Talk:Show Me Love (film)/Archive 1

Change the title (1)
I strongly suggest, that you change this title, pronto !!!! -- Not to disagree, as we so often say just before we disagree, but IMHO Fucking Amal except for the double caps. is a fine title. It uses the meaningless intensive to great effect, both in meaning and in marketing. Look at all the play it gets. Maybe we could cross-post this and get slash-dotted again.

Amal is the name of the town. What's the problem with double caps? --Koyaanis Qatsi --- For the same reason that we write Pokemon in Romaji rather than Katakana, we should write 'Amal' as 'Amal' rather than with fancy Swedish letters that don't exist in English.

But we should include the Katakana in the text of the article, even though we title it in Romaji. Also, "a with ring" is a standard ISO-8859 character, not an exotic Unicode thing, so including it is no more odd than getting the Umlaut right on Kurt G&ouml;del. For characters outside the normal ISO set, I agree that we might Anglicize even in the internal text (for example, as some of the Turkish-related articles have). --LDC

I would guess that the reason we don't write Pokemon in Katakana is that the vast majority of our readers wouldn't have any clue how to pronounce it. That's not the case with Å -- it's still an "A", after all.


 * Let me point out that Å is not in fact pronounced like A; the ring is there to mark a distinction in pronounciation. So to use the resemblance of Å with A as an indication of the pronounciation is nothing but to fool oneself. --130.243.208.201 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth mentioning that these letters do actually exist in English anyway, in a few cases where we've ripped a word steaming from the chest cavity of another European language. I grant you that they're rare -- Noël is the only common one I can think of -- but they do exist. -- Paul Drye
 * The only "ring A" word that I can think of as adopted by English is Ångstrom as a measure of wavelengths of light. Eclecticology

I disagree very strongly. We should not include Katakana in the text of any articles, except perhaps an article on Katakana. Katakana is completely unreadable to people who have not studied Japanese. Browsers don't consistently render any versions of it of which I'm aware, either.

In this particular case, the Amal "a with ring" was written in some way that actually broke the link (at least on this machine, my home pink iMac using Netscape 4.7 or something like that).

I suppose it could be a matter of some controversy as to whether Noel (see, I don't even know how to type 'e with two dots') exists in English. English is a mongrel language, without even the pretense of central authority as found with, for example, French. English is as English does. My perspective is that if I don't see it on my keyboard, and if I didn't sing it in the alphabet song, it's 'fancy' and therefore should be avoided.

Try searching on the net for G&ouml;del -- it's not a good thing. Try either Godel or Goedel, both common Anglicizations, and you're good to go.

--Jimbo Wales


 * This loops back to another discussion I was in a few days ago. If one's concern is getting a hit from a search engine, don't avoid variant spellings. It's not a case of Godel or G&oumldel, it's a case of Godel and G&oumldel. Designate one as the name you're going to use in the article, but be liberal about listing useful variants. It helps both machine searches, and reassures the reader that he's on the right page even if he approached it with an unusual spelling in mind. Hence the title of this article being non-accented English, and the first sentence giving us rings and the "translated non-controversial" title. We've got all the bases covered. -- Paul Drye


 * I find this argument completely and overwhelmingly compelling, and I withdraw all objections to placing as many variants as deemed necessary within articles, so long as they are renderable by most browsers. --Jimbo Wales

Yes, titles must not use characters that are not legal in URLs, and that precludes any non-7bit-ASCII. But we're talking about the body text of the article here. Whether or not one chooses to use diacritical marks in standard English borrowings (in words like co&ouml;rdinate, na&iuml;ve, r&eacute;sum&eacute;, etc.) is a separate issue. I generally leave them out; CMS is non-committal. But when the word in question is not a borrowed one, but actually a foreign one used as such, I think it's important to get it correct in the body of the article at least in the initial sentence. If it requires non-ISO characters, then the Anglicization used for the title can also be used for the rest of the article. This has been discussed in a lot of diverse places; we should probably have a policy article that consolidates them. --LDC

But Amal is not being used as a foreign word is it? No more so than, for example, Junichiro Koizumi, Prime Minister of Japan. Shall we write Osama bin Laden in Arabic? Amal is a name, like those.
 * Arabic and Hebrew script present a specisal challenge because they involve a change of script direction; anybody that can figure that problem out has my blessings! Eclecticology

Even foreign words used as foreign words need to be fully Anglicized, I think. Perestroika. Glasnost. Writing those in Russian characters would render the article unusable to English speakers.

