Talk:Nil by Mouth (film)

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

London Low‑importance

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

Inaccurate info[edit]

the devil's rejects had less instances of 'fuck' than this movie so why does the trivia section of this article have a lie in it?

Because anyone can put anything in Wikipedia regardless of its accuracy. And there are conflicting reports of the f-word count in "The Devil's Rejects." Some sources claim that there are 560 f-words in "The Devils' Rejects," which would put it above "Nil By Mouth." Other reports claim that there are less than 300 f-words in "Devils Rejects" though.

On a similar note, we also need clarification on the number of times the word "cunt" is used. The Wiki entry claims it's 96, and someone rightly put a "citation needed" note on it. The IMDB trivia page claims it's 42.

-- drumwolf

72.1.150.252 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole thing should get axed until someone provides a valid source. MURGH ^disc. 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this is still a problem, as facts in this article contradict the List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck".G man yo (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of things people care about in the 21st century... é_è --Abolibibelot (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nil by mouth poster.jpg[edit]

Image:Nil by mouth poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Title?[edit]

What is the meaning of the title "Nil by Mouth" -- ?

Karl gregory jones (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That no substance may be passed orally, usually noted on a chart of a hospital patient who may only receive nutrition by IV. In this film, it holds the double meaning that the main character never experienced that his father ever said a kind word to him. MURGH ^disc. 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thx. Would be a bold addition to the article -- have you got a reference? I'm not qualified, haven't seen the film. Karl gregory jones (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might very well appear in a RS review of the film (don't know one off-hand), in which case it would be a valid addition, but just per my mention it is invalid as OR. I might add it if I came across such a source, but despite being a great little film, I don't think it received a lot of coverage. MURGH ^disc. 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]