Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word fuck/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Sun

• 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: [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)

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

• 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)

And the time you took berading another editor could have been used to pull your head out of your ass. - Reed Braden 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you, Reed buddy, but if we're all going to be pedantic, it's "berated". Master Deusoma 00:51, 11 September 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. [[email protected]]

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:[email protected]

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 [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)

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

• 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? 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

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

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)

Screen It as an additional source

I know this article uses the Family Media Guide primarily, but Screenit has always seemed to me to be the most professional and objective reviewer of this type of thing. Why not use them? Their entire existence is to point out stuff like this. (Anon.)

I'll go along with this. They are a little more cautious about their word counts (using the phrase "at least" quite a lot), but whenever FMG hasn't rated a movie, I see no reason not to use Screen It as a fallback. They even get a thumb up from Roger Ebert. --LarryGilbert 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Issues

The reference link for Pulp Fiction says: "F-word-(265)". But our list has "399". What's more, a quick case-insensitive search for the word "fuck" or words containing the word "fuck" in the Pulp Fiction script (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Pulp-Fiction.html and many other places) reveals that there are only 169 uses of the word "fuck" in that script. I guess this last counts as "original research"? Can I correct the page to 169, or if not to 265?! Thomas David Baker 10:46, 03 September 2006 (UTC)

The 265 count is more consistent the the FPM value of 1.72; 399 ÷ 154 ≠ 1.72. Note that a script is not necessarily a reliable source. The script only tells what the writers wanted the actors to say, which doesn’t always match what they actually said in the movie’s final cut. A transcript would be more accurate. I recommend changing it to 265, as the cited source indicates, and then re-ordering the entry with the rest. --Rob Kennedy 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you had checked the page history, you would have seen that very recently the entry for Pulp fiction was changed by two anonymous editors. I reverted their edits, Pulp fiction is again at 265 now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

All references

I just added the FMG references for all movies. Besides the article being thoroughly referenced now, there are 2 addtional advantages. It makes it easier to check newly inserted movies for accuracy (supposing other people follow this lead) and secondly, the references give us a numbering in the list, without manual numbering in the table. Not really an official way to use this stuff, but a nice accidental feature anyway. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering

Does anyone have a count for the Trailer Park Boys movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.10.195 (talk • contribs) 22 October 2006

The movie is not listed on SI or FMG, so not at the moment. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rita & Sue

How are we supposed to give a citation for that? Anyone who has ever watched it knows that it contains a lot of fucks. Do you want me to count them all? There are one or two clips of it on http://www.youtube.com if you want

If "everybody" knows that, it will be mentioned somewhere. That will do as a reference. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the word "everybody" anywhere in that paragraph! One day, I'll actually count how many fucks there are in it, and post it up here, but I'll have to wait for a dull patch in my schedule for that. Epa101 13:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort, we really need a link to a reliable source. This article has been the subject of quite some controversy, which is why it is thoroughly referenced and does not include any original research. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a confusion that takes the need for citations too far in the wrong direction. Just count them, and cite the movie itself. There is no more reliable source.

Fuck the movie

Recently, an anonymous editor keeps changing the number of reported uses of the word fuck (629 according to indieWire [9]) to 800 [10][11][12][13]. The user claimed first to have a copy of the film [14] and later on my talk page to be the director of the movie [15][16]. He also posted a statement in support of this on the blog of the director [17], which is linked from the official site of the movie [18]. For now, I added the blog as a source. Comments are welcome though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• If he really is the director, why can't he give an exact count and have it posted on his official movie Web site? --LarryGilbert 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. If he needs a volunteer to count, have him send me a copy. :-) --LarryGilbert 05:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Counting it ourselves is definately original research, but there is already an indepedent site which mentions the number of >800, I used that as a source now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's like saying that reading the source you're citing is original research. You've got to draw a line between simply taking in facts--reading, counting--and actually assembling previously unavailable ones.

Can we count this movie anyway? It's a documentary about the word "fuck", so "fuck" is used in context. --Jon Terry 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This right here is ridiculous. I'm assuming the entry was deleted because "the only known reliable sources" on the INTERNET do not have entries on it. Clearly this movie is deserving of a listing. And from all given estimates, the count is above Nil by Mouth. I agree with whoever posted two before me. Yes, counting the number would be research, but so would be finding it *anywhere else*. No matter how you collect the information, you are "researching." The policy of original research on Wikipedia is not meant to damage articles which have few reliable sources on the web. This fact is a number, and it is totally objective. If someone has the film to count, please do so, because the *movie itself* is the source. But for now, it needs to at least be on the page. Cite ">600" if that's all it can be narrowed down to and provide both sources. But what ultimately needs to be done is for someone to find more websites on the internet worthy of being cited (for this or otherwise), because it just doesn't make sense to completely rely on two sources for all information. 71.176.195.172 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that TDB can be considered a correct or a valid source, because there are a number of other inaccuracies on that website. Namely, that 800 fucks translates to 7 fucks a minute -- last time I checked the film doesn't run for 114 minutes. It seems very selective to consider TDB an accurate source as far as number of fucks go, but not as far as fucks per minute go -- especially since the latter is a much easier figure to ascertain given the former. Secondly, the film itself says there are "629 uses of the word fuck in this film." right before the credits. I would go with the indieWire source of 629.

And while we're talking about runtime, it runs for 93 minutes, not 90. 203.158.49.94 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, to whomever fixed this up, good job. The way it is cited now makes the situation quite clear without messing up the list. 71.176.197.68 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding a Chart

Can we add a chart that orders the list by the highest frequency (FPM)? I think a lot of users would be interested in seeing that. --Anon. 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy Delirious

The stand-up movie Eddie Murphy Delirious uses the f-word 230 times. Thought the only proof I have of this is on the IMDB page of the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085474/trivia

Couldn't anybody add it?

I'm not entirely sure a stand-up comedy act, even a filmed one, counts as a 'film' in this sense. I'm not entirely sure the Martin Lawrence special should count, for that matter, but that's just personal preference. But if people agree that stand-up specials can be counted, then the Eddy Murphy one can be added as long as the fuck-count can be verified.--MythicFox 09:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nil by mouth entry

So in the Nil by mouth entry it trivitates " * Nil By Mouth contains 470 instances of the word "fuck", a record that stood until the 2005 release of The Devil's Rejects ". Do we have any correlation of this? Can we bump films down a notch?

--j

The new Tenacious D movie

does anyone konw if it will make it on this list? JB just said it over and over again and its in pretty much every single song atleast 10 times so i guess we will have to see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.254.211.239 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Gangster No. 1

I was suprised this wasn't on the list here - so I did some Googling and found this script transcript http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/g/gangster-number-one-script-transcript.html - I count 172 'fucks' and 26 'cunts' - I thought there'd be more 'cunts' actually Jooler 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

ERm.. this guy also has the script for Bad Santa http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bad-santa-script-transcript.html and if I have counted correctly it contains 158 'fucks' and not 172 as shown in this list. Jooler 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort, we really need a link to a reliable source. This article has been the subject of quite some controversy, which is why it is thoroughly referenced and does not include any original research. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a full transcript of the film. That's transcribed from original source material. It has the instances themselves. Much better than the other sources. Jooler 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As the author of those pages states, his "transcript" is essentially a mix of the original screenplay (which differ almost always from the final version) and actual transcription. He also states that he will be "eternally tweaking" it. Therefore, it does not look like a reliable source to me. The reason this article is sourced this way, is that it received quite some controvery in the past. If you can find a reliable secondary source with the count for Gangster No. 1, I see no objections to including it, however. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the other sources can be deemed 'reliable' when no information is provided as to how those figures were obtained. In this case we have the transcript which I can verifiy fits the movie itself. Jooler 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. We use secondary sources, not primary sources, see also WP:RS. And finally, PSVRating/Family Media Guide have documented quite well how those figures were obtained, as is also detailed in the article and on their website [19] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer you quote appears on ALL of the script pages. The scripts are "painstakingly" transcribed from original source material, they are therefore secondary sources. The transcript is verifiably the transcript of the film. What is your objection here? The figures currently quoted on this page now cannot be verified without reference to the source material. You'll need to provide a better link to that article. also WP:RS says "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages" Jooler 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As we clearly disagree with regard to the reliability of this source (which is from WP:V, which is policy), let me propose a compromise solution. I'll agree to using this as a reference for the movies from that site that are not available from FMG or SI. That means in the case of the 2 movies you mentioned we'll use FMG for "Bad Santa" and we'll add "Gangster no 1" with your link as a reference. Is that an acceptible compromise? (Note however, that other people are monitoring this page and I do not know how they will deal with it.)--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The site specialises in transcripts and scripts. The Gangester No.1 link is for a transcript and not a script. On [http://www.script-o-rama.com/info.shtml] it says - "The transcript or dialogue script which means some person toiled for hours copying down every word to a movie. The plus part to to a transcript is that you get exactly what is in the film, which is great because there's always things that are added once everybody's on the set and all that jazz. The minus part is that you have a lot of human error. I mean, YOU try to transcribe Marlon Brando mumbling for three hours. Not fun." - it also says - "Let me state for the record...If you have ANY doubt as to who was here first, I won my first award, Bob (Allison's) Kool Link on December 10. 1995.". It seems like a reliable site. WP:V says - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. - I would suggest that the site probably aims for accuracy, but perhaps you would like to email the guy that runs it nand check with him. Jooler 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the guy didn't make an effort to get it right. But I do feel FMG is a more reliable source. Can you agree to the compromise I suggested above? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to disrupt or edit the page in any way, please do as you think fit, but personally I can't see by what criteria some other site can be more deemed more reliable when there is no way of checking other than some OR by Wikipedia editors. Jooler 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not OR, I just read the websites themselves. FMG says they feel they are reliable. Your website's author say he will be "eternally tweaking" it. Thats the difference. Don't be afraid for disruption by the way, as far as I am concerned you are free to add to the article as you see fit. This is a wiki afterall. :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

