Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1

Archive 1

Munich Conference

The entry for the Sudetenland asserts that Goering prepared Mussolini's speech but I can't find a mention here, just thought i'd inform those with the knowledge/will to do anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.6.238 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Goring the Romantic

What's up with the "Post World War I" section? It reads like a Harlequin romance novel. Needs a rewrite. Stat.

Why is there a photo of Geert Wilders? I imagine it's some kind of joke, but can we please put back the photo of Goering. I'd do it if I knew how. Rachey (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your tone in the first part is irksome, I suggest you be more professional. As to the second part, I think you should delete it and make a new section as it does not pertain to the topic of this section Once Upon a Spiked Birch (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

misc

An event mentioned in this article is a May 9 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

in the begining of the statement it said that goring was a fighter pilot starting in october 1916 when it was actually october 1915 (martin gilbert first world war), i altered accordingly.

---

Removal of doubts on Albert Speer statement - Some time ago someone added a nice rebuttal to the Spear claim of Goering's statement about Jews in the prison yard. Little of what Speer said should be trusted, toward the end of his life he was more concerned with his own legacy than the truth. I protest the removal of the rebuttal, which was removed with no word of such on the history page. In fact, is this needed at all: "Despite claims that he was not anti-semitic, while in the prison yard at Nuremberg, after hearing a remark about Jewish survivors in Hungary, Albert Speer reported overhearing Göring say, "So, there are still some there? I thought we had knocked off all of them. Somebody slipped up again."" Seems highly POV and there is some evidence that Goering was not anti-semitic, a claim from Speer would not be enough to convince me. [1] - user:Ratzinger81

---

So, was he obese or not? He doesn't look to chubby in the photo, and yet the article mentions that his narcotic dependency contributed to his obesity.

The photo dates from 1946, at which point Göring had been weaned from his painkillers and had lost weight. Pictures from the mid-thirties and the war years testify to his girth (he was invariably described as a voluptuary). Mackensen 18:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

When exactly and in what circumstances did he serve as Prime Minister of Prussia? I had never heard of this. Someone include more about it. user:J.J.

By the time he became Minister-President of Prussia, the title was essentially meaningless, I think. The Reichstatthaltern were really running things. john k 23:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

There are 299 hits on "Goring" "Prime Minister of PRussia" here. RickK 23:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Does anybody know where he got the cyanide capsule from? --FermatSim 20:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, from an American officer who was guarding him.

---

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-goering7feb07,0,7916046.story?coll=la-home-headlines

commander of the Luftwaffe and had two very small balls.

A few sentences in. I'm assuming this is vandalism, no?

-G

Goering and the Holocaust

I read the book of the mainstream historian Werner Maser (see article) and in that book, it seems that Goering had very little to do with the Holocaust. He never openly opposed (or in private to Hitler, as far is known) to the Holocaust because that would endanger his position. He even occasionally helped Jews if it did not endanger his position. Andries 13:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds deeply suspicious.

Following the Crystal Night [Kristallnacht] pogrom of 9 November 1938, it was Goering who fined the German Jewish community a billion marks and ordered the elimination of Jews from the German economy, the "Aryanization" of their property and businesses, and their exclusion from schools, resorts, parks, forests, etc. On 12 November 1938 he warned of a "final reckoning with the Jews" should Germany come into conflict with a foreign power. It was also Goering who instructed Heydrich on 31 July 1941 to "carry out all preparations with regard to . . . a general solution [Gesamtlosung] of the Jewish question in those territories of Europe which are under German influence.. . ." [1]

Mozzerati 21:22, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Deleted irving

When he sued another historian in an attempt to surpress freedom of speech, David Irving was found, by a UK court, to be an incompetent and misleading historian who deliberately distorts facts. We can't use him as a useful reference. Mozzerati 21:22, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

• I disagree and am glad to see Irving's reference restored. Tendentious misguided arrogant part-time holocaust denier that he is, some of his research was excellent.

Guinnog 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Irving is holocaust denier and his works should all be read with a discerning eye. His biography of Göring is generally good although you can tell he goes out of his way to absolve him of guilt. For instance, Irving translates "final solution to the Jewish question" to "final unravelling of the Jewish question." But it is informative. TuckerResearch 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hermann Göring → Hermann Goering

The latter is clearly more common in English. (And ö-oe is an unambiguous transliteration; š-s (see Tomáš Masaryk below) is not.) Rd232 09:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't unambiguous. For example, Vladimir Voevodsky is not Vladimir Vövodsky. dbenbenn | talk 21:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• süpport - UtherSRG 13:13, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been convinced by the dialogue. Oppöse - UtherSRG 01:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. How would English-speakers know whether to search for Hermann Goring or Hermann Goering? Many would probably look for Herman Goring. We have redirects to deal with this (well, not the last one, but we should), and there is no reason to place the article under the wrong title. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 15:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Google sayeth: 15,900 English pages for "Hermann Göring", 6,170 English pages for "Hermann Goring", 97,900 English pages for "Hermann Goering". Proteus (Talk) 16:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppöse for the reasons put forward by u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d. -- Arwel 16:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - why not just change it to "Herman" if you want to be more English? "Herman Goering" has 15,400 hits in English - does that mean that it is almost as valid a usage as "Hermann Göring" Since these characters don't appear on English keyboards, web pages are unlikely to have them (e.g., Curacao (1,190,000 hits) beats Curaçao (236,000 hits) - should we also adopt incorrect spellings based on majority rule on Google? Guettarda 16:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support At the Trial of German Major War Criminals Nuremberg the names used are: HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP, ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH, KARL DOENITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR VON SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL, ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ VON PAPEN, ARTUR SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH and HANS FRITZSCHE. As a lot of the written work in English is derived from these trials, it seem sensible to go with those spellings. Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're using that as a guide his name should be in caps. Jooler 20:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMHO you are being silly spelling and upper case are not one and the same thing (They are in upper case because they are a legal definition). I bet that most of the people who oppose this change do not have English their mother tongue and do not realise that most native speakers are not taught to use funny foreign squiggles above words, do not use them, do not understand them and always ignore them. That would imply that normally the word would be "Goring" but common usage and definitive source says "Goering" so that is what it should be.

1. The Nuremberg trials are a definitive English source for the man's name
2. Google usage runs at 5 to 1 in favour
3. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (use_English) says use it. --Philip Baird Shearer

I disagree with the assertion that most opponents don't have English as their first language. "Göring" is very commonly used nowadays, particularly in modern English language books on the era.

Incidentally why has no-one who proposed or supports the move posted anything about the proposed change on the actual page on Göring? Timrollpickering 15:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Funny, Jooler.

PBS, you should avoid telling people who they are, and that that's the reason they should listen to you. And don't make assertions about how ignorant native speakers are. You're not just wrong on all counts, you run the risk that someone will take you seriously and be insulted..

1. Based on what? You say yourself that their spelling was limited by typewriters. 2. My Google search gives almost exactly 1:1. 3. You're misinterpreting the convention. —Michael Z. 16:46, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Sigh!. From this page earlier this month:

That doesn't sound right. I'm in Canada, and get the same results whether searching with Google.com or Google.ca (English version). —Michael Z. 22:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

http://www.google.com.au http://www.google.co.nz http://www.google.co.uk http://www.google.co.za all work the same way. http://www.google.ie http://www.google.ca seem to be set up as bylingual (one of which uses diacritics) Germany http://www.google.de returns similar results to ca and ie. Philip Baird Shearer 23:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)'

Did you not read it or have you forgotten it? Anyone using Google in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or the UK get diffrent pages returned for Goring, Göring and Georing. Philip Baird Shearer 12:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So your Google is definitive, but in 160 other countries it doesn't count? This is just another example that counting Google results is mostly meaningless, and they can be "interpreted" to prove anything. —Michael Z. 2005-01-21 18:25Z

PBS, I think you may need to re-read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (use_English) - it talks about anglicisation and transliteration. Neither of these apply to this example "ö" vs. "oe" is neither of these things. What part of the convention applies here?

• Oppose - If Göring was his name, so it should appear on the 'pedia. User:NeilTarrant (who forgot to sign).
• Oppose - pointless move. Jooler 20:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Göring was his name. Google is not a good guide on matters such as this and should not be used as a determinant. Timrollpickering 20:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (use_English) lately?
  • I quote: Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.
  • It's only a convention, of course, but it's a pretty clear one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Göring and Goering are both German, but the first is the preferred spelling. Since it's in the Latin alphabet, transliteration is irrelevant. Consequently, they're both English too (or neither, if you prefer), but the second is more common due to technical and knowledge limitations. I guess the convention's still not clear enough. —Michael Z. 22:48, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

  • • "oe" is the English transliteration of "ö", since English does not use "ö". Whether it's in the Latin alphabet or not is irrelevant. And the convention is clear enough - you're just deliberately misinterpreting it. Proteus (Talk) 23:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The convention speaks of "anglicizations" of foreign words. So unless you want to use "Herman" (+ whatever "Göring" would translate into), that point is irrelevant. And doesn't "transliteration" refer to converting non-Roman into Roman? So that, too, doesn't apply. You have two variants of a foreign name. If you want to apply the convention, then you ANGLICISE - like converting "Charlemagne" to "Charles the Great" or "Jeanne d'Arc" into "Joan of Arc". "Oe" is not an "English transliteration" of "ö" - it's a simplified Roman 'variant' (which is valid in German, 'but not the man's name'). If the logic of this argument is used, then Adolf Hitler should be moved to the anglicised "Adolph Hitler". If the convention applies here, then maybe the convention needs changing, since literally applied it would require that we mis-spell an awful lot of "foreign" names. Are we going to move "Jacques Chirac" to "John Chirac"? Guettarda 23:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Did you actually read the convention quoted above? I'll quote it again, just to make it quite clear for you: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form" (emphasis mine, of course). Proteus (Talk) 23:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose German ö degrades to oe when limited by typewriters, ASCII, or other outdated technology (yes, o/ö/ó/ô is one letter of the English/Latin alphabet, even with a diacritic applied). Since Wikipedia is almost out of the typewriter category, we should stick to the correct name. Google results simply reflect the fact that most of the historic web was typed on keyboards boldly showing their Remington, Underwood, and IBM Selectric roots. —Michael Z. 21:44, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

What you say is true because the name was introduced into English through the use of typewriter during the Nuremberg trials. BUT as hardly any native English speaker knows the German rule of changing an "ö" to "oe" if the "ö" is not available, if Göring was introduced today then most English speaking people would just strip the "ö" to "o" because they do not use funny foreign squiggles (diacritic). This is only partly to do with the technology (my keyboards do not have any funny foreign squiggles and yes I have programmed C++ on a German keyboard and it is not easy because lots of the standard keys which appear on an English keyboard are taken up with letters with dots on them and the (z and the y are in the wrong places)); it is much more to do with education and culture (or some would argue lack of culture) in the English speaking world. You summed it up earlier in your comment "Göring and Goering are both German, but the first is the preferred spelling. [in German]", in English the prefered spelling is Goering (by 5 to 1 with Google) and also in a definitive source the war crimes trials. Why are you voting in preference of German spellings in en.wikipedia? Philip Baird Shearer

You need to separate "preferred spelling" from "technical limitations"...

from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) -

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article...Sverige could be a redirect to Sweden. "Goering" and "Göring" are not English vs. non-English - read the convention carefully, it doesn't apply to this. What you have is the way the individual spelled his name, and the way that you 'can' expand it if you don't have the technology. Should we replace italics with underlining for Genus and species names simply because that's what you'd do on an old-fashioned type-writer? Guettarda

I disagree Germans can expand ö to oe if they wish that is not an English grammar rule. The most common spelling of the man's name in Engish is Goering and as I said before "and also in a definitive source the war crimes trials". Philip Baird Shearer

PBS, if you think that everyone will ignore the umlaut, then why are you opposed to using it?

The failings of some people's technology is still irrelevant (incidentally, this member of "the English speaking world" has been typing accents and diaereses over Latin letters on an English-language Mac keyboard layout since the mid '80s; option-u, o to make ö). We're not advocating that everyone write out the name 50 times, we're just presenting the actual name as the title of the article.

Are you saying that we shouldn't spell it that way because it's difficult to spell or to type? Should book publishers reduce all quotation marks and dashes to ASCII tick marks and double hyphens, because the average American Joe won't acknowledge them? I don't agree with your implication about the level of literacy, and if it were true I wouldn't agree with dumbing down those 'effete foreign affectations' in response. And perhaps, as you say, those that don't care about squiggles will just ignore them, or choose to retreat someplace safe and reassuring. —Michael Z. 16:32, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

It is not a matter of technology it is a matter of culture awarness. As I have said many time before, Keep it (the rule) simple. I am in favour of the names appearing on the first line of an article as they appear in a native language. But the name should first appear in the 26 letters as commonly used when writing English (ie without diacritics) unless the preponderance of usage in English is with diacritics. In this case for historical reasons Goering is the most common usage in English, probably based on the spelling used at the War Crime trials, so that is what should be used. If this were not the case then I would support the name as would "Goring". Philip Baird Shearer

Oppose The link from Goering to Göring is already in place anyway.

Urhixidur 03:45, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Oppose. Pretty much any word with an umlaut or any other diacritic will be more common without that diacritic on English-language Google pages. But that's not because anyone thinks it's more correct. It's because people with English keyboards don't know or don't care about how to display the special character. Why would we follow such incompetence? We are using diacritics, and the correct name here is without doubt Göring. (Nor would "Goering" be unambiguous. You can not change any German "oe" to "ö". Goebbels' name is Goebbels, not Göbbels, but Göring's is Göring, not Goering.) Gzornenplatz 17:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 18:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons above. StanZegel 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I floated this partly because I think "Goering" is the most common English spelling, and so Wikipedia convention would suggest placing it there; and partly to provoke policy discussion. Well, the latter was certainly successful; but perhaps this should be moved to Naming conventions somewhere, and a more serious debate had; maybe specific proposals to clarify and/or specify the conventions. (For the Goering article itself, I echo Urhixidur.) Rd232 17:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There has been a Loooooonnnnnnng debate about this subject on the Talk:Zürich page which continued on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) Philip Baird Shearer 12:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tell you what, let's use Wikipedia to educate people on the correct name for people, places and things, not force anglicisation on the world. Noisy | Talk 18:44, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppöse for all the reasons given above. dbenbenn | talk 21:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Correctness is the most important thing. As long as there are redirects from Goering and Goring, the article will be found. --Auximines 21:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppöse Accuracy should be one of the primary considerations for any encyclopedia, including the English-language Wikipedia. BlankVerse 10:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose.
  1. Comfort with umlauts by English-speakers is high.
  2. Conversion of umlauts to vowel-E digraphs is misleading, since some German-language names are properly spelled in German only with the digraph, and use of the digraphs in other situations encourages misspelling and missearching of the real vowel-E names
  3. 'Most importantly: This cannot be decided on a name-by-name vote. This change would only be reasonable if treated as part of a global policy on all German-language names that Germans spell with umlaut.

--Jerzy(t) 01:26, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Oppose My interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Is that we should use the prevailing English version in the cases were not doing so would confuse readers. In the case of Göring vs. Goering I doubt we'll have any more people confused one way or the other. -- ckape (talk) 22:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose With or without the umlaut, both are correct. Using "oe" as opposed to the "ö" is basically the same thing. In the German language "oe" is merely the old phoenetic way of making the sound that the "ö" represents. To a German they are pronounced the same way. When it comes to typing it on the internet, however, Goering would be more common because of a lack of easy access to umlauts. They're both correct though... and it has nothing to do with an english influence on history or anything like that. -- User:Parker 9 February 2005

Oppose have researched the subject for 38 years and found 'Goring' most common in English, irrespective of the the quality of the source, and contining after 1945. -- nobs (talk) 9 March 2005

Oppose - Göring is proper and Wiki already transfers Goering to Göring

Strongly Oppose Göring was his name FFS!

Irrelevant comment?

I removed the following irrelevant comment in the introductory paragraph:

His Machiavellian leadership style is summed up in one of his most famous quotes: "Vote or no vote, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders."

Seems more of an opinion rather than a fact. Of course, I am not an authority on such matters, so if anybody knows better free free to add this back.

--Bigbossman 09:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The structure of the Nazi political structure, with frequently overlapping authority and redundant structures is well documented. A Machiavellian leadership style would be almost a necessity.

Wulfe 02:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

President of the Reichstag

Who was his successer in that position, and what was the precise month(in 1933) in which he resigned? he held position after 1933, through the war. The reichstag rarley met, the position was basically honorary. Because the country had not president, it arguablly made him head of State.

Err, no. The Reichsprasident was head of state under Weimar, and after Hindenburg died, that position devolved upon Hitler as Fuhrer. Göring's position as President of the Reichstag was somewhat similar to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives or the British House of Commons in terms of it's constitutional position - I.E, of the second rank. It was, in any case, a totally meaningless position because the Nazi Reichstag was not only powerless, but it practically never met. AFAIK, Göring never resigned the position, or if he did, it was only temporary.

Franziska

Franziska who? Had his mother no maiden name, or is there a bit of sexism or laziness here?

I wouldn't so easily make the jump to saying this is sexism. It is likely only a lack of information. FranksValli 04:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

King of Hungary

Ok, this is actually very interesting. According to Nicolas M. Nagy-Talavera, in The Greenshirts and the others, Goering was offered the Crown of Hungary by Ferenc Szálasi in late 1944. Talavera does not indicate more than two precise references: Der Spiegel of March 18 1968 and an unnamed Hungarian genealogical almanach published around the same year. Now, this looks grotesque enough to be dismissed, but Talavera is all matter-of-course about it. He gives details that Goering's ancestry was contrived so that he appeared to be related to the Árpáds. Of course, this is in tune with a lot of peculiar reasonings of the Fascist leadership of Hungary - skipping the inhumane ones, let me mention the fact that Szálasi wrote his seven volumes of memoirs while the Soviets were closing in, and that he was determined to present each and every pair of newlyweds with a copy of all books. However, I could not verify this particular information with other sources. Does anyone have knowledge of this? The Talavera edition I have is in Romanian and, as far as I can tell, the chapter (Chapter VIII) were this subject is dealt with should be named something like "Hungarist National Empire" (for those who do not know it,I assure you the book is very serious, and never parodic; still, it might be mistaken).Dahn 06:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Too little about his early life

Does anyone else think that there is too little information about Goering's early life, where he was born, who is parents were, and the revelation of some small Jewish blood on his grandfather's side?

Seems just to immediately jump into the First World War. --Jason Hughes 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Namibian sources give his father's name as Heinrich Ernst Göring, for whom I have created a biographical stub. Information about Hermann's early life might also be relevant there. SteveH 09:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Too little on Nuremburg

Doesn't really detail the nature of the charges against Goring nor his defense.

His major crime appears to have been plannig war. O fcourse all Europe had been preparing for war for generations. Here was a chance to hang all the leaders but they only got the Germans.159.105.80.141 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence that he was a transvestite?

I've seen rumors, mostly on very dubious websites, that Goring was a transvestite. Is there any evidence at all the support this, other than a passing reference on Red Dwarf? Most recently, I read that a history teacher named James Berger in California used this rumor as an argument against a bill that would mandate that gays' contributions thoughout history be taught in public schools. If a history teacher is bringing it up, it's probably worth mentioning, even if it's completely false. Maybe especially so in that case. --Mattymatt 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that he asked Coco Chanel to design clothes for him. I don't know if it was dresses or fantasy military uniforms. If I can find that reference I will put it up in this section. On the other hand, just because a history teacher comes up with it doesn't necessarely say it is so. Me thinks that teacher had a not so hidden agenda for using the rumour. Keep in mind that some people use Hitler's vegetarianism for all sorts of argumenting.

P.S. : If I don't make sense, it is because English is not my first language.--Efrasnel 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Göring was most certainly not a transvestite. This, like the morphine addiction business, is an urban/historical myth which almost certainly grew out of the fact that Göring most certainly did have a love for exuberant clothes and uniforms of almost all descriptions, an inclination for which he was constantly the butt of jokes during the Third Reich period. If it's mentioned in the article then it needs to be framed in that fashion and not suggested as being a possible historical fact. 213.106.232.34 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just re-watched 'Nuremberg: Goerings Last Stand'[2], which mentions the claim that he did indulge in some transvestism, but this is not backed up with concrete evidence. However there is evidence to suggest that he was depicted in this way in Allied propeganda so prehaps this is worth mentioning? Rachey 23:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The cross dressing is also mentioned inthe television movie THE MAN WHO LIVD AT THE RITZ which starred Joss Ackland. In the film Goering does ask Coco Chanel to make him some dresses though hints he feels more practical wearing them rather than a fetish. I have tried to add this into the main page but some wikiwonker keeps removing this fact. They have been reported for continual vandalisim (212.22.3.8 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

So you've added personal attacks to your lack of good faith edits. Trivia should be brought to the talk page for discussion and consensus. Do not accuse other editors of vandalism for legitimate edits. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. And I see no indication that I've been reported for "vandalism". I will be posting a warning on your talk page for not assuming good faith. Not sure where false threats of reporting other editors fit in. Must be some rule against that. freshacconcispeaktome 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am with the other user here - the film portrays Goering as a cross-dresser which is what the other user is highlighting - no other film portrays this. I think its unfair to accuse someone of vandalising the page when you keep removing a film fact. As this is FACT (see internet film database for conformation) I don't see why you keep removing this. There must be some rule to stop people removing factual film information which is correct (213.205.200.11 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

ALSO TO ADD I have now received a final warning for inputting this back into article - my first edit and I'm ACCUSSED of vandalisim when I see user FRESHACCONI has been reverting all day - can someone please advise me of how to complain about this user THIS IS NOT FAIR nor is it good practise without addressing points here on this talk page?? (213.205.200.11 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

That's pretty funny, you wanting to address this issue on the talk page. Please see WP:SOCK. freshacconcispeaktome 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I'm not sure exactly what's going on here but to return to my original point, a documentary called 'Nuremberg: Goerings Last Stand' states that he was a transvestite, or at the very least wore nail polish and a kimono. Is this ok to include in the article? The documentary seems reliable to me, it contains interviews with Goerings interpreter at Nuremberg, several guards who worked there and the son of the guard who allegedly provided him with the means to commit suicide. 89.100.234.46 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember that. They even had photographic evidience of it. There has to me some way to get one of those photos in this article. --24.74.41.41 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I did some revising of this article as it it a bit sloppy. I added a bit to the Early life section. TuckerResearch 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The documentary/film 'Nuermberg: Goerings Last Stand' seems to assert this statment, claiming he wore a kimono, nail-polish, makeup and used extensive facial creams. Is this a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.234.46 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitisim evidence

Despite claims that he was not anti-Semitic, while in the prison yard at Nuremberg, after hearing a remark about Jewish survivors in Hungary, Albert Speer reported overhearing Göring say, "So, there are still some there? I thought we had knocked off all of them. Somebody slipped up again." [3]

Obviously this quote doesn't give any anti-semitism away. I'm considering removing it, but perhaps somebody can add some more context from the book in the citation. And if it's not obvious, then I'm sorry to say I don't have the vocabulary to describe it properly--but he's just reflecting on the quality of an ugly job. 70.66.9.162 06:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems an obvious example of 'black humour' rather than evidence of deeply rooted anti-semitism, of which there is very little. White Guard 01:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some - one - qoute he is well known for has not been included, it may be true or not. When asked at Nuremberg, by a fellow defendant, if there was any truth to the holocaust - he replied no, or certainly he had never heard of it. It appears in talking between themselves the death camps were news to them.159.105.80.141 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the wording of this quote is NPOV. He may well have been an anti-Semite (I believe he was), but this quote doesn't give evidence to that effect and the way the sentence is worded it's clearly implied that he was one. I think it should be removed. Blankfrackis (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Career

Promotion to rank of Reichsmarschall

Two dates are given for when Goering was promoted to the rank of Reichsmarschall. The first date given is 29 June 1941. The second date given (in the section on Goering's personal standards) is July 19, 1940. Which date is correct? Other references seem to indicate that he was promoted to that rank in 1940. Coldwarrior 23:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct date was June 19, 1940 (a lot of sources).--Gomeira 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that the 1940 date was the correct one also. Are there any objections to clarifying this in the 'Political Career' section of the main article? --Coldwarrior 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hermann GĂśring

Why does his name appear on the titlepage as Hermann Gasring? What is up with the type-recognition software on Wikipedia?! Nuttyskin 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the photo