Obviously, my examples don't fully address the issue. The important distinction between Japanese and Arabic names and Swedish names is that Swedish names are 'borrowable' in the sense that I can at least still read it.

Also, see above, where I agree completely with Paul Drye's reasoning, and so withdraw all these objections.

--Jimbo Wales

Also, p.s., take a look at Junichiro Koizumi. Someone has placed something fancy after his name, which I assume would render it in perfect Japanese. Perhaps this will draw Japanese speakers to wikipedia, I don't know, but that would be a good thing. But in my browser, all I see is some question marks. :-( That doesn't strike me as a good thing.

Yes, that's Kanji. But why is it a bad thing? If you ever decided to install the fonts, you'd see them. If you don't, they don't get in your way. What's the problem?

Yes, I anglicize everything. The article is Venice, not Venezia. All I'm trying to say is that the first sentence of the article on Venice should include "Venzeia", just as the first sentence of the article on Ang Lee should include &#26446;&#23433;. Within the article itself, we obviously have to use the English version of Ang Lee, and I rather favor Venice as well, since it's a commonly used English name. If "Amal" is the common English name of the town referenced here, then I'll agree that the description of the movie's plot should use that term. But the movie title itself should be spelled properly at least once.

I also think there is a definite distinction to be made between ISO-8859-1 characters and truly foreign ones. I don't see a problem with having "G&ouml;del" everywhere in the text of that article. --LDC

-

The Katakana (or Kanji) thing is an interesting question. Koizumi's name does render correctly for me so perhaps I'm more forgiving, but one thing I do think is important is that the characters for his name does represent useful information to some people. A small set of people (people who can read Katakana using browsers that can show it), yes. A small piece of information ("these are the characters he would use to write his name"), yes. But one thing I have been doing whenever I can in Wikipedia is include all these juicy little tidbits that one doesn't normally find in your run-of-the-mill potted history. Most encyclopedias hit the high points, and are distressingly similar to one another in their failure to dig deep. Wikipedia can be be more interesting than that (and would be if I could figure out how to clone myself).

An example...ever see anywhere but comprehensive biographies that Charles Darwin had the financial freedom to write his theories because he was the grandson of Josiah Wedgwood? I'm guessing not. It's not common knowledge at all, because it's really not that important. But it gives a little insight into how he did what he did. The Japanese characters come under this general category. Trivial information, OK, but we're here for information. -- Paul Drye

This amal fellow, does he live in Åmål? ;-) ____ I find this an interesting subject which should perhaps be taking place elsewhere than on an article about an obscure Swedish movie. Not to show things somewhere as they were written originally strikes me as terribly anglocentric.
 * Only in the winter when he can have visitors all night! ;-)

I understand the frustrations that some people feel when all they see are question marks in the place of correct symbols; that should inspire them to improve their systems. I would even like to see accented characters titles, especially all ISO 8859-1 letter characters. I know that as things stand the Wikipedia software has not learned to merge upper and lower case letters of the standard alphabet, but I can dream. Of course for alphabetization purposes an å (alt+0229) would remain equivalent to an a and not be stuck somewhere near the end of the alphabet, as is the case in Scandinavian languages; similarly the Spanish ll would continue to be treated as two letters, and not as a single separate letter. If it is technically possible, I would even like to see the other roman script characters shown, including those needed to show tones in pinyin romanization of Chinese. Eclecticology


 * Uh... per recent decision of the Real Academia de Espa&ntilde;ol, ll IS two letters. So are ch and rr. - montréalais

-

Since this discussion seems to be centered on a Swedish letter I though I'd make an input since I'm, well, Swedish. It's not pronounced 'A' for one thing. But I don't know how to give the same sound in English since Swedish has more vowel-sounds than most other languages. I admit I get annoyed when the proper characters are omitted in newspapers, magazines and TV interviews but I can understand it (apart from the times it's spelt REALLY weird). But generally I think we should write so people understand, though to have both would be the best of two worlds. By the way, I really liked Fucking &#197;m&#229;l. It's sweet and funny and the ending has that kind of vagueness that make those serious film critics tingle inside. Good film.


