Talk:Christopher Guest

British or American?

Is Guest really a "British actor"? Seems to me he's American.

More information on his childhood and upbringing would be useful. Bastie 12:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

According to IMDB, he was born in New York, to a British father (obviously) and an American mother. He appears to have grown up and gone to school in New York. I think it would be appropriate to either call him American or Anglo-American. john k 17:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Does he have dual citizenship?

• Yes he has dual citizenship (otherwise he would not be able to hold his hereditary position). 86.17.247.135 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need citizenship to hold the title but you do to take your seat which he did on the 21st July 1997 Alci12 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As the son of a diplomat enjoying immunity, Guest would not have been a US citizen by birth were it not for his mother's US citizenship. Only those born in the United States "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens at birth under jus soli (14th Amendment), and diplomats enjoying immunity, as well as hostile forces occupying US soil, are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, since his mother was a US citizen by birth, he can claim U.S. birth citizenship. Moreover, as the son of a UK citizen father abroad who was married to the mother at the time of birth (the requirement for children born abroad of UK parents before 1983 to be considered UK citizens at birth), Guest is also a UK citizen by birth. Whether he still is a dual citizen depends upon whether or not he renounced either later in life, as both the UK and US allow dual citizenship. SpanishCastleMagic (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can adopted kids inherit a peerage?

The article notes that his children with Jamie Lee Curtis are both adopted. Can adopted children in the UK inherit a peerage? Isn't the verbiage in the letter patent usually something like "heirs of the body"? --Jfruh 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No and yes. The heir presumptive to the Barony is his brother, The Honourable Nicholas Haden-Guest. Proteus (Talk) 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, but they can carry the courtesy title "The Honorable", via a 2004 Royal Warrant addressing the styles of a peer's adopted children.

US citizenship?

Wow, I love Guest's comedy stuff, but this article has made me think of all sorts of political stuff instead ... since he was born in NY, he was obviously a US citizen ... but does serving in a foreign legislature (as he did when he attended the House of Lords) or, for that matter, just accepting a foreign peerage entail giving up US citizenship? --Jfruh 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No (although it's an urban legend that it does). Proteus (Talk) 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

State Department answer. Basically, they give natural-born citizens the benefit of the doubt. He would have to intend to relinquish his citizenship by taking an oath of office to a foreign power. --Dhartung | Talk 12:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If he was a US citizen, he wouldn't be allowed to sit in the HoL anyway, as far as I know. I don't know what the rules are for those holding dual nationality. Badgerpatrol 14:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Titles of Nobility Amendment (proposed in 1810) if passed, would strip US citizenship from a citizen who accepted a foreign title of nobility. Only 12 states have ratified it, so merely having a foreign peerage by itself is no bar to US citizenship at this time. However, taking an office requiring an oath to a foreign state after the age of 18 may be grounds for stripping of US citizenship under 8 USC 1481(a)(4)(B). Would this apply to the oath sworn upon taking one's seat in the HoL? SpanishCastleMagic (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Guest is not a Peer

Surely Christopher Guest is not a peer, his ancestor Christopher William Graham Guest, with who the title originated, was only a Life peer, and NOT a hereditary peer. As life peerages can't be inherited the title became extinct on 25 September 1984, when Christopher William Graham Guest died. Alanleonard (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How could Christopher Guest, Baron Guest be his ancestor? This Christopher Guest's father, Peter Haden-Guest, 4th Baron Haden-Guest, was born in 1913, and his father, Leslie Haden-Guest, 1st Baron Haden-Guest, was born in 1877. The Christopher Guest, Baron Guest you mentioned was born in 1901. I don't think he's related to this family (especially since he's a "Guest", not a "Haden-Guest"). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly article

This article is as silly as Guest's comedy--some one re-do the whole thing please unsigned by 65.1.237.28

What's wrong with it? Looks fine to me. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

theres nothing here on his work preSpinal Tap I know he did lots of stuff for the National Lampoon in the early 70s stage shows, record albums, the radio show

Wow, he worked in both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Impressive!

Well, who hasn't?

FYC not a mocumentary?

If that's true, as it's article says, the Guest movies template should be modified to say 'works by CG' or something, not "mockumentaries by CG". BabuBhatt 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a mockumentary; I just changed it.C Ruth 19:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. For Your Consideration certainly is a mockumentary. A mockumentary is a fictional story presented in the style of a documentary, a "mock documentary". The term has nothing to do with mocking anyone, as Guest seems to believe, given his objection to the term. Whether the word was coined when This is Spinal Tap! was released, it certainly gained currency for that movie, and was taken up in common usage. By that definition, each of Guest's movies is a mockumentary, a fake documentary, whether Guest likes the term or not.

Coincidentally, Guest appears in another mockumentary, Billy Crystal's "Billy Crystal: Don't Get Me Started", which aired on HBO in 1986. Guest portrays his stock character Chip DeMentibella, a gay choreographer. Eugene Levy also appeared, and Rob Reiner reprised his role as documentary film maker Marty DiBergi from Spinal Tap. The "documentary" scenes provided wrap-around and prologue to Crystal's stand-up comedy performance.

Best regards, theBaron0530

TheBaron0530 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

Move

Meanwhile a stub exists about Christopher Guest, Baron Guest, so this article should be moved to make place for a disambiguation page, however I'm unsure what the appropriate aim could be. I think there are three possibilities:

• to include his peerage as Christopher Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest
• to include his job as Christopher Guest (actor)
• or to include his birthname as Christopher Haden-Guest.