Image:Hermann Wilhelm Goering Offiziell.jpg is an excellent lead photo. It has been flipped so that he 'looks into' the article. Unfortunately this makes the swastikas in his many awards back-to-front as well. While this is not visible (to me at least) in the thumbnail, I find it a bit intrusive on viewing the full picture. Any thoughts on how we can best address this? --Guinnog 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo appears to have been deleted now on the basis that there was no source information given. I think it's clearly fair use, though. Either it should be readded with source information and a fair-use rationale, or if a source is impossible to discern, then it should be readded with a fair-use rationale (fair use of source-unknown works is still perfectly legitimate). --Delirium 05:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and readded it, with a fair-use rationale. No more detailed source than "official Nazi photograph" appears to be known (as with many Nazi-era photographs), which of course does not preclude fair use so long as this fact is mentioned (which I have done). --Delirium 05:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Göring’s last prison interview

I added link from WW2 History mgazine of a lost transcript on Göring’s prison interview with US Army Intelligence before his trial. Check it out: http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3751042.html --Pilot expert 08:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo not correct

When you look closely at the photo: "Imperial Japan's Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring with gift from Japan in Berlin, Germany in 1941." you can tell by his uniform that the third men pictured is not H.Göring but a japanese Officer. 84.178.144.228 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right: that's not Göring. White Guard 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Morphine Addiction

"Handsome and athletic in his youth, Göring sustained a painful injury during the Beer Hall Putsch, leaving him dependent on narcotic painkillers, particularly morphine. This addiction contributed to his later obesity. He would finally be cured of his addiction toward the end of his life during his imprisonment at Nuremberg." This isn't true, according to Anthony Read in "The Devils Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle" Goring checked himself into a mental asylum in 1925 to break the Morphine habit. "Goring may or may not have been 'completely cured', as he and his doctors claimed - for the rest of his life there were conflicting reports on his drug habits. However when he gave himself up to the Americans at the end of the war he had only paracodeine tablets with him, and he was painlesssly weaned away from these within a few days. There was no evidence of morphine addiction, which would have involved a much more difficult withdrawal process."

In Alex Toland's "Adolf Hitler", there is reference to Göring arriving at prison with "a sizable cache" of drugs, but was free of them (and had lost weight) by the time the trial started. 66.28.178.67 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Morphine Addict and Transvestite

"It has also been strongly suggested that he was a morphine addict and a transvestite." From reading this talk page it seems to me this claim is relatively unknown and far from strongly suggested. The sentence is also out of place due to it's immediante following of a sentence about his unpopularity with the German people. I've removed the sentence from the article. --New014 01:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Story of the Brave Henryk...

...sounds more like fiction than fact. Even if he's a real person (as opposed to a myth) then simply mentioning him and his fate should be sufficient. Quoting the Nazi officer and the "smashed to pulp" part should be taken out.--Zealander 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this article, and got the same impression. I second that assertion, if an IP address can do that.70.21.216.114 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The story could not be verified whatsoever. Therefore I deleted the section in question. 141.13.8.14 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Meyer

What is the origin of the notorious You may call me Meyer quote? Where was it first reported/published? Was it an official speech or an informal comment? Bastie 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is from Fighter by Len Deighton:

And German radar sets proved excellent in use. In the winter of 1939-40, Freya radar units on the German islands of Wangerooge and Heligoland had detected incoming RAF raids so efficiently that Bomber Command formations were decimated. In May 1940, an anti-aircraft battery at Essen-Frintrop used a Wurzburg radar, and was able to shoot down an RAF bomber which they could not see. This so impressed Göring that he made a public announcement that no enemy aircraft would ever fly across Germany. It was a remark he was never allowed to forget.

Drutt (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arsonist?

"Category:Arsonists|Goring, Hermann (for firebombing Rotterdam)" thats in the cats section... isn't that a little.... off? Do we put British Air Marshals who firebombed Dresden into that catagory too??? SGGH

in fact, ive removed that for the time being. If there is a legitamate reason for it being there then of course it can go back, but if not It's unencyclopedic POV IMO. SGGH 23:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It was done here, ages back in October. Whiffs of just vandalism for me so I believe the removal to be justified. SGGH 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

Shouldn't this be deleted as the information is integrated into the article itself, making this repetition? Not really sure how to do this myself though. Leonurus 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and integrated info re his brother and deleted trivia section. Leonurus

Göring was the second highest ranking Nazi official brought before the Nuremberg Trials?

Rudolf Hess was the Deputy Führer (former, but still) and technically the second's highest man in Germany after Hitler. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 11:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hermann Göring was named Hitler's immediate successor and called the second in command by Hitler himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.70.189 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Karl Donitz was named President of Germany by Hitler, with Goebbels as his Chancellor. This is fiction about Goring being "Hitler's designated successor" and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSDR (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

German Idiom

"I want to be called Meier if ..." is a German idiom to express that something is impossible. Meier (including spelling variants) is the second most common surname in Germany.)"

I would contest that. I am German and I have studied Germanistics at University, but I have never come accross this idiom, neither as an anachronistic one, nor a modern one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.40.116 (talk • contribs)

POV Comment?

"The 1925 reports revealed Göring to be weak of character, an hysteric, an unstable personality, sentimental yet callous, violent when afraid and as a person who deployed bravado to hide a basic lack of moral courage."

Is it just me or is this quote from the Wikipedia somewhat POV? --Hexiva 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a Wikipedia editor's opinion, it's taken from a report done in 1925, as the article states, and is sourced. It could be rewritten to be less ambiguous that this is a contemporary assessment of Goering, not someone's feeling towards him today. Freshacconci 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Warren Beatty biopic?

The article currently says, "Warren Beatty was interested in doing a Göring movie for years, but he signed on to play Dick Tracy." This strikes me as silly. What's Dick Tracy have to do with it? Was Beatty given the choice of making a Göring movie or playing Dick Tracy? Or did playing Dick Tracy somehow erase his interest in a Göring biopic? Having absolutely no knowledge about the actual facts here, I don't feel comfortable messing with the article, but I suspect someone familiar with the subject should reword that... -- Captain Disdain 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Information box . . .

This info box makes Goering seem like a hero. I want to add a section called "Criminal record," but the Wiki system won't let me do so.

I propose to add the following and would like to know how to do it:

|criminal record=Sought in 1923 on a charge of treason (evaded arrest). Arrested 25 April 1945 on a charge of high treason, convicted without a trial, sentenced to death (not carried out). Arrested 9 May 1945, later charged with crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts. Convicted on all charges, sentenced to death (not carried out).}}

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your criminal record bit here is way too long for an infobox, but perhaps a section for war criminals, like:

|war criminal=Crimes again humanity, crimes against the peace, etc...

Or perhaps a special infobox for Nazis. But as to making "Goering seem like a hero," it is a military infobox, and all soldiers are heroic to somebody. Remember, in WWI Göring WAS an honorable soldier. But at least here for Göring, the introduction and the Nazi flag under "allegiance" in the infobox are more than enough to inform even the most ignorant reader that Göring was evil.

TuckerResearch (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

very very well put together, thanks

I just wanted to compliment whom ever wrote this page. Great job, very informative and well rounded.

69.231.23.110 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

very very well put together, thanks

I just wanted to compliment whom ever wrote this page. Great job, very informative and well rounded.

69.231.23.110 (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Karl (Ernst) Göring

Is it possible that Hermann´s brother Karl, who moved to the USA, is Karl Ernst Göring, or did he have two brothers with the same first name? In the first case, Karl Ernst would be the father of US-Airforce pilot Werner G. Göring. Can anyone clear this up? Thanks in advance, Eva 80.135.183.134 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics Minister

Goering was not made officially made Minister of Economics; he just had de facto control of the economy as Head of the Four Year Plan. Schacht was directly succeeded by Funk. Dark Prime (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

of culture and revolver

I heard the famous quotation in a slightly different form, involving a hand: "When I hear the word culture, my hand reaches for the revolver". Does anyone have authentic information on this? Katzmik (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate picture

Maybe it's just me, but I find the picture on the page rather inappropiate. For one thing it seems quite glorifying, but it's also apparently taken several decades before the end of the war. 95.89.101.53 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like something out of a vanity biography. A photograph taken between the mid 1930's to 1945 would be far more appropriate.130.13.20.36 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the filename suggests 1932 and the file info claims 1935. So it's perhaps 10-13 years before the end of the war and one(ish) more before the end of his life. I am not at all sure that it is so inappropriate: he was already a powerful Nazi at the time it was taken and, without getting into my POV I think we can safely say that it demonstrates some of the characteristics for which he was famed and to which the article alludes. (I think his tailor would have liked it too.) The fact that it appears to demonstrate "vanity" is by no means inappropriate. Also, Goering was born in 1893 and had quite a long and successful career before 1939 so I find it hard to see why this is so wrong. It would be nice if we had a wider range of photos of good quality, sure, but this is not at all bad. Any photo is just a slice of time and I'm not sure why this one is that much worse than any other. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Gorings First Wife Carin return to sweden?

Did Gorings First wife return to sweden? Did she die ?Andreisme (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening picture

I inform that on Commons there is this image: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-13805, Hermann Göring.jpg. Hope this helps--Trixt (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to use a less-informative, lower-quality version of the image we already have? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eberle/Eberlin, Goering's Jewish ancestors

I am the original author who placed in this article information about well-known Swiss family of Jewish origin Eberle/Ebelin because this information illustrates the stupidity of Nazi's claims of German racial purity. Since someone eliminated from this article information that Eberle originally were Jews, there is no reason to place any ifromation about this family in this article.

So I deleted this information from the article.

Göring had among his paternal ancestors Eberle/Eberlin, a Swiss-German family of high bourgeoisie of the Jewish descent.

Göring was a relative of such Eberle/Eberlin descendants as the German aviation pioneer Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin; German romantic nationalist Hermann Grimm (1828–1901), an author of the concept of the German hero as a mover of history, whom the Nazis claimed as one of their ideological forerunners; the industrialist family Merck, the owners of the pharmaceutical giant Merck; one of the world's major Catholic writers and poets of the 20th century German Baroness Gertrud von Le Fort, whose works were largely inspired by her revulsion against Nazism; and Swiss diplomat, historian and President of International Red Cross, Carl J. Burckhardt.

In a historical coincidence, Göring was related via the Eberle/Eberlin line to arguibly the most spectacular descendant of Eberle/Eberlin, Jacob Burckhardt (1818–1897), a great Swiss scholar of art and culture who was a major political and social thinker as well an opponent of German nationalism and militarism, Jacob Burckhardt rejected German claims of cultural and intellectual superiority and predicted a cataclysmic 20th century in which violent demagogues, whom he called "terrible simplifiers", would play central roles.

User: Rudolf Dttlg. May 16 2009.

• Do you have any sources for this? If not, this is only (a very doubtful) speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.65.36.196 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Goering's IQ

Is it true, that Goering had IQ-180??? Have you any information?

He had the 2nd highest IQ of the prisoners, many of whom were very intelligent (some of whom were deranged and not very intelligent as well). This was based on tests done by the pyschologists.

I read that Goering had an IQ of 138 the same as Donitz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.37.35 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Goering's I.Q. is quoted at 138. That would be the third highest, according to this. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegiance to the Weimar Republic

In the box on the right of the article it states his "allegiances" and has the Weimar Republic listed. This seems a bit misleading to me given that he actively campaigned against the Weimar Republic and helped lead the Beer Hall Putsch which had the ultimate aim of overthrowing it. I presume it wasn't the intention, but it doesn't seem correct to imply that his allegiances were to the Weimar Republic. Blankfrackis (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Death

Göring obviously took a capsule of Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) as used in the vials by other Nazis (e.g. the Goebbels family and Himmler) for suicide. It works a little different than Potassium Cyanide (KCN) which needs the Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) of the stomach to set free HCN. The reports about Himmler's death are consistent with HCN (given by Colonel Michael Murphy and Captain Tom Selvester, according to Fraenkel/Manvell: Himmler). It was not possible to rescue him. --charlandes 18:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Early life/Ritter von Epenstein

The following sentence is in the second paragraph of this section: "In 1914 he tried to commit suicide however, he was found by his mother, Joseph Goring and was sent to hospital." First, I'm not sure if the "he" who attempted suicide was Goring or Ritter von Epenstein, given the flow of the paragraph. Second, surely Joseph Goring was not someone's mother. A part of this sentence must be missing. --JGC1010 (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

After all this time, I figured it was okay to just delete the name Joseph Goring from the sentence quoted above.JGC1010 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision

I have moved some things around, posted a picture from Wikimedia Commons, fixed several of the citations, added a few citations, and fixed some sections, including revamping the "Sources" section.