 * Å is pronounced as an Open-mid back rounded vowel, written in IPA as [&#596;]. It is the vowel-sound of common english words like "for", "ball" and "talk", at least in some dialects. Swedish does not have more vowel sounds than languages in general — we certainly have less than english, for instance.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

-

I agree about the &#197; not being an A. The nearest I can get to describing how to pronounce it is to shape your mouth as if you want to say "ooh", but to actually try to say "uh" instead. It's a bit like the French "eu" sound, as in fauteuil, but with the tongue much lower down in the mouth. However, I cannot disagree in any way with Paul Drye, so I think the situation with the non-ringed A in the article title and the ringed A in the body is a very good solution.

One thing I have to disagree with (and strongly) is that the word "fucking" in the title was intended to be provocative or sensationalist. I don't want to sound supercilious, but I get the distinct impression when discussing this that most of the "anti" contributors to the debate are American, and of those, few have travelled extensively in Europe, and of those, most have done so in hermetically-sealed environments, e.g. tour buses or the military. Please accept the assurance of one who does travel regularly throughout mainland Europe in an unsealed environment that this word is in common usage, especially among the young, and is not considered particularly bad. As evidence of this, I would point out that songs containing this word are usually played there unexpurgated on radio and TV. Please don't forget that Fucking &#197;m&#229;l is the Swedish title of the film, and so don't judge it by American (or British) standards. --PS4FA (Yes, that is what the FA stands for)

What does See also: Chocolate milk have to do with this article? I'm confused. Rick

Re: the (movie) page, since moved back here:

Why not simply Fucking Amal? Is there something else called Fucking Amal? If so, Fucking Amal should be a disambiguation page; if not, this page should be there. --Camembert

Could someone explain the reference to Chocolate milk? --Dramatic 21:11 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * This is just a blind stab in the dark in a coal cellar, not having seen the movie my self; Does the movie refer to people working in a Chocolate milk factory, and/or does Åmål have some special fame in this regard? Probably not... But if it does, making it explicit in the slightest manner even, would probably be much appreciated. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 21:32 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * No, apparently part of the plot revolves around chocolate milk: http://amal.host.sk/fascript.htm Koyaanis Qatsi 21:36 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Current naming conventions already dictate the title Fucking Åmål. Most of the discussion above is out of date. -- Toby Bartels 06:34 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

correct pronounciation of å
I know that I am replying to thigs written two years ago, but I hope what I'm gonna say will still interest someone. In swedish the letter å is not pronounced as french fauteuil as someone said. It's pronouced simply o, like the one in ball. The letter that is pronounced as french eu in fauteuil is the letter ö that is written ø in Norwegian and danish (two languages that are very close to swedish).

--Jmcmegamega 12:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's NOT pronounced "simply o". It's pronounced like the English word "awe", only usually shorter.


 * It is pronounced 'oh'. The letter 'ö' is as the French 'oe' as in 'soer'. 80.229.14.246 20:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the French word, but Scandinavian 'å' is NOT pronounced like the English word 'oh'. 'Awe' is more correct. Kvaks 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what he means. Soir is pronounced "soá". --Sn0wflake 02:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am pretty sure he meant to write soeur, which makes more sense in context. up◦land 03:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Move from Fucking Åmål to Show Me Love
I am opposed to this move. This is a Swedish movie and the title of the movie is "Fucking Åmål". Kvaks