I would prefer the first solution, since he hasn't declined his barony and we have added a title several times to article names of people, who also have not used it. Though I would not have any problem with the second solution either. Any suggestions? ~~ Phoe _talk 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Well he took his seat in the HoL in '97, I would have thought it should be Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest. Alci12 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And Bertrand Russell took his seat in 1931. The case is the same; Guest chooses not to be known by his title, and is de facto known by the name he used before succeeding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move Part Deux 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Guest → Christopher Guest (actor) — To make place for a disambiguation page; suggestions for other possibilities are welcome. Phoe 16:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose as noted below - a simple dab sentance at the top is enough. Few will be looking for the other anyway. -- Beardo 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose; the articles are disambiguated as they stand, and few people will be looking for the Lord of Appeal under Christopher Guest; for those who do, we should have a dablink. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Why can't we just put a link to Lord Guest at the top? This isn't really a suitable candidate for disambiguation, as there aren't two articles wanting the same title (we wouldn't put Lord Guest here even if Lord Haden-Guest didn't exist). Proteus (Talk) 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

A Suggestion to include note of his honorary doctorate

Here is a press release on the subject. Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Amplifiers that go to eleven

If I am not mistaken, Marshall made amplifiers that went to eleven prior to the making of the film, "This is Spinal Tap." Aeckler (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

External link suggestion: Interview with Christopher Guest & Beyman Bros

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this interview with Christopher Guest and his musical group, Beyman Bros. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the interview and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section on this page. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Off-stage demeanor"

Is this section really necessary? Yeah, I know it's apparently verifiable, since it has sources...but is it notable enough to be worth the risk we are taking in keeping it there. It is awfully negative, and this is a BLP after all. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is a gratuitous slam. It surely is not consistent with the spirit of BLP for that section to be there. If there is no objection and I find myself back this way I will remove it. Anyone who sees this and wants to do the deed has my enthusiastic encouragement. It is surely borderline actionable in some jurisdictions. I may be letting my Canadian sensibilities get the better of me but I find this jarring because it is rude. Whether true or not is irrelevant. It injures the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have changed the text in this section to the following: As reported by Louis B. Hobson, "On film, Guest is a hilariously droll comedian. In person he is serious and almost dour." He quotes Guest as saying "People want me to be funny all the time. They think I'm being funny no matter what I say or do and that's not the case. I rarely joke unless I'm in front of a camera. It's not what I am in real life. It's what I do for a living."
  • I believe the above captures the fact that Guest is different off-camera without the (in my opinion uncalled for) negative spin of the original. DeepNorth (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Also has a bibliography

I don't know how to do it, but I just found out the Christopher Guest contributed to "Phillies: An Extraordinary Tradition" (ed. Scott Gummer) by writing the foreword and painting the overleafs. Thought it should be added. Thanks, KM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.164.195 (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lords attendance

The article says he attended the Lords regularly, and the Guardian source says so too, but the Hansard archive has no record of him speaking on the floor, so what does "attended" and "regularly" actually mean in this case? 109.154.79.227 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This article relies on citations to thepeerage.com, which has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN and determined that it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as references in articles.[2][3] Self published sources cannot be used in a BLP WP:BLPSPS The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags inserted for the former footnotes. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by in-line citation to a reliable source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Recurring actors chart

I restored this on the basis that WP:CALC excludes simple computation from WP:OR, and there's no controversy at all about which actors appeared where. IMDB can confirm any and all appearances. In addition, there's no shortage of sources which mention Guest's tendency to use some of the same actors again. MilesMoney (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The chart requires a reliable source discussing some kind of tendency to repeatedly cast actors. If there is "no shortage" of these, please find one. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ORN

This article is being mentioned here. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lists

The stated reason for this revert is: "No good inclusion criteria established, no reliable source showing significance of grouping)"

According to WP:CSC, one common selection criterion is a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." We're listing each actor who has had more than one role in a Guest production, which fits in with this. By following WP:CSC, it automatically follow WP:LSC, which requires selection criteria to be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources".

Note that we do not need a "reliable source showing significance of grouping". That's not in the stated policy. In fact, policy contradicts this in WP:LSC, where it says that "membership criteria should be based on reliable sources" only in "cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed". There is nothing subjective about having more than one role, nor is it likely to be disputed, given the reliability of IMDB on these matters.

As far as I can tell, the Binkersnet/Arzel tag team is unaware of this policy on lists. Now that they've been made aware, they get to restore the list. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You missed a step. Before checking with CSC, the significance of the list itself must be established. Wikipedia is not a repository for random facts; it is a summary of published information. This biography should contain the important points of Guest's career and no more than that. The person who wants this kind of list under discussion must show that such a grouping has been mentioned in a reliable source. You have not done this. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, assuming that's a required step, would an article that mentions Guest's recurring use of actors suffice? MilesMoney (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example. "Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company" contains the following:

"He employs a common repertory company [...] Company members that have been interviewed for this book include Fred Willard, Harry Shearer, Bob Balaban and Michael Hitchcock".

Not that there's actually a requirement to establish "the significance of the list itself", but this suffices.

Since you haven't responded after a reasonable period of time (and have since commented elsewhere on Wikipedia), I'm switching to BRD. MilesMoney (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the book review reference. It looks useful for establishing a basis for the section. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)