I still believe that this article needs to be reorganized in a few places, and is perhaps overlong in one or two spots.

Some better links need to be put together as well. I have updated the Wikimedia Commons page too.

TuckerResearch (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pour le Merite requirements

In my extensive work in the subject area of World War I fighter aces, I have never seen a requirement of 25 victories for awarding the Blue Max. http://www.pourlemerite.org/ relates the shifting requirements; originally set at 8 victories, it then was moved upwards to 16 victories, then 20. I have never seen any information that it rose as high as 25 victories. Indeed, several pilots were awaiting approval based on achieving 20 victories when the Kaiser abdicated.

I believe the comment "(despite not having the required 25 air victories)" is incorrect, and I have removed it. Because I am baffled by the process of posting a non-citation, I have noted my source here.

If there is a reliable source for the requirement of 25 victories, then the phrase can be reinstated. Also, I would like to know about that source, as it may affect my writings for Wikipedia.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I have found more info on the above. It seems that while the standard was 20 victories for a Blue Max, Goering had his old buddy Bruno Loerzer lobby for Hermann to receive the Pour le Merite with only 18 victories.

I have changed the article to reflect this info.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Re: Complicity in the Holocaust

Personal associations may have also shaped Goering's attitude toward individual Jews. It is reputed that he intervened to save at least one of his former comrades-in-arms, Fritz Beckhardt. However, Berthold Guthmann was another Jewish flier who served with Goering; he died in Auschwitz.

I am seeking reliable source(s) for the above. Can anyone help me out?

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"and Göring's complicity in the Final Solution remains a point of contention" - excuse me, but by whom? Holocaust deniers and revisionists? His part in the Holocaust is beyond doubt, and any history course concerning this topic in universities states this as fact, as do the reliable historical scholars. This line should be removed, or greatly modified to reflect reality. The David Irving's of the world will never affect solid academic judgement. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the whole paragraph. Of course it is a fact that he knew all. The article needs a ton of work and I will be coming over here once I have finished JFK. Thanks for the suggestion. --Dianna (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the final quote from this section. This lengthy quote has little to do with the issue anyway and is just a piece of self-serving justification. Bazuz (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuremberg

I read in a history book that, while other Nazis "could not believe what they had done", Goring had "smiled and appeared bored" while watching footage of the Holocaust the trials, and that he his "jokes about the Holocaust and lack of remorse horrified judges". I don't see this in the article. There is very little about Nuremberg in this article.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an entire large section about it, actually; and a whole separate article too. However, point us to some references with the quotes you've provided, and we can consider including them. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to be rude. The section in this article is hardly what anyone would call "large". In fact, it's minuscule. The book is "The Human Odyssey: From Modern Times to Our Contemporary Era, Volume 3", edited by Mary Beth Klee, John Cribb, and John Holdren.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Never any need to be rude, so I wasn't; asking for references is what one does when presented with information like that. Feel free to enter those quotes in the appropriate place in the article; you're not only welcome to do so, you're encouraged to do so, since you have the book in your hands. The section could use some expansion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

Winston Churchill was considerably more overweight and in much poorer physical condition than Göring. Churchill and Göring were both notorious addicts. It is clear from comparing the articles on these men that one of them is not presenting a neutral point of view. I find the petty jabs at Göring greatly distract from the reason we all shudder upon hearing his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Some of the sources for this Goering article are crap. Specifically I refer to that Tripod page that says that Goering was still addicted to narcotics in 1945. This was probably a rumor that somebody started at the time. There are some authoritative books online that state that Goering kicked his addiction at a Swedish clinic in the 1920s. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that I do not have the source at hand. The information with which I was familiar is that he initally became addicted to morphine following his WWI injuries, technically "kicked the habit" as a result of the Swedish treatment you mentioned, but then became addicted again out of being overly accustomed to the situation. When captured, it was discovered that his "morphine stash" was heavily watered-down, to the extent that it was essentially a placebo foisted on him by his doctor. When this was pointed out to him he dropped the "habit" fast. Psychologically he was an addict. Physically not so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.249.48.103 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edda Göring

In "Hitler's Children: Sons and Daughters of Leaders of the Third Reich Talk About Their Fathers and Themselves" by Gerald Posner, Edda Göring is quoted to have said she was named after the old Icelandic Poetic Edda, a collection of poems, and that Göring disliked Mussolini and would never have named her after his daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubli (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What ever became of her anyway? There doesn't seem to be much interest here 8in the survivors of the families of Nazi leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.141.225 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Reichstag fire

Re: Göring's responsibility for the Reichstag fire, this section of the article did a fairly good job with the history of the debate, but in his The Third Reich Trilogy, Richard J. Evans is more firm that there is no evidence indicating that Göring was responsible and that it is not implausible that Lubbe could have succeeded alone. I don't have the book in front of me but I will check his references later and see what sources he relies on for his account. Anthony Mohen (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

quote section

Minor point before a GA review - you should probably find some things noting the "Nationalism" quote being a big deal, otherwise the entire section seems weak enough to be yanked as trivia. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll see what I can find. -- Dianna (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hermann Göring/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

starting a review of this article, bear with me, first timer. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written. Yes, I made a couple of small grammatical changes, but otherwise excellent prose and compliance with the MOS. I suggest the citations are spread to 3 columns instead of 2.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable. I consider there are three important aspects of Goring's life that need to be better referenced or placed in context to meet this criteria:
a. I recommend the discussion of the controversy regarding his award of the Blue Max be clarified. ie either state what the number of air victories required was in May 1918 (if known), or state that it increased throughout the war, giving some context to the resentment of his squadron. I understand that the score was 30 when the war ended, but 8 when Immelmann got his.
b. The ref for his award of the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross needs a page number.
c. The ref for the Lt that smuggled the cyanide to Goring needs a page number.
3. Broad in coverage. Yes.
4. Neutral. Yes.
5. Stable. Yes.
6. Illustrated. Yes.

I'm placing it on hold for 7 days so the above points can be addressed. Otherwise, it is looking good. Cheers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The column width for the citations has been changed to 20 em, which will display as 3 columns on most monitors. The Blue Max: Lothar von Richthofen did not get his until his 24th victory, which he achieved in May 1917. I will snip out a bit of the text and will try to confirm at a later date whether there was a fixed limit on the number of kills required. -- Dianna (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

---

By 1918, the number of victories needed to qualify for a Blue Max was a minimum of 20 confirmed.

To be exact, the first Blue Maxes were awarded for eight confirmed victories. The requirement was raised to 16, then 20 by 1918. See http://www.pourlemerite.org/ or any number of texts.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I have located the requested page numbers. Note that page numbers are not a requirement for GA. Thank you so much for taking the time to do the review. -- Dianna (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, MisterBee1966 (talk) would probably know the answer to the Blue Max query. Kierzek (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Passed. Great job Dianna. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

---

According to Hermann Dahlmann, Göring received the Blue Max with 18 victories when the standard was 20. He purportedly got his old friend Bruno Loerzer to lobby for the unwarranted early award. It gave Göring's jasta pilots another reason to distrust and dislike him. All this is contained in the references presently in the article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

---

"The Beast" Hermann's Car

I recently found these images in my grandma's garage. If someone wishes to use them in an article on its own or put them in here somehow, I fully encourage it. I do not have the time right now to contribute beyond scanning the images in.

Color photo

Greyscale informational — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secruss (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Luftwaffe

It is rather typical of biographers to get technical details wrong so it is best to add specialist sources or else myths and disinformation start to circulate. The Polish Air Force was not outnumbered 15:1. That statistic is nonsense. The figures for the relative strength of the Luftwaffe and PLW were 2,182 to 1,900. Secondly the Germans achieved air superiority in less than seven days - not through the direct destruction of the PLW by the Luftwaffe, but by the later destroying communications, facilitating the advance of the army, which overran airfields and advanced warning sites. That did for the PLW. I've added a more authoritative source. Dapi89 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

lived as a child with his Jewish godfather?

The Albert Göring page (his brother) asserts that Hermann as a child lived with and was raised at least in part by his Jewish godfather (wiki-ized text copied from that page to preserve reference):

The Göring family lived with their children’s aristocratic godfather of Jewish heritage, Ritter Hermann von Epenstein, in his Veldenstein and Mauterndorf castles. Von Epenstein was a prominent physician and acted as a surrogate father to the children as Heinrich Göring was often absent from the family home. Göring was one of five children, his brothers were Hermann Göring and Karl Ernst Göring; his sisters were Olga Therese Sophia and Paula Elisabeth Rosa Göring, the last of whom were children of his father's first marriage.

either belongs in this article or not in the other one. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The material in Albert's article does not have proper sourcing, and this one does. I am the person who brought the Hermann Goering article to GA, so I personally checked the sourcing for each statement in this article. As I recall, the family never lived with von Epenstein, though he did provide the family with housing at one of his many properties. -- Dianna (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Once again, hassles about WWI victory scores

Hello, all,

If Goering's aerial victory score is to be retroactively revised in an attempt to rewrite history, there should at least be an explanation of who is revising, and just what standards were used in the revision. I have linked the World War I aerial victory standards to the article. Can't there be at least a footnote explaining how the modified score was calculated? And a reference to a victory by victory list, as in the itemized list in Above the Lines?

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

New addition removed

I have removed some new content that was added without sources. I think we are past the point on this wiki where unsourced material can be added to the articles, especially ones that have already achieved GA status. As well, the material needs to be re-worded to it is less about Speer and focused more on Goring. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category German Lutherians

I used the rollback feature instead of the review tool. Apologies. My rationale for removal is that Goring was a hardly a practicing anything, except Nazi and art thief, so the new category seems very tenuous indeed. Cheers Irondome (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter weather or not he was a "practicing" member. He still identified as Lutheran till the end of his life. Therefore he is properly placed as Lutheran in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.39.31 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary (first paragraph) - Morphine?

So it says in the summary:

"He became permanently addicted to morphine after being treated with the drug for his injuries."

Then later in the 'Trial and Death' section, it says:

"Here he was weaned off the Dihydrocodeine pills—he had been taking the equivalent of three or four grains (260 to 320 mg) of morphine a day—and was put on a strict diet; he lost 60 pounds (27 kg)."

I don't know which is true - was he taking morphine (as in, actual morphine) or was he taking Dihydrocodeine? Either way there's an obvious contradiction in the article itself. Saying that he became addicted to morphine if he was taking dihydrocodeine is wrong, and while morphine is used as a benchmark to measure the potency of other opiates it doesn't mean it's a wildcard to substitute the names of other opiates with.

Icx120 (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC) icx120 17/8/14

It looks like at some point he was weaned off the morphine and dihydrocodeine was substituted. I will have to bring the source book in on inter-library loan to confirm this, but for now I will remove the word "permanently" from the lead. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify this further. G would certainly have had a potential supply of morphine before his capture. There appears to be no evidence of G definitively giving up morphine prior to may 1945. I have seen references to G being captured with copious supplies of Codeine in his baggage. He would pop them at very frequent intervals in quantity. I am unsure if these are precisely the same as dihydrocodeine. I will have to dig out the sources, but I have seen these assertions in R/S over the years. I believe Cornelius Ryan discusses some of the above in his excellent early study of the collapse of the Nazi entity, The Last Battle, which is far superior to Beevor imo. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Manvell on page 315-317 of the 1962 edition says that paracodeine (today called dihydrocodeine) is a mild morphine derivative. Goering was taking around 100 tablets of paracodeine per day, the equivalent of three or four grains of morphine. He had two suitcases full of the stuff when he was taken into custody. I was unable to determine at what point Goering quit morphine and switched to paracodeine as the book is poorly indexed and I don't think it's an important enough point to warrant re-reading the whole book. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Highest ranking Nazi official at Nuremberg?

In the summary, it states "he was the highest-ranking Nazi to be tried there"

in the Trial and death section, is states "Göring was the second-highest-ranking Nazi official tried at Nuremberg, behind Reich President (former Admiral) Karl Dönitz."

