Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word fuck

• The Sun:A Wikipedia spokesman said yesterday: "'Nil by Mouth is a classic film but it's almost non-stop swearing.'" (I think this the article that started it all)
• Sky News: "In second placed in the movie poll, by encyclopaedia website Wikipedia..." Read
• Newindpress.com "A new poll conducted by encyclopedia website Wikipedia" Read

• Hindustan Times (tabloid edition) republishes story Read

• The Mirror: "...Encyclopaedia website Wikipedia, which carried out the study..." Read
• The Scotsman: "according to the study by Wikipedia"
• Sunday Times: "...those diligent contributors to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, actually sat down and counted them" Most accurate article so far only because the word "study" was not used. [1]

D'oh.

D'oh is exactly right. Time to put this back on VfD? — Trilobite (Talk) 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, who cares? An offbeat list in a repository of human knowledge? STOP THE PRESSES. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is an archived discussion, which is no longer live. Please do not edit the page.

This page was nominated for deletion. There was no consensus to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcb21 (talk • contribs) 29 December 2004

Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film

Thoroughly unencyclopedic information. Could, perhaps, be summarized somewhere in the article fuck. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 07:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Another silly list that, while moderately entertaining, probably belongs at some place like Everything2, not here. I also question the validity/source of the information. Aerion//talk 07:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Hello, I'm the original author of the article. I have no objection if it's deleted. I created it because I saw a reference on the page for The Last Boy Scout that it held this record, and I knew it was wrong, and it seemed more sporting for me to provide documentation in its own page, rather than to just remove the page on hearsay. But I would shed no tears for its deletion. --Arcadian 07:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to List of films that frequently use the word fuck, as that is what the current content is. - SimonP 08:03, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and re-name, as above. Dan100 10:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep under new name - David Gerard 11:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources for the counts are provided. Weak keep if easily verifiable (i.e. by some means other than sitting through the film and paying attention for two hours while punching a tally counter). Rename as per SimonP. Does the MPAA tabulate these things when they rate movies? Where does the information come from? Source is essential. Possibly compilation-copyright issue if all from one source but probably not. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Rename, wikipedia is not the guinness book. --fvw* 11:57, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book or the Video Hound. (Surely "Resevoir Dogs" would win?) Geogre 13:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book or the Video Hound. Many entries can't even decide how many times the term was used. If kept, definately at new name, but it just doesn't seem worth the person-power to maintain in an encyclopedia--maybe a moviepedia, which Wikipedia is not. Niteowlneils 16:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur. Edeans 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur - delete. Rossami (talk) 06:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this fuckcruft. Wyss 00:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep' Yuckfoo 03:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 03:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I'm changing my vote to delete. I like the idea of the list, but I don't see how the information is possibly verifiable without violating Wikipedia:No original research. This is just cut and paste from another website with no sources. Gamaliel 22:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and re-name; wikipedia appeals to me, in part, because it is a reservoir of unusual information. Its accuracy should improve with time; if not, nobody will be killed or maimed by inaccurate "fuck" usage data. Solemnavalanche 08:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is trivia. More importantly, it is data, not information. An article on obscenity in film would be information; a ranked listing is barely above raw data. Isomorphic 08:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - trivia - Andre Engels 15:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Trivia, sure, but what's unencyclopedic about trivia? Trivia is in the eye of the beholder, anyway. What if some film studies student is doing a project about the use of profanity in film? Bryan 19:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very interesting. Grue 19:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Nelson Ricardo 04:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as above. bbx 04:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 10:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. For one thing, no one's going to type a name like that in the "go" box, or link to it for that matter. Second, copyright concerns: The list is copied and pasted from Listology [2], which is provided as an external link in the article. I would suggest adding that external link to the article on fuck, and perhaps even mentioning it in a paragraph in that article. --LostLeviathan 22:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • • Abstain I don't mind if the page gets deleted, but to address the concern in the previous post by LostLeviathan and also brought up by Galamiel -- if you look at the Listology list and look at the Wikipedia page, it will be clear that it wasn't cut and paste. The Listology page had 19 entries, while the original wikipedia page had 45 entries (another user added The Blair Witch project to bring it up to 46, using IMDB as a reference). The list came from a variety of sources, (Listology being one of them), which were all included in the External links section. Usually the totals reconciled, but where they didn't, I included the variants as well. Happy new year, everybody! --Arcadian 03:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Thoroughly interesting and encyclopedic information. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 18:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I bet the information on this page is incomplete... it just feels too slanted towards De Niro/Scorsese/Tarantino/Pacino.... Pcb21| Pete 18:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Born on the Fourth of July

