Talk:Hermann Göring

Role in the Reichstag

This article contains nothing about Goering's position as Speaker of the Reichstag -- and HHitler's apparent fear of his control of the Party.

Nor is there anything about his personal cruelty to the left members of the Reichstag after they had been thrown into the camps.

-dlj. User talk:DavidLJ [1]

Ex post facto laws

I have a technical question about the Nuremberg trials: since the atrocities committed by the Germans had occurred before the laws were written forbidding such heinous political crimes how did the Nuremberg court justify finding the Nazis as guilty? 75.4.34.74 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources on this subject. Have a look at the trials article for some pointers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So the trials were recognized as a Kangaroo Court; the Russki judge Iona Nikichenko should have been put on trial himself for crimes against humanity. Churchill wanted Bills of Attainder to just shoot Nazi war criminals without a trial. Interesting stuff. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM (Hohum ^@) 00:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

how about having some common sense? just because no lawmaker on earth thought that one day would exist monsters willing to do such crimes they should be left free?

common now GeorgeMarg (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Main Photo

War criminals should not have glorified military photos as main photo. A picture of Goring on trial is more fitting for his crimes against humanity which he was found guilty of at Nuremberg trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthehistory (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in, properly referenced, and large enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the text." The picture of Göring is all of those. It isn't glorifying him or any other Nazi; it is simply a picture used in the Infobox. There's no reason to replace it. Whilst his actions were indeed abhorrent, Wikipedia isn't a place for moral grandstanding.ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

By your logic, why is the military photo the standard bearer for him? I would argue you are showing the Nazi viewpoint of how great he looks in a military uniform representing the Nazis? Why not look at the potential victim viewpoint that he is man that committed terrible crimes and was put on trial for this - albeit not enough justice that came too late. Iamthehistory (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the photo in the infobox is to identify the subject of the article, not to right great wrongs or to present a particular point of view. Nazis, including the top brass as well as the rank and file and military, wore their uniforms virtually all the time. So photos of them in uniform are probably better for identification purposes than ones with civilian clothes.— Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Diannaa as to her reasoning in relation to the main photo. And, he is not "let off the hook". The article makes clear his war crimes and the photo of his corpse, post suicide (to avoid his sentence to death by hanging) is shown in the last section of the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that the photo or more likely the negative was painted over. Take a close look at the ears and the hair quiff. --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

He didn't look much like that in 1945, the purported date of the photo. Time to swap it out? I suggest the trial photo File:Hermann Goering - Nuremberg2.jpg. Comments? Other suggestions?— Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

He looked more like this in 1945.

