Talk:Eddie Izzard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Transvestite

removing:

probably most noteworthy for being a transvestite.

AFAIK, Izzard doesn't describe himself as a transvestite -- he points out that a woman wearing trousers isn't considered a tranvestite, and his preference for certain types of clothes is no different -- Tarquin

But isnt he a transvestite?

Um, I've got a recording of one of his shows in which he introduces himself as an "executive transvestite". - user:Montrealais

Really? I've read interviews where he says he isn't, for reason above. The plot thickens. -- Tarquin

The Je suis un travestie executif bit (from Glorious IIRC) does follow his usual spiel of "I don't consider myself a transvestite, but only someone who wants equal clothing rights" -- User:GWO

Le singe est dans l'arbre...

Monkeys notwithstanding, I saw him on stage about ten years ago and he said, several times, "I'm TV". He was careful to explain that it was an aesthetic preference with no sexual significance. -- Heron

I've checked various online interviews, and, yes, he does frequently refer to himself as a TV/transvestite. -- User:GWO

So does this mean I can put the line (or a variant thereof) back in? Sorry if I'm doing this wrong; I'm rather new to all this. :) -- the creator of the entry

Hello, creator of this entry. (register a user name sometime :-) I'd say mention both things he's said. -- Tarquin 19:47 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Okay, I've just made myself one. It's very imaginative, isn't it? ;) -- Oliver Pereira.

Well, labels notwithstanding, he frequently wears clothing generally reserved for women. --AMK1211 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rent Dress to Kill, his stand-up appearance in San Francisco. On the DVD he refers to himself as a transvestite, specifically an executive transvestite, not a weirdo transvestite (which he attributes to J. Edgar Hoover). -FeralDruid 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Eddie on being a Transvestite

I'm adding these quotes because people are continually removing the classification of him in LGBT. If this Talk page is archived, I think this part should remain here to avoid it needing to be posted repeatedly.

If it's important to you that you feel 'self-definition' is key in being defined as LGBT, or if you think transvestitism (uhm, ok, but you know what I mean) is not part of being transgendered, please note these are all his own quotes:

Article at Transgender Zone "It is going to stick around until more generations of transgender people come out," he says. Being gay may have cachet in certain circles — theatre — but society still gets its knickers in a twist about cross-dressers. "There is a perception that certain uplifting things go with being gay, but transgender is still (in) a difficult phase. Yet it is way better being where I am now and not having to lie."

and:

Eddie Izzard: Executive Transvestite (by Ivy D. Vine | Girltalk Magazine Vol. 2 #3 | December 25, 2000)

GT: You present a positive TV image. Do you have any words for people wanting to come out?

EI: You need to do it as young as possible so you can get (on with) your life...it's sort of a life rearrangement thing. The more people that are "out", the world will realize there is a large transgender population. I do empathize, but the only way we can move forward is with more people coming out.

GT: Do you consider yourself a role model at all?

EI: If anyone can use anything that I've done, that's cool. The transgender movement is still in the 1950's like gay and lesbians use to be. Anti-gay jokes are gone from television, but the guy in a dress jokes are still there. They need to get sharp, snappy dressed transgendered people on there. That's why I came out with all the buzz words like "Action Transvestite" or "Executive Transvestite".

Also, a link here to an article from last fall: Eddie Izzard Does His Therapist, first line: British Comedian/Actor Eddie Izzard has started seeing a transgender expert to discuss issues resulting from his cross-dressing.

None of this suggests he is a homosexual - in fact he has denied it.88.97.18.12 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And LGBT contains more than 'homosexuals', including something he's obviously embraced openly. --Thespian 20:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All this means is that Eddie Izzard doesn't take it all too seriously, certainly not to care enough about the nomenclature. He certainly doesn't understand what "transgendered" means if he thinks it means dressing up as a woman and telling jokes, whilst remaining patently obviously a man. The whole statement you quote is obviously ironic, it's a joke, the whole thing is a joke to him. Anyway, he's stopped doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what he said; what he said was that 'the guy in a dress jokes are still there'. He's specifically addressed trying to be out as a transvestite, and he himself considers this part of the transgender movement. People who don't want to see that aren't going to, though. He himself has commented that the roles (The Riches, Ocean's Thirteen) have required male dress and beard, and he's made no statement that he's no longer doing this. People who wish to remove the LGBT tag, it is up to you to provide verifiable proof that he's renouncing that, not just an observation that you haven't seen him do it recently, so he must have stopped. --Thespian (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Character Based on Izzard as a Child?

This article states that the Character of the Malloy's youngest son, who is portrayed as a young transvestite, is based after Izzard as a child. However, Izzard has stated repeatedly on the Fox Movie Channel that the character was already written that way before he was ever was under consideration or on board for the show.

Apparently, the character was already written as being "different," and when Izzard came onto the project, they decided to make the character like him. --AMK1211 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Acting

An actor? What in? -- Oliver Pereira.

He's been doing a lot of acting recently, probably more acting than standup. I don't think he's been in anything particularly famous, but he's doing a fair bit of it. Only thing I've seen him in is Velvet Goldmine, but there have been plenty. --Camembert

See his web page. There's a list there, but as I hadn't seen any of the, I didn't copy it over. Mostly films, but also London stage. Ortolan88 04:09 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

He was in ... a spoof superhero thing. What was it called? He didn't even have a line, but still. -- Sam

That was Mystery Men.

not to nitpick, but he had a few lines in Mystery Men Streamless 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

He was in the lousy film of The Avengers (the one where Ralph Fiennes couldn't even wear the suit, let alone act) -- Tarquin 10:21 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)

Dyslexia

I didn't write that bit, but he does atrribute his surreal rambling style to dyslexia.--Crestville 19:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I wrote it. And, yes, he does. --Moochocoogle 23:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two Versions of the Dress To Kill DVD?

when i first saw Dress to Kill on HBO (i'm american), it was around 90 minutes long. i then rented it from netflix and it's way longer (and funnier) - almost two hours long. however, the DVD on sale seems to be only 90 minutes long. is it possible that netflix has some european version? if so, why did it play on my DVD? Streamless 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The nearly 2 hour long version is the only version. I should know, I have it all memorized.

There are two versions. The one on HBO (or the VHS version I believe) is 90 minutes. This is also the one you might find on a file-sharing network. The DVD version is longer. If you have both you can notice it immediately because the HBO version doesn't have the San Fransisco bit at the beginning. It goes straight from the jumping around in heels to wanting to be in the army.

Unrepeatable

Uhhh....there's two references in the Stand-up section for Unrepeatable, one for 2004 and another for 1994. According to IMDb, 1994 is the correct year. Made the edit. -Hench 08:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

University

Eddie was at the University of Sheffield at one time. What subject?

• According to [1], it was "Accounting and Financial Management with Mathematics", although it's not clear whether that was its actual title or a general description of what it covered. Warofdreams talk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure if that is entirely accurate, as I can remember him sat in a maths lecture in Sheffield dressed in drag.

Band?

I've read on a couple of various websites that Eddie used to/still does manage a band called "The Wasp Factory" (named after the novel) in the early nineties, but I can't find that many references to it. It may well be the band that the guy who wrote "The Other Side of the Story" below was on about. I'm not very good at this whole Wikipedia malarky anyway, so could someone else who's interested and more adept at this kind of thing add this to the article (if it is true)? -Shaun680 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Description of Comedy Style

I don't fancy this section at all. It isn't written smoothly and also, 'mime' is not the right description of what Izzard does with the 'sawing wood/baboon' thing. I would call it 'doing impressions' because of course he makes noises. Any objections to a re-write? ParvatiBai 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but on a side note - he calls it mime. He used to be a mime artist too. It's not reallt impressions.--Crestville 10:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right-ho! Thanks for letting me know. ParvatiBai 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all.--Crestville 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not neutral at all, it sounds like an ad for him. Also, how is Ellen stealing his style? I don't like her comedy, but I think it's pretty different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.186.128 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Discography and appearances"

I noticed that the "Stand-up" & "Filmography" sections are ascending by date but "TV appearances" are descending by date. Is this on purpose or did it just happen that way? Also I think maybe his comedy albums should be one section "Discography" & his tv/movie appearances should be another section "Filmography". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.157.247 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The Other Side of the Story

I first met Eddie when we were both at prep schools in Eastbourne, him at St Bede's and me at Chelmsford Hall We ended up at the same local public school, Eastbourne College, where our shared sense of the absurd led us to be friends and to write comedy together. I left in 1978 after 'O' levels, Eddie stayed on, did his 'A' levels and then went off to university in Sheffield. The next time I heard from him was about 1981/82, when I was living in the south of France; he contacted my elder brother Paul to ask if I would be interested in writing some sketches with him and taking them to the Edinburgh Festival - I had to say no, I was barely surviving in France and certainly didn't have the money to go and have a laugh in Scotland. I returned to England in 1983, but didn't contact Eddie again until spring 1988. I just got in touch to see what he was up to. We met up, had a drink, and he told me about his street performing and about how he was trying to break into stand-up. At that time my younger brother Pete was about to finish a two year business studies course, and soon after my meeting with Eddie, Pete and he met for the first time. Eddie said he would be performing an unpaid try out spot (called an 'open spot') at a local club called the Bearcat in Twickenham soon after, so Pete went along to see him - Pete had never been to a comedy club before, but he loved it. He was about to gain his business diploma, and had lots of energy, but nowhere to direct it. He very quickly decided that he would like to run his own comedy club and asked Eddie if he would be resident compere. Eddie agreed and in October 1988 The Screaming Blue Murder Cabaret Club opened it's doors for the first time in an upstairs room in the Rose and Crown in Hampton Wick, Surrey.

In those days Eddie was doing a routine that started, "My uncle served in Vietnam, he was a waiter" (Jack Dee later told him to personalize it, "I served in Vietnam"â was already funnier than "my uncle"). Eddie used this material very successfully on the first night, but one week later, when he tried to do the same routine again, he was met with cries of "you did that last week", which left him somewhat stumped - the free form improvisation that came to characterize his act was still a long way off. It got to the point where week in, week out, Eddie would walk onto the stage, say very little, and then introduce the first act. Pete always believed in Eddie, but felt, as he said to me at the time, "I could do what heâs doing at the moment - "Good evening ladies and gentlemen, er.... please welcome Jo Brand""' and so one evening he took Eddie to one side and told him to go away for a couple of weeks and think about it, to write some new stuff, just to get his head together. Eddie did, he went to the Lake District, and when he came back he had already begun to turn a corner. It was during those early days that I had a joke I thought Eddie might be able to use - seeing as we'd written together before the idea wasn't as absurd then as it might seem now - but Eddie said no, because, and I quote "one day I'm going to make it, and when I do I want to be able to say I did it all on my own". Of course that should have set off some alarm bells, but it didnât, not till much later...

