Talk:Borat

Format

For the "Box Office" section the first sentence should be changed. It should be, "Americans loved the film and there were many sold out showings". This allows the sentence to be much more concise while still getting its point across.--Gcamp02 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Azamat Bagatov

Half a year ago I tagged Azamat Bagatov as failing notability. Nobody has improved and a WP:PROD was removed. I tried my best just now to expand that article, adding a reception section, but I don't think there is enough out there to warrant keeping this. But I think this could be merged here, perhaps into the cast section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Merge. I did not even know that the article existed. Wretchskull (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Merge There is absolutely no reason for the article to exist, merge it. Chariotsacha (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Merge True Darksnapper (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Given that there is more than one Borat movie, it logically makes sense to have the character as a seperate article from either movie, as if we merge it into the first movie then what shall we do for the second? TheTrainCrazyMan (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @TheTrainCrazyMan: He wasn't really in the movie or anything, no more than a mention of him, so it would make sense if he only had a section in the first article. ― Levi_OP^Talk 03:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Merge Per above --The helper5667 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Azamat Bagatov is his own man, he does not need Borat --170.52.83.121 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge as failing WP:GNG. Even the reception is more about a scene from the movie. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR needed

This FA is incredibly dated and does not fulfil the FA criteria anymore.

• There are many unsourced statements, sentences and entire paragraphs.
• Many section are underdeveloped with some containing a few small sentences and a few with a single paragraph.
• A quick search on WP:TWL gives hundreds of results on Borat when sorting by peer-reviewed. Google scholar and google books contain no shortage of info either. The current sources are from pre-2010. Although this doesn't compromise the quality of the article (as film content doesn't change) it definitely signals that the article was only seriously edited during these years.
• The article feels too list-y and misuses commas frequently; prose work is needed.
• Many instances of "anti-Americanism" in the body could be linked, but is only linked in the see also section.
• WP:OVERLINK is violated multiple times throughout the article.
• Some info and sourcing could be expanded from the respective main articles of some sections, such as the Soundtrack section, although it's not enough.
• Some ref URLs are dead.

@Lenin and McCarthy: @DemonDays64: @RealFakeKim: @EdChem: @Wehwalt: Pinging some of the biggest active contributors. Wretchskull (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll look it over. It might be best to revert to a version from the FAC and then add more modern material as you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for the very late reply I have been busy with school but I now have more free time so will try and make sure the article is more up to date Wretchskull. — RealFakeKimT 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Wretchskull: Have your concerns been addressed? If not, would you be interested in bringing this to FAR, or outlining additional concerns? Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• As someone who's pretty knowledgeable about Borat... this article will probably need a complete, from-the-ground-up rewrite if it's going to comply with modern FA standards. From just a quick glance:
  • It's missing a lot of production information, both from the time of release and retrospective interviews.
  • There's no scholarly analysis of the themes and messages present, which is a massive oversight.
  • The reception section needs to be massively expanded/rewritten
  • Borat had a massive impact on popular culture that this article doesn't discuss.
  • As previously mentioned, the article as a whole is presented in a list-like fashion that falls into WP:PROSELINE territory.

So unless this article undergoes a substantial rewrite, I don't see why it should remain featured. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Under Controversies I would like a new section called "Legality of participant waivers - The Borat Problem in Contract Law" with this text:

The legality of the participant waivers involves fraud, assent and standard forms. Two parties reach an oral agreement. The first then presents a standard form contract, which the second signs without reading, or without reading carefully. When the second party later objects that the first did not perform according to the oral representations, the first party points out that the signed document includes different terms or disclaims prior representations and promises. This occurrence is called the “Borat problem,” after litigation over the 2006 movie of that name based on this fact pattern. The Borat problem exists on the blurry border between tort and contract law.

This paragraph will need citation to Russell Korobkin , Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program, UCLA School of Law . His article is here:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0wp5r2gr 2600:1017:B822:9B22:40A3:EC07:16B:19CF (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Why is this needed? Seems entirely unrelated, except the name. Borat problem isn't even mentioned in the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)