Talk:Goebbels children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Naming the Children[edit]

Another possible reason for giving the children names beginning with H is that it makes purchasing monogrammed towels and monogrammed luggage much simpler.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I edited the pictures again. If anyone disagrees with the edits, keep in mind that image "Voss-called-to-identify.jpg" was overlapping text, and there was a lot of white space in the bottom section. Also, the childrens sections were confusing and a bit muddled together. Cheezerman 07:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no problems here - glad to have you try to fix them up, I've been a bit frustrated trying to fix it up earlier. Looks good :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)



In the 1942 family portrait, and the yellow-tinted one, Hedde, Helga, Hilde and Holde seem to be wearing matching necklaces. Just a note. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.germaniainternational.com/images/goebbelsspecialchest31.jpg they are wearing the necklaces as well

About the edits, while I largely agreed with your changes, the recent revert restored all the parts I didn't agree with ;) I think the beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't have to go into detail about what was going on in the Battle of Berlin, because we just say Battle of Berlin and people can click for a full comprehensive context. Again, same with Fuhrerbunker. Adding a link to Magda's page on the murders does a disservice, since I think the bulk of information on their murders should be on *this* page, not hers. Also, what date Hitler killed himself is inconsequential to the Goebbels children, and *definitely* shouldn't be mentioned as a random point in the opening. If you're up for it though, I'd love it if you could find more information on the individual children. :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For some details you mention I may agree, but the main thing is (I repeat): do not leave out the main info (the murders) assuming that the reader already knows this; also, this main info belongs at the top.--Patrick 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How about if the last sentence in the top part is simply "Ultimately, the Goebbel's six children were killed as part of their parents' murder-suicide" ? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You forget the date and the method.--Patrick 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't forget it, but details go in the main section about their deaths, which is at the end. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Normally the date of death is even in the first sentence of a biography.--Patrick 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No, though often you will see "Joshua Sherurcij (1845-1906) was a...", but biographies identify who the person is which often involves mentioning their claim to fame, then work chronologically. Since we are dealing with 7 different people in this article, we can't say "The Goebbels children (1889-1901, 1875-1904, 1875-1933, 1888-1899, etcetera)", so we identify who they are, then get into giving an encyclopedic article. You're welcome to start a RfC if you're really that adamant about it, but I can pretty much assure you that nobody's going to agree that the opening sentences should be describing the Battle of Berlin, what architecture the Fuhrerbunker was built beneath, or that Hitler died on April 30th. We identify who the children are, then we build a context and chronology around what little is known of them. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
To avoid too much duplication, it is sufficient that the lead section contains the info common to all six children: date of death, murder by their mother, morphine, cyanide capsule. The most important of these are the first two, they can be put in the opening pararaph, the other two can come later in the lead section.--Patrick 10:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI[edit]

Since this article seems to have gained a few more mini-edit-disputes than usual, in its short life since I moved it from User:Sherurcij/children, I figured I'd just clear up that where things may not be definite fact coming out of the Soviet wartime propaganda, I appreciate that we carefully use words like "it was ruled to be", or "led to the conclusion", since sometimes if you trace back "Where were the autopsies done?" or "Who was called to identify them?" you'll discover there was a lot of guesswork done and history will never be certain.

On an unrelated note, I found an offhand reference saying When the bodies of Josef and Magda Goebbels were found, they were put on display and photographed from every angle, even on the autopsy table. here and Captioning one of the five, (they) observe: "Russian photograph of the autopsy of Dr. Joseph Goebbels (courtesy of 'The death of Adolf Hitler' by Lev Bezymenski, 1968). A large number of Russian doctors and medical personnel pose in the background. here ... so if anybody wants to have me forever indebted to you, finding those photographs would be great (especially if they presumably included the children). Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The photos do help to illustrate what the extremes of fanatacism can result in. As I'd mentioned elsewhere, I'd never seen these photos before but they are very much as I had imagined. How horrifying. Wyss 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Date conflict[edit]

Just a note on a sentence in the article: "As the final group including Junge and the pilot Hanna Reitsch prepared to leave the bunker, they carried letters to the outside world from those remaining". If you'll look at the bottom here, on the "Final occupants of the Führerbunker"-part, you'll see that Reitsch left the bunker on April 23rd, while we don't know when Junge left. While I realize that the sentence in question doesn't say that they left together, it suggests that they did, in my opinion. Someone might want to edit it so that it's more accurate, or dismiss my whole litte idea with a proper argument :p --Ojan 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching this. I've also changed Junge's departure date in the template from uncertain to May 1. Moreover, I believe she was in the large breakout party initially "led" by Bormann that evening. Wyss 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

"The Goebbels autopsies" were supposedly released in a book titled Der Tod von Adolf Hitler in 1982 by Lev Bezymenski...you know, if anybody wanted to get me a nice birthday gift ;) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Harald Quandt[edit]

I´ve just corrected the time of his birth again: He definitely was born in 1921, the same year when Magda married his father. To prove this, just look at his own article in Wikipedia. I´m a bit angry because I suppose to have corrected this date just some days ago, and now someone has deleted the correction again. Please let it stand this time.139.6.1.17 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Childrens' baptism[edit]

What is the relevance of noting that none of the children were baptised? Stack 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike saying "None of the children had red hair", baptism was an extremely common process in their environment, and they were notable for *not* being baptised just like we may make note if Tom Cruise had been born via a c-section (not that he is) because it's out of the ordinary. It also offers a small hint of Magda's religious persuasion, which was later used as justification for killing the children (reincarnation, etc) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Magda Goebbels's personal beliefs were, apart from Hitler-worship, but Nazi ideology was hostile to Christianity and it would have been very surprising for a senior Nazi like Goebbels to have his children baptised. Adam 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just found this which says they were baptised. If we can get confirmation, either way, I think it's worth including a citation in the article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How many Nazi leaders and officials children were not baptised? nazi ideoology was anti-Christian, just as it was anti-capitalist. But it was also pragmatic, and worked with both the church and big business.