The success of the original Wednesday night at the Rose and Crown led to Pete opening there on Friday nights too. He also opened a club at the Leather Bottle in South Wimbledon on Sundays and at the White Lion in Streatham on Mondays. In other words Eddie had the luxury of doing at least four gigs a week, with the added benefit of knowing that he could try out new stuff as much as he wanted, it didn't matter if he died on his arse, there was no club promoter in the background he needed to impress to try and get a booking. Pete was behind him all the way, he would be back again next week no matter what. This point is hugely important and cannot be emphasised enough - a promoter who didn't care if his resident compere was funny or not was, and is, unheard of - Pete gave him the time and space he needed to develop regardless of immediate success or failure. (He would later do the same for Dominic Holland.) Pete gave Eddie the most valuable thing he needed at that time, something no-one else was giving him - a stage.

It was during this period that Eddie had his first experience of television. He did a show fronted by Arthur Smith called 'First Exposure', recorded in a theatre in Stratford, East London. Eddie died a death, but by the magic of TV the laughs had been miraculously restored by the time of transmission. He was particularly pissed off that night because his brother Mark had come along to watch. However, his second brush with television was to be a different story.

Throughout 1989 and 1990 Eddie carried on doing the clubs, slowly finding his feet and finding the confidence to run with ideas as they came to him. Any comedian will tell you that experience compering a club is invaluable, because it teaches you to think on your feet, and it gets you used to talking to an audience. Jo Brand's very stiff and stylised delivery in her early days was all but completely wiped away by a period of compering. By the end of 1990 Eddie had started to get a name for himself, and was more often than not no longer compering the Screaming Blue Murder Friday night shows, because he was getting regular bookings at other clubs, both in London and around the country. On the back of this he had started touring his one man show to small provincial theatres and art centres by early 1991. Eddie asked Pete to be his agent in late 1989, and then agreed that he should be his manager in 1990, although perhaps 'manager' is somewhat misleading. Rather than tell Eddie what to do, when something came up they discussed it and decided jointly. So when Eddie first thought about trying to do his act as a transvestite, he spoke to Pete about it. Pete encouraged him to do whatever he felt happiest with, and so Eddie tried it, for the first time, in Leicester. The minute he walked off stage after the gig, Eddie phoned Pete, elated, to say that, although a handful of people had walked out, the vast majority of people just accepted him as he was. (When I used to drive Eddie to some of the out-of-town gigs after the show he would always ask, "How many walked out?" - invariably some always would, not because of his clothes, this was before he started performing as a transvestite, but simply because they didn't 'get it'. He was always pleased if people had left because, as he put it, "it means I'm not bland".)

I think that at the beginning of their partnership both thought that they would be equal partners across the board, but it soon became clear to Pete that Eddie's business acumen was somewhat lacking, and so as Eddie got a better hold on his act, Pete took more control of the business. Because of this Screaming Blue Murder were thought of as being Pete's clubs and not Eddie's, and it was maybe because of this that Eddie decided to try opening his own club, 'Raging Bull'. Although Pete offered advice Eddie didn't want him to be involved. He wanted his club to be just that, 'his'. The result was disastrous. Eddie opened at the Boulevard Theatre in Soho, knowing full well that even if he sold every single seat in the place he would still barely break even, and the place was rarely even half full. The move to the Shaw Theatre was even worse, a comedy show at midnight in a 400 seater theatre with no atmosphere on the Euston Road - as Pete now says "arrogance overcame reason". This story is, I believe, more important than it might at first seem. As time went on it appeared that Eddie's idea of good business was simply to throw money at something until it worked. Or even if it didn't. At the time Eddie was seeing a woman we shall call Jane (not her real name). Jane was a would-be singer who fronted a band which shall also remain nameless. Although not a bad singer, she had no charisma, no star quality, and no real talent as a songwriter. Rather than go their own way the band listened to what other Indie bands were doing in an attempt to ride that wave with them, but of course as soon as they latched on to a new style or idea, the wave had already gone. Jane wasn't shy about asking Eddie for help buying equipment, and he bought the band anything and everything they needed, believing that if he threw enough money their way eventually they, and more importantly Jane, would make it.

In early 1991 Stephen Fry and Channel 4 were putting together the Aids benefit 'Hysteria 3' for the London Palladium. Comedian Mark Thomas's future wife, Jenny, was a researcher and a big fan of Eddie, and she recommended him to her producer. Her producer loved him, and he was invited to be a part of the show. This event was televised, and it was this, more than anything else, that was Eddie's really big break. Sharing the bill with Stephen Fry were Ben Elton, Julian Clary, Jools Holland, Tony Slattery - Eddie did ten minutes and stole the show. Although he had a small cult following on the comedy circuit he was unknown to the majority of other acts, TV executives, and most of the audience. They all loved him. When the programme was aired on Channel 4 later in the year Eddie was seen by an enormous audience all over the country, and this time there was no need to dub on the laughter. Afterwards, riding on the back of this success, Pete booked Eddie out across the country. At the Edinburgh Festival he was nominated for the Perrier Award, and at the end of the year he won a Time Out award. His journey on the road to fame had started in earnest.

In 1992 Pete and Eddie formed a company together, called H+I Management (Harris and Izzard). Originally the 'offices' of H+I were at the house Pete and I shared in Surbiton, but in early summer they moved to premises in Covent Garden. H+I was formed because both Eddie and Pete wanted to be involved with a management company of real quality. To be with H+I was to be a sign of being someone special. H+I represented Eddie himself, John Hegley, Dominic Holland, Steve Furst (aka Lenny Beige) and, for a short time, the Reduced Shakespeare Company. In Edinburgh at the Festival in 1993 John Hegley sold out and Dominic Holland won the Perrier Award for 'Best Newcomer', with Steve Furst and his show 'The Gary Glitter Story' breaking even, no mean feat for a play at the Festival. H+I was doing well.

As Eddie had made a conscious decision not to perform stand-up on TV, they decided to make a video. Neither Pete nor Eddie had any experience in negotiating with prospective companies vying for the video rights, but as Eddie said at the time, "weâll learn together as we go" - which led to them both saying "no" to every offer laid before them, and laughing incredulously as each offer was subsequently increased, until finally they came to an agreement with Polygram. This 'learn together as we go' idea is again an important point. This was very much a partnership, both supporting the other as new challenges arose, Eddie as a stand-up, and Pete as a businessman. Pete had booked the Ambassadors Theatre for the month of February 1993, and this was the show they would film. Little did they know, when the doors opened on Monday 1st February, that the show would be such a huge success that the run would need to be extended twice, finally closing at the end of April. Pete produced the Ambassadors run single-handed, a show that was nominated for a prestigious Olivier Award for 'Outstanding Achievement'. (As for the video, it did very well too - Pete can be seen at the very beginning, knocking on Eddie's dressing room door, giving him '5 minutes'). At the end of the year I went to the LWT British Comedy Awards with Eddie, to watch him pick up his award for 'Best Stand-Up Comedian', (we had been told in advance he was the winner). All in all 1993 had been another triumphant year.

At H+I Pete was looking after the business, and he was refusing to let Eddie throw any more company money at Jane and the band, telling him that he could do what he wanted with his own money, but he couldn't fritter away company profits. Suddenly Jane's money-well looked like it might be drying up. Also Pete decided that hiring a car for Eddie to drive every time he had an out-of-town gig was a needless extravagance, instead, why not buy Eddie his own car with company money? Eddie agreed, and everything was fine until one day Eddie walked into the office saying he needed to hire a car for that evening's gig. When Pete asked him why he wasn't using his own car he replied "Jane needs it". In the end Eddie used his own car - whether he hired another one for Jane or not I don't know.

After the success at the Ambassadors they decided to do another West End run. The Albery Theatre was just next door to the office, and free in February 1994. Everything was going fine, the theatre was booked, until one day Eddie took exception to the fact that Pete would be earning twice from the show; first his percentage as Eddie's agent and second his percentage as the producer. Eddie didnât like this, because he felt Pete was "earning too much". Pete pointed out that he was earning twice because he was doing two jobs - somebody else could be brought in to produce the show, but why? - anybody else would need to be paid the same, and having the same person as agent and producer ensured that no deals could be done behind Eddie's back (ie falsifying receipts so that the 'star' gets less in his percentage). Eddie's concerns certainly don't appear rational, but maybe by now Jane was seeing Pete as a real threat to her ongoing ambition to be famous, and also to the money she thought could help her to acheive that Perhaps she was poisoning Eddie against Pete. Maybe we'll never know. On Saturday morning 29th January 1994, two days before the opening at the Albery Theatre, Pete had a meeting with Eddie at the office in Covent Garden. According to Pete, Eddie seemed to be on a high, very chatty and happy. They discussed this and that, watched a pilot of an idea Eddie was working on, then walked round the corner to look over the frontage of the Albery, and generally had a laugh. Then, with the meeting over, as they left, Eddie said "oh, and by the way, I donât want to work with you anymore". Pete was completely devastated. They had never had a contract between them, nothing Pete could fall back on, the whole thing had been done on trust. Eddie was to earn a fortune from the Albery show, and yet when he left the H+I offices he took everything with him, including both computers, though he knew he was leaving Pete in the shit. However, two days after Eddie dumped him, Pete still stood in the foyer of the Albery Theatre as the show's Producer, welcoming people to the first night, many of whom he had invited personally. The show was sold out, but there was a row of seats, right at the front, that was empty. The row where Pete's friends and family would have been.

When Eddie did this I had known him for over 18 years. I still don't know why he did it. Of course show business is littered with people becoming stars and then moving on from their original managers or agents. It can be difficult for the people involved but ,nonetheless, understandable. What I can't understand is why Eddie seemed to take so much pleasure in it. He could have said "sorry, but I need to move on, in a month or two months or six months". He could have thanked him for his help. He could have softened the blow. But instead he seemed to revel in it. Pete had just signed a six month deal on a flat in Soho, so that he could work late if he needed to instead of having to make the last train back to Surbiton. Now he was stuck up there in a flat he didn't want and couldn't afford, and unable to get out. Also at this time he was already looking to put on another West End show that he had taken to the Edinburgh Festival in 1993, "The Gary Glitter Story' - the theatre involved were hassling him to sign for the hire, but he didn't have the signature for the money from the sponsors, though the sponsors had assured him that they were definitely on board. So, afraid of losing the theatre, he signed for the hire, and then the sponsors pulled out. Pete had to plough all his own savings into the show, and the show flopped. Within a few months of Eddie firing him Pete had lost everything. He could have filed for bankruptcy, but he didn't. It took time but he paid off every last penny, helped by various comedians such as Jo Brand, Lee Evans, Lee Hurst, Harry Hill, Alan Davies and Kevin Day, who, amongst others, performed a show at the Wimbledon Theatre to help raise the money. You have to decide for yourself who was to blame for his downfall. Personally I blame Eddie - Pete was distraught about losing the partnership, he lost his confidence and his judgement with it.