American Generation X

if anyone can verify the specifics for American Generation X then plz help and put in. i know say fuck +200 time but i dont know the running time or fucks per minute. thanks-24.144.137.244 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Scorsese

Something about him, there are like 5 movies of him in the list--Domingo Portales 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do the Right Thing

I watched this movie today and it definately has more than 100 uses of the word. I didn't count but someone should consider it (It'd be very high on the list by my estimations.) Lumberjack RDubes (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Velvet

Has this movie been concidered? I'm pretty sure it would make the charts for the most amount of fucks. gamerfreak

Double-entry

I noticed "The Blair Witch Project" is twice in the list? Is this on purpose? If not which entry is the correct one? Dahie

Double entry removed (I kept the one sourced from FMG, which is considered more reliable). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Last Detail

May I suggest the film The Last Detail :it should keep you busy counting.Lentisco 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't count, we just list what others sites and sources have counted. I could not find this movie in our normal sources though, sorry. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this movie should be on the list, too. It broke the ground for swearing in the 1970s...it was a notorious movie when it came out.Nwjerseyliz (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre

The movie's genres shall be included too in these tables. It seems it's all about violence with the top-scores in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.157.143 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 March 2007

To establish a single genre for each movie is way to difficult and would consitute orginal research, unless also sources for that are found. For information like that, people can simply go to the articles of the individual movies. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Casino

I went through the script after counting during a movie 402 fucks. The script confirms. So I updated the count. 68.103.207.65 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would someone revert? I put it back to 402, but could at lease someone be so kind as to mention why they changed it after I confirmed that the actual count is 402? 68.103.207.65 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am again gonna change it back. A script is never identical to the final version of the movie and we need reliable secondary sourcing for this article. Thanks for your input, but please review earlier discussions on this topic. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary cut-off discussion

Per the last AfD discussion, it might be a good idea to discuss the cut-off to be used for this article. Lower cut-offs are necessary for this article, to keep the list under control and keep maintance easy. Currently there are 3 cut-offs in the article:

• A minimum of 100 fucks to be included in the list.
• A minimum of 250 fucks to be included in the totals graph.
• A minimum of 2.5 fucks per minute to be included in the FPM graph.

As I originally included these cut-offs in the article, I endorse them. I would like to hear the opinion of other people, however, on whether these cut-offs are suitable or should be adjusted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. All 3 have a reasonable size. Maybe it would be good to have minimum fuck count and minimum FPM, but that would seem more arbitrary and would eliminate Apocalypse Now, the only 70s film on the list which gives perspective. -Pomte 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Any particular reason for these numbers? I'm not really involved with this page (other than the AfD), and don't have a particular opinion, but it's nice to have some reasoning behind a cut-off point (if possible). Trebor 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, no. They were really just chosen arbitrary to prevent indefinite expansion of the list. Another option could be to list the top-100 of the movies for example, but that would suggest that the list is complete, which is probably isn't. I am open to suggestions for a rationale on this topic, however. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to choose a particular number, so keeping the length of the list manageable may be good enough. I have very little experience with lists though, so I'm not best-qualified to comment. Trebor 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support the current cut-offs of 100, 250, 2.5/min. This is something we can decide by consensus, and I think the overall length of this page is working out well with these cutoffs. If someone wants to change it, they can always look for a new consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• These seem reasonable to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -- Black Falcon 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

If someone sees this, could they protect this page. For some reason, about a person a day comes along and wants to change the numbers, which is a really hard vandalism to stop. - Peregrine Fisher 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, although User:Matty613 did vandalize the page, the additions by User:87.167.55.203 were perfectly valid (he/she added a movie that was in the list also to the graph, where it was missing), so I reinstated those edits. Also I would NOT support (semi-)protections at this moment. The vandalism is constant, but can be easily dealt with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I went overboard. - Peregrine Fisher 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Could some one add Pulp Fiction to the list i dont know how...It has 274 fucks in. with a total 1.77922078 fuck per second —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Foulds (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Its already in the list. At 256 fucks, which is the correct number according to the source supplied (see the list). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

aah sorry dident see that.--James Foulds 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuck: The Movie

There is a special feature on the DVD that counts all the fucks, and at the end, it came out to 825. Could I edit that in, or am I not trustworthy enough to do that? -- Efyoo 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really an official feature of the DVD? In that case, I suppose it would be a good source. If you counted them yourself, I would consider it OR though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PG-13

I wonder if we want to make a list for most "fucks" in a PG-13 movie... Right now it is at Gunner Palace, 42 and The Hip-Hop Project, 17: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia76075fe469ef9a447d8730cf9d84cba zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As the PG-13 rating is very specific for the USA, I do not think this would be a good idea. Other countries have other criteria than the US, and I see no specific reason why to choose the US rating system. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

If so, I intend to create an analogous page for each word in the dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.116.131 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 May 2007

If you can find sources for those words, be my guest. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a film

What about adding SFW with Stephen Dorff and Reese Witherspoon? It should have a lot of "fucks" in it.

"The Departed" needs to be added. 273 times, "fuck" is said... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.115.75 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 May 2007

Its already in the list, at 237, according to what the source says. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is England" by Shane Meadows should be added. The fuck count is pretty high although i was not actually counting it. Too bad the movie is not very well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.255.109 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Saw III

Why isn't that listed? Some of the victims used the word while they were scared or angry, and it was also commonly used on the conversation between Amanda and Lynn. TheBlazikenMaster 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Because they used it a lot but not over 100 times?
• Because we don't know the exact number?
• Because we have no reliable source to back this up?

In short, as soon as a reliable source on this matter confirms the movie uses the word over a 100 times, feel free to add it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you're probably right. It probably uses less than that. I'm sorry for wasting time. TheBlazikenMaster 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Team America World Police?, I mean, they do have a song that has 'fuck' as like every third word

Number of fucks graph

Is there any reason that Running Scared is above Twin Town in the graph despite having a lower fuck count? - Tomos ANTIGUA Tomos 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

Appeared to be an honest mistake, fixed now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly. Wiki wishes to be taken seriously, but it is filled with rubbish like this. Do we really need a list of films which contain the most uses of the word fuck? At what point would this have an actual use? 84.9.51.203 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of us insanely driven by idle curiousity brought on by deadly boring jobs which allow us to use the Internet... these lists can be fun. Do not be such a killjoy- it is not like we will run out of paper for Wikipedia. Besides, Wikipedia will always suffer a perception of unreliability (and rightfully so), might as well enjoy ourselves with entertaining prose. 216.69.219.3 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

familymediaguide.com

Is familymediaguide.com still in business? I just tried and it times out. Maybe time to check Wayback Machine. -- 71.191.47.120 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks indeed like the site is offline. The information is still present in the wayback machine though, see for example: [20]. If the site stays offline, I'll be changing the links. Thanks for the heads up!. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Barney Goes to School and Spongebob Squarepants: the Movie (as far as I know) do not contain references to that word even once. Somebody please remove this... Jerre 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Was fixed. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Boyz N the Hood

Now I don't have an actual source on this, but just by viewing the movie I'm pretty sure it uses fuck over a 100 times, I'll try to look into it, or does somebody know the actual count?--Dominik92 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a source giving a count (other than IMDB) and feel free to add it. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why other than IMDB?--The Dominator (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Information in the IMDB trivia section can be added by registered users without fact checking. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarface

Anyone wondering why Scarface isn't on the list? I'm pretty sure it's got well over 100 fucks in the movie --Ghaib (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Find a source giving a count (other than IMDB) and feel free to add it. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarface- 208, not sure if this is reliable [21]--The Dominator (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Scarface is already in the list, at 207..... --Reinoutr (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic excuse for an article

"Keep Usefull information. --Djsasso 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)" - this is one of the votes that allowed the article to stay undeleted - I wonder when Djsasso had occasion to use this information - perhaps a funeral? Only in America could anyone want to create a page like this - the American fear of sex contrasted with puerile frat boy humor - in one single place. Fantastic. Here's another one: "Keep: Certain movie's F-word counts have frequently been quoted in the media as well, so this exists as a "subject" outside of this article. Croxley 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)" Perhaps we should have a list of people Paris Hilton has fucked, too? "In the media" no less. Crikey... --Dilaudid (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The second one is a valid explanation of his vote. The problem of the article is not its notability, it's the fact, that information in article is different than what sources say. Different sources have different numbers and only OR seems to be the decisive factor which number is actually used in the article. Another problem is, that those sources say "around" or "at least" x f-words and the article doesn't use the same words. In other words, information in the article is WRONG. Because of that I would have to nominate the article as one of the least encyclopedic articles I have ever seen on the site. Deletion of the article always fails because of people who don't have a slightest idea about what "encyclopedia" means, for instance, the guy who explained his vote as: "The article should stay, because there's a lot of original research in it." Without the voters like that one, the article would never get past the deletion nomination.

What can be done besides the deletion nomination, anyway? What's the next step? Probably if only admins voted about the deletion, the article would be gone long time ago... --JTrdi (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost a year since the last afd. If you feel strongly that it should go, nominate it again. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO we can use our time much better than with another worthless nomination. As I said, if only admins could vote, I would've nominated it a couple of weeks ago. I checked all deletion policies and it seemed to me, that there is no realistic chance, that the nomination process can succeed if there is a lot of support amonst wiki members. And this article has huge support even if it's a nonencyclopedic one and the voters are voting with explanations, that contradict wiki policies. But I might have just misread the deletion nomination options and there is actually a way to close down such an article through admin discussion?--JTrdi (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has useful information, but I don't think it's very good as a list, it is never going to be complete for two reasons: People have different views on what makes a film notable enough to be in the list; different sources have different numbers, so it's actually kind of pointless to have sources, but if we don't, it's OR. What I suggest doing is making an article called The word "fuck" in film which discusses the usage of the word in film and we can merge some of the info from this list.--The Dominator (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming appropriate sources can be found, I think that article suggestion is actually a good idea LinaMishima (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted, but still kept archived somewhere because it's "fucking" hilarious. Balderdash707 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

double fuck

how do we order movies with the same fuck count? by date?Д narchistPig (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, by FPM. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphical representation

Wiki, you are officially fcking stupid.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC) This is not an acceptable/useful addition, please sign comments IMBlackMath (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What about...

South Park: Bigger, Longer and, Uncut had 148 f-words with 1.82 per minute. (approx. 81 min.) Farce of the Penguins had 179 f-words with 2.23 per minute. (approx. 80 min.) The new movie 30 Minutes or Less had 218 f-words with 2.62 per minute. (approx. 83 min)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.82.1 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 August 2011‎ (UTC)

WTF?

I can see some 12 year old had a field day. This is immaturely extensive when compared to actual articles. Graphs? How many other lists have graphs? And "FPM" seems like a poor a marketing buzz word, and is in all likelihood very very WP:OR. Someone drop me a line when this is next AfD'ed. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please drop me a line too. For most purposes, this article is so spectacularly trivial as to be off the scale of my most finely-calibrated triviometer, but it's also endearingly engaging, solidly-referenced, free of original research, and very well presented. And, of course, if the reader stops to engage brain for a few minutes, this is not simply trivia: it's an examination of the use in a highly commercial section of popular culture of one of the most taboo words in the English language.
So next time it comes up at AfD, mine's a strong keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It sometimes amazes me how many editors are drawn to crap like this whilst Wikipedia still lacks so many vital articles. Has anyone considered expending the effort wasted here creating an article on the Andinyin or Maiawali people (just to mention two)? Or if you're desperately eager for something stupid-sounding, why not expand our article on the Faggin-Nazzi writing system for Friulian? Only Americans could get so touchy about swearing that when they see it for the first time at age 30 they wet themselves and start an article with graphs on it. This 'list' could just as easily be cut and merged back to 'Fuck'. But no, we have to waste space listing every single movie that is under boycott from the Baptist Mothers of America. Ridiculous. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hexagon, your comment begs the question, why don't you write the articles you find woefully absent?PacificBoy 09:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hexagon, the problem is that so many people find this article amusing, that any sort of AfD debate will result in no consensus no matter how good the arguments for deleting are. A good example is the last AfD we had a few weeks ago. An article about the word "fuck" in film would be much more useful. True that this is sourced information, but seriously, how can you say that FPM is not original research? You just made up a goddamn measuring unit! The Dominator (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people arguing in favor of keeping the list, but I have no objections whatsoever to removal of that particular column. I've just taken it out. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other articles do not exist is not a reason to delete an article that does exist. Nor are editors expected to only work on the articles that you feel have merit. Anyone's work on any article is appreciated. The359 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the article is a waste of time, in which case - by extension... Other articles on this topic don't exist for a very good reason, they are summed up in a few words in the relevant main articles. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Graph

Rather than getting into a revert war, I decided to give my reasoning for deleting the graph here. The graph is completely meaningless, it gives the same information as the chart and only serves as a comedy tool, unlike the actual graph which does contain some useful info, the graph just serves to enhance the preposterousness of the statistic. Also, it's not really true to the title of the article, I don't see a compelling reason to keep the graph, any arguments? The Dominator (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the graph does not agree with the list. Nil by Mouth is listed as 2nd place in the list but third in the chart.

The graph is useful. As is often the case with graphs, it helps the reader visualize the illustrated statistic. Spacepotato (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is a list of films that... and the graph just takes away any dignity and seriousness that this article has, I don't find it helpful at all. The Dominator (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphs are just a quick visual aid for comparing entries, which is what this one seems to be doing. I suggest you imagine this article was about some other subject, such as the population of countries. If it was about some other subject, what would be useful ways of the displaying the information? Maybe thinking about it that way will help you understand the opposing viewpoint. If this article subject is deemed reasonable by the AfDs, then standard ways of displaying the data is reasonable. I think you may be letting your opinion of the general subject matter effect your editing. I may be wrong, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point, but I still disagree, yes maybe I am a little biased because of the previous AfD's, but in this article the graph just comes of as unprofessional and unnecessary. I can't help thinking that while a graph of population of countries would be helpful since it gives a good comparison, this graph is primarily here to generate a laugh or two. So in this case I think the subject matter is significant in deciding whether or not a graph is appropriate. Country populations are a whole different thing, that has been represented with graphs and charts at literally hundreds of reliable sources, "fuck" counts on the other hand have not. The Dominator (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally, I didn't see the humor, but the fact that people have spent so much time creating such a thorough article about a subject that's not that important is a bit amusing. It's probably one of the most thoroughly referenced film related articles we have. I don't think the graph is bad though, it just shows people have spent a lot of time working on this article. Just one of the idiosyncries of wikipedia. People work on what they want to work on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly better things to work on... but I'll leave that out of this. Yes, for an article of this type it is well referenced and formatted, but I still think the graph is overdoing this, making it ridiculous. The Dominator (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphs just make interpretation of data easier, nothing wrong with that. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Due to the large amount of edits from IP addresses that do not fulfill the criteria for this page as was reached consensus on in several AfD and Talk discussions, this page is now permanently semi-protected, following a request here: [22]. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The graph needs another column that divides the total number of uses of the word by the duration of the film to create a fuck per minute rating. Otherwise, the column does not address the frequency of the uses of fuck but rather just the movies that use the word the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.213.163 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2008

We used to have that as a column in the table and as a graph, but this was removed after objections were raised here on the talk page (see above under "WTF"). --Reinoutr (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The removal of that column was one big fucking fuck up. It's a vital statistic, because the FPM gives context to how 'thick' the fucks are. This helps fuckers recognise if there's likely substantive plot lines going on or if its just one gigantic fuck festival. As a parent, I only want my child hearing 1.25 or 1.5 fucks per minute AT MOST. Including that statistic and the graph would make it easier to determine at a glance. Also, I tend to be very busy, so when I need my fuck fix, knowing the most efficient fucking movies would help. I don't need to spend four fucking hours waiting around for a clump of fucks at the end when I could get a steady fucking stream of them in the first thirty minutes of a more densely fucked film

But MOST obviously, the reason FPM should be reintroduced is that the article's very fucking topic says 'most frequently'. Frequency is expressed by quantity over time, not just the fucking quantity and time separately. EITHER CHANGE THE FUCKING ARTICLE NAME OR BRING BACK THE FPM CHART.