Where did this pop up from, how come all of a sudden "Born on the Fourth of July" is down as the film that took the record from "Scarface" instead of "Goodfellas", if it had been down here the whole time it would make sense, but am I the only person who finds it suspicious that it seems to have taken the world 16 years to notice, it just doesn't seem right

what --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Validation via IMDb

Please note that most of the trivia information at the IMDb is submitted by users in a way not appreciably different from the way this page gets edited. Just because IMDb submissions have to be "approved" by someone doesn't mean they've necessarily checked it for accuracy. - dcljr (talk) 09:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skip a number for ties?

When there is a tie, usually the next number is skipped. For example, instead of

9 The Big Lebowski (281) (117 minutes: 2.4 fucks/min)

10 Tigerland (276) (100 minutes: 2.76 fucks/min)

11 (tie) Fubar (274) (76 minutes: 3.60 fucks/min) / Made (274) (94 minutes: 2.91 fucks/min)

12 Pulp Fiction (271) (154 minutes: 1.76 fucks/min)

13 Reservoir Dogs (252) (99 minutes: 2.55 fucks/min)

it should be

9 The Big Lebowski (281) (117 minutes: 2.4 fucks/min)

10 Tigerland (276) (100 minutes: 2.76 fucks/min)

11 (tie) Fubar (274) (76 minutes: 3.60 fucks/min) / Made (274) (94 minutes: 2.91 fucks/min)

13 Pulp Fiction (271) (154 minutes: 1.76 fucks/min)

14 Reservoir Dogs (252) (99 minutes: 2.55 fucks/min)

Thats the way I usually see it, I'm not sure if there is a way to skip numbers using wiki syntax. --24.222.158.21 01:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --221.249.13.34 05:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, more or less. The list should be modified one of two ways. Either (1) modify it as above or (2) create a tie-breaking rule. As a tie-breaking rule, I propose using number of fucks/min as a first tie-breaker; if it is still a tie, then alphabetize. --5 Aug 2005

Agreed, sorta. I think even better would be:

9 The Big Lebowski (281) (117 minutes: 2.4 fucks/min)

10 Tigerland (276) (100 minutes: 2.76 fucks/min)

11 (tie) Fubar (274) (76 minutes: 3.60 fucks/min)

11 (tie) Made (274) (94 minutes: 2.91 fucks/min)

13 Pulp Fiction (271) (154 minutes: 1.76 fucks/min)

14 Reservoir Dogs (252) (99 minutes: 2.55 fucks/min)

ie, a linebreak for each movie. This makes for easier eye-scanning. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Source?

So, uh, where did these numbers & rankings come from? This isn't a case of original research, right? -- llywrch 01:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

We even have a newspaper saying we "carried out the study"! [3] — Trilobite (Talk) 02:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OMG, newspapers are never wrong about anything --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering who sat in a theatre showing The Devil's Rejects and counted fucks. tregoweth 15:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

And at [4], they say "Nil by Mouth is a classic film but it's almost non-stop swearing." a Wikipedia spokesman was quoted as saying. I wasn't aware we had a spokesman to give opinions on this sort of thing. -- Jeronim 16:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The press makes stuff up, including quotes attributed to "a spokesman". Pcb21| Pete 13:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The data came from a mixture of other websites. It is a shame it probably isn't accurate in the sense that they are a lot of other filthy films out there. Pcb21| Pete 13:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Scatterplot

I filled in a few more films in the ASCII scatterplot for fun, but it's really not going to scale well. Then I got more interested:

http://downlode.org/pictures/misc/fuck_count.jpg

I think what this shows is that more "original research" is needed (and a better application for making scatterplots). But this isn't the place for it. -- Earle Martin 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This would be an excellent article to use m:EasyTimeline on. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

DDI?

Can anyone provide more information about DDI? tregoweth 05:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. It's not in IMDB[5], and Google doesn't seem to know about it either. It was added by an anonymous user on July 20[6]. I'm guessing vandalism. Good find. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why is The Devil's Rejects listed on the page twice, with two different sets of numbers? I'd edit it, but I'm not sure which one is correct, never having seen the film.

Confidence!

Confidence says the f-bomb 130 times. Hbdragon88 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Error - duplicate entry in first table

It has been pointed out by an an anonymous visitor to the help desk that "The first chart at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_ordered_by_uses_of_the_word_%22fuck%22> lists this movie twice -- once as a chart-topper with 560 usages of the word and secondly at position No.25 with 203 usages of the word. Unless there are two versions of this film (which does not appear to be the case), "The Devil's Rejects" should not be listed twice on this chart." Can an administrator please make this correction since the page is locked? Thank you - Johntex\^talk 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

the devil's rejects

the graph of the number of fuck for teh devil's rejects does not corespond with the chart down below the graph says the movie has more than 500 fucks, while the chart says 100 somthing...

Learn to spell. Read what you type. Thanks The Whole of Literate Humanity 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Table of Fucks

Currently whenever a new movie is added the table is just pushed down, so we've now got 57 movies listed. Should we trim this down (to.. say the top 50), or just let it drag on? Staxringold 23:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to believe Martin Lawrence/Will Smith Bad Boys 2 should be very high on this list.

Someone change the list on the page.

Some retard put "List of films ordered by ZOMG HE LIKES TEH COCK------------->" as a category title.

Agreement between "Fuckometer" chart and table?

The primary reason this page was nominated for deletion was that it was hard to maintain and verify. While I'd love to see it stay here, it must maintained as best as possible. For starters, I think we at least have the obligation to ensure that the chart and table agree in their information. Perhaps people are updating the table but the chart remains constant? I don't know, but for example, Donnie Darko (which I want to go count, I really didn't think it had more fucks than Boondock Saints) and Born on the Fourth of July appear on the table at the bottom but not in the chart at the top. If this page is going to persist, it must be kept in agreement at least with itself.

Searching & Scripts

Two points:

• In the Vfd above, LostLeviathan stated:

Delete. For one thing, no one's going to type a name like that in the "go" box [...]

Goodfellas is on TV tonight and my Dad asked how many F's there are in it (as the film was at one time hailed as the record-holder). So LostLeviathan may be correct, but the article was the top result in a Google search I did for "goodfellas record use word fuck"...

• Just a thought - rather than the old "watch & click" form of counting the "fuck"s in a film, there may be film scripts available online for certain sweary movies. Copying the text and using some Count forumla (in Excel, say) would do the same job in a fraction of the time. Of course, scripts online may not always be legal and referencing could be problematic, but it could be an option in some instances...

Gram 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I did just that to check the accuracy of a movie for reference. When downloading the script of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" i found out that it lists for instance: 47 exact 'fuck', 19 times 'fucking', 5 times 'fucked' and 5 times 'fucker', not near the mentioned amount of 123!! (Or i should be forgetting some obvious variations of the word fuck). Anyway, film script can be downloaded from Internet Movie Script Database — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.206.64.67 (talk • contribs) 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Check out the "Is it just me..." section of this page. Basically it boils down to the fact that we can't do any original research for an article (WP:NOR), so the best we can do is trust an outside study like FMG. They've not proved to be terribly accurate, but it's the best we can do considering the circumstances. -- H·G (^words/_works) 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuckometer

While this made me laugh when I read it, is it really appropriate to coin a neologism for the heading of the graph? -Vastango 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Very yes. It provided some good quality lulz. - Draco, up way too late, 21/01/06

Agreed. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Rejects info wrong?

