Talk:Selfie/Archive 1

Selca
Where is the difference between a selfie and a selca? Is there any? Maybe selca is just the term used in Asia but one thing is for sure, its origin is Korea.

selca (self capture) -> http://www.8asians.com/2009/05/21/selca-taking-photos-of-yourself-so-you-dont-look-like-a-fool-taking-someone-elses/

--212.23.103.78 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * selca is korean slang for selfie 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

history

 * Ah, i had this watchlisted for its eventual creation. I think it could be improved with additional sources, not just the few which have all been generated since April 1, 2013.  A "history" of the term would also be nice, I may try to help on that.  When I looked a few months ago, it appears the term arose around 2007-08, probably in Britain, as American-born slang words generally don't end with the "-ie" ending that you see in British slang like "telly" for television (surely someone knows what that tendency of form is called?).--Milowent • hasspoken  12:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any links you have would be helpful. The best history I've found so far is from Know Your Meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/selfie . That's probably a more reliable source than just about anything else on this topic, anyway. Oddly, there has been an utter explosion of articles about selfies just in the last two weeks or so (and I only found them after I happened to decide to write this article, at just the right time, it seems). Google News search for all of 2012 turns up hardly anything, and the same is true for 2011. The most useful sources I've been about to find so far just happen to all be very recent. --ragesoss (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to keep pace with colloquialisms as they develop. I've seen these referred to by posters in the U.S. as selfpics or selfpix as well. I'm not sure how much analysis something like this really needs, but go ahead and document it as best you can. -- Boteman (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I might open it up for expansion and work. The best I can add are some victorian/edwardian examples of these types of photographs and some reasons why they were made. If anyone would like to expound upon that, leading to the huge "selfie" boom of the late 2000s, please, please do so. (Tsukiakari (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC))
 * please see my post on the first selfie. I really think that we need to foreground that the selfie is a unique phenomenon and that any comparison to previous forms of portraiture (classic or photographic) can be useful to understand formal (use of mirrors etc.) or functional (to convey or create identity) overlap, but they cannot explain away the selfie as a mere remediation of the photographic self-portrait.Crystal vibes (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a much older historic example, albeit grammatically somewhat different. A photo of my mother on the beach in the 1950s which she inscribed on the reverse "To my darling selfie. Love from selfie." Given the no original research rule would there be an appropriate way to get this info onto the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS(v) (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a mural
Is it me, or is this page slowly becoming a repository for editors who want to show off their pic? Do we need that many examples? Just a thought. Jersey John (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This gallery is hilarious. I think one photo on the page would be sufficient, with a link to the Wikimedia selfies category.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea in my humble opinion. Jersey John (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoops! I should look at the article first before I just respond back on the talk page! The article as it stands now looks a lot more professional and more in-line with the rest of WP. Jersey John (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I made the changes before you commented, leaving just two pics.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great mate Jersey John (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added the gallery back. We should, of course, be careful to make sure the gallery doesn't become a random dumping ground or place to show off, but this article needs a gallery to illustrate the variety of the selfie genre and its common elements. Per WP:Gallery: "...the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." I'd say this fits.--ragesoss (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. One photo will be sufficient to get the point across. Look at the history; certain people keep trying to get their own selfies added to this page as self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.175.112 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no added encyclopaedic value added by having multiple pictures. One or two is enough to realise it is a photo taken by oneself, especially when it is also quite clear from the text, making extra redundant. Since it fails at both reasons for having a gallery and consensus is against you, I'm removing them again. Hollth (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Images
The article once had a more representative sample of images. I added one of myself, an older male. I made it clear that I wouldn't try to keep my image in, but that I wanted balance. Now, it has images of two young attractive females only. Both are out of focus and one is poorly lit, while mine and others were much better lit and in better focus. Does that reflect the neutral point of view? Are selfies by definition mediocre photos of young females? I don't think so.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No way is that picture of a sulawesi macaque a "selfie". they don't have the dexterity/strength to pick up and work a modern slr. source: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/534771/ape-rture-priority-photographer-plays-down-monkey-reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.128.162 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed there wasn't a photo of someone actually taking a selfie, just selfie photos. I have added a a picture of Christina Novelli taking a selfie during a concert. This photo may perhaps may better depict on exactly how it is taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchiapperino (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

additional sources

 * motivation
 * http://theweek.com/article/index/248418/why-we-take-selfies

This will need a signficant section, since there is a lot of coverage of celebrity selfies. We'll want to focus on the trend of celebrity selfies in general, rather than go into the tabloid particulars of individual selfies that made news.
 * celebrity selfies


