Talk:Eddie Izzard/Archive 2

Narnia

Okay. So an atheist who actually had a major gig denigrating God is chosen to play the most devout character in a heavily Christian story. There has to have been commentary on this, could we look for it?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This seem misplaced in Eddie Izzard article, and seem better in the wiki page of the movie. Mr. Wiggles 00:37 1 January 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.115.225 (talk)

Father

The article mentions his mother's death, but does not say whether his father has since remarried or died. Does anyone know? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As of his autobiographical movie "Believe", released earlier this year, his father was still alive and kicking. --84.61.113.66 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And there seems to have been (it is not clear if there still is) a stepmother: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-maclean/i-believe-that-eddie-izza_b_682648.html --84.61.113.66 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

The article lacks a personal life section - there must be more to it than crossdressing. As he is a crossdresser and in LGBT categories, it should be stated that he is heterosexual. His atheism is another relevant point to add; he is in an atheist cat, but there is nothing in the article about that belief of his. He was a guest on the 30 January 2009 episode of Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, during which he stated that there is no god, as he did not intervene during the two World Wars. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote about Wikipedia I found on a userpage

I have just found a quote from Rodhullandemu's userpage, aparrently from and I was wondering what to do with it.--Launchballer (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

The infobox has him listed as Nationality: English. This is wrong as there is no such thing as English nationality. I have corrected it to British. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajkgordon (talk • contribs) 07:59, 29 May 2007.

You should try to get consensus before making changes as controversial as that! You haven't even reached consensus on Talk:England yet. Marnanel 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversial?! How can it be controversial? I was correcting an error! Please explain why this correction was reverted and why anyone believes it to be controversial. (Ajkgordon 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

It's a long story. Anyway, the habit is not to use British as a nationality. Some editors of some bio articles prefer their subjects to be Scottish, Welsh etc. Afaik English as a nationality therefore comes about by default, though maybe some English editors also favour the practice. Also borrowing from the U.S. tradition if your grandmother is Japanese or Polish then that's likely to get a mention in the first line. Editors are also keen to reference Jewish heritage for example as it might not be catered for in other encyclopaedias. So anyway there are pressures, benign in themselves, to have nationality basically come down to 'ethnicity' or identity as people in the U.S. understand it. In the case of Brits this is expressed in the infobox. Actually Brits are probably the only casualty, and I agree it doesn't always make much local sense.

Anyway in the list at the bottom of the article you'll see the Category:English comedians, which itself falls under British comedians - you could add category:British comedians directly and he'll appear on that page, not just on the lower-level English page. Thus he will be rendered British hopefully to your satisfaction :) Hakluyt bean 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hakluyt bean. Can you point me to where discussions have taken place on this rather odd habit? I'm having difficulty understanding the logic! (Ajkgordon 07:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Funny, my passport declares me as British, though I was born and brought up my entire life in England, as were my parents. Do American passports describe someone's nationality as, e.g, Texan, Californian?

Then again we're not really discussing passport nationality I guess. A texan comedian would probably be described as just that... Tricky.

BTW as he describes himself as a wiki fan, could we tempt him over here and get some interactivity / from the horses mouth clarification on various things, you think? Or would the dyslexia get in the way? (Could always be through a mediator...)82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the source cited in the lede, he describes himself as "British-European". I'm not sure we have a good link for that but have moved to British for now as English obviously isn't close. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that people with Scottish herritage are different than those with English heritage. There is still a STRONG nationalistic pride dispite being a national government, there is a long history there William Wallace, etc... England and Scotland still play seperate football(scoccer) teams! --Tacit tatum (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would add that the majority of people in the UK consist of mixture of Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English genes/heritage meaning no-one is specifically a true Scot, Welsh or the like other than in country of birth. I'd say there are more people of Irish heritage in England than in Ireland but they are still labelled as British/English - ask the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, ask Wayne Rooney etc. they see themselves as Brits and not Irish. Its the British Olympic team.

England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are all constituent countries of a larger entity that is the internationally politcally officially recognised country - i.e. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - with the nationality being simply British. British bests describes all the inhabitants of the UK as we all share the same heritage and genes from each constituent part of it. Any time you here of someone from the UK in the international news its usually described as a British person. Its a British passport not a Welsh passport. Its the British army etc. etc.

Eddie Izzard can't be specifically called English seeing as he was born in Aden, grew up in Northern Ireland and Wales, and then England. Due to his British parents and the fact he has lived across the UK his nationality should be British and the intro to this article should state so.

On the football aspect. FIFA depises the seperate British soccer teams, they have always been against it - its one of the main reasons why the UK has never had a football team in the Olympics - they are afraid whether FIFA would use it against them to get rid of the Home Nations in favour of one united entity which they'd prefer. We only get away with it as we have the oldest international teams in the world existing before FIFA even did. Just like the ruling body of football which is a joke in terms of international football - it consists thanks to the quirkyness of time of only the four Home Nations and then FIFA which possesses only a bloc of four votes despite representing almost 200 other international football teams. Mabuska (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Born Aden, raised Northern Ireland and Wales, identifies as British-European (which I can personally relate to), so where exactly does the English categorisation come in? Changed the cats back to British: the facts speak for themselves. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, so I've also changed the intro text to reflect this. The reference attached to "English" actually says British as well. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Childhood

Left out is the couple of years after family moved from Aden to Northern Ireland. Eddie has said many times this time is some of his happiest childhood memories. I believe they lived in N.I. for 2-3 years before moving to Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.196.62 (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And we still insist he is an English comedian. --83.108.30.25 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Influences/influenced

I think that the Influenced/influenced section on so many comedians pages is very unnecessary and rarely have a sourced citation and are from the editors opinion. I personally think that the section should be scrapped but any quotes can be cited in any career and styles sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.175.56 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Long distance runner

It's utterly ridiculous to have him described as long disance runner as a vocation. He's done a celebrity event - he'd not a professional runner. This should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.141.208 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I also move for this to be deleted and will do so in a few days if there are no objections Otocan (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Otocan (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has hurt feelings?

So, there is a paragraph in this article which rankles me:

"Although much of his humour deals with sensitive issues, with special emphasis on religion, it has generally not been intended as mean-spirited or rude. Izzard, however, took a different tone in 2008's "Stripped" tour. Professing that he had learned he was an atheist, he explains that he doesn't like the word "worship" because he doesn't see why anyone would want to worship someone who had "fucked the whole thing up from the beginning." The show's theme was an apologetic, humorous presentation on why one may feel that there is no God."

