This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Stalin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Should the lead sentence say "Georgian politician, political theorist and revolutionary", "Georgian revolutionary and Soviet politician and political theorist", "Soviet politician, political theorist and revolutionary", or some other option? Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot)Of the three suggested options at least, "Soviet politician, political theorist, and revolutionary" would seem to be by far the most obvious and easiest to support by the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. Stalin's background as a Georgian, while not irrelevant, is quite secondary to his notability as perhaps the single most defining figure of the soviet state and era. I can't imagine that much more than one in fifty of the (staggeringly uncountable) relevant sources, on the first occasion they describe the man and his consequence to history, choose to describe him as a "Georgian" before describing him in terms of his soviet role. Worth note, though: I feel like this is not the first time I have seen this particular debate on this particular page, and it looks as if there was a semi-stable longterm version "Georgian-born Soviet..." which would be perfectly acceptable as well. SnowRise let's rap10:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm not seeing any WP:RFCBEFORE here. I personally don't stand on that formality if the issue is something I can see coming up repeatedly without a strong consensus, but don't be surprised if you face some calls for a procedural close here. SnowRise let's rap10:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
"Georgian-Born Soviet" for everything. Stalin, similar to Hitler, wasn't born in the country which he turned out to lead. I think the execution of birth and nationality on the leader of the Reich's article is a good standard for us to set. When people think of Stalin, they think USSR, and sometimes equate the two directly. Georgian-Born Soviet acknowledges his heavy involvement in the USSR while simultaneously acknowledging his Georgian ethnicity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
You are confusing many things here. Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary, which became Austria after WW1, but he renounced his Austrian citizenship years after migrating to Germany, going for German citizenship instead. Stalin was not born in Georgia, it simply did not exist at the time. He was born in the Russian Empire which after a revolution renamed itself the Soviet Union / the USSR. Russian citizens became Soviet citizens (with the exception of lost territories) due to a change in name, not because of migration. It's therefore wrong to say Stalin wasn't born in the country he turned out to lead Machinarium (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The relevant guideline here is MOS:ETHNICITY. Stalin's Georgian origin is relatively insignificant to his life and actions. He is not famous for being a "Georgian politician", but rather for being a Soviet one. — Goldentalk17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, if I had done a search of the archives and seen the degree of previous discussion here (which to be fair, has been spread out pretty thinly across at least 16 years), I would have structured my response slightly differently. That said, it seems that "Georgian-born Soviet" was a stable version at least as recently as earlier this year. Was that the result of a consensus discussion or just something that went unchallenged for a while? I will say that in reviewing some of the previous discussion on this matter, it became nakedly transparent that a lot (not all, but plenty) of the dispute and previous input was based on a nationalistic bias by RGW/POV editors playing the blame game: no one wants to claim Stalin so much as make one nationality or the other (Russian or Georgian) claim him as the cultural result of their populations, so that all his evils and baggage can be neatly apportioned to the "correct" aggrieving society.
That said, the proper purpose under which we must now analyze the issue is one of WP:WEIGHT and pragmatics. The weight here pretty clearly militates for 'Soviet' as the dominant, and possibly exclusive, descriptor, insofar as the lead sentence is concerned. The one argument that I can think of that legitimately gives me reason to think "Georgian-born" might be appropriate is that I think that the average marginally or near-completely uninformed reader coming to this article (particularly from the regions which make heaviest use of en.WP) probably does assume Stalin was of Russian extraction. And it really doesn't hurt anything: it is accurate, afterall. The counterpoint to that is that not much is lost by delaying it a sentence or two.
Honestly, either 'Soviet' or 'Georgian-born Soviet' works, and it seems pretty clear to me that more effort is being put into changing and arguing over this than the difference really warrants, if you remove any offended national or ethnic pride and look at this in purely encyclopedic terms. So whichever the outcome this time, since we are taking the trouble to go through a formal RfC process, it should be logged at the top of the page as the standing consensus, unless another roughly comparable or larger consensus finds otherwise. In other words, possibly spare the next group of editors. SnowRise let's rap04:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that Georgian-born is reserved for those who were born Georgian citizens and then lost it while receiving other citizenship. It's not reserved for ethnicity or historic region. Hence Hitler is called Austrian-born while Napoleon is not called Corsican-born or Italian-born. Similarly Trotsky is not called Ukrainian-born or Jewish-born, but Russian-born. Stalin, his parents, and his grandparents were all born Russian citizens/subjects. It was only his great-grandparents that were born in the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti (i.e. eastern Georgia). Machinarium (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Soviet without 'Georgian', for several reasons. • I cannot find an example where ethnicity is in the lede (and certainly not lead descriptor) unless it's uniquely notable, usually for ironic reasons. Ex: Gandhi is Indian, not Gujarati. • As per the first part of Snow Rise's comment, Stalin's Georgian roots are not irrelevant but have nothing to do with his notability. Even Hamilton, whose birthplace has generally shocked American audiences of the eponymous musical, is described as 'American' instead of 'Nevisian' or 'Nevisian-American'. His birthplace owes little or nothing to his encyclopaedic importance. • As Rando notes, Stalin was never Georgian by nationality. If he been born in a country other than the one he ruled, (ex: Hitler), I could see something like 'Ethiopian-born Soviet...' or 'British-born Soviet...', but Georgia was fully integrated into his country of birth. • I think the most important point is a corollary to that: Adding 'Georgian' would be extremely confusing and potentially misleading to most readers. The ideal example is Bonar Law. He was born in Canada, so can fairly be described as Canadian. However, like Georgia with the Russian Empire, Canada was part of the British Empire at the time of his birth. Calling him a 'Canadian-born British...' is simply WP:UNDUE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Soviet Georgian, it's not disproportionate to mention Stalin's nationality in lede, this is done for many other Soviet figures on wiki. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Soviet per Last1in and MOS:CONTEXTBIO. He was not a Georgian by citizenship or nationality, and ethnicity is conventionally left out of the lead sentence per MoS. The phrase "Georgian politician" is especially misleading because he never held office in a Georgian state. "Georgian-born" implies that he was a citizen/national of Georgia at birth and later stopped being one, which isn't the case either. The current construction of "Soviet politician, political theorist and revolutionary" fits the best, including in its ordering of Stalin's roles; his career as a politician came to be the major one from a notability standpoint and overshadowed his contributions to theory and revolutionary activities. — Goszei (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment: he wasn't a Soviet revolutionary. The USSR didn't exist during the Russian Revolution. He also wasn't known as a political theorist.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you there, though technically he was a "Russian revolutionary" / "a revolutionary in the Russian Empire". But we could just call him "Bolshevik revolutionary" or "a revolutionary" rather than "Soviet revolutionary". Machinarium (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually, that is incorrect on both counts. Stalin formed his first collection of followers by teaching Marxism and his own political theories built upon that base. Next, the first recognisable soviet (a word meaning 'council') was the Ivanovsky Soviet, formed in the 1905 revolution. That's nearly a generation before the Bolsheviks and the USSR. Since he was the second great leader of the USSR, the word also works as an adjective for him as a politician and as a theorist and as a revolutionary. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I think Jack Upland has a point on the first count. The idea that "Soviet" functions in this list as a demonym (uppercase) and later to mean "in favor of power to the soviets" (lowercase) is tenuous, and I don't think most readers would take it that way. I think there's a fair case for listing Stalin as both a "Soviet politician" and "Russian revolutionary" in the lead sentence (as in our articles on Lenin and Trotsky).