Screenit.com not reliable

I don't see how Screenit.com is a reliable source. Its self published, has a single contribtour, and its just a dude who goes to the movies.[23]. This is basically sourcing OR. How does he count the F words? Also a lot of the entries say something like "At least 100 F words" or "more than 100 F words" and yet on this list their presented as a solid facts. On SCREENIT its not an exact figure, but on here its presented if it was. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not that is a reliable source certainly can be discussed. But the fact that is only 1 or 2 persons has nothing to do with that. Neither is any reference to "OR" appropriate, as that refers to original research by Wikipedia editors, not by our sources. If nobody in the world conducted "original" research, no new information (for us and for anyone else) would ever come available. Your second point is indeed valid, but I think this could easily be dealt with by labeling such an entry with a number like "100+" rather than "100". --Reinoutr (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I'm going to ask this very politely and I'd like a serious answer, if it's not too much trouble.

...why does this article exist? What...what relevance does it have to ANYTHING? Why do anyone besides college students and balding game show hosts CARE what movies say the word "fuck" the most? Maybe I'm missing the point of the article... Please do give me some insight into the existence of this article. ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because different people like different things. Some people like a List of Crash Bandicoot characters for example [24], while others do not care about that, but do find a List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" interesting. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well...I guess I can't really beat that logic... But if that were ultimately true, then there'd still be individual articles for each of the recurring characters from Mega Man such as Roll or Bass... Or at the very least, articles on the different unit types for Mets and Sniper Joes. ~ Joseph Collins [U|T|C] 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the boxes at the top of this talk page indicates that this article has survived seven and a half nominations for deletion, though somewhat weakly. If you want to read about why, you can look at all of those. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam and Paul

How about Adam and Paul? -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the title of this article wrong?

Shouldn't it be:

List of films that most frequently use the word fuck?

Whenever you're citing a word, e.g., the film's characters used the word fuck numerous times, the word should be italicized, according to WP:MOS.

Does anyone ever bother with issues like this when the article is being created, rather than wait until other articles have been linked to it (and changing the title is more problematic)? Kinkyturnip (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes people bother, but this particular page has had a lot of different names throughout its long history, including the same one, without quotes, from which it was moved to this one [25]. But, italizing is not possible in titles I think. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Why do we trust the counts provided by our sources here? Croctotheface (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but fuck is not the most taboo word in English. Cunt is.

"Fuck" Percentage

I was just perusing this article and thought I might run some math. By far, the worst offender, once you eliminate "Fuck: The Movie" is "Twin Town" which runs an F-bomb approximately every 30 seconds. I just sat here, imagining that. Just think about it. EVERY 30 SECONDS.

If you've seen Twin Town this will seem to be, if anything, an underestimation. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Higher score for Lebowski

Check this weird "study". It could "beat" Tarantino's films, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.32.99 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do the right thing?

Yo, Do the Right Thing has got at least 100 uses, probably in the first few scenes. Where is it? I mean, do you have to source the fuck count? I'm gonna count 'em and it'll be up there, for sure. Neutronbomb (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do the right thing?

Yo, Do the Right Thing has got at least 100 uses, probably in the first few scenes. Where is it? I mean, do you have to source the fuck count? I'm gonna count 'em and it'll be up there, for sure. Neutronbomb (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I counted when I watched it, and my count ended at 256. Of course, it's kind of hard because they used it in "Fight the Power", which played on Radio Raheem's radio quite often.72.196.215.28 (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wanted

IMDB says 375 in wanted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.182.168 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again IMDB is not a reliable source. Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is WAY off!

These people just find scripts online and do a search for fuck and then post it on here. There's celebrityfword that has a purpose and has more accurate counts

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic8or (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 October 2008‎ (UTC)

FPM

Assuming the count and film length are accurate, would there be value in a "FPM" ratio? McWomble (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We had this in the past and it was removed after objections to it were raised. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion policy

See Wikipedia:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" - deletion policy. All discussion on this should be on that page, not here. McWomble (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no support for the proposal there, there. If someone wants to AfD this article for a *new* reason, one not recently considered or based on new evidence, they should feel free. Anyone can speedy close such an AfD if it simply rehashes old arguments. Or anyone could take the last AfD to WP:DRV if they disagree with the Keep based on the arguments presented in that AfD, or otherwise want to argue for deletion before a decent time has elapsed. The disruption happens, and there is some, because many editors seem to think the whole question is funny -- or accuse editors who don't think the topic is "encyclopedic" of censorship. Rude. So let them have their fun. If these AfDs distract you, don't read them. --Abd (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Body of lies

Fuck is used in Body of lies for many times we must add it also --Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles count incorrect

The "See Also" section states that Steve Martin's character says fuck 19 times in the car rental scene. However, the correct count is 18. The clerk accounts for the last utterance, as the already provided YouTube clip verifies.

Has already been fixed. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been noticed before that sourcing here is a tad weak.

In the many AfDs for this article, it's been noticed that sources for this article are often weak. Every source I've look at so far is of a nature that I'm quite accustomed to text sourced with sources that weak is routinely removed, and article dependent on such sources are routinely deleted. I'm sure some sources here are proper, that something would remain if we removed all the improperly sourced text. But these are the problems:

1. Unless there is RS on precisely that, the article would not match the title. What films "most frequently use the word "fuck"? A list of usages isn't source for that. I wonder a bit about the documentary being included.... but that's a detail.
2. Can we point to a script and use that as a source? When it is necessary to analyze a source, say by personally counting, to verify a fact, is that original research that we are simply inviting someone else to reproduce. Again, I've seen lots of OR on that level -- i.e., anyone else could do the research, with enough patience -- be removed, with this being reviewed extensively by many users. The reason I'd give for this is that sourcing standards also cover notability. If a fact must be "created" through original research by Wikipedia editors and readers, then there isn't evidence that it is notable. Being covered in reliable sources is our most basic method of determining notability. It isn't necessarily enough, but it's a baseline. Much of what is in this article doesn't meet that.
3. Can we use a paper by a student that wasn't peer-reviewed or subjected to an editorial process (as with publications in a newspaper magazine, or commercially published book, or on-line magazine with an identified editorial board.) Not usually! Yet we have just that as a source for the claim that "The word fuck is thought to be the most used taboo term in American film." Notice the weasel words "thought to be." Yes. Someone thought that, or at least wrote it. A student who wrote a paper. Notable? No evidence provided.
4. Can we use a web site with no evidence of an editorial board or responsible publisher? We can't use wikis, generally, for the same reason that we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source. There is no particular process that guarantees the reliability of any particular revision of an article. It's possible we could eventually have that, but there has been a lot of resistance to the idea, the jury is out on whether or not this will be permitted. (See WP:Flagged revisions for that possibility.)
5. How do we know that the N films with the most usages of the word are listed in this article? Most articles are structured and the topic determined so that if the article is incomplete, it is not therefore *incorrect.* This article has to be perfect or the title is misleading. Bad design. The title will have to be changed.
6. Probably there are some, but I have not yet seen one usable source here.

So.... you can look forward to some edits here. I'll be careful. The AfDs resulted in Keep or No Consensus, it seems, because the problems were considered amenable to editorial correct, but apparently that was not done. Hence, there were continued renominations. Quite naturally, those who thought the article improperly sourced didn't want to clean it up. Why do that if the result is going to be, one might think, nothing left? A lot of work just to end up with ... a deleted article? --Abd (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good summary of what's wrong with wikipedia right now. Bienfuxia (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For your consideration, and hopefully before you start chopping down this article, please see some of these comments I made on the last AfD:

• A clearly defined cut-off (100 in this case) narrows the scope of the article, making it easier to maintain and sets it apart from what are often called "indiscriminate lists". As also mentioned before, many lists naming the top XXXX of something on Wikipedia use an arbitrary cut-off. This is not original research, but only a way to keep the maintenance and size of such articles under control, something that is done all over Wikipedia, see for a few examples these featured lists: List of tallest buildings in Baltimore, List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of wealthiest charitable foundations, etc...
• We have lists like this, with similar sourcing, all over Wikipedia. I am not gonna give overwhelming evidence, just one totally random example that I could think of. See the article List of largest suspension bridges, with the bridge at position 17 in the list. This: [26] is the supplied reference. Not exactly a reference that discusses how this bridge is well known for its length. It just shows some details and, indeed, the length of the bridge. Is that article ever nominated for deletion? Not once. In fact, it is a Featured list.

