Talk:David Mitchell (comedian)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contacts

according to reference number [3], he wears contacts having used to wear glasses. Worth a mention?

If you can fit it in without recreating the trivia section, then sure, seems like something good to put in. Gran2 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Birth year

IMDB lists his birth year as 1973, but Mr Mitchell himself categoraically stated his age as 31 years when he and Robert Webb (whose imdb birthdate is also wrong!) appeared on the Jonathan Ross Radio 2 show (March 11 2006), so I've changed the date on here to 1974. I'm fed up with people taking imdb's word for everything, like wikipedia it is a work-in-progress site which uses info largely submitted by the general internet public, so there is MUCH room for error (I've already sent them a correction, by the way). Crisso 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Crisso, the problem with your radio source is that it is not verifiable. If there is a written source for 1973, and you heard 1974 on the radio, the general approach is to still write 1973. A good example is found on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page: A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Hope that helps. Remy B 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a wikipedia user and I can certainly verify it (as could any other wikipedians who heard the interview and remember). I don't really see the point of having Wikipedia if unreliable written sources take precedence over the words of the artists concerned. Talk about red tape. Crisso 15:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the definition of verifiable, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The very first line of the verifiability guideline is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.. Your point about precedence isnt so simple, because there is no way for you to prove that the artist really said that (although thats not to say I dont personally believe you). If you had an online transcript of that interview, for example, it would certainly take precedence over IMDB. I realise it seems quite anal to be so strict about verifiability, but Wikipedia really wouldnt be much good if people could make whatever claims they wanted without something concrete to back it up. A minority would exploit it and knowingly put in false information, and then there really would be no point to Wikipedia because you wouldnt be able to question information without having evidence that it was wrong. Remy B 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This article [[1]] says that Mitchell was a year behind Webb at Cambridge. As Webb was born September 1972, then this would point to a 1974 birthdate for Mitchell (taking into account he was born in July and was footlights president from 95-96). Crisso 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

At last complete and total proof for his birth being 1974.[2] Gran² 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Likes Wikipedia

According to an interview at [3], his favourite website is Wikipedia. I've added this to the article in its own little Trivia section. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, and it could probably be better integrated.boffy_b 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That means the sad prat will read this...let him sort out his own article..then we learn his username. RuthieK 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC) That was a joke, David !!! (Just in case David Mitchell aka Bentley Banana reads this) RuthieK 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I pretty sure Bentley Banana isn't David Mitchell, I mean the birthdate on BB's page is different from Mitchell's one (assuming we have the right one). But I don't know, he could be, but if Mitchell does have an account, if he edited his own page it would most likely defy a policy which name escapes me (its something about not editing yur own article). And this isn't really the best place for speculating, although I couldn't suggest an appropriate forum. Gran² 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against editing your own article:) Though it's usually best avoided just because people would tend to get upset and things. And of course it'd be harder for you to stay NPOV. But I don't think David's done this anyway:)Merkinsmum 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Unbelievable Truth

It says 'citation needed' - here's the BBC homepage - is that enough?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/unbelievabletruth/

Peter 81.99.41.208 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Gran2 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

My problem with an otherwise fine article is the "Personal life" section, which needs some paragraphing and rewriting. We can combine a paragraph on his relationships, what he enjoys, a paragraph on his favourite films and TV shows (if The Simpsons is his favourite, mention it first). Alientraveller 08:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've split it into two paragraphs, and put The Simpsons first. Gran² 08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It still reads messily. If I were to rewrite it, which I can't being the reviewer, I'd start with him being OCD, where he lives before moving on to anything related to his relationships. Then we can go into his interests in history and then sport. Start a new paragraph on movies and TV. He described The Simpsons as the "best programme ever" is a good way of writing it, before going onto his other favourites. With actors, start with Alec Guinness before his comedy idols. Being an article on a comedian, let's have his uncaring attitude to music as a punchline. Alientraveller 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've done pretty much what you've said. Any better now? Gran² 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentence break needed regarding his influences, which aren't the same as idols. I think being Webb's best man can go next to his uneventful relationships, and going back to Stonehenge can go next to his interest in history. Being unable to drive can go next to OCD and where he lives. Alientraveller 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gran² 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Passed. A tip for the article as the peer review is stagnant: does Mitchell's OCD influence his comic style in any way? Worth looking up. Alientraveller 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Rather unflattering, no?

