Talk:Pappu

Pappu
Pappu means a loser, or a dumb person with less IQ or illogical. Famously refered to the 4th heir of the Nehru dynasty, ( thou known as Gandhi for unknown reasons ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:8c4:3bc8:c8c4:a2da:fc0d:2fe1 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013
Pappu is also called for penis in sariki areas of pakistan.

14.99.174.188 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself.  -Ryan  21:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pappu-new meaning
Pappu is a Telugu word meaning lentil. Could someone please add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.240.17 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

False Information to Malign a Person's Reputation
The articles says, "When used in a derogatory sense, it could mean "naive" or "dumb kid"." The reference to substantiate is used in wrong context as it says, "Pappu is a derogatory colloquial Hindi word meaning "dumb kid"', was further retweeted by users." This clearly means that there is no credible source to substantiate the claim but is a notion of people that has been wrongfully put in.

Further, the article says, "In 2013, the critics of Rahul Gandhi used the term to mock him, and #pappu became the most popular trending Twitter discussion in India." This again violated the policies of Wikipedia. One cannot use it to malign the reputation of a person on the basis of malicious intentions of the people. On the other hand, it has been stated that "pappu" is a common or pet-name of males in Hindi regions of India and Pakistan. If this is the case, then how come it is derogatory as stated in the article.

Lastly, I don't see any value addition by this page as well. If somehow denigrating a person's reputation is a value addition then the article is okay.

Let's not make Wikipedia your political battleground or dumping ground of malafide intentions. Katyaan (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Katyaan:  -Hello and thank you for willingness to discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page. First, You must comment on the contents not on contributor/s. Second, when you say some changes violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines, please point the specific policy/guideline. It'd contribute to the better understanding of the editors engaged discussing the matter.


 * I'd like to let you know that, Wikipedia is just a repository of information published in reliable sources. However, we do take violation on living persons very seriously, unless the context is verifiable by multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. And, Wikipedia does not accept original research.


 * The term, 'Original research' has been found confusing in my personal experience to many new editors. I'll make an attempt to explain it a bit to you, -The phrase "original research" is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. And, If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.


 * That's it, now reading above, and considering your this change -may you please point out the specific problem/s here? Are the sources used not reliable? Or the contents are not exactly what did the sources say? May be some other thing? If yes, please. Thank you again! - Anupmehra - Let's talk!  10:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If a contributor is doing wrong, he/she has to be pointed out so please no "bossing". Let's take things one by one. The article says, "When used in a derogatory sense, it could mean "naive" or "dumb kid"." Can you produce reference? The citation used is based on users' notion. On the other hand, in the start it has been mentioned that it is a common name/pet-name used in India and Pakistan. Will you take the pain to expplain how come a pet-name be used in derogatory sense? Please provide credible sources, not notion of the users. Please read this if you haven't read it yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loopsKatyaan (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the sources? From the Times of India: 'Pappu is a derogatory colloquial Hindi word meaning "dumb kid"' --Neil N  talk to me 12:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that, you still don't understand how Wikipedia works. You've been made aware of what Wikipedia is and how does it work and what are you doing wrong very much politely in my last comment, but you see it as a bossy manner (re-read the comment to verify). It's your perception problem, that I can't help with.


 * Coming to your question, one by one. "When used in a derogatory sense, it could mean "naive" or "dumb kid", is supported by reference/s cited in the article. Click on them, and they'll lead you the specific source. I'm even able to find many more similar ones. To make things easier, I'm putting all of them here, -click and read one by one, Source1, Source2, Source3, and Source4. --So, your comment, "is based on users notion", -is a baseless comment. These are all secondary, independent, reliable and credible sources.


