Jump to content

Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Accent

There's no reason t'analyze Dr. K's lack of accent as some sort of psychosocial phenomenon. Most linguists agree (Bongaerts et al. 1995) that after age 12, children will not acquire a new accent. By my math, Hank came t'America at age 15. --Signor Giuseppe (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You archived everything

Heh, you archived everything! I ... didn't expect that. :D El_C 22:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to preserve the edit history on the archive page, so I had to do a page move. Perhaps a clean talk page free of two years anger and resentment will cheer people up. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Now really, Mackensen. I don't know about you, but when I see something that seems wrong I edit it. Now if I'd known about htis conflict I would have checked the talk page and found this. Two messages. No indication at all that the introduction was being fought over. – ugen64 20:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Ugen64, Mackensen has decided to take a break from Wikipedia. I am hopeful that he will return soon. El_C 22:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I know, he e-mailed me. – ugen64 00:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, good, I didn't want you to take a lack of response on his part the wrong way. El_C 01:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Ugen64 has a point, and I have added the contents of the archive file to the link above. HTH -- Viajero | Talk 11:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course, how could he know. Mackensen just seemed so at peace though with the clean talk page. :) Anyway, now all that's left is linking each and everyone of these subsections to the acrhive! El_C 11:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

David Icke

Is it really necessary to include the section on David Icke's accusation that Kissinger is a shape-shifting lizard? This article seems to be to heavily slanted in favour of the accusations levelled against Kissinger and his legal problems. I think the political history section needs to be expanded and perhaps the legal problems given its own page.

I share the concern about Icke's outlandish statements, though for slightly different reasons. It's included in (and heads up) a section on serious charges laid at Kissinger's feet. Somewhat inappropriate and detracting I think. Better that it's relegated to a (pop cultural) footnote in the article. --Plumbago 16:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bangladesh (East Pakistan) War

Why is it that Kissinger's role in the Bangladesh (East Pakistan) War gets so much space in this article? Certainly it's not primarily what he's known for now (2006). Maybe in India and Pakistan, but nowhere else. Most mainstream opinion sees Kissinger's role in US-Soviet detente, the expansion of US-China relations, the Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War as much more significant parts of his legacy. Is it really important enough to address in two places? I'm hardly a slavish defender of Kissinger, and I know he has his detractors, but this emphasis jumps out as being motivated by something other than a desire to dispassionately present Kissinger's impact. The choice of which facts to present can be POV too.

It is quite shocking that people will go to any lengths to cover up facts. Why for instance revert and in the process deleting the external links that show the facts? The transcripts surely were not a fiction of my imagination and it has appeared in press sources all over the world.

The recent blanket revert throws some people in poor light, after all I've tried to tone down any POV statements and cull the statements from the actual transcripts. Please read the official links and don't delete them in haste as with the recent edit.--Idleguy 06:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

i'm sorry for your shock, but the strategic support for the Pakistani regime can be noted without the POV language. the Nixon administration supported Pakistan in the war because of U.S. opposition to India (a Soviet ally) and general Cold War politics. considering the effects of the war, the case that U.S. policy was shortsighted, stupid, criminal, whatever, can be made, but this is not the place to make it. J. Parker Stone 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't try to keep readers in the dark. Why do you wish to delete references? Either you haven't read them or you don't want to accept the facts. Either way you shouldn't be reverting to your version. The rebuttals section of the article included in your version of the edit says "no evidence" which is not true. evidence has been declassified and I suggest you read them before you make up your mind. appropriate changes were made also explaining from the Horse's mouth. i.e. Kissinger himself. What makes you think I would be putting Kissinger's quote in George W. Bush's article. Obviously it goes into an article on Kissinger.
If you feel that there is a POV, I again advise you to read history and the Bangladesh Liberation War here and elsewhere for more details and the "tilt" of the US towards Yahya Khan. Modificiation of words is fine with me, but blanket reverts that entirely delete facts or the newly obtained information amounts to stubborness.
If you wish to continue this then I'd be forced to quote word for word from Kissigner on the apology and the reason behind why he made the incompetent decisions he did. Surely then it would not be a POV statement since such a statement comes from the person on whom the article is about.--Idleguy 07:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
i apologize, i only saw the first edit regarding the military dictatorship. and you're right on the facts (though I hadn't heard about the China rationale before.)
that reminds me that that entire section needs to be seriously adjusted, considering this allegation-rebuttal thing takes up so much space -- they can be presented in a far less lengthy fashion. i don't really know what i was thinking when i put in that layout. J. Parker Stone 07:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It also exposed the chilling fact that Kissinger was eager to ignore the crisis in East Pakistan and support an oppressive dictatorship just to have friendly relations with China.