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10251845/Why-sexy-girl-pictures-online-are-more-harmful-than-lads-mags.html
 * http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/celebrity-selfies-and-the-cultural-effect/51ed445378c90a154900043f
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/arts/the-meanings-of-the-selfie.html


 * selfies and art
 * http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/08/20/386018_todays-news.html


 * general
 * http://blog.oup.com/2013/11/scholarly-reflections-on-the-selfie-woty-2013/


 * http://dominiku.indus.uberspace.de/selfies/selfiecities/www/main-page/# ragesoss (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://kfor.com/2014/02/26/selfies-leading-to-lice-in-teens/

First Selfie
"Portrait of a Man" by Jan van Eyck 1433 may be the first known selfie. Obviously it is not a photograph, but still, perhaps it could be mentioned as background information just to show how long humans have been captivated by images of themselves? There already exists a Wikipedia article on Self-Portraits and on this particular self-portrait. N0w8st8s (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)n0w8st8s
 * I wouldn't count it as a selfie but then I wasn't sure of the Robert Cornelius one I added recently myself, or indeed the two mirror ones that were already there. For me, an important part of a selfie is that you hold out the camera in front of you and click. However, what persuaded me of Cornelius' was it looks like a selfie – off-centre, out-of-focus, bad expression, poor quality. However, to say something of self-portraiture could be worthwhile. Looking on Commmons the van Eyck was the earliest real self portrait I could find. See commons:Category:15th-century_self-portraits_of_men. Is it well known for being early? Or maybe a specific reference to Self-portrait would be useful. Thincat (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, guys- I'm the one that first reworked the history section and added the post 1900 background info. I think it's pretty safe to say that selfies are only photography and not painted portraiture which would fit in better in the self-portrait section that it's already in than here. Selfies are people taking photographic pictures of themselves and the two main types tend to be via the mirror and pointing the lens directly at one's self- that's the rationale I was working from. While early photography selfies weren't verbally called selfies, they clearly fit the modern model of it and laid the foundation for the practice today- the point being that it's been going on long before the digital age. While this page has had a rather hilarious history of being a silly selfie gallery, I think having technically the first selfie of Cornelius, the one of the edwardian woman with the first brownie camera that really enabled it all, and arguably the first teenage selfie made by Anastasia are a good combination (man, woman, teen- that's all bases covered). I personally don't think it should be extended photographically beyond that, but any more info, or discussing recorded comments from individuals about the process from the pre-1929 era (essentially, pre-modern/ww2), would probably be safe. This article is seriously in flux because it's so new, but from what I've seen over the past couple months it's polishing up pretty well considering how it started. I'm happy to help with the historical section of this article further if someone feels it needs more- just drop me a line on my talk page. (Tsukiakari (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi everyone, i know i may be lighting up a firecracker here, but i am doing my Doctoral thesis on the selfie and have just had a chapter published which addresses the history of the selfie...

"A portrait is not a selfie Our collective infatuation with the selfie has brought some observers to see them in the most unlikely of places, from the (painted) self-portraiture of Van Eyck, Dürer and Rembrandt to the very first experiments in photography to iconic photographs such as George Harrison’s fisheye self-portraits of the late 1960s to the more recent ‘Myspace pic’ once popular in the now surpassed social network. These endeavours by scholarship and journalism to deliver us the first selfie is not constructive to understanding the attributes, significance and poetics that are unique to the selfie. Historic national archives have been trawled to find ‘proto-selfies’ such as Robert Cornelius’ daguerreotype image (Image 1), frequently cited in such selfie-archaelogies, perhaps in the hope that the selfie can be better analysed within historically established canons. This collective quest to uncover the ‘first selfie’ does however provide a useful clue; it confirms that we already cannot imagine ever having lived without this phenomenon.

This attribution to Robert Cornelius of the earliest American self-portrait may arguably be deserved and noteworthy, and indeed many of the first experiments in photography were self-portraits – the artist required a body and the most reliable and economical on hand was their own – yet, its affiliation with the genre of selfie is more tenuous. Such historic self-portraits are not selfies (or even proto-selfies) merely because they are photographic and self-portraits, and to describe them as such risks reducing their individual accomplishment or significance. To seek the origin of the selfie in previous genres of self-representation also becomes counterproductive for while there may be some formal or functional overlap between the selfie and previous genres of self-portraiture, the selfie consistently emerges as a contemporary manifestation, a discrete entity and/or activity, through its composition, technique, networked distribution, consumption and sheer ubiquity, it cannot be simply reduced to a digital remediation of the self-portrait. "

I understand that this stands contrary to your positions, but if we are able to establish that the selfie is unique as a process and as an artefact, while recognising the potential overlap of form and function, i think we can seriously place the selfie as a phenomenon and not just as a neologism. Crystal vibes (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Psychology and neuroscience
My selfies - which are usually taken with a background as a travel diary, and mostly use the rule of thirds - do favour my left cheek because the action button is on the left of the camera (looking into the lens), making it much less awkward to use my left hand. Most digital cameras seem to be like that (perhaps they are designed for right handed operators). I wonder whether that was considered in the study?

Mind you, if I'm with somone I prefer to put my right arm around her. Now that might be a psychological/neuroscientific bias :) Shannock9 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request November 2015
Please add the following paragraph at the end of the section "Psychology and neuroscience":

A recent study examining the relationship between personality and selfie-posting behaviors suggests that extroversion and social exhibitionism positively predict frequency of selfie posting, whereas self-esteem is generally unrelated to selfie-posting behaviors [ Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Pisanski, K., Chmiel, A., & Sorokowski, P. (2016). Selfies and personality: Who posts self-portrait photographs? Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 119–123. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.037 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915300039]
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: article is still in press Cannolis (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

article is already published and available online under the link provided. Please add it. Thank you
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor article
This article doesn't meet wikipedias quality standards. Unorganized, irrelevant content, bloated, badly written and questionable sources. It discredits wikipedia as a reliable source of information and should be completely rewritten. I suspect someone wrote this as a joke.

It appears as a wall of text that is poorly written, includes too much information, much of it questionable or irrelevant. Lots of repetition throughout (sexism, issues with body image, women ...). Terribly organized.

For example, why is there an entire section of ancient photographs labled as selfies, if the term originated in 2002? In my mind a selfie is a picture taken with a digital device and posted to a social site. Completely illogical. Whoever wrote this failed to understand the basic concept.

"the front-facing camera copied by the iPhone 4 (2010) from Korean and Japanese mobile phones" - ....

"Self-portrait of a female Celebes crested macaque" - Even from the preview image it is fairly obvious this is a computer image. I googled this and found several related obviously fake images, but no reliable source ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.151.236.250 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Selfies' may be a modern term but the concept and practice of them have been going on since the camera was invented by people with enough money to own their own camera to play around with- thus why the historical context is in the history section and not in any other section. Someone didn't just get hit on the head with the advent of digital cameras and phones and thought it would be delightfully novel to take a picture of themselves- this has been going on for some time now. So, trying to limit it to strictly the digital age makes no sense. While I can't vouch for any other sections of this article, it IS a new article (only just barely a year old) and is still under heavy construction. Every time I check in on this page it gets better and more polished, however unconstructive complaints aren't going to help speed that process up any. (Tsukiakari (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

Mass Selfies
Wanted to write a separate section on mass selfies but still gathering resources: Deku-shrub (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pope 'Mass' (you see what I did there?)Selfies http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-poses-for-mass-selfies-after-improvising-palm-sunday-homily-9257475.html
 * Ellen mass tweeted selfie http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26410106
 * One direction mass selfie http://www.heatworld.com/Celeb-News/2014/04/One-Direction-give-Ellen-DeGeneres-a-run-for-her-own-money-with-mass-selfie/

Proposing a "Group selfies" section
Hello, I'm here to propose a new section for this article, discussing group selfies and the various names for them that have been used in the media and by technology companies. I worked on behalf of Huawei to develop this section, and received feedback from them during the process, so I have a financial conflict of interest with regards to this article. Therefore, I'm posting the section here on the Talk page in the hopes that volunteer editors can review what I've written and, if it seems acceptable, include it in the article, perhaps after the "History" section. Here's my draft section:

If editors have any questions or concerns, I'm more than happy to discuss this draft, but if everything looks okay, could someone move it over into the article?

I should also note that I am working with Huawei on the release of a photo to be included in this section, so will likely be following up here in regards to that in the coming weeks. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty good to me, I'll copy edit and create it shortly Deku-shrub (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks so much! Do let me know if you have any questions as you're looking at it. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like another editor was able to take this live already, so this is ✅—thanks so much, though! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Thank you for the suggestion - yes, seems ok to me at the moment as well - added the text/ref as the "Group selfies" sub-section to the "Sociology" section in the "Selfie" main article - at least for now - Thanks again - and - Enjoy!:) Drbogdan (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to replace lead image
I propose replacing the current anonymous image in the lead section with one that distinguishes itself by being the first known selfie. I suggest the latter can be considered more notable than the former. I would argue that any of the other images in the article is more notable than the current lead image. As a compromise, we could put both images in the lead section side by side labelling one "Contemporary" and the second "The first known". --Bensin (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The former is a spot on selfie in most people mind. Some people may not even consider a self portrait without extending hand to hold the camera as a selfie. Z22 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia lead sections should "avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page" - the 1839 daguerrotype is certainly more notable and historically significant as the first ever photo of a person, but it's not at all representative of the Wikipedia/dictionary definition of "selfie", which concerns digital images shared on social networking sites. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW - Thank you for *all* the comments - yes, I also *entirely* agree with the comments made by User:Z22 & User:McGeddon above and that the "current lead image" (by itself only) be used in the main article at the moment - Thanks again - and - Enjoy!:) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The current image is an "Actual" selfie, an actual "modern-day selfie" so I give it priority, the latter could be anything, when people come to that page, they expect to find a image very closely related to what an actually selfie looks like...the proposed image is not what they will have in mind..-- Stemoc 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the Cornelius photo is better in the history section (as it happens I added it to the article) because it is relevant to the history of the genre but it's not, and never was, characteristic of the meaning of the word. I also happen to like the current lead image, not just because it simply seems appropriate, but because it was rescued from commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ameily radke es vato!!.jpg and that seems pleasing to me. Thincat (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bensin(they should be side-by-side).24.89.95.149 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Aproposnix: The self portrait of Robert Cornelius IS NOT a selfie. It is a self portrait. A selfie is tyically taken from a phone camera or other Compact (typically digital) camera. Calling it the first selfie is just completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aproposnix (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Macaca Nigra selfie
I would have logged in but everytime I try Wikipedia refuses my password, even when I have reset it. This place is getting to be a little cold. The question here is one of imputation. Wikipedia claims the animal owns the copyright because it pressed the button but can you impute copyright onto the species Macaca Nigra? Does it make any sense to do so? Georg Lucas asked a similar kind of question back in the 1920s when faced with who is responsible for imputing class consciousness onto the working classes when they are not conscious of their class. This is not a frivolous argument. Lucas argued it was the job of the Party to do so and the Party/State being the socialist owner of capital and having that consciousness would therefore impute class consciousness onto the proletariat. On the one hand copyright and ownership perhaps does not reside in the hardware or capital but on the other hand there is no scientific evidence that an animal can appreciate or understand the concept of copyright or license to distribute for free. In this case the copyright must be held by the nearest credible and responsible agent - ie the owner of the equipment, the photographer - who is the only one who meaningfully stands to win or lose from the loss or gain of copyright in this case - and if the photographer should want to attempt to impute the concept of copyright into the agent that pressed the button then so be it, but without explicit scientific evidence to the contrary, the idea that Wikimedia recognises that monkeys understand copyright for any other purpose than its own redistribution of capital is entirely unconvincing. If the monkeys feel their copright is infringed, let them stage a revolution. Duprie37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.160.219 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The extensive (and now apparently finished) debate about this image is over at this Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems the following recent references may be relevant => < ref name="AP-20140807"> - AND - < ref name="SLN-20140806"> - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance?
Clearly, this is a very unique example that in no way is representative of the phenomenon. There's been some heated debate about this over at Commons. I personally agree with the legal arguments that the image is in the public domain, but I'm also inclined to respect the minority who have complained about the community engaging in a "self-serving rights grab".

So what's the justification for having the image in this article? Does it actually represent relevant, notable perspectives of the article topic? Or is it just here because it's clever, funny and was recently famous? (Or, God forbid, because it's currently famous...) I'm asking this from an encyclopedic perspective and because of plain and simple tact regarding the contentious copyright.

Peter Isotalo 11:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - Thank you for your comments - Seems to me the reason the animal "selfie" image is in the "selfie" article is because the image helps *broaden* the concept of a "selfie" to *non-humans* - much like the "selfie" image taken by the "robot" Curiosity rover on the planet Mars, also an image in the article - both images, one taken by an animal and one by a robot, seem appropriate (and relevant) to an encyclopedia article presenting the concept of a "selfie" I would think - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is the argument, then these images really need to be supported by actual article content. All other images are obviously relevant, but the rover and the monkey both seem like amusing, yet marginally relevant, oddities. This goes especially for the macaque pic. Doing anything that approaches "because we can"-inclusions of these types of contested images is quite appropriate in my view. If we expect the general public to take us seriously regarding the minutiae of copyright law, we should return the favor by exercising restraint and making an effort in giving images an appropriate context.
 * Until such a context of encyclopedic information has been provided, I believe the macaque image should be removed.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes - I *entirely* agree with your comments re the issue - updating the article with the suggestion you've made (ie, adding more context) seems appropriate - and - seems more than welcome of course - perhaps WP:DIY (in an *entirely* ok and WP:AGF way) applies? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Uhm, no. This is clearly not "WP:DIY, so get cracking, fellow editor". All images require justification to be included in articles. In most cases, justification is very easy (though hardly auomatic). I don't see anything self-evident in this inclusion. Where is the information regarding the macaque pic that actually describes its significance and overall relevance to selfies? I see only two citations of articles focusing on the copyright dispute. Who is actually claiming that a monkey selfie has a lasting impact on the topic of selfies?
 * The business surrounding its copyright status is a fairly serious matter. I find it perfectly reasonable that we should treat this dispute with the respect it deserves. If we're to apply it to a serious, high-profile Wikipedia article, it should be accompanied by a serious, high-profile encyclopedic effort. Right now, it can't see that it goes beyond a decorative, "monkeys are funny"-level of coverage.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Although the image has now gone, the article text is still there and flagged with a "relevant?" tag. Given that all the press coverage referred to the photos as "selfies", this seems relevant enough to the article subject. --McGeddon (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Macaque image RfC
I've hidden the macaque selfie because I believe there's currently no real justification for keeping it here other than media buzz and quirkiness. I don't believe there's an unsolved dispute right now, but including images like this should be done with care. In my mind, there is good reason to have a preopr consensus discussion on how to use images with contested copyright status. I believe this is essential both for the quality of the project and the image we project to our readers.

To those who are interested, there has been an extensive discussion about the copyright status of the image at Wikimedia Commons (deletion request). Consensus has clearly been to keep, and the Foundation's legal representatives are defending this. But some users have also criticized what they feel amounts to zealousness. I feel the image is clearly public domain, but I also feel there's wisdom in not acting like thoughtless copyleft fanatics. Just because we can doesn't me always should.

Peter Isotalo 16:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW - added brief context material/links to the "selfie" article as follows:

 "Selfies" have been made by "non-humans" as well - including by an "animal" and by a "robot" on the planet Mars.
 * Hopefully - this is ok for the present - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - So far at least - I've not been able to improve on my own reasons, made earlier, that the "animal" image should be in the "selfie" article - ie, as an example of *broadening* the concept of a "selfie" to non-humans - perhaps much like the "selfie" made by the "robot" Curiosity rover on Mars - but to an "animal" non-human rather than to a "robot" - to me atm that would be sufficient - however, other opinions (and suggested context edits and/or supporting WP:RS) are always welcome of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You've merely stated that these images exist. That's not disputed, but it doesn't establish either notability or WP:Relevance with regards to selfies in general. WP:V and WP:UNDUE are in my view relevant in this case.
 * Now, the Curiosity photo can't possibly fall any reasonable definition of a selfie (robots act only human commands), but it might be interesting to note out that NASA described it as a selfie. But the image of both robot and macaque (which did act on its own) seem more like curiosities that were briefly popular, but not much else. The macaque image is once again generally notable only because of the copyright dispute. It seems more justifiable to display the monkey in this article if we had references that described the potential impact of selfies on copyright.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes - I *entirely* agree - seems you've made some worthy comments imo re the issue - no problem whatsoever - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The macaque selfie was readded with a short text summarizing how it sparked a copyright debate; still no explanation how it's relevant to the topic of selfies in general. The issue is clearly copyright and animal agency, and animal selfies are something very different from genuine selfies. In an article about photographic self-portraits by humans, it seems more like a random observation under the broad heading of "Popularity". Again: this needs appropraite explanation or it will amount to coatracking.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevance is exactly the question what the definition of selfie is. There is nothing inherently human-centric about the concept. If a curious animal "monkeying around" with a technical device learns how to take pictures through trial and error (exactly the way humans still often learn) and is able to intentionally snap a picture of itself (not saying I'm sure about intention, although the apparent posing and grinning is certainly suggestive – always keeping the danger of anthropomorphisation in mind, of course), I don't see why that shouldn't be called a selfie. The issue of intention certainly affects the copyright debate, which is why that deserves mention. If it was an accidental picture (apparently there was not only a single photo), I'd call it an accidental selfie. But it is not up to us to decide this problem, and we cannot arbitrarily decide it is not a selfie. It is clearly called a selfie in the press, so it is relevant. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User: Florian above. The definition of Selfie does not mention humans anywhere. Neither is it a human concept. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been following this article since it was started. At one time, this article included a selfie of me that I took, which I included to show that the concept "selfie" could encompass concepts wider than attractive twenty something females. I am a male in my 60s. But someone, in their infinite wisdom, decided to remove my indisputably freely licensed selfie. I did not object, because I didn't want to make a point about myself. As for the macaque selfie, I do not think that this article is the proper venue to argue the complex copyright issues in article space, in order to make a point. There are reasonable arguments, pro and con, about the copyright status of this photo. And its status is clearly in dispute. I recommend keeping the image out of this article at least until its status is decided. I do not oppose text discussion of this image in the article. There are other,  better places to highlight this dispute.