Video[edit]

Thank you for posting a link to the video footage of the children. They were beautiful. It's sad to think that their fates, had they not been killed, would have been equally as tragic, full of pain and guilt at not knowing what their father had done. Marialadouce | parlami 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Had they not been killed they would have been captured by the Russians and never heard of again. Adam 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. --Bhadani (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
FWIW...during a lot of research into evidence on the whole family it seems clear that the children, and perhaps Magda (who was never apparently even slightly villified by the enemy press) could have gone safely to a new life in Switzerland courtesy of the Quandt family right up until the 25th April, and many in the bunker, including Hitler himself constantly urged them to do so. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the course that Josef and Magda Goebbels should have chosen, but did they realise that, at ground zero?
After that, what would have become of them, on the available evidence, probably does not bear thinking about. Raised as they were in a materially and emotionally privileged atmosphere, far away from all that is unkind in the world, even if they had survived, would they REALLY have survived that sudden plummet into an abyss of all that is worst and most barbaric in human nature? Let them be remembered as sadly as the children of Auchwitz. --Zeraeph 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

NO WAY is does David Irving's biography of Goebbels meet the requirements of WP:RS. Having just tried to use it to cross reference minor details I personally believe that, as a source, it is so confabulated, even in the smallest, most basic ways, as to be useless. There are plenty of sources (I have Meissner's bio of Magda, and some obscure translations from German sources), let's remember these lovely children with some better ones?--Zeraeph 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Should David Irving be cited as a sole source for any information in this article?--Zeraeph 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, absolutely not as David Irving has persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence see:

He has also served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial, which is a criminal offense in that country see:

In addition there are plenty of neutral and reliable sources available for use instead that unambiguously accord with WP:RS and WP:V.--Zeraeph 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I would have no problem with Irving's work being used to illustrate substantiated citations to German originals in the event that it can be clearly shown to match then, as long as it's purpose as an English language illustration is made clear.--Zeraeph 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that:

  • he has been convicted for misrepresenting history,
  • upon leaving prison he stated that he had been wrong about the Holocaust, and
  • he is clearly a polemical source,

I would exclude him. If his point of view has value, it will be represented by more reliable and clearly neutral sources.Hgilbert 13:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Comment: No. No subject in history is more extensively researched and published by generally acknowledged and respected academic historians than Hitler's Germany. There is no justification for using Irving's works. Professor marginalia 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevance[edit]

Even if David Irving's unsubtantiated account of the contents of Josef Goebbels' diaries could be considered an acceptable source I really do find the relevance of such trivia as whether Josef recorded feeling neglected in favor of the children questionable. Not least because ALL fathers feel that way at times, an even if David Irving made the whole thing up I GUARANTEE you Josef Goebbels made that exact statement more than once in his diaries.

There are other sources that go into details of the individual natures of the children and their parents' relationship with them. Meissner says a lot about it (perhaps because at least Harald was his near contemporary to the extent that he identified with quite a lot?) that I want to put in. For example Goebbels insisted on sending them to the ordinary local school, not any of the private schools he could well afford. The children were encouraged to speak and express themselves freely and ate with their parents whenever there were not guests. This was remarkably enlightened at a time when children were still, largely, expected to be "seen and not heard", particularly in the moneyed classes. By all accounts, though it may have been his only virtue, Josef was a good father, and quite often played "rough and tumble" games with them, and was accused by the young Governess "Frau K" of winding them up TOO much and trying to persuade them to be "less good". It seems possible that the children really DID have idyllic lives, not so much by the standards of the times, but by the standards of now, which is in enigmatic contrast to the Nazi Regime and their father's part in it, as well as their fearful deaths.

It seems far more important to try and present those aspects as clearly as possible than whatever vague snippets about their movements are claimed by David Irving, or anyone else. It is important to establish their material quality of life in terms of ponies and the use of a motorboat, but it is surely far more important to present the rest? --Zeraeph 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'role' of an essay arguing that Goebbels was a good/bad father, or of a graduate thesis taking on the same topic, is to focus on what evidence supports their argument, and overlook the rest. This is neither of those, it is our role to present the full picture, which means details like the ponies/motorboat, and details about them being "wound up" bu Josef. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of "arguing" it, it is a question of presenting relevant statements from valid sources for the reader to make an informed decision. To which the nature of the children and the kind of upbringing they received are more relevant than anything else. --Zeraeph 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On citations[edit]

You had the format nearly right except for one vital thing, you must always close a citation with a forward slash / thus <ref name=whatever/> or the script will blank the appearance of all the text until it next encounters <ref/>.

To establish that the diaries exist is not a citation or a reference. Personally I have not the slightest doubt that they exist, their existance is fully substantiated, what you need to substantiate is what they actually say, in a manner that can be verified. Just establishing that they exist does not do that. If you can establish that the diaries exist, even in German, and that the text OF THE DIARIES says what you are attributing to it, and there is a passage in David Irving's book that says the same thing, I personally do not see why you should not also mention the passage from David Irving as an English language illustration to the German text. I do think that as the exact text of these diaries has been contested and misreprsented so often it really is necessary to cite with volumes and page numbers, or dates so that they can be verified, as you could not possibly accurately quote or cite from such works from memory, that should be easy enough to do.

