Talk:Borat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Coincidences, not popular culture

This article has references from other movies as almost purposeful, yet they are clearly EXTREMELY coincidental. In any case, these do not in any way belong in this article as they add nothing to the movie.

Example: "The King and I. Borat's translated line upon learning that Anderson has written a book, "A woman has written a book?" echoes that (as does his reaction) of the King in The King and I, upon learning of Harriett Beecher Stowe's writing of Uncle Tom's Cabin." - this is nothing more but a coincidence stemming from both characters in both movies being misogynists/ignorant of women's intelligence, completely separately from one another.

I don't think that section has any relevance to the movie either. Just coincidences - I don't think Sacha Baron Cohen had any intention to make allusions to popular culture like that in the movie.

It's impossible to source or verify. I agree, delete the whole section--Wehwalt 16:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Successor to Ali G in Da House?

Isn't this film "preceded" by Ali G in Da House? OK, that film didn't have Borat in it, but in most people's eyes the new film is the sequel to the Ali G film.213.254.90.177 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali G in Da House DID have Borat in it. 60.242.25.74 08:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I see them as entirely different.

I want to know if it's just actors in this film, instead of real people.

71.56.237.70 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a mix of both but mainly real people, Borat's producer is an actor, and Pam Anderson is an actor but mainly its just real people he interviews. And this movie is not a sequel to Ali G in Da House, if anything this flick is preceeded by Da Ali G Show. J-Axe

It is absolutely not a sequel (though, to correct you, Borat did in fact appear in Ali G Indahouse). They are entirely different characters; a sequel would imply that it was the continuation of the story of the same characters and their struggle (new or old). Just because they exist in the same world doesn't mean they are sequels. (--Great Scrivener 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

Isn't Don't be a menance to south central while drinking your juice in the hood a longer title?

---

How exactly do you grow your eyebrows for a movie role? I'd like to know, as mine are dandy, but not yet ~spectacular~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk • contribs)

The eyebrows just like his mustache would be all done as part of his make-up before the shooting. Mathmo 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Scaled-back U.S. release"

In this section it list Southeast Texas as a region where the film was not shown. I live in Houston and saw the movie, so I don't think this is entirely accurate. It is also currently playing at multiple theaters in the city. It might be true that surrounding areas of Southeast Texas did not show the movie (I honestly don't know). Regardless I think this needs to be clarified.

"Leaked onto YouTube"

I'm pretty sure it was not leaked on to YouTube; it's only four minutes, it's high quality and was on the sponsored section of the front page. Also, the user (BoratMovie) has deleted scenes. It's a promo. Nothing big, just thought we may as well be accurate. 80.47.117.15 08:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I just watched it on YouTube 67.158.70.191 02:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I love you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Some idiot uploaded the shitty cam recording of the movie.

I have not yet seen a link for this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because it was removed soon after it was posted.

IMDB Controversy

The film (as noted in the Wikipedia article) reached 232 in the IMDB top 250 on Sunday 8 October 2006. Strangely, the next day it dropped out of the top 250, and has not since reappeared in the list, while maintaining the same 'raw' arithmetic mean score, 9.4 out of 10.

Strangest of all, according to IMDB, the votes of 150 women up to Monday 9 October produced an average of 9.1, but 24 more female voters on Tuesday brought this average down (according to IMDB) to 6.5.

150 x 9.1 = 1365 total female points on Monday

174 x 6.5 = 1131 total female points on Tuesday

So 24 extra voters somehow managed to REDUCE the points accumulated by 150 female voters up to Monday.

It has been claimed that IMDB has actually interfered with the 'democratic' mechanics of user's votes. President Bush had expressed his displeasure at the film, and Kazakhstan is an oil-rich frontline state in his 'War on/of Terror'.

Isn't democracy wonderful in Kazakhstan, IMDB and the US and A?

Um. The IMDB is a british website. BlackTerror 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Um." The IMDB has been owned by Amazon.com since 1998. Amazon.com is an American electronic commerce company based in Seattle, Washington. --Susurrus 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Alt Country Releases

What is the significance of Belgium in the release dates? Archibald99 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

or any other country... could be deleted. Medico80 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre Screening

I saw the movie at a pre-screening last night. I have to say, it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, and I've followed Sasha since his Channel 4 days. Ridiculous.

"Let us play game... we still a piece of cheese between khrum-hole, and have little mouse come and eat it"

I also did not notice two scenes that were in the trailer but not in the movie... where he is running with the civil war guys and where he takes a picture of a man standing in front of the urinal.

Yeah I did notice this too, however alot of movies seem to show clips in trailers but they never make it to the actual movie (maybe these deleted scenes will show up on DVD)

Controversy

I think we should have every detail of the Controversy section here, I think many Kazakhstan Americans are boycotting this movie.

Yes, I think both of them were very upset.82.10.182.37 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good one, 82.10.182.37. Well in. EmpComm 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it now, and was disappointed. Much of it seems to have been cut out because of the lawsuits. Can anyone verify this? For instance, the much-hyped "Throw the jew down the well" country song scene was not in there, three weeks after the opening. Are they taking bits out? Chris 06:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The throw the jew down the well bit was on the original Ali G show, it was never ever to be included in the movie.

Mattjblythe 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Screw you guys...I'm goin' home!" - The last line in the movie.

Is this confirmed? Seems doubtful that the film would borrow (or that the character would reference) a South Park catchphrase.

- If true, anyone consider this a spoiler? - Not true. --BDD 09:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm...did you even see the movie? The last line in the movie is (SPOILER!) the farewell phrase in Polish (Chjenkue I this is how it's spelled) (/SPOILER!).

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are listed as producers in the final credits also.

Category: Da Ali G Show

I'm adding this article to Category:Da Ali G Show because Borat was a product of that show. I realize that Ali G himself does not appear in this movie, but it's still relevant to the show. (p.s. I've been to Kazakhstan, there's nothing there, thought'cha might like to know.) Paul 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Cohen film all the Borat scenes in America at once? Or did he make several trips over years developing the character and the concept as he went? Are any scenes from the Ali G show included in the movie? It would be nice to have more information about how the character developed from a minor subsection on the Ali G show to it's own film. Maybe such a description should be/is? under Borat, but it would be nice to mention/reference it from here. ChristineD 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Azamat the producer

{{spoiler}}I saw and enjoyed the movie last night. But at the end when Borat is back in the village with everyone, is Azamat the cameraman with him?{{endspoiler}} I forget if he was or not. Thanks. 68.190.212.208

I don't think so. The cameraman was just following him around throughout the whole movie. I don't remember any reference to the cameraman's identity in the movie, though. Nishkid64 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Azamat was the producer, not camera man. and I don't know. probably.

In the opening credits, some one is referred to as operating "the camera machine"

Anybody else notice that Azamat's last name (Bagatov) is the same as the film company in the beginning (when it says Kazakhstan Ministry of Information in association with Bagatov Films) does anyone know if this film company actually exist and if so is this guy the actual owner of the film company?

subtitles

The subtitles not always accurate. For example when Azatmat tells Borat that he scheduled a meeting with feminists, he refers to the feminists as "whores" in Armenian. The English subtitles didn't have that as far as I can remember. I wasn't reading them very carefully though, since I could understand Armenian.

I don't think they were supposed to be accurate. They were talking two totally different languages in the first place. Do you think they would actually do correct subtitles lol? I would doubt it. Nishkid64 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Box office

I can never work the referencing system on wikipedia - someone want to incorporate some of the stats from this into the box office section? http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1555093_1_0_,00.html

--Charlesknight 12:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What was real?

I didn't see this anywhere in the Borat page or the movie page - evidence of particular scenes being staged or not. Wouldn't this be interesting information?

Facts

• Pamela Anderson scene

Pamela reports on her official website: "Of course Sasha and I planned this years ago." Plus, there is a big Borat picture on her homepage.

• Fraternity RV scene

It seems that the RV part itself was contrived, but the fraternity brothers were not actors.

Once there are a bunch more facts, we should move this section to the full movie page.

I would also suggest that we focus more on the facts than random opinions about the likelihood of a scene being staged or not. Pamela's admission on her site is a clear indicator that something fishy was going on at least, however.

The Borat board has some sourced facts on it, but I'm not going to list them all here.

SkepticVK 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well OF COURSE the Pamela Anderson scene was staged. Do you think he'd have absolutely gone up to her in public and tried to carry her off without vetting it in advance? (Unsigned).

My response to this is that some scenes (including Pamela's) might be obvious to some people, but there are a lot of unbelievable things in this movie, so I'd prefer to put sources down before making judgments about a particular scene. SkepticVK 22:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Luenell states that the bag contained real feces.[1] Badagnani 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

alot of the scenes were actually not in the geographic location they were described to be in. The confederate memrobilia shop was not in Texas but in Alabama.

Are the family members in the village actors?

It needs to be checked whether any of Borat's "family members" in the village were actors. I read that one of them was an actual woman from Kazakhstan brought there. The two who might have been actors are the one Borat kisses (his sister?), and the one who yells at him (his wife). Does someone know? Badagnani 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They were Romanian villagers who are now suing. See the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't really say anything specific about those actors, it just talks in general terms about various villagers.--71.35.109.198 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I read that at least one of the two women (maybe the one Borat kisses or the one who yells at him) was not a villager, but was a Kazakh woman brought into the shoot. 24.93.190.134 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in Rolling Stone says there are only four actual actors in the film, plus the porn star who portrays Borat's son "Huey Lewis" in the photos he shows to the etiquette coach. Badagnani 04:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

This article is currently at "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan". Shouldn't it be at "Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" - the opening sentence suggests this is the film's title.

All the trailers for this movie exclude the exclamation mark, I believe. Gdo01 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Although appearing in some of the early promotional art for the film, it really seems evident that the exclamation mark following the abbreviated title was more a bloc-style flourish in some promotional art than an intended punctuation in the title. The mark is omitted -- or the title abbreviated as simply Borat -- in virtually all written media, and the exclamation mark does not appear in the film's logo on its official site or 20th Century Fox's, nor in its current trailer. --Incomplet 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it should have been Borat (film) instead of Borat! (film), so I did a page move to what I believe should be the proper movie title. Like Incomplet said, I don't think it was a punctuation mark. It wasn't used at all in the movie promos or in the actual movie. Nishkid64 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Try to keep in mind that each page move also results in a bunch of double redirects, which have had to be fixed roughly three or four times apiece now. --Wafulz 18:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus for that hasty page move. The long title is the correct one. Badagnani 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the current page title omits a space preceeding the subtitle.

The correct title was apparently already "taken" due to whatever mischief was worked earlier. Badagnani 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay to move it back to its correct name (Borat:[space]Cultural...)? --DCrazy talk/contrib 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I only moved the page in response to a previous incorrect page move. I thought there was some consensus on that page move, but I guess there wasn't. I'm all for keeping the current title. Nishkid64 15:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To add

• The film is leading the Kazakhstan embassy in Washington to receive about a dozen calls inquiring about tourism per day.[2] A Kazakhstan tour company, Sayat, is launching anti-Borat tours showing the real Kazakhstan.[3] Badagnani 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional Source for Controversy section

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=289827 I found this as I was eating my cereal. I hope you find it useful :)NinaEliza 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Luenell

Oh, it looks like Luenell (according to IMDB) has gone by her first name only, in all but her very first film. I suppose we should describe her simply as Luenell (not Luenell Campbell) in the article, then. Badagnani 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed that up. She only goes by Luenell so there's no point in having her full name. If people want to see the full name, they can click the link. Nishkid64 22:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NY Times

The New York Times wrote a blistering editorial of this movie today, basically speaking about how making fun of other people has become a sad national pasttime. I'm not sure I can effectively write this into the article, but I noticed no mention of domestic criticism outside the participants; I think this should be included. The article, which requries registration on the NYTimes site, is started here. Any help (or opinion) would be appreciated. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Although that relates to a theme in the movie, it doesn't relate to the plot itself. I'm not totally sure either if a section entitled "Response in United States" is useful or appropriate. Nishkid64 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Awareness for Film

I can't believe that only 27% or so of the US knew about Borat's release. I'm sure that anyone who had a TV in the Atlanta market or saw a movie in the last 4 months knew it was coming out. Then just days before the film was released, they scaled it back here and moved it 45 minutes from my house. Some entertainment companies can be really stupid. That's my rant for the day. --Dleav 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your rant? Anyway, the 27% was probably a poll conducted by Nielsen or some film agency, and may not tell the exact truth to the whole situation. Statistics are always tricky. Nishkid64 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Donation to Glod

Cohen's producer says that both Cohen and his production company each donated US$5,000 to the village of Glod. Is it true? Badagnani 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Today's LA Times said $10,000 that was used to buy computers for a village school. Brentt 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The villagers told the British newspaper that they didn't see any computers go to the school, just some notebooks. Maybe someone in the village embezzled the money before the computers were even purchased. Badagnani 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Releases

If everyone appearing in the film signed a release, how, for example, does this explain the appearance of people who are obviously unhappy to be on camera or filmed with a hidden camera, as for example the hotel employees that kick Borat out when he walks in with his pants pulled down? Badagnani 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They all signed the release forms before the filming. Slate.com [4] has made the release forms public, in case you haven't seen them. Basically, the production crew didn't tell them the true nature of the film, and by signing the release form they supposedly agreed to waive any claims including "intrusion", "defamation", "allegedly deceptive business or trade practices", "false or misleading portrayal of the subject", etc. There are people questioning whether it is legitimate to waive one's right to these claims, particularly the deception part, and whether the allegedly false pretenses which influenced them to sign the contract constitute fraud. [5]

In the case of the hotel employees, the hotel's PR manager was told it was to be a "travel documentary" and showed the film crew around the hotel so they could photograph it before the host arrived. [6] --Dforest 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Language

In response to the Poster containing Cyrillic letters:

Wouldn't the "B" in the poster for 'Borat' resemble an upside-down Cyrillic "Б"? I would input this in myself, but I'm unsure about this.

It looks like a normal "B" to me. Badagnani 10:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

languages other than English which Borat is speaking

Borat speaks (other than English) with Azamat in Hebrew - but doesn't he also speak some other language to him? May be it is Armenian, because that is what Azamat (supposedly, don't know Armenian from Albanian...) speaks to Borat? Anyone know?--Soylentyellow 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from "jagshemash" and "chenquieh," which are Slavic, not Hebrew, he does appear to echo a few of the Armenian words that Azamat says, presumably for believability's sake. But I'm sure Baron Cohen he doesn't understand more than a handful of Armenian words. Badagnani 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the so-called Kazakh village, Borat's wife, Oxana curses him in Romanian "futu-ti pizda ma-tii..." (meaning "f*** your mother"). Aslo while he is leaving the village to go to the U.S and A., a villager wishes him the best in Romanian. The pulled by horse blue car is a Dacia 1300, a Romanian car manufactured in the 80s. I am not a language expert but some words such as "děkuji" mean "thank you" in Czech, Slovak and maybe Polish.

