Talk:Albert Göring

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?

If so, why no discussion here about this dispute?Jrm2007 07:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the disputed section. It is completely POV, and does not cite any reliable sources (or any other kind). If anyone wants to clean it up, here it is:

==Yad Vashem has not recognized Albert Göring==

He is not among the Righteous Among the Nations honoured at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. It is believed by many that his name is not among the Righteous Among the Nations because he shared the last name of one of the leading members of the Nazi movement and the public would have a difficult time of separating him from his more famous brother. Amateur historians have asked Yad Vashem to assist in gathering evidence of Albert Göring's saving Jews; however, despite its massive funding, Yad Vashem has refused to give any help. To make things worse, Yad Vashem said that it wants actual survivors to testify, a feat extremely difficult at this point in time. Eventually, Yad Vashem said it would accept authorized copies of past depositions. However, even this is difficult for the amateur historian as some copies are only available in certain locations of the world. As of August 2007, Yad Vashem still has not recognized Albert Göring's actions in saving Jews.

--Sean 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be useful to include the first sentence (He is not among the Righteous Among the Nations honoured at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.) in the article just to clarify? I believe it is neutral. Although, I'm not familiar with news in this topic. Has anything changed recently? Perhaps he is now included? I can't seem to find the most up-to-date list. chika (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Early life

"Among his paternal ancestors were the Eberle/Eberlin. " This sentence makes no sense at all since the link to Eberle and Eberlin adds nothing but confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.134.243 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cable TV program

A Fox network cable TV program has just been broadcast. Tabletop (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried to upload a picture

a picture of albert. why it's not appearing? Ben-Natan (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Documentary film

I found this documentary on YouTube: "Goering's Last Secret : Revealed 2011" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUr-klBANp8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.100.178 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory/poorly explained paragraph about parentage speculations

"Von Epenstein began an affair with Franziska Göring about a year before Albert's birth.[8] A strong physical resemblance between von Epenstein and Albert Göring even led many to believe that they were father and son. If this were true, it meant that Albert Göring was half-Jewish.[8] However, Franziska Göring had accompanied her husband to his post in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and lived there with him between March 1893 and mid-1894, which makes this seem extremely unlikely.[9] In 2016, Albert's daughter (Elizabeth) told the BBC that her mother (Mila) said that Albert told her that Von Epenstein was his father.[10]"

So, if he was born in March 1895, why is it considered unlikely that he was conceived in "mid-1894" - isn't that about the usual timeframe?

Also that first sentence takes the "about a year" as a definite fact, but then it must have begun during the Haiti trip - through correspondence perhaps? - and this is not clarified.

Anyway, maybe someone with access to these sources should come up with clarifying details from them, because I'm pretty darn confused.

A. J. Luxton (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The sentence "However, Franziska Göring had accompanied her husband to his post in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and lived there with him between March 1893 and mid-1894, which makes this seem extremely unlikely.[9]" needs to be removed. Then the paragraph will make sense and also, most likely, be historically correct. --86.153.118.182 (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)