 * And, the article doesn't explain on "how" did a pet name come to use in derogatory sense. So, there's no point discussing this. The article says, it is a common name, -source is cited. It could be used in some other sense, -source is cited. Don't ask unrelated questions as they'll not help. And, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, before you claim something to be not in accordance with it, specially WP:BLPGOSSIP, -read it thrice or even more, if required. I'll be not making further comments discussing an irrelevant issue and most importantly wasting my time on here. Cheers! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Times of India says, "Pappu is a derogatory colloquial Hindi word meaning "dumb kid"', was further retweeted by users." i.e. it is the notion of users. It is like a weasel word. Moreover, I fail to understand how come a common name/pet-name which is widely used in India and Pakistan can mean a "dumb kid"? Moreover, in Andhra Pradesh (India), it is a surname and not a derogatory term. My point is that by inferring wrong meaning, we are pushing a wrong article. Pappu doesn't mean dumb kid but people attached this name to the subject to make him sound dumb. Now the question is, can we see the difference?
 * Anupmehra, i may not know much about editing Wikipedia but I can clearly see your intentions. Don't cite irrelevant sources. It would be better if you go through the sources in unbiased manner. If I address you as "Pappu", it doesn't mean that you will be one and it will qualify for an entry to Wikipedia. This is simply maligning the name of a person. Interestingly, the other gentleman who was referred to as "Feku" has no mention in Wikipedia as "Feku" which seems to be mischief by his followers. Katyaan (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine. The Telegraph: "A speech that lasted well over an hour was overshadowed by a Twitter hashtag referring to him as 'Pappu', a local term for naïve," This is the Telegraph giving the meaning. --Neil N  talk to me 12:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay! Does this mean that if there is a celebrity who is teased by critics via some term and that term is covered by media in whatever sense then it can find a mention in Wikipeida? If the answer is yes, then I don't agree with it.Katyaan (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Each case is different. And you need to clarify what you're arguing for. You asked for sources to confirm a possible meaning of the word (despite them being already being present in the article). Now you're saying Gandhi shouldn't be mentioned?  --Neil N  talk to me 13:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't explain beyond this point. Yes, he shouldn't be mentioned and that's why I said that it's a false information to malign the reputation of the subject. On one hand the article says that it's a common name and on the other hand it says that it can be used in derogatory terms. This is contradictory. As far as I know, it is not a derogatory term but just because it sounds funny, people treat it that way. Further, I read somewhere in Wikipedia that we can't use weasel words for the person. If some people refer to the subject via some derogatory term, it should not be used in Wikipedia is my understanding. Rest I leave into the able hands of you guys. No hard feelings. Katyaan (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now article is written for Pappu with the negative meaning. Perhaps the content about other meanings of Pappu (surname in south India) can be added.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, it is written that, Pappu could also equate to the word 'dumb' in some cases because, -it is written by multiple reliable sources. It is the only one (negative?) line balanced with the lead that, in a general sense it actually is a common masculine name that refers to an innocent and simple person. How did a common name turned out to be used in a derogatory sense throughout the history of the usage of the term, -who the hell knows?!! Anyone interested, go find sources and expand the article.

Next paragraph deals with the usage of the term in the "Popular culture" -nothing else. The article has included only notable events. It is either a blue link or supported by multiple reliable sources. The national and international media both had the substantial coverage of the event, when R. Gandhi was mocked using the term 'Pappu" and that it trended top on twitter. --Saying, false information a billion times or a billion of trillions will not really make it false.

It's not good politicizing any issue on Wiki. If some changes violate the Wiki standard/s, that must go. However, I agree that the article has a good scope of expansion beyond the present shape. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  10:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

While made in good faith, Katyaan's post is full of errors. There is no "false information". It is not contradictory to have a term viewed in two wildly different ways (the n-word to refer to black people for example - different connotation if blacks use it). "As far as I know..." - article content is not based on personal knowledge. WP:WEASEL does not apply here. Derogatory terms are covered if they are notable - see List_of_nicknames_of_United_States_Presidents for example. --Neil N  talk to me 13:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi
Guys, we all know that rahul gandhi needs to be added to the section of "Notable people named Pappu". Here - a source - http://indianexpress.com/article/india/rahul-gandhi-pappu-meerut-congress-leader-sacked-4703195/. This is a direct google answer - https://www.scoopwhoop.com/inothernews/google-who-is-pappu-rahul-gandhi/#.jh1e17acj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya8795 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pappu meaning in sariki (language in pakistan)
Pappu is also called for penis.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019
Pappu is a very generic name for underperformer male. if you google 'Pappu' especially in Google News, some very interesting results are shown. It indeed can let you know the most recent Pappu of India though there are Pappu across the world but the word is famous mainly in India. With current increase in usage owing to one particular Pappu, there is a huge possibility that the word may get included in the Oxford dictionary sooner. 67.226.151.157 (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 20:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Rahul Gandhi
I recently added the fact, supported by two strong citations, that pappu is widely associated with Rahul Gandhi. However, Akhiljaxxn reverted it. Let's discuss this further.