IMDB and Screen It both say there are 203 "f" words in the Devil's Rejects instead of 560 like this list says

What about the Forty Year Old Virgin? It has to have at least 100 fucks in it. Garden State is pretty high, too. Captain Jackson 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Forty Year Old Virgin says "fuck" at least 103 times, i counted in a script i found on google Thomsonmg2000 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What counts as fuck?

Just out of interest, does this only cover the word fuck, or does it also cover fucking, fucker, etc? Darksun 15:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• And more to the point, are we also including fucks in song form, like in "Uncle Fucka" in South Park?--59.121.204.169 09:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the article has treated it so far, but I think that all forms of "fuck" should be accepted (fuck, fucking, fucker, fucked, et cetera). I believe it should also include songs. Jeff Silvers 00:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a tag, changed a heading

I replaced the note at the top about this article with a {{disputed}} tag until the matter is settled one way or another. I also changed the heading of the Fuck-o-meter. Yeah, it's funny. But sorry, this is an encyclopedia and we have to maintain an encyclopedic tone. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there are more important articles to apply an encyclopedic tone to. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute

The article has been tagged, and I'm not (nor do I think any user is, without expending boatloads of time) in a good position to judge the article's current accuracy. The bigger issue, I think, is whether the article can ever be accurate. I think this article is in somewhat uncharted waters. The previous AfD established that the people on the winning side of the issue generally thought it was "encyclopedic", "informative", "useful" and "Wikipedic". I don't disagree with them. The votes for deleting the article generally declared it to be "unmaintainable" and "unverifiable". I think the problem lies in the fact that the article follows strict-scrutiny of WP:V in that it's WP:NPOV and (arguably) WP:NOR. The source is implicitly WP:CITEed for each movie, because it's the movie itself. The "unmaintainable" claims have some merit, but there is no policy for WP:Unmaintainable.

The only policy that even approaches the issue presented here is WP:RS#Great_for_easy_access, which only states that it's ' preferable ' that that online sources be used in lieu of offline sources. It's also obvious that barring an online publication of this data from a reputable and citeable source, the only source that can be cited for each movie is the movie itself. In order to verify the 'fuckfullness' of a movie, the verifier must go through a process that is extremely time consuming. No other type of verification requires sitting down and watching something for (what is, at best,) an hour and a half. Pulling it off of a shelf in a library and flipping open to the correct page takes a matter of minutes. Even if you're checking a movie for a quote, it takes only a short while to cue a tape up to a predetermined point in the movie. There parallels to this article with online sources - for instance, I specifically remember seeing an article that cited the number of times George W. Bush referred to 9/11 or Terrorism in a speech, but the speeches were publicly available online, and using the "Find in this page" feature of your web browser, verifing the count takes a matter of moments.

The problem is that at a certain point, it becomes so difficult to verify information that it truly is just plain 'unmaintainable', and I'm not sure there's a way to quantify when that point is reached. I hate to say it, but I think we've reached it here. We've gotten to a point where it's so difficult to verify the information that there are significant logistical obstacles to many people who, otherwise, might want to verify the information. This puts well-meaning wikipedians at a pronounced disadvantage while, at the same time, it's as easy as ever to just make up numbers and add them for your favorite movie.

If no one has any ideas as to how to rectify this situation, then I think we should renominate for deletion. Sorry for the essay. --Vastango 08:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• There are online scripts for many movies. Granted, they're not necessarily perfect and may not reflect the released movie content exactly, but it's a place to start. SpikeJones 16:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out this link posted on the AfD: [7] which has counts of the F-word in many movies. This could slove the accuracy dispute. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that it is, by nature, completely inaccurate. No one has yet cited an expert on the phenomenon of "fuck in movies," because I don't think one exists. The "familymediaguide.com" cited above is no good, because they will probably have very narrow focus (movies that people are highly likely to rent). So far, there are 57 movies on the list? And how many movies are out there for which we do not have statistics because no WP user scanned them for fucks? Right now, what we have is people saying, basically, "I just saw Casino and they said fuck A LOT, therefore it should be checked for list-compatibility," which results in a list of movies that fit the following TWO attributes:

1.) movies that Wikipedia users like

2.) movies that have a lot of "fuck."