It would also be nice to have text in the citations explaining what the souces actually are in the footnotes. --Zeraeph 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the details as I came across them while reading the text, in most cases the "details" mention seasons, months or even specific dates, so if you check the diary entry for that time period, you will find the entry supports what it says. Also, citations can include page number, but typically do not. I have no problem with your including the page numbers for Meisnner, but don't claim that I have to do so, that is simply not how works are traditionally cited. I find it odd that you claim the "exact text of these diaries has been contested and misrepresented" - the books entitled "The Goebbels Diaries", by a variety of editors, do not as I understand it have any "alternate translations" that claim radically different facts - if you know of examples otherwise, again I welcome such evidence. But simply saying things like "David Irving is a liar, we should assume everything he says is a lie" is counter-productive. Irving likely believes the earth revolves around the sun, should we denounce that as a lie? The only aspects that I would worry myself over, about Irving's writings, are the parts wherein he seems to offer an understanding of history radically different than commonly accepted. That Goebbels' diaries mention Josef feeling snubbed by Magda is hardly "radical thinking", in fact it's quite apparent when you read the journals yourself that it was a common sentiment for Josef...the guy seems to have been equally insecure about Magda's feelings for him, as he was about his own feelings for her - all that he seemed certain of, on the homefront, was his enjoyment/love of his children. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but at present you are actually only quoting the diaries as presented by David Irving and not as they were written by Goebbels, which leaves them in serious question, and, some people might say, was only one step removed from guessing what was in the diaries, which really doesn't match up with WP:RS. Perhaps you should check the link I sent you ([1]) that references directly to the diaries themselves and see if you can find cross references in Irving, as I suggested? Or I can do it myself if you do not have time. If they can be cross referenced to Irving that would be a degree of substantiation. Even if Meissener could be cross referenced to Irving. Providing the page numbers in the Diaries only serves to substantiate your claims as to accuracy, presumeably you would not be quoting or citing them unless you had them to hand?
At present there is an RFC on on the status of David Irving in terms of WP:RS, perhaps you should follow protocol and discuss it there?
Also, just a tiny point, remember not to use inverted commas in the code for references(just post like this <ref name=whatever>) as it throws any references posted after it all to heck. I do realise that getting used to making inline citations is a task rather like learning to knit while wearing boxing gloves and I really think you are doing very well. --Zeraeph 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
PS Of course it might help if I had posted the interesting link to the RIGHT user talk, first try...sorry about that, it's on your talk page now. --Zeraeph 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the cite tags, it was admittedly my own stupid error that led to forgetting the slash in the tags I copy/pasted. I had the diaries on-hand when I added the information to the article, and in the future, can provide you with page numbers if you'd like - however I am not going to go re-read 1600 pages just to find the right page numbers for you. I believe Irving is only referenced once or twice, every other citation of the diaries comes from the direct (US military-approved, for the record) translation of the diaries, not Irving. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I made some truly artistic citation typos myself only minutes later.
So given that the link I have provided you with contains similar (and often more extensive and detailed, particularly in the case of propaganda appearances), unassailable information derived from the diaries, and the fact that it would be totally unreasonable to expect you to cite from 1600 pages from memory with any degree of accuracy, do you think we can leave out any mention of the diaries that cannot be otherwise verified? (What a shame you did not cite them more fully at the time...still having worn my eyes red, wearing someone else's reading glasses for two days to read the small print and cite Meissner fully I can sympathise).
I should be into the National Library in the next few weeks and will do my utmost to verify anything I can, hopefully in the original. I would appreciate the fullest details of the Us Military Approved translation you mention that you can give me to assist in this. On this one I am a very serious researcher for other reasons. My only interest (in any capacity) is to come as close to establishing the facts, as they happened, as I can.
I will be getting the Klabunde bio in the next week or so, though from what I hear it might be no more valid than David Irving, or even less so. Still, you never know, and the footnotes might be a treasure trove of other sources. --Zeraeph 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In Propaganda[edit]

I would really like to see a seperate section for the use made of the children in propaganda if you do not see a problem with that? After all the more an article is broken up the more appealling it is to readers, also, there HAS to be an actual copy of at least the "totalen Kreig" photograph, which would be, of course, a citation in itself...but I don't seem to be able to find one.

I KNOW "The approaching end" is a terrible headline but half my vocabulary seems to go on vacation whenever I work in another language, so if you can think of a better one you won't get any argument from me. Also, for the same reasons, if you can think of a better phrase than "fly on the wall" to indicate filming that the children were unaware of? --Zeraeph 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Birthdates and IDs[edit]

Moved from Talk:Goebbels children/Comments (created in error needs deleting):

Hello, in this page there is very important mistake. I tried to correct it, but my endeavour was not successfull.

Fourth child of Goebbels was Holde (Holdine Kathrin), not Hedda (Hedwig Johanna)!!!. Also their photos are mistaken (photo of Hedda is in fact photo of Holde), the information about Holde are in fact information about Hedda. Hedda was born on May, OK, but not on 1st May, but on 5th May.

In the internet there are the same mistakes. But you can find the true in books about Joseph Goebbels (even in his diaries).

Please, correct these page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.93.239 (talkcontribs)

Copied from User talk:88.101.93.239
Hiya, I see you are explaining yourself now...thing is, so far, I cannot find anything to support your assertions about the order of the children online OR in the many textbooks available to me. I wonder if you realise that Daid Irving's accounts of Goebbels Diaries are full of glaring inaccuracies (the most hilarious being the extension of the much photographed filmed and documented Lida Baarova by approximately 18 inches so that she could tower "a head and shoulders" over Goebbels in his accounts!). You obviously feel very strongly about this, and I feel very strongly about documenting these poor, lovely children accurately (not just for Wikipedia, but for my own work), so can you provide me with detail one reliable, verifiable source (not David Irving), for your opinion on this? Thanks --Zeraeph 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

--Zeraeph 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I prefer finding information in the books, not in the internet. The order of the children - Helga, Hilda, Helmuth, Holde, Hedda and Heide,I found for instance in books by Guido Knopp (book in original - Hitlers Helfer, in English it could be something like Hitler's helpers, or next book - I donť know its name in German, in English it could be something like Hitler's admirers and Marlene, it is about Magda Goebbels and about other known women in the third empire, like Leni Riefenstahl) or Anna Maria Sigmund (book in original Die Frauen der Nazis, in English it could be something like The women of Nazis). Guido Knopp and Anna Maria Sigmund are German historians. David Irvig is not veriable source for me, but in his book Joseph Goebbels, there I found the order Holde, Hedda, too. Order Holde, Hedda I found even in book by Norbert and Stephen Leberts - its only a couple of worlds in the prologue of book about Nazi children - its name in German is Denn du trägst meinen namen. I wrote about Goebbels diaries, but I meant his real diaries, not books by David Irwing - I have read one of these diaries - the diary of the year 1938. There, in this diary, he wrote about his "new" child, girl - she was born in 5th May (her name would be Herta, but in fact then her name was Hedda). Goebbels sometimes wrote about his sweet children, as he said, once - it was before the May 1938 he wrote something like, that somewhere there was even Holde with him and that she began to be a friend with him. (about 5th May as date of birth you can read also in some books above) Once by chance I found this page, there is a lot of interesting information, but I found even the wrong order of Holde and Hedda and wrong date of birth of Hedda. Wrong for me because I read something else and not only once ... .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.93.239 (talkcontribs)

I prefer information in books on this one as well and I am greedily scoping all these German language sources for future use, thank you...but it turns out that there is conclusive proof that all your sources are muddled (easy enough with all those "H" names after all). Take a look at this video, just posted (it is charming and more than compensates for being wrong after all) [2] in the first few minures, Magda plays with the smallest child (as shown on the article photos as "Heide") and calls her "Heide, Heide" repeatedly and unmistakeably. --Zeraeph 01:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And now I must sit down to a slice of crow pie User:88.101.93.239, firstly because, two days later, I am also blessed if I can see the relevance of positively identifying Heide, secondly because I came across a reference to Holde's birth that I have overlooked in Klabunde, that cross referenced to Meissner, AND, as a bonus to the actual photographs shown. However, after pouring over videos and family groups, I have to point out the possibility that Meissner (or his publishers) made an error and actually included TWO different photographs of Holde. The girls are quite distinctly different, Hedda looks like her Grandmother Auguste and little Heide, while Holde looks like Josef. Also, there is no other photograph of Hedda, however formal, where she looks so tidy and groomed...it is a puzzle...but, as it is verifiable WP:V say those are Holde and Hedda, and if anyone wishes to contest this I can email them a scan of the page. --Zeraeph 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"I refuse to believe that, David Irving is evil, there is no way that just because he has spent more time poring over WWII documents than anybody else and been through exclusive Soviet archives and made a lifetime obsession out of understanding these people that he could possibly be right about this. If Magda agrees with Irving's version of events, clearly Magda was part of the conspiracy !" Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (sarcasm, btw)

Helmut[edit]

From the newly youtubed "Goebbels Family Summer Special 1942" it is obvious that Helmut really WAS an accomplished little clown (he had me in stitches). Interesting to consider, privately, that he must have picked that up from SOMEWHERE, and the most likely "culprit" is a private father that has, thus far, not surfaced on any film I can discover (which is DEFINATELY not the same as never existing :o) ).

