Talk:The Foreigner (2017 film)

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Chinese

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema task force.

UDI vs IRA

I've just watched the film. The film uses the term IRA nor UDI. Article fixed. KymFarnik (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I've just watched an English-audio-with-Chinese-subtitled version of the film, and it uses UDI. But the version on Netflix UK does use IRA. So there are two versions of the film out there, then...? - Chris McFeely (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US DVD release, as another example, refers verbally and on screen to the "Authentic IRA" and never to the UDI. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spec Ops Nationality

This type of revert has been made on multiple occasions so I've removed any reference to the character's nationality until a further consensus can be arrived at with regards to the wording. The character that JC is portraying definitely can't be a Chinese special forces soldier because he was said in the movie to be fighting for the US during the Vietnam War, which also means that the least that can be said about his character is that he was a special forces operative during the Vietnam War (or something to that effect). Wingwraith (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone confirm my changes re: Mr. Leather's novel "The Chinaman"?

I based these changes on the FILM with Jackie Chan, in which his character is a veteran of US/S. Vietnamese Special Forces, not the Viet Cong, and in which he goes after the people responsible for the terrorist bombing that killed his daugher - not the "men," since one of them is a woman. Also, his Chinese-Vietnamese ethnicity is not described as "Hoa" in the film; it is "Nung." But I did not make that 'correction' as well - after all, I did not read the novel. Hanamizu (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where is the citation for the main plot?

Stop trolling me @Lobo151, read WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:BLUE . Source the entire main plot or don't play double standard on me. You don't have the privilege. H2254625 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are now mixing up 2 different topics. I request you to provide a reliable source include a citation .Please note IMDB is not a reliable sourceWikipedia:Citing IMDb. Also Wikipedia:Notability this is a English page, what is the notability for the other version.Lobo151 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a source for your edit and the only reply I get is. You did not provide source for the entire main plot that are 2 different topics.Lobo151 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if the main plot has no source at all, and you want me to provide source on some obvious fact on a different cut, a cut that you can simply google and watch it on you own...then you are trolling. H2254625 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mix up 2 different topics. You are! For the whole time you are being biased and removing solely on the part I added for an alternate cut. Because of your "source" excuse, did you ignored the whole main plot? Treat people equally first!--H2254625 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The main plot and a alternate cut are 2 different topics. Your edit has nothing to do with main plot, does it? Nothing of the plot changend, does it? A different cut with longer fight scenes evidently. I can't find any source about a different cut. So I don't find that a obvious fact as you called it.Lobo151 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oh, stop accusing me with all the big words. I called for what you did and says nothing about you in person. I don't see any attacks and certainly nothing"personal".

2. how is that 2 different topics? I put the alternate version under plot, because it differs from current main plot. You can't even prove that current "main plot" is what really happened in the US/UK version of the movie, because there is no source for the main plot at all....so under your logic, we shall remove the main plot too, otherwise you are just being double standard.

3. You can't find any source about a different cut and how is that my thing? Go watch the Chinese version of the movie then you know. BTW, first thing I saw after google The Foreigner Chinese Version and this scene is already different. H2254625 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling me biased for example. You are now turning things around how is that my thing it is, because you want to make an edit without a source. I can't juged based on one video that there is a different edit. Also a different edit doesn't change the plot, does it? So it doesn't belong to the plot section at all. Only if lead character would be killed for example in the different edit, it would change the plot. Just because there is possible a different edit, with some longer fight scenes, it doesn't make itWikipedia:Notability.Lobo151 (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know you are just trolling now. This is Wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia, places for facts, well-known or not. I answered your question about your "Notability" nonsenses already. Several times! WP:NPOSSIBLE . see these Drunken_Master_II#Home_media , Drunken Master ,The_Protector_(1985_film)#Hong_Kong_Version and stop being double standard. Treat people equally! You don't own more privilege over me! H2254625 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, "Plot" sections do not need inline citations because it is assumed that the film itself is the source. For example, I see that the film is available on Netflix (US, anyway). Reviewing the added content, I do not think that these details belong in the "Plot" section since they are not critical to the summary. It's possible that these details could be added under the "Release" section with the China-release passage, if reliable sourcing can be found. IMDb is not reliable per WP:IMDB. Hope this feedback helps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how is your plot differ than my plot? You suggest the film is available to watch so no source is needed. The Chinese version is also widely available to watch...and this is English Wikipedia, not USA Wikipedia....The 2 plots/cut/version should be treated equally!

Also, stop talking about IMDB, I didn't use IMDB as a source in the first place. H2254625 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This shows you referencing IMDb. In any case, I see that IMDb's content is different from your addition. Let's focus on the ending aspect. With the current plot summary, do all these events still happen? Does the Chinese-version ending happen after all that, or does it replace one or more events from the current write-up? We can figure out a way to cover both kinds of endings, perhaps different {{Cite video}} templates for inline citing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]