This is an opinion–several, in fact. It opines that Kissinger was eager to ignore a crisis, and to support a dictatorship which was oppressive. It opines that this fact was "chilling". This is not NPOV. I'm not in a position to read transcripts, which are primary material in any case. A citation for these claims would be wonderful. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that you are not reading the current version where the statement you quote has been modified to show a more unbiased version of facts. As for the references, pl. read the last reference mentioned in the article http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/ that summarises everything for easy reading. Thanx.--Idleguy 07:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)henry has a realy big dick.


I have just made a number of changes to this article section because in recent months the Bangladesh Liberation War has been rewritten with a more balanced POV towards the alledged genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that the quotations from Kissinger and Nixon on India merit inclusion in an encyclopedia entry on him. This is merely one of thousands of quotations that could be included from HAK. It gives this article entry the appearance of being a 'hatchet job'. Cripipper 14:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What was important to HAK and other international actors was not the civil war in Bangladesh, but the Indian intervention, i.e. the Indo-Pakistan conflict. The 'liberation'/cessession/independence of Bangladesh was a minor issue. The actors at the time viewed it as the Indo-Pak War and talked about it as the Indo-Pak War, not the "Bangladesh Liberation War" (see e.g. HAK's autobiography). Incidentally, 'Bangladesh Liberation War' is rarely used outside the Indian subcontinent, but Bangladeshi nationalism has moved that the article on here be name thus, rather than the more standard (internationally) and infinitely less POV, Bangladeshi War of Independence. Cripipper 12:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that this section doesn't deal with India-Pakistan war which took place in December 1971 but is about events of 1971 and it should be called accordingly. East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was fighting for independence. Even the conversation in which K. called Gandhi "bitch" took pace in November, in fact there is not a single sentence about Indo-Pakistani war...--Pethr 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point about the criticisms being related to the earlier period. However, the rest of the section does in fact relate to the Indo-Pakistani conflict, rather than Bangladesh per se. Cripipper 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean and agree that Indo-Pakistani war was significant event. Unfortunately section of this article isn't about it at all. It's rather about criticism of Nixon administration and K's stance on Pakistan and East Pakistan' fight for independence. First sentence is about atrocities and blood telegram (well before any Indian military activity, administration can be hardly criticized for role during war when they played this role more than 6 months before the war started. Such sentence is IMO clearly flawed.). Second sentence and treaty of friendship with Russia and reapproachment with China (again nothing related to the war, rather reasons why they did what they did and didn't discourage Pakistan from atrocities). And third and fourth sentence, on comments on Indira Gandhi. Nothing on confrontation of India and Pakistan which happened in December 1971 and is known as Indo-Pakistani War, but a lot on U.S. position on Bangladeshi fight for independence.--Pethr 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I take your point, but I would say that what this requires is an improvement in the content of the section relating to the South Asian crisis (which, to be fair, is really very poor) rather than renaming the section. Cripipper 07:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I cam't agree more that such improvement is needed but if this section is expanded the need for ranaming it will be only stronger.--Pethr 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Current intro

It's better than when I first came across this article, but I personally feel that Kissinger's accomplishments should be separated from what he is criticized for. I might be partly to blame for the current style -- I can't recall all my past edits on this page. But in the '70s and after the end of the Nixon/Ford admins., he was generally regarded as an extremely skillful diplomat who had negotiated the end to the Vietnam War and made the breakthrough in China. I don't recall learning of his Yom Kippur War dealings in as much detail as the aforementioned two events, which he's very well-known for. (oh, and forgot to mention détente, of course -- d'oh)

Of course, the Nixon administration in general (not specifically Kissinger) was criticized for expanding the war into Cambodia by the antiwar Left and plenty of other Americans. But it was only until recently, with the declassified documents and all, that Kissinger's involvement in Chile, East Timor, Argentina, and Pakistan became a large focus of criticism. I would suggest that we begin with a paragraph referencing the opening of China, the end of the Vietnam War, and possibly the end of the Yom Kippur War, then follow with a paragraph like "However, Kissinger has come under fire recently for..." and then reference Hitchens and the "war crimes." any suggestions or comments'd be greatly appreciated. J. Parker Stone 08:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As I did on the Ronald Reagan article, I have created a sandbox for this page if anyone has any suggestions. J. Parker Stone 00:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

can someone please work in my sandbox edits. pwease pwease pwease *whines*. the intro just reads like a laundry list of kissinger policy without emphasizing the important ones, ie detente and China.

and also can we please rework/downsize that godawful "allegation/rebuttal" section. the whole "war crimes" material in general is WAY too long. i understand a great deal of users on here don't like kissinger but a) this hyperbole mostly came about because of Hitchens, who is extremely biased against American Indochinese policy (as in pro-VC/PAVN) in the first place and doesn't like the fact that Kissinger walked away from Watergate unscathed and b) this is not to say we shouldn't mention them, but the fact is, that when i learned my basic history, war crimes was not on the top of the list for what Kissinger's known for. he was an American politician and (outside of lefty/human rights NGO circles) in the U.S. he is known as a skillful diplomat, not a "war criminal," and the allegations are given way too much play.

