Talk:Beating a dead horse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)
  • DeleteRedirect 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. — Gwalla | Talk 22:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definition. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 23:11, 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). —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)
  • 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)

end moved discussion

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. •→Iñgólemo←• 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. •→Iñgólemo←• 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --DLandTALK 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing picture

Image:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif 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 :)--DLandTALK 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)