Not really. Gran² 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly, surely a better photo can be found for such a great comedian 86.16.138.134 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What? There's nothing wrong with the image, especially as its the only free use one in existence. Gran² 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The ONLY free one in existence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.115.145 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm yes, that is what I said... Gran² 18:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way this photo is terrible. A replacement should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.226.104 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Denies being English

Claimed on QI BBC2 2007-10-19T22:00 (previously shown 2007-10-12T22:30 BBC4) not to be English. If his birthplace from the written interview is confirmed, he could be claiming inherited nationality, I guess. Unverifiable, possibly a bad joke. 86.53.37.59 —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he was joking, that's what it seemed like to be me. He was definitly born in England. Gran² 21:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He was born in England. His mother is Welsh though. I think he stated that in one of the Big Fat Quizzes of the Year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.30.203 (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Narrating work

i think i've heard him narrating a small segment on Animal Planet about weird animals can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must adequately summarize every major point/heading made in the body of the article. Currently, there is nothing on the "Early life," "Awards" or "Personal life" sections.
2. "noting in an advert for Channel 4 that "the first album I ever bought was "...But Seriously", by Phil Collins. And if there's a better reason for never buying another album, I'd like to hear it."" (Personal life) Direct quotes require direct citation
3. I don't think Reference #5 goes where you want it to go. This should be fixed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Cheers, CP 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a slight adjustment, but otherwise it appears that the changes have been made and my concerns addressed, so the article will remain a Good Article. I have updated the old id to reflect this. Thank you again for the hard work. Cheers, CP 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

British-English

The first sentence of the article:

David Mitchell (born 14 July 1974) is a British-English comedian, actor and writer.

Why "British-English?" In his article, Robert Webb is just described as "English." I didn't see any mention of residence in Scotland, Wales, or the Isle of Man. How come he's not "English?" {Kejo13 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)}

Because Mitchell has said numerous times that he wishes to be classified as British. There is often debate as to whether people should be described as Scottish, Welsh, English or just British. I prefer saying English, and so on, so I combined the two in this case. Gran² 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But when he has on QI himself said that he's rather be Welsh than English - even though he isn't Welsh- kind of proves his distaste for being called English. I think British would be most appropriate. Unwisely (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I put "British-English". He wants to be called British, and it also specifies he's English. Gran² 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what if he wished to be classified as a ham sandwich? Or to be less flippant, what if he were a no-borders, one-worlder type who styled himself a "citizen of the world?" Would the descriptor be: "Global-English" or somesuch? Mitchell is a professional comedian; maybe he's making a joke? Kejo13 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he said it on Question Time, in a clearly serious fashion. No, I don't think he was joking. There isn't anything wrong or silly about it, he's English, but England is part of Britain, so he's British as well. Perhaps you should start a discussion somewhere bigger than this about whether all English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people should be called "British", or none of them called that. There is no strict rule on the matter, so I decided to try something different. By stating he's British, then specifying the part country, it covers all bases. Until there is a rule wich states, "you must say British" or "You must say English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh" I think this is the best option. Gran² 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. To pick an even smaller nit, I wonder at the hyphen in "British-English." It seems to imply the combination of two disparate elements, as "Afro-Caribbean," for example, is a mix of Africa and the Caribbean. Since England is part of Britain, would it be better to just have "British English" instead of "British-English?" Kejo13 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes it would. Consider it changed. Gran² 21:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a tendency for the English to equate being English with being British and this is yet another example - we have Scottish actors, Welsh actors, Irish actors and British actors.