Which of these are true? is Karl Dönitz considered to be higher ranking than him as he became President after Hitlers death?

Davs34 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Davs34

Hmm, I think someone changed the body of the article and missed changing the lead. I think we should go with second-highest-ranking, behind Dönitz, who at the time of the trial had the rank of former President. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would rank him at that point in time as second highest (even though Hitler had stripped him of all his posts and offices in late April 1945). Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert deletions

I have reverted deletions of very relevant images of Luftwaffe aircraft. 217.43.225.6 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Since your edit has been challenged, per the WP:BRD cycle, you should not re-add the images unless there is a consensus to do so. Sorry I don't agree with the addition of these photos, which I don't think are very relevant at all. The Supermarine Spitfire and Boeing B-17 (which are not Luftwaffe aircraft) are certainly outside the scope of an article on Goering. Flight Lieutenant J H G McArthur, named in the caption of one photo, is definitely unrelated to the subject of Goering. If people want to know what Heydrich looked like, they can visit his article. Per the Manual of Style, there should never be so many images that they spill over into the next section. Also, there should never be images on both side of the page with prose in between, as the prose gets squished. That doesn't work at all on a narrow display such as a laptop or tablet. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Aircraft pics have no use for an article on the MAN - not the Nazi-German air force of the time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Britain section

I believe it is essential the Battle of Britain section should mention Goring's advice to Hitler to ignore the UK altogether, and instead overrun Spain and North Africa. There was never any chance at all of Operation Sea Lion being a success, since the German navy had been badly damaged in Norway and the Luftwaffe was not in a position to defeat the RAF. If Hitler had followed Goring's advice Germany could have won the war. (92.10.136.62 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

I have reverted your addition again. The website you used is a tourist website for Gibraltar. It doesn't say where they got their information, and it doesn't list an author. This is not a good enough source to use to add material to a Good Article. And it's not fair to put the onus on me to find a source! I don't have access to the Goring biography here that I used to bring the article to GA; I can do that, but I would have to bring it in on intra-library loan, and it will take 4 to 6 weeks to get it. Looking through my other main sources (Evans, Shirer) this material is not mentioned. It's up to you to provide a good source, not me. By the way, the date of 17 September 1940 cannot possibly be correct for the postponement of Operation Sealion, as the Blitz was ongoing until May 1941. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Shirer (1960) says "diversions in Africa should be studied", but the idea came from Hitler, not Goring, as noted by Raeder and Halder after a meeting with Hitler in summer 1940. Shirer, pages 764–765. -- Dianna (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Blitz was used by Hitler in an attempt to break the will of the British people to continue the war. It is likely that he never intended to invade as it would have been impossible. (92.7.19.93 (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

That's not true. Extensive planning was undertaken for an invasion, including the selection of landing points, commanders, troops, and targets for the first day and the first week. Troops were moved into positions along the coast and engaged in training for amphibious warfare. The invasion never took place, as the air superiority which was considered to be a prerequisite was never obtained. Evans 2008, page 136-145; Melvin 2010 page 186-193. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Air superiority would not have been enough, as Grand Admiral Donitz admitted. The Germans had lost too many ships in Norway to get the men across, and the much larger Royal Navy would have destroyed the German fleet before it reached Dover. If anything the troop build-up was designed to keep pressure on the British government. (92.7.19.93 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

Aside from the terrible source used, the IP is right. S-L was indeed postponed on 17 September 1940 and its chances of success, with air superiority or not, were slim. It is debatable whether ignoring Britain and going for North Africa and the Middle East/Med. could have won the war. That would assume the British were the main enemy of the Reich. I would say it was ultimately the Soviets, followed by the Americans. A success against the British Empire would not have diminished the enormous (and arguably greater) threat of these two nations. Dapi89 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The USA were still neutral at the time. If the UK had been invaded, the effect would have massively prolonged the war (having no base of operations to launch Overlord). Also, you are discounting the technological developments that would have been stifled - Tube Alloys (started by UK & Canada, later renamed Manhattan Project) the ongoing development of RADAR, jet engines and the cavity magnetron, to name but a few examples. Also, with the emptying of the UK coffers, the USA economy would not have been kick-started into a war economy (the transfer of wealth is what helped drag the USA out of the economic doldrums of the 1930's). 135.196.157.83 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC) FW

The United States was NOT neutral at this time - Roosevelt had been giving material support to Britain for years. The Americans were not technically at war, but they had definitely taken sides at this point.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

World War II

I'd rather this section be covered, briefly, in his leadership of the Luftwaffe and his contributions, or not, to the German effort in the air war. At the moment it is a brief summation of World War II and his Luftwaffe's involvement in it. Dapi89 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nephew was US Bomber Pilot in the European Theater

I was just reading that Hermann Göring's nephew, US Army Air Force Captain Werner Goering, was a bomber pilot flying missions over Nazi Germany and that the FBI placed a copilot in his crew with orders to kill him if the plane was shot down because of the propaganda value if he should be captured.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

References

See [3], apparently Werner Goering wasn't related to Hermann, although at the time US military intelligence thought he was, hence the kill order Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Remains

The article states: "Göring's body was displayed at the execution ground for the witnesses of the executions. The bodies were cremated and the ashes were scattered." Which bodies are meant, and where were they scattered? Concerning Göring, the German article claims that his ashes were scattered in a branch of the Isar.--Hubon (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"The bodies" refers to all the people sentenced to death as a result of the Nuremberg Trial. Those receiving the death sentence were Goering, von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Seyss-Inquart, and Jodl. (And Bormann, in absentia.) We can't add unsourced information to a Good Article; that's why I removed it. The German wiki is not considered as a reliable source. But I was able to source it to Overy 2001 page 205, so I have added it back in. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dianaa! One more thing: Now it says "The bodies were cremated and the ashes were scattered in the Isar River." But wasn't it only a branch of the Isar? Sorry I can't help with proper reference, otherwise I would do the editing by myself... But maybe you can verify the aspect with your literature at hand. I'd be glad to hear from you. Best regards,--Hubon (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That bit of info was not present in the source I used, so I did not include it. It doesn't matter to Goering's story whether it was a branch, anabranch, or the main river. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it still should be stated correctly – irrelevant whether it matters in the aggregate or not. By the way, the branch usually stated (cf. German article) is the Ehle. I just would like to avoid citing a German source here... Best regards,--Hubon (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of comparison with Communists

I have several times removed this edit, because I don't think it's important enough to include in the article. The citation is from a paper presented at a 2012 conference. I don't see why the mention is notable enough to be included in the article. Comments are welcome, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivia and if added would carry WP:UNDUE weight. Just because something is stated and can be cited does not make it notable. Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: I advise you not to write tales (I write this without offenses). And nobody forbid you correct existing text or even title of the new section. You can make neutral point of you - including (instead removal of information of the EU level). Dr. Jan - developer (one of) of different international legal acts against communism (by the way). Super expert! If somebody creates damage against this - I never can understand. You simply never was born in the USSR. We hailed Lenin as Chinese people currently. We were slaves till 1985. But Chinese communism is fake currently (capitalism instead be hungry). My thinkings have no relation to this article (I respect neutral point of view and related rules of Wikipedia). I saw that you love Paul McCartney (he sang about USSR because he never was in this hell).

• Platform of European Memory and Conscience belongs to European Union. "Paper" - the speech of Jan Carnogursky (see his powers in different years around the world). This discussion was one of the main steps to create "Nuremberg № 2" against mass murderers, which were worse than Hitler in several times (number of victims does not say something other). Encyclopedic material when you know all context and about Jan Carnogursky also. European Union acts to achive European values. Here is displayed the agenda for the conference (5 June, 2012), http://www.memoryandconscience.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Crimes2.wav.ff.mp3 (0:13:18 - 0:13:59) - says Dr. Jan Carnogursky (audio):

"Karl Marx is the ideological father of communism. Although history has refuted communism, the quotes of Karl Marx can still be found in intellectual newspapers across Western Europe, even on an ascending scale. I emphasize that these are concurring quotes. Even references to Leon Trotsky are not exceptional, also not in negative connotation. This is much the same as if they were references to Hermann Goering in a positive connotation." (the same - "paper").

Was symbolic comparison with the great meaning: Goring is almost Hitler as is known, including. New section can be supplemented gradually (related materials about Goring and other known communists). Encyclopedic info must be represented in this article.

If we include this opinion and no others, it makes it seem like Čarnogurský is an authority on this topic, and he is not. He is a politician, not a historian. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• He is reseacher and expert on different issues (related to totalitarism - including). He is world known politician. He say so and we must display this fact. His knowledge in many times more than at any historian. See his powers (he was used for these issues - including). And section will be developed.

First, use four tildas (~) to sign your posts, or log in under your UserID. Secondly, we "must" nothing. We are writing an amateur online encyclopedia, and if this source is deemed unsuitable, then it won't be used. 98.67.1.123 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Carpet bombing

Closing discussion resulting from edit warring by a HarveyCarter sockpuppet

The RAF was carpet bombing German cities by 1942. (81.159.6.5 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)) The RAF were still lucky if they could get a concentrated area attack at this stage. Hardly Carpet bombing. In fact, if you look at Carpet bombing, you will see that it is a very unsuitable description. Bomber command only achieved a handful of concentrated bombing successes throughout the entire war. The situation by 1945 was the result of 4 years of cumulative attacks, numbering in the thousands. The hundreds of 1942 raids carried out by B.C were scattered pinpricks apart from Cologne and Lubeck. Irondome (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Goering's art collection

During his trial Goering was able to prove that his personal art collection was purchased legitimately at usual market value through an art dealer.

He was Minister for the Arts and therefore responsible for protecting significant cultural artifacts according to agreements made in the Hague after WW1. Goering did precisely as he was required and the works that are often mentioned as having been 'looted' would have likely been destroyed, especially by the allied deliberate carpet bombing of civilian dwellings (seven German cities were destroyed before the Blitz began three months later.

The Germans are accused of stealing because they did not allow artworks to leave Germany during the war. Does anyone believe that it would have been possible for anyone to have taken similar important artworks from within Britain into Germany during WW2? In this identical case has anyone accused Britain of stealing (other than the Greek/Turkish 'Elgin Marbles"?

Compared with the looting of Germany after WW1 and the looting of Germany after WW2, the artworks seized by the Germans during WW2 is miniscule/microscopic. in 1945 the USSR seized 450,000 rail freight cars of German property including 800,000 artworks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.220 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Year of joining the Nazi Party

The "Early Nazi Career" section indicates he joined the Nazi party in 1923 but the "After World War 1" section indicates he joined in 1922. Could someone more knowledgable on this topic and on the editing procedures of Wikipedia please help clarify the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.45.177.98 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I will check tonight after I get home. I have RS sources for same. Kierzek (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The version that passed GA shows 1922 only; the content from the USHMM was added later. I think we should go with 1922 (sourced to Manvell) and remove the other, unless further citations can be found that support 1923 as the date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked its 1922. Sourced to Miller, p. 426. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1.129.111.105 (talk) The 'Nazis' never called themselves 'Nazis'. They were the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. The term "Nazi' was pejorative, invented by a Jewish critic, based on using the term 'Ignatz' to mean a country oaf.

Heinrich Fraenkel

Just wondering if there was a legitimate reason for omitting Roger Manvell's co-author Heinrich Fraenkel from the citations and bibliography on this page. It seems like an incomplete source otherwise.--Obenritter (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Checking on WorldCat, I see that all editions credit Fraenkel as co-author. I will use an external text editor search 'n' replace to correct this. Stand by — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks Diannaa -- you're always vigilant and it's appreciated.--Obenritter (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

English "jig is up" quotation & English proficiency

In regards to Diannaa's revert about the quote Goring said, I'm having trouble finding the logic in it. Goring was known to speak English fluently, but more importantly there appears to be many reputable citations and references which correlate that quote to him. Is this considered contentious material, or perhaps there has been a discussion in the past I'm unaware of? On the surface it appears to look like a removal of thrice referenced material with the edit summary "not very enlightening". Garchy (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the material Diff of Hermann Göring. "Göring was quoted as saying, "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up.""