I have never spoken to Eddie since, although Pete ran into him in the street in Edinburgh at the Festival in 2001, and they went and had lunch together. When I heard I asked Pete what he'd said. "About what?". "About the way he treated you". "I didnât even ask him, he did what he did, he has to live with it". Which brings me back to the Telegraph article. "There are two lines that will do me on my spirituality"â Izzard says. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you, and what goes around comes around". Well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? But I'm sure you can understand that knowing what I do this makes for nauseating reading. When I contacted Pete about writing this letter, he told me: "Eddie once said to me, "Truth doesn't matter, it's what people believe to be the truth that matters. Therefore, get what you want people to believe down in print and it will become the truth". He is playing that game. Good luck to him, you can't change the real truth and in the end it doesn't really matter anyway. No one cares." Well maybe no-one does care, but the fact remains that when Pete met Eddie he was a struggling open spot, and when Eddie got rid of him five years later Eddie had the world at his feet. (Pete went on to manage Lee Hurst through his 'They Think It's All Over' days, and the subsequent very successful tours.)

Just after Eddie got rid of Pete he did an interview for Vox magazine - the article started like this, "Eddie Izzard has never had an agent, never had a plugger, he books his own tours and talks his own deals". I was furious. I wrote to them putting them straight and telling them to ask anyone they liked on the comedy circuit for the truth. Of course I never heard anything from them - "Eddie Izzard is great" sells, "Eddie Izzard once had a manager he shat on" doesn't. I have had similar experiences across the years when Iâve objected to some of the bullshit Eddie comes out with, but with the same response, or rather lack of it. Reading the same dismissive bollocks about this period in his life in your article just made me decide to put pen to paper and write out the truth once and for all. I just want a copy of this to be out in the open, for people to know the truth, so that one day if someone decides to write a proper biography of Eddie they will have this to refer to, because the only three people in the world who know the full story from the inside are Pete, Eddie and me, and Eddie seems to have some difficulty remembering it ever happened.

So there you have it, perhaps not the most earth shattering of stories, but one, for reasons that escape me, Eddie tries to airbrush out of his history. It might be that phrase Îone day Iâm going to make it, and when I do I want to be able to say I did it all on my ownâ (he didnât, no-one does), or it might just be that heâs ashamed of how he behaved. Either way, how much difference did Pete make to Eddieâs career? Eddie probably would have made it anyway, he always had the talent and the determination, but Pete certainly helped him achieve his goals quicker. But what if Eddie hadnât had the luxury of doing four gigs a week, completely free to die without any pressure? What if heâd just had to take the route of so many other comics, and do open spot after open spot, struggling to get a booking? Would it have broken his resolve? His style took some time to develop, would he have stuck with it? Who can say, but it is worth remembering this; when Eddie started out no-one other than Pete thought he could ever amount to anything. As Tony Allen, Îthe Godfather of Alternative Comedyâ, said at the time, "Eddie Izzard - great bloke, shit comedian"... it just turns out that he got those two the wrong way round.

If this is true, I think it would make a nice addition to the article, albeit cropped a bit, or at least linked to as hosted on another webpage. As for proving the truth of the account, your name would be a first step. --Hench 05:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree (about adding it to the main article). This person writes as though his brother was the first person to get shat on by someone once their career took off. Wikipedia isn't the place for the airing of grievances. If every celebrity's article included a full history of dumped managers/agents/friends, the servers would crash. Elizabeyth 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Put that way, I see your point. Though, I've always had an interest in the people's seemingly random, obscure stories. Hench 04:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So I can't add that Craig David is a shithouse?--Crestville 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll make an exception for Craig. --195.7.32.133 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This story is true. I am over it now but it still galls that Eddie likes to imply he did it all by himself. He certainly didn't. I gave six years of my life to helping him become what he is now. It would be nice to have that acknowledged. People will think what they wish to and no-one wants to think badly about their hero. My brother just wanted to have an article out there to give a true account of Eddie's early years. For me, I was lucky enough to go on and work with Lee Hurst. After five good years working exclusively with a man who was true to his word, I have happily semi-retired abroad. Feel free to e-mail me if you want. KhunPete 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)KhunPete

We would need some evidence of authenticity before we could put it in the article though.--Crestville 15:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as v encyclopaedic, and I think there may be a misunderstanding about wiki biography. This isn't a fan site; an article acknowledges that someone is notable in some way, but it doesn't assert that they're perfect. So I don't know if it's really appropriate to head this section 'the other side'. The only side there is, consists of citable facts. Still to take it at face value maybe the brother of the complainant, if he was a notable comedy writer/manager, deserves his own page? Though probably someone would only be bitching on there about how he didn't achieve it all on his own :/

Funnily enough, I have my own Izzard anecdote. A few years ago, while living in Cambridge (UK) I once got a new flatmate (shouldn't mention his name) who, it turned out, had just been arrested for punching Eddie Izzard in the face after a performance at the Corn Exchange. He'd seen him on the stairs, all in his drag, and it had got him rather confused, so he hit him. Apparently, according to my source, Izzard went down like a big girl in the playground and squealed like a blinded piglet. When the police arrived he insisted that he was Barbara Windsor and had been indecently assaulted by seven dwarfs. Unhappily, at just that moment, a self-inflating life-size Eddie Izzard sex doll tumbled out of his velvet pockets and the amazing resemblance left all in no doubt that the sobbing wreck was none other than well-known comedian Eddie Izzard. According to one of the police officers, as reported in the local rag, "We were gobsmacked. We couldn't decide who to arrest, this Izzard bloke, or the lad who'd thumped him. In the end we decided being a big girl's blouse is not strictly speaking an offence, so we charged the lad with assault & battery and left it at that." Hakluyt bean 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, huh. Well. With all the crazy elements of that story, I'm most mystified by your flatmate's response to confusion. Once someone told me a confusing joke and I certainly didn't punch her in the mouth. I have trouble with math and I've never beaten the shit out of my Algebra professor. 69.138.104.214 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Humour"

I've added back the British spelling "humour," because Izzard is British. (I know there's no hard-and-fast rule at Wiki about Americanized vs. British spellings, the only rule is consistency, but as long as I was doing a copy edit, it seemed it might as well be British.) I've probably missed some "-ise" vs. "-ize" verbs though. Jessicapierce 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcelessness and BLP

WP:BLP frowns on unsourced material on articles about living persons. This article is filled with unsourced claims about Izzard, as well as many quotes that Izzard is alleged to have said, without source citations. These need to be fixed near-immediately for this material to remain in the article. wikipediatrix 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not LGBT

Being a transvestite does not make him transgendered. Being transgendered means there is a difference between his biological and mental genders, hence why we also have the word transvestite, which is what he is. Reading the article alone cites enough to show he doesn't really have gender/identity issues, he just likes the clothes. The tag should be removed, but I'm writing this here for consensus (the tag is commented saying without a discussion it will be reverted "as vandalism", which is a little abusive...)

Liastnir (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as he even said, he gets lumped in with all those weirdo transvestites. Hah! But transvestites are always grouped in with LGBT, because they are a transgender identity. Hope that clears it up. Baegis (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They (transvestites) are a part of the transgender community. Exactly. Which is what I stated in one of my edit summaries of this article in reverting the removal of the transgendered tag. He may not feel that torn between genders, but a lot transvestites do, and some end up in the same ball park as transgendered people who solely identify as opposite of the sex they were born as. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Being a crossdresser (transvestite) does, by definition, make him transgendered. The fact that some people disagree with or don't understand the definition of transgender doesn't change its meaning. The hidden comment is there precisely because people who don't understand this frequently make an incorrect change based upon incorrect assumptions or beliefs. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he uses crossdressing in his acts and when he does it outside, it is "NOT A SEXUAL THING." If it was, THEN he'd be in the category. That doesn't mean he is LGBT. And being a crossdresser does not make one trangender. Read again. Also, look up his Army act on youtube. He doesn't believe himself to belong with the LGBT community. IronCrow (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, crossdressing does qualify one as transgender. Just because it is not sexual (your claim) does not mean that it is excluded. He has stated openly about his affinity for crossdressing, even in his own stand up acts. Read over the above links. Baegis (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Being transgendered has no direct connection to sexuality. For some there is a coincidental correlation, but certainly not all. Again, this is common a misconception. I don't know where you get the idea that being a crossdresser does not make a person transgender. Since you say "read again", could you provide a cite? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, Alice. I too am confused on what to reread. However, I will take this time to watch one of his shows. Maybe that will help to understand what IronCrow meant. It's like homework, but fun! Baegis (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This was on the page that was archived, and probably should have been copied over to this new discussion page, so I am going to do so now.

Eddie on being a transvestite

I'm adding these quotes because people are continually removing the classification of him in LGBT. If this Talk page is archived, I think this part should remain here to avoid it needing to be posted repeatedly.

If it's important to you that you feel 'self-definition' is key in being defined as LGBT, or if you think transvestitism (uhm, ok, but you know what I mean) is not part of being transgendered, please note these are all his own quotes:

Article at Transgender Zone "It is going to stick around until more generations of transgender people come out," he says. Being gay may have cachet in certain circles — theatre — but society still gets its knickers in a twist about cross-dressers. "There is a perception that certain uplifting things go with being gay, but transgender is still (in) a difficult phase. Yet it is way better being where I am now and not having to lie."

and:

Eddie Izzard: Executive Transvestite (by Ivy D. Vine | Girltalk Magazine Vol. 2 #3 | December 25, 2000)

GT: You present a positive TV image. Do you have any words for people wanting to come out?

EI: You need to do it as young as possible so you can get (on with) your life...it's sort of a life rearrangement thing. The more people that are "out", the world will realize there is a large transgender population. I do empathize, but the only way we can move forward is with more people coming out.

GT: Do you consider yourself a role model at all?

EI: If anyone can use anything that I've done, that's cool. The transgender movement is still in the 1950's like gay and lesbians use to be. Anti-gay jokes are gone from television, but the guy in a dress jokes are still there. They need to get sharp, snappy dressed transgendered people on there. That's why I came out with all the buzz words like "Action Transvestite" or "Executive Transvestite".

Also, a link here to an article from last fall: Eddie Izzard Does His Therapist, first line: British Comedian/Actor Eddie Izzard has started seeing a transgender expert to discuss issues resulting from his cross-dressing. --Thespian (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Idea !!!????.....Why doesn't someone ask Mr. Izzard what he would prefer to be "classified" or "labeled" as? ie; transvestite, transexual, cross-dresser? He is quite alive and of sound mind to decide what suits him best.Just a thought.Dragonfly3691 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should call him an executive or action transvestite.--Father Goose (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Section looks fine the way it is...with Mr.Izzard own words. Dragonfly3691 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-read Izzard's words carefully again in the quotes above. At no point in the quotes does he refer to himself as being gay or a transgender person. He is asked what his advice would be to people in those categories with regard to coming out. Izzard himself has "come out" and presents himself as an "executive transvestite", that is a heterosexual male who likes wearing clothes of the opposite sex, and he is content with his life having taken this public step. Any other interpretation by others that Izzard is gay or a transgender is just incorrect and possibly wishful thinking by those with their own agendas. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have problems seeing "Executive transvestite" and "Action transvestite" as anything but a part of his act (read:jokes). Is this piece of information really relevant? Being a transvestite and cross dressing has been a big part of his performances, but the relevance stops there in my opinion and any further information on transvestism and what it entails should be sought elsewhere. Mr. Izzards sexual preferences certainly have no place in this article. 80.202.84.36 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Surreal?