...i'm not sure exactly what is "mean-spirited" or "rude" about Izzard's statement. This seems wholly in keeping with his usual arch religious meanderings. My inclination was to simply delete everything following the first sentence of the paragraph, because it seems oddly personal in tone. Is this just me? It also seems like his special emphasis (if there indeed is one) would be on history in general, not necessarily religion. Not sure if anyone else gives a flying jar of jam about any of this, but it's been bugging me. Most of his fans are already familiar with his religious views, and i'm not sure that informing any non-fans who might read this page of his supposed "mean-spirited"ness is helpful or informative in any way.

Thanks, 71.154.215.65 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been mean spirited if I actually knew what he was saying. --83.108.28.130 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Live from Wembley

Some one needs to add Live from Wembley on the tour list (I don't know how or I would).

It is basicly just a diffrent recording of his Sexie tour, but it can be baught on iTunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.136.48 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard podcast

there is a pod cast (free) of him on itunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.136.48 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard running, or walking? Individual marathon times, please...

The amount of walking involved in these so-called marathons seems to be something of a grey area. Where can we find a list of your individual marathon times, Eddie, so we can guage how much actual walking (as opposed to running) was involved in your "marathons"? No disrespect, but a marathon is about running. 213.48.46.141 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see you try to run OR walk 43 marathon lengths in 51 days with only five weeks of training and in the pursuit of raising money for charity. "No disrespect"? Yeah right. Oh, and you might actually want to watch the "Eddie Iz Running" (or "Eddie Izzard - Marathon Man") specials before you run your mouth off. Which, BTW, would indicate all the times, including the time for the 43rd marathon, which was 5 hours and 30 seconds including the 20 minutes he spent waiting for the film crew to find him. Speaking of, I'd like for someone who's in the know here at Wikipedia to clarify whether a TV special would be a good source for an article and if so, how to cite it as a reference. The 3rd and final one of the specials reported the final time.

68.91.89.17 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• • [Reply to the above from the OP] Most fit people could achieve it if what we're really talking about is 43 sponsored walks rather than a continuous bout of actual running each day. My question was, what were the times taken to travel the 26.2 miles each day. (I saw 10 hours a day of travelling mentioned on another site - that isn't even walking pace, it's barely snail's pace). I did watch the 4-part series on BBC3 before I "ran my mouth off" in fact, and it doesn't say what most of the individual daily times were, in fact. Eddie Izzard is shown mostly running rather than walking on TV, but that can't be right if he took 10 hours a day to cover the distance: the BBC editing must have left the jogging in, and conveniently cut most of the walking (the camera does lie, folks!). If Mr Izzard actually walked huge amounts of the distance covered, rather than running most of the way, then he shouldn't be claiming to have "run 43 marathons". Running a marathon involves running a marathon, not walking a huge proportion of it each day. What he did was barely faster than 43 sponsored walks by the look of things. Mr Izzard, please publish your daily times, from the start line to the finish line, for each day, so we can see for ourselves how fast or slow these so-called "marathons" were.

213.48.46.141 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is difficult to define how long each marathon took - as Eddie stopped often to visit Sport Relief projects and stop off at locations such as the house where he lived as a child and the top of Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh - but all of the times were between about 5 and 11 hours - and when he wasn't stopping to visit some place he was always running between locations, as is made very clear in the four part documentary about his run. He didn't necessarily run non-stop for 26 miles each day, but that doesn't mean it isn't an incredible achievement. Actually, the sports-scientists and doctors on the show said Eddie's stop-start style made the marathons even more difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.54.234 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

The article states "British" with 3 references. The first doesn't mention Izzard at all. The second refers to him as British but then quotes him saying "I'm English". The third quotes him describing himself as "English" and "English European" multiple times. Would change it and remove the first reference but don't want to screw up the rest of the references. Stutley (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He's described as British comedian in numerous sources and he describes himself as British European in an interview by Bono too, which is oddly one of the references used after "English comedian". However, he also describes himself as "English comedian" in several sources too, which -as you already mentioned- are not cited here. After checking the references of our very own article here: English people#Relationship to Britishness and since he rephrased the same answer in here from the Bono interview by saying "I'm an English European", I think English comedian is the correct description (I see it is already changed from "British comedian" inside the article) and you're right, we need to cite it with proper references. Nimuaq (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with him being called British but...as he self-describes himself as English we should use that. However, people claiming he can't be English because he was born in Aden and then raised for the very early years of his life in Northern Ireland/Wales is just utter piffle, POV and unacceptable. Common sense must be employed here. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Future projects

Information under this heading relates now not to future projects, but to completed projects and should thus be removed from this section. BBMSteve (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article

I'm very surprised to see this article in its current form. I guess the recent documentary Believe: The Eddie Izzard Story added a lot of information that are not referenced properly. The article even claims "his first solo appearance at the Edinburgh Festival in 1987" while it should be Banana Cabaret, as can be seen on the sources:[1], [2] and [3] (yes, they report different years, but they agree on Banana Cabaret). I started to add references to the article (starting from the Early life section which I'll continue to seek good references), which is not even slightly challenging to find. Even the reference from eddieizzard.com for "A year after his birth, the family moved to Bangor in Northern Ireland" is unnecessary while there are numerous articles about him on reliable sources.

Let us check the references and cite the information properly to at least remove the {{More_footnotes}} tags on the article, which is well deserved at the moment. Maybe the content on the article can be edited to have a better style after all the information is cited properly. This might help the editors to check for references for the claims on the article:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Is there anyone care to help to this future good article nominee? Nimuaq (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Poorly added content from Believe: The Eddie Izzard Story

Now I can say it is really heavily bombarded with the information from Believe: The Eddie Izzard Story. Take this line: "Izzard began to toy with comedy at the University of Sheffield with partner and a student friend Rob Ballard." Search for "Eddie Izzard" together with "Rob Ballard" and remove a random line from the current Wikipedia article: it leaves you with 62 results, nearly all of which are related toBelieve: The Eddie Izzard Story.

