Talk:Hermann Göring

message: I have a technical question about the Nuremberg trials:  since the atrocities committed by the Germans had occurred before the laws were written forbidding such heinous political crimes how did the Nuremberg court justify finding the Nazis as guilty?  75.4.34.74 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of reliable sources on this subject. Have a look at the trials article for some pointers. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  So the trials were recognized as a Kangaroo Court; the Russki judge Iona Nikichenko should have been put on trial himself for crimes against humanity.  Churchill wanted Bills of Attainder to just shoot Nazi war criminals without a trial.  Interesting stuff.  75.4.34.74 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM (Hohum @) 00:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: how about having some common sense? just because no lawmaker on earth thought that one day would exist monsters willing to do such crimes they should be left free?
common now GeorgeMarg (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex post facto laws 

message: War criminals should not have glorified military photos as main photo. A picture of Goring on trial is more fitting for his crimes against humanity which he was found guilty of at Nuremberg trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthehistory (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in, properly referenced, and large enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the text." The picture of Göring is all of those. It isn't glorifying him or any other Nazi; it is simply a picture used in the Infobox. There's no reason to replace it. Whilst his actions were indeed abhorrent, Wikipedia isn't a place for moral grandstanding.ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By your logic, why is the military photo the standard bearer for him? I would argue you are showing the Nazi viewpoint of how great he looks in a military uniform representing the Nazis? Why not look at the potential victim viewpoint that he is man that committed terrible crimes and was put on trial for this - albeit not enough justice that came too late. Iamthehistory (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of the photo in the infobox is to identify the subject of the article, not to right great wrongs or to present a particular point of view. Nazis, including the top brass as well as the rank and file and military, wore their uniforms virtually all the time. So photos of them in uniform are probably better for identification purposes than ones with civilian clothes.— Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Diannaa as to her reasoning in relation to the main photo. And, he is not "let off the hook". The article makes clear his war crimes and the photo of his corpse, post suicide (to avoid his sentence to death by hanging) is shown in the last section of the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I noticed that the photo or more likely the negative was painted over. Take a close look at the ears and the hair quiff. --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't look much like that in 1945, the purported date of the photo. Time to swap it out? I suggest the trial photo :File:Hermann Goering - Nuremberg2.jpg. Comments? Other suggestions?— Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Ideally, infobox / recognition images shouldn't have an obscured face. There is no specific requirement for it to look like he did in 1945, just that it's a good rendition that people will recognise. (Hohum @) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just flicked through his commons images. The current picture is the only one I see of high quality, where his face isn't at least partially obscured, where on looking at it, he's instantly recognisable. The retouching isn't ideal, although it seems relatively minor. (Hohum @) 23:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

text: I found a version without overpainting, on which however the Pour le Mérite is only half visible. Is this version also in the public domain? I do not know the death year of Robert Röhr. --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actuially I am not particularly satisfied regarding the sourcing on the copy of the image we already have, as the source url does not mention Goering or the purported photographer, Robert Röhr. So I don't think your version is a good choice as we can't prove its copyright status.— Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You can access the precise source URL by clicking on the link next to "Signature". The photographer is misspelled as "Rohr". Göring is likewise misspelled as "Goring". --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see it now. Regardless, I don't think we will be using that image, as the consensus so far is to use the trial photo.— Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we then move the title image to an appropriate section in the article, perhaps to whichever part mentions his promotion to Reichsmarschall? SuperWIKI (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we have space. There's already so many images in this article.— Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I personally fail to see how any of this makes sense. The previous photo (the one at the time of this discussion) was perfectly fine and as mentioned clearly met the criteria for an infobox image. The current image as was proposed here is both poor quality with its blurriness and with Goering's face obscured. This seems very inconsistent with the other articles of prominent Nazi war criminals. What about Eichmann's infobox image? Applying this logic, Eichmann's infobox image also glorifies the man and should be replaced with an image of him during his 1961 trial in Israel. It was an image that clearly showed Goering, regardless of whether it was a propaganda photo as again that could also be applied to most prominent Nazis on Wikipedia including Hitler's infobox photo. 85.255.234.80 (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus of the September 2021 discussion about the Eichmann infobox was to use the military photo. There's no reason to make all the articles the same - different consensus can exist on articles in this group, and that's okay. You can view previous image discussions about this article in Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1. We are limited to freely licensed public domain images only, and there's not a lot of choices. The problem is with Göring's images that many are too blurry, too hagiographic, been altered by adding thicker hair, too young, etc.— Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I honestly do not understand how one would rather have the current image replace the previous. The new one is horrendous, with half his face covered and is from an angle among other things. It seems that you are being biased with the argument that because he was a war criminal that he should not have his portrait be shown even though that image is of higher quality in ever respect. May as well remove Hitler’s portrait from the main page and replace it with some garbage image taken from an odd angle w/ half his face covered with that irrational logic. Just because someone is a war criminal doesn’t mean they should have a shittier portrait be displayed, at that point you’re removing the neutrality of this article and using your own bias to judge what should be displayed. It’s irrelevant what someone did in the past when the main objective of the infobox image is to display the clearest possible image of one so that they can be more easily identifiable, not that it display some image based on their actions and reputation. You’re argument is horrendous and contains the fatal flaw of it being biased. This idea to change the image due to your personal beliefs and emotions of his actions highlights your incompetency at its worst. Sorry, but it had to be said. Fluffy89502 (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may as well replace Trump’s image with some shittier image if you believe that he was a horrible person with your logic. See the problem? Where do you set the boundary of who deserves a better image than someone else, and it seems that most people in this discussion seem to agree that the reasoning to replace his photo w/ the Nuremberg photo was an idiotic move. Fluffy89502 (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unbiased presentation has never been Wikipedia speciality. 77.130.108.223 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the original photo provided a much better quality image of the subject.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the "original" photo? The trial photo is the one that was in the infobox when the article passed WP:GA :) — Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The trial photo should be restored; it was picked by consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it.— Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text:    What consensus? Based on the above thread, only two users have come out firmly in favor of the current image. In order to reach a true consensus on the subject, I think an Rfc is in order.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider reviewing the previous discussions and suggestions from the archives:Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1#Image change; Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1#Image option; Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1#Yet another image proposal. You did participate in those discussions. Consensus at that time was to use the trial photo. You are welcome to open an RFC obviously, if you think consensus has changed. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to open an RFC if you think consensus has changed. There's detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[c:File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg|Main Photo]] 

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

message: could be uploaded and used in the article (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's worthwhile - it tells us nothing— Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Diannaa, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting image 

message: Hello,
According to the Carin Göring page: "She was divorced from von Kantzow in December 1922 and married Göring on 3 January 1923."
According to the Hermann Göring page: "Carin obtained a divorce, followed Göring to Munich, and married him on 3 February 1922."
Which date is correct? Thanks
Stijn  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stijn74 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 February 1922. The source cited in Carin's article does not actually give a date for the wedding.— Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of marriage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voice file? 

message: did this happen ? 3MRB1 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  When I saw mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up” 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Radio broadcast - Keep or remove? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Ok, I've fixed it. Thanks for the guidance. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Let's try this again...Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

text: 
*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)

text: 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)

text: Emiya1980 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC regarding the main infobox picture