As the intro now stands, it says he uses a "surreal monologue". This seems to be an overly loose use of the word "surreal". I've heard many of his monologues and while certainly funny, I don't think any of them qualify as surrealist or surreal. There must be a better way to describe this. How about: absurdist, inquisitive, fantastic? Interlingua 05:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The first word that comes to my mind is "whimsical".--Father Goose (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bee Movie?

Was he really in this? I know he is portrayed as the director of the "live action" attempt of this film in the early trailers but I don't recall his voice in the movie, nor do I remember the character of "Bee Army General." Only thing that comes close is the leader of the "pollen jocks" but it's voiced by Rip Torn. Eddie Izzard isn't in the final credits of the movie nor on imdb.com

If this info is wrong it should be deleted; other sites are putting the same info up and crediting wikipedia as its source. -- Jombage (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted scenes, maybe?--Father Goose (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He was in the live action trailers where he played the directore of a commercial about the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibjet (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia references

Ok, I think we all get it that Eddie references WP articles in his stand-up routine. But there comes a point where we cannot possibly include every single thing he references. How about we remove any that do not have a source? Seeing him, in person, reading the article does not cut it. Unless it's in a reliable source, ie a review of the show, we have to remove it. Thoughts? Baegis (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. That list was hilarious. 165.123.243.168 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilarity is not a proper reason for inclusion. Baegis (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't going to be an infinite list, there are only 30ish shows in the tour. The list is of interest to a lot of people, and does show the evolution of his material because some topics have turned up in later shows. Maybe it could go in the article about the Stripped tour? It's certainly notable within the scope of just the tour itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.51.40 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

At least one reporter found the list quite useful. At a minimum, we should move it into Stripped (Eddie Izzard).--Father Goose (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we punt the entire thing? This is one random recent skit. Pointing it out here just makes it look like we're getting excited about the thought of Eddie Izzard reading this. I've tagged it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It belongs in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_culture. Unfortunately I can't figure out how to properly edit that page myself with all the tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.51.40 (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone not amke a talk page box, like the one for when wikipedia is used as a cite in a newspaper? "This article was referenced by Eddie Izzard in one of his shows" etc. We have the one for the comic strips, and this is more serious than that.Yobmod (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

“Self-referential pantomime”

This phrase is ambiguous and at least misleading if not outright incorrect. Putting the qualifier "self-referential" aside for a moment, does Eddie Izzard really ever do pantomime? Certainly never in any of the senses defined in Wikipedia (see Pantomime (disambiguation))—he does not do musical comedy or use just silent gestures. True, the description “conveyance of a story by bodily or facial movements” (Merriam-Webster, sense 3a) does seem to apply, but this is not the most usual meaning of the word “pantomime,” and so it would be better if another word or construction is used. One candidate might be “he uses movements or gestures as if he were interacting with objects or other people on stage, though there are none.” (Or some phrase that is less clumsy.)

But even if one decides that the word “pantomime” is fine, what does it mean for pantomime to be “self-referential?” Someone's dramatic work, for instance, is said to be self-referential if it references the author's own life or previous work, which Eddie Izzard certainly does. But here, the phrase more likely is meant in the sense of “he is playing both sides of any dialogue.” If that is what is meant, then that's what should appear there. Reuqr (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the word "pantomime" is the least clumsy word that can best summarize his actions on stage. He incorporates elements of pantomime into his set but you are correct when you say that it is very different than how pantomime is defined. But the "self-referential" part is a little ambiguous, for sure. He plays all sides whenever there are multiple characters on stage so something along the lines of what you put would probably give a more complete picture. He does reference his life and previous work but no more so than any other comedian. "pantomime where he plays both sides of the dialog" is a little clumsy but a much better description for sure. Any ideas on how to tighten if further? Baegis (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo on the page

Time for a new photo in the beginning section of this page. If anyone has a good one that they have taken Please submit it. Dragonfly3691 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a photo that seems popular that I took on 2nd December at the Lyric Theatre for Eddie's Stripped Tour - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickwebb/3080896746/. I'm not sure how to upload it though. Can someone help? Nick Nickjwebb (talk) 13:38, 07 Dec 2008 (GMT)

Finally got around to adding it! Nick Nickjwebb 11:13, 03 Aug 2009 (BST)

Transgender, transsexual, transvestite

Unless we can find a source that Izzard directly identifies as Transgender or Transsexual (which is different than Transvestite), he really should be removed from the LGBT categories. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? When did "transvestite" cease to be a subset of transgender? Transgender is an overarching term that includes crossdressers (transvestites), drag kings and queens, transsexuals and other gender variant people. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Maybe I'm out of touch, but the difference seems striking to me - one is about appearance only (cross dressing is about the clothes), the other is about gender, both inborn, appearance, and the like. Are all drag-queens considered transgender? That would surprise me.

In any case, unless he identifies specifically as transgender, it's against WP:BLP to include him in LGBT cats or label him in that way. As I said, I may be off base here, but Izzard seems to enjoy wearing women's clothing, perhaps as part of his act, perhaps on a daily basis - I don't know. But it doesn't seem to me as if trans-anything is part of his identity. If I'm wrong, can we clarify the article (with appropriate refs) so that it's clearer? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The cute little comment in the categories stating that removal would be "treated as vandalism" pretty much sealed this for me. BLP demands sources for things like this, and with the lack of evidence that there is a self-identification with the LGBT label and a general failure to establish that transvestism falls in the most common use of that label then policy is clear-cut here. Removed from the LGBT categories. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

Did you even bother to read the articles about cross-dressing, drag queen and transgender, let alone the earlier sections of this talk page? Cross-dressing is absolutely not "about the clothes" (perhaps you're thinking of transvestic fetishism), and yes, drag queens are all within the definition of "transgender". Izzard identifies as a transvestite, and this has all already been discussed at length in the "Not LGBT" section above. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can we get one of those sources into the article proper, then? The word "transgender" appears only once in the article, and isn't attached to a self-identifying statement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I *did* read the articles about cross-dressing and the like. The articles are using a *very* broad definition of "transgender" that I think is inappropriate. In common usage, transgender has the much more narrow definition that basically means "changing from one gender to another". The wider definition, basically "gender queer", is not the most common one, and is not the one in use by our category system. Furthermore, I believe you'll be hard-pressed to find any references where Izzard says he's transgender - he seems (and I'm no expert) to be a straight man that likes to wear women's clothes - that may make him gender queer (a label he might agree with), but it doesn't make him transgender. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Satyr, I can see two quotes up at #Eddie on being a Transvestite where if Izzard is not explicitly identifying as transgender (using the actual word "transgender") then the journalist in question is guilty of outrageous hackitude. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, thumperward? Which of those two actually says he's transgender? The first one says in the second paragraph (and several other times throughout the article) that he's a transvestite. He uses the word "transgender" exactly twice in a 1,500 word fluff interview, whereas transvestite comes up eight times. Furthermore, the interviewer directly describes him as transvestite, but not transgender.

The second article, likewise, doesn't describe him as "transgender" but rather "transvestite". And even further, his own website describes him as transvestite, not transgender. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN, the meaning of transgender as defined in the wikipedia articles is referenced. This narrower alternate meaning that you're referring to seems to be a recurrent misunderstanding as far as I can see. If this narrower definition actually exists, surely it could be referenced and added to the transgender article? I've suggested this to people a number of times in talk pages and to date no such definition has ever shown up. Just because you personally consider the definition to be inappropriate doesn't make it wrong. I am very heavily involved in the transgender community and I believe that wikipedia's definition of transgender is consistent with the definition that is applied within the transgender community. Also, as pointed out above, Eddie Izzard has apparently self-identified as transgender in the media. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Izzard has made it very clear in many televised interviews that he is a red blooded heterosexual male who simply has a fetish for wearing women's clothes and openly labels himself a transvestite. Transgender is someone who is born with physical attributes of both sexes OR is in the process of surgically changing from one sex to the other...trans = "in between" or "travelling to" and gender = "male or female". I am sorry but if the wikipedia entry for transvestite says anything different, it is just plain wrong. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which part is not true? That the reliably sourced definition of transgender defines that it includes crossdressers (transvestites) because they are one of the groups of people who cross ("trans") the gender "boundary"? If there is a reliably sourced alternate viewpoint that says that transvestites are not transgender, provide the appropriate references and put them in the appropriate articles, as I said above. There is no definition of transgender that I am aware of that says that it only covers intersex and transsexual people but excludes persons who live as the opposite gender to their physical sex without being intersex or transsexual. I, too, am a "red blooded heterosexual male". I also happen to live part of my life as a female. Are you trying to tell me that I'm not transgender? Beware of WP:NPA when answering this. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the category you choose to use, feel free, you can call yourself anything you like, totally your choice. But in the wider scheme of things technically no you are not transgender, you are a transvestite (in older parlance) or more modernly a "cross dresser". But anyway....what I was actually referring to when I said "That is not true" was that Izzard himself has not referred to himself as transgender...or at least not while in Britain he hasn't...if there are different connotations in the US he may have used different words (like we have to say trunk instead of boot, or sidewalk instead of pavement...to avoid the blank look and the "Huh?" response). 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I'll be glad to take up referencing "Transgender" and it's meaning on Talk:Transgender. For this article, though, unless Izzard identifies as transgender, and a good source can be found that backs that up, we should not be labeling him as such. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon re-reading that, 21stCenturyGrenstuff, your comments can be taken as a personal attack. I recommend retracting them - we need to keep this discussion about the article, not the editors involved. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, no personal attack was intended or implied. I am probably the most relaxed and open minded guy you will ever come across. I spent nearly ten years in the London entertainment industry of the 1970s. Many industry colleagues and contacts were openly gay and I was completely comfortable with them and considered them close friends, despite being hetero myself. I fail to see how the reply could be construed as any kind of an attack.

References that I can find online and in books make a clear distinction between transgenderism and transvestism. However Alice made the case that he is a heterosexual transvestite but calls himself transgendered. All I said is that he is free to call himself anything he wanted, it is a free world. In what possible way is that an attack? You have me utterly baffled. My main thrust was that as far as I am aware Izzard has never identified as being transgendered and has never made any other claim other than that of being a heterosexual transvestite. I am beginning to wonder if this is just a case of semantic differences between American and British language differences again?

