Jump to content

Talk:Rowan Atkinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

‹ The template below (Top 25 report) is being considered for merging with Top 50 report. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

[edit]

Please add that Atkinson attended Chorister School in Durham and St Bees School as a boarding student Ammyzcoils (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Barry Wom (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography chronology

[edit]

can someone please sort out the chronological order of the filmography, it's all over the place! 87.114.59.96 (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Filmography section, it looks to me like it's in chronological order already? Barry Wom (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

[edit]

I had a look at his birth record just out of curiosity and turns out he was actually born in Newcastle upon Tyne. Can I change it in the article or would it require another source? https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=TZlY6Mn6iYzuvXHnsQ4LWg&scan=1 Spectritus (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice detective work, but sadly I don't think that site can be used as a source. Barry Wom (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Barry Wom We should at least remove Consett, County Durham since it's wrong. Spectritus (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, it's reliably sourced.[1] Barry Wom (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, maybe we could say "born in Consett, County Durham or Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland"? Spectritus (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We would need a usable source for the Newcastle claim. Barry Wom (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Barry Wom Indeed. However, if I understand well, the only reason sources like FreeBMD aren't usually usable is privacy concerns. But is privacy really a concern here? Spectritus (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be used, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Barry Wom (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be used per WP:USERGEN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump It is not user generated. They're official records. Spectritus (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, the freebmd website isn't an official record of anything. As it makes perfectly clear in the disclaimer at the bottom of the page linked: A Postem is a note left by someone about this record - the content of the postem is determined by the person who left it. FreeBMD can offer no assurance about the postem and will not enter into correspondence about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A postem isn't synonym of record. It's a note someone can leave in an entry. The entries themselves aren't editable. Spectritus (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The records are from the official documents. Spectritus (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop wasting your time arguing over irrelevances. We aren't going to cite freebmd, per core Wikipedia policy - WP:USERGEN. And we don't cite primary sources for birthplaces. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the primary source policy and I'm not going to cite it in this article. However, you must understand that FreeBDM isn't user generated and that its records come from official documents. Spectritus (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a newer version of the website.
https://www.freebmd2.org.uk/entry-information/hash?id=TZlY6Mn6iYzuvXHnsQ4LWg&locale=en Spectritus (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still not WP:RS. Stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You must understand that FreeBDM isn't user generated and that its records come from official documents. Spectritus (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is reliable. But as it's primary we can't use it alone. Spectritus (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't primary. You don't get to bullshit your way around WP:USERGEN by misrepresenting a website that permits users ('volunteers': see [2]) to copy data from a primary source as itself a primary source. It isn't. The primary source would be the original source the data is supposed to come from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FreeBMD isn't user-generated and the birth info comes directly from official documents. Spectritus (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there a reason the page was deleted since only the archived one is available? Spectritus (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(about the Telegraph page) Spectritus (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Barry Wom Britannica is a reliable secondary source and it indicates Newcastle upon Tyne as his birthplace. So, I changed it in the article. Spectritus (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your citation of the WP:USERGEN-violating freebmd website is invalid, we now have two sources contradicting each other - and we shouldn't be deciding for ourselves which is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, FreeBMD isn't user-generated. Spectritus (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump For the last time, FreeBMD isn't user generated as the info is transcribed from official documents of which the scans are available and the postem in this case isn't necessary as the only other Rowan Atkinson was born in 1986. Do you understand now? Spectritus (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy applies regardless of your inability to understand it. You are rapidly approaching WP:CIR territory here, and making me wonder how many other easy-to-understand Wikipedia policies you fail to comprehend. Perhaps a closer inspection of your editing history might be in order? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I keep telling you FreeBMD isn't user-generated so WP:USERGEN doesn't apply here! Spectritus (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it. You're trying to apply the wrong policy. Spectritus (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. Please stop making a fool of yourself, before I feel obliged to ensure that someone else obliges you to. This is utterly stupid anyway, since if even it were a primary source (which it unambiguously isn't) we wouldn't be citing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read the policy you would know that a primary source can be cited with a secondary source. Spectritus (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brittanica is a WP:TERTIARY source anyway, not a WP:SECONDARY one.
In any case, I agree with the analysis of basically everyone taking the position opposite of yours in this question. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this source[1] (which is written by Bruce Dessau) describes him as a Geordie whose parents lived in Stocksfield and used to commute to Hole Row farm, which overlooked Consett steelworks (which I believe to be the reason for the confusion). I couldn't access the rest of it, but it's worth checking. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's available to burrow from archive.org. It's says he was born in Gosforth, I've added a cite to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Okay, thanks. And sorry for earlier. I got a bit carried away. Spectritus (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to that web site nobody was born in Consett. That's a good demonstration of why we shouldn't try to interpret primary sources ourselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger There probably are. They were just recorded in a larger district. Spectritus (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was some confusion over Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source from WP:BLPPRIMARY. I don't think that was ever meant to include primary material just because a secondary source agreed with it, or that the prior sentence about not included primary documents with PID was meant to be weakened by it.