I must say deciding that David Mitchell is to be termed 'British' just because he want to be is, umm, somewhat unencyclopedic, but hey, this is Wikipedia afterall. Bougatsa42 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Would I Lie to You?

Shouldn't his appearance in Would I Lie to you? be in the TV table?
82.43.150.151 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The filmography section is purely for films and TV series which are not "real life". Panel shows, talk shows and the like do therefore not count. Gran² 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article claims he thinks he "Might die" were it not for his system of alarm clocks, the citation for this being the comedy show, Would I lie to you? This is not a reliable source on its own, as in that part of the show, he had an incentive to make the story as ridiculous as possible to convince the other team he was lying. 86.152.153.137 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian & The Observer

He has recently begun writing for The Observer, probably worth mentioning somewhere. 86.151.63.21 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the general content of his column? Sycorax13 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It just goes to show you can't be too careful! Bienfuxia (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In 2008 he became a regularly contributing opinion columnist writing for The Guardian and The Observer. This is mentioned in the second paragraph of in the article. However it continues to be edited to only the The Observer. AS per the The Guardian's website, Mitchell contributes to both publications, The Observer which is owned by The Guardian. --Bruinfan09 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 January 2010

It's mentioned further in the article that Mitchell "writes columns for The Observer and The Guardian", and this seems undisputed. We just don't need to exhaustively list his writing work in the lead paragraph, when his Observer work is much more prominent than his Guardian writing. --McGeddon (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Define prominent? It is mentioned on the Guardian's site that Mitchell writes for both publications. How is it considered to be "exhaustively list his work" when it is just adding another word? This seems to be a weak argument for the removal of three words. --Bruinfan09 (talk

It's just the lead of the article, it's meant to "summarize the most important points" and "should roughly reflect [each aspect's] importance to the topic". We don't list all of his TV credits in the opening paragraph, nor should we list all of his writing credits - as far as I understand it, his weekly Observer column is more prominent than his occasional Guardian pieces at the moment. --McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still haven't define prominent. What makes you the sole decider on what work is considered prominent of a writer like Mitchell and his work? It seems that his work originally begun with The Guardian and has developed with The Observer. If you look back, his column is originally printed with The Guardian and is then published with The Observer. For you to define his work as better then one or the other is purely personal. --Bruinfan09 (talk

I'm not claiming to be a sole decider, I'm just one of two editors who disagreed with you and has taken it to the talk page. I'm basing "prominence" on the fact that his Guardian profile - while mentioning him writing for both publications - only appears to contain Observer articles at the moment. And if one is a weekly column while the other are occasional opinion pieces, the weekly column seems the prominent one. --McGeddon (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've made an ass out of myself. Your opinion is correct, I failed to see that the Observer link at the top of every article. Sorry for the mistake and inconvenience, you are correct. --Bruinfan09 (talk

No problem, thanks for discussing the edit. --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for discussing it. I can see that I was as clear as I could have been in my inital edit summaries. Anyway, I have also reverted you last few edits. I don't want to come across like I "own" the article, but his column writing really doesn't need its own section or real need to be mentioned in all that much exhaustive detail. Also, leads do not require citations for material sourced in the rest of the article. Gran² 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Relationships

Does anyone know anything about any personal relationships he may have had? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Mitchell and Webb

A lot of the information regarding Mitchell and Webb i feel should be merged into the programmes own page and provide a summary with a link to that. It seems strange having an sub section of this article which is longer than the actual article about the programme. Anybody with any thoughts on the matter? Uksam88 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does it seem strange? Someone has clearly just written this article, and not bothered with the (fairly pointless) Mitchell and Webb article yet. I don't see that we should remove perfectly good information from a page which is not overly long, simply because another hasn't been expanded. Gran² 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is a page about a comedy double act who get a lot air time on BBC2,Channel 4 and now Dave "fairly pointless"? Would you argue Fry and Laurie is pointless as well? Uksam88 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps pointless is the wrong word, but yes, I would argue that isn't that necessary as it is basically just rehasing the separate pages. For Fry and Laurie its different because they have been around for much longer, and have also substantial solo careers (which, internationally, certainly for Laurie, they are more famous for) But that isn't the question here. My point is that the M&W should just be expanded, and that content from Mitchel's page should not be merged into. It would be fine in both places. Gran² 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Mitchell and Webb

