanship to give these details on the Wiki page itself.

Please do not add these details until the storyline has been broadcast on UK television. Hardylane 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again I have removed speculated future storyline details from the article. Wikipedia is about facts, not tabloid speculation, especially from a rag like the Sun. Hardylane (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Transsexual" - as a noun

I continue to have a very serious objection to the use of the word "transsexual" as a noun, which is why I will revert any edits to this article which attempt to do so. However, this not a 100% agreed usage throughout the trans community... of that I am aware.... but the modern, humanist, accepted thinking amongst those people who actually care about whether or not they are offending others is that it should NOT be used as a noun. It is deprecated usage.

The reasons are detailed here: http://www.tsroadmap.com/wisdom/t-word.html

They are also discussed here. http://www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/05/transgender-is-adjective-not-noun-or.html

This site is talking about the word transgender rather than the word transsexual.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

and here http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/people-insist-on-using-a-transsexual-because-it-became-familiar-before-anyone-cared-that-its-a-dehumanizing-reduction/

and even here http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

This site uses "transsexuals" on the page as a plural.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Whilst there is still no general consensus about this usage, the very fact that it objectifies trans people should be an incentive to adopt the policy of its non-noun usage. Since this article has conformed to this standard for many years, it is therefore not appropriate to then rewrite it in a way which insults and objectifies the minority group this character represents.

In other words, if using "transsexual" as a noun offends some people, then why on EARTH would you use it is such a way when using it as an adjective never does?

Please think about this before reverting corrections or adding data. Hardylane (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much any word or phrase probably offends someone somewhere. Why should a single someones hang-ups be given preference when the usage they dislike is widely used on wider wikipedia.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Do some research. This is not my personal hangup - it is current accepted thinking. Repeatedly reverting just makes it look as if you are determined to offend. Hardylane (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No one else here seems to have any issue with it.Firsly you say there is no consensus now you are saying that is currently accepted thinking.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

GLAAD uses transsexuals plural on the page you linked to if they do it why shouldn't it be done on wikipedia.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

quote from the website you gave(bolding mine)"Transgender An umbrella term (adj.) for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term may include but is not limited to: transsexuals, cross-dressers and other gender-variant people."MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not addressing the core issue. Calling a trans person "A Transsexual" is offensive to a large number of trans people. Calling someone "a transsexual person, or woman, or man" is not. Why do you persist on pressing for the term which offends, unless to offend? As I said, there no clear consensus, but for the past 10 years, there has been a slow and steady movement to encourage the media stop it's usage as a noun, to avoid unnecessary objectification. Since both terms are used, I ask you politely to consider the feelings of others and stop reverting to a term which offends. Hardylane (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As the usage you object to is used across wikipedia there is no reason why this article should be a single exception to that. These show that you have applied this preference elsewhere in the past but the plurals have been added back in the long term[1][2]. If it is freely and without problem used there and in other articles why not in this one?MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to continue this pointless, offensive edit war, you may. Hardylane (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: If you both feel you are unable to reach a consensus here, it is best to seek outside help: at third party opinion or WP:DRN before going ahead, edit warring only gets one blocked. --Ekabhishek^talk 09:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

A lot of the references use the term "transexual" or "trans" and two of the references clearly use the word as a noun. [3] [4] My third opinion is that it's reasonable to use the word here. Dental plan (Lisa needs braces) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If one reference causes offence but one does not, isn't it simple, plain human decency to use the one that doesn't... or is it just plain obtuse, deliberate intention to offend that wins out here? I find this utterly incredible, that some people would wish to be so provocative. Hardylane (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me - but what exactly is the issue here. I see no genuine interest in this article - rather an expressed interest in avoiding offending Trans men and women. I am all for progress in LGBT issues - but if it does not have the article in mind - then it bothers me little. This article could do with editors interested in expanding and adding content. Hayley Cropper is a character that broke boundaries in British society. Why not use such passion to good use, instead of edit warring. It does appear like agenda pushing. I feel strongly about LGBT issues - but if society doesn't play along, why sugar coat it in Wikipedia articles. The word as a noun appears to be widely used. Only the niche avoids the use of a noun – to prevent offending their niche - but Wikipedia focuses on broad coverage and does not censor.Rain the 1 02:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Becky

I think the article could benefit from a section expanding on the strong friendship between becky and hayley and the difference Hayley made to the character.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly would. Plus - her relationship with Roy Cropper, the fostering, her long lost son and early inpact of her original storyline could all be built upon. She is very notable and it just needs someone willing to do it - like I said above.Rain the 1 12:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Tone

I started to edit this as it had been on the copy edit list for more than one year, but feel that there is a lot of non-fact-based information in this article. A lot more sources are needed - for example, the character is called "deeply powerful" and "one of the best loved the soap has seen", yet this is opinion and not backed up by citation. I'm not a Corrie person, so suggest someone familiar with the show takes an impartial view on this article. LJMcMenemy (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hayley Cropper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013010319/http://www.myparkmag.co.uk:80/articles/hayley-croppers-corrie-return.html to http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/articles/hayley-croppers-corrie-return.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hayley Cropper. 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/20081026103058/http://www.albertatrans.org/history.shtml to http://www.albertatrans.org/history.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)