No cyrillic letters!

These are just decorative elements employed by the graphic designer in the poster. Hell, in this case it's not even in the title card of the film, which should really be considered the "official" title. – flamurai (t) 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Becoming too long

I feel as if the plot section is virtually a script to the movie! (as if there were a script and none of it were improvised) Wikipedia's policy on movie pages is that any plot summary not be a virtual subsitute for watching the movie itself. And some of the other sections are becoming so long I would feel they warrant their own articles (such as how all the different countries are reacting to it) I didn't make any edits without making mention of this in the discussion page, of course, but I did add the "toolong" tag (it more than exceeds 32 KB). Mount Molehill 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous summary (before the insanely long one) was sufficient, I agree. Film summaries always, for obvious reasons, leave some of the film's contents to the imagination. Badagnani 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Right hand wheel

Why the ice cream van has the wheel on the right? Is that typical in America? Is it a British van? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) .

---I'm actually not sure about this either, when i saw it I assumed it was probably a Mail truck made to look like an ice cream truck. (American mail trucks have the steering wheels in the right hand sid)

Motoieni

If I read it right, the Romania location appears as Motoieni in the credits. The Glod, Dâmboviţa article says it is in Moroeni. Which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs)

Transit worker to sue

The transit worker who says "F--- off!" has stated that he didn't sign a release form and will sue. Article here. Badagnani 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To add: Baron Cohen nominated for Kazakh culture award

"[Kazakhstani] Novelist Sapabek Asip-uly called on the Kazakh Club of Art Patrons to give Cohen its annual award, according to a letter published by the Vremya newspaper Thursday."[7] Badagnani 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of "irony"

It is not in the least bit ironic that the official film website contains a link to the Kazakhstani Information Ministry website. It's funny, not ironic. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS INTERESTING DOESN'T MAKE IT IRONIC, PEOPLE! STOP MISUSING THE TERM!!!

Type louder; I can't hear you.

Generally people writing on Wikipedia get a lot of things wrong: that is an inevitable outcome of a project of this kind, ie input given by people who want to contribute rather than those who are knowledgeable or literate. Within those parameters I think that the Wikipedia project works quite well. Dr Spam (MD) 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic on map

This article says that the Cyrillic in the film, "especially" geographical names, are mis-spelled or nonsense, but when I saw the film I was positive that there was accurate Cyrillic spelling on the map showing Borat's progress, unlike the gibberish Cyrillic displayed in the screen overlays and on the show. Can anyone confirm this? --DanyaRomulus 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looked like Los Angeles was properly spelled using Cyrillic. But the map was shown so briefly--we may have to await the DVD.--Wehwalt 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

It should be noted that the scene when Borat tries to buy an attack dog which will defend him against jews was not deleted in the Israeli version. (I saw the movie just last week and it had it) 80.178.23.7 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Woman in elevator wants money

The woman stuck in the elevator with naked Borat and Azamat now wants to be paid.[8] 131.123.122.56 19:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently it isn't semi-protected, go right in and add it. :-) oTHErONE_(Contribs) 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Church scene

Any info on that scene? --219.74.97.2 11:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hotel where Borat receives the telegram

According to the trivia section, "The hotel in which Borat is notified of his wife's fatal mauling by a bear is the Wingate on Harbison Blvd, in Irmo, SC." I'm pretty sure I remember that the manager of the hotel who came to Borat's door was wearing a nametag that said Courtyard by Marriott (or some other large hotel chain). It's possible that the hotel's name has changed since filming, but this should be made clear in the trivia section. A citation would also help. —Crashintome4196 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The bear

I note that the article now states that the bear's decapitated head was seen in a refrigerator. Is that accurate? I thought the bear ran away from Azamat.--Wehwalt 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've seen it, and I would have to assume the room the head was in was Azamat's. I don't remember anything about the bear running from Azamat. --User:Lenin & McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that explains Borat's shock when he finds out that Pamela is AGAINST cruelty to animals! I'll take your word for it and watch the DVD when it comes out!--Wehwalt 16:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a bear's head in the fridge in Azamat's room, I can confirm. It's rather odd... 213.202.140.63 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Azmat tells Borat that the bear ran away, then you see Azmat open the fridge, and you then get a quick glimps of the severed head on the top shelf.

It's definately there. :PBrotherEstapol 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

top ten lists

Are the top ten lists in the Awards section really important or relevant? --User:Lenin & McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YESxx little anna 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are. Films always tout their credentials as being on top ten lists or doing well at film festivals, and this movie is no different. When you're named ne of the ten best films of the year by TIME and Rolling Stone, you're a pretty big deal. -- Kicking222 16:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't think there's much more of the Trivia section that can be brought into the article. Shall it be deleted? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is too much in the "Trivia" and "Allusions" sections. They should be hevily trimmed (leaving only what is both verifiable and notable) and integrated into the main text (or, at least, merged into one short section) or, as suggested above, deleted. -- Kicking222 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the trivia section seems to have been deleted. Here's a verifiable tidbit from http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117957938.html?nav=news&categoryid=1985&cs=1. "The 71 letters, collected into 12 words, appears to make "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" the longest title of a film ever nominated for an Oscar. In the fiction category, it easily topples the 54 letters of "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" and in the land of docs, edges out the 65-letter "Forever Activists: Stories from the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade" from 1990."74.99.213.103 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Luennel and the messenger

where exactly do they say that these people were in on the joke? Was it in the Salon article? My computer wouldn't let me see the link to the rest of it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Luenell is an actress and comedienne. It's rather obvoius that she's in on the joke- she is in the last scene, which was filmed in Albania, so I doubt she didn't know about the whole deal. Also, she's done interviews since the movie came out, discussing what it was like to shoot the film. -- Kicking222 02:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, obviously Luenell was in on it. Nuff said. As for the messenger, I can find no reference that says he was in on the joke. I would think, given the way the movie was made, that he was not. After all, if Cohen didn't get the reaction he wanted from the first guy, he could move on to a new hotel and do the telegram again until he got what he wanted.--Wehwalt 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin?

If I recall correctly, Azamov was wearing a moustache and was impersonating Charlie Chaplin, not Hardy. If someone confirms this, I'll edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.75.115 (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

No, it was Hardy. Who also had a mustache. Due to Azamat's size, he would be unlikely to be hired to impersonate Chaplin. The Hardy impersonation is why the "That's another fine mess you've gotten us into" line was used. --Wehwalt 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Online Film Critics Society

I have been unable to find their own page listing their nominnees. Would this page be an acceptable source? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Given that they don't seem to have a proper web site OR a WP article, I would say ax the reference in the article as not notable.--Wehwalt 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also got rid of the US Weekly Top 10 I couldn't find any references for --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Few things before GA

I'm thinking I might nominate this for Good Article status, but before I do there are two things I know of that should be sorted:

1. The thing about the guy from the hotel is still unsourced. Would someone please find a source for it?
2. Someone needs to find a way to work this review by the Irish Social Democrats into the article mores smoothly.