--Reinoutr (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alien 3,

Alien 3 had a lot of the f word in it. I was curious to see and counted them, and I came up with 108. Also I remember seeing this film, but I can't remembe what it was called, so it doesn't really matter. But it had hundreds of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapeod (talk • contribs) 10:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness somebody else notices. I remember watching it years ago and I counted even more, 120+. But Google is not giving me any good sources. 69.22.210.220 (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language usage

Are we/should we be counting usage of "fuck" in foreign languages in predominantely English-language films? I'm thinking in particlar of Scarface and its many uses of Spanish forms of "fuck" like "coño" Thedangerouskitchen (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not count, we only report what other people counted. If you find a source, we can think of a way to include it. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "Bully"

The movie Bully with Brad renfro said fuck 274 time. I counted.

Its already in the list. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

category

any chance that all the movies be added to a category? _{i have an acount, forgot pass. Anarcist Pig} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.137.244 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, we had that in the past and we deleted it. Its not that important. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Loop (film)

Just out in the UK, I'd guess this will easily make the upper reaches of the list. Sadly haven't been able to find any tally, but I would conservatively estimate that there are 300-400 'fucks' and numerous other cuss words .81.86.140.189 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if you can find reference, it can be included. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually ran a grep search of a transcript and got 159 'fucks'. That said, I can't find a reference. -- Iggy Koopa (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Training Day

{{editsemiprotected}} training day - 211 uses of 'fuck'

Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve this article. You'll need to do two things to enable someone to insert this for you. You need to find a reference for the fact and you need to provide the rest of the details the list has for each film. Otherwise, maybe one of the other editors for this article can take up your suggestion and do that research. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Casino Count is wrong

The Casino count should be 422 - see wikipedia's own page on Casino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastleach (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You point is fundamentally wrong, because Wikipedia itself is not a source for Wikipedia itself...you know what I want to say. You have to name the original source, not "see wikipedia". You did not notice that the count of 422 you are referring at "wikipedia's own page on Casino" was without any source - so by now it is deleted! --77.4.68.102 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Sixteen

Wiki itself says that fuck is used 'about 200' times, IMDB lists fuck and its variants being used 313 times http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313670/trivia

"IMDB trivia section can be added by registered users without fact checking." IMDB is NOT a reliable source! Freikorp (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Guardian: "The BBFC estimates that Sweet Sixteen contains more than 200 uses of the word fuck and 20 of the word cunt." [Source]

One Day Removals

I am the producer for a Scottish film called "One Day Removals" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289420) which has 440 uses of the "F" word in 86 minutes. I bleieve that this enables us to be added to the list? check out http://www.stirtonproductions.com for more info, we have done a 'swearey edit' on our youtube page that has a full swear count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerwinrobertson (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC) regards,

Kerwin Robertson Stirton Productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerwinrobertson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong missing/ reference?

42 types of fuck variants used per million words in regular language which is a figure to be noted has a note leading to: Dídac Pujol. "The Translation and Dubbing of 'Fuck' into Catalan:The Case of From Dusk till Dawn". The Journal of Specialised Translation. Retrieved 2008-02-03 - though, i couldn't find any reference to that number in the article it points to Pax.mtx (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.200.158.169, 11 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} According to my Google Chrome search of this: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/i/in-the-loop-script-transcript.html In the Loop has 164 uses of the word 'fuck' or variations thereof, and thus should be on the list for sure.

90.200.158.169 (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, we cannot add it based on your own search - that would constitute original research. We can only add facts supported by an appropriate reliable source - such as, if a newspaper report mentions the fact. I hope you understand. Please reinstate the request if you can provide a source. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from 70.29.104.218, 13 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Just so you know, the Lil Jon CD "Kings of Crunk" has the word fuck 317 times in 1:17:58, or about 4.12 times per minute. Lil Jon himself says it 203 of these times (2.64 times per minute). Also, it uses the word "nigga" 269 times (3.49 times per minute); Lil Jon himself says 170 of these "nigga"s (2.21 times per minute). I just thought this would interesting as this number, were it a movie, would be the EIGHT MOST USES OF THE WORD FUCK, and also the second highest rate. Next Up: I'll do Crunk Juice. Also, this is far more than Eminem (in the Marshall Mathers LP I counted 161 uses of the word "fuck" - MUCH less than 317 - and there is negliable amounts of "nigga" due to him being white and only his black featured guests saying it once in a while). Anyways, I thought this might be an interesting tidbit to add to the page.

Do what you like with it though. 70.29.104.218 (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this information. Intelligentsium 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As this is an article about films what do we care about a rap album? How is this relevant? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted change in referencing

I just reverted a mass change in how the article was referenced (everything was moved to the "ref" function, yielding a huge list of references showing only a numbered link). The use of the "ref" function is not required and yielded a worse article in this case, in my opinion. Apart from that, the conversion was incomplete and some current references were not taken along. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The most accepted form now (and the one used in FLs) uses the ref tags. I have been trying to fill in all the info with Reflinks, but it often times out on me. I am not sure how this article would be worse off if all the ref info was added fully.  fetchcomms☛ 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope this change is better now. • ɔ ʃ → 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is much better, although quite a few references are still incomplete and just a number (e.g. 13, 16, 18, 34, etc...). My mention of a worse article referred to your original use of the ref function in this article [27], where there only was a list of more than 200 numbers at the bottom of the page, which did not give any additional information compared to when the numbers where in the table. With the additional information added, this problem is largely solved. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.21.162.7, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The page for the films with the most uses of the word "fuck" is missing the 1995 movie "Kids" which uses the word nearly 150 times as sourced by imdb. I suggest you add it.

24.21.162.7 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, so I can't add this for you, sorry.

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles.  Chzz  ►  18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Death proof

Death proof has about 150. Kidulthood had at least 100.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.6.216 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010‎ (UTC)

Edit request from Chas100, 24 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

| "Kick Ass" || 2010 || 101 || 117 || 0.86 || KIM ||

Chas100 (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Not sure what the request is, don't see the film in the list. SpigotMap 22:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, obviously, the request was to add the movie and since a proper reference was provided, I added it. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought Withnail & I would be in this list.

I mean, I only have the unofficial script to hand, and it's one that contains many inconsistencies with the actual film, but that film struck me as using "fuck" a lot.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.74.129 (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2010‎ (UTC)

Removal of Tourettes Guy

Why was the addition of 'Tourettes Guy' removed from the page? I own the Tourettes Guy DVD myself, and it does contain 104 uses of 'fuck', because I have counted. I believe it deserves to be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonsters08 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 August 2010‎ (UTC)

Reply: I think this list only applies to theatrical films, and in order to make it to the list, it must say fuck or a variation of the word at lease 150 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.88.14 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Street Kings

I realise IMDB is not usually a reputable source, however I have just watched Street Kings, with subtitles, and there are 121 f-words. I added that info to the IMDB parental guide myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonsters08 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lemonsters08, thanks for you edit. Although I understand you made this edit in good faith, adding information you obtained yourself is considered "original research" and is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is exactly the reason why we do not allow IMDB as a source for this article. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 193.61.111.53, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Shark Tale

193.61.111.53 (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Town

The Town is listed on here twice. The FMG source says 141 uses. The SI source says 155. We need to get rid of one of these sources. AKenjiB (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actually only used 134 times; I counted. I think someone should delete the source that says 155, as 141 is much closer to the actual number of times it's used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 30casesofpickles (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Expand Article

I believe we that this article would be far better and far more respected if it had similar lists for other swear words. Interesting ones would be: cunt, bitch, nigger and shit. --58.172.84.214 (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently removed headings

I am not going to restore them, at least not until there is a discussion and a consensus, but I preferred having the headings in the graph, dividing the films up by number of uses of the word. I felt it made searching easier. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really think it makes it much easier to navigate. Also, they break whenever you change the sorting order, which looks terrible. Anyway, will wait to hear what others think. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Run

What about Midnight Run? Josh (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.59.240.29, 13 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Scarface has "fuck" spoken 226, not 207. Check Internet Movie Database or the Platinum Edition DVD for Scarface to verify. Please update this fact on your page.

