Talk:Paparazzi

message: Should they be refered to as Photojournalists in the first line? Don't Photojournalists follow rules, etc?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.204.62 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Needs to be clearer that both sides are represented. --Commsstudent (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "photojournalists" 

message: The second half bhenchod of this article seems incredibly pro-paparazzi. 74.33.161.233 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: You're right. It's a nice picture. I'm just a perfectionist. DJ Clayworth 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ah found it. Putting it back in. Not perfect but better than nothing. Justinc 00:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: pro-paprazzi

message: 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 24.177.15.20 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalking 

message: 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 198.53.3.37 (talk • contribs) 
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)
thread_title:  Retardly biased 

message: 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 http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-pap1.htm
Rwade55 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Fellini?!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep, especially the second one shows news/press photographers rather than paparazzi IMHO (current version). 88.148.207.23 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad photos 

message: Could someone create a redirect to send Stalkerazzi to Paparazzi. Thank you! 71.139.10.193 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: help

message: It looks, 'A' writes a sentence and 'B' demands for citation and 'C' come and paste http://paparazzicentralhub.com/ as the referance.  Are A, B and C interlinked to promote the cite http://paparazzicentralhub.com/ which is nothing but a "Adsense website".  Block the website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article itself for promoting a website? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repetition in main body and photo note 

message: :The differences between a paparazzo and a press photographer are increasingly difficult to distinguish, as the lines between hard news and infotainment become blurred.
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)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: 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 82.35.199.221 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I removed that whole section. It was clearly vandalism. 91.125.247.62 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Paparazzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080216110716/http://www.mrpaparazzi.com:80/ to http://www.mrpaparazzi.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220005135/http://www.word-origins.com/definition/paparazzi.html to http://www.word-origins.com/definition/paparazzi.html
*Added  tag to http://www.scottbaker_inquests.gov.uk/evidence/docs/inquisition_diana.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mrpaparazzi.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For any interested editors, see Draft:Genetic paparazzi.  --N8wilson 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related draft article