I would LOVE to get that aspect of Helmut into the article from a WP:RS if anybody has one? After all, this article IS about "Goebbels Children" and the more we can see about each of them AS THEY WERE the better.

Hedda (now confirmed as the seriously dishevelled imp who declaimed "Ladybird, ladybird" im Deutsche for the cameras) seems to have been QUITE a character yet we have next to nothing about her...it is a shame...--Zeraeph 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Discretion Tag on Aftermath section[edit]

That section showed bodies (one of them a burnt one), and could cause distress. Can we please put a discretion tag on there, like the one I put in May that was eventually erased? Arbiteroftruth 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

'fraid not, it was removed by an Admin [3] in accord with Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. But you are right, small as they are, two of the pictures really are unnecessary and in poor taste, one of them is quite ghastly...nobody ever has, or ever will, dispute that these poor children died, much less that their parents did, the photos add nothing to the article as a result, though I feel the identification by Voss seems tasteful and relevant.
Let's remember these poor children as they lived, not as empty corpses stripped of the sheets they were found with - that always shocks me, I would have thought it a simple, human instinct to cover a dead child up to the neck? --Zeraeph 23:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Good plan, let's also remove the ghastly images of death on Hermann Göring and Gustav Weler, they're clearly dead, why do we need photos? Let's nix the offensively crude depictions of death on crucifix and Jesus Christ as well, they're just going to offend somebody! btw, this is sarcasm, WP: Wikipedia is not censored. They are incredibely rare photographs I doubt you'll find anywhere else online, with definite historical value. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not censoring. There is a moral factor involved in this, and showing burnt dead bodies are just depraved. Arbiteroftruth 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sherurcij, what do you claim these photographs ADD to improve the article? I can see nothing at all. The children are acknowledged to have died, Magda was acknowledged to have died, no-one queries this, why do we need to see that in ghoulish detail? I am opening an RFC on this, and I have to tell you that I find myself extremelly worried by your passion for retaining them (or any other "corpse photos" you have cite on other articles). These were little children who had harmed no-one, let them sleep in dignity. --Zeraeph 10:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Superfluous photos of dead children[edit]

I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bscap007.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg are ghoulish pictures that are unnecessary and add nothing to the article at all. There remain two photos, that seem to me in better taste, a long shot of the bodies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Voss-called-to-identify.jpg being identified by Voss and a close up of Voss (which serves to establish his own identity) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VOss-Goebbels.jpg I can discern not valid reason for further "corpse photos" of these poor children. --Zeraeph 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the photos, in addition to being incredibly rare Soviet photos that don't exist elsewhere online, and being in the public domain - they are important photos that show (peaceful, unmutilated) corpses of five children, no different than many other articles. We have much more "ghoulish" images of corpses in Gustav Weler or Hermann Göring to illustrate the subject's death - the pictures in this article are idyllic if anything (not that it should matter), and a perfect example of WP: Wikipedia is not censored, which specifically says that WP does not censor images in an attempt to ensure "images are tasteful to all users". These are historical photos, and on par with Image:Goersuicide.jpg, the fact "omg, they are cute children who never hurt anybody!" is completely irrelevant from a neutral and academic standpoint. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That not actually true, the photos are readily available, I have several copies and variations myself. "Rare" is the single autopy photo of Helga that I have actually seen and utterly refuse to direct you to. Partly out of goodtaste, and partly because it may well be a fake, from the same origins as the photo of Gustav Weler.
Helmut, next to a well roasted human corpse that, though unidentifiable, is always assumed to be that of his mother is hardly in the "peaceful, unmutilated" category!
May I refer you to WP:POINT regarding your mention of WP: Wikipedia is not censored, there are plenty of photos, and death masks, of dead people that are NOT used in their bio articles as a matter of both good taste, and relevance? It seems to me the ONLY relevant consideration is whether the photos add anything to the articles, and as there is not doubt the children died, and how, and already, one, far less gruesome, longshot of the dead bodies I cannot see how they do?
The photograph of Hermann Göring, may be equally tasteless and irrelevant to the article (personally, I see no need for it, except to assert that he died peacefully and not through violence contrary to the Geneva Convention). --Zeraeph 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