I could (at last) find an article from 99' to cite the information. I already stated at the above section that the "article even claims "his first solo appearance at the Edinburgh Festival in 1987" while it should be Banana Cabaret, as can be seen on the sources:[1], [2] and [3] (yes, they report different years, but they agree on Banana Cabaret)." I think we might not find enough sources for every line that is poorly added to the article from that documentary and I fear we might have to remove them according to the BLP policies. Nimuaq (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Live At Madison Square Garden"

Latest stand up video, released 2011. It's a flip version of Stripped, like "Live from Wembly" which is also mysteriously absent from this article. Why not add them to the discography? John Holly (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is such thing as being in character

How moronic you have to be to cite comedy acts as facts? In the show it's comedy, not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.140.222 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you're talking about how Dress to Kill (which is indeed a comedy act ) is cited. This is because there is a direct quote from that particular act. Please do a little research before you make accusations. TheNewKarl (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Languages

I think there needs to be a mention of the fact he's a polyglot. French and German (and English obviously) are mentioned here, but he also speaks Russian, Spanish and Nepali, among others (and performs in these languages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.160 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Watchdog investigation

Hi, was thinking of adding a bit about the latest show that i've recently seen and came across this new section about Eddie being investigated by the BBC consumer rights program. Despite being a long time fan i have never heard of this story and there don't appear to be and links or references to support it. Suggest this paragraph is deleted unless references can be found. Mr Morden76 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Mandela Marathons

just thought it's worth a mention of the mandela marathons in the article - not sure it fits under activism, perhaps a new setion ? EdwardLane (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He has stated that he is a social democrat, not a socialist.[33]

Yeah because socialist and socialism is such a bad thing! Peter Handke

I've corrected that sentence as it was misrepresenting the 2008 source: [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What happened to requests?

What happened to requests for sources? This material was simply removed as unsourced: [5], [6]?? I think editors should at least be given a reasonable opportunity to provide supporting sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Improving this article

I came here with the intention of improving this article. A week ago it contained large swathes of unreferenced material, much of which was promotional in tone. I removed most of it. Per WP:BLPSOURCES we cannot have unsourced or poorly sourced (ie tabloids) material on this article. Now, another user has challenged my intentions and I said I would post here. The problem with well-intentioned edits like this is that as well as dubious sources, it restores poor language to the article. Rather than cobble together weak sources to maintain this as a fan tribute page, we should instead agree what the good sources are (a high-profile comedian who has practised for 20 years must have some serious books about him?), then try to summarise these sources in a well-balanced encyclopedia article. One of the concerns about sourcing in articles like this is that without using this criterion, an article like this comes to include every little thing he has done or said. This leads to a terrible article. --John (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If material is removed with the edit summary "unref", maybe it's not surprising that another editor will simply restore that material with sources added. And maybe another editor wasn't "challenging your intentions" at all, but was merely questioning the speed and manner of a small part of the deletions? Just guessing here, of course. There is Dress to Kill (Virgin Books, by Izzard, Quantick and Double) but that's 15 years old. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Autobiographies are interesting but what is really needed is a book by someone else about him. --John (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll have to wait until someone writes one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, hardly anything seems to have been written about him in books, which is surprising. This looks interesting though. --John (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And also this. --John (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume Glorious (Eddie Izzard) is the video? Anything by John Lahr is probably worthwhile, except that that chapter looks rather rambling and it is also 15 years old. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I am not familiar with his material in that much detail. I would prefer a good source, even a fairly old one, over primary sources and newspaper reports. We do not need to aim for comprehensiveness here, it's a summary. My vision for this article is that it sums up with good sources:

• He is a comedian. A summary of his main career stages, including awards. Possibly discuss his transvestitism here, or does it deserve a section of its own?
• His film roles.
• His political activism; pro-Europe, pro-Labour, pro-Better together. Mention his multilingualism.
• Other stuff, like the marathons.

I would imagine the details of his filmography and discography can best be spun off into daughter articles.

Right now, we could do with a definitive selection of sources; articles by respected authors that describe him, like the example I found. If there are other headings or individual things which we agree are worth including, then of course we can try to include them. The defining fault of articles on celebrities who have been around for a while is fancruft bloat. We could easily have an article ten times the length if we included everything he has ever done that has been reported in the media. We need to choose the most significant ones that give you his story fairly rather than a chronological list of every single thing he has done. When finished this article should not be longer than that of Margaret Thatcher, one a couple of us got to GA against all the odds and in the face of similar concerns. I am sure we can do the same here. --John (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what's an Emmy, after all. I guess we can just dump details of when and why he was awarded that. Or was it three? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is very good material in Sunshine on Putty: The Golden Age of British Comedy from Vic Reeves to The Office, which goes through his early work, through to the take off in the US. Its strong also on analysing his style. I can add, but am short on editing time, so it may be a week or two. Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Book me in for next January. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll take you up on that, haha. Also the edit summary, though caustic, wasnt aimed at you, its just that the article is slight, and award lists are cancer in that context. Lets see it grow more substantial. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Am enormous list of one at the last count. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but taking on an article like this, one of the first tasks is always to cut the incremental stuff. And that aint easy (the reason why Francis Bacon is so intimidating to me, though ive been reading and absorbing him for 25 years). I'd say give John space and licence. Ceoil (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more space already. I'm sure you'd never have caught Francis in dress and stilettos. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were already paid off. What, another mars bar? Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

Eddie Izzard likes to be known as a British-European so should not be called "English". To be English one has to be born in England, otherwise you are British.

Chickenhatch (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Need a source in which he refers to himself as "a British-European". Also, you can also be English by lineage, which seems to be the case here. Cannolis (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

He does have quite a penchant for European languages, mais ce est pas tout à fait la même chose, est-il? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal name

Recent change to update "Eddie Izzard" to "Suzy Eddie" were reverted stating "thats not the legal name" - I would, however, point to the common use of stage names taking precedence over legal names (see Cher) and if the subjects preference on pronouns is respected in articles, so should their preference in name and "legal status" does not play a factor. Past names, birth names, "also known as" etc. are always available. FatalRev (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about legal name, however MOS:GENDERID seems like it would come into play here. According to RS, in the podcast yesterday Izzard said "I'm going to be Suzy Eddie Izzard", and that she'd made that choice so that "people can choose what they want. They can't make a mistake, they can't go wrong", which to me reads like a rather neat way to avoid the whole prominent deadname situation.