References

I removed it for a couple of reasons. First, it's unlikely he said these exact words as his first language was German. User:Garchy said on my talk page that Göring also spoke English, but we don't actually have sources either way. (User: Beyond My Ken notes in an edit summary that the actual quote is ""Mutter der Barmherzigkeit, ist das das Ende von Hermie?") The material added by Garchy was obviously copied from an old revision of the page as it contains a "page needed" tag dated from 2011, which is prior to the promotion on this article to Good Article status back in 2012. The Bowen citation is uncheckable as we have no information on the source book other than an author surname and a year. The second citation is http://acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html, which in my opinion is not a credible source for historical information on Hermann Göring. The third source might be a good one, but I am unable to verify as it is not available on Google preview and it's not available for inter-library loan in my area. Regardless of the sourcing issue and what he actually said, my opinion is that this quotation is not important enough to include in this article. i.e., it's trivia, and we should not include it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually can't find the quotation that Beyond My Ken included - I'll take a look to see if I can find other, more reputable sources about this quote (other than just "war time conjecture", or other types of sources). I'm surprised their isn't more about Goring speaking English, as it appears in multiple sources I've read - but now I need to find them. Garchy (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

He said it in an edit summary while performing a null edit: Diff of Hermann Göring — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw the diff, I'm saying I cannot find that quotation anywhere online, especially not correlated to Goring. Garchy (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

First, it is a trivial statement, which is not needed. Second, it is a paraphrase of the original statement, at best. Third, the cited sources are in question. It should be excluded from this GA rated article. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, since you seem to have a lot of expertise on the matter - have you read anything about Goring speaking fluent English? I'm not asking because of the "jig" quote, but more-so to see if there are any reputable sources that back up the assertion that he had been fluent in English from a young age. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to note - my "Mutter" "quote" was a joke - it's a restatement of what Edward G. Robinson said at the end of Little Caesar (film): "Mother of mercy, is this is end of Rico?" I thought it would be easily recognizable, but apparently not. I apologize for confusing the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I do recall hearing in a TV documentary that Goering understood English well, which gave him an advantage at the Nuremberg Trial, in that he was able to think about his answers while the questions put in English were being translated into German. I've always assumed that he also spoke English as well, but I don't know recall if that was said in the documentary or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard Overy's Goering, which is the only text specifically on the subject I have at hand, does not mention either the comment or anything about Goering's facility with English. Is the "jig is up" comment supposed to have been made during the trial? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be clearly defined the more I look into it - which pretty much supports the other assertions that it shouldn't, at this time, be included in the article. If it was muttered it was most likely NOT in English - this reference has the sentence as "When I saw those Mustangs over Berlin, I knew that the war was lost.". This discussion (not RS) seems to think it was derived from a longer quote that Goring spoke to General Spaatz of the USAAF (it does not say whether it was in English or a translation) - "When I saw your bombers over Berlin protected by your long-range fighters, I knew then that the Luftwaffe would be unable to stop your bombers. Our weapons plants would be destroyed; our defeat was inevitable." The other big question, I suppose, is how many online "sources" received their information from an earlier iteration of this Wiki page...

Different searches of Goring's English skills show up vastly different results. I remember a book I read a few years ago (the name escapes me, of course) said was Beyond My Ken says above - that he had a very satisfactory understanding of English. Other sources I've seen online say he was fluent in English, classroom French, and had an understanding of Swedish. Garchy (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

References

I just took a look through The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, which I have, but haven't read yet, and while there were tantalizing mentions (Goering joking with the soldiers who "captured" him, and so on) which implied that he spoke at least some English, I have not yet found anything in the book that specifically says what his proficiency was. Perhaps I'll note something when I read it, which should be relatively soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

1.129.111.105 (talk) Goering wrote letters to Churchill and in the last letter before his death stated that the British empire would disappear and that Britain would fact the USSR which would not act according to the principles of war that Germany followed.

Infobox Size

The infobox for the Herman Goring page seems to be wider than normal. I was writing to verify whether it was a consensus decision that it should look like this.Emiya1980 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The width of the infobox was being forced by the mark-up in the "spouse" field. I have altered the mark-up to normalize the infobox. I am okay with this change being reverted if there's a compelling reason to do so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I tried to figure out what was forcing the width, but couldn't come up with it. Your fix looks fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Image change

1: This is the image most recently in the infobox

2: This is the image director changed back to, which was previously the lede image

Apparently as retaliation for the discussion about the lede image on Talk:Benito Mussolini, User:Director has changed the lede image on this article back to the image that was there a while ago. If needs be, I'll start an RfC about this as well, but I'd rather just get editor input for the time being.

To me, it's plainly obvious why the first is the more appropriate image, so let's hear what others think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't like Bundesarchiv Bild 102-13805, Hermann Göring.jpg because his face is so shiny. The one in use when the article passed GA was File:Hermann Goering - Nuremberg2.jpg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be OK with me, although it would be my second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Number 1, which is currently in use, is a much better objective representation photo; and as Diannaa points out it’s not so “shiny” and certainly not such a posed picture. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again...

@BMK The cutout you introduced is low-res. Blurry. And a cutout. I don't particularly like the Shiny Goering, but you should find a proper replacement portrait of some sort if you find the current image objectionable.

In other words: I once again must insist the subject's features being clearly (closely) represented is a higher priority than the intent of the photograph. It is obviously made to be flattering, but so is virtually every other portrait in the history of portraits...

P.s. As to "retaliation" - weren't you the one berating me for going into your motives? No. This isn't "retaliation". Its the exact same objection I brought against your edit on BM. My position has not changed, I don't get why you're surprised. I just didn't notice it was part of a wider "campaign" wherein portraits of fascists get replaced because they were facsists. While every other article gets to retain a portrait as the lead image - regardless of how flattering it is. (Also this is worse: the image you introduced is of poorer quality.) -- Director (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to undo your action, but someone else has already done so. We don't make decisions based on what content has been long-standing; we have discussions and form a consensus as to what to do. So far there's three people that oppose the use of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-13805, Hermann Göring.jpg so it's inappropriate for you to restore it right now as it looks like the consensus is against its use in the infobox at present. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Director: Thanks for your opinion. Let's see what the consensus is among the editors who work on this article. Diannaa has already pointed out that a different image was in the article at the time it received its GA rating. In the meantime, the first image above has been in the article for two months, since September 24, [4] which makes it the current status quo. I'm sorry you didn't notice the change until now, but since no one WP:OWNS the article. please do not revert to your preferred image until a consensus is decided, instead leave it in the current status quo while the consensus discussion is ongoing. At the time that consensus is determined, we can change to whichever image is agreed upon. I think that's reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Director: I'm not sure what you mean by "every other article gets to retain a portrait as the lead image". I do a fair amount of image work, and to my observation, the lede images in Wikipedia articles consist of a large variety of different types. Some are, as you say, formal portraits, but some are also snapshots, some are professional or semi-professional location photographs, and some are (obviously) amateur pictures. I don't believe that the generalization that all Wikipedia articles are "portraits" stands up to reality -- but, in any case, as you well know from our last discussion, I don't object to portraits per se, I object to specific types of portraits that distort the natural look of the person in order to present a contrived image, such as this one does.

Further, I really don't understand your fixation of the resolution of the image. These images are going to be presented in an infobox, and the image itself is going to be seen by the reader in a size of somewhere between 200px and 300+px at most. At that size, all of the images that are being discussed here and in the Mussolini discussion are of sufficient resolution to "read" well to our user -- it's not as if we're filling the screen with the image, or that we're printing out a life-style poster. If the question was "Which picture has the better absolute resolution?", that would be one thing, but the actual, pertinent question is "Is this picture of sufficient resolution to read well in the infobox?" The answer to that is "Yes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a better photograph. -- Director (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I just finished scanning the Commons, and the three we already are discussing appear to be the best we have available as far as clearness and overall usefulness. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I kind of thought that was the case. I did a fairly thorough search when I replaced the image two months ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Went through the Bundesarchiv. Yeah, seems like Shiny Goering was in there six years for good reason: because all other decent portraits are privately owned.
We should restore the oiled-up version. If Britannica can use a flattering photo with the man slathered in Vaseline [5], we shouldn't have any problem with it either. Needs must. At least you can see his features there, what we have now is really poor. -- Director (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't matter how long the previous image was in place; consensus can change. It doesn't matter how many times you re-state your position; right now you are the only person in the current discussion who wants to restore the shiny Göring. Unfortunately the Bundesarchiv images donated to the Commons are quite low-res compared to what they offer on their site (compare for example File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-16004, Adolf Hitler mit Hermann Göring.jpg with the source) or we would have a lot more options for potential crops. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware how Wikipedia works, I was making a point as to the utility of Mr Shiny.
Ok. So why exactly can't we have the clearest photo of his face in the infobox? Because its shiny? Its still him... bear in mind he's just two years thinner. Again: look at Britannica's infobox image.

How about the Nuremberg photo from his trial? -- Director (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The Nuremberg photo is not as good for showing the facial features of the subject and has more shadow; and on a personal note, I could care less how irrelevant "Britannica" does things. Kierzek (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Late career photo

Infobox image as it appeared in the GA version of the article.

The image that Diannaa has pointed out would be my first choice. The 1934 photo is not fully representative of Goering's career and looks somewhat unnatural. The Nuremberg photo does not have the headgear and has a more natural pose. It presents a better summation of the subject's career.

"Shiny Goering" would be my last choice. The 1934 image is currently my #2 choice. I generally prefer late-career images, if available, for bio articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, this would be my second choice, but I can certainly live with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations

What is wrong with asking that claims be backed up with reliable sources? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are legitimately interested in the sourcing of the page, which given your editing history I am not inclined to assume good faith on, you could check the existing references on the page, for instance one. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What issues do you have with my editing history? Don't like links to snow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.183.192 (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you want proof that the sky is blue as well?

You want sources that Goering looted artwork from Jews? Try taking a look at the sources used in this.

• Or this.
• Or this.
• Or pick this up and read it.
• Or this.
• Or take a look at this.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, but instead of posting those refs here, why not put them here? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Because the lede section of an article is a summary of the body of the article, and material in the lede is not required to have references if the same material is properly referenced in the body of the article, as is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Göring or Goering?

Reliable sources in English books prefer Goering to Göring by 3::1; so why do we spell it Göring in this article? I am well aware of transliteration conventions from de->en, and of the spelling used by Goering himself, and how it is used in de-wiki. This is not de-wiki, this is en-wiki, and we should use the common name used in the preponderance of English sources, just as we use Germany and not Deutschland as the title of the article about Germany. The common usage in English is "Goering". How the Germans spell it, or how Goering spelled it, should have no weight here.

In most English style guides, English no longer employs the letter "ö", although the New Yorker retains it for use in words like coöperate, but there it is not an o-umlaut but a diaeresis which serves a completely different function than an umlaut. It does not make sense to spell Goering's name in English using a letter that does not exist in English, and in the rare cases where some style guides approve it, is used differently. Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There are thousands of Names, Toponymes and other Lemmata in en-wiki using umlauts and other foreign language vowels. Do you really want to change them all? --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A conscious decision was made and consenus reached to use the original German spelling when this article was brought up to GA status. I have to also agree with Nillurcheier’s comments above. I do not believe in this instance, it should be changed to the English spelling. The actual spelling of the subject's name should be used. Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Talking about changing thousands of other articles is completely off-topic here, as nobody has proposed that. What we are talking about here, is this article. I don't see any consensus in the GA discussion about spelling. A search at the NYTimes, LATimes, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald Toronto Star, USA Today, Google books, and most major English source, shows a majority of 'Goering' over 'Göring'. According to Wikipedia article naming conventions, this article should be spelled 'Goering'.

The article about Düsseldorf is spelled that way, because English sources spell it like that. The article about Munich is spelled that way, because English sources spell it like that (even though the "actual spelling" is München). The article about Würzburg is spelled that way, because English sources spell it like that. The article about Nuremberg is spelled that way, because English sources spell it like that (even though the "actual spelling" is Nürnberg). The article about Cologne is spelled that way, because English sources spell it like that (even though the "actual spelling" is Köln). Would you like another hundred examples? Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not going to happen without local consensus herein, and I would not hold your breath. "Göring" is the correct spelling to be used, therefore, I disagree with moving the article. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the article, because "Göring" was his actual name. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says, Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)...