anyone (Jmabel etc.) who wants to discuss this i'd appreciate it much. J. Parker Stone 04:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I took a shot at rewriting the lead, drawing on some of your language; I was a bit more discursive, but doubt I've added anything more controversial than is inevitable for this subject. I've never really looked at this article before, and have not yet read it in its entirety; I wrote the lead on the basis of "what would a good 5-6 paragraph NPOV article on Kissinger tell you?" I'm very open to discussion if anyone thinks I took this some wrong direction. I will readily admit that I have not been following discussion of this article, and apologize in advance if I've inadvertantly edited against consensus. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
that might be a little excessive, but overall a lot better than the previous, and i appreciate it. coupla things. first, i'm not sure the "CIA intervention" part is entirely true. it is correct that basically the entire Nixon administration was working hard initially to prevent Allende from being inaugurated after he won. the first strategy was to pressure Frei into not accepting the victory because the center-right candidate, Jorge Alessandri, had only lost by a little more than half of a percent. Frei anything but a socialist but he was also a constitutionalist like a lotta the higher-ups and wouldn't go along with it, so the Nixon, Kissinger and the CIA started to look at how a Track II'd succeed -- that is, back a military coup before Allende's inauguration that would then presumably call new elections.
but from what i've read it is not clear whether the CIA was complicit in Schneider's killing after the Viaux-led coup-plotters f'd it up. there's a good article on the subject here: [1]. this guy's obviously pretty conservative but he uses good sources and this is the only serious counterpoint to the charges, a lotta which are tinged with emotive left-wing bias. most other anti-Allende sources are just simplified "it was gonna turn into a Castroite dictatorship" which of course doesn't help us.
in any case i think i went a little too in-depth but the point is that Kissinger didn't officially "authorize" anything at the time (that's the President's job,) and in terms of CIA funding for the failed 1970 coup, there's still some murkiness around what happened -- according to the article, which uses declassified Nixon-era transcripts, i linked to the Nixon admin. cancelled the plan because they didn't think Viaux had any shot. in terms of the 1973 coup there is absolutely no evidence of direct intervention, although the CIA did help out the striking organizations prior to that with funds.
kissinger supported CIA anti-Communist propaganda ad placement and anti-Allende media funding like the rest of the Nixon administration during the 1970 elections and during Allende's tenure. this is of course different from directly supporting a coup. so either this should be taken out of the intro or, if it is left in, clarified. i personally would take it out, because from what i've read, the controversy is mostly around the '73 coup and is generally used as a broader anti-American slam rather than a specific Kissinger criticism. we should remember that Hitchens is the one who first really brought this up and his charge was that Kissinger conspired to murder (can you say hyperbole? anyway) Schneider with the CIA, that's the specific charge, the rest of U.S. Chilean policy can be mentioned in the body, as well as Kissinger's support of it (in his memoirs and such, declassifed docs, whatever) but it's more a Nixon administration issue than a specifically Kissinger one. J. Parker Stone 08:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
another thing -- lol sorry i'll be done soon -- is the "controversy" bit. some problems. he was "controversial" with the antiwar Left yes and i'm sure the tough anti-Communist hawks (in all likelihood much more the former than the latter, considering it was a Republican administration, though Reagan made some noises about Kissingerite detente during his 1976 campaign) but in comparison to the other Nixonites he was not controversial -- because he was unscathed by Watergate, whereas a ton of high-ranking officials were. and what he was controversial for on the Left side was pretty much Vietnam (as with the rest of the Nixon admin.) -- remember a lot of this stuff was not declassified back then. i am not aware of much controversy surrounding Kissinger after Ford lost to Carter, that is during the '80s and '90s -- maybe amongst the radical Left. it was not until Hitchens wrote his book, i believe in early 2000 or so, that there was a real revival of interest here, and perhaps in the '90s with the East Timor issue, but i'm not sure how much was declassified then (Suharto wasn't out and East Timor wasn't independent 'til late '90s.)
so to sum up: tenure -- disliked by anti-Communist hawks for detente, despised by the antiwar Left for leading role in expanding Vietnam War in early '70s. '80s -- not much. '90s -- East Timor starts to come to attention because with end of Cold War there's no practical reason to keep our alliance with Suharto, but not all details out yet -- Timor still occupied. late '90s or 2000 -- Hitchens is like "ok this dude is getting off scot-free and i'm gonna nail him just like i did with Mother Theresa and Winston Churchill" and writes The Trial of Henry Kissinger, later made into a documentary. substantial condemnation of Kissinger as a "war criminal" by the Left and certain human rights organizations. limited reaction from the Right (because most arguments confined to hard Left rather than mainstream American Left.) essentially, the "war criminal" controversy comes after Hitchens. then as we know, a Spanish judge and Chilean judge IIRC wants to question Kissinger for potential involvement in Operation Condor -- as a result, he consults before he travels to Europe.
also remember that the "international judges" who've made noises about putting Kissinger on trial have related entirely to Pinochet-era stuff. there's been a lot of condemnation in terms of East Timor but no one has tried to extradite Kissinger for it. J. Parker Stone 09:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't specifically alluding to Frei with the remark about the CIA. But "CIA" doesn't really add much here anyway -- what does it matter which part of the U.S. gov't did the covert activity -- and I will remove it, there are other articles where it is discussed in more detail -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I had earlier on posted an allegation that I had read somewhere that Henry Kissinger was a foreign spy but decided to delete it because I did not think there was any proof. But then I found that it had been reposted. I then deleted it again. I did not repost it, so that means someone else did. Whoever did this please do not repost comments I have made that I deleted. FDR | Talk 12:04 AM, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A reply to that post has also been removed. No need to feed trolls. - Ezeu 06:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Article (except intro) rewrite