• Agree w/ the trial photo; Göring looks more like a real person, vs a propaganda icon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, infobox / recognition images shouldn't have an obscured face. There is no specific requirement for it to look like he did in 1945, just that it's a good rendition that people will recognise. (Hohum ^@) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just flicked through his commons images. The current picture is the only one I see of high quality, where his face isn't at least partially obscured, where on looking at it, he's instantly recognisable. The retouching isn't ideal, although it seems relatively minor. (Hohum ^@) 23:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My comment was more intended to acknowledge that the current photo is indeed heavily retouched and therefore might not be the best option for the infobox. And I'm not entirely sure it was taken in 1945.— Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I found a version without overpainting, on which however the Pour le Mérite is only half visible. Is this version also in the public domain? I do not know the death year of Robert Röhr. --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Actuially I am not particularly satisfied regarding the sourcing on the copy of the image we already have, as the source url does not mention Goering or the purported photographer, Robert Röhr. So I don't think your version is a good choice as we can't prove its copyright status.— Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You can access the precise source URL by clicking on the link next to "Signature". The photographer is misspelled as "Rohr". Göring is likewise misspelled as "Goring". --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Regardless, I don't think we will be using that image, as the consensus so far is to use the trial photo.— Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we then move the title image to an appropriate section in the article, perhaps to whichever part mentions his promotion to Reichsmarschall? SuperWIKI (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have space. There's already so many images in this article.— Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally fail to see how any of this makes sense. The previous photo (the one at the time of this discussion) was perfectly fine and as mentioned clearly met the criteria for an infobox image. The current image as was proposed here is both poor quality with its blurriness and with Goering's face obscured. This seems very inconsistent with the other articles of prominent Nazi war criminals. What about Eichmann's infobox image? Applying this logic, Eichmann's infobox image also glorifies the man and should be replaced with an image of him during his 1961 trial in Israel. It was an image that clearly showed Goering, regardless of whether it was a propaganda photo as again that could also be applied to most prominent Nazis on Wikipedia including Hitler's infobox photo. 85.255.234.80 (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of the September 2021 discussion about the Eichmann infobox was to use the military photo. There's no reason to make all the articles the same - different consensus can exist on articles in this group, and that's okay. You can view previous image discussions about this article in Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1. We are limited to freely licensed public domain images only, and there's not a lot of choices. The problem is with Göring's images that many are too blurry, too hagiographic, been altered by adding thicker hair, too young, etc.— Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand how one would rather have the current image replace the previous. The new one is horrendous, with half his face covered and is from an angle among other things. It seems that you are being biased with the argument that because he was a war criminal that he should not have his portrait be shown even though that image is of higher quality in ever respect. May as well remove Hitler’s portrait from the main page and replace it with some garbage image taken from an odd angle w/ half his face covered with that irrational logic. Just because someone is a war criminal doesn’t mean they should have a shittier portrait be displayed, at that point you’re removing the neutrality of this article and using your own bias to judge what should be displayed. It’s irrelevant what someone did in the past when the main objective of the infobox image is to display the clearest possible image of one so that they can be more easily identifiable, not that it display some image based on their actions and reputation. You’re argument is horrendous and contains the fatal flaw of it being biased. This idea to change the image due to your personal beliefs and emotions of his actions highlights your incompetency at its worst. Sorry, but it had to be said. Fluffy89502 (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You may as well replace Trump’s image with some shittier image if you believe that he was a horrible person with your logic. See the problem? Where do you set the boundary of who deserves a better image than someone else, and it seems that most people in this discussion seem to agree that the reasoning to replace his photo w/ the Nuremberg photo was an idiotic move. Fluffy89502 (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, unbiased presentation has never been Wikipedia speciality. 77.130.108.223 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the original photo provided a much better quality image of the subject.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the "original" photo? The trial photo is the one that was in the infobox when the article passed WP:GA :) — Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The trial photo should be restored; it was picked by consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored it.— Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: @K.e.coffman: What consensus? Based on the above thread, only two users have come out firmly in favor of the current image. In order to reach a true consensus on the subject, I think an Rfc is in order.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please consider reviewing the previous discussions and suggestions from the archives:Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1#Image change; Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1#Image option; Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1#Yet another image proposal. You did participate in those discussions. Consensus at that time was to use the trial photo. You are welcome to open an RFC obviously, if you think consensus has changed. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I'm not sure there is a clear consensus for the image change, as you're referring to multiple discussions, going back almost five years and almost all archived. There are different people commenting at different times, and there are different images suggested in different discussions. It's good that you have suggested an RfC on the issue, but it would've been better to actually have an RfC before any change was made. (jmho) - wolf 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to open an RFC if you think consensus has changed. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the trial photo is an excellent portrait. I think the hand-wringing over his pose and our inability to see part of his chin is a little tendentious. I acknowledge that the sensitivity of the subject foregrounds pov issues, but I think the trial photo can be justified over the full dress photo simply on its merits as a photograph, without resorting to moral claims about our duty to frame Göring as a criminal rather than a hero. Regulov (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Thule Society members

This category should be removed from the article. Firstly, the Thule Society is not even mentioned in the text. Secondly, no historian has yet provided evidence for his membership (Thule_Society#Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei). --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)  Done --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting image

[2] could be uploaded and used in the article (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthwhile - it tells us nothing— Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Diannaa, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

date of marriage

Hello,

According to the Carin Göring page: "She was divorced from von Kantzow in December 1922 and married Göring on 3 January 1923." According to the Hermann Göring page: "Carin obtained a divorce, followed Göring to Munich, and married him on 3 February 1922."

