Talk:Censorship of images in the Soviet Union

message: Where is the "Davay chassy" (Давай часы) image near the Reichstag-flag paragraph? 83.7.52.59 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Davay chassy

message: {Double image stack|right|Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag with two Watchs.jpg|Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag with no Watch.jpg|200|The original photo (top) was altered (bottom) with the removal of watches on a soldier's hands.}
Should this be in this article? Airbrushing out a watch and adding smoke seem to me more like editing, than censorship, especially compared to the other examples. I will move it to the end of the article awaiting debate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it, and request another editor to delete it - it quite clearly says that the image was edited by the photographer, and no mention is made of censorship.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems that one of the bots is removing the retouched image thinking it violates copyright for some reason  Daisytheduck (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag on the Reichstag

message: The first three parts of that file show how to zoom in to a chosen area of a picture. The fourth part is a portrait of Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) made in 1929 by Isaak Brodsky (1884–1939). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a portrait its based on the actual image.  The fourth image is almost exactly the same as how Staling is portrayed in the first three.  The form of the fist, the hair, uniform etc. -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, people can still make portraits based on real photographs. The image IMO shouldn't be in the article. The phenomenon of people being airbrushed and whatnot out of photographs in the Stalin era was very real, but in this case Kirovv was consistently praised as Stalin's close comrade-in-arms (you'd have no trouble finding his image in the USSR during this time), whereas Shvernik lived throughout the Stalin period without incident as another loyal "Stalinist" like Kirov. There's an image of Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin (based on a larger image of people who were actually airbrushed out of history); sometimes the image would be shown without Kalinin, and in biographies of Stalin and whatnot sometimes even without Lenin. This wasn't because either had been damned from history (obviously), but because of an artistic decision. --Ismail (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin.jpg]]

message: IMHO this is a fake--Randroide (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And.... -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMHO this is a fake 

message: Since this article deals exclusively with doctored photos during the Stalin period, it should be retitled Censorship of images in the Soviet Union during Stalinism. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true; the Valentin Bondarenko situation occurred after Stalin's death, for example. YLee (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The previous discussion about this image seems to have ended without any resolution. The explanation of the image is incorrect, as only one person out of the 3 next to Stalin ever fell out of favor. Shvernik and Kirov were Stalinists, the former until Stalin's death and the latter widely lionized after his assassination. The image ought to be removed as it is not an example of censorship. Fischia Il Vento (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Soviet censorship with Stalin2.jpg (cont.) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The twice-noted source "Baumann 2010" does not appear to currently refer to a source, assuming it previously did. Was this source removed for a reason, and ought the sentence "Khaldei also copied smoke in the background of another photo to make the scene more dramatic" which only cites Baumann be removed? The note immediately before it is just www.mk.ru, not a specific Moskovskij Komsomolets article, and no such article appears in the references. 2601:448:C580:6D70:ADFE:BC32:8A84:2256 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baumann 2010 source 

message: On November 7, 1919, this image was snapped...
Could we see this picture in the article, please? It surely can't be subject to copyright, by now!
Nuttyskin (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  October Revolution celebration 

message: Not all image editing is censorship. The postcard example seems like a completely benign instance of editing a photo to be more clear and appropriate for a postcard. If this article was titled "Editing of images in the Soviet Union" it could make sense (though it still doesn't really seem all that notable to bother metioning), but it's hardly censorship to make a flag more legible, and to "erase" what seems to be some random pawn shop in the Russian Empire. 2001:8003:266C:CA00:344B:C3CD:B021:AF6F (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the postcard one really count as "censorship"?