So? This is the English-language Wikipedia. We generally use English-language titles here. WhisperToMe 06:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am also opposed to this move. The film's original title is the one the article should be at - the fact it was released in some English-speaking countries under a different name does not, in my view, justify having the article at that name.  A redirect from Show Me Love to Fucking Åmål covers the likelihood that people will search for the English term and avoids the imposition of a UK/US POV.  Compare with Amores Perros. Worldtraveller 11:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted the changes to all related pages and left a note on WhisperToMe's user page. There is no reason for this article move to be performed, and in case it was to be performed, a consensus should have been reached on this Talk page first. Show Me Love redirects to here, and that is more than enough to cover the needs of any reader using the North American name to search for the movie. --Sn0wflake 05:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Fucking Amal is the name of this movie. That it was changed for the English, North American and Australian markets should be noted, but it doesn't change the fact that its name is still Fucking Amal. Ambi 13:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is still "Fucking Amal" even with a title change. It says so in the page. And titles on Wikipedia are ALWAYS changed to reflect English-language releases. "Show Me Love" is the title that Amazon lists the English-language version of the movie under. WhisperToMe 15:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not always - see Amores Perros, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Tacones lejanos, etc etc. This film was called Fucking Åmål originally and should therefore be at that title.  If you think it should be moved, it would be best to discuss and find out what the consensus is (it seems to be against moving) rather than unilaterally reverting. Worldtraveller 15:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Y Tu Tambien is a bad example because THAT title was used in English-language markets. Amores Perros was released in some markets (including the USA) in the original title, and I doubt Tacones lejanos was ever released in English.

As said earlier, we use English titles (Spirited Away for instance). I justify my move under "Be Bold". WhisperToMe 18:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, someone made this comment on my talk page: "That would depend on whether the film is known mainly by its original name by people in the English-speaking world, the majority of users of this encyclopedia. I personally would prefer your way, but Wikipedia convention is to use the English names (The Hidden Fortress, Spirited Away, etc.).elvenscout742 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhisperToMe" " WhisperToMe 18:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold is good, but certainly doesn't justify moving against consensus. To continue to do so could be considered disruptive behaviour.  What we have established is that practice varies; in this case, the majority of users want the article to remain at Fucking Åmål. Worldtraveller 18:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What majority? How did I know there was a majority against moving it? The Be Bold policy applies for the first time. Besides, most of the "Fucking Amal" camp are/were misinformed anyway, so why should I bind to it? I'll leave the title alone for maybe a day, but I want the camp who really wants "Fucking Amal" to be the title to get better reasons for going against Wikipedia policy (see why that last rebuttal did not work out so well). WhisperToMe 18:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Google test results: 7,310 for "Fucking Åmål" "Lukas Moodysson 13,400 for "show me love" "Lukas Moodysson" (Golbez found them) WhisperToMe 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You ask for reasons, but the fact is that there is a single - but quite logical, mind you - reason: Fucking Åmål is the title of the movie. That is how the author intended for it to be titled. Not "Show Me Love". That is why we have a redirect from the later, so that whatever title the adapatation was given is also referenced. Why is that not enough for you? On a side note, you don't get to decide what is done to the article; the consensus does. If you will "leave it alone" for one day or one year matters very little, so try discussing in a civil manner and keeping that tone down, or elese this will go nowhere. --Sn0wflake 19:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: page listed on RM by WhisperToMe, decision pending. --Sn0wflake 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * WhisperToMe, being bold does justify the first move, but since then you'll have noticed that everyone who has commented has opposed the move - read the comments in this section and there's your majority. Being bold does NOT justify your subsequent moves and edits to the article.  There is no policy that says this article should be at Show Me Love, and there's a broad consensus that it should stay at Fucking Åmål, so continuing to move it to your preferred title would be very bad form. Worldtraveller 19:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats' why I am using RM :) WhisperToMe 19:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"Fucking Åmål is the title of the movie. " - "Show Me Love" is the English title, Fucking Amal is the Swedish title.

"That is why we have a redirect from the later, so that whatever title the adapatation was given is also referenced." - We generally (pretty much almost always, if not always) title based on English adaptations - e.g. Spirited Away. WhisperToMe 19:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And here is the policy: Naming conventions (common names) WhisperToMe 20:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that policy, and I personally find it to be outdated, derisory and a bright, shining, gleaming incentive to systemic bias. However, whoever looks into this case on WP:RM will of course use it as rationale for the move. Things will settle down, be forgotten, all will return to normal. Such is the way of our lovely and ridiculously controversial to its own ideals encyclopedia. Well, I will look into starting a project to update this policy, or at least create a suplementary policy to address theis sort of case. A Wikiproject might be in order, also. I would like to make it clear that I still very strongly oppose to this move. --Sn0wflake 20:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm definitely oppposed to this move. The title of the film is Fucking Åmål; it was released under that title in most jurisdictions, it's the title listed on IMDb and, even in English language territories, that title is recognisable. The policy on this is still undecided (see Naming conventions (films), MOS archive (foreign languages) and MOS (titles); all Wikipedia talk: pages), but I'd certainly tend towards using the original title in this instance. As for changing it just because it has the word fuck in it, we have a definite policy on that: Profanity says we do not bowdlerise on the Wikipedia &mdash; OwenBlacker 21:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The list of users who do not endorse this move keeps growing. Perhaps an exception should be to "Show Me Love" is some random rule. I made here, as the only rationale for moving the article will remember you all once more that Wikipedia is not based on rules, but rather on consensus, and here I see a clear consensus, which is enough to override any rule. --Sn0wflake 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also oppose the move. I think enough good reasons have been given, so I have none to add. Pilaf 23:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "it was released under that title in most jurisdictions," In naming conventions, apparently most people pretend those jurisdictions do not exist as long as nobody speaks English in them. " it's the title listed on IMDb and," - IMDb always uses original titles. "(see Naming conventions (films), " - Another person on the thread said "go with the English" because of the common naming rule. I decided to post my opinion on it too. "As for changing it just because it has the word fuck in it, we have a definite policy on that: Profanity says we do not bowdlerise on the Wikipedia &mdash; " - Now I was not doing that. I was going towards English-language conventions. "Wikipedia is not based on rules" - Then why do we have policies sitting around here? Also, the foriegn languages thing brings this up:

"The manual of style already explicetely says to "Use the most common english name" - this was reaffired by the recent policy poll. Your proposed changes go against this, and therefore do not belong. →Raul654 23:03, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)" These policies were made by consensus. So are we going to make an exception for this one? I do not see why this movie needs an exception. "A redirect from Show Me Love to Fucking Åmål covers the likelihood that people will search for the English term and avoids the imposition of a UK/US POV." - Doing it the other way around is not POV - That's suiting this edition for its audience. WhisperToMe 23:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * How is changing the name of a work of art to something other than its original title not POV? To a title that has absolutely no relation with the original. That is bias. That is giving more importance to some made-up adaptation name than to the original name. --Sn0wflake 23:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Titles change all the time for a variety of media, including books, movies, anime, manga, etc. "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. " - By using the English title, the article would describe that it is known under a different title in all English-speaking countries instead of the more controversial Swedish title. It is not advocating that everyone else calls it by its English title. According to the NPOV policy we can describe things in articles, but we cannot advocate for them. WhisperToMe 00:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the notion of following a concensus instead of imposing a forced conformity to some rule, simply for the fact that I think it's more flexible. There are instances where I'd prefer to use the English title (such as The Good, The Bad And The Ugly), but others where I'd not (such as this), while still not being able to word a rule to catch these preferences. For me it's a gut feeling of what seems most appropriate in each case. BTW, I agree with your dislike of translating the title of a piece of art, but I'm not sure it's relevant to this discussion. Kvaks 00:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'd like to point out, that Fucking Åmål is an English title, as well. And, contrary to WhisperToMe's assertion, Show Me Love isn't more popular, unless you also count false positives. -- Naive cynic 09:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. So what about the "original title". As said ad nausem in the earlier discussion, Sen to Chihiro whatever is the original title of Sprited. 2. So what if a title is in the English language? By "English title" I (and other people) mean "title used in English-speaking countries such as the United States, Canada, and the UK". 3. What false positives? WhisperToMe 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not sure why do you believe Sen to Chihiro to be an English title. Are you aware that it means Sen and Chihiro in Japanese?
 * 2. The original title of Fucking Åmål is, of course, used in English-speaking countries. Eg., the movie's OST has been distributed in the US under this name. This was clearly a marketing decision - people likely to buy the OST (ie. fans) were believed to better recognize it under the original title.
 * 3. Show me love is a generic phrase in English. It appears, for an example, in the title and lyrics of several songs, or in the title of some hentai. -- Naive cynic 06:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think he believes "Sen to Chihiro" to be an English title. At least I couldn't infer that from his reply.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The movie's title is "Fucking Åmål". For all I care, it might be distributed in some remote parts of the world as "Cute Li'l Fluffie Bunnies" but that doesn't change its original title.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See the above reply. WhisperToMe 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sen to Chihiro" is the name "Spirited" is known by in Japan, and among anime purist geeks. "Spirited" is the name it is known by everywhere else. In contrast, "Show Me Love" is the name "Fucking Åmål" is known by in the English-speaking countries. "Fucking Åmål" is the name it is known by everywhere else. Renaming it from a name used by the majority, to a name used by a minority, would show a definite US/UK bias. A redirect from Show Me Love and from Fucking Amal and, for all I care, from Cute Li'l Fluffie Bunnies, is all OK by me, but please keep the actual article named Fucking Åmål.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 04:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even the poster used as an illustration, which is clearly from an English-speaking country uses the original title as well. And the implication from the first sentence is that it was intended to be shown elsewhere under this title (it is after all in English). Justinc 09:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Prove it is from "an English speaking country". For all I care, it could just be "in English" to make the movie look cool. WhisperToMe 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By the way, the original title wins the google test if you count both "Fucking Åmål" and "Fucking Amal":
 * "fucking åmål" "lukas moodysson" -"fucking amal" -> 6,670
 * -"fucking åmål" "lukas moodysson" "fucking amal" -> 7,080
 * => 13,750
 * -Kvaks 10:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn here. Despite being Swedish, I find this a borderline case. The heart of the matter, I believe, is that both titles are in English ("fucking" is not a Swedish word, and Åmål is the proper name of a town). However "Show Me Love" is the title used in the UK, the U.S. and the English-speaking parts of Canada. This leaves Naming conventions (use English) open to interpretation. It says: If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article. For Fanny and Alexander this makes it rather clearcut - it should not be titled Fanny och Alexander. But when both titles are in English, it's not that obvious: does it mean the most commonly used version in the English language, regardless of context, or does it mean the most commonly used version in an English-language context? If we go by the latter interpretation, the most valid Google search ought to be among English-language pages only, resulting in 12,600 hits for "show me love" moodysson and only 4,050 for "fucking amal" OR "fucking åmål" moodysson. However, if we compare all hits, regardless of language context, we get 13,700 for "show me love" moodysson and 16,900 for "fucking amal" OR "fucking åmål" moodysson. While I can see the arguments for both sides, I would say that if there is not conclusive evidence for using another title, the original title, if it is in English, should be kept. (Also, note that Naming conventions (common names) lists some cases where it is acceptable to make exceptions to the standard rule.) So, after some deliberation, a weak oppose to moving the page. / Alarm 13:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The only reason the title was changed in some places was prudishness. In any case, Fucking Åmål is an English title; the only word in it that is not English is a proper noun. up◦land 13:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this search done with the "English" paramter? WhisperToMe 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * EDIT: This was NOT done properly.
 * http://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&cr=&q=fucking+%C3%A5m%C3%A5l%22+%22lukas+moodysson%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 - 636
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=fucking+amal%22+%22lukas+moodysson%22&lr=lang_en - 605 WhisperToMe 00:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I say THAT is a good argument against moving it. However, I don't see how this could be "offensive" or "misleading", which is something that "Don't Overdo It" covers. WhisperToMe 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The latter was a passing observation, of minor importance to my main argument (therefore placed in paranthesis). While I didn't consider any of the specific provisions mentioned in "Don't Overdo It" to apply here, this text is an indication that absolute conformity with the rule need not be the number one priority. The section mentions some specific instances when other arguments might be deemed more important than a literal interpretation of the rule, and it doesn't rule out that there might be other cases. (However, I'd like to point out that I think such exceptions should be few, and based on sound arguments.) / Alarm 10:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is nothing left to discuss here. I would close the Request for Move, but as I am so directly involved on the dispute, I probably should not. If anybody has the time, please do that. Best regards. --Sn0wflake 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Normally, I would, but five days haven't passed yet, and I have defused the basis of several of these arguments. WhisperToMe 00:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How convenient of you to simply say that you have "defused" the basis of the arguments, and the camp opposed to the move (i.e. everyone except you) is "misinformed". Who made you the authority here?   &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean "everyone" (statements with all, none, everyone, et al are usually false) who was opposed to the move. WhisperToMe 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I must have misinterpreted you. Sorry about that. Could you be more specific about which comments from the opposing camp you believe to be misinformed?   &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's try not to turn this into a revert war/bad blood, guys. WhisperToMe, a consensus has been reached, and the bottomline is that a decision has already been made, regardless of any oposition you might have presented. Your opinion is improtant, but it is simply not that of the vast majority. --Sn0wflake 13:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess most people do want this to stay at the original title. Still, this is an exception from (what either is or what will be) the general "rule" to use English titles. WhisperToMe 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And as has been said to you time and time again, Fucking Amal is the English title. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone disagrees with you, you might just be wrong. Ambi 16:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said to a Usenet troll once... "Have you ever considered that the reason why everyone says you are wrong might be that you are wrong?" =)   &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * oppose i´ve always heard about this move as Fucking Åmål not Show Me Love, regardless what Google says. Gryffindor 11:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I can say there was a consensus for it not to be moved. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Another reason why we should keep this article at "Fucking Amal" that I don't think has been mentioned is that "Show Me Love" has other meanings. For example "Show Me Love" was also the name of the Robyn song that they play at the end of the movie, and it's also the name of a TATU song. "Fucking Amal" is not likely to mean anything else besides this movie. Ospinad 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Danish films
It's a Swedish-language film filmed in Sweden, it has a Swedish director and stars Swedish actresses. So why is it in Category:Danish films? --Zoz (t) 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since removed. --Mareklug  talk  00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Swedish Fucking Åmal article
Hi there. I am a member of the LGBT wikiproject and was asked to have a look at the Swedish version of this article to see if the contents were the same. I have posted my translation below so people can see for themselves what it says in Swedish. I would have a go myself, however this is my first (sort of) major contribution to Wikipedia and I think there is a difference between being bold and riding roughshod over an article people have spent a lot of time working on already. See what you think. If anyone has any problems with my translation then let me know and I'll discuss my reasoning. I am probably wrong. I have been quite literal with the translation except where it would have not made much sense and any comments by me to help with understanding are put in [square brackets] Intesvensk 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A film about the teenagers in the town of Åmal. There, the rage amongst the teenagers is spreading quickly and it is difficult for girls Elin and Agnes to find someone to be in love with. Central to the film is the love story between Elin and Agnes.

About the film

Fucking Åmal is directed by Lukas Moodysson with Rebecca Liljeberg and Alexandra Dahlström in the title roles. The film was a big success. The films music was produced by Broder Daniel [they are a pretty famous band in Sweden].

The film's title comes from a reply that one of the characters utters when she says "Why must we live in fucking bloody cocking Åmal?". Fucking Åmal won prizes for best film at the Berlin film festival, Guldbagge (the Golden Beetle - Sweden's Oscars) and the Rotterdam International Film Festival.

Fucking Åmal was filmed in Trollhättan by Film i vast [a Swedish production company] in the spring of 1998. The film had a meagre budget and the casting of personnel [that's what it literally says] was done partly by the director and his wife Coco. Lukas wanted the members to be a good "football team" together. The film is about Elin a 14 year old who is popular at school and Agnes a lesbian in the same year. Agnes is in love with Elin and one day Elin finds out about it.

During filming the film got a lot of criticism from the Trolhättan kommun [district] who were critical of the film's title and its contents. But they took back their accusations after the film became popular. During the filming Lukas and Coco and their first son were present nearly the whole time.

The film was a commercial and critical success and is one of the ten most seen films (in the cinema) in Sweden of all time (up to 2005). It is therefore interesting to note that some critics were sceptical of the lesbian love story, described in a film review in Aftonbladet, amongst others, as untrustworthy.

The film won the 1999 Golden Beetle for best film, director, screenplay and actress in a leading role (Rebecca Liljeberg and Alexandra Dahlström each received and award). Agnes' father played by Ralph Carlsson was nominated for best supporting actor but didn't get an award.

The film got high viewing figures and even today sells to many new countries on film and video.

Famous quotes:

* Jag ska aldrig mer bli ihop med nån. Jag ska bli celibat. I'll never again be together with anyone. I'm going to be celibate

* Varför måste vi bo i fucking jävla kuk-Åmål? Why must we live in fucking bloody cocking Åmal?

* Vet du att folk pratar om dig? Do you know that people talk about you?

* Jag är hellre glad nu än om 25 år. I'd rather be happy now than when I'm about 25

* Jag vill knarka I want to do drugs

* Jag ska bli psykolog. Eller... det tror jag i alla fall I'm going to be a psychologist. Or... that's what I think I'm going to be in any case

* Two girls. One love.


 * Some comments on your translations.

"Varför måste vi bo i fucking jävla kuk-Åmål?" Would be closer to "Why do we have to live in fucking damn cock Åmål?"

And "Jag är hellre glad nu än om 25 år." actually means "I'd rather be happy now than in 25 years."

Oh, the irony
On this page, people are warned about plot details, but not profanity. In others words:


 * Words that are banned on public television: not warned
 * Words that are free to use anywhere: warned

A perfect example of the bizarre mentality held by Wikipedia editors. --Teggles 05:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is meant to give you the facts as they are, not to adapt them to the standards of the most oversensitive people found on the planet. In your country, apparently, "bad language" is banned on TV. In some countries calling the leader a dictator is banned on TV. In other countries critical analysis of Islam is banned on TV. Wikipedia would be absurd reading if we took into account what is legal to broadcast in every country on the planet, or to what people in different parts of the world find offensive. If you want to object that the use of profanities in the article is irrelevant to the subject, then ok. But if you're just surprised to find four letter words in an article about a movie called "Fucking Åmål", then I don't really understand you... -Duribald 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I said warned, not adapted. I find it ironic that a word banned on public television is not warned, but a spoiler is. There is a difference between that and covering the facts. I'm not complaining about the lack of profanity warning, I'm complaining about the existence of spoiler warning. Also, in my country, "bad language" on public television is not banned and I find the concept illogical. But it is in USA, which is the location of Wikipedia. --Teggles 08:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning is a form of adaption, and it has a tendence of leading to self censorship. We could warn people about contents that is offensive to Islam too. Anyway, Wikipedia may physically be located in America, but that doesn't mean it's an American project. THe point of it is that it is open to anyone in the whole world. This article, for example, is mainly written by Swedish editors, such as myself, and we don't have any censored words on the telly. The spolier warning template exists because a lot of people find it useful. You can always argue that it should be removed from any given article, but don't do the this-is-an-American-project thing, because it isn't. :-) - Duribald 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are TV standards the reference by which you judge other standards ironic? Perhaps it's the TV industry's mentality that is bizarre? --Kvaks 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Google not finding this article via redirect
If you google for "show me love" sweden agnes elin site:en.wikipedia.org, Google finds this article, so clearly the search engine has seen the page. However, if you make the quite natural search "fucking amal" site:en.wikipedia.org, it does not find it. Fucking Amal redirects here and has done so for several years. Does anyone have any idea why Google is failing in this way, and what we can do to make that search work? Tualha (Talk) 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh, never mind. It's because the URL doesn't matter; the content matters. I'll add a comment or something with the un-accented version, that should work. Tualha (Talk) 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)