Talk:Censorship of images in the Soviet Union

Davay chassy

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

Flag on the Reichstag

{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)

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)

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)

Wristwatches?

The caption specifically mentions that wristwatches were edited out of the photo, but I can't see any wristwatches in either version. If we're going to use the photos, shouldn't we use higher resolution versions which allow the alterations to be easily spotted by looking at the thumbnails? Currently, they're the only pair of photos in the article for which the changes are not obvious. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the image to highlight the watches but they might be deleted. -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image per WP:NFCC's clauses #1 and #8. According to #1, the non-free image should be removed if the article's subject can be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all. In this case, a picture with and without wristwatches adds not much to what the article says. The clause #8 says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Removal of this picture is not detrimental.
Consequently, per WP:NFCC's ## 1 and 8 the image should be removed.
Please, note that per WP policy a contested image cannot be restored until the consensus is achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is titled Censorship of images ... as in photos or pictures. Each picture is vital to the article. It is ironic that someone is trying to censor the images in the censorship article. First the image should be allowed in the article because there isn't a Free use replaceable image. Second, the wristwatch images should be allowed in the article because of WP:NFCC's clause #1, the non-free image should be removed if the article's subject can be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all. People don't understand the Reichstag section without the images. The article text can not adequately convey the concept. Users have complained on this talk page about not seeing the wristwatches. Also as per WP:NFCC's clause #8 the images are used because they significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Thus in order to fully understand the article the images must be included. -- Esemono (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:NFCC's #9 non-free images are allowed in the article namespace only, so it should be removed from the talk page.

Secondly, I don't understand what additional information does the image convey. The statement that wristwathces are seen on original photo and are absent on the modified one is quite simple and requires no additional illustration. Therefore, it is not clear for me how the readers' understanding can be significantly improved after seeing this photo. Similarly, although it would be good to have a free photo with (and without) missing cosmonaut in the previous article's section, the absence of such a photo is not detrimental.

Thirdly, I do not try to censor the image. My point is that usage of non-free images should be restricted to the cases when it is really important. The current section does not discuss this image, it simply uses its minuscule detail to demonstrate a certain point.

Fourthly, the major part of the section is simply irrelevant. It is a story of rising of the red flag over the Reichstag. If you create a separate article Rising a red banner over the Reichstag I will fully support incorporation of this image (with whristwatches) into this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then I have created the said article and moved the images there -- Esemono (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin.jpg

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)

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)

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)

IMHO this is a fake

IMHO this is a fake--Randroide (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And.... -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article title

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)

Not true; the Valentin Bondarenko situation occurred after Stalin's death, for example. YLee (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Lenin's speech.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Soviet censorship with Stalin2.jpg (cont.)

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)

I agree, I've removed it. A painting is not "censorship". Honestly most examples on the page aren't. for posterity:

An example of how the picture was altered again and again after each person fell out of favor with Joseph Stalin.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:D949:7C65:12EE:2ED6 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Soviet censorship with Stalin2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lenin's speech.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Baumann 2010 source

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)

October Revolution celebration

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)

Does the postcard one really count as "censorship"?

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)