i have created one here, any comments, discussion, or implementation of proposed changes would be much appreciated. J. Parker Stone 07:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm too busy to take this on right now. In my experience, Trey's work is almost always worth at least a look for comparison with current approaches and there are bound to be many parts where his write-up is better. Does someone want to take this on, approaching this as a merge of two versions? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

why the hell is there a "terrorists" category added at the bottom?

i thought my changes were pretty legitimate, if anyone gives a crap about this bloated, biased page and would like to work 'em in sometime, or discuss them, i'd appreciate it J. Parker Stone 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

apparently one user thinks that there somehow wasn't enough text about Hitchens's accusations in the current page and added some POV to the intro. Dr. Trey 22:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone rewrite

I promised Trey Stone a couple of weeks ago that it'd review the his proposed rewrite in User:Trey Stone/Henry Kissinger sandbox 2 and consider posting it around a couple of weeks ago. I finally got around to doing this, came out in favor of Trey's version. Trey's version is considerably better organized, more chronological, and more on-topic. The old article had no discernible structure, leaping from one period of his career to war crimes charges to another period of his career. Yet his "legal problems" are no appropriate basis for organizing this article. Instead, various charges by commentators such as Hitchens should belong in this article in the sense that they are events taking place in his retirement. So chronologically they belong toward the end of the article, as opposed to being featured prominently as a section in itself... At any rate, I realize that this is a major change, so I welcome feedback. 172 | Talk 09:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

the only issue i have with the current article is stuff that was added in the intro before 172 editted in the rewrite (in which i didn't include the intro.) "covert intervention" in Chilean politics is certainly true, as is the friendly diplomatic relations with anti-Communist (however i think it should specifically say Southern Cone and not "elsewhere," considering Argentina and Chile were the two countries that had the major coups in 1976 and 1973 respectively) govts. however the "he has been accused of this with said govts." deal is already mentioned in the "accusations of war crimes" section and i don't think we need to get that specific in the intro. Dr. Trey 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
what is this, gradually re-corrupt the article?
cuz ya know anon IP, that POV you dumped in on Bangladesh sure helped stuff. Dr. Trey 11:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

there is already a section on U.S. support for Pakistan during the Bengali conflict. i don't see why we need two. Dr. Trey 23:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Dr."

Why "Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger" in lead sentence? Yes, he is a Ph.D, but I thought we do not normally do this. It is certainly not how he is commonly referred to. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It is customary to refer to people with their full name, including honorifics, at the beginning of the article. This is standard procedure; there's a reason we don't start by calling him just "Kissinger". 68.145.207.92 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with "Henry Alfred Kissinger, Ph.D.", but I don't think "Dr." is usual practice. Just to pick a few other famous American figures active in both academia and the political arena, we do not do this for Noam Chomsky, Condoleezza Rice (for whom we don't even say Ph.D.), or Woodrow Wilson (ditto). - Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Having received no further response, I will change to "Ph.D." I see it is now simply gone, which is also fine by me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Considereded"?

"Kissinger and the Nixon administration initially considered authorizing the CIA to provoke a military coup". People "consider" a lot of things. Every day I consider NOT going to work. I still go. Unless there was something more that "considering" going on (like discussions, and maybe plannings) this statement should be removed. Also, I'd like to know the source of this claim, there are no references. --Regebro 07:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • You might look through the National Security Archive materials. Yes, the option appears to have been seriously discussed. I don't think such discussion is a matter of much controversy: the controversy is over the degree to which any of it was acted upon. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't that answer a bit like "You might read a library of books"? I'd still like a reference. It's a vey fuzzy claim, so it needs good references, or it should go away. --Regebro 10:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. BTW, I didn't write the passage. This, on the CIA's own web site certainly suggests that it is not way off the mark: "Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it. There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists’ offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La Moneda Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life."
Admittedly, this doesn't specify Kissinger's personal involvement (or that of any other individual). Still, it's hard to imagine, given the above, that Kissinger as National Security Advisor could possibly have been out of the loop, but I honestly don't know with certainty that there is documentation of his personal involvement. Do I understand correctly that is what you are asking for? Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I see that the passage is about 1970, not 1973. The U.S. gov't role there is easy to document. From the Church Commission report [2] section "Covert Action Between September 4 and October 24, 1970":
The reaction in Washington to Allende's plurality victory was immediate. The 40 Committee met on September 8 and 14 to discuss what action should be taken prior to the October 24 congressional vote. On September 15, President Nixon informed CIA Director Richard Helms that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States and instructed the CIA to ploy a direct role in organizing a military coup d'etat in Chile to prevent Allende's accession to the Presidency.
The document makes it clear that this was approved by the 40 Committee. As National Security Advisor, Kissinger would have been on that committee.
I believe I now have answered this, let me know if you still need more.-- Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been classifying these. There is a shortage of pro-Kissinger links.