Can someone please cite a guideline or policy mentioning "correct spelling" or "actual name" trumping common usage in English? By "actual name" reasoning, one ought to request a change of Munich to München as well. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kierzek (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: With not a single policy-based response to my question, you can hardly claim STICK at this point. That was a low blow. Why don't you just quote a guidelin on naming, and I'll go away. Actually, I'll go away regardless; but I wanted to give you an opportunity to vindicate your preference via a guideline or policy for what so far appears to me to be pure JDLI opinion. You now have the last word. Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing personal, I just have not seen your argument gaining any ground; you want examples from English language WP:RS historians that use "Göring", fine (I did not check my entire library):

• Childers, Thomas (2017). The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-45165-113-3.
• Evans, Richard J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-14-303469-8.
• Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3.
• Evans, Richard J. (2009) [2008]. The Third Reich at War. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-1594202063.
• Gerwarth, Robert (2011). Hitler's Hangman: The Life of Heydrich. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11575-8.
• Joachimsthaler, Anton (1999) [1995]. The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth. Brockhampton Press. ISBN 1-86019-902-X.
• Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-04671-7.
• Kershaw, Ian (2000). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. New York; London: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393049947.
• Kershaw, Ian (2008). Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06757-6.

Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a few from my collection that use "Göring" (these are examples only; I did not check my entire library):

• Stangneth, Bettina (2014). Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-95967-6.
• Helm, Sarah (2015). If This Is A Woman: Inside Ravensbruck: Hitler's Concentration Camp for Women. Little, Brown Book Group. ISBN 978-1-4087-0107-2.
• Beevor, Antony. D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02119-2.
• Kershaw, Ian (2011). The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1944-1945. New York: Penguin Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-59420-314-5.
• Friedman, Jonathan C. (2011). The Routledge History of the Holocaust. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-77956-2.
• Bessel, Richard (2009). Germany 1945: From War to Peace. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-74323-955-4.
• Beevor, Antony (2002). The Fall of Berlin 1945. Viking. ISBN 0-670-03041-4. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: You want a policy in support of "Göring"? The WP:CONSENSUS -- which is one of our very basic policies -- on this talk page is against you -- that is why you need to drop the stick, because there is no indication that a change of consensus is afoot. Continuing to push this issue can lead to being disruptive, which I'm certain is not your intention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Trivial awards

I'm not understanding why the awards I added are deleted because they're apparently trivial. If they're trivial, why do they have their own dedicated wiki page? What is wrong with giving a link to an English Wiki page? If they're trivial, why do they have their own page in the first place? What function does it serve to have a dedicated page for those trivial awards? Should I not add a link to something that has its own page? Do I need to ask permission first? Why are some German awards now classed as trivial, yet foreign awards are not? I am honestly perplexed by the deletion and ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This was explained in the section immediately above. We need to be selective about what we include. Major awards are included; minor awards are not. This is done per Good Article criterion 3b, which calls for staying "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". If you think some of the foreign awards should not be included, please state which ones, and we can discuss removing them from the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Added content

I added a lot of missing content to the Awards and Decorations section only to have it deleted. Apparently the deleting editor says Wiki is not "bound by German Awards regulations". I never said we were, what I did was put them in the order that they were viewed in officially at the time. What exactly is wrong with that? Why is it better for interested people not to know that? Also, there are awards he received but there is no English Wiki page for, I put the link, in red, with (de) after it to show there is a German Wiki page for those awards. These were deleted, why? Is it wrong to let people know that there are other awards and decorations he had, or is it better to let people not know, just because I haven't had the time to write an English language Wiki page for them? Is no information better than some? As it stands now, a reader would be completely unaware of a lot of awards and decorations he had, how is this ideal from an educational point of view? I thought that was what encyclopaedias were for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You changed the order of how the awards were listed, putting them in the order "as per German regulations of the times". We are not bound by those regulations, and chronological order is the most reasonable and logical way to present the awards. The additional information you added to some awards was not changed, and the references you added were not removed, only the previous order restored, with corrections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It was decided back around the time of GA prep that not all his awards be listed; the fact is this is not a bio of exhausted detail and trivial awards need not be added. They are not a benefit for general readers for whom we write and we don't need the trivial detraction of the subject. Remember, just adding walls of text or an excessive amount of intricate detail does not lead to a better article; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I do note that somehow I did make a past scrivener error as to dates of the Pour le Mérite and Grand Cross of the Iron Cross; the sources line up now. Also, I don't see Manvell and Fraenkel as wrong, Miller just adds some detail as to the circumstances and why he was "certified a dangerous drug addict" and in the Långbro asylum. I don't believe all that detail of the addition is needed. It is always a balancing act as to editing and inclusion; consensus per the RS sources and the editors is needed. Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A separate service record article, just about dates of ranks, assignments, and awards, might be the best way to go. Göring did have a lot of awards, and a central index of them all would be of benefit. -O.R.^Comms 03:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Trivial awards part 2

My previous question regarding so-called "trivial awards" was not answered. Again, if there is a dedicated wiki page to those "trivial awards", why is it wrong to include them? Could someone please give me a guide as to all the trivial awards, especially those that have their own wiki page, so I don't make the mistake of including them in future edits, or do I just include them and hope for the best or wait until another editor deems them trivial and deletes the link to their wiki page? I don't see what function a dedicated wiki page for a "trivial" award serves, if it's not allowed to be used as a link to the "trivial award" recipient. Should I run it past others on the talk page to see if it's permissible to use them in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The existence of an article on X means that X is notable enough for an article – or that no one has gotten around to nominating the article for deletion – but that doesn't mean that it's fair game to include every possible mention of X in every other conceivable article. For some subjects, X could be notable, for others, not. You've been told that the consensus of editors of this article is that those medals are trivial in the context of a biography of Hermann Göring, and consensus is what we go by here.

Now, please don't ask this question again, since your repeated bringing up of this subject (this is the third time in the course of 10 days) is bordering on disruption, and being a disruptive editor can get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered first, in Added content talk section above. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Image option

#1: At Nuremberg. This is the one we had at promotion to GA

#2: Current image

#3: New suggestion

#4: Another alternative

Since there's a debate on the image size, I'd like to propose an alternative. This was the image in 2012, when the article passed GA: [6]. It looks properly somber; there's no distracting background; etc.

I propose that it be restored. Please let me know of any feedback. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman Thank you for weighing in. While the image is of good quality and sufficiently neutral, I think it would be more suitable as a photo included within the body of the article rather than the infobox.

The vast majority of the article deals with Goering's rise to power as a member of the Nazi Party and his actions during World War II. Conversely, the picture being proposed portrays Göring standing trial at Nuremberg long after his fall from power and only months before his death. Consequently, I prefer an image like the present one that accurately reflects his appearance within the timeframe covered most by the article. However, in light of Beyond My Ken's concern that the current image's "head-and-torso" depiction of Göring glorifies Nazism, I was thinking of replacing it with a cropped "head-and-shoulders" version like this one. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-15607,_Potsdam,_G%C3%B6ring_(cropped).jpg

Let me know what you think.--Emiya1980 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the current image; it's low quality; Goering looks too young; and the faces of the people behind him are distracting. That's why I prefer the trial image - it serves to sum up Goering's career. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current choice was the result of a discussion we had in November. Talk:Hermann Göring#Image change. My opinion is the cropped file (marked above as #3) is too blurry and pixellated. I notice in the previous discussion I didn't actually state a preference, just a dislike of the "shiny" photo. I would prefer the somber Nuremberg pic. Some people found it was too dark though, in the recent discussion above. Perhaps it looks darker on certain displays or platforms such as a phone. The current image is my second choice. I've added the three current ideas above, at approximately the resolution at which they would appear in the infobox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The original image at the Truman Library is not so dark. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As a third alternative, I've added another cropped version above of the current image. Due to being less cropped than Option #3, it is significantly less blurry and pixellated. At the same time, it is substantially "smaller" than Option #2 so there's less risk of it being construed as glorifying Nazism. --Emiya1980 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Let's use the Nuremberg image. The problem with cropping and then presenting at the same size is that Goring just gets bigger.

#5: Vain and grandiose

• There's also this image, which nicely shows the vanity and grandiosity that Göring exhibited at the peak of his power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• The quality is too low. Let's go with the trial image. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I am gonna stick with #1 as my pick for the same reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I don't disagree with the arguments against the "vain and grandiose" image, so I, too, will stick with #1 as my choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons I've already mentioned, #1 is too dark and Göring's face is partially obscured by his hand. Additionally, the version of the image from the Truman library has a faded quality which detracts from the article's "Good" ranking. For this reason, I prefer either Option 2 or 4.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Beyond My Ken How do you go about determining whether the size of an infobox picture is appropriate? Emiya1980 (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

When Goring looks like he's going to jump off the monitor and strangle me unless I give him the Hitler salute, the image is too large. Images should be big enough to take in their content, but not so big that they take over the first screen to the disadvantage of the text. In the case of Nazis and others of their ilk, we should never be in the position of glorifying them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken The original size is the same as that used for all high-ranking officials in World War II (Axis and Allied). The sole purpose of a biographical article is to provide an objective account of a figure's life and his/her impact on world events (for good or ill). Using such a small image for Göring suggests to readers that he was a minor figure in Germany's Nazi regime whose involvement in its numerous atrocities was relatively limited (which is certainly not true). Emiya1980 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"..we should never be in the position of glorifying them" - how can politics be in any way a factor that influences our decisions? I thought we were here to build an encyclopaedia. Harfarhs (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Did you have a chance to look at my compromise proposal? Emiya1980 (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

References

@Beyond My Ken: As I already tried to make clear within the according edit summary: Please note that a complex, comprehensive reference section – like any other section – generally should be structured as clearly as possible (cf. MOS: Section organization) and that I also did some formatting clean-up apart from that. Thus, I would kindly ask you to restore my edits.--Neufund (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The structure is very clear as is, and is not in need of alteration. I've restored your formatting changes, per your request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't, as the formatting (cf. indentation) within "Bibliography" is still inconsistent. Also, the usual term is simply "notes" (instead of the rather redundant term "informational notes" – as notes should always be informational somehow …). Also, the reader would certainly like to be able to navigate in the TOC between the various subsections of the "References" section, which was not possible before (and now again is not possible anymore). What does Diannaa say about this issue?--Neufund (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The structure and formatting as it is is fine. "Notes" is what "Citations" are usually called. When both are present "Informational notes" identifies them as something different from Citations. It is a deliberate choice not to have the sections be hierarchical (that is, to show up in the TOC) because it simply clutters up the TOC unnecessarily. This is especially the case when the Citations refer to the entries in the Bibliography, which is the case here. All the reader needs is to be dir4ected to the section which holds all the referencing material. This usage is fairly widespread, I'm surprised you have never come across it before. Nevertheless, it is clear and concise and is not in need of being changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the <big> code. I've never seen that used in citation lists. My preference is to have proper section headers. I don't think it's clutter - I think it's a useful aid to editing because then I can readily pick up citations for copy-pasting without having to open up the whole article to do so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Diannaa! @Beyond My Ken: I think you should follow Diannaa's – as the main contributor's – [and my] argumentation and restore the section headers.--Neufund (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want the table of contents to display a particular way, a better way to do it is with the {{TOC limit}} template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Just one more thing. Our accessibility guideline calls for proper section header to be used, not pseudoheaders that use list mark-up (i.e., semicolons). This makes it easier for people using screen readers to navigate the article. Bolding in lieu of a header is also frowned upon but is listed in the wee chart as being "acceptable". Bolding is not a navigable feature for a person using a screen reader. MOS:BADHEAD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet another image proposal

Old image

Current image

File:Hermann-Göring-31-08-1941.jpg

New suggestion

I think the current image absolutely fails to capture one of the most powerful and ruthless Nazis to ever walk the Earth. Not only is it low resolution, blurry, fails to even encapsulate his features and has him wearing the expression of a smitten maiden, worst of all it makes him seem harmless.