I'm also inviting Aditya8795, NeilN, Anupmehra, Katyaan, Vigyani, Vaibhavafro, DESiegel, and DBigXray to join the discussion as they have participated in recent discussions about the same topic here and on Talk:Rahul Gandhi. Apologies if I've missed anyone.

This fact is extensively documented in reliable sources and is been a lasting, significant facet of a public figure's reputation, so there are no BLP problems. Moreover, these two considerations mean that we must include it; Wikipedia does not exclude information on politicians just because it makes them look bad.

And, of course, we are serving readers poorly by excluding it. I ended up on this page because I heard "pappu" used on Indian television and, although I could tell that it was a reference to an Indian politician, I didn't know which one. After some searching, it became clear that it was Rahul Gandhi. When others have similar questions, this article needs to help them answer it.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Akhiljaxxn, I'll give you a few more days to respond; otherwise, I'll restore my edit. Of course, we can always reopen the discussion later, but at that point, I would consider my edit part of the status quo and therefore something that should not be removed unilaterally.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not add media reports as WP:Wikivoice. Wikipedia is not a place to publish PROPAGANDA like, what a person's political opponents call him. These sources have been reviewed by multiple users and it has been decided to not use it on the grounds of violating WP:BLP. Pinging,, , and  who contributes to similar subjects for their opinion.–– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all this political gaming is not Wikipedia's business. There is no shortage of junkyards on the Internet for people who want to amuse themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3, Akhiljaxxn: It seems like you have two main points: (1) Wikipedia ignores "political gaming" and "propaganda" and (2) this content would violate the BLP policy.
 * Both of these points are very incorrect. First, Wikipedia is absolutely a place to neutrally describe propaganda and political gaming. That's why we have a long article on Nazi propaganda. Second, the core point of the BLP policy is that "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons." I have taken that care by finding multiple strong citations; the BLP policy does not protect people from negative information when it is accurate and significant. If politics is a junkyard, it's not our job to make it look like a garden.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, when the scholarly sources discuss it, we will summarise it. But we are not going to make up our own content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: well, that gives us common ground: if reliable sources (which can be scholarly as well as journalistic) support the claim that "pappu" has become a significant part of Rahul's image (albeit one which has become less central), we should include it. That's why I cited two reliable news article whose main focus is the pappu image in my original edit. I've added a section belowing listing those, and many more that treat "pappu" as a key part of his image. Do you think these sources are insufficient?—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalence between scholarly sources and journalistic sources. WP:NEWSORGs are only reliable for news, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. So something being reported in news media doesn't make it encyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I am glad you reverted that mischief edit. Someone please put edit notice on Rahul Gandhi article stating Do not add current affair things / what's happening in Rahul Gandhi's life for example what he ate, what he wore, what he said, he is in relationship etc etc. Coming to the point whether Indian slang word (that's what google says) needs to be added, I googled and found that there is a similar slang for PM of India Narendra Modi, Feku having enormous refs so can we add it to his article, A BIG NO. Other stuff, same vandalism attempts have been made to Sonia Gandhi like this. There is continuous attempt to article related to leaders of Indian National Congress. I have highlighted to one of experienced user at here. I see all these attempts as politically motivated, users see something on news and they vandalise wikipedia articles. I would recommend to have edit notice to this article. Inviting  -- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  ☣✅ 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are enormous news materials available. In political system leaders give nicknames to their political opponents it doesn't mean we can have PROPAGANDA materials here on Wikipedia. Like other users have pointed out, it violates WP:BLP as well.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 15:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 25 Cents FC, I have moved your comment here so that the discussion is easier to follow.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neil Shah-Quinn asked me to take a look at this. I am unimpressed with the quality of the discussion here.  It sounds very much like editors have decided the outcomes they personally want, and are reaching for any policy that sounds like it might support their pre-determined outcome.