As for the second count, while Stalin's contributions to the canon of Marxist theory are negligible compared to Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, etc., I think that describing him as a "political theorist" is fair considering his role in theorizing "socialism in one country" (which he expounded in late 1924 before it was expanded upon by Bukharin and became party orthodoxy) and for codifying Marxism–Leninism with works like the Short Course. There's also his article Marxism and the National Question, which the article mentions. I think there's an argument for not listing it, but I slightly favor its inclusion. — Goszei (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Soviet Russian, Georgia the country didn't exist when he was born, and shouldn't be included per MOS:ETHNICITY in the lede. He was born in the Russian Empire and it became the Soviet Union. Ortizesp (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Russian and Soviet since he was a citizen of the Russian Empire first and then the USSR when it was founded. No Georgian in first sentence per MOS:ETHNICITY. LittleJerry (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This shouldn't be up to a vote, there's clear MOS:ETHNICITY guidelines. These indicate we should go with either Soviet, or Russian-born Soviet (no, not Georgian-born, as he was not born a Georgian citizen). Since calling him Russian is apparently too sensitive, just Soviet will do (this might be even more correct anyway because the Russian Empire and the USSR were still the same sovereign country but with a different name and regime). We had added that he was born into a Georgian family in what is now Georgia in the 2nd paragraph to accommodate everyone. Machinarium (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Soviet Machinarium above said it better than I could. However, absolutely not "Russian-born", due to the connotations that carries (i.e. implying that he is ethnically Russian, which he was not), as Russian and Soviet are practically synonyms, no matter if used correctly or incorrectly. Curbon7 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Soviet (Summoned by bot) agree with others that his ethnicity was not that important and the relatively technical fact that he was first active under the Russian Empire is not that important or defining and is not adequately conveyed anyway by the term "Russian" which has several inapt implications. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Soviet in the first sentence. For the avoidance of doubt, I support mentioning his place of birth and ethnicity in the lede, the way it's done now. Alaexis¿question?11:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Soviet. I can't recall any book on Stalin as leader where him being Georgian is treated as important (the closest I can think of are dubious claims occasionally made that Stalin's background in the Caucasus made him accustomed to viewing politics in terms of blood feuds.) Not to mention that plenty of authors will note that from the mid-1930s onward he promoted Russian patriotic/nationalist themes. --Ismail (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, his favorable treatment of Georgia (such as the "Georginization" of minority areas in Georgia and Georgia getting a chunk of Chechnya after the Chechens were expelled) is often linked to his ethnicity. The treatment was relatively favorable of course, he did plenty of atrocities there too. Alaexis¿question?06:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I was going to mention that as another exception, but I figured such things rarely come up in general biographies and analyses of Stalin as leader of the USSR, and him being Georgian didn't seem to have much impact on his "all-Union" policies and personnel (e.g. no one seems to argue that the presence of Ordzhonikidze and Beria among his associates was due to favoritism toward Georgians.) --Ismail (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
infobox image (2023) #2
CLOSED
The topic of the infobox image is settled for the time being. Consensus can change of course, but not after a few days. If there are questions regarding the image please feel free to open a new discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
His infobox photo has to be without a hat as the vast majority of his depictions and photos are without one. Choose between the following ones. Of course, any other hat-less suggestions are welcome.
I'm going to boldly remove the RfC tag here: given that the prior RfC was closed yesterday, opening a second only 27 hours later is disruptive on its own; the non-neutral framing which excludes the consensus from the previous RfC from consideration would also make this an improper RfC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public Disagree: The discussion had only a few participants and I wasn't even aware of it. Regardless, Stalin with a hat is the worst choice, there are many other better options; also, a lot of the participants supported the previous photo. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
30 editors were involved in the discussion and your participation isn't required to find consensus or to close a RFC. If you believe there's something wrong with the close you can challenge it at WP:AN. Nemov (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The RfC was open for two months and had had only a single addition in the final two weeks – and that was merely agreeing with an existing summary of the state of the discussion. There was absolutely no reason to keep it open for longer. Nearly thirty participants is actually fairly substantial involvement. I'm surprised that given you care enough about the image to reopen discussion only a day after the previous discussion closed, and were involved in the previous-but-one discussion, you didn't know of the RfC, but your lack of knowledge does not in any way invalidate the result. The last time anyone but you brought up the hat issue was in September 2017; if you think that it is a problem I suggest you try to build consensus for that on this talkpage in the normal way. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy with the Tehran Conference one, the current one. This portrait represents Stalin performing his primary duty as head of state while remaining neither flattering nor unflattering, and it has a good resolution. Spacemarine10 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
SNOW Close as Unnecessary when we just finished an RfC:
His infobox photo has to be without a hat... is an opinion that appears to be unfounded. If you feel otherwise, please link the policy or guideline that you feel supports that extreme position.