As with most cases finding more secondary sources is better than playing primary source detective. As it stands tvguide and the Telegram say Consett while Brittania and the autobiography say Gosforth/Newcastle. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Okay. Spectritus (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can, however, cite the WP:PRIMARY source "England & Wales, Civil Registration Birth Index, 1916-2007", which was digitized and later hosted on Ancesty.com. The entry here [3] for "Rowan S Atkinson" reports a birth in Q1 1955 registered in the district Newcastle upon Tyne, with the mother's maiden name being "Bainbridge". This reports where the birth was registered, not necessarily where the child was born, as births are fairly commonly registered in different localities than the births actually occur. This is why using primary sources can be quite a problem on Wikipedia and needs to be done very carefully, as it is often not super clear when usage is reporting an uncontroversial fact or when it introduces WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Katzrockso (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote describing this birth registration, but not making any further interpretive claims. I am now not as sure if this is a common practice in the United Kingdom, as apparently the government website ([4]) states that If you cannot register the birth in the area where the baby was born, you can go to another register office and they will send your details to the correct office. So ideally, the birth will still be registered in the correct office. Either way, the most we could say from this source is what the source itself states (i.e. where the birth was registered). Katzrockso (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso Thanks. I agree but Newcastle is quite far from Consett (over 4 hours by car) so I doubt his parents would have travelled that much to register his birth. Spectritus (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's 14 miles away. I could walk it in 4 hours. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger Oh yeah, my bad. I misread. Still, if he had been born in Consett he would have logically been registered in County Durham. Spectritus (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But you're right we can't rule it out. Spectritus (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what different sources might say, it makes no sense whatsoever to say somebody was born in one of two places. He was only born in one place. One of those two choices needs to be decided on for the article. Electricmemory (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have got that utterly backwards. Per Wikipedia policy we do not decide for ourselves when reliable sources contradict each other: instead we tell the readers that the sources don't agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article specifically doesn't state that sources disagree. Perhaps add that to the footnote then Electricmemory (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Source A states X but source B states Y" is another way of denoting that sources conflict. I don't think we need to spell that all out, but if editors see that as superior, that might be a resolution. Katzrockso (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A simple "sources disagree on Atkinson's exact birthplace" or something along those lines would be helpful in the footnote. I am on a mobile phone currently so I do not wish to attempt such an edit myself. Electricmemory (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Birth registry's/certificates should always be viewed with some scepticism, at least in the UK. I'm registered twice under different names and the birth place on each is the town of the local registry office not the town I was born in. Noone is checking or correcting the birth registry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Fair point. Why are you registered twice? Spectritus (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Yes, because there are registration districts. So, the town you were born in is probably part of the registration district you were registered in. Spectritus (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My own daughter was born in Northwick Park Hospital, which is in Brent but largely serves, and is on the border of, Harrow. Her birth certificate and passport say "Harrow", because that is where we lived and we didn't know at the time that the hospital was actually in Brent. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger Again, births (and marriages and deaths) are registered in registration districts. Spectritus (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so they don't register the actual place of birth. Registration district's also change other time, my sibling was born in the same place but is registered in a different town (again not the one he was born in). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Yes. However, in 1955, Consett and Newcastle upon Tyne weren't in the same registration district. Consett was in Durham North Western and Newcastle upon Tyne was it's own district. Spectritus (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not just a matter of registration districts; as ActivelyDisinterested said, it's that noone is checking or correcting the birth registry. Birth certificates are simply not reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger They are reliable. Why would they need to be checked? Also, there's a difference between a birth registry (e.g. the GRO Index) and a birth certificate. Spectritus (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A birth certificate is simply a copy of a registry entry, and both are only as reliable as the person reporting a birth. Totally unreliable in my case, where I wrongly reported my daughter's place of birth. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A registry entry is part of the information present on the certificate transcripted. And wouldn't your daughter be registered in the hospital's registration district anyway? Spectritus (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger Okay. Anyway, according to my research, what could explain the widely reported Consett is that it's where his parents lived and that he was born in a Newcastle upon Tyne hospital but a baby born in Consett wouldn't have been registered in the Newcastle upon Tyne district. So, if he was registered in Newcastle upon Tyne then he was definitely born in that district. Spectritus (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
His parents lived in Stocksfield, north east of Consett. Editors research isn't something Wikipedia relies upon, as ever secondary sources are preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's in Northumberland which explains the Newcastle registration. Spectritus (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bruce Dessau. Bean There Done That: The Life and Times of Rowan Atkinson. Welcome Rain, 1997. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-55670-713-1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rowan_Atkinson&oldid=1335549420"