216.59.240.29 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: Thanks for the tip. But can I ask, are you getting this fact from the IMDb or from the DVD? I ask because IMDb is not considered a citeable source, but if you personally have seen the DVD, then that can be cited instead. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing movies

I remember as a kid watching the third Alien movie (1992) and counted fuck over 120 times and it's not here. Somebody please add it and reference it, along with many other films... 69.22.210.220 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Another person higher up in the talk page in January 2009 noticed Alien 3 too, and was ignored. Please don't ignore me. Also, a simple google search isn't giving any results, please help. 69.22.210.220 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.10.142.162, 24 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} What about Scarface???

173.10.142.162 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.155.129 (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2011‎ (UTC)

FUBAR the movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR_%28film%29

Fuck count is 274 times

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.242.29 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2011‎ (UTC)

August Underground’s Mordum

did the count for this, not sure if its offically dead on due to the rapid fire profanity and people screaming it at each other. But I got around 567 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomwikiuser4000 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Minchin's Pope Song

Can we add this to the list of songs that have the word fuck featured a lot. The lyrics have the word (or a variation) 83 times in total, less than heard in ICP's 'Fuck the World' but proportionally much more - if words per minute are counted, FTW has only one every 2.43 seconds, while Tim Minchin's song has one every 1.55 seconds.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.220.82 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Edit request from 213.172.34.234, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The word "Fuck" appears 105 times in the movie; "Point Break (1991) Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102685/trivia 213.172.34.234 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is not a reliable source. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

100+

Obviously this article doesn't work without some arbitrary cut off point, and if i was going to choose a point at which the word was used 'a lot' in ignorance, it would probably be 100 times, or even 50 times in an average length film.

The problem is that the article has clearly become unwieldy because there are just so many films which use the word fuck over 100 times.

Furthermore there arent any films on the list which have a very high fucks/minute rating but a low overall count of fucks - you don't really gain anything by having access to the lower rated films.

If the threshold were raised to 150, there would still be 100 films on the list. If it were doubled to 200, there would be a top 50. I think that a list which contained the 50 or 100 fuckiest films of all time would be sufficient to meet anybodies needs really, I don't see what purpose extending that list to almost double this size achieves.

I would propose changing the cut off point to either 150 uses or 200 uses, but preserving notable films (ie Raging Bull) in the trivia section. Alternatively we could seperate the article into 300+, 200-300, 150-200 and 100-150 use sections, which would make it more managable but seems a bit pointless.

Thoughts? Bob House 884 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In my view the article currently is not "unwieldy" at all. It can easily be maintained (hardly requires maintenance to be honest). Sections existed until some time ago in the list, but these were removed at some point by somebody who didn't like them. Personally, I see no reason to chop the list. Also, chopping, but keeping some films is in my view more difficuly to maintain than a full list like this. If we really have to chop, I would say 150+ for now, that will remove about half the list. We can always chop further if the list grows too big again. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean 'unwieldy' as in hard to manage, rather that the extra 100-150 films after the 50-100 most-fuckiest don't add any value at all to the article at the cost of making it very very long, I mean will anybody ever care that Cop Out uses the word fuck 108 times, making it the 176th fuck-iest film of all time Bob House 884 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with a list of top 50. There are films on the list that make it on the list without really trying. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to 150+, which has my prefernce as explained above. We can always chop further. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuck Count for the Documentary

There are different sources listed for the count on this film. I read through all three of them and none of them provide the count. The wikipedia page on the actual documentary says, the film uses the word 857 times in 90 minutes giving it an average of 9.52. The ref provided is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486585/trivia?tr0624026. I know imdb is not the best source, but so far its the only one I can find. Should this be changed in the chart?

IMDB is not a reliable source for this information, I changed the reference to correctly match the 824 count. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

reference tells other figures

For Casino the article says 422 Fuck, but if you follow the given reference-link from familymediaguide http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20070506055732/http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-396959.html the source tells this:
Profanity Details - Words and Instances: F-word(398), C-word(1), Sh*t(36), C*ck(7), B*stard(1), A*s(16), A*shole(6), Hell(13), Damn(3), God D*mn(8), B*tch(8), Pr*ck(9), Bullsh*t(18), Jesus(5), Christ(5)
Profanity Examples in context: “…we f*cked it all up…” – “F*ck you" - “…just another fat f*ck walking out of the casino with a suitcase." - "Listen you f*ckin c*nt..." - "...sh*t like that..." - "I threw that c*ck sucker out." - "I want that Jew b*stard killed." - "...watching his a*s..." - "...you f*ckin a*shole..." - "...was a hell of a handicapper..." - "...he didn't give a damn who knew it." - "Oh my God." - "God damn it..." - "...you f*ckin b*tch..." - "...that pr*ck's been dodgin me..." -"That was all bullsh*t, she just pocketed the cash..." - "Jesus Christ."

So according to the 2007 archived page of familymediaguide in the waybackmachine the word Fuck was used only 398 times. Please explain why the article says 422?
--77.4.68.102 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, because somebody changed it without proper reference. This is wikipedia after all..... Fixed. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Do any of you actually know what an encyclopedia is?

This article is worthless, and entirely out of keeping with the nature of an encyclopedia. The fact that it exists is bad enough; that so many people are so energetically contributing to it puts Wikipedia in a very bad light. 86.172.84.189 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• It does seem a little pointless, true. We don't have an article on the use of every single swear word, so why this one? I'll vote for delete if someone nominates it :) Malick78 (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

District 9 says the f word 151 times and should be up there. Crazyboy279 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The film ".45"

The movie .45 by Gary Lennon says fuck 404 times. It's not even listed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.45.50 (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny

I heared a lot of "fucks" in the movie, Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny. How many times fuck was said in the movie? If it is then I would like permission for the movie Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny to be in the chart. Thanks! ~GLaDOS996 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Tim Minchin's Pope Song

Pope Song by Tim Minchin uses fuck or motherfucker 109 times in a period of 2 minutes and 18 seconds, which is a far more obscene rate than Limp or Insane Clown Posse.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwt0 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Juice

I almost never count profanity in movies, but I noticed something in the 1992 film Juice-It is LOADED with fucks. I don't know if it is 150 (no sites like what the other movies sources are have reviewed this movie), but I think it may have 150+ fucks. (to be fair, it is an urban film)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.88.14 (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2012‎ (UTC)

State Property

its wiki page says:State Property has earned the dubious distinction of being near the top of the list of most "fuck" per minute of any movie (excluding a documentary on the "Fuck" word itself). Fuck is spoken 3.65 times per minute or 321 times in 88 minutes.[4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.47.121.2 (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Blog as source?

Why is "The Documentary Blog" listed as the reliable source for the first film listed? Are blogs considered reliable sources these days? Any objections if I removed this item? I did in fact did some diligence and checked the WP page for Fuck_(film) to see if it was better sourced there. There, the source it cites for the word count is IMDB. btw, this is horribly list-cruftish, and yes, I read the AfDs. - 209.6.141.20 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

End of Watch

This film has multiple, multiple uses of the word fuck, particularly in the first 20-25 minutes. It is used at least 300 times in the first half hour of the film, and it is used much more throughout. Whoever can get a definite amount of fucks used, please do.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.194.253 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Tropic Thunder

This movie has 117 uses of the F word, as you can see if you go here: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/tropic-thunder-script-transcript.html And search for the word, which will come up with 117 matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariox64 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Contraband

In Contraband with Mark Wahlberg the word is used approximately 147 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1morey (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this article

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum; it is an encloypedia, and as such this articles that distinction too much for it to exist. This Iist is organic in that it's an original creation, not an article about something that exists. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.130.124 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There have been many past discussions about whether this should be deleted, but there has never been consensus for deletion. You can see these past discussions by clicking "Show" next to "List milestones" near the top of this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

GhostTown (2008)

Reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/3463215/Films-rated-12A-are-full-of-swearing.html Year: 2008 Fuck (and it's derivatives) used 17 times Minutes: 102mins?! (reference to wikipedia page of film)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaisjp (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 February 2013‎ (UTC)

August Underground's Mordum (2003) and Mutilation Mile (2009)

The former (77 minutes) uses the word "fuck" at least 600 times and the latter (82 minutes) uses it approximately 664 times. I don't know how many times per minute that is, but these two films should definitely be listed here.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Surprising

Very surprised to see that Do The Right Thing and Glengarry Glen Ross aren't listed here. The language is atrocious!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wolf of Wall Street

According to this International Business Times article, the author of the WeGotThisCovered.com post doesn't know where the number came from, so the post should probably not be considered a reliable source. Trivialist (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source that puts it at 544. [28] 199.106.103.53 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In Bruges

In Bruges, starring Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson had it said 126 times. It seemed like alot, but it would be way down in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepzibuh (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Da Hip Hop Witch (2000), Ted (2012)

The former has approximately 193 utterances of the term. The latter used it at least once every minute. Theskinnytypist (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Sabotage_(2014_film) should replace the Sabotage link.