These photos are historical and encyclopedic, after all this is an article about Goebbels children. Or should we delete images such as this as well? Of course not.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would DEFINATELY question the encyclopaedic character of having THREE images of the same 5 dead children on one Wikipedia article though?--Zeraeph 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
They show different things. The first shows two of them, the second shows a group, the ones you propose to keep are very far zoomed out and barely show anything. Images are used to illustrate, unless it is messing up the page or making load times horrible how is having more a bad thing? --L-- 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I am confused as to what you feel to be the encyclopaedic value of being able to look at clear closeups of any dead children, perhaps you could explain that for me? --Zeraeph 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they illustrate the subject(s) in question. In this case, that is their deaths, and also this inspection or memorial or whatever it was. How is it not encyclopedic? We are NOT censored, we should not try to act like we are. When these images help to show the subject happening, why shouldn't we use them? --L-- 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But one image I wish to retain is the only one that shows the formal identification ("whatever it was") clearly, [4] and the other clearly identifies the person making the identification [5], beyong that, what encyclopaedic purpose is served by clearer closeups of the same corpses, particularly when there is no question mark over their identity? What do they show "happening"? I seriously do not get that...incidentally, you do realise that if you click on any of the images you will see larger, clearer, versions? --Zeraeph 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and what is your objection to having them? Because a clear picture of death frightens you? Again, we are NOT censored, and you have provided NO good reason not to have them. They very clearly illustrate their subjects, and are informative. --L--
I think the onus is on you to say what you think these photos add to the encyclopaedic quality of the article, in answering that you have stated that they provide close ups, now I am asking you what particular encyclopeadic quality you feel is added to the article by the inclusion of close ups of corpses that is not already added by the long shot of formal identification? You do not seem you have provided an answer to that yet? --Zeraeph 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I found this through the related AN/I, and the RFC Link. I'd say that one or the other of Voss there, an the one of the five bodies, is sufficient. I found nothing in the section to explain why Magda's corpse next to the child's was of value, and having two of the lined up photos is redundant. This is not, as some editors are stamping feet about above, a 'censorship' matter, it's a matter of consensus to present information, not shock value. Perhaps the images can be transferred to the gallery, as they'd then be optional extra views of the incident, as presented, but I see nothing encyclopedic about 'we've got them and they're free, so let's use them', which was presented above under the guise of them being the only PD images isn't enough. PD alone doesn't confer notability, and we've exceeded, in my opinion, the balance of good reporting and imagery. I'd support, in the ideal, the five girls, which is supported by the first paragraph, and the long shot of Voss actively engaged in ID, as supported in the second para. Voss standing around at the scene isn't particularly necessary, he can be seen at his article. As for the burnt corpse, nothing in the section supports its' inclusion as I read it; not when weighed against the use of the other two images. ThuranX 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the second photo is that it is the only one containing the son, Helmut. There is one photo of the five daughters, and one photo of Helmut with Magda's charred body which he was alongside. If you can manage to squeeze all six children into a close-up photograph, then by all means, merge the two photos into one...but you can't justify leaving out the photo of one of the six subjects of the article simply because he was beside a charred corpse. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, though I could justify Voss simply as it clearly IDs him in context, which could be argued as significant to his identification of the children, not that, of course, there is any dispute about it.
I also agree that 'we've got them and they're free, so let's use them' doesn't hack it at all...after all, we have PLENTY of free things that nobody in their right minds would use on ANY article! (The mind boggles at a wider application of THAT rationale!)
I think the idea of transferring the images to the gallery may be good one? --Zeraeph 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All three pics should stay. IF all three were the very first thing that one saw in the article, then thay would be too much. As it is however, they are small and at the end where the death is discussed. The pictures aren't particualarly graphic as far as death photos go (we've got much more gruesome shots on other articles) and the reason these kids are famous at all is their death. Thus the photos are perfectlly acceptable and in fact have been in the article a long time. Just because some people are offended is not a good reason to remove them. In this context they have educational value, they show the reality of deaths much more clearly than words can and they are not excessive.pschemp | talk 02:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"The reality of death"? meaning what, exactly? That they really died, but other people don't really die? The 'reality of death' is a constant, and doesn't weigh here more than any other dead person. Also ,there are four images, not three. two of Voss, two ofthe children, one of mother and child. I still fail to see how Magda's charred corpse next to the daughter relates at all to the section it's used in, or anywhere else in the article. And why, exactly, do we need two of Voss? Especially one where he's doing nothing germaine to the topic? ThuranX 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
We could nix the close-up of Voss, though personally I consider it useful instead of just saying "see this distant shot, that's Elvis Presley meeting Saddam Hussein", if there's a little bit more 'evidence' for lack of a better word, it's like the difference between saying "Bob McDonald was a Kansas murderer charged with killing a nurse at her home" or saying "Bob McDonald was a Kansas murderer charged with killing Grace Lowry, a nurse, at her home" - it's just another layer. On the off chance it wasn't clear in the article, or you misunderstood, the second photo of Voss is him at the scene identifying the bodies, it's just a zoomed-in shot by the videographer (the scene was filmed by the Soviet army, for exactly the same reason, posterity and proof) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And what, precisely, were the Soviet Army aiming to "prove"? (Except that the children died peacefully and that the Soviets were not responsible, two facts that have never been contested by anyone and thus do not need proving in the article). The charred corpse beside them proves nothing (except that charred corpses are an unpleasant sight), it could equally be Magda Goebbels, Eva Braun, or one of the cleaning ladies for all one can tell (as was admitted at the time).
Incidentally, FYI, there was no "videographer" only a cameraman, these were still single frames from an old fashioned movie.
That's what I said, videographer=cameraman, the guy operating the videocamera. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also challenge the rationale that their deaths were the children's only notability. At the time, rather like (or maybe even more than) the British Royals, they were probably the most filmed, photographed and documented children in Nazi Germany. Beyond that, all the evidence I can discover clearly shows that in spite of whatever moral defects their father had as a politician and a husband and whatever, very serious and debilitating, health problems and dysfunction their mother suffered, even surrounded by people who earned the right to be considered the worst monsters of the 20th century, these children seem to have lived happy, healthy lives that were well documented. That goes against all logic, and, as such, may very well be an important key to unlocking the enigma of what went wrong to create Nazi Germany and the holocaust. The Goebbels children are the point at which we have to consider accepting that the Holocaust was inspired, created and administered by normal range human beings, not monsters. Until we accept that, we have learned nothing.--Zeraeph 11:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with you that they have some notability other than their deaths, but it is still the "main" thing that they are now known for, being murdered. Michael Donald has a picture of a lynched black man, Charles Whitman has photos of both the dead sniper and his mother as found by police - while the images are "gruesome", they are also historically notable. I think the purpose of the image with Magda's burnt body on the stretcher is illustrating that the children are laid out with their parents, if you can get a better screencapture showing that (while still up-close), please feel free to contribute. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it with a cold eye, I'd place the images in descending order of encyclopedic value as below:
  1. Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg. A bit too much gallows humour in the image's name (I keep hearing the tune to Ten Green Bottles in my head), but it illustrates the subjects of the article with the greatest clarity.
  2. Image:Voss-called-to-identify.jpg. Illustrates the subjects, and their mother, but at a greater distance and therefore poorer quality. Without the caption I find it difficult to ascertain that the corpses in nightshirts are actually children, unlike the previous image. Would be of less encyclopedic value if Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg is removed, as you'll be less aware of what the Russians are looking at.
  3. Image:Bscap007.jpg. Illustrates only one of the children, and Magda. If photos are to be in only one article, this should surely be on Magda Goebbels?
  4. Image:VOss-Goebbels.jpg. Doesn't illustrate anything significant. Without corpses of dead children in the shot his expression could be horror, or it could be the dodgy enchilladas he had for lunch. Useless without Image:Voss-called-to-identify.jpg to provide context, and redundant with it. Best on Hans-Erich Voss, where the existing photos used to illustrate the subject are of poorer quality than this.
That's my take on it. Therefore, if we're going to censor ourselves in the name of decency and only have one photo, I think it should be Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg. I can see no objective, encyclopedic justification for removing it and keeping any of the others. However, I think the article is perhaps better served by having the first two, and putting the others in the gallery. --DeLarge 11:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I would immediately support moving the image of Voss Image:VOss-Goebbels.jpg to his page, it is a striking portrait of the man. I like it as an "image of the reality of war" but unlike others who feel the need for same in a different sense, I do recognise such as WP:POV.
Not sure how I feel about keeping the charred corpse that is probably Magda Image:Bscap007.jpg at all, anywhere, it doesn't really demonstrate anything, except gender parity with Joseph Goebbels who's mortal remains are displayed (though if we are really going to prioritise the use of recogniseable close up shots, I think, Herr Goebbels is overdue for his, which is free, from same cine film, readily available and recogniseable - rather than the existing shot?). Curiously, whoever provided the Magda image cut Goebbels out of it, as his body was laid out on the other side of Magda. However it was intended, that could DEFINATELY be construed as WP:POV. So if they intend to insist upon retaining that image perhaps they should produce the "uncut" version?
I sincerely feel Image:Voss-called-to-identify.jpg is a better image, it show the children and both parents, as well as the formal identification, historic events, Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg just shows 5 dead children, however pretty and peaceful, and I honestly cannot concieve of a single encyclopaedic reason anyone would have for wanting, or needing to see that. Identifiable close ups would only be relevant of the identity of the children had been questioned, and it never has been, I ran an exhaustive check to be sure. --Zeraeph 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Photos: Wikipedia is not censored, true, but are we going to put every graphic photos on Wikipedia and allow this place to become a slash pic paradise? No, we can't do that. There needs to be a limit on certain things, and showing brunt bodies is beyond the limit. Arbiteroftruth 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Only one body is burnt, and it's not even what's being disputed here...the children were poisoned, and their bodies show no sign of violence or trauma at all. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Then I take it we now have concensus on removing the burned body picture? How about shifting Voss to his bio page?
As for the rest, lots of people with bios on Wiki died without visible trauma, and I am SURE post mortem pictures can be found for them, are you suggesting we should post them all? --Zeraeph 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I definitely wouldn't say we have consensus to remove the photo. On the other hand, if you wanted to use the uncropped version with Joseph, Magda and Helmut all three, I think that would be perfectly acceptable. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the photos - It is not true, that the photos "add nothing to the article at all". They add a great deal; they convey emotion (and by emotion, I do not mean shock value). In fact, I believe Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg is the most important image in the article. -- Petri Krohn 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The burnt body is unnecessary at the very least. I mean, I can live with the other pictures (I am really compromising here), but that pic with the burnt body needs to go. It is way over the top, and purely meant for shock value. Arbiteroftruth 07:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot quite understand your concern. The tragedy is in the events, not the photograps: the murders are what made the children notable. If you think the photograps of the corpses are shocking and bad taste, why do you contribute to this article in the first place? In fact, you should refraind from even reading the article.
It seems to me, that you are not really concerned about the shock value, but are pushing some hidden POV agenda. Correct me if I am wrong. -- Petri Krohn 23:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Subjectively, I cannot see a single healthy reason for anyone to feel driven to show pictures of corpses in an encyclopaedia at all, let alone the corpses of children...and I do not care who they are, or how they died. But that is just my personal, subjective feeling. --Zeraeph 00:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That view is exactly what makes you unfit to make a decision here. There are a lot of reasons to have pictures of corpses in an encyclopedia, not the lest being that there is an article called Corpse that should be illustrated. These pics have been here for years, and you are the first person to go on a rampage about them. That tells me the majority of people who have read this article are not offended mortally. NPOV is about seeing things from both sides. Since you've admitted you can only see things from one side, you should gracefully bow out of the discussion. It is impossible for you to have a neutral point of view, and you've admitted it. pschemp | talk 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Though you are entitled to your opinions, I disagree with your assessment of myself and my opinion, not least because even though, I freely admit that subjectively, I feel that posting any corpse photographs is unhealthy, objectively I have suggested retaining Image:Bscap007.jpg. I also think you might be advised to take a quick look at WP:CIVIL. --Zeraeph 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There are six children killed, only five appear in the photo of the group of bodies - the photograph with the charred corpse of Magda is the only one that shows Helmut. If you can get another photo that includes Helmut's corpse, then there's not necessarily a need for the charred Magda (or Josef) to appear in the section. However, you can't talk about the death of six children, and then only show five of them because the only close-up of Helmut happened to have the corpse of his mother in it as well. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is one of the many reasons why I suggested retaining Image:Voss-called-to-identify.jpg instead. Though, mof course Image:5-dead-goebbels.jpg is also cut down from a larger picture, perhaps it could be recut to include little Helmut? Or Image:Bscap007.jpg could be cut down to a cameo that only shows Helmut (I feel that the gravel of the Chancellery garden is of limited interest to posterity, so that it can be cut as much vertically as horizontally for balance). --Zeraeph 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The photos are an exercise in pure voyeurism. Clearly, anyone supporting their retention has never had children, or fought in a war. A lesson to be learned from the Nazis is that self-restraint is the basis for a civilised world. What you don't do is just as important as what you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanto282 (talkcontribs)