The discussion had only a few participants... Twenty-eight editors posted 19.5kb of commentary, far more than most RfCs. The level of engagement and respectful dialogue was, in fact, rather extraordinary.
It appears the real reason for your objections boils down to ...and I wasn't even aware of it. This was an RfC posted correctly and prominently, with 19.5kb of discussion, and it dominated this Talk for a month and a half. Please consider the guidance at WP:OWN.
I fully support the conclusion of siroxo, the closer of the RfC. Further, I greatly respect the consensus of editors of Wikipedia. To do otherwise, as has been done by launching this section, undermines precisely what makes this encyclopaedia work. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus to use Alternative #1 v2 as the lead image for this article.
While a tally of the !vote was roughly even between current image and alternative #1, there are factors that push the consensus in one direction.
(Strength of arugment) The arguments for various iterations of alternative #1 overall had more depth both in analysis and on policy. The strongest policy argument for the current image was around reader expectation/ASTONISH, but there were sound arguments on the same grounds for #1, acting effectively as a rebuttal. The arguments about style considerations, and broadly about neutrality were strongly in favor of #1.
(A developing consensus) After Alternative #1 was cropped (called v2 and v3), and the tint removed, multiple editors voiced further support for that alternative even after initially resisting #1, shifting the consensus more towards #1. None of the editors supporting #1 prior to v2 noted supporting it specifically because of the wider crop, so I am indeed assuming that those editors will support #1 v2 as well.
(Concensus has changed) Finally, by the end of the discussion the series of new comments—except one from a blocked sock—approved of alternative #1 to some level, suggesting the consensus through the discussion had moved towards alternative #1.
An editor had some summary suggestions around a second RfC or alternatively working to build consensus around #1 v2, an opinion which had a recent "vote" of confidence. As I believe the consensus has indeed shifted towards #1 v2, I am closing as such. (non-admin closure) —siroχo05:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Once again, an argument has arisen amongst Wikipedia Users regarding what image used for the lede with no clear consensus. In order to address this issue, I have decided to open an Rfc so the issue can be resolved once and for all.
Which of the following images should be used in the infobox?
Current Image - It is clearly identifiable as Stalin thus meeting WP:ASTONISH better than the others. Alternative 1 is crisp and clear but, at least to me, just doesn't look like Stalin. I would pick it if if the current image is rejected by consensus. Alternative 2 is an odd angle and an awkward pose. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Current Image, it is the most neutral out of the 4 portraits that doesn't glorify him, as per MOS:PORTRAIT.It's also easy for readers to correctly identify him. Alternative #3 would also fit the criteria of neutrality but it has a weird side angle. Meanwhile, Alternative #2 is a propaganda portrait of Stalin from 1937 so I wouldn't support it. GodzillamanRor (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Current Image seems the most appropriate. I'd love to have a better reason than just my gut, but #1 and #1 both feel more propogandy, with #2 looking like it would be on the inside of a dust jacket. Lulfas (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1. Maybe not everyone knows this, but the current image is not appropriate at all. It's from 1950, three years before his death, but heavily edited by propagandists to make him look twenty years younger. At least Alternative#1 is what he actually looked like. Machinarium (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that prevents us from using it, as it is an official portrait, and it represents Stalin as he was presented at the time. That said, it is something we should acknowledge if there are RS references for it. The article mentions his smallpox scars being airbrushed out but not him being made to look younger. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
It should be preventing us since the airbrushing of his face has been linked to Joseph Stalin's cult of personality. And regardless of intention, it also made him look much younger. Just compare the 1943 Tehran photo with the current one from 1950 — where does he look younger? Machinarium (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The current image OK but Alternative 3 is slightly better as it is sharper. It's not a big deal either way. #1 or #2 would not be improvements although they are fine to use elsewhere in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1 - I would actually argue that this one is the most neutral of the four portraits. The current image looks airbrushed, and Alternatives #2 and #3 are in glorifying poses. HenryMP02 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1. I think there is substantial value to using a non-airbrushed photo, as even in this thread an editor remarked that Alt#1 "just doesn't look like Stalin" when in reality it is the most accurate among these (compare to Margaret Bourke-White's famous portraits of him for Life). I also think his outfit and pose have the benefits of introducing his role in the war (a major part of his legacy and image both inside and outside the USSR), as well as projecting the power he held through the photo's composition and framing. — Goszei (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Current Image or Alternative #3, both are clear technically decent and clear photos. That they may have been cleaned up isn't a reason to exclude IMO. This is how history generally records him. Pincrete (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Serious photographers know that hand-developing and hand-printing always necessitate editorial judgement as to what effect is sought - ie editing. The point at which that becomes 'dishonest' is a value-judgement. It is naive to imagine that most pictures are not edited to a greater or lesser degree, especially in pre-digital times. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
2nd Comment I don't quite understand why a vote is even relevant here when MOS:LEADIMAGE clearly states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". If we have a good alternative available to the heavily edited portraits that were part of Joseph Stalin's cult of personality then a popular vote should not even be the decisive factor. The guidelines should apply to any authoritarian leader that hired great photo editing artists (hint: the Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il_portraits were inspired by Stalin's portraits). If not, then I'd say, this being Encyclopedia, it should be mentioned underneath the image that this is an inaccurate representation from back in the day. Machinarium (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1(Brought here from RFC/A) I think we should give the most accurate representation for an Encyclopedia. That is what an encyclopedia is for. Preserving historic information, not altered. You could have a photo of Stalin that was retouched, but it would have to be labeled as such.
Current Image or Alternative 3 are both viable options in my view, however I would advocate for Alternative 3 as the resolution is much higher. Alternative #1 is not as clearly recognisable as Stalin, and Alternative #2 seems to me like propoganda. Timceharris (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Current Image because in my view it is the highest quality image that isn't in profile. If Alternative #3 wasn't in profile then I might choose that. TarnishedPathtalk11:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
For those not yet familiar with the amount of editing, here's a comparison of a famous photo of Stalin with Lenin at Gorki in 1922 — one an original the other edited (see here[1] how it appeared in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1947). And here[2] you can see another example of an original vs edited photo of Stalin. I'll also add a genuine photo of Stalin at the Potsdam Conference in 1945 that shows, in contrary to what the Current Image suggests, he WAS capable of ageing. Machinarium (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand your points about the editing of the photos, but I just don't think they are decisive... or even persuasive in this case. The photo that currently stands in the infobox is clearly recognisable as Stalin. It is neither unnatural nor inappropriate, just touched up to give a certain look. If we don't use retouched photos, we need to scrap every actor's headshot from the Studio Era (and half the modern ones). Most 'official' photos of heads of state before the invention of concealer and Botox would probably have to go as well. Just looking at an article for a wannabe tyrant from my own lifetime, I can assure you that the Iron Witch didn't have that flawless complexion IRL. I think the status quo in this article is the best option so far presented. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a difference between, say slight retouching of brightness and shadows, and significantly changing someone's look, which in this case was part of Joseph Stalin's cult of personality which prohibited his imperfections from being seen by the public. And for Stalin we DO have plenty unedited photos of the man that follow the MOS:LEADIMAGE guideline on "natural representations". As for historic figures, his contemporaries Roosevelt and Churchill currently have lead images that do appear natural. Machinarium (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1 v2 (Tehran 1943)
I've made a new version of the Alternative #1 image with the tint removed and a larger crop, maybe it will persuade anyone to change vote (probably not).