A lot of the information regarding Mitchell and Webb i feel should be merged into the programmes own page and provide a summary with a link to that. It seems strange having an sub section of this article which is longer than the actual article about the programme. Anybody with any thoughts on the matter? Uksam88 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does it seem strange? Someone has clearly just written this article, and not bothered with the (fairly pointless) Mitchell and Webb article yet. I don't see that we should remove perfectly good information from a page which is not overly long, simply because another hasn't been expanded. Gran² 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is a page about a comedy double act who get a lot air time on BBC2,Channel 4 and now Dave "fairly pointless"? Would you argue Fry and Laurie is pointless as well? Uksam88 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps pointless is the wrong word, but yes, I would argue that isn't that necessary as it is basically just rehasing the separate pages. For Fry and Laurie its different because they have been around for much longer, and have also substantial solo careers (which, internationally, certainly for Laurie, they are more famous for) But that isn't the question here. My point is that the M&W should just be expanded, and that content from Mitchel's page should not be merged into. It would be fine in both places. Gran² 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gameshow does not constitute a reliable source

Would I lie to you? is not a reliable source, especially for a Biography of a living person. I would have thought that this was fairly obvious.--121.127.222.194 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? He said it himself. If it was complete bullshit he would have said so. Gran² 15:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I recall removing it anyway on the grounds that it was trivial, only for it be added back, so I'd have no objections to removing it for that reason. However, I do object for sourcing reasons. I see no problem with it, he said it directly himself and the article states he "joked" it anyway. I think that's adequate. Gran² 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot decide for ourselves that, "if it was complete bullshit he would have said so. The fact remains that it's not a reliable source; it was an off the cuff remark on a comedic gameshow, in which exagerations are likely encouraged.

Firstly, it's being woven into a narrative of his personal life, and is presented as if it were something he said of his personal life. Secondly, there are concerns to be addressed when writing a biography of a living person, and we cannot add poorly sourced statements (there are no wikipedia criteria by which this would be considered reliable in any way), regardless of whether they seem to flatter an impression of him. I'd suggest removing it, especially considering that there are some relatively well sourced statements that say the same thing. I would like to point out, however, that this agreement isn't grounds for inclusion.--THobern 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Right, well I'm going to remove because it's uneeded trivia but I still totally disagree with your argument. But anyway, for my future reference, where in the policy does it say that somebody saying something clearly on camera isn't reliable, just because it was a comedy panel show? I mean, Stuart Maconie confirmed on the last series of Have I Got News For You that he started the urban legend that Bob Holness played the saxophone on "Baker Street", is that not reliable just because it's a comedy show? What about Ian Hislop talking about his fued with Piers Morgan on the final episode of Room 101? I really don't know. Oh well. Gran² 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the policy, primary sources are acceptale, as long as they are obvious to anyone reading the primary source. Frankly, the examples you've given are pretty ropey, but still - there is an interview aspect to Room 101 - those are slightly different. This, however, isn't quite as clear cut as those examples; it is a show in which lying, double-bluffing and exaggerations are obviously going to be encouraged. It's neccesary that you use Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and preferably secondary sources. I'm not really arguing that the sources are unreliable simply because they are a comedy show, but rather because they are informal shows, which don't meet Wikipedia's standards. My reasons for thiking that it is not immediately obvious from the primary source, is that it simply appeared to be a glib answer to the question; you can't infer that this he jokingly hyperbolising aspects of his personal life. Hope that clears it up.--THobern 06:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that the criterion for inclusion, is whether a reliable second-party has seen fit to report on it.--THobern 07:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you post a link to our website?

