Contrary to what the caption for this photo claims, that is not Robert Craft. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What is your authority for this judgment?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the person in that photo in no way resembles the late Robert Craft. Totally different face and hair style. Looks rather older than Craft actually looked at that time. Craft would have been 37 or 38 at the time of this photo and, at any rate, was noted for his boyish appearance even well into middle age (read some of the entries in Christoper Isherwood's diaries, for example). The man in this photo clearly looks older than late 30s. It looks like it could possibly be Paul Horgan, but I'm not sure if he had accompanied the Stravinskys on this trip to Finland. It should also be noted that the photo was taken from a book on the history of Finland's radio orchestras, not on Stravinsky, nor much less on Robert Craft. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the caption was made in error by the author.CurryTime7-24 (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, it is just your opinion. Well, authors do make mistakes, but on Wikipedia what matters is not truth but verifiability. People often do not look like themselves in photographs, especially when (as in the present instance) they are at the edge of the scene and in quarter-rear profile, with the tops of their heads cropped off. It seems to me that we need a more authoritative source to reject the caption provided by the author of that book.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not opinion. The man in that photo is not Robert Craft. The angle has little to do with it considering that his face and hairline are visible and clearly (especially his hair) unlike how they look in any other contemporaneous photos of the man. The fact that we're taking the word of an author who included this photo in a book that has otherwise nothing to do with Stravinsky or Craft should at least be taken into consideration. At the very least, somebody should upload a better photo than the one here. However at the end of the day, I don't care. It's mildly annoying to see this photo, yes. Robert Craft—a brilliant, if controversial musician and writer—deserves better than this sloppy job. But it's about par for the course on classical music Wikipedia and I just can't be bothered to expend more energy on this issue. Thanks for replying, though. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the most frustrating things about editing on Wikipedia is the requirement to support every claim with a reliable source. This includes opinions as well as facts and, while the reliability of sources can be challenged, doing this for published books generally will require a critical source of equal or greater reliability. For example, a book review published in a respectable journal or newspaper pointing out typos or factual errors. This is what we lack in this case. Even assuming that the identification in this photo is not mistaken, I wholeheartedly agree that Craft deserves a better photo than this one. Copyright considerations are probably the reason nothing better has surfaced so far. There is a second photo on Wikimedia Commons which is indisputably of Craft, but it has got a tag questioning its licensing status, not to mention the rather poor quality of the image.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)