Talk:Joseph Stalin

Survey (image)

• Randomize, per below. I'm dead serious about this. I do this all the time in games: got a situation where it really doesn't matter? Save the arguing over personal preferences (that's all this case comes down to) -- roll the dice and let them decide. We're not drones here, we can think outside the box. If you all are not willing to do that, then stare decisis I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe, but you're going to have to make your case better, and perhaps include a mock-up to look at. See § Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  • OK. You are probably right, so I will change my vote. Herostratus (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Image B solely because it's the current one, and I'm going with that on the basis of "Not broken, don't fix". Herostratus (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Image B: Out of the four, this image appears to be the most neutral (in my opinion), and thus would best comply with WP:NPOV. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• None of the above. See discussion. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak vote Image B - (Brought here from RFC/A), I think out of the selection available in this RFC, the current picture is the best choice. I do see Mathglot's point in looking through pictures on Wiki-Commons and perhaps rehashing a new vote with more pics from Commons. But, as is Image B is my vote. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Image B: this is the most neutral one and avoids propagandism. The other ones appear to have been edited to make him look better. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 00:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Image B. B is the only option here that isn't a heavily-airbrushed propaganda shot (violating neutrality). I oppose a randomization scheme, as this would violate WP:ASTONISH. — Goszei (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Notice I put up for image deletion nomination, see here. Absolutiva 09:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• B, it is the most natural and least edited looking of the choices here, so I think it is the best one to use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• B, agree with the others here, this is the least edited and most natural, the others look heavily airbrushed, especially the last 2. I see no reason to change the photo. HeyElliott (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• A due to its popularity, and resonance with the readers. I don't see how the image is related to propaganda, it's not like people will view the image and suddenly start to like Stalin based on it. Also, strongly oppose C and D, as they look strange. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• A per Wikieditor, it is the most iconic image and it should be implemented for that reason. I think C and D look cartoony, and that C could possibly be AI-upscaled or something similar. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 03:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• None of the above What is the purpose of these RfCs if their outcomes are ignored? There was an RfC on this issue in 2023, yet the photo was changed without clear consensus afterward. If anything, the image should be restored to the consensus version, which, for some reason, is not even presented as an option here. Of course, consensus can change, but this is a historical figure who has been dead for decades. One would expect consensus on such matters to be relatively stable compared to what is happening in this case. Nemov (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I added the photo you suggested as option E. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  That concensus was reached mainly because it was the strongest candidate amongst non-airbrushed photos, but it was still one with poor resolution. It made some sense that someone replaced it with another non-airbrushed photo with higher resolution once it became available. Machinarium (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Our opinions about a consensus RFC close are rather irrelevant. The status quo should restored until there's a consensus to change it. I agree with the others that whatever the conclusion is here there should be a moratorium. These RFCs waste valuable resource time. Nemov (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I won't stop you, just explaining why I think it happened. Machinarium (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Image B (i.e., current). Not sure why this needs discussing again. --Woofboy (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Moratorium, whichever image is chosen. I agree that this is getting repetitive and the potential returns of further changes are very limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• B, the strongest candidate amongst the non-edited images. An encyclopedia should try not to promote edited portraits meant to make any authoritarian leader look more handsome (that belongs in a Cult of personality). Machinarium (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• A: we should, as an encyclopedia, have a bias towards using official images whenever we can (so long as it is not the express will of the subject to do so), especially when those are most iconic and the subject is decreased. As such, A. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose C and D as both images look over-airbrushed... Some1 (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Image A It's just the iconic image of Stalin and is most suitable as a lead image. ~ HAL333 14:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• A, B or E – C and D look heavily processed and my initial thought was AI, although I assume they are just heavily processed photos. Either way, I would want an authentic and realistic-looking photo. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 19:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• B. A is a touched-up propaganda portrait, C-D have been heavily airbrushed and E is of lower image quality. Emiya1980 (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If B is deleted and therefore removed from selection, I choose E as my runner-up. While not as good as B, it is of decent quality and has not been significantly touched up to lionize Stalin like the others. Emiya1980 (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (image)

As to the how of randomizing, random.org lets you generate a random number that is kept and that other people can verify. I dunno the exact process, but can't be hard. There are other similar sites as well I think. I don't know how they ensure that the die roller doesn't roll until she gets the result she wants, but apparently there's a trick you can use with hashtags to prevent that.

