From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 30 September 2013 for a period of one week. WikiProject icon
WikiProject History of photography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Should they be refered to as Photojournalists in the first line? Don't Photojournalists follow rules, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They ARE NOT photojournalists. There is no true journalism in their work. They are hunters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


The second half bhenchod of this article seems incredibly pro-paparazzi. 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Jon and Kate Gosslin have the paparzzi problem people keep taking photos and hitting them up!!!!!!!!!!!! That's a great picture; however it would be even better if we had one of photogrphers intruding on a celebrity rather than being cooperated with. DJ Clayworth 13:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I know... and ideally they should be on a lambretta too. We could put in for a Requested Picture. I just found this on Ericd's gallery page. He might have some other similar shots, but at least this picture captures some of the sense of bustle and intrusion of the Paparazzi. I also like the metaphorical way the starlette is sunlit, whilst the photographers are in shadow. -- Solipsist 14:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You're right. It's a nice picture. I'm just a perfectionist. DJ Clayworth 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Papparazi is a really good job, even though only knobs compete with it, it is still well-paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to that picture? I just put a not very good one in as there wasnt one at all. Will try to take a better one later. Justinc 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah found it. Putting it back in. Not perfect but better than nothing. Justinc 00:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I am the author of this picture and I remember I had removed this picture from this article. Someone restored it those photographers are not paparazzis. Ericd 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Can someone mention in the article how the paparazzi is exempt from anti-stalking statutes? Does the tabloid media have a large lobbying presence in Washington, Sacramento, and Tallahasee? -Amit

There are no anti-stalking statutes per se. Making a threat against a person is against the law. Merely following their movements is not necessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retardly biased[edit]

This article drips of bias in favor of Paparazzi. I'd like to see some of the criticisms that have been leveled against them brought to light here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have to agree, though notzzzthem, but shouldn't Both views not be stated as fact by an encyclopedia? Nicholascobalt 07:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[[I remove this reference because it is no longer avaliable, I think the author remove it. <nowiki><ref name="scum"> {{cite web | | work=Red carpet takes on an Oscar sheen | url= layout=tonys2005&nav=news&content=article&articleID=VR1117924245 | accessdaymonth=20 August | accessyear=2006}}</ref></nowiki>]]

Can somebody provide reference for this sentence I change it just make to remove biased part.

In his book Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from 
an Italian dialect word that describe a particularly annoying nose, buzzing mosquito. 

--Ramu50 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Everbody know what mosquitos means and there is no explanation of the connotation of misquotes might hint in literature, reports, biographies or any special usages, so don't use link, it seems more like bias. I know some words are use in journalism describing womans hair, meaning that her talking sound like sqawk (my english teacher told me that, not sure is that true). She said something about, journalism must be neutral so formal language of adjectives would be an easier approach to connotate or references across the purpose of your description.

Grammar revision to be not biased usually do take a lot of overlooking by many people so be patient. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of photographers don't even consider the paparazzi photographers. There was an episode of This Week in Photography specifically on the issue (see here: Should this point be brought up? Max.goedjen (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My friends and I have came up with a term for them, "maggots with cameras" you can see their work on (TMZ) "the maggot zone". (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Plural entry[edit]

Paparazzi, anonymous as they are, are in general mentioned as a group: the phenomenon called paparazzi. But most Wiki entries consisting of a noun are in the singular form. Wouldn't it be better to adapt this one to that practice? Like the Photographer and the Mosquito we might as well have the Paparazzo as a title. Nethency 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've made this change (I didn't see your post above until now), I must disagree, and strongly. Unlike the photographer and the mosquito, which can be equally common in actual usage in the singular and the plural, paparazzi are all but universally referred to in the plural, to the point that a singular photographer is often called (incorrectly) "a paparazzi". It is my strong belief that this should be changed back. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Nouns of the same sort (animals, people, flowers, buildings or whatever) should be treated uniformly as far as entries are concerned, I think; and the singular form has become the standard in encyclopedias (with exceptions, yes). Furthermore, "Paparazzo" in the title draws more people's attention to the correct singular term and might so help decrease the incorrect use you mention - the kind of use which in my opinion should not be the basis for describing a phenomenon (mentioning it somewhere is OK, of course). Actually, that was my point. But maybe there are more people who have something to say about this. Nethency 19:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And, if I may, this is one of those exceptions, because the plural form is the most common. Also, I must point out that, while the idea of helping correct the use of a term is a good one, I feel that's the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right when saying that the plural form is the most common one in actual use. And yes, most Wp. entries follow that use. But in this case the most common use is, unlike e.g. with Indigenous Australians, connected with a misunderstanding. It's easy to identify one paparazzo (actually, the very history of this term started with one); so why not use that as a key for identification? Italian Wikipedia, for instance, has understood that principle well, as far as this entry is concerned...
And concerning the second point: dictionaries have a greater correctional role than encyclopedias have, that's right. That does not imply encyclopedias can't be helpful in such matters. But feel free to change it back, I wouldn't mind really. Nethency 10:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's why we're having this discussion though, to be honest, I would like to see others involved in this article taking part. ;)
On the first point, don't forget that Wikis share software and goals, but each one will (and should) demonstrate the idiosyncracies of its language. On the second, since the origins and usage are dealt with immediately, I feel this article is, as you note, "helpful in such matters." :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, just want to give my voice on this issue about correcting people. I have no idea what is the more common usage, but I just wanted to make this point: If it turned out that "paparazzi" was the most common usage for the singular, then despite the Italian usage, paparazzi is the singular in English. Language evolves, sometimes against protests as being outright wrong. This would not be the first word that came into English this way. Wikipedia is no place to correct common usage. In the eyes of many, a dictionary is also not the place, as dictionaries describe language use, they don't prescribe it.  OzLawyer / talk  15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I can honestly say that I've never heard 'paparazzo' in my life. I would think that paparazzi is the more appropriate, being the more common. Ral315 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a majority in favor of the plural entry view, so I've changed it back. Still, the 'the plural has become the singular' scenario (like with 'data') does not apply to the current situation, I think. Nethency 10:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to those editors who offered input; I wanted to be sure that any action taken was done for the right reasons. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Another vote of post-hoc support for the plural here. Most Anglophones are probably not sufficiently aware of Italian grammar to realise that paparazzo is the correct singular, and the word is almost invariably used in the plural in common speech. Guy 15:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. It is only the group noun "paparazzi" that is an English term. It's like "cattle". It doesn't even matter what the Italian usage is any more, and the nonsense about "singular form" should be removed from the article, or at least qualified as Italian language usage. Gene Nygaard 10:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Fellini?!![edit]

