text:
University of Leuven

University of Leuven or University of Louvain (Université de Louvain; Universiteit Leuven) may refer to:
 * Old University of Leuven (1425–1797)
 * State University of Leuven (1817–1835)
 * Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968)
 * Katholieke Universiteit Leuven or KU Leuven (1968–), a Dutch-speaking university in Leuven
 * Université catholique de Louvain or UCLouvain (1968–), a French-speaking university in Louvain-la-Neuve, Brussels, Mons, Namur, Charleroi and Tournai

title: University of Leuven


text:
Talk:Beaked whale

Conservation status
The article states that beaked whales may have gotten decompression sickness (the bends) after being exposed to sonar pulses. The reference, however, only states that this is one man's theory. Also, when I was getting my diver's certification, my instructor made the comment that whales and sea mammals cannot get decompression sickness, since they breathe only unpressurized air at the surface. Can anyone with more knowledge in this area help? Mech Aaron (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Molecular Phylogenetics info by Oxford Univercity
somebody please check this site [] and use it for the article if it is okey with the copyrights. Thanks.--92.118.191.48 (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "shaping the evolution" mean?
Surely any secondary sexual characteristic in any animal - such as the elephant seal, or the narwhal - must have "shaped" the animal's evolution: the characteristic evolved. The animal acquired the characteristic, so its evolution was affected. This goes without saying, so it can't be what is meant by "shaped", but I, the casual reader, have no idea what else "shaped" might mean in this context. Perhaps the meaning is right there in the text, but it isn't clear. 213.122.43.218 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that question. --LiamE (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Most extreme divers
The claim of being the world's most extreme diver seems to conflict with information on the sperm whale page. The sperm whale seems to have similar (or even greater) diving capabilities. I'm not a whale expert, and the reference for the sperm whale statistics is an encyclopedia to which I do not have easy access. Would someone be willing to check which animal actually is the better diver and to possibly mention how the beaked whale compares to the sperm whale in the article. PSimeon (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A whale can´t get decompression sickness
Some person wrote that the Beaked whale could get decompression sickness (DCS) when they dive so deep. Because a whale only inhale air at the surface no nitrogen builds up in their body. Compare scuba diving with freediving. Scuba divers can get DCS because they breath under water. A freediver can´t get DCS because like a whale they only breathe at the surface.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimlund (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Film section
I'm not sure what the purpose of this section of the article is, or even exactly what it's saying. There's no citation provided, and it doesn't seem, from the information that is there, that this is in any way notable, or of more than passing relevance. It was restored after I deleted it, so I won't edit war over it, but why is it here? Is there evidence of notability? Is it actually meant to be a reference for something (and if so, what?), or an External Link (and if so, to where)? Anaxial (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * From the article: Tracking their silent voices (original title: Auf der leisen Spur der Schnabelwale) is a documentary about an Atlantic scientific expedition. A team of marine biologists tried to find beaked whales and to analyze their behavior using acoustic methods only. VagueCitation needed

And I removed it again. There are actually sightings and some nice images after 38 minutes, but as pointed out above, this section adds virtually nothing to the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservation: Plastic bags?
The cited article mentions plastic debris -- not "bags" -- as one of the potential causes of anthropogenic mortality. It doesn't mention the digestive process or bad within the article itself. It actually quotes a different article that mentions the plastic debris in the stomach of one beaked whale. The claim needs to be better verified if it is going to be included here. Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hyperoodontidae vs. Ziphiidae
Doesn't Hyperoodontidae Gray 1846 have precedence over Ziphiidae Gray 1850? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.5 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding polygyny
The sentence "polygynous mating system – which would considerably limit the number of males a female individual can choose." doesn't really make sense to me. My understanding of the term, as well as the current definition here on Wikipedia, suggests that polygyny means a female only mates with one male while the male mates with many females. If this is not the case, I believe polygynandry is the desired term, not polygyny.

WellRehearsedWhale (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Caviziphius
This genus is listed both as incertae sedis and among the Ziphiinae. That can't be right. Chrismorey (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Beaked whale


text:
Filipinos (snack food)

Filipinos is the brand name for a series of biscuit doughnut snacks made by Mondelez International. In France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and most Nordic countries they are produced and sold under the 'Artiach' brand name. They have drawn controversy for having the same name as the people of the Philippines.

Variations
The standard Filipinos snack is ring shaped and come in several varieties coated in either milk chocolate, dark chocolate, or white chocolate. Milk or dark chocolate versions feature a light colored biscuit. White chocolate versions feature a dark brown biscuit. These can be purchased in large rolls. The dark and white chocolate versions are also available in the "Filipinos GoPack" or "Mini Filipinos", a smaller loose packet of four biscuits.

"Filipinos Agujeros" (holes) are crisp doughnut hole sized balls coated in either dark or white chocolate. "Filipinos Bigsticks" are crispy 20 cm (8 in) stick shaped snacks covered with puffed rice. These are coated in either dark or white chocolate.

Controversy
The government of the Philippines filed a diplomatic protest with the government of Spain, the European Commission and the then manufacturer Nabisco Iberia in 1999. The protest objected to the use of the name "Filipinos", a term which can refer to the people of the Philippines, to market cookie and pretzel snacks and demanded that Nabisco stop selling the product until the brand name was changed.

The resolution's author, former Philippine Congressman and Senator Heherson Alvarez, claimed that the name of the cookie was offensive due to the apparent reference to their color, "dark outside and white inside". His resolution stated "These food items could be appropriately called by any other label, but the manufacturers have chosen our racial identity, and they are now making money out of these food items." On August 26, 1999, the Philippine president Joseph Estrada called the brand "an insult".

The protest was filed despite Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon's initial reluctance on the matter. Siazon had reportedly said he saw nothing wrong with the use of 'Filipinos' as a brand name, noting Austrians do not complain that small sausages are called "Vienna sausages".

The controversial snack has been sold on the market for over 40 years. There were statements however, that the chocolate-covered snack was named "Filipinos" due to its brown outer layer and white inside before the snack was bought by Nabisco.

title: Filipinos (snack food)


text:
Duchy of Warsaw

The Duchy of Warsaw (Księstwo Warszawskie; Duché de Varsovie; Herzogtum Warschau), also known as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and Napoleonic Poland, was a French client state established by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1807, during the Napoleonic Wars. It initially comprised the ethnically Polish lands ceded to France by Prussia under the terms of the Treaties of Tilsit, and was augmented in 1809 with territory ceded by Austria in the Treaty of Schönbrunn. It was the first attempt to re-establish Poland as a sovereign state after the 18th-century partitions and covered the central and southeastern parts of present-day Poland.

The duchy was held in personal union by Napoleon's ally, Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, who became the duke of Warsaw and remained a legitimate candidate for the Polish throne. Following Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia, Napoleon seemingly abandoned the duchy, and it was left to be occupied by Prussian and Russian troops until 1815, when it was formally divided between the two countries at the Congress of Vienna. The east-central territory of the duchy acquired by the Russian Empire was subsequently transformed into a polity called Congress Poland, and Prussia formed the Grand Duchy of Posen in the west. The city of Kraków, Poland's cultural centre, was granted "free city" status until its incorporation into Austria in 1846.

History
The area of the duchy had already been liberated by a popular uprising that had escalated from anti-conscription rioting in 1806. One of the first tasks for the new government included providing food to the French army fighting the Russians in East Prussia.

The Duchy of Warsaw was created by French Emperor Napoleon I, as part of the Treaty of Tilsit with Prussia. Its creation met the support of both local republicans in partitioned Poland, and the large Polish diaspora in France, who openly supported Napoleon as the only man capable of restoring Polish sovereignty after the Partitions of Poland of the late 18th century. However, it was created as a satellite state (and was only a duchy, rather than a kingdom). The Duchy has also been described as a puppet state  or a client state  of Napoleon's France. The newly recreated state was formally an independent duchy, allied to France, and in a personal union with the Kingdom of Saxony. King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony was compelled by Napoleon to make his new realm a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament (the Sejm of the Duchy of Warsaw).

The Varsovian duchy was never allowed to develop as a truly independent state; Frederick Augustus' rule was subordinated to the requirements of the French raison d'état, who largely treated the state as a source of resources. The most important person in the duchy was, in fact, the French ambassador, based in the duchy's capital, Warsaw. Significantly, the duchy lacked its own diplomatic representation abroad.

