Talk:Henry Kissinger

TheTimeAreAChanging Exercising Unilateral and Arbitrary Control over this Page

It's clear from the history of this page that TTAAC exercises unilateral control over this page. He deletes every edit, including sourced material, that does not conform to his view of Kissinger. I am beginning a running history of the changes so others can see his deletions are petty and autocratic. I will begin to cite my changes here and ask TTAAC to justify why he is deleting my edits.

Edit #1

I added the following line, which is not a POV and hardly controversial. I provided three citations.

"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial."

The citations are: Time Magazine, The Week, Wikipedia article (Nobel Controversies)

TTAAC keeps deleting it without justification. It's important for the readers to know that Kissinger's Nobel was highly controversial. Two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned in protest. When the award was announced, hostilities were continuing. The Vietnam War ended three years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kissinger Encomium

The Kissinger page reads like a paid publicity brochure. Any attempt to correct the record with verifiable sources is swiftly deleted unilaterally by TheTimeAreChanging. Here is a paragraph that I inserted (with sources) at the beginning that TheTimesAreAChanging deleted. If this keeps occurring, I plan to escalate this to Wikipedia.

"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "

You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't use Wikipedia as a source. Since when is Time Magazine or the National Security Archives poor sources? I will continue make these edits and not be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"slaughter of Bengalis" is not POV language. Do you dispute it occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone read these articles?

In the section on "Public perception", the article says:

"Since he left office, some efforts have been made to hold Kissinger responsible for perceived injustices of American foreign policy during his tenure in government."

"Christopher Hitchens ... called for the prosecution of Kissinger “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.”"

It is a near unanimous view worldwide that Kissinger IS responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and so on. There is a widespread call for international prosecution of Kissinger for these crimes.

What planet do the authors of this article live on? ---Dagme (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a good rule of thumb, that whenever somebody says that it's "unanimous" that some living person, not in jail, not tried, and in no danger of ever having being subject to either, is guilty of a crime, that one has encountered a politicized point of view, best excluded from the article. Ray^Talk 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What planet are you living on? Kissinger is summoned/wanted by courts in numerous countries, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and the EU. He does not travel there anymore because he risks being apprehended. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ray, if what you are saying is truly your belief, you have no intellectual qualifications to be an editor of this website. It is your responsibility to present the facts, regardless of whether you view those as 'a politicized point of view.' In fact, there should be an acknowledgement that many regard Kissinger as a war criminal, and that his defenders cite his contributions to foreign policy. However, as the article is written, it almost seems that there is little controversy. There isn't even a 'Criticism' section anymore. Why? It does not seem like we are the one playing politics here. 68.119.46.47 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The article does praise Kissinger highly and downplays any criticism, so I think it is fair to say that the article is not balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.228.70 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, see the references at, and actual taped White House recording:

http://whitehousetapes.net/clips/1972_0803_vietnam/

http://hnn.us/articles/paris-peace-accords-were-deadly-deception

Nixon and Kissinger knew that South Vietnam couldn't defend itself, and would fall. They were trying to extend it out till after the election. This by itself means unethical behavior and even treason, since it would be wrong for even one person to die so that the president could be reelected.

--
I agree with above critiques. Specifically, the article needs to highlight that the bombing of Cambodia was illegal according to both US and International law, because Cambodia was a neutral country. Moreover, the extend of the bombings arguably far exceeded the perceived military need for the Vietnam conflict.

The full extend of the bombings has only been revealed after 2000; "2,756,941 tons’ worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites" (pg. 63). "To put 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of World War II. Cambodia may be the most heavily bombed country in history" (pg. 67).
Harrypaul23 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I read pretty much the whole article, which basically equates Kissinger with Jesus. One line about Hitchens calling him names? Where is the "controversy" section? The "criticisms" section? I realize he is still alive, but there are serious issues with the man and his career. Huw Powell (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Misquoting Wikileaks' Press Release

Currently, the "Public Perception" section contains this sentence: "On April 8, 2013, WikiLeaks published what they said were 1.7 million U.S. diplomatic and intelligence documents from 1973 to 1976, calling them the Kissinger cables. The release is part of information that was already previously available from the National Archives and Records Administration, but now contain several corrections of errors introduced by the NARA, the U.S. State Department and other parties, along with updated meta data to assist in searching and organization of the cables."

I don't feel it's correct to label the work done by WikiLeaks as "corrections of errors introduced by NARA, the U.S. State Department, and other parties". Wikileaks' own press release bills their corrections as simple editing, like harmonizing spellings of names or places. The notion that typographical errors in a source document written by an employee of the U.S. Department of State is "an error introduced by the U.S. State Department" is laughable.

I'm correcting this sentence to remove what I believe to be unintended insult to NARA and the Dept. of State, while still recognizing the factual existence of the WikiLeaks "Kissinger Files".