Which date is correct? Thanks

Stijn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stijn74 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

3 February 1922. The source cited in Carin's article does not actually give a date for the wedding.— Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding the main infobox picture

Hi, everyone. There was recently some discussion regarding the article's infobox pic. Do you think the main infobox picture should be changed? Here is an example:

Thank you all! Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your RFC is malformed in a couple of ways. Your RFC should be in the form of a question, and should be neutrally worded. That's not the case here, since you've specified your preference for a military photo instead of posing a neutrally worded question. And you haven't specified a specific photo you think should be in the infobox.— Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What Diannaa said. This si not a proper WP:RFC, so I've commented out the RfC tag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed it. Thanks for the guidance. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your RFC is still flawed, because your question is not neutrally worded, and is designed to sway the user in favor of the new image. I have commented out the RFC template. — Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's try this again...Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• No - (Summoned by bot) Keep as is. I see no reason to replace the infobox's current image. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - In nearly every other article on senior Nazi members, they are shown in their respective uniforms. Göring with a sour face in a suit is the odd man out. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. The photo suggested here shows his face more visibly without his hand obscuring part of it, and is overall of higher quality. If there were a photo of this quality from his time during the trial, that should be considered too, but absent that the better and clearer photo should be used. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes It shows his full face and shows him "on the job." (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) The current photo is fine. It shows him on trial for his crimes, not resplendent in the uniform he wore while he committed the crimes for which he was executed. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• No Keep as is; the suggested photo is from 1934, before the majority of events in the article took place, and thus does not strike me as being very representative of Göring's historical impact.— Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I have posted a notification at WT:WikiProject Military history.— Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes but not the suggested one. If showing any role, should one that he is most noted for, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Abstain(Summoned by bot). Goering´s life has many facets, which no single photo can capture. What photo could possibly be "representative of Göring's historical impact"? Göring as the founder of the huge Reichswerke Hermann Göring, the man behind the Reichstagsbrand , or rather him ordering Heydrich to prepare the Final Solution, the Holocaust, ....? I think that there are so many photos of him on the page that it doesnt matter what particular photo is in the infobox. The current one is fine, the suggested one is fine. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes / Support change - more than anything else, Göring is known as a top Nazi officer and the infobox photo should align with that. (I have more reasons, but you'd have to have seen Inglourious Basterds to understand them.) - wolf 22:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to clarify this. Basically, the courtroom image tells us nothing. Can't even tell this in a court. And placing that image in the infobox places importance on the fact that he was in court, facing... some sort of justice(?) And no longer in uniform could be seen as being no longer a Nazi, and everything evil that being a Nazi represented. Since there's no images with a Swastika carved in his forehead, I believe that an image of him in uniform, in the infobox, helps to clearly summarize the most important aspect of who, and what, he was, in the most appropriate place in the article to so. (That's the gist of it.) - wolf 01:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• No - Should be left as is. We have been through all this, as recent as the end of 2021. The current photo in the infobox does its job; it identifies the subject of the article. No reason to change it. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• No: (Summoned by bot) The suggested image is far lower resolution than the trial photo and the trial photo adequately identifies the subject (his hand being placed over his chin definitely doesn't outweigh the bad quality of this replacement image). Alduin2000 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• No. I am baffled that some editors think the trial photograph is "low quality", apparently because we are unable to make out at a glance whether or not he had a cleft chin. It is a better portrait than the uniform picture, a better photo, and a higher-resolution file. It's one thing to insist on the regalia; it is true that most of our Nazi biographies have brass-and-ribbon photos in the infobox. But the proposed shot of Göring is crummy. It's a low-resolution crop. Anyway, I'm not convinced we need the uniform. Nazis also looked like this; in fact, isn't this perhaps the apotheosis of the Nazi? A war criminal in defeat, soon to commit ignominious suicide. Regulov (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• No I really like the current photo: it's visually arresting, shows what he looked like and doesn't glamorise him. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• No Essentially per Alduin2000...and as this has been brought up: he isn't "more than anything else known as a top-Nazi officer". All these photos of other Nazi Grandes in uniforms...well, there is a reason they wanted to be shown in uniform, even at the times. Lectonar (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I LOVE the current picture, but I think that someone who has no idea or a very small idea of who Göring is (or was, rather) would get a better idea of the man from a uniformed picture than from a frumpy courtroom picture. I'm just thinking of being as general as possible, i.e. high ranking Nazi, at the beginning of the article and then getting more specific, i.e. explanations as to why he might be sitting in a courtroom looking so dour. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• No Keep trial photograph if it is a choice between that and the proposed one, which just shows a man in a unuform. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• No per Alduin2000 mostly. The uniform pic (and others I've seen) are lower quality than the trial photo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• No Changing it to the new picture will not enhance or improve the biography page. Therefore, abstain from the edit.Writethisway (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• YesPerfectly suitable pic, German WW2 officers need to be shown in uniform to link them to what they were most known for, their dubious role in WW2. Also, as others have noted, this shows his face clearly, in the other one his face is obscured. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) current photograph is perfectly fine. This is an encyclopedia article about a convicted war criminal who was sentenced to death for his crimes, not a Luftwaffe fan page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• No No, because as stated above showing him in the courtroom is suitable. We do not need to glorify Göring. Existing photo is ok as it is.MraClean (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• No The current photo appears to be higher quality to me. Furthermore, I do think that we should pay a little more attention to the POV of photos, and the suggested alternative photo seems pretty clearly to be taken from a Nazi POV, which we should definitely not be elevating. Loki (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• No -- keep as is; better reflects the subject's entire career. Besides, Göring looks more like a real person, vs a propaganda icon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Current photo is shit. Either use the above photograph or File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg because they do a good job at conveying what he looked like. Current photo has him covering his face from an awkward angle. The point of the photograph is to easily display to others what such person looked like. So what if it was used in propaganda. Also, you may as well argue that the portrait of FDR is "glorifying him;" the problem is that its all subjective. The infobox photograph is not there for people to say "oh, he did something horrible in the past, so he deserves a shit photograph." That's what the rest of the article is for. What about Hitler's or Stalin's infobox photographs? Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes — The recent Talk:Adolf_Eichmann#RFC: Lead image concluded with "Those in favor of the older photo say he should be represented by a picture wearing his uniform of the Nazi regime, not only because they believe he is most well known for the part he played in the holocaust (the reason he ended up in trial), but also because it helps the reader quickly identify the subject's place in history." I think the same can be said of Göring MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Although I can think of better replacement photos. The problem with the current photo is (among several things): not showing him in uniform and he is too lean in this photo. Goring spent most of his adult life as quite heavy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• What about this image as an alternative for the infobox? Unlike the one currently being used on the article, it provides a clear view of Hermann Göring face. It is also much less blurry and out of focus than the current alternative under discussion (i.e. the photo showing Göring in uniform). Furthermore, unlike previous infobox pictures that have since been rejected, it is a photo of the man as he appeared in real-life with no signs of being airbrushed for propaganda purposes. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  The image might not be in the public domain. So no, we should not use that one. — Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Alternative Image Proposal

Voice file?

Would it be appropriate to include a voice file for Göring? If so could someone of whom is smarter at wikipedia put a voice file on this page? 166.181.249.17 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

When I saw mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up”

did this happen ? 3MRB1 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Radio broadcast - Keep or remove?

I have removed content about a broadcast by Göring that was interrupted by noise from the RAF. I don't think this incident is important enough to include here, and tells us nothing about Göring. If it had been present when we applied for Good Article status, the reviewer likely would have asked for its removal. Discussion welcome. — Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Diannaa. The incident is, in and of itself, amusing, and would certainly spice up a TV documentary on Goring, but it really doesn't have anything to say about the man, and could have happened to any of the Nazi's top leaders, if they were scheduled to speak at that moment. It might be acceptable as a footnote, but not in the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal, per above. Kierzek (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kierzek This is the first allied attack on berlin...3MRB1 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• 3MRB1, that does not make the broadcast interruption in itself noteworthy. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kierzek it was an attack on the broadcast itself 3MRB1 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)