In 1809, a short war with Austria started. Although the Duchy of Warsaw won the Battle of Raszyn, Austrian troops entered Warsaw, but Varsovian and French forces then outflanked their enemy and captured Kraków, Lwów and some of the areas annexed by Austria in the Partitions of Poland. During the war, the German colonists settled by Prussia during Partitions openly rose up against the Varsovian government. After the Battle of Wagram, the ensuing Treaty of Schönbrunn allowed for a significant expansion of the duchy's territory southwards with the regaining of once-Polish and Lithuanian lands.

Napoleon's campaign against Russia
As a result of Napoleon's campaign in 1812 against Russia, the Poles expected that the duchy would be upgraded to the status of a kingdom and that during Napoleon's invasion of Russia, they would be joined by the liberated territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland's historic partner in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. On June 28, the Sejm formed the General Confederation of the Kingdom of Poland, establishing a system of government similar to the former commonwealth with the hope of reclaiming the partitioned territories. However, Napoleon did not want to make a permanent decision that would tie his hands before his anticipated peace settlement with Russia, and did not recognize the confederation of June 28. Nevertheless, he proclaimed the attack on Russia as a second Polish war and allowed the Lithuanian Provisional Governing Commission to fall under Polish influence.

Any peace settlement or restoration of Poland-Lithuania were not to be, however. Napoleon's Grande Armée, including a substantial contingent of Polish troops, set out with the purpose of bringing the Russian Empire to its knees, but his military ambitions were frustrated by his failure to supply the army in Russia and Russia's refusal to surrender after the capture of Moscow; few returned from the march back. The failed campaign against Russia proved to be a major turning point in Napoleon's fortunes.

After Napoleon's defeat in the east, most of the territory of the Duchy of Warsaw was occupied by Russia in January 1813 during their advance on France and its allies. The rest of the duchy was restored to Prussia. Although several isolated fortresses held out for more than a year, the existence of the Varsovian state in anything but the name came to an end. Alexander I of Russia created a Provisional Highest Council of the Duchy of Warsaw to govern the area through his generals.

The Congress of Vienna and the Fourth Partition
Although many European states and ex-rulers were represented at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the decision-making was largely in the hands of the major powers. It was perhaps inevitable, therefore, that both Prussia and Russia would effectively partition Poland between them; Austria was to more-or-less retain its gains of the First Partition of 1772.

Russia sought all territories of the Duchy of Warsaw. It kept all its gains from the three previous partitions, together with Białystok and the surrounding territory that it had obtained in 1807. Its demands for the whole Duchy of Warsaw were denied by other European powers.

Prussia regained some of the territory it had lost to the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807: a portion of what it had conquered in the Second Partition. The Kulmerland and Gdańsk (Danzig) became part of the Province of West Prussia; the remaining territories (i.e., Greater Poland/Poznań), which covered an area of approximately 29000 km2, were reconstituted into the Grand Duchy of Posen. The Grand Duchy and its populace had some nominal autonomy (although it was de facto subordinate to Prussia) but following the 1848 Greater Poland Uprising was fully integrated into Prussia as the Province of Posen.

The city of Kraków and some surrounding territory, previously part of the Duchy of Warsaw, were established as the semi-independent Free City of Cracow [sic], under the "protection" of its three powerful neighbors. The city's territory measured some 1164 km2, and had a population of about 88,000 people. The city was eventually annexed by Austria in 1846, becoming the Grand Duchy of Kraków.

Finally, the bulk of the former Duchy of Warsaw, measuring some 128000 km2, was re-established as what is commonly referred to as the "Congress Kingdom" of Poland, in a personal union with the Russian Empire. This broadly corresponded to the Prussian and Austrian portions of the Third Partition (apart from the area around Białystok) plus around half of Prussia's Second Partition conquests and a small part of Austria's First Partition gains. De facto a Russian puppet state, it maintained its separate status only until 1831 when it was effectively annexed to the Russian Empire. Its constituent territories became the Vistula Land in 1867.

Constitution
The Constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw could be considered liberal for its time. It provided for a bicameral Sejm consisting of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. A Council of Ministers functioned as the executive body of the duchy. Serfdom was partially abolished, as the serfs were granted personal freedom without gaining any economic liberties or privileges. All classes were to be equal before the law, although the nobility was still greatly favoured as members of the Sejm. While Roman Catholicism was the state religion, and religious tolerance was also guaranteed by the constitution.

Administrative divisions
The administrative divisions of Duchy of Warsaw were based on departments, each headed by a prefect. This organization was based on the French model, as the entire duchy was in fact created by Napoleon and based on French ideas, although departments were divided into Polish powiats (counties).

There were 6 initial departments, after 1809 (after Napoleon's defeat of the Austrians and the Treaty of Schönbrunn) increased to 10 (as the duchy territory increased). Each department was named after its capital city. In January 1807:
 * Warsaw Department (Departament warszawski)
 * Poznań Department (Departament poznański)
 * Kalisz Department (Departament kaliski)
 * Bydgoszcz Department (Departament bydgoski)
 * Płock Department (Departament płocki)
 * Łomża Department (Departament łomżyński) – for the first few months known as Białystok Department (Departament białostocki)

The above 6 departments were divided into 60 powiats.

Added in 1809:
 * Kraków Department (Departament krakowski)
 * Lublin Department (Departament lubelski)
 * Radom Department (Departament radomski)
 * Siedlce Department (Departament siedlecki)

Military
The duchy's armed forces were completely under French control via its war minister, Prince Józef Poniatowski, who was also a Marshal of France. In fact, the duchy was heavily militarized, bordered as it was by Prussia, the Austrian Empire, and Russia, and it was to be a significant source for troops in various campaigns of Napoleon.

The duchy's army was of considerable size when compared to the duchy's number of inhabitants. Initially consisting of 30,000 of regular soldiers (made up of both cavalry and infantry), its numbers were to rise to over 60,000 in 1810, and by the time of Napoleon's campaign in Russia in 1812, its army totaled almost 120,000 troops out of a total population of just 4.3 million people – a similar number of troops in total available to Napoleon at Austerlitz, from a country of more than 25 million people.

Economy
The heavy drain on its resources by forced military recruitment, combined with a drop in exports of grain, caused significant problems for the duchy's economy. To make matters worse, in 1808 the French Empire imposed on the duchy an agreement at Bayonne to buy from France the debts owed to it by Prussia. The debt, amounting to more than 43 million francs in gold, was bought at a discounted rate of 21 million francs.

Although the duchy made its payments in installments to France over a four-year period, Prussia was unable to pay it (due to a very large indemnity it owed to France), causing the Polish economy to suffer heavily. Indeed, to this day the phrase "sum of Bayonne" is a synonym in Polish for a huge amount of money. All these problems resulted in both inflation and over-taxation.

To counter the threat of bankruptcy, the authorities intensified the development and modernization of agriculture. Also, a protectionist policy was introduced to protect industry.

Geography and demographics
According to the Treaties of Tilsit, the area of the duchy covered roughly the areas of the 2nd and 3rd Prussian partitions, with the exception of Danzig (Gdańsk), which became the Free City of Danzig under joint French and Saxon "protection", and of the district around Białystok, which became part of Russia. The Prussian territory was made up of territory from the former Prussian provinces of New East Prussia, Southern Prussia, New Silesia, and West Prussia. In addition, the new state was given the area along the Noteć river and the Land of Chełmno.

Altogether, the duchy had an initial area of around 104000 km2, with a population of approximately 2,600,000. The bulk of its inhabitants were Poles.

In 1809 the Duchy annexed West Galicia, the area of the 1795 Austrian partition, and the district of Zamość (Zamoscer Kreis): The duchy's area increased significantly, to around 155000 km2, and the population also substantially increased, to roughly 4,300,000.

According to the 1810 census, the duchy had a population of 4,334,000, of whom a clear majority were ethnic Poles. Jews constituted 7% of the inhabitants (perhaps an underestimation), Germans – 6%, Lithuanians and Ruthenians – 4%.

Legacy
Superficially, the Duchy of Warsaw was just one of the various states set up during Napoleon's dominance over Eastern and Central Europe, lasting only a few years and passing with his fall. However, its establishment a little over a decade after the Second and Third Partitions, that had appeared to wipe Poland off the map, meant that Poles had their hopes rekindled of a resurrected Polish state. Even with Napoleon's defeat, a Polish state continued in some form until the increasingly autocratic Russian state eliminated Poland once again as a separate entity. Altogether, this meant that an identifiable Polish state was in existence for at least a quarter of a century.

At the 200th anniversary of the creation of this iteration of the Polish state, numerous commemorative events dedicated to that event were held in the Polish capital of Warsaw. In addition, the Polish Ministry of Defense asked for the honor of holding a joint parade of Polish and French soldiers to which President Nicolas Sarkozy agreed.

title: Duchy of Warsaw


text:
Sowerby's beaked whale

Sowerby's beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens), also known as the North Atlantic or North Sea beaked whale, is a species of toothed whale. It was the first mesoplodont whale to be described. James Sowerby, an English naturalist and artist, first described the species in 1804 from a skull obtained from a male that had stranded in the Moray Firth, Scotland, in 1800. He named it bidens, which derives from the two teeth present in the jaw, now known to be a very common feature among the genus.

Physical description
Sowerby's beaked whale has a typical body shape for the genus, and is mainly distinguished by the male's dual teeth positioned far back in the mouth. The whale's beak is moderately long, and the melon is slightly convex. The colouration pattern is a grey with light countershading on the bottom, and frequently has cookiecutter shark bites and scars from teeth (in males). The whale reaches 5 metres (16 ft) in females and 5.5 metres (18 ft) in males, with a weight of 1000-1300 kilograms (2200-2900 lb). The gestation period lasts for 12 months and the young are born at a length of 2.4 to 2.7 metres (8 to 9 ft) with a weight of around 185 kilograms (400 lb).

Diet
The diet of Sowerby's beaked whales consists primarily of small mesopelagic and benthopelagic fish, with cephalopods accounting for a much smaller proportion of the diet.

Population and distribution
Sowerby's beaked whale ranges from Nantucket to Labrador in the western North Atlantic and from Madeira to the Norwegian Sea in the eastern North Atlantic. They typically range in waters 200 to 1,500 metres (650 to 5,000 ft) deep. No population estimates have been made. In 1991, there were about 90 records of the species, 80 from the eastern North Atlantic and less than ten from the western North Atlantic; the majority of the records are from around the British Isles.

On 10 January 2009, a female Sowerby's beaked whale was found at the port of Fethiye on the Aegean coast of Turkey, far away from her natural habitat. The whale was successfully saved and released back to the open sea.

On 25 July 2015, biologists with the New England Aquarium investigated the death of a beaked whale in Massachusetts. The carcass of the 17 ft long female, which weighed almost 1 ST, was found on Plymouth Long Beach in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Biologists from the aquarium and the International Fund for Animal Welfare said they would perform a necropsy at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The whale was initially identified as a Sowerby's beaked whale, but the aquarium said a more thorough examination and consultation with additional experts was needed as staff had not seen a beaked whale since 2006.

On 26 October 2018, a 4.2 m whale was found beached near the town of Saltdean, on the UK coast. The carcass was subsequently taken to the Natural History Museum, London for post-mortem. On 29 August 2019, a stranded whale was rescued from Dungarvan Bay, in southeast Ireland. On 4 July 2020, a whale became disorientated and strayed into Wicklow, harbour on the east coast of Ireland but was later discovered dead on Wicklow, beach.

On 21 August 2020, a 3.86 meter long female Sowerby's beaked whale washed up on the shore of a beach in Caister-on-Sea, Norfolk. Emergency services assisted the whale out to sea in an attempt to encourage the animal to live. Unfortunately the next morning a report was received to suggest the whale was stranded and deceased at Lowestoft, on the UK coast, following reported sights of 2 whales in the nearby towns of Brancaster and Blakeney in Norfolk earlier in the month.

On successive days in October 2020, two Sowerby's beaked whales were washed up on separate beaches in East Lothian. Both animals died. The necropsy revealed that one of the whales had an unusually high density of small gas bubbles in the lung tissue, and both whales showed signs of gas emboli in the mesenteric arteries. These symptoms are often associated with decompression sickness, however it was not clear if this was the cause in this case. The MOD later revealed that, one day before the first whale stranded, airborne ASW sonar exercises had been carried out within 80 nmi of the stranding sites. There was not enough evidence from the necropsy to confirm decompression sickness as the cause of death, so the Scottish Marine Animal Stranding Scheme still consider these as live strandings. However, given the otherwise good physical health of the beaked whales combined with the unusual proximity in both time and location of their strandings, the use of sonar in the surrounding area should still be considered a possible factor in the stranding.

Behaviour
Sowerby's beaked whales are reclusive creatures that stay away from ships and are rarely sighted. The whales are occasionally seen in groups of up to 10 individuals (males, females, and calves) and have been known to strand in groups as well. They hunt at depths greater than 500m, and dive to more than 1000m while foraging. Their swimming and diving behaviours are more similar to deep-diving delphinids such as Risso's dolphins and pilot whales than to other mesoplodonts. Compared to Blainville's beaked whales, a mesoplodont of similar body size, Sowerby's beaked whales swim faster while descending and while actively foraging. Their dives are also relatively short and generally last between 30 and 40 minutes. Sowerby's beaked whales cover long distances between dives by swimming at speed just below the surface of the water, as opposed to the typical beaked whale strategy, where time near the surface is minimised by travelling on shallow dives at depths between 100 and 200m.

Conservation
The species has been hunted infrequently by Norwegians, but such practices have long since been abandoned. There are some deaths due to entanglement in fishing gear, but it is unlikely to be very damaging to the species. Sowerby's beaked whale is covered by the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS). The species is further included in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and Small Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macaronesia (Western African Aquatic Mammals MoU).

title: Sowerby's beaked whale


text:
Hubbs' beaked whale

Hubbs' beaked whale (Mesoplodon carlhubbsi) was initially thought to be an Andrews' beaked whale when discovered by ichthyologist Carl Hubbs; however, it was named in his honor when it was discovered to be a new species. This species has the typical dentition found in the genus, but its main outstanding features are a white "cap" on the head and very extensive scarring. The species is known from 31 strandings, a few at-sea sightings, and observations of two stranded whales that were kept in captivity for 16–25 days.

Taxonomy
Carl Leavitt Hubbs, a noted American ichthyologist, published a description of a whale found alive in the surf near his office at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, in 1945. He believed it to be Andrews' beaked whale (a very similar species found only in the Southern Hemisphere), but Joseph Curtis Moore, an expert on beaked whales at Chicago's Field Museum, reassigned it to a new species, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi, in 1963, naming it in his honor.

Description
Hubbs’ beaked whale M. carlhubbsi has a light ventral surface and a midventral portion grading from white to medium gray dorsally. The dorsal surface of the flipper is slightly darker than the adjacent thorax in adult females, with a faint light patch on the distal posterior edge. However, the light patch is more noticeable in adult males. The head of adult male M. carlhubbsi is the most striking feature- black with naturally white areas on the tip of the rostrum and anterior to the blowhole. For females, the tip of the rostrum is distinctly lighter than the rest of the head. Males also have a strong pair of teeth protruding from the mandibular symphysis.

Population and distribution
It is estimated M. carlhubbsi are along the coast of Japan and Pacific coast of North America. The distribution along North America extends from San Diego to Prince Rupert. Southern limit is unknown but the northern limit is Vancouver Island. Distribution is probably not directly related to the character of the water mass but rather follows the distribution of the prey species it feeds on. M. carlhubbsi follows prey items in intermediate and deep-water masses, rather than surface water masses.

Behavior
Stomach contents of stranded M. carlhubbsi contained squid beaks, fish otoliths, and fish bones. Prey species included Gonatus sp., Chauliodus macouni, Icichthys lockingtoni, and Poromitra crassiceps. Researchers assume calving takes place in the summer based on lengths of neonatal specimens, gestational period, and fetal growth in most cetaceans. On October 3 they found a 90 cm fetus which had about 160 cm of growth before birth which gives an estimated time of birth of about mid-May. A few acoustic and other behavioral observations were made of stranded M. carlhubbsi when they were held briefly in captivity. A stereotyped beaked whale echolocation pulse type (termed BW37V) is thought to be made by this species but has not been linked to a sighting, so this attribution is considered provisional.

