Talk:Matt Lucas

Hair loss
Can anybody confirm the factual accuracy of this sentence:
 * Matt's hair fell after being knocked down by a car at the age of four.

It was changed from an earlier, completely different "fact" by an anonymous user. Joe D (t) 16:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read in an interview with his mum in some TV giude that his hair fell out as a result of his dad leaving the family, but I have no knowlege of how true this is.--Crestville 18:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In an interview on the series 1 DVD he did say it fell out in clumps when he was very young, but didn't give any reasons for it. Joe D (t) 23:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't really care less about the exact details of Lucas' hair loss. The current explanation is "Lucas has had alopecia since an early age, which in interviews he has inconsistantly attributed to various events", which was added because of the 'being knocked over by a car' explanation having no reference. Do the URLs given in the article link to the interviews mentioned in this new edit? I would suggest that if not then some references should be found, since otherwise the reason for the current edit seems somewhat hypocritical to me. mat_x 08:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Daffyd
Next, can we get references for Daffyd being based on Lucas? IIRC, in the Radio 2 interview on the Series 1 DVD they say Daffyd's based on somebody they knew years ago who refused to believe anybody else he knew could be gay. It's possible Daffyd is a combination of the two though... Joe D (t) 23:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * based the character Daffyd Thomas on himself, recalling how he felt he was "the only gay in the village" only to find out that everyone accepted it and wasn't shocked by it.

According to a recent interview on Michael Parkinson's chat show, this character was created by David Walliams, rather than by Matt himself. I have no idea if this is inconsistent with earlier interviews though - so don't like to change the article. - MykReeve T·C  20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Little Britain
"Lucas' finest work"? I take issue with this (particularly given the forumlaic nature of S2&3, vs. the genius of, say, Rock Profile). This is of course POV - but so is the above statement. Changing to "most successful". -savs

Work with David Walliams
There's a section in the David Walliams page about his work with Lucas. Should we also include that in this article (or even create a new one)? Apterygial 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal life
The first paragraph of the Personal Life section appears to be a direct rip or the BBC News story... Someone fancy rewriting it? Dotwaffle 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Superstore?
This YouTube video claims to show Lucas at 11 on Saturday Superstore. No idea if it's really him, but it does look like him. 86.132.138.159 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Write for Sacha Baron Cohen
I am translating the article into Chinese,but what is the meaning of "Write for Sacha Baron Cohen"? A writer to an artor or something?i can't understand.

我正在翻译这篇文章，但是其中一句“Lucas has written for actor Sacha Baron Cohen.”我不能理解. 是Lucas为Cohen或他的角色写剧本还是什么其他的，谁能解释一下？--Zhufangliang (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

McGee's alleged suicide
The BBC site only says that McGee was "found hanged". This may have been accidental death rather than suicide and so I am changing the statement unless an alternate source that clearly states suicide as a cause of death is provided.—Ash (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The beeb now says he left a suicide note... I think McGee deserves his own page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now added the Daily Mail as a source and added the statement given there to the text. Note that Kevin McGee redirects to the right part of this article.—Ash (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish/Nazi Germany
This stuff does not appear to be supported by either of the cited references - and. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooting Stars Template
Should this page have the Shooting Stars template at the bottom? The article is obviously about Matt Lucas in general, not his persona George Dawes on Shooting Stars, so it seems a little out of place. President Evil Zero (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Former partner RfC
The last sentence of the personal life section is currently: "After six years together, the couple divorced through the High Court in 2008, becoming the first high-profile same-sex couple divorce in Britain. Ten months later, on 5 October 2009, Kevin McGee killed himself."

It is sourced to this article from the Daily Telegraph.

The statement has been removed several times by IP editors with edit summaries like "Manner of ex-partner's death not relevant to the subject. Content removed." I and several editors have been reverting the changes.

Today, 89.216.35.34 got in contact with me on my talk page. He claims to be Matt Lucas (and I have no reason to doubt that), and requests that the last sentence be removed.

I am unsure what the correct decision is here. On the one hand, it is a sensitive topic and obviously something no one wants on their Wikipedia article, and I think he may have a good point about it not being relevant. On the other hand, Wikipedia policy says that we shouldn't remove content just because it is objectionable to some.