222.129.241.67 (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Federal Cross of Merit in 1977

Kissinger received the Federal Cross of Merit (Bundesverdienstkreuz) in 1977, on June 27th. Does anyone have a source for that? --Rolf acker (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Kissinger at Elbe in April 1945

According to this article, Kissinger claimed to have taken part in the famous meeting between American and Russian troops at Elbe during the closing months of WW2: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_10_26/Kremlin-chief-of-staff-discusses-Russian-US-relations-with-Kissinger-7128/

I submit this would be an interesting addition to the section on Kissinger's army experience. My question is, does this reporting of a Kissinger anecdote in a chat with a Russian official constitute adequate proof for wiki standards? Pipling (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)pipling

If it's contained in a statement like "At a meeting with …, Kissinger recalled his participation in Elbe Day" with an appropriate citation, that would probably work.-Ich (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War

We ought to have a section on this, Kissinger and Nixon knowingly broke US law to support Pakistan during the conflict. See The Blood Telegram by Gary J Bass Ping me should anyone want quotes from the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" or "Controversy" sections?

This hagiography almost completely lacks any mention of this man's imperfections and/or errors. I came to the page expecting to read some clear sections about them, and they are not even covered, even in a glossed-over manner. Apart from one line about Hitchens calling him a war criminal or some such. Huw Powell (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly a priority. It's exactly what I came here to read. 92.40.250.76 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Fluency in German

Kissinger was born in Germany, to a German family. I would be extremely surprised if he did not speak German "like a native". So I am perplexed by the comment that "he made the acquaintance of Fritz Kraemer, a fellow immigrant from Germany who noted Kissinger's fluency in German and his intellect". Kraemer may have noted Kissinger's intellect, but his fluency in German would have not been notable to Kraemer.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor/Contributor Keeps Removing Controversial Issues From Article

To whoever keeps removing the (below) statement from the introduction of this article, I will soon seek dispute intervention through Wikipedia's editors and also ask that they tag this article for neutrality review. I strongly suspect that you may be employed by Kissinger and I will have you investigated. The more you seek to delete comments in the Talk page and any discussion of controversies in the Kissinger article itself, the more attention you will draw to this issue. Censorship and a biased perspective towards a figure of such deep historical importance will not be tolerated.

Here is the statement: [Unsourced BLP violation redacted 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)]

I plan to continue reinserting this above statement in perpetuity until you either acquiesce or your actions draw intervention from Wikipedia dispute arbitrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5400:912:9A2:4978:E3AE:5975 (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the text you inserted. Controversial is a mostly meaningless word in this context; its definition "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement." is so general that it really can be applied to any public figure, even Mother Teresa. Adding that note tells the reader nothing. Further, its bad practice to tell the reader what they should think of a subject. If he is 'controversial' we should explain why, rather than asserting that it is so. Additionally, your edits are totally unsourced. If you want to find reliable sourcing about his indictments, we can evaluate if that should be included, but unsourced material can and should be deleted precisely as TTAAC did. Bonewah (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The OP needs to note that adding entirely unsourced assertions about supposed 'indictments' is going to achieve precisely nothing. We need reliable sources for such content, not just random unverifiable assertions from anonymous individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps constantly deleting any criticisms of Kissinger

They are deleting any discussion of Kissinger's criticisms, mainly that he has allegedly committed war crimes. They are also deleting this very Talk thread. That the Wikipedia editors have not intervened to clean up this article and make it more objective reflects very poorly on Wikipedia and its self-professed high editorial standards. I request that the editors immediately put this article under review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's right - and they will continue to do so, until such time as you comply with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and cite a source for the assertions such as "several courts charging him with crimes against humanity". You are responsible for finding sources, and doing so before the material is added. Do so, and stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are Andy "the Grump". I don't appreciate your tone at all. One does not need to cite a source in an introductory section, especially when there are no other such citations in that section. The introductory section merely provides a succinct summary of the article's main positions and content points. The body of the article can have citations to support that summary. You also have not addressed the problem with the article as a whole: it is completely biased towards Kissinger and offers no substantive discussion of his criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of my tone - you have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, and have taken no notice whatsoever of the multiple requests to cite a source - this is your responsibility not ours. And no, the article body does not anywhere assert that Kissinger has been indicted for crimes against humanity, and accordingly, the lede will not contain this assertion. If it is true, find a reliable source for it, and stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There were no "multiple requests" to cite a source, just you repeatedly deleting edits in a dictatorial fashion that provided no justification. Instead, you have violated Wikipedia policy for using offensive language and lashing out at contributors. If you choose to aggressively use your editorial "power" on Wikipedia to lash out at anyone who does't agree with your skewed version of an article then maybe we should seek a formal dispute resolution process to attempt to resolve the major issues with this article and your unprofessional attitude as an editor.