Forgive my astonishment, but there is no mention in the article or these comments of Fellini's La Dolce Vita. This movie spawned Paparazzo, a character of no moral center who made his living photographing celebrities. This is where the word comes from. If I ever learn how to edit articles, I'll insert this info...

For a completely different version of how Fellini came up with the name for the photographer, see

Rwade55 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)rwadeRwade55 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The name paparazzi was originally given by Ennio Flaiano, an appreciated italian writer who was in many cases the screenplayer of Fellini.

It refers to a dialect word, well known (although progressively being replaced by the italian term)in the area where Flaiano borned and lived, the city of Pescara, which is the city where I also live, by the way.

Paparazzi are basically the clams, that fishermen used to wash and sell on the road.

The exact dialect word is actually paparazze or paparazz' (they sound very similar), but in this particular dialect the final 'i' usually becomes 'e', so basically Flaiano 'italianized' the word.

Flaiano proposed this term as the noisy flashes of the photographers remembered him the sound of the fishermen washing paparazzi on the road.

It's a plural word, as the single word is paparazzo, which is in fact the single clam.

My grandfather and my father have been fishing and selling paparazzi for so many years in Pescara during the WWII that I think I due them this comment.

To better support my thesis, I have provided a couple of links:

The first one is a poem in pescarese dialect (LI PRIM' DI GIUGNE), where the word 'paparazze' is present:

The second one is a list of dialect names of animals and fishes in Giulianova's dialect, which is very similar to the Pescara's one:

Dario 21:44, 15 July 2007

Bad photos[edit]

The two photos are not a good illustration of the article nothing is caracteritic of the parrazzi. These photographers are shooting a public event. Ericd 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, especially the second one shows news/press photographers rather than paparazzi IMHO (current version). (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tl:help}} Could someone create a redirect to send Stalkerazzi to Paparazzi. Thank you! (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Done Gnevin (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Article itself for promoting a website?[edit]

It looks, 'A' writes a sentence and 'B' demands for citation and 'C' come and paste as the referance. Are A, B and C interlinked to promote the cite which is nothing but a "Adsense website". Block the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talkcontribs) 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if that domain has been sold since the references were first added. The links that used to be references for this article (they have all been removed) are dead, and the root page is an affiliate bookseller. In any case, the links are gone. --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Repetition in main body and photo note[edit]

The sentence "As the lines between celebrity news and hard news become blurred by the major news agencies, the differences between a paparazzo and photojournalist are increasingly difficult to distinguish." appears in both the main body text and in the column to the right - which should be removed? I thought a rewrite of the photo column might be called for. --boiled_elephant (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


The differences between a paparazzo and a press photographer are increasingly difficult to distinguish, as the lines between hard news and infotainment become blurred.[1]

This quote needs to be fixed up and placed in the correct context. First, the reference is to an opinion piece in the American Journalism Review written by Tara Sonenshine. Parts of the quote come from James Adams of UPI and the Sunday Times of London. The issue is actually in reference to the purchasing of photographs from external sources rather than from in-house, credentialed photographers. I think the statement is taken out of this context to push the view that it is difficult to tell the difference between the two, but I do not think this is true. In practice, paparazzi are not professionals, rather, they are only interested in money, and will pursue the shot that can get them the most cash. Professional press photographers, on the other hand, are interested in capturing the shot for the sake of the story, and have credentials and ethics that they follow. The best paparazzi take their best shots from the shadows; You will never see their camera, because they are hidden from public view. The idea that the average paparazzo hangs out in a crowd like the image portrays in the lead is silly and misses the point. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Dont do this people will hate you. Jon and Kate Gosslin have the paparzzi problem.


The bit about Princess Diana being assassinated is pure POV and fringe. I'm adding NPOV until whoever wrote it wants to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That entire section on paparazzi as a crime organization sounds very suspect to me, especially with the lack of citations.Kingmebob4 (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed that whole section. It was clearly vandalism. (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paparazzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paparazzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)