As to an apology, well no really, because I made no attack, or even a hint of one and there is really nothing to apologise for. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre. The common understanding of transgender includes transvestites. Random House defines transgender as "a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser" (emphasis mine). From the American Psychological Association: "Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group." Do you have any reliable sources backing up the claim that transvestites aren't transgender? ... And even that would be irrelevant given the two self-referential quotes where Izzard clearly identifies himself as part of the transgender community (above). Queerudite (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Right - read those refs in the section above and tell me exactly where Izzard identifies as Transgender? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when Izzard said "where he is now and not having to lie about it" he probably just meant, taken in context, Manhattan. Seriously, read the sentence that precedes that statement (and recall that Izzard identifies as straight). Still, you're dodging the fundamental issue: transvestites are transgender. Do you have reliable sources that trump Random House and the APA? Queerudite (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Queerudite, this is a similar case as that of Jodie Foster. If you can find me a source that says "I'm transgender", I will bow out and apologize profusely. And I've already started a discussion at Talk:Transgender regarding how and whether transvestites are transgender or not. You may want to look at the very first question on the APA link you provided. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Queerudite. I apologize - my understanding was that he didn't use the word "transgender" to describe himself, but that seems to not be the case. Thanks for finding the refs. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he doesn't really belong in the list of transgender people... he is simply a male performer who dresses in drag on occasion. 71.255.151.52 (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He is in LGBT categories because of his crossdressing and his self-identification as transgender as well as transvestite. He 'crosses the gender boundary' back and forth, both in his entertainment career and his personal life - that qualifies him as transgender. Therefore, he should be on the list of transgender people. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I initially read the endless pedantic discussions of Izzard's gender / dress / sexuality and thought you were a bunch of ridiculous nerds arguing over how many angels etc. But then I realised it's a deliberate act of satirical humour - you're actually mocking the pompous self-declared experts who post silly threads like this. “Self-referential pantomime” as the saying goes. Well done to all!

Transgender

Izzard recently described himself as transgender while talking about his 27 marathons in 27 days attempt:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/cdb63bc0-203a-418d-b3ad-995ee1572656?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=sportrelief&intc_campaign=sportrelief&intc_linkname=vidclip_izzard_contentcard7

Can this be added to the article? The date of the other ref for this in the personal life section is 2001, so this is a much more up-to-date reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.116.143 (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the rhetorical question he posed in fact was "Can transgender idiots from Britain do things like this?" So good luck with that one. But, let's face it, he's about as feminine as Corporal Klinger. Such a self-description already appears in the article, however, from a 2001 interview with The Guardian? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In this more recent video, he clearly refers to himself as transgender. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARKUJIoeZpw This is an unabigous self-identification that is more up to date than any other referenced. Therefore he should be added to LGBT and transgender categories. --81.100.25.160 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the title is a bit of a giveaway. So I have added it as a source. If you are adding those Categories, does that exclude Category:Genderqueer people? I'm sorry that I don't understand the nuances of the differences between them. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

He just did it five minutes ago in a broadcast on the BBC Breakfast news in a live link to South Africa.2.101.148.201 (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Well, if he describes himself this way, it certainly deserves to be in the article. I see that the Transgender article says, in its opening section: "Other definitions include third-gender people as transgender or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender, and infrequently the term is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Crossdressers are not transgender by default (except in a broad sense equivalent to "gender-nonconforming"). Many people crossdress for motivations other than to express a variant gender identity, and identify as cisgender, i. e., as exclusively and fully the binary gender (either female or male) corresponding to their birth assignment. However, Izzard clearly states that his gender identity is not exclusively male but also partly female. Such a gender experience falls under the non-binary or genderqueer umbrella, which is definitely a form of transgender, just not a familiar binary identity. (It's not uncommon for crossdressers to identify as non-binary or genderqueer these days. A minority of crossdressers eventually comes out as trans women or trans men, but there are others who think of themselves as trans women or trans men but decide not to transition completely, or "go full-time", for personal reasons.) While Izzard is not a trans woman, he is definitely transgender. But he is not transgender because he is a crossdresser; he is transgender because he identifies as such. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No objection. So that opening section of Transgender seems to be misleading. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think so. It says: "Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity." (footnote dropped, emphasis mine) That agrees with my explanation: If a crossdresser was assigned male (or female) at birth and identifies as purely male (or respectively female), this person is not generally considered transgender. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Drop as many footnotes as you like. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the "LGBT" Categories are either very accurate or very useful here. He has also described himself as "straight". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

One can be queer in gender without being queer in sexuality. You can be transgender or gender-non-conforming and identify as straight and still be considered part of the LGBT community.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing the "conflate" comment because in effect it's saying non-binary people are not transgender, which is an error. 2601:8C3:4001:ED00:DB0:B0EF:C187:2B79 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I had thought it was merely reporting his own use of terminology. But it was in need of a source anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Edinburgh Fringe Festival

The description of Izzard's early career is missing a key part of the narrative -- his involvement in the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. (There are passing mentions that he met his one publicly identified romantic partner and first began performing in drag there.) Especially for someone who began as a street performer rather than doing open spots in comedy clubs, this seems like it is a major gap in the narrative.Msalt (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Too much driveby disruption by IPs and new accounts. I think established editors need to be handling this. I'm going to do it myself, even though I've made some minor edits here. If you think I'm too involved to push the button, feel free to ask for a review at WP:RFPP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it was vandalised by user FinneganswakeXYZ, but all the other edits seem in good faith that I can see? Awoma (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There was also IP disruption. I'm also noting that you have multiple times now reverted others without adding any additional rationale. The policy is clear here and you are verging on edit-warring, Awoma. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting is a normal part of wikipedia. It shouldn't be taken personally. If you make a change and it is reverted, but you still want the change, you should build a consensus for it in the talk page, per WP:BRD. The answer is not to lock the change in to bypass that process, obviously. Awoma (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Comedian/comedienne and actor/actress

The page just experienced an edit war on which of these terms to use. Currently at comedian and actor. What are the arguments for/against? Awoma (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it should remain comedian and actor. Both these words can be gender-neutral and so suit this BLP. The Oxford English Dictionary also notes that usage of actor for both men and women is becoming more common 1. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 08:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If we treat Izzard like anyone else it would be "comedian" and "actress" I think Troll Control (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-identification without a reassignment certificate is not lawfully recognised in England, so it's not correct or proper to refer to Izzard as 'she'. In addition, he does not mind whether people call him 'she' or 'he', though he prefers 'Eddie', which leaves the whole thing open. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/eddie-izzard-call-brain-coded-ways/ In the same interview Eddie also supports J K Rowling's views and denies that she is 'transphobic' as TRAs claim. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/eddie-izzard-jk-rowling-trans-gender-b632044.html Edit: I've just seen that other editors have mentioned this above. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID does not give any weight to a person's legally recognized name or gender identity. See the essays at Wikipedia:Gender identity#Legal name and Wikipedia:Official_names for further clarification. The subject's most recently stated preference is still the de facto source the article uses, even if they accept other pronouns as well. RoxySaunders (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Both "actor" and "comedian" are gender-neutral terms. "Comedienne" is rather outdated and rarely used for contemporary entertainers. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also support "actor" and "comedian" as gender-neutral terms, and in keeping with the principles in MOS:GNL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the recent shift to using "actor" and "comedian" as gender-neutral terms, I don't see any reason not to use them here. I appreciate that this shift is relatively recent, and that some readers may find it a little jarring, but these are terms we already use in other articles for people of various genders. It is used in this way by many other publications and the OED supports it. If she were to express a preference for the more traditionally feminine equivalent terms then we should change the article to use those, but not otherwise. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Gender

Maybe this is in the process of being edited but I noticed the gender of this person is inconsistent in the lede and in the personal life sections. If consensus is to use their preferred pronouns I assume should be consistent throughout the article. -KaJunl (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is being in the process of being edited, but no sources have been cited for this change to female pronouns. Hence, the changes have been reverted. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I can find WCT interview Izzard has said that either he or she pronouns are fine. As long as the article is consistent, I think either works. However, I support your request for semi-protection to avoid continuous edits. AOE2fan (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@AOE2fan: The page has been edited multiple times today to change the pronouns to 'she' and 'her'. However, I still cannot find any reliable sources that document this change to exclusively female pronouns. I can find people on Twitter commenting on it, but that is hardly a reliable source. This is rather confusing, as I'm inclined to revert changes for lack of sources cited. Even more strange is that the vast majority of edits have been made by IP editors and very new registered editors (four of them have only made edits to this page today and nothing else ever). Usually when there are these kind of changes (such as for Elliot Page), some more established users take part. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Hi, I'm a more established editor -- though I'm not editing the page because I came here looking for a source for all the buzz I'm seeing about Izzard's pronouns on Twitter, as you mention. A few replies to this Tweet reference Izzard's appearance on Portrait Artist. Those seem to be referring to this episode of Portrait Artist, which I myself have not watched and do not have access to watch. Hopefully someone else here can look into that in more detail? --zandperl (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zandperl and welcome! I have seen those comments and cannot access the show either. The problem with the lack of (proper) secondary sources is that we can't know whether Izzard had intended to be referred to as she/her in just that context (as Izzard has done before) or it was a precedent-setting change. If it was the latter, I expect there will be a news article of some sort covering it, but I haven't seen anything so far. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are no reliable sources and I can not access that episode either. Strictly speaking it should still be he/him pronouns but I am not going to revert the changes currently on the page because this somewhat of a grey area. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also can't access the episode but saw this Daily Mirror article about it. Izzard has been going by he or she in the past depending on Izzard's presentation as discussed in this BBC article. I'm unclear from the Mirror article whether this has changed to only she but using she in the article should be fine for now as that has been established as a pronoun Izzard uses. Rab V (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The ultimate source here is indeed Portrait Artist of the Year series 7 episode 10, in which an exchange between Izzard and one of the contestants, Curtis Holder, goes like this:

Holder: Eddie, you’ve told us a little bit about why you’ve done this. Can you elaborate?

Izzard: Well, I tried to do things that I think are interesting, and this is the first programme I’ve asked if I can be "she" and "her". This is a little transition period.

Holder: Really? How does that feel?

Izzard: Well, it feels great because people assume that they just know me from before, but I’m gender fluid. I just wanna be based in girl mode from now on.

Holder: Well, if it feels right...

Izzard: It feels very positive.

Holder: And also, life is for stuff, so just keep trying everything.

Izzard: One life, live it well.

