Cecil did, apparently, allow his photo to appear in the February 1995 issue of American Libraries magazine. It was part of an article entitled “What makes Cecil Adams the world’s greatest reference librarian?”, written by Paul S. Piper.
This site, still the top result on Google for a search on ‘Cecil Ed Zotti’, prints the photo alongside a photo of Ed.
The resemblance is astonishing! 
BTW the local Chicago press doesn’t seem to have any doubts.
From a review of Ed Zotti’s Barn House in the Chicago Sun-Times.
But the rest of us aren’t under orders and we stopped being amused by it many years ago.
Ed Zotti is currently Cecil. The mods should stop bringing ignorance into GQ.
Sorry, forgot to link to the Sun-Times article.
you are right. 
“Victim” in this sense: In a previous thread, in GQ, on essentially this same topic, a moderator posted deliberate disinformation. the moderator’s post served, not to “fight ignorance” but rather to perpetuate it. The moderator was, in my opinion, severely violating the tenets of the Straight Dope’s General Questions forum. The post was carefully crafted so as to not contain any blatant untruths, but was nevertheless clearly intended (as I’ve said before) to lead readers to believe an untruth.
There are two possibilities about that mod’s knowledge of Cecil: 1) he knows the truth, in which case posting to deliberately lead people to believe the other way is bad behavior for a mod (or anyone) in GQ; 2) he does not know the truth, in which case posting to deliberately confuse the question is bad behavior for a mod (or anyone) in GQ.
Furthermore, that thread was soon summarily closed by another mod, before I’d had a chance to post a reply to the disinformation.
Perhaps “victim” was too strong a word. But I was left with a rather sour taste in my mouth. The only reasonable conclusion I could draw at the time was that at least some of the mods delighted in playing their game, even in GQ. And that while they were fine with allowing disinformation in GQ, they did not want to allow discussion that might actually reveal the truth. As of this thread, things appear to have changed.
And to samclem: In the past, I have seen posts by non-mods clearly engaged in the game. Given that said non-mods are unlikely in the extreme to be “in the know”, I think it’s demonstrable that being “in the know” is not a prerequisite of playing the game.
Every penny of it.
This one? Why does Cecil Adams refuse to be photographed? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
“lied to”?
“Ignorance”?
“Victim”?
My god people, get serious. Or, rather - don’t be so serious. Cecil is Ed or not, Ed is Cecil or not, whichever. How in the world does it affect your day to day world? Do you fall out of bed each day just a bit more cynical about the world because of this?
Batten down the cyclone shelter Pa, the storm’s a comin’ for sure if there is no Cecil to protect us!!!
I’ll add this to my list of Incredible Mysteries:
God - no God?
Santa/tooth fairy, or just Mom & Dad?
Area 51 - alien life, or misdirection?
Maradona - Hand or no hand?
Cecil, or no Cecil
It boggles me, I might not sleep for weeks…
I guess I need to add to my earlier comment, that most moderators of these boards have little or no involvement with the column, and so wouldn’t have any more knowledge than anyone else about Cecil’s life or identity.
Some moderators and SDSAB members do write staff reports, and so work closer with Ed (since he’s usually the one to edit them.) However, only a few of us help with column research or fact-checking or other behind-the-scenes activities. So, when SamClem denies any game-playing, he speaks truthfully – he’s not been involved in the column, nor with Cecil. I admit freely that I have had contact behind the scenes, and that I do know a lot about the inner workings, and that Cecil gets a huge laugh out of the speculation.*
Ed has long been associated with the column, as editor and primary spokesperson (since Cecil shies away from interviews.) The use of “his” is probably one of those hyperbole used on book-blurbs. The column is actually legally owned by the READER, so it’s neither Ed’s nor Cecil’s, but the READER’s. But then, book jackets aren’t the most reliable source of information.
Dexter, is it your position that the same person has been writing the columns since 1973?
We’re in GQ. Is Ed Zotti Cecil Adams? Yes or no?
If no, who is? Specify.
Remember, this is GQ.
Boy, my sentiments exactly. I tried to place myself in that spot, and I would have fallen flat on my face more than once.
I’ll just keep saying thins until it sinks in: Speaking just for myself (I can’t speak for any others on this thread), I don’t particularly care about Cecil’s true identity, beyond a casual amusement at how closely guarded the truth is. And the reverse of your postion: Why on Earth should anyone, Cecil or otherwise, care so much to protect that truth?
My beef is with moderators or other people who have an association with the Straight Dope, and as such ought to be models of adhering to the principles of the SD. And yet, in the past, they have blatantly violated those principles to suit their own whims.
