Talk:Yahoo (Gulliver's Travels)

(Pre-"User:Conversion script"-edit content)

Just from the top of my head, (and a quick search on Google) says that Yahoo (the web search engine) actually stands for Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle. Computer Knowledge --Neeklamy —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 2 April 2001 (UTC)

I would guess that is a backronym. - TS
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimShell (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 April 2001 (UTC)

(What's the topic?)

What is this page supposed to be about anyway Two16 — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 11 January 2003

Clarified...
Lee M 19:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Two 16, this page is to discuss about editions to the article. 201.255.55.148 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm, IMO, the IP-user 201... answered a question that Two16 and Lee probably agreed was about the accompanying article-page, with correct information about this Talk page. And also IMO they confused acts of editing the article with (more specific) acts of making additions to the article.
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Yahoo" vs Yahoo! Inc

The Yahoo Internet refers to its users as "Yahoos" in honor of this view of humanity, which Yahoo's original business plan claimed it was fully willing to indulge. Some would argue that given their current list of most common search terms, they have admirably and totally succeeded. Others would argue that they cannot succeed in totally emulating Gulliver's Yahoos until it is actually possible to kill someone through the service.

This paragraph is just weird. Can we find out why they really chose the name and use that instead? Mbp 23:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I'll remove it. --Dyss 23:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't write the paragraph: I only moved it here from Gulliver's Travels. It was originally added to that article by an anonymous contributor: [1]. --Paul A 01:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Note what Yahoo!#History has to say on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul A (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

I see, I apologize for assuming this. According to the history of Yahoo!, and more importantly, the link on the bottom of that page, Yahoo! really is named after the yahoos. I still find this very strange, but I suppose it is true then. It is however much more relevant on the Yahoo! page and is stated quite more NPOV there, so it seems better like this, or does anyone disagree with this? --Dyss 10:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added the reference back in. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I bet Mr. Swift was a Google fan. :P --Matt0401 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   DA's restoration
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Time for a disambiguation page.

There's currently too much confusing with Yahoo fictional characters and other yahoo names over the more popular Yahoo! Search engine. I would do it if I someone could tell me how. - [Snuff] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuff (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-English edits on the disambig page

This dude, Zemun (talk), has added a paragraph in a foreign language[2]. I've moved it here.

*Yahoo, engleski prevod srpskog uzvika Juhu ! Vuk Karadzic je "skupio" Jahu! mnogo pre provog pisanog zapsisa "Yahoo". Pisanije kazu da je jos car Dusan (Silni) sredom dok je obavezno tamanio proju posle jagnjetine vikao zadovoljno "Jahu!"

Anyone who understands it can see if it is important and relevant and then translate it. Thanks! 219.79.29.47 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

   The word "srpskog" looks likely to be derived (probably by adding a grammatically required ending) from a word, in the Serbian language, that means "Serbian". (Many languages capitalize the name of the ethnic group and/or country, but not the adjectives derived from that name.)
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

• Support moving to Yahoo as this is the original and primary meaning of the word, and easily distinguishable from the web site "Yahoo!" due to its lack of exclamation point (!). A degree of support for this has been expressed at Talk:Yahoo!#Survey. — CharlotteWebb 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, it is the original usage, but it is definitely not the primary usage in the modern world. As proposed at Talk:Yahoo!#Requested move, Yahoo the company should be at Yahoo. I would also note that Yahoo already redirects to Yahoo the company. Dragons flight 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Since I am partly responsible for the suggestion, I must support it; if Yahoo! moves, Yahoos might do for this article. Septentrionalis 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You honestly believe that someone searching for "Yahoo" will be more likely to be looking for the Gulliverian concept than the internet mega-corporation which is the number 1 web destination in the world (according to Alexa)? It is hard for me to see how anyone could doubt that the internet site is the primary topic in the meaning of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The only real question in my opinion ought to be whether Yahoo! should redirect to Yahoo, or the reverse. Dragons flight 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, actually; but I would be perfectly content to see this at Yahoos and the company at Yahoo. Septentrionalis 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This move would cause more disadvantage than benefit. Most people searching for "Yahoo" are looking for "Yahoo!", so the redirect should remain as it is. Besides, the original meaning of the word is already stated on the dab page.--Húsönd 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Basically everyone typing in Yahoo is looking for the web site. —Mets501 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This usage is older but much less notable. Croctotheface 21:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a trivial entry compared to the internet company. In modern usage, the word "Yahoo" means the internet search company. I bet a poll of English Literature professors would agree. BJ Nemeth 22:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Also, this is just trying to make a WP:POINT. -- Renesis (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, citing WP:NC and WP:POINT. – flamurai (t) 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My reason for citing WP:POINT is that CharlotteWebb has never edited this article or talk page before making the request for a move, but is involved in the naming debate at Talk:Yahoo!. – flamurai (t) 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That is probably a misunderstanding of WP:POINT, which would only apply if she were actually opposed to the move. If she hadn't heard of the page, and thought this was a good idea, so what? There's lots of dabbed pages I've never seen. Septentrionalis 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not literally what is laid out at WP:POINT, but it is the same idea. This move was not listed because CharlotteWebb cares about this page or believes this use is more notable than Yahoo!. There is a debate going on at Talk:Yahoo! about whether the exclamation point should be part of the name. This move was requested to put a different article at Yahoo prior to the resolution of the debate at Yahoo!, precluding the move of Yahoo! to Yahoo, fragmenting the debate (which is already all over the place as it is), and creating some sort of false precedent in direct conflict with WP:NC. – flamurai (t) 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry but Yahoo! (the search engine, etc.) is more common. Sofeil 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would only make it more difficult for those looking for information regarding the search engine. *Sparkhead 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

9-2 opposed is a pretty clear consensus. I am removing the requested move notice. – flamurai (t) 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. History should not be edited to "please" people, the first usage of the word Yahoo is in a book by Jonathon Swift They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"literature"

I was looking at List of legendary creatures and wondering if this page should be moved to a better title, like Yahoo (creature) or Yahoo (fictional race) or something like that, but I'm not sure what would be best. — CharlotteWebb 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahoos and Yowies

Hi all. I noticed that on this page, it is stated that Swift got the inspiration for the name from the Yowie. However, in the Yowie article, it states that it was the other way around. Neither of these statements are supported by evidence. Does anyone know which way it should be? Thanks. - Akamad (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Derivation of Yahoo - Hebrew roots?

The main article indicates that "It is doubtful that there is any connection with any Hebrew roots as it has been proposed by some. The negative use of the Hebrew name Jehu is due to the actions of this ancient king and never in reference to the original meaning of the name." However, the name Jehu is not the only Hebrew name that is similar to Yahoo! The tetragammon representing the name of God is (in Hebrew) "yod" "heh" "vav" "heh".

Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels (except "holem vav" and one other not germane to this discussion), the vowel for "a" could follow the "yod" giving a "yah" sound. The "vav" could be a "holem vav" which has the sound of "oh" or "ooh" which following the "heh" would give the sound "hoh" or "hoo". The final "heh" need not have a vowel following it nor would it be pronounced. So an alternate pronunciation of Jehovah could be Yahoo!!

Perhaps Swift was trying to express a dislike for Hebrews by characterizing them (personified by their god) as "primitive creatures obsessed with "pretty stones" they find by digging in mud, thus representing the distasteful materialism and ignorant elitism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.4.240 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My word. Yahoo was an especially nasty satire. Religious folk tend to claim the tetragrammaton pronunciation is unknown, Many people know it. For example, Moslems call Jews 'Yahudi' People of Yahu.Jonathan Swift was attacking contemporary hypocrisy by making those in the physical image of God beasts, and those in the physical image of beasts to be urbane. 72.174.146.52 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Swift had a Doctor of Divinity from Trinity College, Dublin. He believed his God was the same as that of the Jews. He would have been familiar with the story of Jehu and the Hebrew language. And he would have known "Jehu" would be better represented in English as "Yahoo". According to 1 Kings 9, Jehu was anointed by a prophet to end a wicked dynasty and create a civilized society. Jehu carried this out, but God condemned Jehu over going to excess. Swift is comparing the self-righteous ruling class of Europe to Jehu. They claimed to rule by divine right, but in the end, they ignored God, just like Jehu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.108.34 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Yahoos in Borges?)

I think they're also a carachter of Borges, doesn't know someone?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.55.148 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008‎
    (IP-user 201... commented on two matters deserving separate sections. Their self-sig appears above in the section section "(What's the topic?)") --Jerzy•t 06:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)