Talk:Borat

message: 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)
thread_title:  Format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Azamat Bagatov]] 

message: 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.
     Pinging some of the biggest active contributors. Wretchskull (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023