Perhaps at some point the languages in the production section might need some more sourcing as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did #2 and also posted a couple of refs about the languages. Do we really need to mention every related Slavic language? The fact that, say, Tishe means quiet in Russian is enough, we don't also need to know similar words mean the same thing in other Slavic languages.--Wehwalt 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not coming up with anything on the telegram guy . . . in fact this site says (he may be assuming) that Borat sent himself the telegram and the guy just read it.[9] So I am deleting for lack of verifiability.--Wehwalt 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

All references need to be placed after punctuation. I changed a few of these problems, but others probably need to be fixed (and I'm too lay to do it). Otherwise, I completely support this article for GA status. -- Kicking222 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just nominated. Will try to fix the references. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Support GA Nomination, looks like it meets the WP:GA? criteria. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Language 2

Misspelled

About the Cyrillic used in the film, the article says: "words written in it (especially the geographical names) are either mis-spelled, or make no sense at all. The promotional posters also spell "BORДT" with a Cyrillic letter for D substituted for the A." I have two remarks. The type of writing of "BORДT" is called faux Cyrillic. The word "mis-spelled" should be without a dash, if applicable at all in this sentence. - Ilse@ 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kusek

In my opinion, this sentence: "with the name of Borat's hometown of Kusek being reminiscent of a Hebrew slang word for vagina" should be sourced or removed. - Ilse@ 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotten the first section taken note of. Hopefully someone will have a source for the second, otherwise I'll remove it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm from israel. the word is "kus" is slang for vagina (pretty much like "pussy" in english). the begining of the name "kusek" is "kus", but it didn't seem to me in the movie that there is any connection. he uses hebrew in the movie but doesn't change the words like that. just like if it were named "pussiek" would anyone relate it to "pussy"!? i think it should be sourced, explained or removed. --itaj 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Promote GA

I've promoted this to GA. Everything appears sufficiently sourced; the language is comprehensive; it appears to cover the topic (at least it contains everything I'd like to know); and it contains image where relevant. There are -- in my opinion -- still some clear flaws in the article, but for GA i think it meats the criterias sufficiently.

I react to the lead section, which appears to be focused on in U.S release; not up to the recommendations of WP:LEAD, that says that the lead should summirize the article. However, I deem it OK for GA :-) The next step would be a peer review. Good luck.

Fred-Chess 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fair use rationale of this image Image:Boratmoi.jpg is too general. - Ilse@ 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't this article get a peer review before this promotion? I believe things like my comment on the fair use rationale would have been discovered earlier. - Ilse@ 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote the rationale for the pic. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead and moved the material on the release well down in the article, and taken care of a few phrasing problems I found. Let's get a peer review. I think that this is going to be a FA. Lenin & McCarthy has done great work.--Wehwalt 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, thanks. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article wasn't peer reviewed because that's not how the GA works! / Fred-Chess 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for peer review in prep for working on it to become a featured article, though frankly I am not sure it meets the stability criterion.--Wehwalt 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

two things

1. Is it just me, or were there not a lot of accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against this film? I went to look it up, and I could really only find the ADL thing.
2. Perhaps this talk page should be archived soon. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Anderson nitpick

I'm a bit lost on how to appropriately incorporate it into the article without weasel words, but this article shouldn't categorically state that the Pamela Anderson scene was staged (however obvious it is) without mentioning the particularity that neither Anderson nor others connected to the film have admitted it. --Ezeu 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me give it a try. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

War of Terror

One editor keeps putting a reference to the War on Terrorism where the article mentions Borat applauding, at a jingoistic rodeo, Bush's "war of terror". Undoubtedly Borat thinks he is using the term "War on Terror", but Cohen, in his sardonic way, obviously is not. In addition, I disagree with the editor who says supplying the link would explain the joke for people who might not get it. I doubt that. They either get the joke, or their grasp of English, like Borat's, is so confused they will not even understand that there was a joke intended. I say take the link out.--Wehwalt 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase U.S. and A. links to United States of America, the word vazhin links to vagina, and the similarly mangled phrase war of terror now links to War on Terrorism. It's not that controversial. By the way, User:Lenin and McCarthy does not object to the link; he reverted the link accidentally.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK,but how does the edit help people get the joke? And I think you are mistaken when you say "war of terror" is similarly mangled. "U.S. and A." is nothing more than mangled English, but "war of terror" expresses a viewpoint which is held among some about Bush and his activities. --Wehwalt 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the link. Borat was clearly referring to the War on Terrorism. Any wiki readers who want more information on the real-life war the character "supports" may then click on the link to the article. So far, you and I are the only one who seem to have an opinion on the inclusion of this link, so I'm inviting others to weigh in.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote the darn thing to eliminate the joke. It is ridiculous to argue over such a fine point. Best just to remove the bone of contention.--Wehwalt 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Borat: vs. Borat!

Vote which one should be in the title.

I vote for !, as it is the title on the poster Superior1 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just whatever means less work for me to fix the redirects. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than posters, what is on the official website and the Academy Awards site?--Wehwalt 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising is NOT censorship

The decision of the Israeli movie distributor to not use a poster of Borat in his swimsuit IS NOT censorship. Advertising is ALWAYS customized to sensitivities of different markets. The person adding this comment is either: 1) ignorant of censorship and advertising, 2) trying to bad mouth Israel by making up some rubbish.

Reaction of anti-semites

Andrew Johnson's article contains anti-semitic comments: "This Jewish background perhaps provides a clue to the most notable aspect of Borat’s sexism, his habitual assumption that every woman he meets is a prostitute."

It is more than likely that this anti-semitism clouds his judgment on the movie review.

Moreover, my original comment remains: Why is the view of an Irish socialist/Trotskyist politican considered at all worthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.39.241 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Before we go into accusations of anti-Semitism, let me first say that I was not the first to add the second thing you removed. Really, I don't care what happens to it.

Second, you're still removing information from the page. I've restored that bit on the poster again, but it's been altered. You don't happen to have a source confirming the film went uncensored in Israel? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that a less risque poster was used in Israel. However, this is NOT censorship. Maximedia is NOT a government department. It is a national billboard company which knows the sensitivities of its market. It is absurd to claim it was censorship. Why not put it under a different category of "Borat advertising around the world"? I'm sure there were other countries where a less risque poster was used -- why is only Israel deemed worthy of comment?

Please sign your posts. And if you can think of other countries where similar things took place, use them! I do not think censorship necessarily implies government action. If you think it does, think of a better word.--Wehwalt 11:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just dealt with it. It is now in the previews section, wiithout any statements warranting a fact tag. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that censorship is not always a government action. However, it is more widely understood to be a government policy, and the use of the term here strongly implies that the Israeli government pressured Maximedia into using a different poster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.18.27 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

DVD

What exactly are the changes to the dvd release mentioned in the article? --Nemissimo II 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say March 5th as the release date? I got it only on the 6th. --WestJet 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Added DVD info

Per the note at the top -- Add information from the DVD (what scenes were cut, anything important on any commentary tracks or documentaries, and what happened to the porno scene) -- I added info about the deleted scenes appearing on the DVD. There are no commentary tracks, at least on the rental version, nor any mention of the porno scene. There are no documentaries per se, but quite a few segments from real appearances by Cohen as Borat -- these are called "Propagandas" on the DVD -- on programs like The Tonight Show (where he gets into a bed made by Martha Stewart and takes of his pants and underwear). 4.232.195.249 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How disappointing. I was really hoping for more information on the DVD. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to bet in a few months, there will be a deluxe edition, with commentaries and everyhing, to make people buy it twice! By the way, I watched it and you were quite correct on the bear's head. It was such an underplayed shot that I missed it in the theatre. And it is right after Azamat lies to Borat and says the bear ran away. Instead, Azamat has obviously been eating it!--Wehwalt 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things