No one has learned any lessons from Nazism. Because there has been no logical consideration of what was wrong with Nazism. It is too simplistic (i.e. wrong) to simply represent it as evil and refer to the so-called Holocaust. The reality is that Nazism was simply a totalitarian political ideology - no different from Communism and Socialism. Can anyone say Hitler's political views were worse than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot's? As a person Hitler was probably a rather nicer person than those three despots - who killed more people on a per capita basis than Hitler did. The lesson of WW2 should be that such totalitarian from the left or right - or based on religion (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq) or race (Rwanda, Zimbabwe) can lead to tragedy. But back to the Goebbels children, they were innocent parties who should be respected not condemned.
(interjection - Zeraeph's comment below agrees with statement above, not this one) You may wish to read no true Scotsman to understand the logical fallacy you just presented. Regards, --DeLarge 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, when people argue that some kind of photograph of the dead children is an important historical record on this article, I cannot find an objective refutation to demand the removal of all of them, but inside myself I honestly cannot see what information the photos provide. If you do not know the children are dead, they look asleep, but the point of having the photographs is that you know they are dead, so that if you know they are dead, why do you need to look at photographs to see it, when there is, in truth, nothing new to see, nothing new to be learned, except for the voyeuristic sense of looking at dead children? That is not what Wikipedia is about.
Showing a little boy next to the gruesome burned corpse of his mother, does nothing but sicken and then diminish the impact of the boy's (apparently) gentler fate by contrast. It distorts the truth by suggesting that the boy died peacefully in his sleep whil his mother suffered some hideous torture, which simply isn't truth. Their deaths were most probably remarkably similar. --Zeraeph 13:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words. Deleting these images would be akin to deleting Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg, Image:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg or Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg from The Holocaust. It's not that the pictures are "sick and offensive", it's that the pictures illustrate the sick and offensive subjects under discussion. They serve the same purpose as pictures in any article, about any subject, and to argue against them is to argue against the value of illustrations in general. That's why you're struggling to come up with an objective rebuttal. --DeLarge 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, at a matter of fact it isn't, but then again, if you, a total stranger to me, had ANY idea of what was going on inside my head at all, that would be REALLY weird. :o)
Apart from which, personally, I would be inclined to feel that images like Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg, Image:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg or Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg perhaps should be deleted. Thos were real people, with lives and loves, hopes, dreams, ambitions, faults and failings, and to show them in such a dehumanised way is, albeit unintentionally, a serious risk of perpetuating the Nazi myth of so many people as objects to be disposed of and anaesthetising people to it. --Zeraeph 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delarge is quite correct. Further, these images are encyclopedic and will be kept. Wikipedia is not censored - see WP:CENSOR.--Strothra 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Honest edit summaries[edit]

User:Zeraeph, please refrain from using dishonest edit summaries to try and "hide" your disputed edits to the page, such as removing two photographs you personally don't like because they are of "poor children", and labelling your edit as minor and "typo". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT, it was my honest intention to include links to the pictures, not the pictures, that would be (rather bobviously) ridiculous, and, as they appeared as full sized, inappropriate to a talk page.--Zeraeph 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That edit was on the main article, not on the talk page. And how do you "honestly intend" not to label your edit as minor typo-fixing, then accidently type 'minor, typo' ? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong typo...I thought you meant this one[6], THAT one was because I accidentally "copied and pasted" rather than "cut and pasted" the remaining two photos [7] you like the remaining two photos so much you think they should be posted twice perhaps? :o)
Please stop replacing 2nd and 3rd child corpse photos against concensus while RFC is in progress. --Zeraeph 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We are discussing different edits, I am talking about you removing the photos from the main page using edit summaries like "typo" to try and mislead people watching the article into thinking you didn't make any notable changes. I have reverted what is essentially "good faith vandalism", and am still below my WP:3RR count, which you are not. Any further reverts by you in the next four hours, and you will be blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I highly suggest you wait for neutral opinion on the RfC to determine an actual consensus before attempting to remove the images again, however. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have NEVER removed those two photos from the main page with an edit summary like "typo", I used the (very honest) edit summary "that is ghoulish, unnecessary and adds nothing whatever to the article unless you claim doubts over whether either the children, or parents died" [8] the edit summery "typo" was only used to remove second copies of the remaining two photos thus [9].
More to the point, the only concensus, at present, is for REMOVING those two photos, so I do not really see why you feel it is appropriate to keep replacing them against it? It seems to me that your insistence on doing so makes this also a matter for WP:AN/I. --Zeraeph 19:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are quite wrong. There isn't a consensus to remove the pictures. And certainly now as more people are aware of the debate on ANI. Until a consensus to remove has been developed, they should stay. I personally think that these children are famous *because* of deaths, and thus the photos are appropriate. If they offend some people, too bad. Naked people offend some people too, but Wikipedia isn't her to whitewash or censor history. pschemp | talk 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, at the time of writing I was perfectly correct, also, you seem to be under a misunderstanding, I am not in any way suggesting the removal of all three photographs of the dead children, one is relevant, I just feel that the two additional graphic closeups are excessive, superfluous, and, as a personal aside, downright ghoulish. --Zeraeph 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pschemp 100%. These photos (all of them) are encyclopedic and free and should stay. --John 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images[edit]

The non-free images used on the page need examination/fixing per WP:NONFREE or they may be deleted...problems include missing sources, copyright holders, and license tags, as well as rationales for use in specific articles per WP:NFCC#10c. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the tag has been removed again, but the family photos still have source and licensing issues. I'm sorry, but this has to be fixed per WP:NFCC#10a or the images may be tagged for deletion. See WP:ICT for guidance on the licensing tags and WP:CITE#Images for specifying the source and copyright holder on the photos. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The copyright holder is actually unknown (I have the book and have gone over it with no success), but, as they were Xmas portraits can be reasonably presumed as Josef Goebbels. The family group was taken on Goebbels 45th birthday. As this is a biographical article the WP:FAIR USE aspect is clearly applicable here if it is ever applicable anywhere.--Zeraeph 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand and agree, which is why I haven't yet flagged the images for deletion - I would vastly prefer that they be fixed, if possible, rather than deleted. The guideline you cited is actually based on WP:NFCC (which is transcluded into the beginning of that guideline). Once again, the sources and copyrights have to be fixed. If this is impossible I fear the pictures will have to go. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources are clearly stated the copyrights cannot be "fixed" any further than they are short of holding a seance and citing it. WP:FAIR USE is as clear as can be, followed to the letter, and applicable here. I have no idea what further problem you could possibly have but unless you can explain something further that is physically, realistically, possible, in terms of these specific (or any similar) images, I suggest we begin the dispute resolution process asap over the status of WP:FAIR USE versus deletion. Because if these images have to be deleted then so should every single WP:FAIR USE image on Wikipedia, so let us establish a policy to that effect through dispute resolution rather than making a "special case" of these particulr images. --Zeraeph 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Images on Wikipedia have to meet not only the criteria for fair use defined by law, but also the non-free content criteria, which are more restrictive. In the guideline you cite above, see WP:NONFREE#Unacceptable images, example #9, which is "an image with an unknown or unverifiable origin". I don't think this can be resolved with talk page discussion - I'm going to list the images at IfD and will come back to provide a link to the deletion discussion when it's done. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, the IfD discussion link can be found here. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels' children[edit]

Should this article be called Goebbels' children? Kingturtle (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No -- that would mean "the children of more than one Goebbel". 91.107.142.59 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking we would have to say Goebbels's children, but the present title is perfectly clear. They were children whose surname was Goebbels, so they were the Goebbels children. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Murder[edit]