As to the why of randomizing, c'mon. This should be a thing. There are so so many instances where the choices have about equal benefits, it's really just a matter of opinion (even tho both sides throw dueling WP:ALLCAPS links around to look all official and stuff), and it comes down to who wins the 5-3 vote, or the closer's opinion, or at best whoever was diligent enuff to dig up and stretch some obscure rule. This sucks, and also wastes time.

I know, I know. This is not going to fly, but basically on the basis of weak-tea arguments such as "we can't do this because we don't do this" or "we can't do this because it sounds weird" or "They wouldn't do this at the DMV, so we shouldn't" or "Due to my own lack of imagination, I cannot process this as an actually serious suggestion" or just plain "I can't get my mind around this" or whatever. I know this and so do you, or should. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm probably not. Any technical or procedural or political problems can be easily addressed I'm sure.

(Actually, for cases like this, we should maybe ask the devs to write a tool where it rotates among the pictures every n hours. Should be like five lines of code. That is so not going to happen because it'd be cool and new and fun, and we can't have that, even tho it'd be a good tool to have. That'd require a request which might be refused for good reason, so I'm not suggesting that for this immediate case.)

Let it begin here. Vote with me for randomization -- not that you will -- and let's make this a thing. It'd be a real feather in cap to be somebody who helped the Wikipedia break some new ground. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Not categorically against the idea, but no point randomizing those four cookie-cutter images; you'll never remember if the one you're seeing now is the same one you saw last time or not; they are all pretty much the same. Obviously we won't go to an outside rand source if we really want to automate it here. You can seem an example of wiki-based randomization at WP:VENAMEDREFS. The parenthetical r-value changes every time you load the page using {{rand}}. You can use the same approach to pick one of several images each time you visit the page. You could create a template with params similar to {{annotated image}} and add the {{rand}} function to it. Maybe there even is one like that already. But if not, it would be very easy to write. (Oh, even easier: just found {{random item}} which pretty much does what you need.) But then there is that wee problem of getting consensus first to display them. I imagine no one would object if you wanted to show random images on your user page (pretty sure I have seen slideshow-like presentations there, but they are not random I don't think, or maybe they are?) and use your page as a test-bed for proof-of-concept. Try fiddling with {{random item}} to pick an image pagename on your user page or sandbox, and see how it goes. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you pointing me to this (never heard of it before). Herostratus (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In this specific case, the portraits are not "about equal". For example, MOS:PORTRAIT recommends using images that face the text. This would make portrait C a less desirable option here. Antibabelic (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This whole RFC seems ripe for a SNOW close given the lop-sided responses. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Need more choices. Those four all look boringly similar: close-cropped head and shoulders shots, ready to become a postage stamp. I wouldn't call them A, B, C, and D, I would call them A¹, A², A³, and A⁴. Here are some Stalin images on Commmons. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

No random photo please, unless it's from a set of non-airbrushed neutral photos. If someone doesn't like the current one, I suggest that person tries to find another one that was not edited to make that man look more handsome and upload it to Wikimedia Commons first.Machinarium (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding copyright

Was the Abbe photo given above actually published in the 1932 issue of the NYT? The scan of the first page given at the description page shows a different photo from the same shoot. If the photo B was first published in the 2005 book given in the description, it may still be protected by copyright. I cannot personally access the full issue of the 1932 picture section of the NYT, so if anyone else can verify this it would be helpful. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 03:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Bad news: I have now found the full archive of the issue here and that photo appears nowhere in the publication. However, the following images (which are hosted on Commons) were:

• File:Joseph Stalin in 1932 (2).png
• File:Joseph_Stalin_in_1932_(1).jpg

―Howard • 🌽³³ 03:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have now opened a deletion discussion on Commons regarding the files here ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)