Done Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

Trailer Park Boys: Don't Legalize It Year: 2013 # of Fucks: 401 Minutes: 91 Fucks/Minute: 4.406 Davikavanagh (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, which inclusion in this article requires. - Arjayay (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Eric

The British film Looking for Eric (with Eric Cantona) must be quite high up there (I say after watching it recently). I'm not sure if a robust source can be found for this film. 86.27.240.99 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014

Green Street Hooligans: 240 uses according to IMDB Rise of the Footsoldier: 351 uses according to IMDB Goodfellas: 321 according to IMDB Sid and Nancy: 220 according to IMDB Pgoforth114 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done IMDB is not as reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Swearnet: The Movie is listed as having 935 uses of the word "fuck," citing IMDB as the reference. However, according to the Guinness World Records website, Swearnet: The Movie holds the world record for "Most Swearing in One Film," with "868 expletives," suggesting that the IMDB trivia page is incorrect.

Swearnet: The Movie should be removed from this list until another source can verify the number of uses of the word "fuck." Crdenn (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

swearnet has broken the record of wolf of wallstreet using the f word about 935 times in a half hour 74.102.115.148 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need a source which says it uses 935 instances. IMDb is not a reliable source. Stickee (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. — Cirt (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fury?

I am pretty sure that should be on here, while I can't say how many times they said it, I'm pretty sure Fury (2014 film) had it at least 150 times. Wgolf (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015

Trailer Park Boys created the movie Swearnet in 2014. It had over 900 fucks @ 8.9 fucks per minute Wikip3diaesdumb (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015

Swearnet uses variations of fuck 935 times. Nursekeirs (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Better Reference for Obscenity Frequency

The existing reference to Pujol's paper takes a citation out of context and is actually totally inaccurate, which has even led to that false data being cited in other papers. A significantly more accurate summary of the use of "fuck" and other obscenities in natural language can be found in this paper:

http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~mehl/eReprints/EARsoundsJPSP.pdf

I suggest that a properly formatted reference to this paper replace the former Pujol statistic, which I have (in the mean time) removed and replaced with a more accurate non-statistical statement.

Ariamaki The Wiki-Wise (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Put Swearnet on here already

Sources: http://www.swearnetthemovie.com/story http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-movie-reviews-pictures-pg-189-photo.html

And for your information: most of your sources down below aren't suited for this article when they're defunct, have paywalls, only cover US-made "blockbusters", or have no kind of swear-count section.

Year: 2014

Fuck Count: 935

Minutes: 112

Uses/Minute: 8.34 (And that's rounded down)

Blind51de (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07^Talk 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry used the wrong template, I'm  Doing... it now. Kharkiv07^Talk 00:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07^Talk 00:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

Please add the Big Lebowski at 281 Fucks stated 75.27.120.89 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

PG and PG-13 films

Based on an article in the Baltimore Sun, I added some examples of films that contain "fuck" but are not rated R. I think "List of PG and PG-13 rated films that contain the word "fuck" is not really worthy of its own article. But since the word usually triggers an R rating, PG and PG-13 films that contain the word seems like a notable topic.

I addressed the "citation needed" flags as well, by adding information about the Hays Code and the MPAA rating system. For "the use of profanity in films has always been controversial", I added a mention of the Hays Code, which forbade profanity completely. For "draws particular criticism", I added a discussion about the way the word triggers an R rating; some exceptions are listed in the new "PG and PG-13" section.

The new list is not meant to be complete, but as I said I think it is notable. Roches (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

What about this movie? It's not pornographic, and it contains 399 profane words, of which 146 are the word "fuck". (Unsigned comment, reference corrected to wikilink: South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. The article states that films must contain 150 uses to qualify. Roches (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

Smokin' Stogies 67.85.6.92 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006) and Trailer Park Boys: The Movie (2006)

Two contenders. The scripts show 263 and 157 instances respectively http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=a-guide-to-recognizing-your-saints http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/trailer-park-boys-movie-script.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuccessBrandOil (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016

Add the movie 44 Inch Chest to the list. It contains 162 uses of the word "fuck" 31.51.199.238 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

South Park and Team America

Both of these need to be added to the list; more specifically, South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut. The Duke of Dabs (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2016

JPS10199 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Addition to "See also" section.

The song "NSFW" by Psychostick uses the word "fuck" 446 times within 3 minutes and 14 seconds as the majority of the song is comprised of the word.

121.218.208.195 (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done NSFW (song) does not have an article, and we would need a citation for the number, even if we did have an article - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a song, so it would be out of topic even if it had an article. This list only covers films. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

Hello,

I just worked on writing captions for a found footage horror movie titled Gitaskog that came out in 2015. After going over what I had written, I saw that the movie contains at least 336 uses of the F-word which would put it pretty high up on this Wiki listing. I would like to add the movie to the list if possible. Here is a link to the movie's IMDB page.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229952/

Gibby4014 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Hi Gibby4014, thank you for your suggestion. Wikipedia's content depends on citations to reliable sources so that it is verifiable. Similarly, Wikipedia has a core content policy which states that articles must not contain original research. This means that we cannot add Gitaskog to the list without a reliable source verifying your claim. Can you provide a reliable source that specifically verifies that Gitaskog contains 336 uses of the word "fuck"? IMDb is not considered a reliable source because much of its information is user-generated. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any one source mainly because the movie's not talked about all that much. The best thing I can do is provide a link to a transcription of the movie that contains every use of the word fuck or fucking. My last count saw it at 339 after editing. If you or someone else at Wikipedia were to go over it and verify that it's correct, would that count as a reliable source?

Gibby4014 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Unfortunately, probably not. Wikipedia only publishes information which published, reliable sources have published, and information which does not exist in any published, reliable source would be original research. Perhaps later, if and when the film receives additional attention, we could add it to the list. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

This article does not show the amount of times the word, "fuck", is said per minute on the line that shows "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut". It shows a question mark. MissingUser (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This article does not show the amount of times the word, "fuck", is said per minute on the line that shows "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut". It shows a question mark. Please change the "?" to "0.55", as that is the amount of times the word, "fuck", is used per minute. MissingUser (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

Hello. I believe www.moviefwords.com should be added as a credible source. It specifies both movie and television counts of the use of 'fuck' and is very detailed.

Sonic8or (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done one persons blog, not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Patriots Day

So any news on how many times they said it in Patriots Day? They said it a bunch of times so I'm pretty sure it should be on this list, not sure how many times though! Wgolf (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 50 external links on List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-396959.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-371667.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-438122.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-333752.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-495013.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-421491.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-379635.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-306205.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-433568.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-334311.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.screened.com/do-the-right-thing/16-177705/trivia/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-326863.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-435654.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-295817.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-430762.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-485482.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-460522.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-318626.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-406876.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-328326.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-479605.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-443060.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-437495.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-383986.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-462142.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-476201.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-412119.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-451656.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-480505.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-492803.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-431157.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-324784.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-449214.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-401238.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-451848.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-397470.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-404065.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-441841.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-358046.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-343054.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-454927.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-409127.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-404720.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-460310.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-434585.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-440980.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-298097.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/onDVD/media-451225.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.familymediaguide.com/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140621183548/http://www.imdb.com/ to http://www.imdb.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222072258/http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/images/MGMmovies.pdf to http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/images/MGMmovies.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228151607/http://accurapid.com/journal/37swear.htm to http://accurapid.com/journal/37swear.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194517/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/fuck.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/fuck.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

The Football Factory (2004) - An English language, non-pornographic movie with 221 uses of the word. (Imdb) Runtime 91 minutes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385705/ 2001:8003:F029:801:29B8:E6DC:863:4C2D (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is not a reliable source, as noted above. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

List for U.S. films only?

I just finished watching a British movie called "Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels." How did this film not make the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.85.37 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

...