1. Should the awards section be turned from list to prose in preparation for a Featured Article nomination?
2. Should this talk page should be archived soon? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. The full title appears to be widely used in English language sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan → Borat! — The article's name seems too long IMO. I propose we change it to Borat! per WP:COMMONNAME. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Not entirely sure about "Borat!" being the common name. When I googled "Borat" I saw in the first four pages that the IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and Yahoo Movies all use the full title. I guess I would offer a weak oppose on the question. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support idea of move in favor of Borat without the exclamation mark. When the full title is not used, it seems to be the most common usage and considering the discussions over at WP:MOS-TM it probably best to keep the title as simple as possible. 205.157.110.11 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Borat per previous post and as "Borat!" sounds like the musical version.--Wehwalt 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case shouldn't it be moved to "Borat (film)"? Unless there are plans to move "Borat" to "Borat Sagdiyev". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That actually makes the most sense. 205.157.110.11 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, that's the name of the movie. Talladega Nights is under Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby just like it should be. We don't change article titles because we don't like the title of the suject matter. --TheTruthiness 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not changing the title. It is using a well known alternative title that even the Academy Awards used when announcing the nominees for Adapted Screenplay. We did the same thing for the Fiona Apple album When The Pawn. That one stretched the technical limits but it is the same principle. 205.157.110.11 03:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, although I dislike how long the title is, and it goes over 10 words as recommended by MOS, it is a proper noun, and a redirect from Borat is good enough. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasoning. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Kiss me! • I'm irish!}} 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The very long title and the broken English is part of the quip. --Ezeu 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's the official title and is often referred to as such, and I don't think WP:MOS should trump the official title in this case. --- RockMFR 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Oppose'. It is the official title of the movie and should remain such.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilgohan2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

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.

Featured Article Nomination?

This article is looking like potential FA material. Is there anything anyone wants to bring up prior to a nomination? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that we each need to go through the article and look at it for style. I spent an hour this morning getting rid of stylistic problems. I don't expect to catch everything.--Wehwalt 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just nominated. Here goes. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

DVD case

As a play on Borat's Kazakh heritage, the packaging mimics a foreign bootleg DVD. The slipcover is in English but the case itself has all-Cyrillic text (a majority of which is in legitimate Russian, not faux Cyrillic) and is made to look poorly photocopied.

We've got the DVD, and the inside case is not in "all-Cyrillic." It's exactly the same as the slipcover. As for "looking photocopied," aside from the fake creases on the front of both there's nothing that would suggest that intent. Is it perhaps that only the UK version is packaged this way? Octan 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. but the DVD is still the "Demorex" pirate copy look, right? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 08:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. By the way, I kinda see what the article means by looking like a photocopy, but it looks like a pretty good photocopy, not a poor one. As in, you really have to look real closely to tell that was the look they were going for. Octan 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in fake Cyrillc. The word BORAT isn't. WestJet 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Demorez" actually, on the lower portion of the DVD (there are three parallel lines there, as if to allow for a place to write). If you look casually at it, all you will see is "BORAT" (R reversed). The DEMOREZ is almost the same color as the disk. Under "DEMOREZ", you see in small print "IS LIFE? NO, DEMOREZ". Over on the right hand side, you see in small print "WIDESCREEN (copyright symbol) 2007 FOX"--Wehwalt 10:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the US version of the DVD with the case insert in half-Russian and the DVD-R-appearance of the disc, and I live in the UK. The UK version is not distributed this way, and instead has a case insert in all-English, and a printed DVD front. I've scanned the case and uploaded the image to http://www.kain.co.uk/images/Borat-US.png - it's 12.5Mb if someone wants to manipulate the image. (Please let me know when this is done so I can take it down.) A translation is on my talk page.--Kain 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 08:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just uploaded a picture of the DVD to http://www.kain.co.uk/images/Borat-R1CD.png and deleted the case. It's the best I could do, given the reflective surface of the DVD itself. Incidentally, on the image of the cassette tape in the ad for the Borat soundtrack, you can barely see it but Borat is actually spelt correctly in Russian Cyrillic "БОРАТ". --Kain 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got it up. Interesting about the soundtrack. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 08:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Allusions section

Look, we all know the allusions are accurate, but sourcing them to reliable sources is a big problem and it is standing in the way of our FA nomination. I suggest we axe the section.--Wehwalt 10:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the IMDB's noticing has been rejected as a source, I agree. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. Can be put back when references are found. --Ezeu 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture box overlaps

Could someone who is better at these things than I am make sure that the boxes around the images of the soundtrack and the DVD box do not overlap with the article text?--Wehwalt 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Little unreferenced bits in this article

i.e. 'Deleted scenes', the first paragraph of which is unreferenced. Also, the plot synopsis section is largely unreferenced. Is this acceptable in such an article that's going for featured status?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my experience, plot sypnoses are not usually referenced. This seems to be accepted.--Wehwalt 18:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the plot section for Gremlins 2 Featured article of the day for April 2, does not contain references.--Wehwalt 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

FA Failed

Well, we didn't get FA status. I suggest that we lick our wounds, look at the various advise left for us, see where else we can improve things, and try again in a month or so.--Wehwalt 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Unfortunately, I've been in the process of moving back to U S and A as of late. Hopefully I'll be back to work on a larger scale by May. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

How come there's no commentary on the DVD?--69.113.131.124 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to article, I'm afraid, though we could put in that there is no commentary (wait for the Deluxe Edition, complete with Baywatch book for hand party)--Wehwalt 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't say to put it in the article I just wanted to know why there wasn't any commentary on the DVD.--69.113.131.124 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Demorez" label on region 1 DVD - was this joke aimed especially at the naughty people among us?

It occurred to me that this joke only works if you're already familiar with illicit DVDs. All of the law-abiding DVD buyers - the ones the film studios love - will be looking at the disc and thinking "WTF"?

I have to hand it to them for authenticity, though, it completely matches the look of my real pirate DVDs. If it wasn't for the "Demorez" logo instead of "Memorex", I'd never know the difference. 217.155.20.163 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think enough people know what blank DVD (or other disc media) look like, even if all they did was use a camcorder at Cousin Alfred's wedding for the joke to work.--Wehwalt 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Sacha Baron Cohen introduced as a "British-Jewish comedian"?

This title (British-Jewish) given to Sacha strikes me as politically incorrect. First of all, a British person is British regardless of what religion he or she is. By combining both nationality and religion the title implies or gives the impression that "British-Jewish" is a subgroup of the British nationality. This mixing or confusing of religion and nationality is an apparent problem with the religions Judaism and Islam in particular. I would hope that Wikipedia would not support this false ideology.

Secondly, I recognize that stating Sacha's religion would be important in the Sacha Baron Cohen page but I find it slightly irrelevant in the page about Borat the movie. If you look around at other movie pages you'll find that the religions of leading actors are very rarely, if ever, listed. So why make an acceptation for Baron Cohen?