Conservation
The species has been occasionally killed by Japanese whalers and has been caught in driftnets off California. Recent strandings in Hawaii have occurred, supporting the theory of open ocean habitation by this species. Threats include fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources, pollution, and climate change. M. carlhubbsi are occasionally taken by Japanese whalers and small cetacean fisheries. Incidental catches in drift gillnets occur sporadically off the coast of California. Climate change and severe weather may cause M. carlhubbsi to shift habitat. Also, as with most beaked whales, they may be vulnerable to loud anthropogenic sounds, especially those generated by navy sonar and seismic exploration.

title: Hubbs' beaked whale


text:
Mainland Japan

"Mainland Japan" is a term used to distinguish Japan's core land area from its outlying territories. It is most commonly used to distinguish the country's four largest islands (Hokkaidō, Honshū, Kyūshū and Shikoku) from smaller islands such as the Ryukyu Islands and Ogasawara Islands, although depending on the context the term "Mainland Japan" might refer only to Honshū, the largest island.

The term's literal Japanese meaning might best be translated as "inner Japan" or "inner lands". The term "mainland" is somewhat inaccurate since it usually refers to all or part of a continental landmass, rather than islands.

"Mainland Japan" was an official term in the pre-war period, distinguishing Japan proper from its colonies in the Far East (which at that time included parts of mainland Asia). After the end of World War II its usage became less common and lost its previous legal significance.

Historical usage
In the Japanese Empire of the pre-war period, naichi referred to the mainland of the empire. The other territories of the empire was called gaichi (外地, lit. "outer lands").

The Meiji Constitution's Article 1 of the Common Law (共通法) enumerates the territories with legal jurisdictions namely:

Naichi
Naichi (内地, lit. "inner lands") referred to the territories under direct control of the government. They consisted of the following:

 * Karafuto (since 1943)
 * Chishima Islands (since 1875)
 * Hokkaidō
 * Honshū
 * Shikoku
 * Kyūshū
 * Izu Islands
 * Ryukyu Islands (since 1879)
 * Nanpō Islands (since 1891)
 * Ogasawara Islands
 * Iwo Islands
 * Okinotorishima
 * Minamitorishima
 * Minor outlying islands around them

Gaichi
These territories were called gaichi (外地, lit. "outer lands"). They were part of the Empire of Japan, but not under direct control by the central government.

 * Hokkaido (until 1947)
 * Ryukyu Islands (until 1879)
 * Taiwan
 * Shinnan Islands (since 1938)
 * Seisa Islands (since 1938)
 * Karafuto (until 1943)
 * Chōsen
 * Kwantung Province
 * South Manchuria Railway Zone
 * South Seas Mandate
 * Kiautschou Bay Leased Territory
 * Tianjin
 * Hankou
 * Chongqing
 * Suzhou
 * Hangzhou
 * Shashi

Although it has never been abolished, the Common Law lost effect from enforcement after Japan lost all the former colonies, or gaichi as a result of World War II.

Modern usage
The residents of Hokkaidō and Okinawa occasionally use naichi to refer to the "mainland", excluding these areas. The colloquial usage is officially "incorrect", as both areas are legally within naichi. In Hokkaidō, the official term that refers to Japan except Hokkaidō is dōgai (lit. outside of Hokkaidō). With dōgai becoming common even in colloquial use, naichi ceased to be used.

The term "main islands" (本島 hontō) is used for Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Okinawa. The other estimated 6,847 smaller islands are called 'remote islands' (離島 ritō).

title: Mainland Japan


text:
Talk:Mainland Japan

Isn't Hokkaido sometimes considered as being part of Mainland Japan?
I know its settlement is relatively recent, but I always considered it as being part of the mainland. -- Tlotoxl 11:17, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I am originally from Hokkaido and my impression is that we usually exclude hokkaido from the mainland as the rest of Japan. Some google search shows

 * Location in Sapporo is a geographical advantage for bio-venture businesses, because many IT-related companies are based in the city. We want to supply a variety of products created here to mainland Japan and overseas, fostering new industries in Hokkaido'.
 * People come from Australia, Europe, America, and mainland Japan every November to March to ski in great conditions of dry and ample powder.

-- Taku 19:05, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me!! ;) Still, I think people in Kyushu sometimes speaks the same way, seeing 'the mainland' as being only Honshu. From outside of Japan, however, Kyushu is surely considered mainland most of the time.  -- Tlotoxl 04:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Taku, I have the following two questions: --Nanshu 02:54, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * What term do you think is the Japanese equivalent of Mainland Japan, 内地, 本土 or others? I cannot get the nuance in English.
 * What is the scope of "we"?

title: Talk:Mainland Japan


text:
Blainville's beaked whale

Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), or the dense-beaked whale, is believed to be the widest ranging mesoplodont whale. The French zoologist Henri de Blainville first described the species in 1817 from a small piece of jaw — the heaviest bone he had ever come across — which resulted in the name densirostris (Latin for "dense beak"). Off the northeastern Bahamas, the animals are particularly well documented, and a photo identification project started sometime after 2002.

Taxonomy
In 1817, Blainville named the species Delphinus densirostris, based on the description of a nine-inch piece of rostrum of unknown origin housed in the Paris Museum. It became one of the first beaked whales to be identified. The second specimen, a complete skull sent from the Seychelles by a M. Leduc in 1839, was named Ziphius seychellensis by the English zoologist John Edward Gray in 1846; the French scientist Paul Gervais later placed this specimen in the genus Dioplodon ("two-toothed"). Sometimes called dense-beaked whale as the current Latin name (Mesoplodon densirostris) derives from densus for ‘dense’ and rostrum for ‘beak’. For management purposes, Blainville's beaked whales inhabiting U.S. waters have been divided into the Hawaiian, northern Gulf of Mexico, and western North Atlantic stocks.

Description
The body of Blainville's beaked whale is robust, but also somewhat compressed laterally compared with other mesoplodonts. The males have a highly distinctive appearance, the jaws overarch the rostrum, like a handful of other species, but does it towards the beginning of the mandible and then sloped down into a moderately long beak. In adult males the crown of a tooth erupts from each side of the lower jaw as they reach maturity. Barnacles are often attached to the exposed tooth. One of the more remarkable features of the whale is the extremely dense bones in the rostrum, which have a higher density and mechanical stiffness than any other bone yet measured. At present, the function of these bones is unknown, as the surrounding fat and the brittleness of the bone make it unlikely to be used for fighting. It has been suggested that it may play a role in echolocation or as ballast, but without sufficient behavioral observation, this cannot be confirmed. The melon of the whale is flat and comparatively small. Coloration is dark bluish grey on top and lighter gray on the bottom, and the head can be brownish shading to light grey around the lip and the jaw. Skin discoloration might be caused by diatoms. They might have white oval scars possibly caused by cookie-cutter sharks. Adult males can also have long white ‘scratch’ scars. Males reach at least 4.4 m (14 ft 5 in) and 800 kg (1,800 lb), whereas females reach at least 4.6 m (15') and 1 tonne (2200 pounds). Juveniles are 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) long when born and weigh 60 kg (130 lb). No data on lifespan is available.

Geographic range and distribution
This species of beaked whale is found in tropical and warm waters in all oceans, and is considered to be the most extensively distributed member of Mesoplodon genus. Sightings occur in higher latitudes probably in relation to warm water currents such as Gulf Stream and the Agulhas Current. Groups are regularly seen in at least three locations: Waianae coast, Hawaii; Society Islands of the South Pacific; northeastern Bahamas.

The mean group size is 4.1 individuals. There is no evidence of seasonal migration. It inhabits deep, offshore water (656 to 3281 feet deep) and is associated with steep underwater geological structures. Sub-adult males are found further offshore and in deeper water than adult males due to dominance hierarchy. Blainville’s beaked whales have a long-term site fidelity meaning they return to the same area repeatedly or stay in the area for extended periods of time. Resight rate is higher for females than males as they are more likely to base their distribution based on prey abundance when males follow females to increase mating opportunity

Foraging
This species feeds primarily on squid and small fish and cephalopods.

Blainville's beaked whales do not capture prey by biting. They use suction feeding to capture prey. They create low pressure in the mouth by retracting tongue, and using throat grooves to expand throat volume. This creates a lower pressure in the mouth than the surrounding waters, allowing the whale to suck in water and whole prey.

Blainville’s beaked whale shows similar foraging behaviour during the day and night, however the time spent on surface is greater during the night.