As for the "Current image", I've been suspecting the given date of 1950 is wrong because editing in the big dark mustache, which had by then long lost its colour, seems too much even for the Soviets. Indeed, according to Alamy the photo is from "about 1942"[3]. Nevertheless, if you compare with for example the Tehran 1943 photo (i.e. just 1 year later) you still notice the mustache has either been edited or the photo is from much earlier than 1942.Machinarium (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment Each one has its own shortcomings. The current image is blurry and heavily retouched. In #1 he is naturally aged but less recognizable and dressed in uniform. #2 shows him in "character". #3 shows only the left or right side of his face. Senorangel (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #2. This comes from a photo from a newspaper. It is not a propaganda image. It shows his deformed arm and habit of smoking.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I've slightly edited the image uploaded by Machinarium. It's the same except for the fact that the contrast has been increased and the image has been cropped. The most significant difference is that Stalin occupies a noticeably more prominent position within the frame. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1 v2 and Alternative #1 v3 are both good crops of a good photograph and I think address all of the concerns listed by other editors. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Following the editing of the photo, I think that Alternative #1 v2 is the best. It is a clearly recognisable photo of Stalin taken in a natural setting, and I cannot think of any issues with its use. Timceharris (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #1 is, I believe, the most appropriate. It is the least modified, most accurate portrayal, and it is not a propaganda shot. nf utvol (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
nf utvol, Alternative 1 and both v2 and v3 (to the right and above) are all three crops of an original image, so none of them are particularly 'more modied' than the others. Of the three, are you saying that you prefer the look of the original Alt 1, or does the fact that it, too, is cropped make you lean to one of the versions that is more of a headshot? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I actually would prefer v3, cropped, but any of the Alt 1s are better than the others simply due to the lack of substantial post editing. nf utvol (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative #3 I quite like Alt 3. I think even as a side profile, it is quite a good image (certainly the best resolution to quality ratio). Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative 1 is a good natural shot. It doesn't have the editing baggage that the current image has. MOS:LEADIMAGE states that "lead images should be natural" and that "lead images should be of least shock value". I'm not necessarily saying that the current image is shocking, but Alternative 1 feels the least "shocking" to me. It is still clearly Stalin. It might not be what some may "expect to see" immediately, but I don't think a lack of dark hair and mustache is enough to say that Alternative 1 would surprise anyone. I do think it would look better without the tint, as has been done above. Kerdooskis (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Alternative 1As stated by some above, this does look and feel the most natural and least controversial, which are important to keep in mind based on MOS:LEADIMAGE. It's also arguably the best quality picture. Writethisway (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Current image or Alternative 1. I see the arguments for both and would like to give my vote to consensus. I appreciate that current image is the best representation of Stalin as he is known and that Alternative 1 is the most neutral, but not as close-up. But numbers 2 and 3 are clear outliers and not in-line with best practices for WP biography lead images. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Summary - In the six weeks this has been open, alternates #2 and #3 each got one !vote, so we can probably eliminate them. The current image and alternate #1 are precisely tied, with 12 !votes each (plus a half since we have someone split between those two options), but the latter is ambiguous. Editors are splits on which crop (or no cropping at all) is best. I suggest that we ask for this RfC to be closed, and post a new one with this choice: Current Image, Alternate 1.0 (full Tehran) and Alternate 1.2 (cropped Tehran version 2, which got a couple more votes than v3).
As another alternative (all puns intended), we could work to build consensus specifically around Alt 1.2. It is a very strong option, especially for those swayed by Machinarium's assertion that 'images should be natural' excludes touched-up photos. I would support that image. Thoughts? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A
B
C.jpg)
.jpg)
Current image
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Alternative #3
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/rbthmedia/images/2020.07/original/5f1fd72385600a1fd927af08.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