...when, ideally, what we want is a list of just the 2nd attribute. What if I said that "Whip It" was the most popular rock song of all time, but the only rock songs I knew were by my favorite band Devo? Someone would correct me, because the fact is that:

a.) Popularity is easy to measure, and...

b.) many experts have done so (there are sources)

HOWEVER, fucks is not easy to measure, and no one has really put much effort into doing so (there are pretty much no sources.) Therefore, DELETION, solely due to accuracy issues. (IMO the page is by no means "trivial," and the misguided media references, though chillingly unintelligent, are not WP's problem. -RGL 67.183.165.200 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Belgium

Excellent article. Very informative. Now I suggest something more interesting along the same lines: could we have a list of films ordered by uses of the word "Belgium"? (See here and especially here if you're wondering “why ‘Belgium’?”.) So Wikipedia could hand out the prestigious award for “The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word ‘Belgium’ in a Serious Screenplay”. That would be grand—and quite in the continuation of this article. Shame we're not allowed to do original research. --Gro-Tsen 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Options: 1) You're some emotionally stunted, overly-sensitive member of the lunatic fringe who's trying to prove a point about something. 2) You're still in 7th grade and think you're being funny. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Someone's taking things too seriously. D: User.lain 02:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Rejcts info definitely wrong.

There are nowehere near 560 fucks in The Devil's Rejects. I watched the movie last night and the total barely broke 200 (the only thing I did was count, because the movie was rather disturbing and I had nothing else to do :]), but regardless, this should be edited to correspond with Imdb's total or what have you of 203, because that is far more accurate.

560 does coorespond with IMDb's list. I just checked the trivia section and it says 560 f-bombs. Perhaps someone saw the count ehre and submitted a change for IMDb? Or maybe you should start up a website, post the number, and link it here. - Hbdragon88 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How about an asterik (*), then a footnote mentioning that this number is disputed? Or would that count as "original research" in the eyes of autistic Wiki-fascists? --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there multiple versions? Most films have the theatrical version plus the "unrated director's cut" that comes out on DVD. --JD79 11:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

List format

So it seems to me that the way the list is made, if you wanted to add a film near the top, you'd have to change the rank number of every film below it. Am I correct? Or would there be an easy way to alter the list? Cigarette 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case at the moment, and I've seen several people have to do this. Does anyone know if there's an easy way to use something like the # syntax we typically use for numbered lists inside a Wikitable? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Some info are way wrong

Ok, In the Nil by Mouth script, i only counted 310 usage of the f word on this script: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/nil-by-mouth-script-transcript.html

And in the Pulp Fiction f word count, i counted less than 200 fucks on this script: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Pulp-Fiction.html

SO just wondering, where did some of these statistics come from? IMDB is like wikipedia, it has facts contributed by people like us. Thomsonmg2000 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Copy and paste script into Word, press Ctrl-F, say to replace "fuck" with "fuck", it tells you "xxx replacements were made". I got 169 for Pulp Fiction. EamonnPKeane 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did that for the "Nil by Mouth"-script and got 308 replacements and not 470 as the list says. 213.39.230.123 12:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all movies follow the script 100%. If you watch Pulp Fiction and follow along with the script you will see many discrepancies. My issue with the list is that the movie Full Metal Jacket is not included. --CarmonColvin 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If the script is a transcription of the movie, it should be 100% accurate (or at least 99.9%). 213.39.163.191 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket contains only 76 uses of the word Fuck according to FMG. Not enough to be listed. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is...

who are the guys that counted word "fuck" in these movies.They,really,really need to do something better with their time.Dzoni 14:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just think, the time you wasted making this snarky idiot comment could have been spent learning how to write at a high school level. --Nugneant 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gangster No. 1

I'm suprised that Gangster No. 1 isn't on this list. Mind you they probably use the word cunt more than fuck.

