Talk:The Lover (1992 film)

message: The article should mention the shorter, cut (censored) version. Badagnani (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions

message: *"Saigon, Mon Amour", Time Magazine.
*"Naked Came the Stranger", Entertainment Weekly.
*"The Lover Review", Variety.
*"Results page", Academy Awards.
Instead of arguing and borderline edit-warring (no discussion on this page, I see), literally 20 seconds on Google turned out these four sources among dozens of others from reliable sources that could be used to pave the way for a far greater expansion. Here is the search term I used. Steve T  • C 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, this analysis of the film --"The Lover. Indochine Returning to Indochina" -- from Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media can be used.  — CactusWriter | needles 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: Really? Off the top of my head, The Quiet American was shot in Vietnam more than 30 years earlier, and I'm sure there were plenty of others (A Yank in Viet-Nam springs to mind). Do you mean the first post-reunification film? – iridescent 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be. The cited source itself just said "the first Western film" without clarification on since when. The DVD cover more specifically states "The Lover is the first foreign film to be shot on location in Vietnam, though it was quickly followed by two other French films." Are there any sources showing those films were shot on location? While IMDB isn't RS, it does say The Quiet American was filmed in Italy. Of course, it also says A Yank in Viet-Nam was filmed in Vietnam. So no idea, really...just going by the reliable sources :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards The Quiet American, Mankiewicz shot his film on locations in a Saigon little different from the one the French had left three years earlier or this impressively ironic-with-hindsight 1957 article both seem to be RS's for its being shot in Vietnam. – iridescent 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll search around, see if some other RS' can clarify "first Western film" more regarding "since when" :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Reliable sources say this was the first Western film filmed. The only issue is whether they meant post-reunification or not. I have found another reliable source that clarifies that yes, that is what they meant and am adding it now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That should have been done before a DYK with wrong information was posted. LargoLarry (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was only raised a few hours ago and sorry if I did actually have to sleep in there sometime. And, in reality, the DYK is NOT incorrect. Vietnam != North Vietnam and South Vietnam, which is what the country was divided into at the time other films were shot. So it was factually correct, it just needed clarification to better clarify that it meant the actual unified Vietnam, and not North or South while it was divided. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It needed clarification the first time you put the statement in the article, not weeks later. The DYK is not factually correct, it's misleading. LargoLarry (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the DYK. LargoLarry (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone. You have absolutely no business trying to do that. DYK is not an "editable by anyone" region. You want to complain, do it to one of the DYK admins, but do not go around messing it up just because you think you should keep attacking me because LiteraryMaven and I had a mild disagreement and you feel some warped sense of loyalty to him or something. The statement IS factually correct. It is only misleading to those unfamiliar with the basic history of Vietnam and who feel like arguing at a very semantic level. Going on and on about this is both pointless and only reflects badly on you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Considering all of the people you bugged about this issue have told you that the statement WAS correct and still IS correct and that you are basically complaining about a non-issue, no, I'm no going to say "I goofed, I'm sorry." I will continue to stand by the DYK as factually accurate. That you continue descending to personal remarks rather than sticking to the issue, and showing your continued hostile attitude from the previous discussion only show a lack of neutrality in this issue and an apparent desire for some kind of justification or perhaps vengeance which is not appropriate. As it is obvious there is nothing constructive to be had from this conversation, I am considering this issue closed.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your choice of language, such as saying I "bugged" people, shows you are the hostile one. I contacted two editors I think are connected with DYK to voice my concerns, period, and I'm certainly entitled to do that. Neither one of them said the statement was correct, as you claim, in fact one of them didn't respond at all. If you continue to stand by the DYK as factually accurate then you have no right to be a project coordinator or even a Wikipedia editor. The film was not the first one ever made in Vietnam no matter how you want to twist the facts. There is nothing constructive to be had from any conversation with you, because in your mind you are infallible. LargoLarry (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For heaven's sake! I'm sorry I raised it now… The article is now undoubtedly correct ("the first western film since reunification") so there's nothing to argue about there; the DYK archive is an archive of what was shown on DYK, so its accuracy is irrelevant, whether or not you agree with it; it accurately shows what appeared on DYK. – iridescent 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as Iridescent says, the DYK archive is a record of entries that appeared on DYK. There are some statements in there that have turned out to be much more incorrect than this one. If a hook statement was changed while it was on DYK, then the archive should reflect the tweaked version. After the article is taken off of DYK, the hook is copied to the archive, where it remains untouched forever (well, at least while Wikipedia lives). Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The first Western film to be shot in Vietnam" 

message: The article is inconsistent as regards the issue of the protagonist's age. Under "Plot," we read: "The Girl gives her age at the beginning of the film as 15, but lies to The Chinese Man by stating that she is 17." But at two other points (in the initial summary and under "Production") we're told that the screenwriters changed The Girl's actual age to 17. If she's lying about being 17, then I'm not sure what the point of each of these claims is. I don't have access to the original source material, so I'm simply raising a question as a puzzled reader. 192.248.248.215 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of character in film 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Lover (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080331175706/http://www.variety.com:80/profiles/people/main/32446/Jane%20March.html?dataSet=1 to http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/32446/Jane%20March.html?dataSet=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415011532/http://www.toutlecine.com:80/film/tournage/0001/00012953-l-amant.html to http://www.toutlecine.com/film/tournage/0001/00012953-l-amant.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Needs updating. Nicmart (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple dead links 

message: Is it notable to mention the rating in Australia? 
https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/lover-0
https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/lover
Matthew hk (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating