# Talk:Hermann Göring

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)

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

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)

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)

How about this one? A version of this image is already in use on the German wikipedia. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa, Obenritter, Kierzek, Nick-D, Favonian, Beyond My Ken, Tuckerresearch, HangingCurve, A.S. Brown, Skjoldbro, Troy von Tempest, Dapi89, Antique Rose,  and Attilios:Emiya1980 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Antique Rose:Emiya1980 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not in favor of using that, as it says "unknown author" yet claims it was taken by armed forces personnel. Both can't be true. It's just as likely that the photo was taken by a member of the press. The source magazine is not a government publication; it's a copyright magazine published by in indelendent organization.  — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
There is an issue of the status of the one photo offered, as Diannaa mentions. Agree, not in favor of using it. Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Kierzek and Diannaa about not using this photo, as there are potential copyright issues to reconcile. --Obenritter (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to shrink the first pic, but I got reverted. Honestly, I'd argue it should be deleted altogether; it's clearly going against MOS:SANDWICH and the text is hard to read this way. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks fine on my Acer Chromebook. SWhat areyou viewing it on? — Diannaa (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I have both a vertical and horizontal monitor, but even on my horizontal monitor it's still sandwiched to the point of slight inconvenience. There will be devices and font sizes for which the sandwiching will be worse. To be clear, this is an unambiguous case of MOS:SANDWICH; the policy is designed to account for these variations. You can disagree with the policy, but it's policy.
I like the picture, I think it's informative. Shrinking it was my attempt at a compromise. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not a policy, it's part of the manual of style, which is a content guideline.I assume you are using a desktop computer running Windows?  — Diannaa (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I have both windows and mac, but I'm not sure why you're pursuing this line of reasoning as I've already addressed it before. Devices will differ, fonts will differ, we design for general audiences. The guideline (my mistake on wordchoice earlier) is meant to account for that. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Because my screen is 10 inches wide and the space between the image and the infobox is 4 inches, which seems quite adequate. I assume that the available space would be even wider on a larger screen? I will look at it when I get to work and see how it displays on a bigger monitor.  — Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
We are not supposed to specify a size using number of pixels, but rather using the coding |thumb|upright=0.75 for example to reduce an image to 75%. I have reduced to 60% as an example of what we could do.  — Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I have a big monitor here at work. I've shrunk my window for viewing the Internet to about 15" for easier readability. Logged in using Vector Legacy skin, I get 7.5" of text width between the image and the infobox using standard image setting and 8.5" when the image is shrunk to 60%. When not logged in, I get 3.5" of space for text between the image and the infobox using the default size and 4.5" when the image is shrunk to 60%. People who are not logged in are served the Vector 2022 skin, which has an automatic restriction on page width no matter how big the monitor. This is because tests have found that trying to read text on an ultra-wide monitor is difficult for most people. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@2603:8080:2400:3A80:595D:BE00:25D5:B0C6 and Emiya1980: please discuss your disagreement over the inclusion of the fighter pilot picture in the World War I section here. I have accepted the pending edit as per guidelines. While we're here, 2603, could you explain why you identified your initial edit as a restoration of a photo removed without explanation? Considering that it was your first edit and that the photo was removed six months ago, this seems interesting. Iseult Δx talk to me 05:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I restored it because I remembered it being in the article, felt it enhanced the article, and was removed from the article without explanation. I still feel its inclusion is an improvement. If the edit summary function had been used, I would have understood your rationale, and that people felt that there were too many images in that subsection. I will not restore it again if there is consensus that it should not be included. 2603:8080:2400:3A80:F52D:EB06:EDFC:11B7 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
My opinion is that the section his too small for three images. --Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree...and I even think that the article has too many images, overall. Lectonar (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I also agree.  The same section already has a video clip of him as a pilot and an image of him as the commander of JG I, so I don't think the pilot image adds much to the section or the article as a whole. - ZLEA T\C 02:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
The one with the aircraft is much more effective. Diannaa (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa et al. here that the section is currently not large enough for another photo, nor is the image at issue an improvement above the others. - \\'cԼF 05:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Diannaa+ too many images; in addition, the one put in triggering this discussion does not add to the article sufficiently to warrant its presence.  Tempting to remove it right away, but i'll won't right now in case consensus changes dramatically  ~ LindsayHello 18:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa and the others above, we do not need yet another photo, which covers the same matter and timeframe. Not-needed, redundant. Kierzek (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I've already set forth my 2 cents regarding this issue on my talk page. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Since it's been several days with no new discussion, I've gone ahead and removed the image. - ZLEA T\C 00:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there evidence that Reichsmarschall was not an honorific prefix? --Curiosity2023 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Curiosity2023 Thank you for seeking clarification on this issue that seems to recur with some regularity. The Wiki article on honorific states that it "is a title that conveys esteem, courtesy, or respect for position or rank when used in addressing or referring to a person". The MOS:HON section indicates that honorific prefixes are largely a style of address "derived from a title or position". The examples provided reinforce this idea: The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, The Honourable, His/Her Excellency, His/Her Grace, etc.
With regard to Göring,  Reichsmarschall was a newly created actual rank (or title) in the German military, outranking and superior to the previously highest rank of Generalfeldmarschall. If we were to consider it merely an honorific, then wouldn't all military ranks also be similarly considered? Reichsmarschall describes an actual rank (or "position") rather than a mere honorific style of address. In my opinion, it does not fit the definition of an honorific prefix. I welcome hearing other persons views on this question. Historybuff0105 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Historybuff0105. You have explained it factually and succinctly. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Concur with Historybuff0105 entirely here.--Obenritter (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree.  Reichsmarschall was a military rank, and is therefore no more of an honorific than "General George S. Patton" or "Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto". - ZLEA T\C 18:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Does Han van Meegeren warrant inclusion in this article? 
Rather amusing hoax story with a significant but perhaps historically minor connection to the topic. Van Meeregen was an expert Dutch art forger who sold a fake Vermeer painting to Göring, only to be prosecuted postwar in the Netherlands for having sold a national treasure to a famous Nazi. The angle was that Göring and everyone else believed he bought the genuine article; nobody knew that van Meeregen had been forging Vermeers on a grand scale. The forgery was of such high quality that van Meeregen had to paint another one in prison to convince experts that he could do it. 
Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include it. It's already covered at the article about Han van Meegeren. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it does not need inclusion herein. An amusing trivia story and already covered in a separate article, as stated. Kierzek (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Putting forward this suggestion since I think it's been long enough since the last discussion. I frankly don't buy that any image that isn't of Goering on trial "glorifies" him or whatever, but I think this one is probably a fair compromise. Once it's cropped to fit the infobox, of course.
Yes, it might not be perfect, but at least you can clearly see his face, which certainly can't be said of the current infobox image. After all, isn't that the main purpose of an infobox image? ~2025-32680-85 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

We also have File:Goering on trial (color) crop.jpg, which doesn't look very blurry when viewed at infobox size.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I think it's better than the current image.  My only concern is that it sort of makes him look like a newscaster when cropped so closely.  Perhaps it could be cropped out a bit to more clearly show the uniform of the soldier behind him, making it more clear that this is a trial. - ZLEA TǀC 00:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)