Talk:Samizdat

message: Mikkalai removed category:Memetics as "irrelevant", but I don't see how that is so. A samizdat publication is all about propagating ideas from person to person in a "viral" manner like a chain letter on steroids. I'm putting it back, please elabourate here if anyone wants to remove it again. Bryan 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samizdat as meme

message: I added Samizdat  to  Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR  because of this reference, which talks about organizations and people who predicted the Soviet Union would collapse:
Various essays published in samizdat in the early 1970s were on similar lines, some quite specifically predicting the end of the Soviet empire.
 p. 188
Signed:Travb 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

message: Please see Talk:Underground_press#Undeground_press_in_other_contexts.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion

message: The current and growing self-publishing scene is quite similar to the samizdat scene of the late Soviet Union.  
In the Soviet Union they wanted to disseminate what they thought and wanted. Samizdat works bypassed the censors and government owned publishers but were not all calling for the Soviets to abdicate. I remember reading that some were just to generate improvements, were full of aggessive humour, or came from the mentality 'I am not one to ask permission'. But some of it, of course, was opposing the system. 
Today the publishing industry has really narrow parameters for the authors they publish (young, academics, been on TV, famous or infamous in one way or the other), so writers who are over 40, who haven't had the good fortune of a university education, and haven't been on TV, find their works rejected. I remember reading that someone's book was rejected with the argument that he was not famous or an academic, so they could not publish his book. They did not even want to know what the book was about. Those who are aware of these parameters, don't even bother to apply and bypass the publishing industry through self-publication. 
Whether the writer is 'silenced' by the censor or the selection criteria of the publishing business comes out the same. 
Samizdat was and is outside the mainstream, uncensored, mostly the true work of that individual. 
In the Soviet Union, samizdat was handwritten, typed, or later photocopied; in today's computerized world, samizdat is typeset and available on the internet. 
'Self-published' can often sound as if it had not been good enough for a publishing house, when the criteria mentioned above are actually the decisive factors, apart from the fact that a lot more is written, than can find a home in a publishinh house.  
I think, the word samizdat should be used in English for the whole self-publishing scene. 121.209.49.104 (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic of the referenced page. KenThomas (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Beyond historic samizdat

message: The WikiLeaks reference seems inappropriate,  intended to advertize WikiLeaks.  I'm going to edit it to standard English,  then delete it,  then remove the flag I added to this page. KenThomas (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This meme has been reinserted;  it is not clear to me that it is appropriate.  I am deleting pending further discussion. KenThomas (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meme continues to be re-inserted by anon IPs.  Deleting and will request page protection if insertion continues without discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenThomas (talk • contribs) 04:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

text:  This KenThomas is blatantly anti-samizdat. Where will the censorship stop? GTFO PLS
\2602:63:C3E6:4400:DCF:952D:5F31:937C (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiLeaks references 

message: The first two sentences of the "Techniques" section is unequivocally false:
"All Soviet-produced typewriters and printing devices were officially registered, with their typographic samples collected right at the factory and stored in the government directory. Because every typewriter has micro features which are individual as much as human fingerprints, it allowed the KGB investigators to promptly identify the device which was used to type or print the text in question, and apprehend its user."
However, I'm not sure what to replace it with. I'm curious if anyone has any ideas of how to clean this article up.
ChilledTonic (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a citation. I suppose would've been even easier for KGB because of lack of competition / higher manufacturing tolerances. --PaulT2022 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Techniques" is incorrect - the stubborn myth of the soviet typewriter 

message: "Our troubles are untranslatable, it is an untranslatable play on words. <...> As writers teach us, life and language go hand in hand. I would even say it's the same. And the untranslatable play on words here is an untranslatable play on deeds. <...> We have learned to understand such things that words have nothing to do with it at all!" (Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian writer-satirist Mikhail Zhvanetsky, 1986).
Abbreviations (sometimes ugly and monstrous) were very popular in USSR. And therefore in USSR were popular abbreviated publisher names according to their specialization or geographical location: Politizdat (literally: "Politpub"), Stroyizdat ("Buildpub"), Voenizdat ("Militpub"), Lenizdat (from LENingrad), Rostovizdat (from ROSTOV-on-Don), Gidrometeoizdat ("Hydrometeopub"), Rosagropromizdat ("Rusagrarindustpub"), etc. There were few such publishers, but their books were everywhere. The name Samizdat (my literally translation: "Myselfpub") parodies this naming model. Also, in it I see irony over Soviet realities: a designation that sounds official, but under which you will find things that you cannot find in the official Soviet print. 178.187.94.129 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All this is good, but in order to add any if this to the article, you must provide reliable sources that say so. - Altenmann >talk 18:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I just wanted, as a native speaker and a resident of the designated territory, to leave data for someone's search of reliable sources for refine of the article. That's why I wrote here, and did not edit the article. 178.187.94.129 (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some explanations