 * For example, @Kautilya3, if you're going to demand that only scholarly sources be used, then would you please re-write the entire article to use scholarly sources? I notice that right now, there are seven sources in the article and zero of them are scholarly sources.  This is what we call a double standard:  the content one editor wants can be sourced to a newspaper, but the content another editor wants has to come from a scholarly source.  The English Wikipedia does not support double standards.  Either we can talk about the advertising director and talk about a politician from a newspaper, or we can't talk about either of them except from scholarly sources.  If you genuinely believe that only scholarly sources are acceptable, then please start blanking everything sourced to news media in Rahul Gandhi.  The rules are the same for all articles:  if news media are acceptable for discussing him in one article, then they are acceptable for discussing him in any article.
 * There is no question here about Verifiability. The fact that Rahul Gandhi got this nickname is easily sourced and uncontested by anyone here.  There are many, many reliable sources that can support this claim.  Your real dispute is over whether mentioning this is WP:DUE – whether it is important enough to this particular article to mention it here.  I therefore recommend that you all go to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  The two "sides" should present your arguments to the uninvolved editors there.  Neil, please look at  (NB:  a book, not a news article) first and explain that this is a really significant nickname that is mentioned in something on the order of 100 reliable sources.  The rest of you will want to explain that you think it's derogatory and that you don't like it.
 * I do not think that continuing this conversation on this talk page will result in a resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for chiming in. I agree with your perspective, and I'll take your advice to start a discussion on the noticeboard. Is there anything particular you want to me to take from the book, other than (1) this nickname is significant enough to be mentioned in books too and (2) it's commonly paired with "feku" for Modi?—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no question here about Verifiability. The fact that Rahul Gandhi got this nickname is easily sourced and uncontested by anyone here.  There are many, many reliable sources that can support this claim.  Your real dispute is over whether mentioning this is WP:DUE – whether it is important enough to this particular article to mention it here.  I therefore recommend that you all go to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  The two "sides" should present your arguments to the uninvolved editors there.  Neil, please look at  (NB:  a book, not a news article) first and explain that this is a really significant nickname that is mentioned in something on the order of 100 reliable sources.  The rest of you will want to explain that you think it's derogatory and that you don't like it.
 * I do not think that continuing this conversation on this talk page will result in a resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for chiming in. I agree with your perspective, and I'll take your advice to start a discussion on the noticeboard. Is there anything particular you want to me to take from the book, other than (1) this nickname is significant enough to be mentioned in books too and (2) it's commonly paired with "feku" for Modi?—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and invited everyone who has participated here.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Masem made an edit like mine after participating in the noticeboard discussion and was reverted by Kautilya3.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021
2607:FEA8:C40:51A0:393C:81B1:22D9:B47E (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Notable People named Pappu Rahul De vinci, Also known as Rahul Gandhi
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Doesn't appear to be his name Cannolis (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are the possible reasons why Rahul Gandhi may not be included as a section in the "Pappu" article:
1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Although "Pappu" is used by right-wing Indian netizens, it's not that relevant enough to be listed here.

2. Lack of relevant news sources.

That's the same reason why there are no separate articles or sections for Brandon (for Joe Biden), Badutwi (for Abdullah Badawi), and Dubya (George W. Bush).

Although this term is covered in Indian news articles, it is still not too relevant as it isn't covered in international news. From what I observed at this talk section, some sources have a right-wing bias, and it's also to avoid an edit war.

3. A policy regarding living famous people.

Although Rahul Gandhi is a well-known Indian politician, the infamous terms used against him are not covered here as they may be used as slander against him, almost for the same reason why terms against Modi are not used.

These are possible reasons why there is no Rahul Gandhi section for the word "pappu", most due to lack of relevance. Are these accurate?

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)