Please can you include a link to our website?

[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon4192 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but per WP:FANSITE, fansites are not generally considered suitable links. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

10 O'Clock Live

I'm no good at Wikipedia but I noticed that no mention has been made of Mitchell's upcoming involvement Channel 4s new program for early '2011 10 O'Clock Live'. The promo can be found here: . I'm sure more suitable sources can be found if this not sufficient (perhaps ?) The poster of the video I believe is Stuart Lutes who I think is the editor of the show.

Sorry if I'm doing anything wrong lol :) 188.221.227.157 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

David Mitchell's Soap Box

The new article David Mitchell's Soap Box appears to only add a bit more detail to what's already here in David Mitchell (actor)#Solo work, and doesn't appear to be any more notable than Mitchell's other works. I suggest that the new article be merged here. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi de hi. Just started reading the article and was momentarily shocked that it said David Mitchell was dead. Have deleted that bit. Just checked google and David appears to be alive, though Google as yet does not stream biometrics from celebrities in the UK. Apparently, along with a satellite image of their home, it will be possible to monitor the heart rate, breathing, blood-pressure and skin moisture of anyone by clicking on their name using a new app. I am looking forward to this innovation in the new year along with point of view cameras permanently attached to noteworthy persons feeding live updates to the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imageofreality (talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Imageofreality (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Fat Quiz of the Year

He has actually appeared on this show 3 times, once alonside richard ayode once alongside rob brydon and once alongside charlie brooker. i would make the edit myself but im not sure about how to properly edit and you can probably tell my grammar and typing skills are not amazing. im not sure how to link to the specific part of the page but its in the same section that lists his apperances on have i got news, and 8 out of 10 cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.252.151 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the appearance alongside Richard Ayoade was for The Big Fat Anniversary Quiz, celebrating 25 years of Channel 4. Gran² 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's Who

His Who's Who (UK) entry - ‘MITCHELL, David James Stuart’, Who's Who 2011, A & C Black, 2011; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2010 ; online edn, Oct 2010 http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whoswho/U250146, accessed 22 Feb 2011 - lists his full name as David James Stuart Mitchell. Parents are listed as Ian Douglas Mitchell and Kathryn Grey Mitchell (née Hughes). It also notes he gained his BA (Hons) at Cambridge in 1996. Nanonic (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for the print edition. Also, does it confirm his birthdate as well? Gran² 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a page number, sorry, I only access it online (free to UK library card holders). The entry does confirm his DOB as 14 July 1974 in Salisbury. Nanonic (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay cheers. We apparently have a copy in my uni library so I'll go there tomorrow and check it. If not, I'll just insert the info with the online reference. Gran² 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I found his birth on ancestry.co.uk, which gives his name as David James S Mitchell, his birth registration district as Salisbury (Wilts), the registration quarter as Jul-Aug 1974, and his mother's maiden name as Hughes. I found a corresponding marriage for Ian D Mitchell and Kathryn G Hughes, Swansea, Apr-Jun 1971. This is entirely consistent with his Who's Who entry. This has to be correct, given that there is only one incidence of a Kathryn G (or Grey) Hughes getting married at any time in the England and Wales records (nothing in Scottish birth/marriage records). I have amended his full name and his parents' full names (and maiden name) accordingly. Iantnm (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Desire to be a barrister

On the recent programme presented by Ronnie Corbett, David Mitchell had said that at Cambridge, he considered becoming a barrister. If any one knows a source for this, it could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More famous as a comedian than an actor, surely?