Holder: Exactly

It seems a bit like some may have jumped the gun based on the interpretation twitter is giving this. Izzard's gender is clearly very nuanced, and I can see reasons why this interpretation may be valid or invalid. The implication of "I just wanna be based in girl mode from now on" seems to be that we should be using "she/her" pronouns, in line with what Izzard specifically requested for this program. However, the affirmation that she does still consider herself gender fluid and calls the present a "transition period" does bring in some doubt. It's also clear that the request for "she/her" pronouns was specifically for the purposes of the programme - the peculiar wording seeming to imply that there may be future programmes where she uses a variety of different pronouns, but this is the first where she uses she/her? On balance, it seems most likely to me that Izzard does wish for us to use she/her pronouns, but it is possibly not clear cut enough to warrant the wikipedia article changing just yet. Certainly, it is inaccurate to describe this exchange as Izzard somehow declaring to the world that she is a woman who wants everyone to use she/her - Izzard's gender, and her relationship with and reporting of it, continues to be a bit more complicated than that. Awoma (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've not a clue how to format that script correctly in wikipedia. If someone reading this does know and can help then please do :) Awoma (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Izzard is famous enough that some media will probably cover this in a way that could provide clarity, ideally even getting some clearer comment from Izzard. Also, Izzard has and actively updates a website and verified Twitter on which a usable WP:ABOUTSELF statement could be posted. The most recent post on the website, made ten days ago, says "Eddie has set himself...". As Rab says, it's not wrong to change to "she", but if we wait, the situation will hopefully become clearer. -sche (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What I get out of Eddie's statement is something like "I'm still genderfluid, with both a boy mode and a girl mode that I fluctuate between. However, previously, boy mode was the 'default' and now I want girl mode to be the 'default' instead." That's what I'm getting from the usage of "based in" from the statement. So instead of being "A boy, who can also be a girl" like previously, the situation is now "A girl, who can also be a boy." Admiral Memo (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

These couple of news articles have come out in the last few hours. The Evening Standard refers to her with these pronouns and PinkNews also used She/Her pronouns and referenced her asking for the pronouns to be changed. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I added her most recently-declared preference[2] to the article, I probably should have looked here first; no offense taken if anyone reverts it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Their own website uses he/his throughout. Surely that is the most consistent with how they want to be referred in a general article? ETA - the articles are in reference to a particular request at a certain time, they do not state that they are the pronouns they wish to be know by in general. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

An NBC source and a Yahoo News source have come out on this issue. The first says "she explained that from now on she'd be using she/her pronouns" I think based on her quote about wanting to be in girl-mode from here on out, though the second source isn't clear on if the pronoun choice is from here on out. Rab V (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent summary Rab V EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Latest article on Eddie's own website from 11th December uses male pronouns. The show was filmed in July. There is also the report from September about being in girl or boy-mode. I think it is jumping the gun somewhat, and I'm not sure why the pronouns being used on their own website are not being used. 92.40.189.186 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The subject's most recent self-designation as She/Her takes precedence, "even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources". In this case, a publicity article (from a description of a show) on Izzard's website is not a self-designation, because there's nothing in it which suggests that Izzard herself wrote it. Unless Izzard expresses a new preference, the article should continue using she/her pronouns. RoxySaunders (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There is now a much larger number of news articles covering this story. However, all are still relying solely on the Portrait Artist of the Year episode, or each other. Awoma (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The multitude of reliable sources reproduce Izzard herself saying "I just want to be based in girl mode from now on," (quote from USA Today), which seems to clearly indicate that she prefers she/her pronouns in normal life. RoxySaunders (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read my first comment above, as well as the fact that Izzard has used he/him pronouns on many occasions since giving the "girl mode" lilne. The Portrait Artist of the Year episode is insufficient for wikipedia to conclude a preference for she/her pronouns. Awoma (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The show was filmed in July, and in September Izzard was talking to the press about sometimes being in boy-mode or girl-mode. So their last most recent self-id seems to be either. I'm not quite sure why their own website is dismissed as being indicative of a preference either. I'm sure they have publicity people, but I'm also pretty sure that if Eddie had a preference for female pronouns in general, then the publicity people would have been told about it. 88.215.2.240 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

From British Comedy Guide:

Eddie Izzard is now exclusively using 'she' and 'her' pronouns.

The comedian revealed the change in the recently broadcast final of Portrait Artist Of The Year, the Sky Arts TV programme in which contestants draw and paint well-known people.

Throughout the programme, presenter Stephen Mangan and the contestants and judges referred to Izzard using the 'she' and 'her' pronouns.

Asked why she wanted to appear on the programme, Izzard answered: "I try to do things that I think are interesting. This is the first programme I've asked if I can be 'she' and 'her' - this is a little transition period."

Asked how that feels, she responded: "Well, it feels great because people assume that ... they just know me from before, but I'm gender fluid. I just want to be based in girl mode from now on."

Right from the horse's mouth. How could she be any clearer? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read my first comment above which gives the source of these quotes. Asking to be she/her in a program months ago does not mean asking to be she/her in all situations from then on. Awoma (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Awoma: Can you share examples of these occasions? Tacitly allowing interviewers and PR managers to use particular pronouns is not the same as a self-designation. It may suggest that Izzard accepts either pronoun (something the article already states), but not that she has no preference, nor that her stated preference has recently changed. I think it's clear that we should give precedence to sources where Izzard asks to be referred to by particular pronouns. If Izzard says something else, we'll change it again. RoxySaunders (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with that reasoning. Awoma (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

In case it's not clear to some editors, we go by most recent statements of gender identity and pronouns. In this case, the pronouns would be she/her as described by the sources listed above. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the version including she/her pronouns. This is the consensus on the talk page. It also is acceptable even if Eddie sees herself as gender fluid or between both genders. I have reverted back to the version without Eddie's birth name as she was not well-known by this name and therefore MOS:DEADNAME applies. Please discuss on here before changing. Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 02:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a mistake. Both the version you changed from and the version you changed to used the same she/her pronouns. But the version you changed to includes statements about Izzard asking people to use she/her exclusively, which is untrue. Awoma (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't pick out a few grammatical changes amongst the mass of pronoun changes you made. Why can't you? What is stopping you? WP:RV. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I am haply using she/her pronouns as clearly Izzard is more than comfortable with this, however the page is currently undergoing reverts to include lines that say "Izzard has asked to use she/her exclusively" and "Izzard uses she/her pronouns." These lines are definitely not supported by the Portrait Artist of the Year episode she appeared in, and you have to fish around to find articles which cover the episode's relevant dialogue more inaccurately in order to justify statements like these. Feels very wrong. Awoma (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this it was a blunt tool but the change to the pronouns was throughout the article. The future edit removing the paragraph is easier to do now. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 06:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a bigger question here. Wikipedia pages should be factual. Regardless of Mr Izzards wishes to change his identity, he is de facto male, so reference to ‘she/her’ should be immediately corrected to ‘He/him’. A Wiki page should not be a self promotion of ideas for a living persons views but rather a place to report facts about their life and beliefs. The editorial guidelines are quite clear on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurs1989 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, this is not the view held by Wikipedia policy and consensus. See this great explanation here: § Self-identification. Cheers, AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 07:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not proposing any change here, just noting something I came across while investigating and SPI case relating to the recent activity at this article. Eddie's own website is still using male pronouns: here, ""Hailed as the foremost stand up of his generation..." for example, but it's consistent throughout the site as far as I can see. This may just be a historical thing - the latest news post from December 11 (here) uses a male pronoun ("Eddie will travel the world without ever leaving his hometown..."), but perhaps that predates his statement about wanting to use female ones from now on? We seem to be ahead of Eddie in updating our content. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what the function of a comment like this is. Awoma (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, please explain. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Her statement. Ensuring that a website is up to date may not be a particular priority for Izzard. And it's largely covering past history, when Izzard usually preferred male pronouns. I don't think we can infer anything from the failure to update - or decision not to update - a website, and nor should we. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, you're right - that was a slip. I'm afraid I've been a fan of Eddie (both her comedy and her campaigning) for many years - it's going to take a while for me to get used to those pronouns. I agree with you that the website isn't definitive in any way, but it's obviously relevant so I dropped it here to inform current/future discussion. I'm fine with the article to stay as it is currently, I'm not proposing a change back. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I do think the website was relevant to take note of. As Rab pointed out earlier, we can be reasonably sure that using she has been OK regardless of whether or not something else might also be OK, so I see no problem with using it, but I do think — given the timing, pointed out above, of when the Portrait Artist Of The Year interview which all the reports of a change base themselves on was recorded, vs when (more recent) ABOUTSELF posts were still using he — that it's less-clear-cut than some media have made it out to be that Izzard exclusively uses she, unless one of those recent media sources reached out to Izzard to double-check. Hopefully the fact that Izzard's website is updated regularly means things will become clearer soon; I see that Izzard updated twitter as recently as the 23, so one might suppose that if there were anything mistaken in the recent news reports she would've also posted about that. -sche (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

As some readers (not just on WP) have been confused by how Izzard's pronouns and self-ID have transformed over time, I think it might be helpful to include some dates when quoting the various statements Izzard has made about these matters. This might also prevent well-meaning editors "updating" sections with out-of-date info. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I read the sources we have, and added a date and a quote that should hopefully clarify Izzard's perspective. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed? I put December, as that's when it aired and when the announcement hit other media. Should we clarify that it was filmed in July? I think I'll change it to say that it aired in Dec. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I notice that the latest news article on Eddie's website has been changed to remove male pronouns, but it hasn't used female ones instead, instead it just uses 'Eddie'. I would have thought that, especially as the article has been changed, it would have been changed to female pronouns if that was indeed Eddie's preference now rather than being gender neutral. I would have thought that following the usage on their own website is the way forward, and yes, that should take into account that historical articles might not necessarily be changed. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note to correct the statement above - the news article has not been changed, it still uses the word 'his'. It is true that the author has mostly used the word Eddie in the article rather than using pronouns, but the sentence I quoted above still says "Eddie will travel the world without ever leaving his hometown" - it has not been changed. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. This was the original version. The current one only uses 'his' once, and all of the 'he's have been removed. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I do think it's possible that Izzard might still be flexible in pronoun usage, given the website, and the lack of stated pronouns on twitter, etc. BUT, we have to go with the most recent stated identification/request. I have reverted the edit that put the pronouns and sourcing in a footnote. Something this contentious needs to be up top, or we're going to have well-meaning editors (as well as vandals) changing the pronouns, thinking others are confused. This is WP policy: MOS:GENDERID "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

While we can surely go with this most recent request to use she/her throughout the article, stating "Izzard uses she/her pronouns" in the lead is misleading and not currently supported (though it may well be in the future). Awoma (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why I moved it to a note which would still be 'without overemphasis'. I also changed it to 'this article uses' these pronouns to avoid confusion with Eddie's choice as we can decipher. I also added hidden text to refer to talk page. Do you think this should be restored as a compromise? AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 10:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Awoma: what statement supersedes the July interview that has been released in December? The inconsistencies on the website, which is probably not micromanaged by Izzard, are not verifiable as statements from the BLP subject themselves. Nothing about that or the lack of pronouns on twitter is stronger than the MOS:GENDERID policy quoted above, which, as Wikipedians, we have to follow. You have no consensus for your revert; I suggest you revert yourself. Having she/her throughout the article without any up-front explanation as to why, will otherwise invite either confusion or changes. There is no legitimate reason to bury this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be to, instead of having it in the first para, to place this at the end of the lede section (with the same sources). This is the way, for example, the recent name and pronoun change is handled on Elliot Page:

Izzard is genderfluid. While she has used both he/him and she/her pronouns in the past, in 2020, she said she now uses she/her.[1][2]