Social behaviour
Blainville's beaked whales can live in small cohesive groups of 3 to 7 individuals. Groups consist of both sexes and combination of ages or might be segregated. Harems of several females and a single mature male have been observed in productive continental shelf areas (eg. Bahamas). Males compete for females which probably causes scarring on individuals. The function of the group formation is protection (for females with small calves) and mating opportunity (for adult males).

Two signals were identified with possible communicative function: fast series of ultrasonic frequencies modulated by clicks and harmonical rich short whistles with mean fundamental frequency of 12 kHz. Because Blainville's beaked whales almost exclusively vocalize while on their dives, most believe that they are using sound to help their foraging. However, while on their dives they will produce whistles which are most commonly known for communication among odontocetes rather than echolocation for foraging.

Blainville’s beaked whales remain silent for up to 80% of the time, especially in depth shallower than 170m and during silent ascent from vocal dives. This behaviour might be a protection mechanism against shallow-diving predators such as killer whales.

Migration and Movement
There is no evidence of seasonal migration.

Beaked whales are among the longest and deepest divers of any cetaceans. Mean diving depth for Blainville’s beaked whale is 922m with maximum 1408 m. The species dives primarily to forage for food in the deep ocean, usually diving >800 m when foraging and can stay underwater for 48-68 min. For longer dives ascent rates are slower than descent rates. After a dive they spend an extensive period of time (66-155min) in the upper 50 m of the water column.

In a study published in 2008, diving statistics of beaked whales were analyzed and no significant difference was found in diving behavior between day and night. For example, mean and max duration, number of deep dives, max depth, and ascent and descent rates were all calculated as equal during the day and night. However, the number of mid-depth dives was recorded to be six times higher during the day than at night. These results suggest that Blainville's beaked whales forage the same amount during the day and night, but switch to deeper-water prey at night.

Reproduction
Lifespan estimate is unknown. Sexual maturity might be reached at 9 years old. Calving interval and gestation period are unknown.

Population status
NOAA Fisheries presents estimates of population size of U.S. stocks (Hawaiian, northern Gulf of Mexico, western North Atlantic) in stock assessment reports.

Protection status
Blainville’s Beaked Whale is protected throughout its range by CITES Appendix II and MMPA Protected. The Blainville's beaked whale is covered by the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic Sea, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS). The species is further included in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and Small Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macaronesia (Western African Aquatic Mammals MoU) and the Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of Cetaceans and Their Habitats in the Pacific Islands Region (Pacific Cetaceans MoU).

Whaling
The beaked whale has occasionally been hunted, but has never been a specific target.

Noise pollution
Beaked whales are susceptible to detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise pollution because they use sound for hunting, communication and navigation. The broadband ship noise can cause a change in beaked whale behaviour up to 5.2 km from the boat. Whales have been reported to move away from the noise source and decrease their activity level. Sonar use during naval military activities have been associated with multiple strandings throughout their range. Infrequent and unpredictable noise is perceived as a threat and influences whale behaviour. Response is especially strong in noise-free areas where whales show avoidance of the noise which might be associated with life-threatening increased energetic costs.

Entanglement
Blainville’s beaked whales are occasionally reported as a bycatch throughout its range.

Marine debris
Marine debris has been identified in the stomach of stranded Blainville’s Beaked Whale. Marine debris ingestion was reported as a cause of death of beaked whales.

Resources
For more information about ongoing work on Blainville’s Beaked Whale check BMMRO and Cascadia Research Collective

Specimens

 * MNZ MM002350, collected Tongoia Beach, North of Napier, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand, 1998
 * The Queensland Museum in Brisbane, Australia, has a full skeleton of an adult male on permanent display.

title: Blainville's beaked whale


text:
Gervais's beaked whale

Gervais's beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus), sometimes known as the Antillean beaked whale, Gulf Stream beaked whale, or European beaked whale (from which its scientific name is derived) is the most frequently stranding type of mesoplodont whale off the coast of North America. It has also stranded off South America and Africa.

History of discovery
Sometime between 1836 and 1841, a captain of one of the ships of the French merchant and armorer Abel Vautier came across a large animal floating at the entrance to the English Channel, its body covered by swarming gulls. He cut the head off and transported it to Caen, where he presented it to Vautier. Vautier in turn offered it to the anatomist Deslongchamps. The specimen somehow made its way to the French scientist Paul Gervais, who described it as a new species in 1855.

For several decades this remained as the only known specimen of this species, with many disregarding its specific status and claiming it merely represented an aberrant adult Sowerby's beaked whale.

The species’ identity was confirmed by the discovery of two specimens from New Jersey, an immature male captured near Atlantic City in 1889 and an adult female found stranded at North Long Branch in 1905.

Description
This species is the largest of the mesoplodonts and rather gracile, elongated, and laterally compressed compared with the others. The mouthline is remarkably straight, even in males, and the two teeth of the male erupt towards the tip of the beak, and are hardly noticeable. The head is overall small and tapering in outline. The melon only bulges very slightly. The coloration is dark gray on top and lighter gray on bottom. Females sometimes have lighter spots near the genitals and face, with a dark circle remaining around the eyes. Juveniles start off with a lighter coloration, but soon darken. Males are 4.5 m in length and females are at least 5.2 m and probably weigh more than 1200 kg. Calves are believed to be 2.1 m in length. One beached specimen may have been 48 years old.

Behavior
Judging by strandings, the whales occur in small groups. They probably feed on squid.

A sighting made in 1998, west of the island of Tenerife, involved three whales swimming over waters 1500 meters deep. Another small group was seen south of the island of Gran Canaria.

Although timid, the whales allowed close photos. They surfaced for a short time, and their dives lasted for around an hour.

In September 2008, northeast of the island of Lanzarote, some Gervais' beaked whales were photographed breaching out of the water.

On May 5, 2011, one juvenile female specimen was found dead and beached at Playa Larga of Maunabo on the southeast corner of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea. The juvenile had her stomach filled with (10 pounds) of plastic bags.

On July 10 of the same year, one specimen was found dead in the Yucatán Peninsula, México. Further investigation is being performed to confirm the species in this case.

Population and distribution
The species is believed to be naturally rare, and no population estimates have been attempted.

Since the discovery of the type specimen, it has been found off the eastern coast of the United States, Ireland, the Canary Islands, western Africa, and Ascension Island.

In August 2001, a specimen was found off São Paulo, Brazil, the southernmost specimen found to date.

Although this species frequently strands, until 1998 no one had made a confirmed sighting of the species. Sightings remain rare.

There had been a possible stranding of this species in Israel.

Conservation
The species has not been hunted and only very infrequently gets tangled in fishing nets. Gervais's beaked whale is covered by the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS). The species is further included in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and Small Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macaronesia.

title: Gervais's beaked whale


text:
Talk:Hermann Göring

Role in the Reichstag
This article contains nothing about Goering's position as Speaker of the Reichstag -- and HHitler's apparent fear of his control of the Party. Nor is there anything about his personal cruelty to the left members of the Reichstag after they had been thrown into the camps. -dlj. User talk:DavidLJ

Main Photo
War criminals should not have glorified military photos as main photo. A picture of Goring on trial is more fitting for his crimes against humanity which he was found guilty of at Nuremberg trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthehistory (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in, properly referenced, and large enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the text." The picture of Göring is all of those. It isn't glorifying him or any other Nazi; it is simply a picture used in the Infobox. There's no reason to replace it. Whilst his actions were indeed abhorrent, Wikipedia isn't a place for moral grandstanding.ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 * By your logic, why is the military photo the standard bearer for him? I would argue you are showing the Nazi viewpoint of how great he looks in a military uniform representing the Nazis? Why not look at the potential victim viewpoint that he is man that committed terrible crimes and was put on trial for this - albeit not enough justice that came too late. Iamthehistory (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the photo in the infobox is to identify the subject of the article, not to right great wrongs or to present a particular point of view. Nazis, including the top brass as well as the rank and file and military, wore their uniforms virtually all the time. So photos of them in uniform are probably better for identification purposes than ones with civilian clothes.— Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Diannaa as to her reasoning in relation to the main photo. And, he is not "let off the hook". The article makes clear his war crimes and the photo of his corpse, post suicide (to avoid his sentence to death by hanging) is shown in the last section of the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

 * Agree w/ the trial photo; Göring looks more like a real person, vs a propaganda icon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally, infobox / recognition images shouldn't have an obscured face. There is no specific requirement for it to look like he did in 1945, just that it's a good rendition that people will recognise. (Hohum @ ) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just flicked through his commons images. The current picture is the only one I see of high quality, where his face isn't at least partially obscured, where on looking at it, he's instantly recognisable. The retouching isn't ideal, although it seems relatively minor. (Hohum @ ) 23:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was more intended to acknowledge that the current photo is indeed heavily retouched and therefore might not be the best option for the infobox. And I'm not entirely sure it was taken in 1945.— Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a version without overpainting, on which however the Pour le Mérite is only half visible. Is this version also in the public domain? I do not know the death year of Robert Röhr. --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actuially I am not particularly satisfied regarding the sourcing on the copy of the image we already have, as the source url does not mention Goering or the purported photographer, Robert Röhr. So I don't think your version is a good choice as we can't prove its copyright status.— Diannaa (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can access the precise source URL by clicking on the link next to "Signature". The photographer is misspelled as "Rohr". Göring is likewise misspelled as "Goring". --Zaunkoeniglich (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it now. Regardless, I don't think we will be using that image, as the consensus so far is to use the trial photo.— Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we then move the title image to an appropriate section in the article, perhaps to whichever part mentions his promotion to Reichsmarschall? SuperWIKI (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we have space. There's already so many images in this article.— Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

 * Personally, I think the original photo provided a much better quality image of the subject.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the "original" photo? The trial photo is the one that was in the infobox when the article passed WP:GA :) — Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The trial photo should be restored; it was picked by consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored it.— Diannaa (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What consensus? Based on the above thread, only two users have come out firmly in favor of the current image. In order to reach a true consensus on the subject, I think an Rfc is in order.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider reviewing the previous discussions and suggestions from the archives:Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1; Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1; Talk:Hermann Göring/Archive 1. You did participate in those discussions. Consensus at that time was to use the trial photo. You are welcome to open an RFC obviously, if you think consensus has changed. There's detailed instructions at Requests for comment— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a clear consensus for the image change, as you're referring to multiple discussions, going back almost five years and almost all archived. There are different people commenting at different times, and there are different images suggested in different discussions. It's good that you have suggested an RfC on the issue, but it would've been better to actually have an RfC before any change was made. (jmho) -  wolf  01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to open an RFC if you think consensus has changed. There's detailed instructions at Requests for comment. — Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

date of marriage
Hello,

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

Which date is correct? Thanks

Stijn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stijn74 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 February 1922. The source cited in Carin's article does not actually give a date for the wedding.— Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Radio broadcast - Keep or remove?
I have removed content about a broadcast by Göring that was interrupted by noise from the RAF. I don't think this incident is important enough to include here, and tells us nothing about Göring. If it had been present when we applied for Good Article status, the reviewer likely would have asked for its removal. Discussion welcome. — Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa. The incident is, in and of itself, amusing, and would certainly spice up a TV documentary on Goring, but it really doesn't have anything to say about the man, and could have happened to any of the Nazi's top leaders, if they were scheduled to speak at that moment. It might be acceptable as a footnote, but not in the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal, per above. Kierzek (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kierzek This is the first allied attack on berlin...3MRB1 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3MRB1, that does not make the broadcast interruption in itself noteworthy. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kierzek it was an attack on the broadcast itself 3MRB1 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