Was this a source?

http://listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.18502 -- Zanimum 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of graph on fucks per year

I just removed a newly added graph, which displayed the number of fucks in a movie versus the year of the movie. Two main reasons for removal:

• Such a graph is useless because we are only looking at movies that contain a large number of fucks in this article, so the graph is heavily biased. It would be interesting so see the average numbers of fucks per movie versus the time. That information, howeverm, will not likely ever (or at least for a long time) be available
• Secondly, this article is already disputed, so we should try to keep it as clean and encyclopedic as possible. One graph is already difficult to maintain accurate here on Wikipedia, let alone two.

Cpt. Morgan 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this to be totally awesome

I wanted to know, and I thought of Wikipedia and I was happy to find it. Just cause it happens to be about the word 'fuck' doesn't mean we should get rid of it. If the counts are wrong, fix 'em.

but we can't just "fix" them, that's not the way wikipedia works. We can't just count and put that information in. It needs to be verifiable and we need sources. That is my only problem with this article (if these numbers were accurate and verifiable I'd be all for it) 66.66.178.73 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish the above sentiment could be captured in a 100-page thesis - it would make a very, very good case for inclusionism. --Nugneant 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Homicide

Where is David Mamet's Homicide on this list? I never did see the movie, but I checked out the script from my local library, and the F-bomb was dropped so many times that I lost count. [gmeric13@aol.com]

So count them and add the number to the list. Cpt. Morgan 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that may not be a bad idea. In the SpongeBob Squarepants episode Sailor Mouth, I used a tally sheet to count how many times what, in the episode, is considered a "bad" word is used, and perhaps I could do the same with Homicide. User:Gmeric13@aol.com

Having watched it again, I personally counted 62 utterances of "fuck." It seems like a lot only because half of them seem to come up in the first half-hour of the film. --Apathyjunkie 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed {sources} tag and graph

I took out the {sources} tag, since it was put up here the article improved significantly, and does list quite a number of sources. I also took out the graph, I was not up-to-date, will never be completely up-to-date and does not add anything usefull. Cpt. Morgan 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are the sources - does FMG have them somewhere? Forums and a list by "5intheface" are surely not reliable sources. Mdwh 00:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this article completely inaccurate in every area?

Nil By Mouth says 470. A ten-second task (Copy and paste script from Script-O-Rama into Word, press Ctrl-F, say to replace "fuck" with "vfdsvad", it tells you "xxx replacements were made") gave 308.

Casino says 422 or 398. I got 352.

Martin Lawrence Live: Runteldat says 347. I got 281.

The Big Lebowski has 281 or 260. I got 251.

I think this article should be deleted until it is fixed. EamonnPKeane 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should delete the "Fuck" column and leave in just the "FMG" column. We have a citable source for that column and any errors there are theirs, not ours. Johntex\^talk 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound like a good plan, although I think it would be better to have a separate column for the fuck counts and for references, because some data are from other sources. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea; the counts without references are iffy at best, and we can't have original research here. Maybe keep all non-FMG stats that have a reference for the "fuck" count, and delete the rest until verification can be found? HumbleGod 06:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually almost did the above myself, using IMDB as a reference. But I have to ask, is IMDB a valid reference here? I understand that Premium (or whatever) IMDB members can submit trivia; is it possible that those people used WP as a source, and we'd just be going around in circles there? Or does IMDB count as a valid source? HumbleGod 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia can indeed be submitted by registered members on IMDB. Although they are reviewed before they are visible on the website, they are not factually checked as far as I know. So I would be careful in using the Trivia/Goofs section of IMDB as a source. The FMG counts (and such) are much more reliable. If no other source is available, however, I suppose we can use IMDB data. That is why I am in favor of a separate column stating the source from which the information came, not just with a link like this [8], but like this: IMDB. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As a second suggestion, I propose we leave out the first column (containing the order of the movies), because it makes it more difficult to add and maintain the list. Simply order them by Fuck count, without numbering the movies. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and changed the chart (thank goodness for sleepless nights) to remove all non-FMG content and reorder appropriately. :The downside: far fewer entries. The upside: the list no longer threatens to violate WP:NOR and WP:V (BIG PLUS)

Other notes:

• Fucks Per Minute count still relies on old data and will have to be recalculated (by someone else, I'm done with it!)
• I removed the ranking column temporarily to make it easier to adjust the chart; however, per Reinoutr's comment above, it may be better this way, as it's easier to maintain and add more entries. I'll leave this decision up to others.