For ourselves though, because she's said "I'm going to be Suzy Eddie Izzard", I'm fairly confident that per GENDERID we should reflect that as her current primary name and look at moving the article. In context this would mean the lead sentence would change to Suzy Eddie Izzard (/ˈɪzɑːrd/; formerly Eddie John Izzard, born 7 February 1962) is a British stand-up comedian, actor and activist. or Suzy Eddie Izzard (/ˈɪzɑːrd/; born 7 February 1962), also known as Eddie John Izzard, is a British stand-up comedian, actor and activist. I'm just not sure on whether formerly or also known as is the better choice here, unless anyone else has a better suggestion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: before I go making one of these changes per GENDERID, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The "legal name" thing is kinda a misnomer/red herring. In the UK we don't really have a legal name, at least insofar as it's defined in terms familiar to American editors. For ourselves, changing names can be as simple as just writing our new name on a piece of paper alongside the words "On <date>, I <old name> changed my name to <new name>", plus a signature. While you can go more formal than that, up to and including making a statutory declaration (Scotland), formal request to the General Register Office (Northern Ireland), or enrolling a deed poll with the High Court (England), most people just use one of the many free deed poll generation websites and print it off at home.

Of course I've no idea how Izzard has changed her name, but ultimately that doesn't really matter for us. What's important is that she's said that her name is now Suzy Eddie Izzard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a straightforward case of WP:DEADNAME so I'll revert. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard is known commonly as that. I doubt anyone commonly knows her middle name. Therefore I think including her former middle name constitutes deadnaming. As her "stage name", so to speak, is included in her full name, it would be unnecessary to repeat it in the lead.

As she has said she is happy for people to use both names (and is keeping Eddie as a middle name)*, I'd say we should follow WP:COMMONNAME for the article title.

• British people do sometimes use a middle name as their common name, see Boris Johnson.

Jèrriais janne (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We also do sometimes not use notable people's former names, even when they're notable, for example when women unmarry. See Cheryl (singer), no "formerly Cheryl Cole", despite Cheryl Cole still being commonly used against her. Jèrriais janne (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans woman, I can say that since she herself said her name is Suzy Eddie Izzard now, that in this context, "Eddie" is not a deadmane - it his her stated preferred middle name now.

If she decides to alter this in the future and there is citation for it then it could be addressed at that time

DigitalSorceress (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The supposed legal name in question is the one now appearing after "born as". ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME in BLPs such as this. Boris Johnson isn't a great example here, as I'm not sure anyone outside his family actually refer to him as Alexander, though some more acerbic commentators do occasionally refer to him as de Pfeffel. A better and more topically relevant example would be Elliot Page, as his former name was not actually his birth name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th is correct. Elliot Page provides a clear precedent. We need to reanme this bio. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Like with Page, if she goes by Suzy Eddie Izzard, we should call her that. Aresef (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-03-07/eddie-izzard-reveals-new-name-suzy-transgender-comedian, The comedian said she’ll keep her public name as “Eddie Izzard,” which she decided to maintain for the recognition. MOS:DEADNAME specifically has a callout for "unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." There's nothing particularly gendered about the name "Eddie" (it's listed here as a girl's name, for example), so keeping this article where it is is not a denial of her gender identity. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:DEADNAME, the full birth name should be removed. The guidline is to include the current name and former names under which the subject was notable. Here, that is Suzy Eddie Izzard and Eddie Izzard respectively. (See Elliot Page for a similar example; we include the name by which he was previously credited, but not his full birth name.) The lead should be "Suzy Eddie Izzard is a British stand-up comedian...". I wouldn't object to also adding "known professionally as Eddie Izzard", but it is unneccessary per MOS:PSEUDONYM, since the common name established in the article title is part of the full name.--Trystan (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that, at the very least, this RM is a little premature, due to various considerations. Let's go through the points raised in the discussion.

• First off, GENDERID in general clearly applies to Izzard, and has done since she initially came out as genderfluid a few years ago. I don't think this point was too controversial, but it should be stated for the record.
• Where people are more commonly known by their middle names, there's no proscription against using them in the article title; indeed, it's "Boris Johnson", not "Alexander Johnson".
• Izzard herself is somewhat relaxed about the use of her birth name (and any diminutives) in regards to her professional life, and has indicated she will continue to use her birth name in various professional contexts. Basically, "Eddie" still remains her WP:STAGENAME.
• However, if Izzard starts to prefer to use her new name in a professional context, then we can – and should – re-examine the issue. For example, if she stands for the Labour NEC or for Parliament in the next 24 months, how the campaign literature calls her would be persuasive.

In effect, this is the exception that proves the rule. Whilst in nearly all cases, we would prefer to use a transgender person's new name, the above considerations indicate that the use of her old one for the is one of those acceptable edge cases.

In summary, most editors in this discussion feel that, although in general they'd support a move, the considerations above – especially regarding Izzard's continued use of "Eddie" in a professional context – means that it would be best to wait to see how things shake out. This local consensus isn't, in my view, contradictory to the more global consensus, so the result of the discussion is not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Eddie Izzard → Suzy Izzard – Suzy is a trans comedian, actor, and activist, who recently changed her name. MOS:DEADNAME would apply to the article title. I'd move it myself, but the article is administrator move protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Izzard is genderfluid, not trans, and is universally known as Eddie. ...she added that people "can choose" which name they want to use to refer to her, and that she would keep using "Eddie Izzard" as her public name since it is more widely recognized. MOS:DEADNAME clearly does not apply in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose- agree with Necrothesp - if she is continuing to use "Eddie Izzard" as her public name, it is not a "dead-name", and the "public name" of Eddie Izzard is what the article title should remain as. - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not a MOS:DEADNAME, it is still the WP:COMMONNAME. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Why omit Eddie? It's still in her current name (Suzy Eddie Izzard). -Xdtp (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  On omitting Eddie, mostly it's because of WP:NCBIO which recommends that most article biographical article titles are in the [First name] [Last name] format. Because Eddie is now Suzy's middle name, it wouldn't fit in with that pattern. However I would have no objection to Suzy Eddie Izzard being the target for the move instead of Suzy Izzard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is no requirement that an article title be a subject's [First name] [Last name]. If a subject of an article is more commonly known by their middle name, then we routinely title an article [Middle name] [Last name]. There are numerous examples of this and I have cited some below. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's still this person's middle name and the name they go by professionally, so the WP:DEADNAME rule doesn't apply here. If someone is more commonly known as their middle name, there is nothing wrong with using that as the article title. There are plenty of examples of this: Jason Momoa, Ashton Kutcher, Reese Witherspoon, Marie Osmond, Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Lance Bass, Jude Law. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. MOS:DEADNAME pretty clearly applies here. Editors have correctly stated that Izzard is genderfluid, but they have also omitted she also considers herself to be transgender (Guardian December 2020, Guardian May 2021, LA Times March 2023). There's no contradiction here of course, as our genderfluid article states, genderfluid individuals may also be non-binary or transgender. The reason why I proposed Suzy Izzard at the technical move request board was because WP:NCBIO states that most biographical article titles are in the format [First name] [Last name]. In this circumstance that would mean that we would make Suzy Izzard the article title. However I have no objection to moving this instead to Suzy Eddie Izzard if other editors feel as though including her middle name is important. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Please remove this support. Per WP:RM: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Had I made the nomination myself, and had the opportunity to expand upon the nomination at the time I would do so. However because this nomination was made for me by Raydann, after a contested request at WP:RM#TR, I'm treating this as a procedural nomination. Hence my !vote here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That LA Times article even says "The comedian said she’ll keep her public name as “Eddie Izzard,” which she decided to maintain for the recognition.". -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

