This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • List of films that most frequently use the word fuck Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word fuck

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)

• 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) reply

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

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) reply

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)

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

We even have a newspaper saying we "carried out the study"! [2] — Trilobite ( Talk) 02:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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 [3], 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) reply

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

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) reply

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: [dead link removed]

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. -- Hex 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

Hm. It's not in IMDB [4], and Google doesn't seem to know about it either. It was added by an anonymous user on July 20 [5]. 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 says the f-bomb 130 times. Hbdragon88 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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.

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

• 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) reply

Just wanted to point out this link posted on the AfD: [6] 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

If Gro-Tsen is emotionally stunted, Nugneant's humor is definitely stunted :) --

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

Nil By Mouth says 470. A ten-second task (Copy and paste script from [http://www.script-o-rama.com/search.shtml 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply