Talk:Flogging a dead horse/Archive 1


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

No decision.

Vote for delete
from VfD: This entry explains a single English idiom. At length. With examples. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there does not seem to be much to do with this article but delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This VfD is a vindictive listing by a disgruntled editor who has been in a revert war with me and is stalking my edits. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. More abuse of VFD. Mark Richards 22:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to list of idioms, which I didn't know about when I originally voted. These really seem more appropriate for another project. Articles about catchphrases/idioms aren't necessarily inappropriate, but they need a lot of meat to not be simply dictionary entries. For an example, see All your base are belong to us. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:35, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep keep. yet perhaps a bit to much in-depth --84.129.24.87 22:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dictdef.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definition. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to to List of idioms in the English language. Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added this to List of idioms in the English language. Not at all sure how we should approach idioms, although you don't usually find them in the AHD, IIRC. - RedWordSmith 23:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 00:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The delete votes couldn't possibly be because of the article's author, could they? Rhobite 00:27, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, and I'd thank you for not impugning my motives. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong question to ask. The question to ask is "Is this an encyclopedic entry (keep) or is it not (delete, redirect, or some other option)?"  It is more likely that the keep votes are because of the article's author, since so many of them mention him while failing to address why the article is or should be an exception to Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't believe VFD voters are required to explain themselves, but my comment was an aside. I believe this should be kept because it is encyclopedic. This isn't a dicdef, and I believe notable idioms deserve articles. Rhobite 03:06, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * The rationale behind keeping out slang/idioms is to avoid making up individual pages for passing fad slang language such as Bart Simpson's catch phrase of "don't have a cow man". On the other hand, some phrases have such broad based usage over time that they have long since become part of the American dialect. An example of that would be the Straw that broke the camel's back. Now not only is that too listed on the idioms page (see link above), but it also has it's own article page as well. And some idioms such as Beating a dead horse do have roots in cultural phenomenom, in this case, a reference to the handling of horses. People are indeed interested in American cultural ephemera, especially those things which have taken root over time. This page should be kept. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 06:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (first preference) or redirect to List of idioms in the English language (second preference). &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 00:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of idioms in the English language. It's a definition.  -- WOT 05:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Possibly this phrase is notable to be kept, but it's too hard to find a line, so just redirect it to the list to prevent to many articles being created. I've always said flogging a dead horse, though. 212.219.56.194 09:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * IP vote was me, Darksun
 * Keep We have lots of articles on similar topics, like death of a thousand cuts and not invented here. I don't want my readers to have to go elsewhere just to understand a term they may not have heard of before. After all, this is an english term, not all of our readers are english.
 * Comment I am unaware of any consensus on whether to keep or delete this kind of article, and have no strong feeling myself. Does anyone know of any further discussion on the topic? --Improv 12:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. It is obviously a dictdef. If you want to try putting it in Wiktionary, fine. If you have an article which uses the phrase, you can even interwiki link to it. But an article here is in clear violation of the sensible policy, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Oh, and "death of a thousand cuts" and "not invented here" do not exist, and I just nominated "straw that broke the camel's back" for deletion also. Securiger 14:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "Death by a thousand cuts" (rather than "Death of a thousand cuts") is an article, but it's about the actual historical execution method. Its idiomatic usage is mentioned but it's not the meat of the article.  -- Antaeus Feldspar
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef (a discussion of the meaning and usage of a word or phrase).  I see no possibility of expansion. Rossami 16:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of idioms in the English language and add it there (and the British English variant/orginal "flogging a dead horse"). Neither deserve their own page. --G Rutter 19:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a handbook of idioms. Fuzheado | Talk 20:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of idioms in the English language and transwiki to Wiktionary. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:18, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The List of idioms in the English language could easily contain more information about the various expressions. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 04:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ntk 21:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 15:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of idioms in the English language. It's a long definition with examples, but what we have in List of idioms is very adequate.  If Rex thinks something more should be added, I'd say add it to the List of idioms article at the Beating a dead horse entry.  Fair enough?  --avnative 18:41, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't use VFD as a blunt object for hitting people. --Tmh 21:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tmh! I'm introducing myself because I don't think we've ever met.  Not that this has stopped you from insulting my character, by ignoring the reasons I put out above for why this entry would deserve deletion -- none of which have anything to do with the identity of its creator, who would not be its owner in any case -- and making snide reference instead to VfD being used as a "blunt object for hitting people".  You know something?  If you don't want VfD being used as a "blunt object for hitting people", then why don't you stop using it that way.  Why don't you back up that "Keep" vote with, oh, gee, I dunno, maybe some reasons that actually address the article itself?  If you think you can come up with a cogent argument why the entry isn't a dictdef, or why the policy should be stretched to let this one dictdef in, then I will be the first one to welcome it here.  But these baseless attacks on my character, and on the characters of those who simply applying the same Wikipedia policies that are supposed to apply to all entries and all Wikipedians are unconscionable and unforgivable.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

I know i might be beating a dead horse here but keep The Heakes (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

stables and barns
I agree with that technically "stable" is the right word and "barn" is not, but "closing the barn door" is still widely used. Idiom isn't always sensible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Quite so, but I tried about eight permutations of wording on Google (shutting/closing, barn/stable, gets out/bolted) and went with the version with the most hits. Securiger 16:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent research. In this region I've always heard "barn door", never "stable door", but it looks like it's just this region. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link
I think the 'jokes at the expence of the Pentagon' link seems rather POV; it also provides little or no information on the topic. &bull; &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  01:49, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

well, since the whole article is a dictdef anyways, a link to a series of jokes about horses being beaten seems about as close as we're going to get to any sort of encyclopedic value in the article. I'm not too worried about the POV, though; the specificity of the joke (and the use of jargon like "Tiger Team", "IPT", "BRAC") convinces me that these are jokes from insiders. Surely we don't need to dismiss people's jokes about themselves as too POV? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.  &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  21:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm, maybe the description "at the expense of" makes it seem more POV than it is? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rename
This article should be renamed "flogging a dead horse", and "beating a dead horse" should be redirected to it. The origin of the idiom is English (British) and is actually "flogging a dead horse". To say that in Australian and British "it is usually rendered", gives the impression that it is an American idiom, adopted and adapted by the British, whereas the reverse is actually the case.

To quote an external reference to the origins:

"flog (or beat) a dead horse. Though he supported the measure, British politician and orator John Bright thought the Reform Bill of 1867, which called for more democratic representation, would never be passed by Parliament. Trying to rouse Parliament from its apathy on the issue, he said in a speech, would be like trying to 'flog a dead horse' to make it pull a load. This is the first recorded use of the expression, which is still common for 'trying to revive interest in an apparently hopeless issue.' Bright's silver tongue is also responsible for 'England is the mother of Parliament,' and 'Force is not a remedy,' among other memorable quotations. He was wrong about the Reform Bill of 1867, however. Parliament 'carried' it, as the British say." From the "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997.)

Richard BF 22:45, 11 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Origins
I added the origins of the phrase (17th C worker's slang for work already paid for). I was a little sceptical of this etymology when I saw it in wiktionary, but it's in the OED so there you go.

I'd like to see it moved to "Flogging", too. I might post it on RM. FiggyBee 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check Google - "beating a dead horse" wins by a landslide. --DLand TALK 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but 'flogging' was apparently the original usage. -- Ishel99 (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Amusing picture
Title says all. Danski14 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture was featured in the article for a short time, but it was (appropriately) removed. I think the talk page is a good place for it :)--DLand TALK 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch! This image also suggests that "flogging a dead horse" is the more accurate phrase. -- llywrch 21:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd say the opposite, if anything, because the picture is an example of "beating" being used.  But the key phrase there is "if anything."  Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this is what you had in mind, Llywrch, but I think people on Wikipedia get too uptight about the differences between British and American English. -Unknownwarrior33 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture is amusing but it has nothing to do with the saying. A man sitting on a dead horse is hardly flogging it. It looks more like he's resting on it. The user who reverted my removal of the image gave the argument "it's been there for a while" (which isn't a valid rational for keeping it) but as per the discussion above, it's obviously not the first time it's been removed, and I'm not the first one to find it inappropriate. ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avecmonami (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he's resting after beating/flogging the dead horse? Perhaps the parrot horse is resting too?


 * Anyway, I continue to believe the photo is relevant enough to include, but perhaps that's a minority opinion. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that the image dresses up the article. --evrik (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename
Surely this article should be 'Flogging a dead horse' with a redirect from 'Beating a dead horse'? The origins of the term are British, and its original form was (and still is, in large parts of the world), flogging a dead horse. The article lead suggests the later American idiom came first/takes precedence. Surely the history of the phrase in the naming of this article should take precedence over its Google count (which I thought wasn't an allowable factor in arguments due to systemic bias anyway?). It seems a nonsense to have the later version of the phrase as the article's name. Stronach (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Bazonka (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Made this move per several uncontested advocacies of it here, since 'flog' was the original usage. -- Ishel99 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Who Is Smythe?
The article mentions "Smythe" without any explanation of who he/she is/was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.15 (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Usage
I'm an American and the way I hear this expression most often used is if someone continues to present arguements after the discussion has already been decided. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO SWING A CAT
book by Martin Robson - on this idiom he mentions the idiom may come from the Spanish (pg59-60) and in fact they had a horse figure that was hoisted and then knocked down. The entry is not written very clearly in the book. But its seems like a kind of piñata. Dates and better refs I don't have. But if so it woudl make a better reason for keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The nautical origins
The horse winds article should be checked out, the roaring forties will take you there, it has a good explanation of a parallel? origin. It needs inclusion and linking. Penyulap  talk 13:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

disagree with 'dead horse' equals 'useless thing'
''This use of 'dead horse' to refer to pay that was issued before the work was done was an allusion to using one's money to buy a useless thing (metaphorically, "a dead horse"). Most men paid in advance apparently either wasted the money on drink or other such vices, or used it to pay outstanding debts.''

I believe the "dead horse" analogy isn't just for a generic useless thing, but rather for an extremely valuable possession (as horses were at that time - i'd imagine the sports cars equivalent) that has run out it's natural lifetime value (i.e. died of old age after extensive use). Sailors would tell the village priest they had "wasted the money on vices" as a matter of course, but any kind of man that planned for his retirement would probably start by choosing any career other than petty sailor. Going to the whorehouse to make some more memories to come back to would probably be a much sounder investment than donating for the new church or buying a cottage for the cheating wife and the mailman's kids. 'Working for the dead horse' would be working to pay for something you already had, before you can get around to working for something you'll have. Like paying the loan on that sports car that got you laid. ''-- 22:18, 17 May 2014? 79.168.110.81''

A better definition
Original definition:

''Flogging a dead horse (...) is an idiom that means to continue a particular endeavour is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided. ''

But:
 * 1) Continuation is no criterion. Think about something, that you can do only once.
 * 2) The word "decided" suggest somebody who decides. But the outcome does not have to be decided. Sometimes the laws of physics are enough.
 * 3) The current definition also refers to the positive outcome, which should be excluded.

The new definition:

Flogging a dead horse (...) is an idiom meaning that trying to do something impossible is a waste of time. Vikom (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the definition that was on the page worked best. --evrik (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. I understand that concerns were raised about data presented over the course of the discussion, but consensus is clearly against a move at this time. Dekimasu よ! 02:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse → Beating a dead horse – Recently, I discovered this article is titled as it is. I read the policies and guidance presented in WP:TITLEVAR, MOS:ENGVAR, and WP:RM. However in regards to former policy and guidelines, I feel this article does not meet MOS:TIES since it is an idiom used all over the English-speaking world. Furthermore, the proposed article name better meets WP:CRITERIA. Specifically, it better meets WP:NATURALNESS — Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Evidence:


 * 143 internal links to "Flogging a dead horse" compared the 170 internal links to "Beating a dead horse"
 * There are more internal links to the redirect than the main page (bearing in mind that these results skew heavily towards the main page).
 * 
 * The terms "beat a dead horse" and "beating a dead horse" almost always outperformed "flogging a dead horse" (only once was "beating a dead horse" outperformed).
 * Please see the following table:
 * Conclusion: In countries that use the beat-variant utilize it to a much greater extent than countries that use the flog-variant (where in those countries it is more accepted or simply better known).

Thank you for your consideration. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  16:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:AXLROSE.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It depends how prolific it is in the US. It's a household phrase over here in Europe in Britain and Ireland that anyone might use, but if it is over there too, move. If it's like some intellectuals or politicians phrase over there leave it. Anyone might say that over here. ~ R.T.G 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is very common here in the States. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that settles me to Support, but I was inclined to give merit to Paintspot (User:188.143.76.152 below Paintspot, apologies) about the consistency, though that might mean to expand it as much as to keep it the same. o/ ~ R.T.G 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be good to expand it to include the other term. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I must defer to the "invalid data" below. I'll stand to my rationale if the US is much above 60 or 70%, but I thought it was an exam of actual use rather than search terms. I get 214k flogging and 547k beating on search. It doesn't seem to want to show me usage in literature the way it does for individual words, so I don't know. ~ R.T.G 17:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. (It's quite common in the United States as well, to answer the above.) Also, since "beating" is used in all the countries listed in the table, but "flogging" isn't used at all in some of them, that's pretty helpful evidence to support. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarification., my apologies for not explaining this. That table is a list of Google results for the terms. All it tells us is that people in the UK, et al. are searching for those terms at about those rates. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  21:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The whole of the lead section, including three references, is about the expression "flog[ging] a dead horse". The article doesn't discuss the expression "beat[ing] a dead horse" at all. There are actually nine links to this from articles, but only two via . This is the WP:PRECISE title for this article. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think it's fine the way ti is and see no real need to chnage it. --evrik (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as it looks to be a kind of a long-term stable name (although the page was created as 'beating a dead horse'), and the only other reason to change it would be to change the descriptor from European and rest of the world usage to North American usage. Since tie-goes-to-the-runner, and "Flogging" is already hunkered down in the title, the only way this looks like it can end is "no consensus", so I'm going to go with that. [edit: and per a few '000s discussions on the page above which provide pretty clear historic proof that the present name is correct.] Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a British phrase in origin, where it is still overwhelmingly "flogging" (I can't actually recall ever having heard someone same "beating a dead horse" - it sort of jars as it's so unlike the original). As the original phrase is more widespread round the globe than just North America, there really is no need to change just because the Americans do it slightly differently. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It was originally at "beating" and that's where it should have stayed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – flogging came first, and has always been more common in BE, although it has been steadily losing ground since WWII to the point where it is now only about twice as common as beating. In AE, flogging was also more common until around 1970, but has lost ground and now beating is over twice as common. Due to the cultural influence, almost hegemony, of U.S. film and media, BE speakers have always understood AE expressions better than vice versa, which may account for the trends in the two English varieties.
 * If it can be attributed to a quotation which then became generalized later into other forms, then one could argue that the original version should take precedence. In an 1859 debate in Parliament regarding John Bright, Liberal MP from Birmingham, and Whig politician Francis Charteris, 10th Earl of Wemyss (known as "Lord Elcho"), the flogging expression is recorded and attributed, apparently to Elcho, in the context of a debate about whether people would rally around the Consitution, if challenged by Physical Force Chartists and Universal Suffragists. It appears in double quotes and is mentioned in such a way as to suggest the expression was unknown at the time. American versions are not recorded until decades later. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: the OP's evidence of 143–170 for internal links is not an argument in favor of the move, per WP:WINARS. We are, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom – the stats are illuminating. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are, and as I said above, tie goes to the runner (the n-gram also proves initial term usage). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Votes in this poll may be tainted by invalid tabular data in the original request. This Move request should be procedurally closed and restarted from scratch. Admin closure requested. See . Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What the hell is beating a dead horse? In the UK we always say flogging. Per WP:ENGVAR that's what it should remain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:RETAIN. This has been stable at this title since 2009, and absent a good reason to change it from one variety of English to another, we should avoid doing so here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:RETAIN and the fact that the text of the article is almost entirely about "flogging". The encyclopedic (vs. dictionary) notability of the idiom accrues from the original form.  —  AjaxSmack  23:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: invalid data
The poll results above in this move request may be tainted by invalid data being presented, although clearly in good faith, by the OP. In the meantime, in my opinion, this request should be procedurally closed, and a new one opened.

All of the statistics presented in the initial table above are invalid for the purpose of determining common name, and cannot be used for estimating the proportion of sources on each variety of the flogging vs. beating phrase. There are no links given in the table itself, but we can see that the external link given below it (with the bracketed "[1]") is the source of the data; this links to Google Trends data, not Google web search. The comment posted at 21:33, 8 Feb says: That table is a list of Google results for the terms; however, that is misleading; these numbers are not the results of a Google web search, as one might expect from that statement, rather, they are the results of a Google Trends data analysis, which are not helpful here.

Google Trends data show the results of the terms people use in their online searches, and have no connection to the proportion of reliable sources on a subject. User searches are not reliable sources, and don't provide useful information on how to decide an issue like this. To see why this is so, consider the results of these two Google Trends data analyses, to try and determine whether Elvis is alive or dead, and whether the moon landing was real or faked. It is of course, absurd; but that is the point: what people are searching for, has no relation to what sources say. When thousands of people search for "Elvis is alive", that doesn't mean it's true (or false), it doesn't mean there are many (or any) reliable sources that make that claim, and it doesn't even mean that the person searching believes that Elvis is alive. It only means that they are searching for that expression and nothing more. When Canadians all search for "beat a dead horse", what does that mean? Do they search for terms they already know? I usually look up expressions I'm not familiar with and want an explanation. Maybe it means, they all use "flog a dead horse", and they just wanted to see if anybody really says it the other way. The point is, we really just don't know why they searched for that term.

Given that the tabular data is invalid, one must assume that all !votes to this point are tainted. (Including my own.) I could provide the results of actual web, or books search, so that we could try to carry on voting in the poll based on accurate statistics, but I don't think it's worth it, because the closer would then have to somehow compare tainted votes with untainted ones. I think that's an impossible task, and the request should be closed now. But if not, when the time comes to evaluate the results of the poll above, the closer should consider the tainted data, and for that reason, I'm asking that the closer be an experienced admin. Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So many people searching for the Moon landings being fake? They're flogging a dead horse there. Thanks for digging deeper, nice research and analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.