And we should follow her lead and maintain this article's title as her chosen public name for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, RECOGNIZABILITY and COMMONNAME do not take precedence over DEADNAME. DEADNAME is unequivocal where it states that biographies of trans or non-binary people reflect their current name. Elliot Page is the relevant example here, where Page's former name was a professional name and not his birth name. In the case of Izzard that means her article must be named either Suzy Izzard or Suzy Eddie Izzard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

DEADNAME simply does not apply here for the reasons I have stated above. How can it be a dead name if she still uses it herself? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th could you please cite a consensus discussion which unequivocally agreed that RECOGNIZABILITY and COMMONNAME do not take precedence over DEADNAME. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is pretty clear from (a) common sense and (b) the language used.

• WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: These should be seen as goals, not as rules.
• WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.
• MOS:GENDERID: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words ...; Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

On DEADNAME taking precedence over COMMONNAME, please see the February 2022 RM for Gloria Hemingway. COMMONNAME was brought up many times in that discussion, and the closer made note of how COMMONNAME and DEADNAME interact, without being in conflict as well as some of the history of other page moves of highly noteworthy people where GENDERID had precedence over COMMONNAME.

On RECOGNIZABILITY, honestly that's such a lesser used redirect (According to WhatLinksHere it's only been linked 319 times) that has only been cited in 24 biographical (living or not-recently deceased) articles, and none of which were for a trans or non-binary person. It's also never been used on the discussion pages for MOS:GENDERID, MOS:GIDINFO, or WP:NCBIO. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to how on earth something can possibly be regarded as a deadname when the individual in question still uses it and has publicly stated that they will continue to use it! This makes no sense whatsoever. Izzard may prefer Suzy in private life, but intends to remain Eddie Izzard in public life. As the only reason he has an article is because of his public life as Eddie Izzard, this is obviously the name we should use. When asked in 2019 what pronouns she preferred, Izzard responded, "either 'he' or 'she'" and explained, "If I am in boy mode, then 'he', or girl mode, 'she'". There is simply no basis for arguing that DEADNAME should apply. Izzard is happy with either name and either set of pronouns. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

as far as I can tell, wikipedia's policies don't care much about the subject's opinions on their own name. Suzy Eddie Izzard might not be too offended with her old name and pronouns, but it's wikipedia's policy to update to the preferred name/pronouns. nevermind, bit of a tangent 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, Necrothesps quote pretty much says it all. Izzard says you "can't go wrong" with either and will keep using Eddie, so clearly there is no harm by this title. As a result, we return to WP:COMMONNAME, which the subject agrees is Eddie Izzard. --Quiz shows 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note, I've manually notified all of the currently active WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page. For some reason the article alert bot wasn't transcribing this to notification lists Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If she decides to depreciate the old name in the future, or if the new name becomes the more commonly used one, then I'll strongly support a move but, for now, there is no need to change it. Normally, I'd support renaming an article about a trans person as quickly as possible, even in advance of WP:COMMONNAME, to avoid distressing them with use of a deadname but Izzard has been explicitly clear that this is not a concern for her and that she will still be using the old name herself to some extent. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move as proposed per WP:COMMONNAME. However, I would support a move to Suzy Eddie Izzard. Estar8806 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this alternate, as she is not known by this name either. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand your opposition, but I should mention that USA Today [7], CNN [8] and the Huffpost[9] have all published articles using "Suzy Eddie Izzard". Estar8806 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose until or unless Izzard makes a clear statement that she wishes to be known only as Suzy going forward. Funcrunch (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, DEADNAME does not apply since they still use the name Eddie freely, and it's clearly PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• comment At first I was a strong support, but the details make me think waiting is best. Given her published comments on continuing to use Eddie, I think the WP:COMMONNAME argument is actually OK here in a way it wouldn't be for most other trans people.🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose -- she may have changed her legal name, but "Eddie" was not her legal name to begin with. It is her common name and stage name, it is not a "former name", which is what MOS:DEADNAME addresses. I mean, I have a friend who became publicly a trans man without changing his somewhat feminine first name; are you saying that because he used that name before public transition, we'd have to not refer to him at all?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes Eddie was/is her stage name. However Elliot Page's former name was a stage name as well, as Page was not his surname pre-transition. It's also unclear if Page changed his surname when he changed is forename. Yet as the close of the Gloria Hemmingway RM noted, that article was moved pretty swiftly after his new name became clear, and that "use the common name" arguments like this would not have allowed for that.

  are you saying that because he used that name before public transition, we'd have to not refer to him at all? No. If your friend was called River Doe both pre and post-transition, then our article would refer to him as River. MOS:DEADNAME applies to people who change part or all of their names as part of their transition. When Izzard said I'm going to be Suzy Eddie Izzard, that was her saying that she's changing her name. As soon as she did that, DEADNAME applies, and so we should follow the example set out at Elliot Page by making the title of this article either Suzy Izzard or Suzy Eddie Izzard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  In this case, Izzard is still also going by Eddie. This is not exactly the same situation as with Elliot Page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not even close to the same situation. Elliot Page no longer uses his former name, which is what makes it a "dead name". If someone is still using a name, then it is by definition not a "dead name". And therefore our rules about dead names simply does not apply. I don't understand why this is difficult for anyone to understand. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the other two replies. Elliot page is different because his gender presentation is very binary. Elliot's pronouns are he/him, and he got rid of his old name entirely. Suzy's gender presentation is much more fluid. I oppose the move because doing so might actually run contrary to her own wishes. That is, if she continues performing/being credited as "Eddie Izzard", then the page move would've been premature. I wouldn't be surprised if she eventually changes her twitter/stage name to Suzy Izzard, but we'll see.