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue with having a line like that is that it's not true. Awoma (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the more recent WP:RS that states Izzard uses pronouns other than she/her? MOS is clear on this, as well as the fact that it should be stated in the lede, as it has changed from last year. If we are to use them in the whole article, the clarification belongs in the lede. You can't have it both ways. If you think Izzard's request to default to "she/her" is "untrue", then why are you supporting "she/her" in the entire article? You are not making sense. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Izzard asked people to use she/her in a TV program, not in general. The last time she discussed pronoun use in generality she stated that either she/her or he/him are fine. I am happy with using she/her, because Izzard clearly is, and it errs on the safe side. However, we can't put "she announced she was using she/her from now on" or similar in the article because this isn't true. I disagree that I'm not making sense. I think even those who disagree with me will be able to follow my thinking here. That's just a gaslighting tactic which is unpleasant and unwelcome. Awoma (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

On 02 January 2021, Izzard is quoted as saying "If they call me 'she' and 'her,' that's great - or 'he' and 'him,' I don't mind." ‘I don’t think JK Rowling is transphobic’ says gender-fluid comic Eddie Izzard Perhaps this is all just a big manufactured fuss over nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7A81:5200:5D85:47D9:5F3B:60 (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote from recent article, in which Eddie specifically refers to which pronouns to use: If they call me 'she' and 'her', that's great - or 'he' and 'him', I don't mind. I prefer to be called Eddie, that covers everything. I'm gender fluid. Surely this is as definitive as we can get? We should be using gender neutral pronouns, preferably 'Eddie'. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the best we can hope for yes. Our current treatment of Izzard's gender I think is in line with this article. Awoma (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This statement today clarifies and overrules the December publication of the July interview. So, while I think many of us - in the media and on WP - assumed Izzard was now defaulting to she/her, this puts it back to where it was before. I'm going to put this article as the most recent statement, per MOS:GENDERID. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed today that Eddie Izzard is being referred to as "she" (because Eddie reading the memoir "Believe Me" was broadcast on Radio 4 Extra this morning, and the TV guide and the BBC website refer to Eddie as "she" in that programme). So I looked up this Wikipedia page to see if I could find out any information on this pronoun change. Have no new information to add, but just wanted to say that reading this discussion on Eddie's talkpage has got me up to speed with the reasons why this change is happening - so thanks everyone for looking into it, this talkpage has been I guess, more informative than the article, since it delves into the reason why the page might want to move towards "she" or at least away from "he". PaulHammond (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Izzard's most recent clarification doesn't actually give a reason for the article to default to any pronouns. We might want to avoid pronouns and, when possible, just use "Izzard". The BLP subject has now voiced a preference for, "Eddie", but WP is written in encyclopedic voice, which defaults to the surname rather than the informal voice of the subject's first name. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the page as per the latest discussions. I may have missed the odd one and I have tried to avoid it sounding too clunky where possible, but would welcome other eyes. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edits to Eddie's pronouns from they/them back to she/her. Consensus on this page currently leans towards keeping she/her pronouns, for the meantime. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that? There has been new information, with recent decent sources that specifically discuss this and are clear, as the above few comments have noted. Everyone who has commented since this new information has agreed on gender neutral pronouns. Rather than just reverting, maybe you could contribute to the discussion to explain if you disagree? CorbieVreccan stated that they were going to change the article, with no comments disagreeing with them on that. I just presume they hadn't got round to it. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't plan on editing it right now, just due to lack of available time. I support going gender-neutral with this one, based on the BLP's subject's most recent statements, and WP policy, MOS:GENDERID. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Actually, it only took a moment. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted originally because the article CorbieVreccan and 86.5.124.147 mention actually states she is happy being referred to as he/him, she/her and they/them. Reliable media sources have used she/her consistently and apart from you two the consensus was to use this as well. Changing the whole article to read differently means more disruptive edits by passing users; you can see now the page is once again a mess.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 03:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, happy with whatever pronouns, but with a preference for gender neutral ones. This has been shown not just by the recent sources which specifically talk about this, but also accord with the usage on Izzard's website. The point is that they want to be referred to as 'she' when they are, as they put it, in girl-mode. So news reports which are talking about her appearance on the Portrait Artist of the Year, are perfectly correct to use she, as that is the mode she was in then. But Izzard also states that his dramatic roles are solely when in boy-mode. So for an encyclopaedic article it is incorrect to be using female pronouns when referring to such roles.

And the page being a mess is nothing to do with my changing the pronouns, given that you reverted them. It will be a mess whatever, as Izzard is currently in the news, and it is a topic that people feel strongly about, and can only really be prevented by protection as necessary. It is also completely irrelevant to correct usage as per the guidance on gender id. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a source supporting that Izzard uses they pronouns? The source cited in the lead only says Izzard is good with he or she. Rab V (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is now pretty disastrous. Read this: "Izzard's mother died of cancer when Izzard was six and Izzard's brother, Mark, was eight. Izzard and their brother built a model railway to occupy their time while their mother was ill." Needless and stylistically painful avoidance of pronouns in one sentence followed by mixing of plural and singular "their" in the next, with a pinch of misgendering to complete the whole package. There's no reason at all to do this. The version using all "she/her" pronouns was fine (maybe if you want to use he/him if context-relevant), and Eddie herself has said consistently and repeatedly that she's happy with that. It also achieved something all wikipedia articles should aspire to in that it was capable of being read. Awoma (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree we shouldn't be using they or avoiding pronouns if Izzard's latest stated pronouns are she or he. Just pick one and go with it seems preferable and in line with MOS:GENDERID. Rab V (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The most recent article states Eddie is happy with she/her, he/him or Eddie. Wikipedia currently does not support using first names (unless it is about someone like Queen Elizabeth II) and so I reverted back to she/her pronouns. I did this manually not by using rollback or edit history reverting. Please only change after discussing and waiting for feedback via this talk page. She/her has caused the least confusion and disruption so far. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 14:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Great. The current version now looks good. Thanks AussieWikiDan and others. Awoma (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that work! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also – thank heavens – Eddie just did an interview with Lorraine Kelly and affirmed her wish to be referred to by she/her pronouns. She did state she won't get offended by being referred to as any but she also stated: "Anytime someone refers to me as she or her I feel a wonderful feeling." PinkNews Hopefully, at least for the time being, this will put a line under this debate. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 03:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they were in 'girl-mode' during that interview, so female pronouns are what they would like then, but in that very interview they talked about how all of their dramatic roles are when in 'boy-mode'. So now this article is using female pronouns to refer to someone when they are not appropriate, as they have themselves said. Is it acceptable to use a mix? And if not, why not? I'm still not sure why the usage on their own website is being ignored. 86.5.124.147 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

Change from "The series of marathons raised in excess of £114k.[49]" to "The series of marathons raised in excess of £300k.[49]" Sheislaurence (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. Changed to 225k per a secondary source; we shouldn't use the crowdfunding site directly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You may want to cite SkyNews, but the article you refer to itself is sourcing its information on Crowdfunder, I quote "A dedicated Crowdfunder site has so far raised more than £275,000". There is no reason whatsoever not to cite Crowdfunder for a MINIMUM total amount (Eddie might have raised more from elsewhere), but she defo raised over £300k, as Crowdfunder takes actual money, not promises of donations. The SkyNews article was published before the total went up, so it is outdated. Crowdfunder will close its campaign tonight, but we do not expect significant changes from the current £305k. Sheislaurence (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

Change description of Eddie Izzard from her and she, to him and he. Since that is what he is. 2600:1017:B100:FB6A:47B:D26A:F0B7:C0BE (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:GENDERID. Volteer1 (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

Eddie Izzard is a man. Change "she" to "he" and "her" to "him" or "his". Peteczar (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:GENDERID. And the request immediately above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021 (2)

Eddie Izzard is male not female - don't understand why there are al these references to "she" on the page 91.125.150.76 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to read MOS:GENDERID. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And also maybe try reading the article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly considering transition?

In this The Guardian article, Izzard talks about possibly transitioning from physically male to female (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/12/eddie-izzard-ive-had-boob-envy-since-my-teens). Should this info be added to the article? ---- 201.240.244.149 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns update

It appears "she/her" are explicitly preferred per this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is now a mess. Izzard has not undergone gender reassignment, and is not recognised as a woman in law. I do understand (and have no problem with the fact) that she now identifies as a woman, and her self-identification is certainly worthy of inclusion in the article, but encyclopaedic articles should be impartial. They are not written from the perspective of the subject themselves and it has been a mistake to take this article down that route. Obscurasky (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policy on this exact opinion of yours: MOS:GENDERID. Wikipedia disagrees and it is mainly self-determined – as it should be, in my personal opinion. You can try to get official policy changed but this may be hard. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you: I came looking to see what the policy here was. Regrettably, trying to participate in the discussion about the policy there is cumbersome and seems a waste of time given how secular the majority of Wikipedia is. Maybe I'll try to participate anyway ... -- Newagelink (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Should "genderfluid", and/or some other description, appear somewhere in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Genderfluid" is currently mentioned in the last sentence of the lead. While I would not object to removing it, I do think it is helpful in the lead given that Izzard's gender identity is a fairly prominent part of her life. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps move it from last sentence of the lead to last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead? Get it right up front where people can see it.... 104.153.40.58 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I don’t agree with the policy, for the reason I mention above, but I do yield to it. Obscurasky (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's because "gender" does not in fact have an objective reality (as is implied by your notion it wouldn't be "impartial" to adhere to she/her pronouns) outside of the social perception of it (which, of course, includes self-identification).77.101.182.135 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The "she" thing again

I don't have an issue with it being used in some parts of the article as Izzard has said this is preferred. My issue is why are pronouns used so much instead of "Izzard". In the majority of bio articles I have read, it seems standard to use the last name when refer to the subject? It just reads a mess. --130.195.253.84 (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

By all means re-introduce some Izzards, if it improves the readability. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koad.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gratitude

Having seen the many (and tiresome) requests to edit the article by replacing all the instances of female pronouns with male pronouns, I record my appreciation for the many (and tireless) rejections of the requests. Thankyou. HerIdentittery (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"She" and "her"

Why is this article referring to Eddie Izzard as if he's a woman? He's obviously male, I mean, just look at him - no woman looks like that. And also, it's widely known that he's a man who dresses up in women's clothes. That's been his entire comedy shtick for years. This entire article should be "he" and "him". 213.205.242.242 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Read the 'Personal life' section and you'll see why that isn't the case. If you don't accept that, well, that's your issue, not Izzard's, and not Wikipedias's. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the top of this page, "This biographical article uses the pronouns any/name." So why is it exclusively "she"? 2604:2D80:DA81:D800:A8AA:F002:A5D8:81A3 (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Historical uses of pronouns should remain he / him...just any future or verbiage relating to current events should use she / her...otherwise this is going to make historical record keeping impossible and simply revisionist. Support whatever, but don't change history... --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates with the widely-discussed and highly authoritative guideline MOS:GENDERID, developed over more than a decade and based on best practices of other publishers, according to which we use the most recently announced gender identity and pronouns in all phases of a subject's biography. As this BLP subject has expressed a preference for female pronouns, those are the ones we use unless the subject expresses a different preference, or the guideline changes. Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Just so I understand this correctly, every time Izzard changes his mind in the future, someone (not me) will have to re-edit every pronoun in the article to reflect his current preferences? At what point does this become a farce? He's a comedian; it wouldn't surprise me if he did it on a whim and on a regular basis just for laughs. Unklscrufy (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

She is a comedian. Yes, she might change her mind, in which case yes, someone will change the article, taking all of two minutes to do so. Eddie doing it for laughs? Unlikely - she's quite empathetic and her actions and words are in my experience not used to punch down. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's confusing because almost everyone uses pronouns that match a person's biological sex, not a hypothesised 'gender identity'. That Wiki supports this decision merely shows Wiki is not politically neutral 2A00:23C5:4205:600:1553:B249:350B:7F7F (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Over-abundance of pronouns

It's great that the article affirms Izzard's gender. But the over abundance of pro-nouns feels awkward and weird. It feels like the article was written to deliberately include as many female pronouns as possible even if it makes it read awkwardly or disjointedly. It should be re-worked to have a more natural tone. 69.162.230.156 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not great that the article 'affirms' Izzard's gender. It's a disaster. It is a clear example of why Wikipedia is not to be trusted. 194.187.235.250 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Trusted to do what? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Remain objective. Clepsydrae (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there was a bit too much repition. If have edited the lead but the main article still needs some work. FMSky (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

All references to "she" and "her" are factually and biologically incorrect. This needs changing back to the original, whereby HE is referred to as a HE/HIM/HIS/MAN, given that that is the biological truth. HE has XY chromosomes, a penis, and testicles, and has circulating testosterone levels consistent with being MALE. Referring to HIM as a woman is incorrect, incoherent, and illogical. Change it. 84.66.30.56 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We respect Izzard's gender identity – MOS:GENDERID ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Izzard doesn't. Izzard has completely avoided using pronouns on any part of Izzard's promotional website. Eddie Izzard: "I've completely avoided the issue of pronouns on my website by clever uses of first person narrative and in the parts written in the 2nd person, the use of my firstname". Why don't we do the same in the article here? 2A00:23C5:4205:600:1553:B249:350B:7F7F (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a policy against use of first names, but some adjustment might be possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard has professed his gender identity as follows, and as quoted in the article: "When asked in 2019 what pronouns she preferred, Izzard said "either 'he' or 'she'" and explained, "If I am in boy mode, then 'he', or girl mode, 'she'" " I find it highly presumptive to "respect Izzard's gender identity" by forcing "she" and "her" upon Eddie when he Eddie himself says, "If I am in boy mode, then 'he', or girl mode, 'she'." Are you SURE Eddie is always in girl mode? What evidence have you provided to substantiate your claim? Furthermore, as 2A00:23C5:4205:600:1553:B249:350B:7F7F observed on 24 February 2022, "Izzard has completely avoided using pronouns on any part of Izzard's promotional website. Eddie Izzard: "I've completely avoided the issue of pronouns on my website by clever uses of first person narrative and in the parts written in the 2nd person, the use of my firstname". Why don't we do the same in the article here?" That's not merely an excellent idea, that's a RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE idea commensurate with Wikipedia's objections to NPOV. CHANGE IZZARD'S PRONOUNS. Clepsydrae (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

​Izzard's most recent expressed gender self-identification that we know of is her 2020 TV appearance, in which she expressed a desire "to be based in girl mode from now on", so per MOS:GENDERID, the article currently uses she/her pronouns. I can't figure out where the quote the IP is attributing to Izzard came from, but I don't think it contradicts this statement or expresses a desire that other writers should avoid pronouns when addressing her.

We do have several articles which "cleverly" omit all gendered (or gender-neutral) 3P pronouns by referring to the subject exclusively by name. However, that is generally only done as a last resort in cases where no pronoun is clearly acceptable (as in Albert Cashier), or where the individual explicitly prefers it (as in Sophie). Given the ubiquitous role that pronouns play in English, omitting them tends to result in slightly awkward writing, which we would like to avoid where possible.

If you're interested in this subject area, I would also recommend checking out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity § Discussion timeline for a fuller grasp on the history of Wikipedia's gender-related style guidelines. I would also add that although "RATIONALITY" and "OBJECTIVITY" are of course fundamental to Wikipedia's goals, direct appeals to those sacrosanct ideals (rather than to WP:Policies and Guidelines) are not very persuasive, and (especially in sensitive gender-related topics) might be misinterpreted as political dog-whistles. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Her surname is of French Huguenot origin

The latest edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland demonstrates the name Izzard to have a French origin, but there is no mention of Huguenots (the name is actually much older than the Huguenots - see https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199677764.001.0001/acref-9780199677764-e-21131?rskey=nQRbcF&result=1). This dictionary is by far the most reliable source on this topic.

Huguenots might be part of Eddie's ancestry, but evidence is needed. A newspaper article is in no way a suitable source for this claim. 86.157.214.105 (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of Pronouns

Suggest using the subject's name rather than taking a stance on this socio-political new-age issue of pronouns as per WP:NPOV. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The use of she/her pronouns to reflect a BLP subject's gender identity, per MOS:GENDERID, is not regarded by the WP community as a socio-political new-age issue. If you believe that guideline isn't being reflected correctly in this instance, that would be a topic for this Talk page, but concerns about the guideline itself should be registered elsewhere. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain what is meant by "not regarded by the WP community". Who exactly is the "Wikipedia community", what is the editorial significance of this and how is the majority opinion determined?

Whether the topic is a socio-political new-age issue is not really a matter of subjective opinion. It is a political issue as long as people have and do not have according rights in law (as it the case at national and international level). It is a social issue as long as it affects the people. The cultural angle further underpins this.

So please, can we have more neutrality in encyclopaedic text? 146.200.180.251 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The views of the WP community are expressed in community discussions, particularly (though not exclusively) processes aiming at formal consensus, such as requests for comment. A list of some such discussions, including those that brought MOS:GENDERID, are found here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What pronouns would you use for the Beast of Bodmin? 146.200.180.251 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The gender of legendary creatures isn't addressed by WP policy, but WP:BLPs are not written about legendary beings, and the topic you have raised here concerns a BLP. Newimpartial (talk)`

Monologues (referred to in lead)

I edited the reference to 'rambling monologues' in the lead to reflect the fact that Izzard's performances are stylised to appear to be ramling but are in fact planned and largely scripted (i.e. the opposite of rambling). Izzard's work is highly sophisticated and follows a coherent arc.@fmsky has reverted, citing 'strange wording'. I would like to revert the revert to improve the article but do not wish to edit war so I will refer to @fmsky at their talk page in the first instance and would appreciate any thoughts here from Wikipedians. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Izzard's routines aren't "rambling monologues" just because they're scripted: they're still rambling, and they're still monologues. I also don't think a comedy routine has to be unscripted to say it "takes the form" of something which often isn't. That said, I do think there's value to discussing the writing process in more detail, I just wouldn't do it in the first line. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 06:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Politician

Izzard is now a member of the National Executive Committee. Does that make him as a politician?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe a WP:RS describing him as such would be required. And even then, a definition using this word in the lead section may not be justified. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A few of the sources I've seen describe Izzard's political activity and plans to run for office. Shouldn't be too hard to find and add. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on the WP article, "Broadly speaking, a politician can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in a government." That could be very wide indeed - I would restrict the definition to those holding public office. TrottieTrue (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I think those actively and seriously seeking public office, or holding a significant political role in a political party, are reasonable to include too. Outside of democracies the definition might have to be broader still. If she is successful in becoming the Labour candidate then I'd support the description "politician". Until then, I'm neutral but not opposed. DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

2A00:23C7:BEA7:4B01:BD51:B699:DA42:3944 (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A you change the pronouns to He and His and Him?

 Not done: See WP:GENDERID Cannolis (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of gendered pronouns

Hi Corsaire5555. While I fully accept your edits were made in good faith, what you are doing is, in effect, erasing Izzard's preferred pronouns from the article. The edits are "neutral" in the sense that the issue of pronouns is completely avoided, but that's not how we write articles, and definitely not how we write them well. Pronouns are a normal and natural part of speech and the English language, and seeking to completely avoid their use so as to "avoid constant rewrites, by many editors, of articles on gender-fluid or transgender people" is perhaps counter-productive and is not in keeping with MOS:GENDERID. I believe you may also be mis-characterising Izzard's wishes, even if inadvertently. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply, Bastun. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Izzard, but thanks for the guidance and I will continue to watch and learn! Corsaire5555 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If I may offer my two cents the struggle here seems to be that Wikipedia's need to be consistent fly's in that face of what it means to be genderfluid. Being genderfluid by definition is inconsistent.

It seems to me that if you were to ask Eddie Izzard he would say they used to be male and now they're female.

Unlike other trans people who at a certain point realise that they've always been male/female.

Therefore either pronoun use is going to erase part of their identity.

Using female pronouns when they were in "boy mode" will be wrong and using male pronouns when they were in "girl mode" is wrong.

The most correct would perhaps be to use male pronouns up until they said they would move forward in "girl mode" and then use female ones.

But that would be inconsistent and confusing to most people and wouldn't explain what to do when something refers to the subject as a whole.

Other than that I feel like the only logical choice may be to use non gendered language as a bad compromise. Thebobbrom (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thebobbrom. Please see WP:GENDERID - we use a person's preferred pronouns, which is both a) respectful, and b) consistent. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you either misunderstood my point or didn't actually read it.

From my understanding the preferred pronouns are not consistent throughout Eddie Izzards life.

Therefore it's impossible to be both respectful and consistent. Thebobbrom (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you haven't read WP:GENDERID. Let me quote: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. (Original emphasis). That's fairly clear and unambiguous. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Move page based on name change?

I got the news only today, but is this a move with redirect level change? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity Move + Redirect seems reasonable; I don't see the point of those expressing opposition. "Eddie Izzard" will still find the same article. Nuew (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's too early for this. I just did a search on "Eddie Izzard" to find this article and it brought up the fact that Izzard is referring to herself as "Suzy" now. But this is recent news, and the first paragraphs of newspaper articles on this suggest that she says she's happy for people to continue to refer to her as "Eddie" also. (I mean, I'm guessing it's because it's the name under which she is best known, which she's been credited under for most of her life, during which she was telling people that she was a male transvestite who just enjoyed wearing female clothing some of the time. Haven't actually bothered to read the whole text of any of those articles to find direct quotes from Izzard) --PaulHammond (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Yahoo link I found contains this:

'"I’m Eddie. There’s another name I’m going to add in as well, which is Suzy, which I wanted to be since I was 10," Izzard said. "I’m going to be Suzy Eddie Izzard."

Izzard said she’s keeping her public name as Eddie Izzard and that people are free to choose the name they address her with. "They can’t go wrong with me," she added.'

--PaulHammond (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And it looks like someone made the redirect from Suzy over to here already. Okay, guess I'll pump the brakes. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)