 * Your RFC is malformed in a couple of ways. Your RFC should be in the form of a question, and should be neutrally worded. That's not the case here, since you've specified your preference for a military photo instead of posing a neutrally worded question. And you haven't specified a specific photo you think should be in the infobox.— Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What Diannaa said. This si not a proper WP:RFC, so I've commented out the RfC tag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've fixed it. Thanks for the guidance. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your RFC is still flawed, because your question is not neutrally worded, and is designed to sway the user in favor of the new image. I have commented out the RFC template. — Diannaa (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's try this again...Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 * No  - Keep as is. I see no reason to replace the infobox's current image.  Meatsgains (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - In nearly every other article on senior Nazi members, they are shown in their respective uniforms. Göring with a sour face in a suit is the odd man out. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The photo suggested here shows his face more visibly without his hand obscuring part of it, and is overall of higher quality. If there were a photo of this quality from his time during the trial, that should be considered too, but absent that the better and clearer photo should be used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes It shows his full face and shows him "on the job." I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No  The current photo is fine. It shows him on trial for his crimes, not resplendent in the uniform he wore while he committed the crimes for which he was executed. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  19:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No  Keep as is; the suggested photo is from 1934, before the majority of events in the article took place, and thus does not strike me as being very representative of Göring's historical impact.— Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have posted a notification at WT:WikiProject Military history.— Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but not the suggested one. If showing any role, should one that he is most noted for, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Goering´s life has many facets, which no single photo can capture. What photo could possibly be "representative of Göring's historical impact"? Göring as the founder of the huge Reichswerke Hermann Göring, the man behind the Reichstagsbrand, or rather him ordering Heydrich to prepare the Final Solution, the Holocaust, ....? I think that there are so many photos of him on the page that it doesnt matter what particular photo is in the infobox. The current one is fine, the suggested one is fine. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes / Support change - more than anything else, Göring is known as a top Nazi officer and the infobox photo should align with that. (I have more reasons, but you'd have to have seen Inglourious Basterds to understand them.) - w o lf  22:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was asked to clarify this. Basically, the courtroom image tells us nothing. Can't even tell this in a court. And placing that image in the infobox places importance on the fact that he was in court, facing... some sort of justice(?) And no longer in uniform could be seen as being no longer a Nazi, and everything evil that being a Nazi represented. Since there's no images with a Swastika carved in his forehead, I believe that an image of him in uniform, in the infobox, helps to clearly summarize the most important aspect of who, and what, he was, in the most appropriate place in the article to so. (That's the gist of it.) - w o lf 01:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 * No  - Should be left as is. We have been through all this, as recent as the end of 2021. The current photo in the infobox does its job; it identifies the subject of the article. No reason to change it. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No: The suggested image is far lower resolution than the trial photo and the trial photo adequately identifies the subject (his hand being placed over his chin definitely doesn't outweigh the bad quality of this replacement image). Alduin2000 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I am baffled that some editors think the trial photograph is "low quality", apparently because we are unable to make out at a glance whether or not he had a cleft chin. It is a better portrait than the uniform picture, a better photo, and a higher-resolution file. It's one thing to insist on the regalia; it is true that most of our Nazi biographies have brass-and-ribbon photos in the infobox. But the proposed shot of Göring is crummy. It's a low-resolution crop. Anyway, I'm not convinced we need the uniform. Nazis also looked like this; in fact, isn't this perhaps the apotheosis of the Nazi? A war criminal in defeat, soon to commit ignominious suicide. Regulov (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No I really like the current photo: it's visually arresting, shows what he looked like and doesn't glamorise him. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No Essentially per Alduin2000...and as this has been brought up: he isn't "more than anything else known as a top-Nazi officer". All these photos of other Nazi Grandes in uniforms...well, there is a reason they wanted to be shown in uniform, even at the times. Lectonar (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I LOVE the current picture, but I think that someone who has no idea or a very small idea of who Göring is (or was, rather) would get a better idea of the man from a uniformed picture than from a frumpy courtroom picture. I'm just thinking of being as general as possible, i.e. high ranking Nazi, at the beginning of the article and then getting more specific, i.e. explanations as to why he might be sitting in a courtroom looking so dour. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No Keep trial photograph if it is a choice between that and the proposed one, which just shows a man in a unuform. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No per Alduin2000 mostly. The uniform pic (and others I've seen) are lower quality than the trial photo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No Changing it to the new picture will not enhance or improve the biography page. Therefore, abstain from the edit.Writethisway (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * YesPerfectly suitable pic, German WW2 officers need to be shown in uniform to link them to what they were most known for, their dubious role in WW2. Also, as others have noted, this shows his face clearly, in the other one his face is obscured. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No current photograph is perfectly fine. This is an encyclopedia article about a convicted war criminal who was sentenced to death for his crimes, not a Luftwaffe fan page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No No, because as stated above showing him in the courtroom is suitable. We do not need to glorify Göring. Existing photo is ok as it is.MraClean (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No The current photo appears to be higher quality to me. Furthermore, I do think that we should pay a little more attention to the POV of photos, and the suggested alternative photo seems pretty clearly to be taken from a Nazi POV, which we should definitely not be elevating. Loki (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No -- keep as is; better reflects the subject's entire career. Besides, Göring looks more like a real person, vs a propaganda icon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Current photo is shit. Either use the above photograph or File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg because they do a good job at conveying what he looked like. Current photo has him covering his face from an awkward angle. The point of the photograph is to easily display to others what such person looked like. So what if it was used in propaganda. Also, you may as well argue that the portrait of FDR is "glorifying him;" the problem is that its all subjective. The infobox photograph is not there for people to say "oh, he did something horrible in the past, so he deserves a shit photograph." That's what the rest of the article is for. What about Hitler's or Stalin's infobox photographs? Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes — The recent Talk:Adolf_Eichmann concluded with "Those in favor of the older photo say he should be represented by a picture wearing his uniform of the Nazi regime, not only because they believe he is most well known for the part he played in the holocaust (the reason he ended up in trial), but also because it helps the reader quickly identify the subject's place in history." I think the same can be said of Göring MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Although I can think of better replacement photos. The problem with the current photo is (among several things): not showing him in uniform and he is too lean in this photo. Goring spent most of his adult life as quite heavy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What about this image as an alternative for the infobox? Unlike the one currently being used on the article, it provides a clear view of Hermann Göring face. It is also much less blurry and out of focus than the current alternative under discussion (i.e. the photo showing Göring in uniform). Furthermore, unlike previous infobox pictures that have since been rejected, it is a photo of the man as he appeared in real-life with no signs of being airbrushed for propaganda purposes. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The image might not be in the public domain. So no, we should not use that one. — Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this one? A version of this image is already in use on the German wikipedia. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of using that, as it says "unknown author" yet claims it was taken by armed forces personnel. Both can't be true. It's just as likely that the photo was taken by a member of the press. The source magazine is not a government publication; it's a copyright magazine published by in indelendent organization. — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an issue of the status of the one photo offered, as Diannaa mentions. Agree, not in favor of using it. Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kierzek and Diannaa about not using this photo, as there are potential copyright issues to reconcile. --Obenritter (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Rfc for Herman Göring's Lede Image (2024)
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Hermann Göring? Emiya1980 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't think we should use image D, because we don't know for sure that the copyright tag is correct. In other words, we don't actually know for sure that the photo was taken by someone in the Air Force. Looking at the source I see the notation that the photo is marked as "Photo via Stan Piet", who could have been a jouranlist or other civilian. We really don't know. So of the three remaining alternatives, I like Photo A, the current image. It's a clear crisp image. B is a little blurry, with weird shadows in the background, and C is a Nazi image issued as a souvenir postcard, too promotional for my taste.  — Diannaa (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the status quo, Image A, for the reasons just stated by Dianaa. By our normal standards, it's not an ideal image but better than the alternatives. And I will add: as a portrait in the more profound sense, i.e. a picture that gives you some insight into a person's character, I think the candid and unposed nature of Image A actually adds to its strength. It's a haunting picture of a haunted man, and for that reason I think it serves to elevate the encyclopedic value of the article. But yeah, if you think my musings are a load of cruft, then just consider this an endorsement of the perfectly rational reasons given by Dianaa. Generalrelative (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just need to say that after two people had already commented on the RFC, Emiya1980 added a fifth image, "E". I am pretty sure the terms of an RFC should not be altered once people have started to respond, but I'm not going to edit war over it. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still believe that photo A is fine and there is no good reason to change it; the others, except for D, which has a shadow and the copyright is clearly in question, are all just standard “strong man” images or official poses, which don’t relay the stripped away nature of “a haunted man”, as Generalrelative so aptly put it. Further, I also endorse the reasoning as stated by Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the image from the Nuremberg trial but his face is obstructed. Thus maybe some other option would be better. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * C, then A My philosophy has always been that for historic figures we should use the best quality image that is most representative of the subject. I think the propaganda argument can certainly be applied to many images of Goering (something like c:File:General Goring (Mann Gerrf).png would be completely inappropriate), but I don't think it is particularly relevant for C; at its essence, this is a military portrait in a similar vein to those of Moltke the Elder and Wilhelm II; Nazi iconography is certainly present but is not really at the forefront (unlike say c:File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-L04232, Walter Koch.jpg). Status quo is also acceptable for reasons laid out above, but would be a definitive second choice for me. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Striking due to the comment by . I am clearly not read enough on Goering to make such a judgement. Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, the fact that Göring was a convicted war criminal and many pass-by readers will only look at the article Summary, we should avoid any first-look image that glorifies him in Nazi regalia. There are plenty of other photos further into the article and the status quo does what it should already. Image A is the most appropriate here. --Obenritter (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A more familiar to the readers image D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A The alternatives are not a real improvement. This is basically the same discussion that was recently held at Mussolini and Frederick the Great. These aren't biographies of living people where there are new photos. These are stable, well written articles, and in this case this is a GA article. The status quo is fine and it's been previously discussed. This is a needless time sink and disrespectful to those who have spent time editing the article and those who volunteer time for RFCs. Nemov (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * E because he is best known as a military leader. His pose is casual. His gaze is not resolute. What I don't like about A are the little speckles (probably dust particles). At first, I thought that he had a cyst on his forehead. --Curiosity2023 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We could ask at the Graphics Lab and someone could remove the white dots. — Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good idea. The dots should be removed, and the bottom edge should be cropped. --Curiosity2023 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the clenched fist though. It shows the tension he was experiencing. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A kind expert from the Graphics Lab has made the dots go away. — Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * E or B I think the current one I don't very like because he is partially covering his face, and only half his face is illuminated. C I think is too promotional. D is kinda low quality and i dont like the lighting. — A Socialist Trans Girl (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A All the options but A and D are Nazi propaganda images - the Nazis made a lot of use of photography to portray an image of their regime, and these images depict Göring as a bit of a dashing type of character which he rather famously was not. A and D are post war so avoid these issues. D is very low quality, so A is the best option. The EV is strong as it depicts what he looks like during one of the better known periods of his life. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A, feels like “Groundhog Day”. My reasoning is stated in the RfC above, I’m not gonna repeat myself. Kierzek (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * D if the copyright works out, otherwise C. I don't like A because between the sharp shadows and the hand on his chin, his face is obscured quite a bit. B and E are okay but subpar photos. D despite being similar to B and E I think is best because it's the only color photo here, and other than that C is the best view of his face. I'm not particularly convinced by the "Nazi propaganda images" argument: yes, obviously most good images of one of the lead Nazis are going to be images taken by the Nazi regime to promote itself. There's frankly no good way around this and I don't really think the promotional priorities of the Nazi regime nearly 100 years ago are relevant to Wikipedia in 2024. If anything, I feel that the rhetorical goals of the photos taken by Nazis are very counterproductive on Wikipedia in 2024, where portraying Göring as a strong stoic figure makes him look more like a stereotypical Nazi, while A makes him seem a little bit too personable to me. Loki (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