I am removing http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html because it is an attack site, and I see no information not included in the many other linked anti-Kissinger sites. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also removing these, which seem to me to be attack sites. We are not at all short on anti-Kissinger links in the list, and I don't see that these bring anything that is not to be found in the others, except more vitriol.

Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

German American?

I find it very odd that Kissinger is now categorized as a "German American" and, despite his Jewish family having come to America fleeing the Nazis, the lead now refers to him being born in Germany but leaves it to another section to mention a Jewish background. I'd be interested in hearing from others on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He might be Jewish, but he's still German. It is the same case as with Jews in Poland. They consider themselves to be Jews, but first of all, they consider themselves as Poles. Despite the fact that his family escaped the Nazis, he's still German. Jews in Germany were not the only ones to escape the Nazis. Norum | Talk 13:13, 14 April 2006 2006 (UTC)


Well, he would be "German-American" considering that Judaism is a religious belief, not a racial or ethnic description. -Alex 12.220.157.93 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

"Judaism" is a religious belief, but being a Jew is another matter. I speak here as a secular Jew, and definitely a diasporist, not a Zionist, but also as someone who questions the primacy of descriptions in terms of state over those of nationality. I am certainly not a "Lithuanian-American", I am a "Jewish American" or an "American Jew".
Just out of curiosity, would you call an ethnic Turk born in Germany who moved to America a "German-American"? Is an Arab from Jerusalem who moves to the U.S. "Israeli-American"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we have either "German-American" or "Jewish American"? Surely, Kissinger's Jewish background is not an important enough feature to mention in the lead? (Were he a rabbi or outspoken defender of Judaism, then yes; he's neither and seems rather apathetic concerning his "origin". In fact, I recall reading something along the lines of "Were it not for the accident of being born Jewish, I'd be anti-Semitic" in White House Years somewhere). Mikkerpikker ... 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"Were it not for the accident of being born Jewish" his family would probably not have had occasion to flee Germany for the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Category:German-Americans is for American citizens with background from Germany, either being born there or having German ancestors. Heinz Kissinger was born and raised in Germany in a family with ancient roots in the country. He was a German citizen and his native language is German. He remains a local patriot, for example as a supporter of the football club of Fürth. The objection to having him in the category is ridiculous, and I consider the removal of the category to be vandalism. If you object to having the ethnicity categories for American people, please discuss it at cfd instead of arbitrarily removing people from the categories and thus sabotaging the system.

We're not discussing whether Kissinger should be in the German American category or not, we're discussing whether the lead should say he's a "German American statesman" or an "American statesman" or "Jewish American" or "American" (etc.) I'm saying the "American" is better than the others. If you disagree, give us an argument why. Mikker ... 12:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy with "American" or "German-born American". I think "German American" is misleading.
As for the category: this is not a CFD matter: I'm not challenging whether the category is a valid category. I'm challenging whether Kissinger belongs in it. - Jmabel | Talk 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
By all standards he belongs in the category. Cite one good reason for why he shouldn't. Being a Jew is not a reason because there is no such thing as ethnic German defined by other standards than language and citizenship. And Germany does not have only one religion, there are Catholics, Protestants and Atheists in the Category.
Jmabel wrote: "Just out of curiosity, would you call an ethnic Turk born in Germany who moved to America a "German-American"? "
There is a clear difference: The Kissinger family are long-time residents of Germany, where Judaism is even older than Christianity (Jews have lived in Germany for 2,000 years according the Jewish Museum Berlin) and many German Jews have at least 1,000 years of history in the country. I think it is virtually impossible that all ancestors of Kissinger are "pure" Jews from the Middle East, European Jews are to a very large degree mixed with European population - and perhaps this is especially true for Bavaria where Kissinger is from where Jews were highly integrated in society and not lived in ghettos like Eastern Europe.
A muslim whose ancestors (or some of them) originally came from Tyrkey, and had lived in Germany for several generations and most likely intermarried with European population, and who then moved to the US, would I call a German-American. And I do believe Kissinger consider himself a German-American. His native language is German and he cares about what happens in his home town (Fürth), supports it football club etc.
Ask Kissinger about his heritage, and he would say he is German-American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.197.123 (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Does anyone know the sources of the information in this article? IF someone could add references, that would be great. Bcem2 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1973 Yom Kippur War

Nothing about the US emergency airlift of arms?