If anyone objects to the change, feel free to revert. But I have to say that IMO this change really helps this article's chances of meeting WP guidelines and surviving the AfD nomination. HumbleGod 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some additional changes to make it easier to include other sources. Also removed the record holders section (it was largely based on information that now is removed). The FPM still have to be adjusted. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good move in removing the Record Holders section; I was hoping someone could source it instead, but it really doesn't belong in the article until this can be done. One or two sentences in Trivia may need to go for the same reason, but that's for another day, I think.

I also like how your change makes room for other sources. However, including IMDB as a source misses the point about what needed to be changed here. Because any paying Premium member can submit the stats in the Trivia section, regardless of the truth behind them, by its nature IMDB fails WP:V and WP:RS, at least in regards to this list. This means that any data gathered from that site's Trivia pages needs to be removed from Wikipedia.

I realize the problem this leads to--FMG's counts aren't always the most accurate. But as it says on WP:V, we need "verifiability, not truth," and FMG is the best source that's been found so far to satisfy this--there's a professional review process in place by an independent organization, and FMG's reporting ensures that Wikipedia remains a tertiary source, which is what it needs to be here. Of course, this means that the factual accuracy of this list will always be an issue; I think a {disputed} tag will have to remain in place for the article's life.

By nature of Wikipedia:List guideline, I'm strongly tempted to encourage editors to rely only on FMG and not on any other sources, since FMG developed the criteria used on this list ("Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources" [emphasis added]). That is, unless/until another similarly reputable source is found. Right now, IMDB doesn't meet the criteria. HumbleGod 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving the remainder of this discussion to a new subsection to encourage more input on this particular topic. HumbleGod 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

IMDB as a source?

This discussion is an offshoot of the Is it just me, or is this article completely inaccurate in every area? subsection above. It was moved to encourage more input so that Wikipedia editors may reach consensus on this particular topic. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion!

Although I agree that IMDB is not the best source for this, there were 3 reasons why I included the movie Fuck in the list. First of all, it is, for obvious reasons, a movie expected to be present here. Secondly, the Wikipedia article on Fuck (film) states the same numbers. Finally, IMDB is often used here on Wikipedia as a source, without checking if IMDB is correct. I do not see why we should treat IMDB different for this article only, except for the cases were we have (more reliable) FMG data. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference between most uses of IMDB as a source on WP and the use on this page is that we're pulling from Trivia pages on that site that aren't scrutinized for accuracy anywhere near the degree that, for example, the cast lists are. We also don't know where the IMDB "fuck" count comes from--did someone professional on the site review it? was it just some registered user? is it accurate? what's the process for review? We don't really know any of the answers to these. For all we know, whoever submitted the Fuck count on those pages got their info from an old version of this page (which violated WP:NOR), and we'd have circular attribution! Because of the questionable process in including info on the "Trivia", "Goofs", etc pages on IMDB, they definitely fail WP:V and WP:RS, and thus (as I see it) their info can't be cited. HumbleGod 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this has implications for a lot of articles here on Wikipedia that deal with movies. A lot of them have a trivia section derived from the IMDB information. All of that will have to be removed, then.

BTW: I just recalculated the FPM for all movies with 200+ fucks. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what gives me pause. I'm hoping to see more input on the topic here, but for now I guess the best we can do is be sure to do this one right, and hope the rest follow.