 * As for whether the concept includes only humans, I will say that it clear that some sources delight in highlighting non-human examples, and our article should take note of that. But it seems clear to me that the concept originated with humans photographing themselves, and was later extended by some observers to non human animals and machines. So be it, but keep it in context, and avoid undue weight. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I Support the removal of the Monkey selfie. This article seems a bit silly and the monkey didn't intentionally take the photo. I also think the robot selfie could be taken off because that it isn't very encyclopaedic and it is what a selfie is.  NickGibson3900 Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions 09:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Agreed => remmed monkey & rover(robot) images - per talk discussion - article seems better & more encyclopedic - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that you formally declaring this RFC over? --McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not formally - nonetheless - I agree - article looks better - and more encyclopedic - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce of course - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge to self-portrait
As the article notes, a "selfie" is fundamentally a photographic self-portrait. The term "selfie" is a neologism that has recently become popular, but the practice of self-photography is obviously much older. I don't think it makes much sense to write on "selfies" separately from self-portraits, especially because the self-portrait page already discusses self-photography to some extent. That article would benefit from an increased discussion of self-photography, whereas this article would benefit from greater connections to the roots of self-portraiture (and hence also to reduce the "buzzword" factor which will make this article seem stale when the hype passes). You could question whether the idea of a "selfie" is notable at all--but I won't deny that the concept has gotten a lot of recent news coverage. It seems to me that if this page is to remain, it should report primarily on the selfie hype as a cultural phenomenon, while the elements of self-photography are better left to art-related articles. Knight of Truth (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Flexible: FWIW - at the moment, my position on the issue is flexible - however - perhaps a merge would be more timely later - after the selfie hype has clearly passed? - in the interim - improving on the "cultural phenomenon" of the selfie hype in the present article may be worthy (and always welcome) I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; although one is a subset of the other, there's clearly enough of a weight of sources to merit a detailed "selfie" article. Apart from the slightly clunky retroactive claims of various 20th century photos to have been "selfies", which we could maybe rewrite in a better context, the current article does primarily report on the modern cultural phenomenon. --McGeddon (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article reports on "selfies" primarily, not modern-day interest surrounding selfies (which is a separate topic from self-photography). For example, the technique is discussed. That, to me, makes the article seem confused in purpose. It is an article about selfies, whereas it ought to be about reporting about selfies.Knight of Truth (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "Selfies" are a cultural phenomenon driven by technological changes which merit separate treatment from the much older tradition of self-portraits.  In the same way, I would not want to see silent film merged with film, though sound film is merely a technological advance on silent film.  I do agree that this article should primarily be about the cultural phenomenon.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose comparing apples to oranges - they serve very different purposes; although they are related...Modernist (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: there is overlap in function and form, but the selfie is a unique phenomenon for its intended audience/medium, its self-contextualisation as a selfie, its unique and rapidly embraced visual code, its singular method of production/distribution as well as its use as social currency Crystal vibes (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Selfie is notable its own right, since a selfie is a specific self-portrait (only with a camera) and gets a lot of media exposure. Because of this exposure, this will always need a separate article . Frmorrison (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Introduce "Elfie"
Would like to introduce the term “Elfie”: one's photo of own shadow. Term is inspired by taking away the substance from Selfie – since shadows are substance-less. Quite similar to "elf"/"elves". And, clearly, also by the fact that people do take pictures of their own shadows quite often.