Schneider

On September 10, 2001, a civil suit was filed in a Washington, D.C., federal court by the family of Gen. René Schneider, former Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, asserting that Kissinger gave the order for the elimination of Schneider because he refused to endorse plans for a military coup. Schneider was killed by coup-plotters loyal to General Roberto Viaux in a botched kidnapping attempt, but U.S. involvement with the plot is disputed, as declassified transcripts show that Nixon and Kissinger had ordered the coup "turned off" a week prior to the killing, fearing that Viaux had no chance.

According to The Trials of Henry Kissinger (the documentary based on Hitchens's book), Kissinger has always stated that he told the CIA to stop going after Schneider, but the declassified documents show this to not be the case. Also, it seems pretty clear that this wasn't a "botched kidnapping attempt" but an assassination, as Schneider was shot immediately. At least, that's what his son describes. This was done with untraceable weapons, too. I'm not much of a researcher so maybe someone else could look into this if they feel it's worth it.--Teiladnam 13:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've generally read, even in pro-Allende sources, that it was a "botched kidnapping attempt": Schneider resisted, and was killed. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That may be the case, although it cannot be proven. But, if it is to be included in the article it should be noted that this FURTHER implicates Kissinger, because the murder took place during the commission of crime. It doesn't help your case at all when you say "we didn't mean to kill him, we were trying to kidnap him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

convert to Christianity?

Was Henry a convert to Christianity?--Moosh88 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that he was an atheist but I could be wrong. Mikker ... 14:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I found a site claiming "Henry Kissinger is a Catholic. Although he was born Jewish, he converted over 50 years ago", but there doesn't seem to be much information available.

No. He is an atheist jew

Are you sure he did not convert to become an atheist Catholic? // Liftarn
Certainly not "over fifty years ago". 68.145.207.92 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar fix?

"Henry Alfred Kissinger ... is a German Jewish-born American diplomat" --
"German Jewish-born American" sounds very grammatically odd to me. Can we please fix this? -- 201.51.166.124 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Henry Alfred Kissinger (born May 27, 1923 in Fürth, Germany, as Heinz Alfred Kissinger) was a..."

"WAS"? He died?

Category:People charged with war crimes

There seems to be some dispute over if we should have this article in the category Category:People charged with war crimes or not. As per WP:BLP we should be carefull about such things. He have indeed been charged with war crimes as it says in the article. // Liftarn

Not formally charged by any court, so please stop adding this category. Pecher Talk 09:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Far enough. According to WP:BLP we should be carefull not to add controversial categories without solid sources. Especially for living persons. // Liftarn

I would like to suggest we create a page of Alleged War Criminals. Prominent people(alive and dead) whom are accused of war crimes whether they currently are charged or not. We could divide the page by nationality, Henry Kissinger in the US section. User:Green01 1:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

I don't think that's a good idea. Alleged by who? Just any random person? // Liftarn

Human rights groups, politicans. User:Green01 2:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

Again, WP:BLP makes this a poor idea. It might be reasonable to have a well-defined category or list of whom one particular country or organization classifies as a war criminal, but a catch-all is too vague. - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Kissinger as Dr. Strangelove

Sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, but I'm new to Wikipedia. In reading the Popular Culture section, there seems to be an obvious omission: Kissinger parodied as "Dr. Strangelove". The Wikipedia link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb

I'm really not sure if that qualfies as notable for an encyclopedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any actual link, although people have certainly remarked on Dr. K's "Strangelovian" accent. The film predates Kissinger's emergence as a significant public figure. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The real inspiration for Dr. Stangelove was Curtis Lemay, not Kissinger. Kissinger became national security adviser in '69, the movie came out in the early '60s. Kissinger couldn't have been the inspiration... Mikker (...) 20:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Curtis Lemay seems likely to me, with possibly a bit of Werner von Braun for the accent and the Nazi past. But definitely no Kissinger. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Strangelove may have been modeled on John von Neumann, Herman Kahn, or Edward Teller. Nobody but Kubrick knew for sure. --Dhartung | Talk 14:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

George C. Scott played the Curtis Lemay figure. Dr. Strangelove played more upon Von Braun and the whole collection of ex-Nazi scientists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs) 27 December 2006.