I propose using this new image of him wearing a much more neutral expression, it's hardly as vain and ridiculous as the old image and was taken at the height of his power. Compared to the portraits used on Goebbel's Hitler's and Mussolini's wikipedia pages, it's humble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeepmep (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox image is not to capture Göring's ruthlessness, or to glorify him (or any other Nazi, for that matter), as the other two images do. The purpose is to aid the reader in identifying the subject of the article. Period. Does the current image do that? Yes, it does. It is therefore sufficient to the task. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well the current portrait clearly insufficient to this task. Look at it, it's blurry, low-res and he looks nothing like how he is in other portraits and newsreels."There's also this image, which nicely shows the vanity and grandiosity that Göring exhibited at the peak of his power."- Beyond My Ken. What did you mean by this then, exactly? Meeepmep (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, how does one define if an image "glorifies" someone or not? Just about every photograph taken of him while he was in power, was probably meant to "glorify" him. Well, almost every portrait taken of everyone from before the 50s was to glorify the subject. Meeepmep (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This has already been thoroughly discussed, and your new suggested image is unrecognizable as Göring - it looks more like a waxwork dummy, and I'm not sure it isn't. I can only see this as part of your current campaign to glorify Nazis by increasing the size of their infobox images, and I'm just not going to be a part of it. In fact, I will do my best to see that images of Nazis are neutral in both content and size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the "new suggestion" image for deletion on Commons as having no permission, no provenance, no proof of date, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, "who decides"? Like everything else on Wikipedia, WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick comment that I'm satisfied with the current infobox photo. Obviously we can't use File:Hermann-Göring-31-08-1941.jpg, as we have no way of determining the correct copyright status of the image and it will be deleted at the Commons shortly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Pile-on agreement that we can't use the proposed new image unless its copyright status is resolved. The old image is also less than ideal, as it doesn't show the full face. Open to the idea of a new one to replace what we have, but neither of these alternatives cuts the mustard so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status aside (though it's obviously a critical issue), the proposed new image is also a classic propaganda photo. The current image is less posed. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, this was discussed at length and consensus was reached as to the photo to use. No reason for a change now and must agree with the reasoning of BMK and Nick-D. The infobox photo is to identify the subject matter for the general reader. Kierzek (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The "new suggestion" image has been deleted at Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Pilot activities in 1925 and 1929

These images claim to portray Göring as a pilot (en route Danzig-Stockholm) in 1925 and 1929. Question is if he at all did any commercial pilot work after returning to Sweden following the aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch. Any chance that anyone here can confirm this with reliable sources? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

1925

1929

Replacement of information

An editor is replacing information which is sourced by Manvell & Fraenkel, Goering: The Rise and Fall of the Notorious Nazi Leader, which as I understand it is considered to be a reliable source, with information drawn from Miller, Leaders Of The Storm Troops Volume 1, a newer book but not one which has the same reputation as far as I am aware. The editor seems to be under the impression that because the source is newer, it is automatically better, but this is not necessarily the case. Because Miller may not be as reliable as Manvell & Fraenkel, I have reverted the editor's contributions, with the recommendation that they can restore them if they can back up the new information with an additional source that is considered reliable, or by getting a consensus from the editors on this talk page.

Is Miller a reliable source? Is it more reliable or does it contain newer, better information than Manvell & Fraenkel? Is my condition that a second source be provided unreasonable? Those are questions I would ask editors to discuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help me with my contributions to the Hermann Göring entry. I spent a lot of time adding content only to see it continually deleted by one individual. Why is that? I added an entire section on his early life dealing with his drug addiction in Sweden, using a legitimate 2015 source, which the person who is deleting my contributions has added as additional reading. He has also allowed the use of this author's 2006 book as a reference, but apparently all the information I added using his 2015 book is not good enough, as the additional content was not allowed because I was only using one source. There was nothing before this, so why is the additional content now deemed unallowable because of the 2015 reference book? I also added content to the awards and decorations section which has been deleted. There is no English Wiki entry for some of his awards, but there is in the German Wiki. I added certain things with (de) after the link in red, so people would know they can search for it on other parts of Wikipedia. Surely it's better to offer other Wiki entries, even if it's not in English, than to have no entry at all? Is it against the rules to offer interested readers to other language options in Wiki? Or do I have to translate the German one then make an English entry before it's permissible? Why is there no means for discussing wholesale deletion before it is done?:Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I was told by the person who deleted my content that it was not valid due to the fact that the reference is not widely accepted. Yet the referenced he relies on is 56 years old. Why is a 2015 reference work not acceptable yet a 1962 one is? Who decides? Also, a lot of the content I added wasn't even in the original article, and some of the content is supported by only one reference, the 1962 book. Why is it permissible to have content with only one supporting reference and not others? Especially when the new content is not even in the article to begin with? If an author is not regarded as reliable, why does the person who is deleting my new content using an earlier work by the author as acceptable reference? Who determines that his 2006 book is an acceptable source but his 2015 book is not? Why can the editor who deletes my content be allowed to rely on one of his books as an acceptable reference work but not another? If his new book is apparently unacceptable as a source, what makes his earlier book acceptable?:Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 04:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Typically, historian circles decide. A newer source is not necessarily a better source - there is a lot of revisionism going on with some newer writers that are not doing the same amount of work "in the trenches," so to speak, and may be a product of over-liberal educational institutions. Such tomes do not get traction and become regulated to the side-lines. Unless truly new information about the subject is uncovered, I would tend to trust an older source that took much longer to write due to the depth of the research done.50.111.22.12 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, for several reasons. Research done after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR will contain a lot of information not available to us before that point. I also don't agree that all new books were done with a liberal bias or were sloppily or rapidly done. Do you have a source for that? Each source must be evaluated individually and not merely on publication date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Lion

Göring had a pet lion; this surely worthy of mention? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a source Andy? I don't have any Goering books available locally any more, and would have to bring something in on inter-library loan. I found this article which states he borrowed lions from the Berlin Zoo as cubs and later when they became unmanageable he returned them. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: It was mentioned in Rise of the Nazis (BBC page), either episode 1 or 2. There was also footage of him playing with it (or perhaps "one of them"). (The series also needs a Wikipedia article - more work sigh.) See also this YouTube video Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I will get this added in the next coupla days. — Diannaa (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I decided not to use the video as a citation as it's not clear the uploader has a right to those images and clips. Thanks for the suggestion - content now added.— Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Image

Diannaa reverted an image addition because it had been flipped... but as far as I can tell it's more likely that the first version is flipped, since the second version is verifiable to USHMM website[7] and doesn't say it has been altered in any way, whereas the first version is cited to a dead link [8] of unclear reliability. Color photographs of this time are so rare that the encyclopedic value favors inclusion. buidhe 13:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the image and updated the source documentation at the Commons.— Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

NSDAP

I see no reason to delete the party's official name. It is helpful additional informaiton. "nazi party" is only the common name in some english speaking regions. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't add to the reader's understanding. Nazi Party is far more recognizable in English. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The abbreviation is not in use anywhere in the article other than in brackets, so there's no point including it.— Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Reich Minister of Aviation

Should Goering's office of Reich Minister of Aviation be added. While interminably bound to his post as supreme commander of the Luftwaffe, technically both are separate office. Should a separate position as Reich Minister of Aviation (his cabinet role, I might add) be added to the infobox or should it be added to his Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe office? SuperWIKI (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's not be pedantic. Many of the top people in Nazi Germany held numerous positions in the government, the party and sometimes the military as well, there is no need to list every single one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course you have to be pedantic, you would insult him if you leave out titles. He was great in titles! And it was a special trait of his to collect all of these (and make sure there is a salary connected to each of them, because he did not just steal all of his art treasures, he bought quite a lot of them at admittedly extremely convenient prices). Dewiki has this list (posting google translate without checking):

• political representative of the Führer in the Reich capital (1932–1933)
• Prussian Minister of the Interior (1933–1934)
• Prussian Prime Minister (1933–1945)
• Deputy Reich Governor of Prussia (1933–1945)
• President of the Prussian State Council (1933–1945)
• President of the Reichstag (1932–1945)
• Reich Minister without portfolio (1933)
• Reichsforstmeister (1934–1945) (Reich forest master)
• Reichsjägermeister (1934–1945) (Reich master hunter)
• Reich Commissioner for Raw Materials and Foreign Exchange Issues (July 6, 1936)
• Member of the Secret Cabinet Council (1938–1945)
• Chairman of the Council of Ministers for Reich Defense (1939-1945)
• designated successor to the Führer (1934–1945)
• President of the Reich Research Council (1943–1945)
• Reich Commissioner for Aviation (1933)
• Reich Minister of Aviation (1933–1945)
• President of the Reich Air Protection Association (1933)
• Commander in Chief of the Air Force (1935–1945)
• Reich Commissioner for Raw Materials and Foreign Exchange (1936)
• Commissioner for the four-year plan (1936–1945)
• Chairman of the Central Planning Office (1943–1945)
• Head of the Reichswerke Hermann Göring (1937–1945)

Kipala (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Trial and death

"Göring was flown to Camp Ashcan, a temporary prisoner-of-war camp housed in the Palace Hotel at Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg. Here was weaned off dihydrocodeine (a mild morphine derivative)—he had been taking the equivalent of three or four grains (260 to 320 mg) of morphine a day"

Why?

"and was put on a strict diet"

Again, why?

Dianaramadani (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Göring was addicted to morphine ever since he was injured in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. He had been taking the morphine ever since. As to the diet, one would have to assume it was because he was overweight. I don't have access to the source book (Gilbert) right now to see if there's any elaboration on this point.— Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lobbying for fame

Hello,

Can't recall the source right now. However, I have read that Goering was impatient with the requirement of 20 aerial victories as the minimum requirement for the Blue Max in WWI. That's why he had Bruno Loerzer lobby for him to receive it at 18 victories. This arrogant cheapening of the award outraged and disgusted his fellow fighter pilots. I think it is interesting as an early indicator of his personality. I hope someone can find the source and insert this factoid.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Jew as Godfather

I think the claim that Goering's godfather was a Jew needs to be further investigated, because the Catholic Church does not allow non-Christians to be Godparents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.61.11 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hitler Germany's idea of a Jew was not religious. They used the registers of state and church where usually was a statement of parent's religion. As many Jews were baptized in 19th and early 20th century, their parent's religion was written down as Jewish in the certificates. Everybody in Germany looking for a government-connected position was requested to produce certificates of birth for parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Which made a number of non-Jews be "Full Jews", "Half Jews" or "Quarter Jews". I saw somewhere that they borrowed the sorting system from the USA, but they never made it to octoroons or hexadecaroons. Kipala (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Epenstein was not a religious Jew, he was a Catholic who left Judiasm to be able to secure his place in German society.

However to the Nazis you were a Jew as per ethnicity, whether or not you practised Judiasm or not. Keepreadingmore (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"the ashes were scattered in the Isar River"

The section "Trial and Death" ends with "the ashes were scattered in the Isar River". Historically insignificant as this may be, this is not correct. It is an undisputed fact that the ashes of the 10 executed major war criminals and those of Göring were scattered in a little rivulet called the "Wenzbach" which enters into a canal which in the end flows in the Isar River. (Those who know German can read this up under the German article "Wenzbach"). Of course, no one needs to know this. Personally, I always thought that those in charge chose deliberately a completely insignificant little stream in order to prevent any myth-making. But I have no source for this, these are just my thoughts. Since English not being my native language, I leave it to more competent people to correct this little inaccuracy. --Sir Pendergast (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to need a source. I'm off the check the German article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This English-language source, from the German article de:Wenzbach (München), says that the ashes were put into the Wenz or one of the two branches of the Isar. The other source given in the article -- also English language, from Stars and Stripes -- I cannot find online. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Winter 1943"

Would that be in January 1943 or in December 1943? --91.5.104.60 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Winter 1943" means anytime from December 1942 to March 1943. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made it clearer— Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't pin it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism Comment Suggestion

I studied history and was reading this article to supplement my recent reading about the Wannsee Conference. I was pretty shocked by the first sentence of the section in the article on Antisemitism, "Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler were far more antisemitic than Göring, who mainly adopted that attitude because party politics required him to do so". The way this is phrased is not at all historical (given the impossibility of knowing what a figure actually thought, and he obviously never stated this position himself - even at Nuremberg) and frankly reads as apologism. A sentence to this effect may fit later in the section but it certainly shouldn't be the lead given it isn't an historical "fact" per se. Even just a more balanced way of expressing this would be a big improvement, "The degree to which Goring was personally antisemitic has been debated and it has been asserted that he adopted that attitude because party politics required him to do so".

I suspect that this is going to be controversial and I have no interest in starting an edit war, so welcome constructive thoughts before making any edits to the main page.

Health tech nerd (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The content as written in the article is supported by the ciation provided. It doesn't mention any historical debate on the subject. I am disinclined to change sourced content without as citation to support the change.— Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)