Also, propose to add the Elfie term into the Selfie page.

Ps. Reflections are also substance-less, however - wrong or right - they are already covered by the "Selfie" definition.

Traveler01 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to write about a new idea you've had. Write it up on blogs and other sites and if it catches on widely enough to get press coverage, that's the time Wikipedia should document it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Australians in 2001
The claim that the concept of the selfie "dates to a webpage created by Australians in September 2001" was added in March, sourced only to an archive.org copy of the page in question. The WP:PRIMARY source doesn't even claim to have invented the concept of taking a photo of yourself and posting it online; all we seem to have is a Wikipedia editor saying "I've found an old example and I reckon it's the oldest one, so let's say selfies date to 2001", which is original research.

IPs have reverted it back into the article a couple of times with no explanation. Is there anything more to this 2001 origin story than just one arbitrary example with no secondary sources? --McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New Picture
Hello, everybody.

I think a new picture should be added in this article, if not the leading picture at least in the bottom. This article has less pictures and the leading picture is just showing her left side of the face but not the right, so here's my picture which shows both sides, so that'd be good for demonstration. https://www.dropbox.com/s/r6py5thc38zg8ym/2014-12-15%2022.07.26.jpg?dl=0  File:Waqar_Hanif_-_Used_on_Selfie_Page.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceDignity (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The current lede image seems fine: it shows the selfie taker's outstretched arm more clearly, is framed more neatly around the subject's head, and also shows a high angle which the caption has something to say about. I'm not sure how showing both sides of a person's face would improve the reader's understanding of a selfie, but you are turning your head slightly to one side in your photo as well. I don't think the article would benefit from using both images, as the concept of a single person taking a picture of themselves can be expressed in just one image. --McGeddon (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Macaque photo
A FP: Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "A FP", but this image was discussed and removed from the article a few talk threads ago: Talk:Selfie. --McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that it has been promoted to a Featured picture, Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment. Hafspajen (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It had a rather overwhelming support, here -> Featured picture candidates/Monkey selfie. nominated it, and  promoted it. Hafspajen (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It has also an own article, isn't that putting it in a different position now? What do you think? Hafspajen (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

3D selfies
https://www.google.ca/search?q=3d+selfies&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=saXSVKi-DLSAsQTxhYDQBQ Civic Cat (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not all self portraits are selfies
I have a hard time reading that photography pioneers invented the selfie, which depends on the context of the internet and social networking to exist. I think the history section is interesting but mostly irrelevant. At the very least, could the titles under the pictures reading "First known selfie, taken by Robert Cornelius in 1839" and "Buzz Aldrin took the first EVA selfie in 1966" be removed or changed? Sharpsharpsharp (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed and edited. --McGeddon (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This distinction appears to have been forgotten again. Selfies are distinguished from Self-Portraits by the fact the autosubject can see themselves in the camera's LCD viewfinder and can adjust their look accordingly, leading to the characteristically blank, self-consciously inoffensive expression that marks out the classic selfie. 86.135.11.22 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
The article should have a proper Etymology section to understand the derivation of the word Selfie as it was derived from popular culture and not in the dictionary.--49.15.142.34 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Moscow
In July 2015, a Russian university graduate (21 years) died after falling from a bridge while she was trying to take a memorable selfie next to Moscow City financial district. The link leads to the article about the city of Moscow while it's supposed to lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_International_Business_Center -the actual financial center, also known as Moscow City.

109.110.66.133 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dick pic
Gross, yes, but considering Anthony Weiner, John Oliver/Snowden, and media coverage, it could be a section here, or even an article. I won't start it because it is revolting. Anyone? Thought? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

EWWWW!! #NO! Make that a different section that is not in the selfie page. Make a new page that is called "Dick Pic", but please, don't put it in selfie. Or put it in Selfies (disambiguation)SelfieQueen (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)SELFIE QUEEN!!

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2016
106.66.237.199 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2016 (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. No request Cannolis (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)