Talk:Borat

Kazakhstan exports

In the last paragraph of the Plot section, the fictitious Kazakhstan nation anthem notes that they are the number 1 exporter of Potassium, not Magnesium.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/9/BORAT-sings-national-anthem-366252.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.15.192 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Potassium, not magnesium

The film plays out with a recapitulation of a mock 'Kazakhstan' national anthem glorifying the country's magnesium resources and its prostitutes as being the "cleanest in the region".

The anthem refers to potassium, not magnesium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.179.166 (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See Also Links

The see also links currently are articles about three fake countries with guidebooks from Jetlag Travel. However, it seems that Molvanîa is the only one that is relevant. It, like the movie Borat, mocks eastern european culture. The others do not and are not related enough to be linked to the article. Trogdor31 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted all three. The relevance is doubtful.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Borat's "son"

Many will recall the scene in the movie when Borat shows pictures of himself with his son, who is naked. The son was actually a gay porn star named Stonie, who has since transitioned to become a trans woman named Brittany CoxXx. I have posted a wikibio of Brittany, and think either a link to it or the redirect page Stonie (plus some of the refs and info in Brittany's article) would be appropriate to include in this article. However, I am unsure of exactly what to add. Thoughts? Suggestions? EdChem (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a bit trivial to me. It is a person who didn't even act in the movie, after all, what he (she?) did after the fact is something with no relationship to his "role" in Borat.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more of something like: "In one memorable sight gag, Borat shows (whoever it was) photos of his "son", who is naked. The "son" was actually gay porn star Stonie who was chosen specifically because he was of legal age but appears substantially younger." That he later became Brittany is not what I was suggesting to note - sorry I wasn't clear about that. The Brittany page has refs that establish that (a) the photos were Stonie and (b) the reason he was chosen, plus give refs establishing what was in the sight gag, so the addition would be well-sourced. Does that sound reasonable? EdChem (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if all of them are demonstrably WP:RS reliable sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. With Lenin & McCarthy retired, it falls to me to preserve this article against deterioration (some has already occurred) which will wind up with it at FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit, see what you think. EdChem (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan → Borat — Per WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title, the article title should have naturalness and conciseness. More specifically, WP:COMMONNAME says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." The sources will rarely use the long title ad nauseum. We can still write the long title in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article title could be more concise. (This request was prompted by a similar one for Dr. Strangelove here.) --Erik (talk | contribs) 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This was requested once before here, it closed as no consensus. That is purely for information, as that was over three years ago. I opposed at that time, I'm going to wait and listen to discussion here before supporting or opposing. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the discussion before starting a new one (since consensus is not immutable and all that). I found it a little strange that some editors supported the long title despite the original poster's mention of WP:COMMONNAME. Which is why I chose to quote the guidelines at length, so decisions are more based on that than gut feelings. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Lenin & McCarthy is semi-retired, so I watch the article. I guess the only counterargument I can think of offhand is that you don't change long-standing article names without good reason. If this passes, as this is a FA, there will have to be something done to properly do the FA star bit, and I will consult with one of the FA delegates. In fact, I may just talk to him now. As I said, I don't really have strong feelings about this today.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. With exception being the sole purpose of identifying the actual name once when commenting on the film, no one (of professional status) regularly refers to the film by this overly long title. It's typically just "Borat". I know that the character has his own article and came before this film, but since "Borat" actually redirects to the film (indicate a clear opinion that the simple name of "Borat" is more associate with the film than the character article) it seems appropriate that this page be moved to simply "Borat", while leaving the full name in the opening sentence. If there is any confusion, and appropriate hatnote can be placed at the top of the article directing any potentially confused readers to the character page should that be what they were really looking for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME. --John (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support move; I entirely agree with Erik's rationale. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Prefer to make Borat a disambiguation page - I have a slight issue with the film being a primary topic over the Borat Sagdiyev character article, as the character came into prominence significantly before the film, at least in the UK market. However, if my view is not the prevailing one and the status quo is maintained, with Borat redirecting to the film, then I would support the proposed move.

  I think it's pretty clear that the film is the primary topic now, though. Consensus guidelines are that titles should lead users to the primary topic for that title as defined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not that titles should lead users to the first subject that was known by that title. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral I really am fine with any reasonable decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. The Celestial City (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the above. MarnetteD | Talk 23:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's cute to have the full name, of course, but per COMMONNAME this seems logical to move. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, just "Borat" is the common name, the rest is effectively a comic subtitle.--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Borat denounced because it was racist attack against Muslims and Kazakstanis

So far as I know Borat was not denounced because its protagonist was anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc. Pretty much everyone understood it was satire and that it was trying to make those sorts of people look stupid.

Pretty much everyone watching on TV or in theatres understood it was satire -- but also that it used a racist xenophobic strawman argument.

It was denounced because it was a racist attack and incited religious hatred using false claims about the general beliefs and customs of Muslims and Kazaks.