Vietnam People's Army

Please do not consider my failure to continue to fight over the correct abbreviation for the Vietnam People's Army as agreement that PAVN is correct. I just don't think it is worth an edit war. I have referred User:Cripipper to the article Vietnam People's Army, which I did not write, and which states quite clearly that PAVN is incorrect, and suggested that if he disagrees, that would be a more appropriate place to take up the issue. - Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct that VPA is the official abbreviation for the Vietnam People's Army; however, it is also the case that it is little used in historical writing on the subject, where PAVN is widely understood among lay-readers as to whom it refers and is the norm among historians writing on the period. The insistence from some Vietnamese contributors on the use of VPA is more a political point than a useful contribution to making articles readable and easily understood to a non-specialist. "People's Army of Vietnam" pulls up 17,000+ references on Google, while "Vietnam People's Army" pulls up 600. Links from PAVN should, of course, take the reader to the page titled VPA, but for the sake of clarity, the generally accepted abbreviation is PAVN in the rest of the literature on the subject and I think it would be a folly were Wikipedia to attempt to change that. It would be like changing all references to the Communist Party of China from C.C.P. to C.P.C. just because the latter is, in fact, 'right', while overlooking the fact that most people know it by the former; or changing all references from 'the Marines' to 'the United States Marine Corps'. Nonetheless, the correct abbreviation for the People's Army of Vietnam is VPA; for better or for worse within the field it is rarely used and PAVN is the accepted norm. For the sake of clarity and readibilty for the lay reader I don't think it wise to attempt to change that. Cripipper 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, you probably know more about this than I do; I do know I had run into objections to PAVN before outside of Wikipedia (which is why I went to Vietnam People's Army and checked, but it may be that those were also ill-founded. If what you say is correct, it really ought to be mentioned in our article Vietnam People's Army. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph based off of nothing

Kenneth Maxwell's review of Peter Kornbluh's book The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, in Foreign Affairs November–December 2003, pinpointed Kissinger's influence in Operation Condor. Nearly ten nations of the American continent participated in the brutal campaign, while a 1978 cable released in 2000 under Chile declassification project showed that the South American intelligence chiefs involved in Condor "[kept] in touch with one another through a US communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone which [covered] all of Latin America". Robert E. White, the US ambassador to Paraguay, was concerned that the US connection to Condor might be revealed during the then ongoing investigation into the 1976 assassination of former minister of the Unidad Popular government Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C. together with his American colleague Ronni Moffitt.

Wow. Do I need to explain any more than the fact that Kissinger was out of the government in 1978? CJK 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No you don't need to explain, and the paragraph (which I did not write) is not well-written, but it is actually on the mark, if poorly put.
Kissinger was still in the government when Letelier was assassinated in 1976. The 1978 cable shows that coordination of Operation Condor used the U.S. communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone. From this, Kornbluh (and Maxwell) conclude that U.S. claims of ignorance of Operation Condor's intent to kill Letelier on U.S. soil (while Kissinger was Secretary of State) ring false. In 2000, the 1978 cable was released, casting light (at least in Kornbluh's and Maxwell's view) on the 1976 events.
The mention of the 1978 cable probably confuses the matter more than it sheds light on it. [Looking at it again, that's more a comment on how this was written than on the relevance of the cable, which I now think should be mentioned. - Jmabel 06:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)] I didn't even mention it at Kenneth Maxwell. My sources there were Scott Sherman's Nation article about the incident and Maxwell's own account of the imbroglio that resulted in his own departure from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Following up on this, I ran into another useful online item: the exchange in Foreign Relations between William Rogers and Maxwell is online: [3]. I'll link that from the Maxwell article.
In short, this paragraph should be reworded because it is poorly written, but it is essentially accurate. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the minimum rewrite I would do; I'd also cite Maxwell, Kenneth, "The Case of the Missing Letter in Foreign Affairs: Kissinger, Pinochet and Operation Condor", Maxwell's account of the affair over his review of Kornbluh's book, available on the site of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. (Among other things, this article reproduces in its entirety the Rogers/Maxwell exchange I alluded to in my previous remark.)

Are there any objections to my making this edit in the article?

Kenneth Maxwell's review (in Foreign Affairs November–December 2003) of Peter Kornbluh's book The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability pinpointed Kissinger's and the U.S. government's awareness of plans made by Operation Condor, including their successful plan to assassinate former Orlando Letelier on U.S. soil. Operation Condor was a campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Letelier, a former minister of Allende's Popular Unity government, was ultimately killed in 1976 in Washington D.C. along with his American colleague Ronni Moffitt.

A 1978 cable released in 2000 under Chile declassification project showed that the South American intelligence chiefs involved in Condor "[kept] in touch with one another through a US communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone which [covered] all of Latin America". Robert E. White, the US ambassador to Paraguay, was concerned that the US connection to Condor might be revealed during the then ongoing investigation into the 1976 assassination of Letelier. Kornbluh and Maxwell both draw the conclusion from this and other materials that the U.S. State Department, on Kissinger's watch, had foreknowledge of the assassination.

By the way, the following from Maxwell's reply to Maxwell in Foreign Affairs January/February 2004 gets to the heart of the matter; it is possible that we should rewrite the section to use some of this material.

The central point regarding Kissinger's demarche, meanwhile, is that it was not delivered, out of concern that it would upset Pinochet. In the 27 days between the sending of Kissinger's cable and the assassination of Letelier, Kissinger's instructions (to warn Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina not to follow through with planned international assassination) were not carried out in the most critical case — Chile. It is a cruel coincidence that on the day before a car bomb killed Letelier, the ambassadors were told "to take no further action." This declassified cable is reproduced in full in Kornbluh's collection (Chapter 6, Document 17). It is specifically headed "Operation Condor" and is addressed to "secstate washdc." These are facts, not questions of opinion, much less of mythology.