Do Raging Bull, American Gangster, Training Day and Jackie Brown fit? I haven't seen a few of those in awhile but I remember them having endless amounts of f-bombs. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

Green Street Hooligans Year: 2005. Fuck Counts: 240. Minutes: 109 Fucks/minute: 2.20 Source: IMDB

                            Ref.: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385002/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg

Green Street Hooligans 2 Year: 2009. Fuck Counts: 155. Minutes: 94 Fucks/minute: 1.65 Source: IMDB

                            https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1300853/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg Codyfox28 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See notice above. Imdb is not a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:RSP. Please come back when you have more reliable sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

Green Street Hooligans Year: 2005. Fuck Counts: 155. Minutes: 109 Fucks/minute: 2.20 Source: IMDB

                           Ref.: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1300853/parentalguide Codyfox28 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

The Irishman has 569 F-words: https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/the-irishman-swearing-cursing-f-words.html 67.184.128.88 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: thank you, but you seem to have misread the source you're citing. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Not moved. After extended time for discussion, consensus appears to be leaning against the proposed move. BD2412 T 19:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" → List of films with the most uses of the word fuck – Two problems with the current title: fuck should be italicized and not in quotes, per MOS:WAW. But also, the inclusion criterion uses a cutoff of 150 uses, not a particular frequency (and the initial ordering is by use count, not by frequency), so a more accurate title would be desirable. Other suggestions are certainly welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not a problem to put "fuck" in quotation marks, per WP:TITLEFORMAT, "Do not enclose titles in quotes... An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the TV episode Marge Simpson in: 'Screaming Yellow Honkers'  or the album "Heroes" (David Bowie album))." To do "most uses" instead of "frequently" seems fine, although I'm open to counterarguments. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Deacon did not argue the quotation marks were a problem but that there is a preferable way to style the title. (The exception noted is irrelevant in context.) --Izno (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on "quotation marks vs. italics", but I agree that "films with the most uses of..." is better than "films that most frequently use...". Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose dropping the quotation marks from the lead. Per MOS:WAW: "When italics could cause confusion...double quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words." And I think not having the quotation marks could potentially cause confusion here during searches as italics in titles don't show up in titles during searches but quotation marks do. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

I find a source on imdb. that states State property 1 haves 311 of the word fuck. Here is the source: 2601:8C1:8300:E4E0:24EB:AA41:8333:9911 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301893/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg#certification

 Not done: The content on IMDb is largely user-generated, so IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. See WP:Citing IMDb for more specific information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

HTML tags broken

HTML tags are broken in the list of films Robertprather68 (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Big Lebowski total count

I have gone through The Big Lebowski myself, which I know constitutes original research, and found that the word is actually used 279 times at least. However, there are several other places on the Internet that state that it is used 281 times. There are several different accounts of exactly how many times the word is used, based on which resource you consult. However, several do agree on 281:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233000941_The_Man_for_His_Time_The_Big_Lebowski_as_Carnivalesque_Social_Critique

https://books.google.com/books?id=GATSBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT207&lpg=PT207&dq=the+big+lebowski+word+fuck+used+281+times&source=bl&ots=jRVOYWJW-j&sig=ACfU3U1uO4rVwrgeVkmXG3s7kTBzICnkjw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrmb-_177nAhXTQs0KHRcUDSAQ6AEwC3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20big%20lebowski%20word%20fuck%20used%20281%20times&f=false

http://www.tlchicken.com/article.php?ARTid=3328

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E75B1CFD06B2047BF6A8CF64A02EE905?doi=10.1.1.543.496&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://dudespaper.com/dude-university/the-big-lebowski-experience-an-overview/

http://dudespaper.com/dude-university/the-man-for-his-time/

So I would recommend changing the number in the article to reflect this, thus putting The Big Lebowski at #21 on the list.

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

this page is not formatted properly

hyperlinks don't format properly 135.23.49.10 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The table is broken

Somebody broke the table. Please fix it xD THGhost (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency between Title of Article and Film Ranking

This article is nominally about the frequency of the use of the word "fuck" in films. However, the film ranking uses total count rather than frequency. To fix this inconsistency, we could change the title of the article to something like "List of films with the most uses of the word 'fuck'", or we could change the ranking and headings and record progression to use frequency rather than fuck count. We could also split the article into two, one ranking fuck count and the other ranking fuck frequency, or we could rank both on this same page under their own headings (and possibly changing the title of the article to deal with films with notable use of the word 'fuck' in general). Or else we could leave the page as it is with the justification that most readers would understand the phrase "most frequently use the word 'fuck'" to mean word count rather than frequency. I believe the best option is to change the title of the article to match the current ranking. This is the option with the least change while still addressing the issue, and total number of fucks appears to be more interesting to people than alternative methods of ranking.

Practically everyone who comes to this article understands frequency to mean usage. 2601:801:8100:D1E0:6C60:E279:9E04:5D30 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Correction

I would like to point out that Saturday Night Fever which was released in 1977 has 80 uses of the word "fuck" therefore it surpassed The Last Detail (1973) and held the record until 1978 with Blue Collar. Perhaps the Record Progression section should be updated to reflect that.

It's heartening that you should give enough of a fuck about that, stranger. SAMBLAman (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

Hi,

I'd like to make a request to add a movie to the list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". The movie is titled Between Wars and it came out in 2020.

Link to the imdb page: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10560778/

I am an independent contractor for a transcription/caption writing site and one of my projects was writing the captions for this movie. Throughout the film I heard the word fuck uttered a shocking number of times and thought it had to be some kind of record. After I finished captioning the film I searched for all instances where the word fuck was used (or fucking, fucker, etc.) and found that it was said an astounding 437 times! In the rankings that would place it between Uncut Gems and Summer of Sam. Unfortunately I can't seem to find an article or another source online stating that this movie has that many f-bombs in it. Is there a way that I can provide a proper source to allow the addition of this movie to the rankings? Because my caption work is done on its own software with projects provided by clients, I can't provide a proper script without getting in a lot of trouble.

Would be a shame for this movie to not get recognized. It's not a *great* movie IMO, but it managed to get in the top five for most f-bombs so that's something lol. Gibby4 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need to have reliable secondary sources discussing and numbering the uses of fuck in order to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Table is messed up. Shows the code instead of the table.

The table is messed up on the page. Somebody didn’t code it correctly show it just shows a wall of code instead of a table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c50:3f:4000:74ad:f345:20e:443b (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

bump 2804:7F1:E782:270D:8CD:F770:7319:F70E (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

yeah how do we get someone to fix? 71.209.185.233 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

Boon Dock Saints says the word fuck 246 times 73.162.44.248 (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? This page looks awful…

Someone obviously made a horrible error with coding. And it looks as if someone else locked everyone from editing the article but didn’t fix it first?! If you didn’t know how to fix it yourself, maybe you could have gone back, looked for where the mistake was made, then reversed the changes and THEN locked it. Maybe? Wouldn’t that have made more sense? 😕 Dym75 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dym75: Can you please explain what about the page you take issue with? I don't see any obvious issues. Also, you should be able to edit it yourself. Are you seeing a message saying otherwise? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

No obvious issues? The formatting is completely screwed up so there’s no table anymore, just an enormous pile of code, and I’m given no option to edit. When I try, there’s no button to save my changes. Dym75 (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dym75: Huh. That's not the case for me on desktop or the mobile site, which is why I was confused, but I checked on my Android app and it's the case there. I'll look into it ASAP. (To be clear, this is a tech issue, not an issue with this article.) Could you please reply to this with your operating system information, and whether you're using the site or an app, if you're comfortable doing so? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fixed the code-jumble bug. That was T203293. Still looking into the protection bug. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, @Dym75: I and a bunch of other people just spent like 20 minutes trying to work through this. Does either bug still show up for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Adding trainspotting to the list - 175 uses - 93 minutes long JSWTW21 (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The V/H/S franchise

I don't have exact numbers, but the first movie has over 240 uses of the word fuck. Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A list of profane movies is not worthy of attention from an encyclopedia

This kind of topic only energizes the mindless race to the bottom where movies and songs engage in competitive depravity. In other words, this is dumb. 71.84.83.38 (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The list has been nominated for deletion many times and has survived. Wikipedia follows the real world in how reliable sources have written about the use of the word in movies. Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that can host a wide range of topics ranging in importance as long as reliable sources write about them: soap opera episodes, Pokemon creatures, etc. The list is not likely to go anywhere, so if you think the text could provide more encyclopedic relevance, you're welcome to share. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ill Manors

From my own research, 'Ill Manors' uses 'fuck' 353 times according to the number of times it appears in the subtitle file, but I am unable to locate a source which confirms this. --2403:5801:BD:0:1909:5076:D091:919 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

V/H/S franchise?

Each individual film has to contain more usage of the word 'fuck' than some of the lower entries on the list, correct? Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Babylon count

I was wondering: where does the 165 count come from for Babylon? Because I went to see the film today, and counted 213 (plus one written on a person’s chest). 208.38.225.166 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of F-bombs in The Outpost (2020)

How many F-bombs are used in The Outpost (2020). Is it 355, 445, or 560? Does anyone know? 2601:1C1:8200:7720:5144:5F7:CAA5:2113 (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)