I am not familiar with the editing system and so I leave it up to you devout Wikipedites to decide if a change is needed. Ethlanda 06:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think the phrasing is odd, and perhaps could be improved, but it is important to stress his religion up front, in view of the character Borat's anti-Semitism.--Wehwalt 10:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited it. It now says "Jewish British comedian." I think the biggest problem was the hyphen. The only such term I know of that's ever hyphenated is "African-American". Does it sound better to y'uns this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Octan (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

What is the name of the Western Asian Semitic ethnicity that started migrating to Britain in the beginning of the 11th century, and that was banned from settling there until the Glorious Revolution? As far as I know, they are called the Jews, and their traditional religion is Judaism, which is centred around their ethnicity. An ethnic Jew might be an atheist or an adherent of some other faith, such as Christianity. It's rather important in the said article, since anti-Semitism is a major theme in the image of the character.Humanophage 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohen's faith should be stated in the article, since the main character is so anti-Semitic. However, we keep running into awkward phrasings. It is not terribly relevant to the article that he is British, so I'd say that first and get the British bit in where we can.--Wehwalt 16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A critical and commercial success....

With regards to this sentence in the introduction:

"It was a critical and commercial success, despite an initially limited release in the United States."

It seems rather strange given that there are lots of films that are never released in the US at all, that are commercial and critical successes. Bollywood put out thousands of films a year for instance. Even if one accepts that a film has to be popular in the US to be a "critical and commercial success", there are enough films on widespread release in the US that are not a critical and commercial success for us to question the validity of the statement at all. Perhaps we should just remove the reference to the United States, and say the film was a critical and commercial success, despite having a limited release? Martin 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Except the release wasn't really limited outside the United States...except in Russia. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

trying for FA again

I think this article might be ready for another FA nomination. There's only one complaint from the last nomination, the poster comment being alone in the previews section, that I believe has yet to be addressed. Anything else? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead. I've been away the past two weeks and so not very active, but I will give the article a once over right now.--Wehwalt 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

Why does the title on the cover read "Bordt" and not "Borat"?

Norum 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

True, it looks like A, but, in fact, it is a D. Just because it looks like it, it doesn't make it right.

Norum 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please... It's a comedy! Barry Kent 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The role of Pamela Anderson

Neither the film (including the end credits, but I haven't seen the DVD extras) nor indeed this article make clear whether Pamela Anderson consented to appear in the film. On the one hand, I can't see how Baron Cohen and his company could make millions of dollars out of Anderson's images (legally) without her express permission. On the other, Anderson's fear response to Borat's very threatening behaviour (including putting a sack over her head) seems quite genuine. The middle ground, that she knew she was in the movie but didn't know exactly what Baron Cohen was planning, seems most plausible. However, a note to clarify the situation would be very helpful. Preacherdoc 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's actually very little out there on this. But if you see a problem, please fix it. WP articles are common property.--Wehwalt 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DVD image

The DVD image needs a fair use rationale. --Nehrams2020 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just did it. Sorry it took so long for me to get around to it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured comment

wow! this motivates me to make more articles featured, think it was easy? <schwing> --Andersmusician $ 05:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What does azamat's obesity have to do with it?

Why do you need to mention Azamat's obesity, it's not a key plot point.

86.54.26.10 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only relevance I can see is to his ability to play Hardy. I'll delete the word and we'll see if it stands.--Wehwalt 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LISTS

Ratings. Ratings are indiscriminate information. No one has any idea what those letters mean in those other countries except for the people that live in that country. Not only is that only a list that doesn't say anything beyond a letter, but there is no prose information describing what the countries didn't like about the film. That isn't the "R is for extreme violence" description, it's the "China did not like blah blah blah..., because...". Bignole 11:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be trimmed to the english-speaking countries (relevant for the english Wikipedia) like the release dates. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Britains criteria, or any of the other primarily english speaking countries criteria (and I wouldn't assume they automatically know ours). Also, I don't know what they actually said about the film, as what's "R" for one film is not "R" for every film. The point is that generally the information isn't even that notable to begin with. Unlike, what is that animated film, "Felix"?, Fritz the Cat, which got slapped with the "X" rating, becoming the first animated feature film to be labeled "X", there really isn't a need to say "This film was rated PG-13" or whatever the case maybe. There would be a better time rationalizing MPAA ratings, and any of the other systems around the world, if we knew what they had a problem with to give it that rating. Bignole 15:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Rowe

"Rowe had ... advocated the execution of homosexuals in the film."

I changed it to 'arguably advocated', which is a more appropriate way to describe what Rowe did. Joey Q. McCartney 05:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No. L&Mc is correct. That's weasel wording. What Rowe did, he did. It's all on camera. There's no arguable about it.--Wehwalt 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer that it simply say what happened: "When Borat suggested hanging homosexuals, Rowe said 'that's what we're trying to do here.'" In my opinion, Rowe himself used weasel wording, even if he didn't mean to, but we can agree to disagree. Joey Q. McCartney 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Borat as a minstrel show

There is nothing but a brief mention of how this movie is anti-Arabic. It may elicit a chuckle here and there, but I'm sure people found Opie and Andy funny too. This movie is simply racist propaganda showing Arabs to be ignorant savages. This shit is as lame and racist as Carlos Mencia. 151.200.228.57 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how. Borat is not an Arab. He is not even Muslim, when the "rodeo clown" asks him about his religion, he says he follows the hawk. He later becomes Christian. If you have reliable sources backing up your assertions, though, I'd be glad to see if it is possible to integrate the info into the article.--Wehwalt 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the suffix stan is Arabic for "place." That's why countries like Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and yes, even Kazakhstan are populated mainly by Arabic people (though, not necessarily Muslims). From the CIA World factbook on Kazakhstan: Religions: Muslim 47% Ethnic Groups: Kazakh (Qazaq) 53.4%[10] From the Wikipedia entry on Kazakh/Qazaq people: "There are also three classifications based on ancestry outside of the jüz system: töre (direct descendants of Genghis Khan), qoja (descendants of Arabian missionaries and warriors), and töleñgit (descendants of Oirat captives)." [11]

So, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan are ethnically Arabic and religiously Muslim people. My point is that this movie is simply an attempt to drum up support for more military adventurism blowing up folks. Look at the end of the movie. Borat comes back from America with Ipods and everyone is happy. It's not making the case for war with Borat or Kazakhstan in particular, but Arabs and Muslims in general. Hooray for the White Man's Burden and Manifest Destiny. Now let's go blow some folks up. Iran, I'm looking at you. 151.200.228.57 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh are in now way Arabic, they are Turkic. Further, "-stan" is Persian coming from a Sanskrit root. So much wrong, in so few sentences. 128.227.189.123 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What the previous poster has mentioned is correct - "stan" is derived from a Sanskrit word for place. For example, the old name for India is Hindustan ie. "The Land of the Hindus". I am sure it is nobody's contention that India is country of Arabic people who are mostly muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.181.15.80 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this within the Judaism WikiProject?

Yes, the actor who plays Borat is Jewish, and references to Judaism are made within the film, but that's about it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just offhand references. A significant part of the narrative is a scathing satire of anti-Semitism.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume it was automatically for being categorized as "Jewish comedy". Same thing happened to "In my country there is problem". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not what'd automatically come to my mind as Jewish comedy. For this reason I'm assessing it as low-importance to Judaism WikiProject. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At one time we had in the article a quotation that it was a stereotype of Ashkenazic literary views of gentiles, that they are hostile and stupid until proven otherwise if I recall correctly.--Wehwalt 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have only knowingly met a few Jewish people in my whole life (I am from Scotland and they are not common at all here), so I guess I don't really have the knowledge to judge.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

IMDb Trivia!?

I was reviewing upcoming Featured Articles, and I was appalled to see that the Internet Movie Database was cited in four different departments in this Featured Article. IMDb is a guarded wiki, in which users submit information which may or may not be accepted. The most lenient feature is the trivia page, which completely violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy in not coming from a reliable source. I strongly suggest purging direct usage of IMDb in this Featured Article; its only merit is as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace got demoted for that very reason. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be as widespread here. Hopefully I'll be able to replace some refs soon. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just have a problem with it being used as the source for Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev appearance at the end of the credits as the "President of Kazakhstan". That's sort of ridiculous. While I admit there's a shocking lack of "reliable source" notice (outside of exceptionally POV anti-Aliyev websites and conversations among Azerbaijani expats that I run into), this seems like a situation where we should adapt the legal argument of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"): Can't a person just watch the end of the movie and say "this is clearly a picture of this guy (right)" without submitting a fact to IMDB's flawed (lack of) fact checking? --Bobak 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Borat and Huck Finn

Has anyone else pointed out the astounding similarities between Borat and Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? In both stories, relative outsiders to American culture travel through the country (particularly the South) stirring up trouble and observing humorous truths about American culture. It might be interesting to include a section on literary analysis of the film, particularly as a picaresque/observational comedy. Ornen 08:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't really see that Huck was a stranger to the areas he travelled in; I don't think he leaves Missouri. The rest of it is no doubt true, but it is shared by many other works. If a RS brings up the comparison, I might feel otherwise.--Wehwalt 12:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea, but ONLY if you can actually cite critical or academic literary analysis, not just make some up. Sebum-n-soda 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 207.190.161.254

Seems some low-lifer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.190.161.254, vandalized the article. Maybe someone could take a look at his previous edits and undo other of his vandalisms. Wikiburger 13:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The fixed article is not the same as the one featured on the main page. What should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhook (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How did they decide on politicians?

Could someone explain how they decided on the politicians? I couldn't help but notice that they seemed like people the Republican Party would probably like spanked. 70.15.116.59 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No reason to believe, as far as I know, that they were anyone other than politicians who fell for the gag. Targets of opportunity--Wehwalt 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mankini

Despite its appearance in UrbanDictionary.com, I warrant the word "mankini" is not in common enough usage to be used here without explanation or contextual comment. It seems the film Borat itself helped popularize the term, as nearly half of the Google hits on "mankini" disappear when you exclude the word "borat". I think it wants comment or deletion. (FWIW, it is also a profoundly ugly coinage and makes my teeth itch, but that's just me.) Other opinion? Sebum-n-soda 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably added as part of the flurry of edits being done as this is the FA of the Day. Be bold and do what you think is best.--Wehwalt 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD Photograph

Very interesting to include. Do you think we should get a better one? It's hard to see the details.--Acewolf359 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

It seems really odd to me that Larry Chjarles gets a namecheck before Sasha Baron Cohen. Alright, I know Charles is the director, but Borat is totally Baron Cohen's baby. After all, he had several TV series featuring the Borat character before Charles got on board. Shouldn't it say soemmthing along the lines of 'Borat (rest of title I can't be arsed to type out) is a film (about - describe it) starring S B-C. It was idrected by Larry Charles, and was written by ....' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.169.70 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE SECTION

Hey, how did a rather useless and under-developped quote section make it on to a Featured Article? I usually don't mind trivia sections but the Quote section at the bottom has exactly 1 quote from the film that's pretty worthless unless linked to some relevant point. Thoughts? Dachande 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, we're getting a lot of well meaning but unfortunate edits from people who see it on the front page. That shouldn't be there and it will no doubt be deleted in no time.--Wehwalt 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity

Unless there is more than one version of the film I think someone has misunderstood the ending. The article referred to the 'apparent conversion' of Borat's village to Christianity, which in their version included the crucifixion of Jews. However, what Borat says during this scene is that they have ended the 'running of the Jews' festival since thay have realised that it is cruel and that "now we use Christians instead." The implication is that it is a Christian being crucified! I've made a small change to reflect this.

Alancarter 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the Jew on the cross, being poked at with pitchforks.--Wehwalt 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Someone archived the page, and picked a hell of a time to do it. Can someone clean it up? I don't think it was done right.--Wehwalt 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It made the front page!

Hell yeah! --Ye Olde Luke 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone who helped promote this article to featured status. Keep up the good work, guys. DavidGoldwater 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all fellow Borat fans that made this possible --Chinese3126 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this already a featured article? I could have sworn it was.Falco x Fox 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Great success!

Why would an article about a recent movie of dubious merit warrant featured status? I'm not saying the movie is good or bad, I'm just saying that it is very new, and the importance is difficult to judge this early. For that matter this article seems to be long rather than good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.40 (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles are based on quality, not topic. Write a decent article on anything, get it featured and it may appear on the mainpage. M3tal H3ad 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia sank to a new low. 122.104.225.84 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm ecstatic. While I haven't done nearly as much work as Lenin and McCarthy, I've put in a couple of hundred edits. This is the first article that I've done serious work on to make the front page.--Wehwalt 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.24.115 (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism/Cohen's Jewishness a nonsequitur?

"It has been criticised for having a protagonist who is sexist and antisemitic (although Cohen is Jewish himself)." This is a nonsequiteur. The protagonist of the film may be sexist and antisemitic regardless of the religion of the writer or the actor who portrays the character. While the fact of Cohen's religion may be relevant for the intro, it shouldn't be offset by "although" in this context. Kaisershatner 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Then delete 'although', don't bury the whole sentence in a footnote. Cop 663 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a semantic point, but in real terms it is most certainly not a nonsequitur: the idea that the filmmakers' intentions and the popular reception of the film with respect to sexism and antisemitism are not in any way related is a patent absurdity. I think, however, that the problem lies in the first sentence not saying exactly what it intends to say: people did not cricitize the film "because it had a sexist, antisemitic protagonist" (which would be like claiming every gangster movie ever made advocates murder, extortion, etc.); instead, they criticized the film because they thought it reflected or promoted sexism and antisemitism. As the line is unsourced and general, however (whence this criticism, anyway?), it's difficult to know what to do with it. Perhaps something along the lines of "The film has been perceived by some as having sexist and/or antisemetic leanings because of the sexism and antisemitism of its protagonist (although Cohen is himself Jewish)"...? Sebum-n-soda 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be weasel words though. The article doesn't actually mention anyone criticizing the film on those grounds, so maybe they didn't. However, it would be factually accurate to write "The character of Borat is overtly sexist and anti-Semitic, although Cohen himself is Jewish".Cop 663 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Cop663 got it more or less right with that sentence. I mostly agree with Sebum, but it is not merely a semantic issue - saying "the film was criticized as anti-Semitic, although Cohen is Jewish" implies a Jewish person cannot create an anti-Semitic work, which is obviously ludicrous, or that his Jewishness mitigates whatever anti-Semitic content there may be, which is also not a valid argument. But I'm happy with, or at least comfortable with, Cop's version. Kaisershatner 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone of Plot section

Since the spotlight for the day is on this article, my suggestion is to focus on the style of the plot section. Above and beyond the points made in the to-do list above, the writing style frequently uses in-universe language which adds nothing to the description of the plot. For a film of its plot complexity, this section is too long.