Thanks for starting with the FPM changes, Microsoft Excel and I just finished off the rest of them. HumbleGod 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fmg is no good as it only has fairly recent, mainstream american movies. Nil By Mouth and the documentary fuck definitely have more swearing than casino, but here casino tops the list, just because of a limited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.227.112 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Admittedly this is a weakness of the article's design; however, WP articles cannot contain original research, and FMG's work is the closest thing that could be found to an accurate and reliable secondary source. This article will always be inaccurate; however, the info here is verifiable per WP guidelines, so we have to go with that. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New restriction on number of fucks

Because it fitted all movies already in the list (except two) and it makes the list not as endless as it is now, I included the extra restriction that each movie should contain at least 100 uses of the word Fuck. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbering of list

Today, I removed the numbering of the list that had been put back in the last week. The list is so much easier to maintain (which is important here) if the numbering is left out. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed?

Now that we've re-done the list using only a verifiable source (I'm assuming all the FPM have been recalculated, etc.), are there any objections to removing the factual accuracy tag from the top of the page? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's tricky....even though FMG is certainly a verifiable source, several users have noted that their own original research showed many of FMG's counts to be wrong. Since the "accurate" count can't be listed due to WP:NOR, I figure it's a concession to note that these FMG figures might be inaccurate. People are just going to come in here and say as much anyway. -- H·G (^words/_works) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the movie Fuck be here?

ok, I don't know why it isn't, after all it uses the word 629 times over 93 minutes, for a total of 6.76 uses per minute, as stated by the article Fuck (documentary)is it beacause it's a documentary? I don't know, what are your opinions? Supra guy 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Only one good reason---the "fuck" count has to be provided from a reliable source--in this article's case, FMG--and that movie doesn't show up there. Read over the rest of this talk page for more info. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• How about this: I saw the damn film at AFI Fest 2005, and it does say it a fair amount, easily over 500 times, though I didn't actually keep an exact count. Who decides that this FMG is a reliable source, anyway? Only one "reliable" source will NOT catch every film that says fuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.5.252 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

FMG is the best and only source we have at the moment. We do not claim this list is complete (see the top of the page). And original research is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

8 mile

Why is this not on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaces23 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Because its not in the FMG database. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Since all trivia were unreferenced and today someone added a fuck count for a movie not in FMG to the trivia, I decided to delete it for now. If someone comes up with referenced trivia (meaning non-IMDB trivia), I'd be happy to reinstate it. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tons of free time :-)

I'd be happy to watch a few films (I have most if not all listed films on DVD) and count how often the word fuck was used. We could have 3 or 4 people watching the same film and giving their own counts then someone else deciding on any discrepancies between the results. All it takes is sitting in front of the TV with a pen and paper and making a line every time you hear the word (lining out 4 lines when you get to the fifth...I dunno what that's called). I can probably do at least 5 films a week (and possibly a few of them multiple times if they're films I like) and all it will take is maybe 10 people to do this for a month and all the current films in the list are updated...after that all that would be needed is 3 or 4 people to watch each new film to be added to the list and do as we will do with the current list.

Additionally, although this is possibly not as legal as sitting there watching them, people *could* try subtitle files for movies...there's a lot of sites out there providing subtitles for popular movies and *they* will have the fucking words in them :-)

I could probably even write a simple program to do a count of how many times the words fuck, fucker, fucked, fucking etc were used...it's a simple enough task to do

BTW, I'm a long-time user of wikipedia but never signed up as I had no need to...now I have a need to :-)

--SmUX 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would be original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. This article has enough verifiablility problems without adding original research issues, I'm afraid. Gwernol 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry...So even original subtitle files from DVDs (ripped directly and illegally, I know) would be classed as against the rules? They'd not be original research, I don't think :-)

--SmUX 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but yes they would be original research. Thanks the offer though. If you want, you can search www.familymediaguide.com for movies with over 100 fucks that are not listed here, though. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

London (2005)

Just an interesting info: this movie has 312 fucks and is 92 minutes long - this makes FPM of 3.39 which is probably absolute maximum as for now. Too bad I can't find any references for this - I counted it myself because right after I saw this movie for the first time I knew it has to be new record holder:-)--Jakub Jindra 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where on the family movie guide website?

Uh yeah I'm not seeing where on the family movie guide website this supposed list is.. - Razorhead August 17, 2006 4:01 Am PST

The list as such is not on the FMG website, but the data come from the information FMG supplies on individual films. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)