  I think this is a case where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DEADNAME sort of conflict because of a non-binary gender identity. I think the best move would be to remember there are WP:NORULES, and move the page to Suzy Eddie Izzard, WP:COMMONNAME be damned. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems monumentally and pointlessly disrespectful to Izzard, who has made the conscious choice to continue to perform under the "Eddie Izzard" name... and since that performing is the basis for Izzard's notability, barring some change in that stance, that is the name we should be using. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I see this as being disrespectful in the other direction. Please, look again at what she said. "I'm Eddie. There's another name I'm going to add in as well, which is Suzy, which is what I wanted to be since I was 10. I'm going to be Suzy Eddie Izzard".[10] Since she was ten years old, she has wanted to be called Suzy. Now it is also correct to say that she's OK with people still calling her Eddie. But that doesn't change that she wants to be called Suzy. Renaming/moving this article is respecting her want, her desire, her expression to be called Suzy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If she had "Suzy Eddie Izzard" on her official website EddieIzzard.com, then I might agree with you. But just take a look at her website. She has "Eddie Izzard" all over it and not a "Suzy" anywhere to be found. That makes it pretty clear that she continues to want to be known as "Eddie Izzard" professionally. I think you may be trying to projecting your wishes onto her. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How am I "projecting [my] wishes onto her", when she has quite clearly said that she has wanted to be called Suzy since she was 10 years old? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is similar in my mind to Kelly Clarkson changing her legal name to "Kelly Brianne" and going by that name personally, but still going by "Kelly Clarkson" professionally. And we didn't move that article because she still was going by her former name professionally. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

While I can see from that article's move request why that consensus was reached, I also disagree with it and think that it was the wrong consensus. There's a lot we handle incorrectly on enwiki when it comes to BLP article subjects who change their names, and discussions like the these are symptomatic of that problem. What DEADNAME gets right is the requirement that we use terminology and names that reflect the person's most recent expressed identity. What DEADNAME gets wrong is that it only applies to trans and non-binary people. Really what we should be doing is using the terminology and names that reflect the person's most recent expressed identity in all cases. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEADNAME does not apply to this case either, because "Eddie Izzard" is not a dead name. It is alive and well, being used as the professional stage name by the subject of this article. If that situation ever changes, we can move this article at that possible future time. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We've both already set out arguments for why we respectively believe each other is incorrect, and it's clear that neither one of us can convince the other. There is no point in rehashing that discussion to the point of bludgeoning.

However I will add that what you've just said is not strictly a response to what I've said. The point that I was making in that reply was not that DEADNAME should apply, though I clearly have said elsewhere in this discussion that it does. Instead it was that DEADNAME gets aspects of name changes right and wrong, and that the aspects that I think it gets right are those which should apply to every BLP, not just the BLP of trans and non-binary people. If any person makes a public statement in good faith that says something like "I'm changing my name from X to Y" then we should respect that in our article titles, even when that is not the most common name reliable sources use for that person. Because of that, I would have made an IAR !vote at the Kelly Brianne move request saying that we should respect her request to use that surname, had that page been one I was active in editing at the time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that sentiment too. If we changed an article title every time a public figure decides to change their name on a whim, then we will be doing absurd things like moving Snoop Dog to Snoop Lion for a few months. I accept the dead name transgender exception to WP:COMMONNAME, but it should definitely not be expanded in scope beyond actual dead names of transgender people. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

With only a handful of exceptions, stage name changes like Snoop Dog are typically unusual, and those exceptional cases are clearly those where judgements of good faith are required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

an "and" (or a ";" or s.th. else) is missing in one sentence

in this sentence (or two incomplete sentences):

"She refined her comedy material throughout the 1980s began earning recognition through improvisation in the early 1990s, in part at her own club, Raging Bull in Soho.[24]"

I think s.th. is missing, I'm guessing e.g. an "and" would fit

--> "She refined her comedy material throughout the 1980s AND began earning recognition through improvisation in the early 1990s, in part at her own club, Raging Bull in Soho.[24]"

perhaps someone able to write despite the lock comes around and has a look :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3031:209:E333:D479:EE10:C390:B8C6 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done --DanielRigal (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

I work with Suzy Izzard on all her social & digital media. Although she has changed her name in her personal life to Suzy, she wishes to keep her public name as Eddie Izzard and would like this reflected on her Wikipedia page.

Her preference would be: “Eddie Izzard (also known as Suzy Izzard)”

You can reference her statement about the name change at a verified Twitter, verified Instagram and verified Facebook posts. Links below:

https://twitter.com/eddieizzard/status/1664240649787559936?cxt=HHwWgMDS9bWDyZguAAAA https://www.instagram.com/p/Cs8m_OXLx6A https://www.facebook.com/eddieizzard/posts/pfbid0sfa8NoQHKLtKVZHqFhXMHRtmiDNCd65yWC2uc1GsiueaujL2ETB9Xhqxu126n1ffl

In this statement Suzy ends with "I am remaining Eddie Izzard in public."

Could you please amend his Wikipedia page to reflect these wishes. If needed I will provide contact info. Armx92 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The personal preferences of article subjects are not particularly relevant in designing the lead sentence; they are written in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines. In this case, Izzard was notable as "Eddie Izzard", and is now more notable as "Suzy Izzard", so the current wording is appropriate. See also MOS:IDINFO. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Point of order and possible clarification. How MOS:DEADNAME actually starts: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name [...] that reflect[s] the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." [emphasis in original] – .Raven  .talk 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here; there has been very thorough discussion about this exact matter, referring to this exact guideline. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You had said, verbatim, "The personal preferences of article subjects are not particularly relevant in designing the lead sentence; they are written in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines."