The important question is "Is the statement relevant to the subject of the article?" The relevant policies are: Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."
 * WP:AUTO - "let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself."
 * WP:NOTCENSORED - "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."
 * I would say it remains relevant to this persons life. The subject still gains attention years on, it did have a significant impact on Matt's life as he left the play he was in at the time and without him it closed early.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  21:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think, ironically, that Mr. Lucas' (supposed) desire to have this statement removed only highlights the reason for its relevance.  It is certainly unfortunate, and certainly something that Mr. Lucas would likely rather not have presented as part of his public image, but to suggest that a suicide following five months on the heels of a very public divorce is irrelevant or unrelated is simply absurd.  As an aside, I think "committed suicide" has a more encyclopedic tone than "killed himself". siafu (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say that it seems to have had an effect on his life though I don't think much on it. I'm not even sure the exact date is relevant though that it happened is. Just a comment on terminology. "Committed suicide" is generally not the preferred term due to the connotation of "committed" as a criminal act. "Died by suicide" is much preferred. Ayzmo (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove - the spurious and unproven references to contact from Matt Lucas on this matter are irrelevant. The page is about the subject, and not about all of the tittle tattle that can be found in the public domain. The present wording leaves the reader with an implied connection between the divorce and the suicide. There is no supporting evidence for that. As such it is bad faith and should be removed. If it should be retained, then it would be advisable to focus upon the subject of the page. I believe that there is ample comment available from multiple sources as to Mr Lucas' reaction to the event. Exactly why has that not been seen as notable and included before?. WP:BLPGOSSIP = Presently the wording implies relevance that is not within the source cited - therefore  WP:BLPGOSSIP Not relevant "Remove". WP:AUTO - since it is not proven that Mr Lucas or a close associate is editing on this page WP:AUTO is spurious.  WP:NOTCENSORED - as the material is about a third party and not the subject it is not Censorship to remove it - just quality editing. I would also cite WP:NOT. The citation used to reference the sentence in question also contains the following text "Matt is utterly destroyed by this." That is relevant to the over all subject of the page, as well as the entry in question - yet I note very pointedly that the relevance to the question in hand seems to have been missed. How odd! So if quality editing and balance is lacking, it is best to remove pointed references that do require clarity until they are handled with due care and attention, and relevant candour.   Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^)  (talk)  18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you on most points. However I think we should assume good faith and accept that the person who contacted me was indeed Matt Lucas. It makes sense, and there is no reason to doubt it. (Note: The IP from which he contacted me resolves to Serbia, where he is currently filming. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL - forgive me if I take the view that any claims that Mr Lucas was the person contacting you would need WP:NPOV sources that were verifiable WP:V. I have a readily obtained service which allows me to change my IP address by proxy on a Global basis. The IP address you refer to is also a gateway for that service - and so It could have been me writing. P^) Due and Undue weight are the issues - not Mr Lucas' Filming or that the Internet allows spoofing. I assume good faith! But the Rfc did not address whether good faith should be extended to an IP address that literally "anyone" on the planet has access to. I have made my point as to "candor" and that in my opinion the sentence is question is not candid. It is only half of a story. If it is not possible for WP:NPOV+WP:V sources to be found to balance the matter then it is better for the material in question to be removed. It is misleading and promotes bias. I don't do systemic bias. Duty of candor I have said remove - and if not improve. The two can not be separated.


 * Strong remove Whatever his former partner did after they split is relevant only to the former partner. Including it here is undue. We would not expect to find any biographical information about McGee on this page that is not directly relevant to his time in a relationship with Lucas, even if we would include that in a biography on McGee himself, for example, his education. Including McGee's death here gives a strong whiff of POV, as it seemingly is implying that McGee killed himself because of the breakup. That is unfounded, unfair and I could completely understand Lucas finding it objectionable. We have a Foundation resolution to take BLP subject's complaints seriously and deal with them "with patience, kindness and respect". This seems an excellent example. --Dweller (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A reasonable point, but I actually took the statement to indicate that the divorce likely happened for the same reasons (i.e., mental illness) that led to the suicide. siafu (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove -- and it's preposterous that we need an RfC to accomplish this, it should be done immediately with no further discussion. The article is about Matt Lucas, and the death of a former partner well after the relationship ended is not relevant here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is relevant. The only question is the wording. I would change the wording to simply:


 * "Kevin McGee died by suicide in October 2009."