Does anyone else think this article should be at David Mitchell (comedian)? Yes, he's done acting work, but I'd say he's better known for his comedy (though I guess Peep Show counts as both). 'Actor' suggests the main focus of his career is acting, and that just isn't the case. Robofish (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well when I originally wrote the article he was pretty much solely famous for Peep Show and That Mitchell and Webb Look - and they are acting; acting in comedy no less acting than anything else. Yes, his panel show and presenting work has greatly increased his status. However, I'd still argue that Peep Show is his most famous and acclaimed work (he won a BAFTA for it) and what he is still most known for. It's how he is introduced here. David Mitchell (comedian) redirects here so it isn't much of an issue. Gran² 13:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But that again is conflicted by another source here that classes him as a comedian. I came here while doing some dab cleaning wondering who David Mitchell (actor) was, and I find the article name confusing. Acting in and writing for a sketch show still makes you a comedian, and I too think he is far more well known as a comedian. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well based purely on viewing figures Would I Lie To You is what he's most known for. Consistently pulls in around twice what Peep Show gets (mostly as a result of being broadcast on BBC1 but also because of a more instantly accessible format). Peep Show whilst highly acclaimed critically is still a bit of a cult show as far as the public is concerned. I haven't seen him do any acting that isn't comedy, whereas he does plenty of comedy that isn't acting (although I do concede it's probably mostly scripted...). Rubiscous (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agnostic?

In his biography, "Back Story", Mitchell states in Chapter 19 " atheism isn’t the most rational approach - agnosticism is. You can’t know, so it’s irrational to say that you do. An atheist or religious observant might counter that agnosticism - saying you don’t know if there’s a god or gods - isn’t a conclusion at all. They’d have a point - but in that case, I say it’s irrational to draw a conclusion. We don’t know and we can’t know." Shouldn't Mitchell be added to the "Agnostic" category? 176.61.94.25 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, provided you source it properly, nobody will revert you if you do. Gran² 11:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation rules regarding personal life

The Personal Life section begins with the sentence, 'Mitchell has often joked about his personal life in interviews.' and goes on to cite interview comments as fact. Surely if they are jokes, then they don't count as facts? When doing promo work, some of these comments will have been made 'in character' so to speak. I understand that it is difficult to differentiate between the character David Mitchell and the real person, but including a trivial fact like 'Mitchell has revealed that he owns two CDs, Phil Collins's ...But Seriously and Susan Boyle's debut, but has expressed a dislike for both.' seems as improbable as Hulk Hogan talking in interview about how difficult it was to beat Andre the Giant. Mitchell's comment reads like an ironic joke; he, in all probability, owns more than 2 CDs, given that he would have been a teenager/early 20s after CDs were around but before internet downloads were a controversial issue.

He has a 'modest middle class' kind of gimmick which he plays up to, and this should be taken into account when giving citations of 'facts' about his personal life, especially when the section begins by saying he often jokes about it.

I suspect this is an issue with Wikipedia's citation rules at large rather than this one article, which I assume obides by the current rules, but if that is the case, then maybe this is an issue to consider in a more general arena.

Apologies if I have edited this page incorrectly, I am not a regular wiki contributor.

Well I've always understood the jokes to be more about his relationships/general social uselessness. Even when a fixture of British TV he still lived with a flatmate in an old council house. Is it really so hard to believe he only has two CDs? By saying he often jokes it flags up not everything might be 100% true, and "claims" is used later on as well. Gran² 11:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is too trivial to state how many CDs he has, regardless of the source. Jim Michael (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Political views

David voted for the Liberal Democrats in the 2010 general election but has been known to vote for the Conservatives in past elections. His friend Robert Webb votes for the Labour party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.143.234 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it is fair to presume that the "David Mitchell" in the 7 August 2014 Guardian open letter against Scottish independence is the subject of this article. I have included it under the "Personal life" section, with a reference to the 2011 column that he wrote explaining his position.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say it was fair enough too, given the article, but there are those who will only accept it if he signs in triplicate that it was him, so good luck. Bougatsa42 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mitchell has specifically said he has never voted Tory http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8271248/David-Mitchell-Jokes-should-come-from-what-makes-us-angry.html.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)