There seems to be a fallacious belief that the act of murder is something that can only be established by a court of law. However, this conclusion disregards common sense. If someone is killed by someone else - as proven in this case by autopsy - then we know that a murder occurred. We do not, however, know who committed the murder. Thus the inclusion of the children in the murder categories is entirely appropriate as long as they do not make an assertion of who murdered them. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many things in the law defy common sense, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are in the law. The article murder, to which you were good enough to refer me, says: "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification." Quite so. And who is to determine whether any given homicide contains these elements? A court or a coronial inquiry, and no-one else. All an autopsy can establish is that a homicide has taken place. That is a medical question. Whether a homicide is or is not a murder is a matter of law. Who determined that the killing of the Goebbels children was murder? You? Were you present? Do you know that Magda Goebbels exhibited malice aforethought? Do you know her state of mind at the time? Have you examined evidence in mitigation? Has she had a chance to appeal? No, no, no, no and no. Furthermore, do you know what the law was in Nazi Germany on the date the children died? I bet you don't. For all we know, Hitler may have authorised Magda Goebbels to kill them, in which case the killings were lawful (since a Fuhrer Order had the force of law). To say they were murdered in the absence of a legal determination to that effect is just your opinion, and is therefore original research under Wikipedia's rules. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
My comment wasn't to say that the law should adhere to common sense. Depending on what country's law you are referring to, I think that most Western legal systems are based upon legitimate forms of reason but that is neither here nor there. Again, the point is that if someone is killed by someone else - as proven in this case by autopsy - then we know that a murder occurred. We do not, however, know who committed the murder. Thus the inclusion of the children in the murder categories is entirely appropriate as long as they do not make an assertion of who murdered them. Your are arguing that to know a murder occurred we have to have a trial and a verdict. That's simply not the case - a murder did occur we just don't know who did it...officially by Western standards. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. You've just repeated what you said the first time without responding to my points, which doesn't advance the argument much. To repeat: An autopsy can conclude only that a homicide has occurred. But a homicide is not a murder unless a court decides that it is. There are several defences to a murder charge, even if the accused concedes responsibility for the homicide: self-defence, provocation etc. Who knows how a trial of Magda Goebbels before a German court would have turned out? You don't and nor do I. And what does "by western standards" mean? Nazi Germany did not conform to anyone's standards but its own. As I said, if Hitler told Magda Goebbels that it was OK to kill the children, then that made her actions legal under German law as it stood on that date. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to provide a citation for that before I'd even start to believe it. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote : a homicide is not a murder unless a court decides that it is.

Que ?? Sorry mate, but where on earth (Mr Toad) did you get the idea that killing cannot become Murder prior to judicial determination?

If person A kills a child with an axe, and then himself no court other than (perhaps) a Coroner's court will be called upon to adjudicate because he will never go to trial. This does not change the character of the act, his intention or the moral consequence of the crime. Neither does it prevent me forming a judgment of these facts and applying a (subjective) description. We have no hesitation in describing a girl who has been raped and strangled as a "murder victim" irrespective of whether the perpetrator is caught and tried. Similarly we speak of one's briefcase being "stolen" even if the thief is not prosecuted etc, etc. It is always open for someone to disagree with the characterization, but the existence or otherwise of a finding at law is not particularly probative. Murder is not just a legal definition, and even if using it in the technical sense there is no need for a Court finding to allow the judgment by third parties to be made. This judgment will always be determined by the moral perspective of the observer, which is perhaps the point you are trying to make.

However, even a Court is no more than a group's judgment, and as the Nuremberg controversy shows the point at which this opinion becomes law in an international context is a vague one if judging action outside the territorial sovereignty of the State's Court. The trappings of a Court, the processes and the form do not turn a subjective view into an objective one and very few lawyers would ever claim that it did so.

It is true that there is something of a legal distinction in many jurisdictions between unlawful homicides generally and the most serious subcategory of "Murder", and that in most systems the distinguishing factor is prior intent. Once again, a Court is not necessary to make this call and squabbling about the definition is in my view misguided.

I do not think that it is too controversial in the current context to describe the deliberate poisoning of a child as Murder. There may be some argument that this was the desperate act of a loving parent to shield the child from even worse trauma, (Eg, to throw a child from the window of a burning building) however my understanding is that the general consensus is that the "harm" they were being protected from was having to live in a world in which the Reich did not exist and that this act is therefore symptomatic of this regime's deranged value system. It annoys me slightly that people with very limited understanding of Law is critical of it based upon their misapprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.161.79 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Goebbels family" photo[edit]

Who is that in the background in uniform? The image almost looks like it was cut and pasted into the original photo. In fact, the whole photo looks a little faked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.139.75 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's Harald, Magda's son from her first marriage. I agree it's possible that he was added in post-processing, but it seems unlikely. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the caption for the family photo wrong, when it gives the order of daughters in the front row as Hedwig (2nd from left), Holdine (4th from left) and Heidrun (far right)? I assume the article text is correct with regard to the children's names and birth data. The girl who is 4th from left is certainly the youngest child, and should therefore be Heidrun. The correct order, then, for the complete front row should be: Helmut, Hedwig, Magda, Heidrun, Joseph, Holdine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.173.183 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Names[edit]

Perhaps it´s interesting, that the children´s second names all can be originated from their father´s pedigree:

Susanne (Helga) was named after her grandaunt Anna, the eldest sister of Katharina Goebbels, Traudel (Hilde) after her great-grandmother Gertrud Goebbels (Traudel is an abbreviation of Gertrud/Gertraud), Christian (Helmut) got the name of his grandaunt Christina (second-eldest sister of Katharina Goebbels), Kathrin (Holdine) was named after her grandmother herself, Johanna (Hedda) after her great-grandfather Johann Odenhausen, (father of Katharina Goebbels) and Elisabeth (Heide) after Joseph Goebbels´ eldest sister, who had died at age fifteen in WW I.

Nice evening, Eva -- 91.17.103.12 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting pick[edit]

Can anyone explain to me what´s the matter with this article that it is marked as "must be rewritten to meet WP standard" since September 2009? I can´t make it out from the links given in the template box. Thx, Eva. -- 91.17.104.229 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Again for Helmut:[edit]

Do we know how old he was when the "parent-teacher-meeting in a small circle" (= the talk between his father and his teacher about Helmut´s bad notes) took place? (Supposedly, you wouldn´t scold a first-former as much as a third-former in case of being up to fail promotion - not that I know how strict his father was in that point.)

Have a nice evening, Eva 87.166.198.245 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Hitler and Helga" photo[edit]

Apparently the image of Hitler with a girl was used as a postcard during the 3rd Reich; see here for a site selling the postcard. I rather doubt Hitler would have used personal images for such purposes, and I see no indication that the girl indeed is Helga Goebbels as claimed, particularly since the file page gives the immediate source as "Google". For those reasons I'll remove the image from the article. Huon (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)