 * There is no implication of cause and effect, but I will concede that some connection could be concluded. I don't think we can abruptly terminate the scope of an article. The important thing here is the tasteful handling of including a very delicate development that arguably takes place outside of a normal scope of an article such as this. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong and speedy remove per User:Nomoskedasticity and User:Dweller.--ukexpat (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove it appears that most in favour of keeping are making speculative remarks as to the link between the the suicide and all manner of other things. Per Nomoskedasticity, this is about Matt Lucas, not former partner's lives and deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove. Its inclusion at worst strongly implies McGee's death was related to the breakup, an unfounded speculation, or at best is significantly likely to cause readers to infer same. It is not our place to arrange material to imply or suggest nor to engender speculation. Our task is to write reliably-sourced facts directly relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The manner of death of a former partner almost a year after the relationship ended is not relevant. We have an obligation to write biographies of living people responsibly and cautiously. As Dweller points out the community is charged, under resolution of the Foundation, to treat BLP subjects with "patience, kindness and respect" when dealing with a complaint. On these bases and on grounds of human dignity, which the resolution also urges us to consider, it is right and proper to remove the non relevant content. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not mentioning the manner of a former partner's death could be applied to Prince Charles, but Diana's manner of death is mentioned in that article. It is highly likely that the nature of Kevin McGee's death is due to depression as a result of their split. I get the feeling there are editors with an agenda of trying to sweep all mention of this relationship out of the article. At the very least this is a human interest case. Nasnema   Chat  20:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm: so Prince Charles:Lady Diana::Matt Lucas:Kevin McGee?? Apart from that, your attempt at speculation shows exactly why the element in question should not be included here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove unless there are reliable sources linking his partner's death to the divorce. The death of Princess Diana isn't really a fair comparison, she was a famous person in her own right whereas Lucas' spouse was not. RicDod (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove per RicDod and Nomoskedasticity. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove Ex-spouses have their own lives (and Wikipedia articles, sometimes). If they were still married, I'd say it was relevant here. But they weren't. So it's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove For the various excellent reasons given above. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

'''Thanks for the comments everyone. I think the consensus is clearly in favour of removing the sentence, so I'll be closing the RFC.''' Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace
This article says Matt Lucas was born in Paddington; the Stanmore article says he was born there. Which is correct? --rossb (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2017

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Technically, since the previous move was recently made without discussion, and is clearly controverted, it could be reverted as a matter of course with a request for discussion. However, there is consensus here, so there is no need to revisit that issue. bd2412 T 02:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Lucas (comedian) → Matt Lucas – I was going to suggest a move to "Matt Lucas (actor)", considering his increasingly diverse oeuvre, but looking at the other two articles under the name of Matt Lucas (singer) and Matt Lucas (rugby union), I think this Matt is significantly more notable and should hold the primary page with Matt Lucas (disambiguation) or even just a standard line at the top of the page to guide users to the others if desired. This is particularly true regarding his new regular role in Doctor Who and the world-wide recognition that comes with that. U-Mos (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  16:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose "I think this Matt is significantly more notable" is not a sensible rationale for a primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Moved recently without discussion. Statistics say that this guy is more popular and significant than the others. George Ho (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly the primary topic based on page views. As stated above, the article was at "Matt Lucas" until it was recently boldly moved; that's really where it ought to have stayed. Jellyman (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Voice-overs?
Occasionally, I see a television commercial in the USA with a voice-over that I swear sounds like Mr. Lucas' voice. Has he done any voice-overs or am I having auditory hallucinations? --- B*) --- Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Lucas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929222948/http://www.exposay.com/matt-lucas-and-kevin-mcgee-pantomime-themed-wedding-reception-in-london/v/7045/1/ to http://www.exposay.com/matt-lucas-and-kevin-mcgee-pantomime-themed-wedding-reception-in-london/v/7045/1/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Kevin McGee (showbiz) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kevin McGee (showbiz). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Leschnei (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

German citizenship
Apparently ML is, by his own account, also a German citizen. As far as I can see this is probably not of any particular notability, and may not even be strictly speaking verifiable, as there's only a primary source (his tweet) and some iffy-looking (and outright deprecated) UK media sources re-reporting this. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Entirely plausible. See German nationality law. Article 116 of the Grundgesetz gives a right to German nationality to anyone whose citizenship was revoked for political, racial or religious reasons under the Nazi regime, such as Lucas's Jewish grandmother, or their descendants. There is now a similar provision under Austrian nationality law. 82.132.233.144 (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Digit Al mascot, Digital Switchover
He has done a voice-over role for the UK's digital switchover campaign, couldn't see this in his roles thought I'd bring this to light??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4972082.stm 86.29.242.86 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)