My point is that MOS:DEADNAME specifically makes relevant "the person's most recent expressed self-identification" [emphasis in original]... such as the request (and its links) to which you just replied "Not done". – .Raven  .talk 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear there, I can see what you mean. My intention in that comment was that subject preferences are not relevant per se. If Bill Gates said that he wants to be called "Billiard Gates", that would not be grounds for changing the lead of Bill Gates. Of course you are right that gender expression is a case where subject preferences are explicitly relevant; the discussion below was basically a bunch of editors trying to untangle which parts of Izzard's identity and preferences are subject to MOS:GID, and which ones aren't. I apologise if I was unclear on that. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can still adjust it a bit. How about "Suzy Izzard, born Edward John Izzard; 7 February 1962 and known professionally as Eddie Izzard, is..."? That at least gets the name "Eddie Izzard" into the first sentence, which we really should have given that this is the name of the article. DanielRigal (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, but it gives the impression that Izzard is only professionally known as "Eddie Izzard". Maybe like this:

"Edward John Izzard (born XZY), known professionally as Eddie Izzard and Suzy Izzard..."? Actualcpscm (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

absolutely not. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste I don't understand what exactly you mean. What are you objecting to?

Deadnames should be excluded from articles only when the individual was never notable while using that name, but that is not the case here. Ergo, "Eddie Izzard" should be in the lead.

If someone is known by multiple names, their birth name can and should still be given in the lead per MOS:FULLNAME. The exclusion of pre-transition names, both birth names and deadnames, applies only when the individual became notable post-transition. Ergo, "Edward John Izzard" should be somewhere in the lead.

Do you mean the ordering of the names? Or something else? Actualcpscm (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot refer to Izzard by her former name, as you propose (see Use-mention distinction). Using the most recent self-identification means we have to call Izzard either Suzy or Eddie, and we should mention the other name, but in no case must it be used to refer to the subject. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm. I see what you mean, but I think we're mixing up MOS:GID and MOS:NICKNAME. If referring to Izzard as Eddie is appropriate, as you suggest, then so is Edward. The matter of Edward vs Eddie is one of MOS:NICKNAME and not governed by MOS:GID. However, I'm not hung up on that. Notwithstanding the ambiguity in Izzard's gender expression (see below), the article uses she/her and I think we can agree that only Suzy should be used to refer to Izzard going forward.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that Izzard has repeatedly mentioned that both names are appropriate, so I'm not sure that GID needs to be applied the way you suggest: 1234.

Here's a new suggestion that might make everyone happy:

"Suzy Izzard (born Edward John Izzard; 7 February 1962), formerly known as Eddie Izzard, is..." Actualcpscm (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't include her saying she wants to keep being known as Eddie in certain contexts, though. Do you think that is relevant to include? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Since she was notable exclusively as Eddie for years, and then variously as Eddie and Suzy, I think the former needs to be mentioned. Weirdly enough, many sources have continued to use Eddie in recent years. Even now, both are in use by secondary sources, meaning she is notable both as Suzy Izzard and as Eddie Izzard, so both should be in the lead. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but should we say that she still wants to be known as Eddie "in public"? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in the efn? This open a whole new can of worms, namely if Wikipedia articles are "public" for the purposes of this question. If yes, then MOS:GID would indicate that we should use he/him in accordance with the most recently expressed preference. I don't know. For now, I would put it in efn "a" in the lead. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In reading through this, it seems as though the rules are not clear on what convention should be used. It also seems there could be a case to be made for one article to address Eddie Izzard as the performer and another for Suzy / Eddie Izzard as the person, no? While I understand that you must follow your editorial guidelines and that doesn't always conform to what the subject always wants on their Wikipedia, I would like to point out that we refer to Suzy as "Suzy" out of respect for the identity she has chosen for herself. I would like to request that same level of respect as to her wishes to be referenced publicly on this wikipedia page as “Eddie Izzard (also known as Suzy Izzard)”. No matter how nuanced that may be. If it's improper to not respect her wishes to be called Suzy on her terms, then why is not improper to respect his wishes regarding Wikipedia. If needed we can have official posts on verified social media made to corroborate these wishes specifically. Thanks for your time and attention. 209.40.73.18 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is exceedingly rare to have separate articles on individuals and their artistic personas. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. If Izzard's wishes are to be identified as Eddie, i.e., by he/him pronouns in public places, and we consider Wikipedia such a "public" place, then we're back to this:

"Edward John Izzard (born XZY), known professionally as Eddie Izzard and Suzy Izzard..." Actualcpscm (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

that is imo the best solution --FMSky (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Are you amenable to that? Your previous objection was based on MOS:GID, but it turns out that this is in fact what the most recently expressed applicable preference would dictate. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I still maintain this violates MOS:GID per my above comment. Where is the evidence "Edward John Izzard" reflects this person's most recent expressed self-identification? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If Eddie is the most recent self-expressed identification, then Edward is appropriate by extension. It's not about the nickname vs. the full name, it's about which gender identity we are addressing. In this case, there are two; Eddie / Edward and Suzy. Edward is not a separate gender identity from Eddie, as far as I understand. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We could also do this:

Eddie Izzard (born Edward John Izzard; 7 February 1962), also known as Suzy Izzard, is...

However, referring to them by their full name first and then listing names under which they are known reads much more naturally to me. I don't think there's a meaningful difference between referring to them as Eddie and Edward; as I mentioned, they're different names given to a single gender identity, and we would be in compliance with MOS:GID using any common name associated with that identity. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"I don't think there's a meaningful difference between referring to them as Eddie and Edward." Depends what you mean by meaning lol. But surely no-one calls him Edward any more? Especially him/herself. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to MOS:GID with this, of course there is a difference between using the birth name and a nickname / artist name. What I meant is that it isn't a meaningful difference for the purposes of applying MOS:GID. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The current section is a bit weirdly worded after the addition, but the upshot of the preceding RfC is that we should refer to people like they want to be referred to. Eddie is a different name from Edward John, and it is not up to us to decide which one the subject accepts. In any case, speculating over a subject holding several different gender identities and over which name corresponds to which feels like it may readily cross from encyclopedia-writing to psychoanalysis. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem with the policy, understanding how someone wants to be referred to is not as clear-cut as it's made out to be. Anyway, I suppose you're fine with the above suggestion (starting "Eddie Izzard")? Actualcpscm (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That'd be fine by me, given the circumstances. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In accordance with this new consensus of referring to Izzard as "Eddie", would you agree that the article should also use he/him pronouns for consistency? Actualcpscm (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Izzard still prefers she everywhere. She hasn't said anything about rather being he "in public". -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll set aside my psychoanalysis of their gender identity and just leave it be, then. Thanks for a very level-headed discussion. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would propose "Suzy Izzard (born Edward John Izzard; 7 February 1962), formerly (and still known professionally as) Eddie Izzard, is...". This gives us her new name and her preferred professional name (which is still the article name). If anything were to be removed, it should be her original birth deadname. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the deadname. The proposed text is a bit long but Izzard's relationship to names just is a bit more complicated than most other people's. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. Izzard was never notable under her full birth name, so it should not be included per MOS:GID. I support either "Suzy Izzard (born 7 February 1962), known professionally as Eddie Izzard, is..." or "Eddie Izzard (born 7 February 1962), also known as Suzy Izzard, is...".--Trystan (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is how MOS:GID is intended to be applied. When Izzard was notable as Eddie Izzard, that was a simple nickname (see MOS:NICKNAME and MOS:FULLNAME). The birth name is not a dead name, as its shorthand Eddie is still very much in use, acceptable to Izzard, and a name under which they were previously notable. MOS:GID does not mean that all other policies on including individual's full names stop applying the moment an individual expresses a new preference; that only happens if they were never notable under their previous name(s). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the guideline, but it really does not make any sense to me that MOS:GID's applicability causes other guidelines like MOS:FULLNAME to become irrelevant in a case like this. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The way i see it is that both Eddie Izzard and Suzy Izzard are stage names, thats why saying "Edward John Izzard, known professionally as Eddie Izzard and Suzy Izzard..." makes the most sense. --FMSky (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

But what matters isn't how any particular edit "see[s] it"—what matters, per MOS:GENDERID, is how the person sees it, as revealed in reliable sources. Do you have any source suggesting that Izzard uses "Suzy" as a stage name (or considers it to be one)? (If not, I'd lightly suggest being a little bit more careful about word choice: calling a transgender person's chosen name a "stage name" might communicate some pretty offensive implications)--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Its the impression i got from the instagram post https://www.instagram.com/p/Cs8m_OXLx6A that said: "I have added the name 'Suzy' to my names" and "I am remaining Eddie Izzard in public" as well as "Thanks, Suzy/Eddie". But maybe i've interpreted it wrong, idk --FMSky (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"So going forward I am preferring Suzy but I don't mind Eddie. ... I am remaining Eddie Izzard in public." That really does not at all imply that "Suzy Izzard" is a stage name—it implies that Eddie Izzard is the stage name.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually now that you mention it, yes it does seem like that... --FMSky (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be my reading too. Suzy Izzard or Suzy Eddie Izzard would be her primary name, with Eddie Izzard being her stage name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Trystan to a degree. With all due respect to the first comment, I think it's important to remember that this article is about Izzard as a whole person, and not just their public persona. Maybe I'm reading too much into the Izzard's recent social media comments, and wider media interviews, but when she said going forward I am preferring Suzy but I don't mind Eddie when read alongside MOS:GENDERID which tells us to use the name that reflects the person's most recent gender identity, I think that means that we have to use either Suzy Izzard or the fuller Suzy Eddie Izzard (source) as the primary name in the first sentence.

As for what follows, I think known professionally as Eddie Izzard, is... is probably the neatest way to handle it. While it stops short of explicitly saying it, it does pretty clearly imply that Izzard uses different names in her personal and professional life. That distinction between the names is something that we can spell out more clearly in the personal life section.

As for whether or not we should keep in Izzard's birth name, I'm in two minds. As a UK native and to my knowledge, Izzard has never been referred to by her birth name. Even when she was running for the Labour party NEC in 2017, she was referred to as Eddie. While Eddie is/was to a degree a stage name, there are biographies on enwiki where we have never included the birth name. For example Elliot Page's former name was not his birth name, hence why the article says formerly and not born when introducing it. While we have a reliable source for Izzard's birth name, I don't think we'd really be losing anything important by excluding it. But, we have been including it in some form since August 2004, so there is quite a lengthy history of it being included. So I dunno. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know that much about Izzard's background. If Eddie (instead of Edward) was used as a name within the context of gender identity, then MOS:GID does apply and we should not mention the birth name. Was it? This turns the pertinent question into this: "[Before Izzard adopted Suzy as a name], was the name Eddie Izzard a nickname in the general sense or an expression of gender identity?

I don't think that the full name necessarily needs to be in the article, especially considering (as you mention) that Izzard has basically never used it. I just don't like the idea of throwing MOS:GID at any biography of a trans person and excluding names that might have encyclopedic relevance. Maybe this is a better way of tackling this question? The birth name does not contribute encyclopedic value, so it doesn't need to be here. I was just concerned that we might be stretching the scope of MOS:GID a bit far. I'm not sure what to do now. I'm amenable to removing the birth name, but I don't think such removal is mandated by MOS:GID. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

While there are circumstances where it would be required, I'd agree that removal of the birth name wouldn't be mandated by GENDERID in this instances. Of course that's not to say that we can't form a consensus for removing it for any other reason, like for example WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The only thing that I think is required by following GENDERID is that we use one of the Suzy variants as the primary name for the article prose, and obviously pronouns but those aren't under discussion here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Very much agreed on NOTEVERYTHING. As mentioned, I'm fine with removing this on other grounds.

The name variant you mention is the opposite of the consensus we came to earlier :( @Maddy from Celeste and I agreed that Eddie Izzard is the way to go based on Izzard's statement that she "continues to be Eddie Izzard in public." I'm not sure how to separate stage and public identities here. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether her full birth name stays in the article, it should definitely not be in the first paragraph, and should not be in bold. At best it is a piece of errata, and at worst it may (or may not) be deadnaming. Can we at least move it down to the "early life" section? Yardenac (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of putting it somewhere in the article body; either it's a valid name that we should use (it goes in the lead), or it's not (and should not be mentioned at all). If you think it should be removed, I wouldn't revert that (see just above this comment), but reading consensus from this discussion could be tricky. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the birth name has to either be used in the first sentence or completely stricken from the article. Having a birth name in the infobox and early life section but not in the lead is done in other articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)