In light of your participation in the prior discussion on the lede image for Hermann Göring, you are invited to participate in a new Rfc on the subject. Should you be inclined to do so, please share your thoughts on this thread. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 * C, E, B, or D (in that order) - more than anything else, Göring is mainly, almost exclusively, known as one of Hitler's inner circle, and a leader of the German military. An image in uniform certainly helps to convey that. That is likely why the infobox images of Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Hirohito and Napoleon are all in uniform. Even Hitler's infobox image is his offical 1938 portrait, with a Swastika armband and military healdry pinned to his chest. The image of Göring at trial should be in the trial section. Currently, this article has 11 images and one video of Göring in a Nazi uniform, so why is one in the infobox such an issue? We shouldn't be editing based on our personal feelings on the subject, but based on supported facts. (jmho) - w o lf  21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * C. Agree with Thewolfchild. Doesn't make much sense to have him out of uniform....when that is what he was most noted for. Option C also captures his girth. (Something else he was noted for during most of his adult life.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * D, E, C, B, A, from best to worst. D because it's in color and in uniform. The rest but A because they are in uniform, and in E, C, B order for E having a clearer face view and C and B being equal in that regard but C not having a distracting white splash. A is the worst because it has a "throughtful" pose that implies intelligence, reasons, even wisdom (it's the famous hand-to-face gesture of Rodin's The Thinker), it's out-of-uniform, and it makes him look clever and even approachable. Has the feel of a portrait of a playwright. This is a Nazi war criminal, and the uniform is approprirate. A also partly occludes his face with his hand, so for encyclopedic purposes it's a crap portait even if all other considerations were ignored. The quality of D is not an issue, because it is perfectly adequate quality for inlining in the article. It only has quality issues when blown up, and even in that state it's not any worse than many other images we are using.  I'm not even slightly swayed by "some of the others are Nazi propaganda images". Pretty much all Nazis-in-uniform are, by definition, yet we use them because they most accurately depict the subjects in the context for which they are [negatively] notable. None of them make him look "dashing" or otherwise glorified; they're very typical and pretty stuff military-officer portraits. The one that actually has a promotional effect is A. PS: Yes, I have changed my mind on this, from the previous round, where I supported using A (the trial photo). PPS: The black suit one from the previous discussion above would also be possible, as another alternative to A, and next-to-last choice after the uniform pics, but only if the hair or whatever it is is removed (the weird line running quasi-horizontally, and going across his forehead).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference to Rodin's whole sculpture being the balled fist, which takes away the fleeting impression of intelligence or wisdom which might have been intended. But as it is, the photos overall seem to leave different impressions on different people, viz this discussion here :).Lectonar (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have nominated File:Göring Augsburg 1945.jpg and file:Göring Augsburg 1945-beschnitten.jpg (Image "D") for deletion at the Commons, as the license tag may be incorrect. Adding: I really don't think we should use it if the copyright status is in doubt, hence the deletion nomination. We gotta stay classy; we are the 7th most viewed website worldwide. — Diannaa (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A. Responding to ping. Frankly I don't recall opining on this previously, but my view is that A should remain the photo. The others show him in Nazi regalia. This one shows him as a war criminal in the dock at Nuremburg, which is a more appropriate image for the article rather than him preening in full Nazi uniform. The other photos are official Nazi propaganda. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A Responding to a ping; and it's for the same reason I gave in the last RfC in 2022. All pictures of him in uniform are essentially Nazi propaganda: we shouldn't cater to that, even after more than 75 years. And jsut as an addendum: I do not know where the idea that he is mainly known as military leader comes from: known essentially as a politician, war criminal, flyer in WWI...military leader, no. Lectonar (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Me personally, the first thing I think of with Goring is him being the commander of the Luftwaffe. (Before all that other stuff.) But I guess that's just me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A Keep the status quo. The other images don't seem like much of an improvement. Or in other words, nothing is really gained from changing the current image, which in itself is perfectly appropriate. Writethisway (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that image A is the best choice, as it is arguably the most iconic and recognizable image of him and the setting adds to its relevance. 1mikeymouse1 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * B or D. In light of the fact that C is clearly a glamorizing depiction of Göring designed to promote the Nazi regime, it probably should not be used unless a caption explicitly confirming its propagandistic nature is also provided.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards D, largely from the historic context of the image. It was taken after he was captured by US forces, already deprived of his medals but still wearing his fancy blue uniform. It depicts his transition from his Nazi past to the criminal on trial. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Comment: it will be interesting to see the close on this. Many of the comments supporting 'A' all seem to be of the same attitude that "Nazis were awful and we shouldn't be showing Nazis because that would (somehow) be glamourizing them, and WP shouldn't be seen supporting the Nazis 'cuz the Nazis suck." While I agree on a personal level that the Nazis did indeed "suck", shouldn't we be approaching this from an encyclopaedic point of view? Arguments here should be based on what image represents the subject best, not showing what we feel the subject deserves. Changes to any content should be based on policy, not personal POV. (jmho) - w o lf  13:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is largely definitional. No one is arguing for A cuz Nazis suck, as you say. Rather, a good number of the A votes are predicated on the understanding that "encyclopedic" is in some sense antithetical to propaganda. This doesn't mean that we can never include propaganda when properly framed, but rather that a non-propagandistic image may well represent the subject best. Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ Interesting viewpoint in light of how you previously did not object on such grounds to the clearly propagandistic portrait for Benito Mussolini on the Rfc for his page's lede image. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * @GR - You've somewhat made my point for me, in that using an image of Goring in uniform is not propaganda, but people here arguing against it seem to think it is. And Emiya makes a good point about Mussolini, who I also noted in my !vote above with a half dozen other dictators who are in uniform in their infoboxes, with no complaint. But looking past them, what about the US military? There is no shortage of critics here who believe that American officers and soldiers (and Marines, pilots, sailors, etc) have committed all kinds is war crimes, yet we have (hundreds? more?) of bio's with them in uniform in the infobox, yet I don't recall there ever being an RfC to change any of those images to remove the uniform. But that's what is happening here. People are making a distinction based on personal amimus (even if well-founded), and that is antithetical to writing an encyclopaedia. - w o lf  19:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't get a lot of the arguments made either. Someone even made the [incredible] statement that image "A" is the "most iconic and recognizable image". Seriously? I'm not sure I've even seen pic "A" before outside of wiki. That pic doesn't appear at all in the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on him. Here is PBS's 'American Experience' article on him. . (Note the pic used.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah the whole reason this discussion is occurring is due to bias. His original picture (File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg) was removed because "Nazi's are bad" and I argued that that picture should not have been changed because it was much more clear, but consensus decided that "war criminals don't need to be glorified." Like bruh, that pic was the most objectively clear one to see what he looked like. It was a very biased and non-neutral decision in that convo and this one seems to be infested with people who are deciding with biases formed from the subject matter of the individual, not from the photographic value of the infobox image, which should be a good image for the average reader to quickly glance and see what the subject looked like instead. It's very sad and unfortunate.

Also, the argument that focuses on having a pic of him from Nuremburg is flawed in other ways, It only focuses on a brief moment of his life and the term "propaganda" is extremely subjective and that using "propaganda images" is bad is essentially stating that Wikipedia should start censoring content that run contrary to subjective viewpoints even if those photos are objectively the most clear and useful images available. I didn't know that we have to protect Wikipedian's from being indoctrinated by censoring infobox images like WTF???? Its like the violent video games make school shooters argument. I also did not know that having an image in the infobox is "glorification." Bruh. I do not even know what to say anymore that is also a subjective term.
 * My first vote goes to that one (File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg). Other than that, I say C, E, B in that order. Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you call File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg the "original picture". I don't recall it ever having been the infobox image for this article, which I have been monitoring since 2012. The infobox image when I started WP:GA prep in February 2012 was the photo from the trial (image "A"). It was there when we passed GA, and has been in the infobox for the majority of the time ever since. I did some spot checks on diffs from early days and found that there have been other infobox images prior to 2012, but they were deleted for lack of copyright permission. — Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just randomly checking prior to 2020.....I am seeing that photo quite a bit..
 * I am also seeing this photo a lot too: .Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 * File:Hermann Göring - Röhr.jpg (with C,D,E as less preferred alternatives) - not sure why it wasn't included in options as it is literally in the article main body at this moment, but seems like an obvious choice giving a good instantly recognizable view of the subject's face. It also depicts Göring in the role he is most notable for: second man of the Reich and commander of Luftwaffe. Current image is pretty poor as subject's face isn't even properly visible. "Propaganda" argument is quite nonsensical. It is pretty standard in wikipedia to use similar "propaganda" official photographs in all kinds of biographies from US presidents to Adolf Hitler, for a simple reason that these are commonly the best quality photos.--Staberinde (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's starting to look like Photo D is okay from a copyright pont of view. However when I inspect it closely I noticed that it's quite pixellated, as is the image it was cropped from. So regardless of the copyright status, I don't think we should use it in the infobox. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hermann Göring


text:
Villanella

In music, a villanella (plural villanelle) is a form of light Italian secular vocal music which originated in Italy just before the middle of the 16th century. It first appeared in Naples, and influenced the later canzonetta, and from there also influenced the madrigal.

The subject matter is generally rustic, comic, and often satirical; frequently the mannerisms of art music, such as the madrigal, are a subject of parody. The rhyme scheme of the verse in the earlier Neapolitan forms of the villanelle is usually abR abR abR ccR, where "R" is a refrain repeated exactly. The villanelle became one of the most popular forms of song in Italy around mid-century.

The music of the early villanella (known as the canzone villanesca) is invariably for three unaccompanied voices. The first composers of villanelle were the Neapolitans Giovanni Domenico da Nola and Giovan Tomaso di Maio; later composers, no longer from Naples, included Adrian Willaert, Luca Marenzio, Adriano Banchieri, Orlande de Lassus, and others.

title: Villanella