If I didn't know that many people have probably spent a long time following the development of the article and this section, I would go straight ahead and remove such redundant clauses as "Greatest Country in the World," the "US and A", "vazhïn" and at least a few of the inconsequential details such as the fact that he named his bear after his late wife. As it is I would suggest that this is made a focus in the rewriting of the section. BigBlueFish 23:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Points well made. I didn't put those jokes in. I wrote most of part of the plot section (most of the B&B description and aftermath is mine), and I agree, there should be a consistent tone. Lighthearted, because this is in its way a comedy, but the idea is not to make all the jokes the movie makes.--Wehwalt 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But aren't those terms wikilinked? 204.52.215.107 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the purpose of the section is to describe the plot, not persuade people that it's funny or even explain the jokes. There is already a section entitled "language" and I don't see a list of jokes in the film encyclopedic. Of course a light-hearted style is acceptable and probably appropriate, but this is achieved through choice of phrasing and syntax not with unencyclopedic asides as is currently the case at various points. BigBlueFish 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the vahzin reference as a pure joke, not necessary to the plot description. I think the Greatest Country in the World thing is necessary. The veneration with which Borat (at least at first) treats the US explains why he is going there instead of, say, Lithuania. If more changes are needed, perhaps they can be discussed. If there is no further discussion or major changes, I'll eliminate the tone thing in a couple of days.--Wehwalt 13:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Ali G

The first paragraph states that Ali G, Cohen's more famous character and one that brought him to fame, originated in Da Ali G Show. This is not the case. Much like Stephen Colbert was spawned from The Daily Show, Ali G came from The Eleven O'Clock Show, as detailed in the Ali G article. Merlin83b 11:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've removed the picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Vagina-anatomy1.jpg which was overlayed on this articles page. I'm unsure if I've done so correctly, though I figure its better to have the article slightly out of shape rather than with that over it, can anyone please check if I did it correctly?

Thanks - Karlmiller (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Information

How did you get all of that information on this film to achieve FA status? Creamy3 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

racism section

It seems like some pissed off southern evangelical christian has written the second part of this section. The whole film is about stereotypes - be it in character of Borat, in responses from others or in the way the movie is directed and written. And it's not like New Yorkers, Californians or college students are portrayed favourably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.41.216 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned

Sorry, this is nonsense....I am an Austrian and in Austria, this film is NOT banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.141.114 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya and this movie isn't rated R in the USA, it is rated like Canada, 14A (14 with parental guidance). Androo123 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, In the US, It's rated R. Because the MPAA doesn't have 14A ratings. They have G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. Borat is R (And in my opinion, borderline NC-17, it would have been if the hotel scene was completely uncensored). - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured-status article not good candidate for complete rewrite

I've undone the rewrite by "198.53.218.230" for the above reason -- and, more specifically, because the changes made by that user did not improve the article, and, in some cases, bordered on vandalism (see "snap his cock" my mistake; quote from movie -- added quotation marks). I reviewed changes made since 198.53.218.230's rewrite and, with maybe one exception, they seem to have applied only to his/her rewrite, so they're hopefully moot now. (I saw the banned/not banned in Bulgaria thing, but since I can't verify either, I'll leave it to the editor who made that change to deal with.)

I'm of the opinion (that's right; I said it) that we should all go at "featured" articles very carefully, especially when making style edits. Before going crazy on my posterior area because of this radical "undo" move on my part, please to compare the article text before/after 198.53.218.230's many edits. If you think I made a mistake, you know what to do. Sugarbat (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with the undo. If is anyone wants to do such a radical rewrite of a featured article, the person should engage here on the talk page, for one thing, and tell us why it is needed. Style is not good enough, because to become a FA, outstanding prose was required. I suspect the editor just wanted to have HIS own version of the plot summary in there. I should add that I haven't been paying much attention to this article, but it looks like everyone has wanted their favorite Borat joke in there, and the article has been weakened. But now I think the plot summary is again strong--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I left you a message on your talk page -- let me know what you think. (We're accidentally having edit conflicts.) :) Sugarbat (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I said that you should go to it and I'll look it over later . . . also suggested you reevaluate having the chicken in the plot summary since all she's good for is a sight gag. Do we see what becomes of her? Does Azamat eat her like he does the bear?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The subtitle of this movie is so long-winded and uncommonly searched for that it should not be a part of the title. There are many other examples of works where the subtitle is omitted in the article title (Through the Looking-Glass(, and What Alice Found There), On the Origin of Species (by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), "Rocket Man (I Think It's Going to Be a Long, Long Time)", etc.). The title Borat (film) would eliminate this confusion as well as give people a clearer idea of what to search for when looking for this article. Xnux the Echidna 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the film is known popularly as just "Borat", and "call it what people call it" is the basic recommendation of our naming conventions.--Father Goose (talk)

Oppose. We had a discussion on this here [12] a year or so agao. The long name is the proper name of the film. There are a number of examples listed there for the point that just because a name is long, we don't necessarily shorten it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I didn't realize that other sources referred to the movie with the subtitle. I guess that does make it the proper name. Sorry, I'll remove the request. Xnux the Echidna 03:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that "Borat (film)" also redirects to the article, so if you wanted it to be moved so it's easier to key it's already taken care of. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd! Pablo Picasso's official name was Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso. He never was know by that name. Should we move every country to their offical names? As Borat redirects here, I see no reason not to move the article. I was about to do it, but started to hesitate when I saw this discussion. I can't say I take it seriously though.

/ Raven in Orbit (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the official title of the movie. The consensus is to keep it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

money thrown at "cockroaches" - actually woodlice/sowbugs

The insects are woodlice not cockroaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Those sure looked like cockroaches to me... —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even question what they were. The point is, in the movie, they were meant to be cockroaches. Guess what, neither Cohen nor Davitian are Kazakh . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Sacha's an English Jew. I'm not entirely sure about Davitian. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is, just like it is irrelevant to the plot description that the actors are not Kazakhs, it is not relevant that what are clearly intended to be cockroaches, are actually woodlice or CGI or mockups. It doesn't matter. This is a film.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, point taken. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not important that the cockroaches are played by woodlice (unless they are sowbugs). We are describing the plot here. The bugs, whatever they are, are depicted as cockroaches. To say they are really some other sort of insect has no more place in the PLOT section than the info that Borat and Azamat are played by non-Kazakhs. And to put the info someplace else is trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the major theme of the film is incomprehension and ignorance. In that context, the artistic choice to describe a harmless bumbling isopod (yes, sowbugs and woodlice are the same thing) as disease-carrying vermin is relevant and is worth the brief comment to that effect, though not the number of words expended on the subject on this page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a plot section. It's about the plot, not what was used to generate the plot. And you need to source your claim they were woodlice. This is a FA, anything like that needs to be verified. What's your source? In addition, it is not your job to insist on unilateral changes, but to build consensus among editors for a change. Right now, you don't have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Banned in China??

Com'on.... Chinese government "import" 10 Hollywood movies every year, for the sake of protect Chinese film. Obviously Chinese gov't didn't import Borat in that year, but it didn't mean the gov't "Ban" the film. You could buy all the DVD (legally copy or otherwise) from most of the Music store, you could even buy Adult film from the store. The gov't didn't even ban the porno, so you guys really believe the gov't will ban Borat? Indeed our gov't has a bad record about "censorship", but it does not mean you could put all the shxt in the gov't hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it. I'm not convinced the source is reliable enough, it seems very chatty although it is on the Virgin Media site. I've deleted the statement.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)