Play the game all you want, anywhere you want, EXCEPT in the General Questions forum of the Straight Dope. I don’t care who plays, in the know or not, how they play it, on whom they play. Have fun in magazine interviews, newspaper articles, on TV or the radio, in any forum on the Straight Dope or any other message board.
Just NOT in GQ.
In the past, people have said something like, “Big deal, so there’s this one topic on which the mods feel free to violate the principles of GQ, so what?”
So in my view, allowing any exception on any topic, weakens the principles. You’ve got the entire rest of the world to have your fun in. This one little corner called GQ ought to be inviolate.
Maybe I would, for a while. Maybe I wouldn’t think it was all that much of a hoot, if I had deliberately fostered the confusion. Maybe I’d think it was great fun for the first twenty years or so, and then tire of it. Maybe I’d try to find some way to make money off of it directly. Maybe I’d write a book entitled, “If I were Cecil, this is how I would have written…”
I can say this, though: If I wrote a column that had the motto “Fighting Ignorance”, and it became clear that the subject of my true identity was generating as much heat as has been seen, I’d put whatever “hoot” I might be having aside and simply live up to that motto.
If that was simply too hard to do, then I’d consider changing the motto to “Fighting Ignorance (fostering it, about me) since 1973”, if only for the sake of truth in advertising.
I mean, every time this subject comes up, there are always those like Mr Bus Guy who say, “Jeez, why is this such a big deal?” Well, the shoe can go on the other foot: Why is it such a big deal to Cecil? Having a hoot is more important than the truth? (A statement which, given all that’s been said, will likely just give him a hoot. Yerwelcome.)
No, your argument sinks in, I just think it’s a completely disingenuous way to choose to force an issue that, let’s face it, really doesn’t need to be taken seriously in GQ.
It’s the equivalent (if I may go back to Santa) of a boy just on the edge of doubt, standing in front of his 4 year old sister at the mall and asking the jolly old man if he’s really Santa, tilting his head and reminding the old guy "You’re in GQ now, no lying, or you lose all credibility forever… "
I’m also looking at the GQ Rules, and trying desperately to find any “principle” being violated by Mods giving what you think are misleading. Merely being in GQ and, as Exapno did back there, asking a direct question, doesn’t automatically put anyone answering the question on a lie detector, or - hell - even require them to remove their tongue from cheek before answering.
There’s a damn good argument to be made that even asking the question should be in CS since it could pertain more to arts and culture. Slapping a direct question in GQ doesn’t put anyone over a barrel to answer it to your satisfaction at all.
it’s pretty clear the question has gotten all the answer it’s going to get. Interpret as you wish, but pressing the point to have someone give you the answer in a specific context isn’t likely going to happen. If you, or anyone decides that means someone loses credibility in your eyes, then that’s your burden, not theirs. It happens everyday in business, academia and life in general - pretty much everyone does it - ask a question, you get the answer someone decides to give you. For whatever reason, it’s what you get, but nobody is compelled to phrase an answer to suit the demands of the inquisitor.
PS: I’ve seen the Easter Bunny, so don’t even go there.
Not to sound like a who-shot-Kennedy conspiracy theorist, but I pointed out in an earlier thread on this topic:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=1394087#post1394087
That in at least a couple of columns as published in the Straight Dope books, that Cecil refers to he himself appearing on the radio. However, in the online version of these columns, they’ve been changed so that someone else represented him.
He also in his books makes unequivocal statements about fielding questions himself on the radio. Dex, Ed, Bueler?
That.
The Cecil/Ed thing is a legitimate question, but you have to accept that the people who know the answer want to be coy about it for whatever reason. There are two responses to that. You can get angry, upset, and lose faith in humanity. Or you can laugh, realize its all in good fun, and join in. The choice is easy to me; why obsess over being 100% sure that Ed is Cecil when there’s no way I’m going to reach that certainty from the facts, when I can be 95% sure and have a laugh about the whole thing?
Personally I think the whole “fighting ignorance” shtick is pompous posturing for the most part, but even for those who take it seriously you have to grant that there are limits to what counts as ignorance. No one thinks we have to expose the identity of Roadfood in the name of fighting ignorance of Roadfood’s RL identity.
While, as you note, the identity of Cecil Adams has generated consirably more heat than that of Roadfood, that does not make it an inherently important issue that needs to be completely clarified in the name of fighting ignorance. There’s not much actual difference if Ed writes the column or not, because the columns have an extensive history and can stand on their own. People are interested in this out of curiousity and not much more. Satisfying curiousity is not the same thing as fighting ignorance.