The point is that this was a tragedy that might have been prevented. Other assassinations of opposition figures planned by Condor in Europe were in fact prevented because the United States tipped off the governments in question (France and Portugal) in advance. And George H.W. Bush, then director of the CIA, personally warned a Democratic U.S. member of Congress that he was a target. But by then, even Kissinger had recognized that a monster had arisen and needed to be contained. It was this that led to the change in U.S. policy.

Hope that helps. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If the main accusation is about the Letelier's murder, then it should be narrowed down to that and not Condor in general. CJK 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The evidence is about the State Department's and Kissinger's knowledge of Operation Condor (look at the last passage I quoted). Letelier was merely the best-known case. - Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to find out what Kissinger, knew and when he knew it, about killings done by Chile or other Operation Condor nations outside those nations. What is the source for this part of Maxwell's above quote: "In the 27 days between the sending of Kissinger's cable and the assassination of Letelier, Kissinger's instructions (to warn Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina not to follow through with planned international assassination) were not carried out in the most critical case — Chile. It is a cruel coincidence that on the day before a car bomb killed Letelier, the ambassadors were told "to take no further action."

The whole world knew early on about Chile's torture and killings inside Chile. Several judges in several nations want to know if the US government (via Kissinger) gave the go ahead for killings inside and outside Chile of citizens from non-Condor nations . So the source for the above quote is highly relevant to this article. As is the timing. But we need to name and link to sources, declassified documents, etc.. If it is just speculation, then that also needs to be clear in the article. The article already shows it is fairly well proven that Kissinger gave generalized approvals (or at least non-interference from the US) to various Condor government officials for their killings and torture inside their nations.

Here are some links I found that may help, and could be added to the wikipedia article footnotes:

Some of the links are already in the external links sections of the wikipedia article, but I think they would be much more useful if tied to the article in the footnote format <ref> </ref>:--Timeshifter 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Uses of primary sources would count as original research. The Kornbluh introduction and the press release over the Foreign Affairs controversy could be referenced though. Cripipper 19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You can quote from government documents. Or use them as sources for facts. They are public record published by the government. Original research would be to make sweeping claims, and try to tie together and prove the claims, using multiple sources, including government documents. --Timeshifter 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid not. Original research does not have to be sweeping nor use multiple sources. In the same way that scientific original research does not go up here until it has been peer-reviewed, every Joe Soap cannot link to primary sources to back up their claim. Verifiable, peer-reviewed or published sources written by historians only please. Cripipper 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges. Quoting a public record, or stating a fact based on a public record, is not original research. Quoting Kissinger from a declassified public document is not a claim. It is a quote. It is a fact. You wrote: "Joe Soap cannot link to primary sources to back up their claim." A claim normally is different from a quote or a fact. One kind of a "claim" is some kind of conclusion based on several facts, sources, quotes, etc.. That kind of claim is original research if it has not been published in the media, etc.. Even then one has to name who is making the claim, and use the word "claim", "alleged", etc.. --Timeshifter 09:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Documentary evidence is the data that historians use to craft their history. A historian is a historian because they have had access to a large variety of sources and information which they use to try and write an account of the past. People writing on wikipedia very often have some particular hobby horse and latch onto individual documents to make their point, when one document on its own can in fact be misleading if not viewed in the totality of the available evidence, to which you do not have access. If you were writing on the basis of all the available evidence, without it having published in a credible manner, then it would be original research. To attempt to do this on the basis of the relatively small numbers of documents that the NSA, for example, has made public, is original research of a particularly shoddy kind. To quote your own example from above - "I have been trying to find out what Kissinger, knew and when he knew it, about killings done by Chile or other Operation Condor nations outside those nations." If you are using primary documents to try and find this out, then what you are doing is original research. Just because a historical document is in the public domain does not make its use any less original research than if you went to the archives and looked it up yourself. For the integrity of this site, please stick to verifiable, peer-reviewed academic writing. Cripipper 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You are making so many errors and assumptions. You are making claims about what I and others would do with info and quotes. You are the one making original claims and sweeping generalizations. You are comparing apples to oranges. If anybody wants to know what Wikipedia says on the subject go to these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
Do not swallow Cripipper's lines. I have seen several people like you on several wikipedia talk pages who waste lots of talk page space arguing about their pet interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. It seems like an attempt in my opinion to spin wikipedia pages in their direction contrary to the official guidelines. If people want the official guidelines, then go to the official pages. --Timeshifter 08:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it simple, and stick to verifiable sources. Please no attempts at amateur history-writing.

From WP:V:

Primary and secondary sources

Primary sources present information or data, such as

  • archeological artifacts
  • photographs (but see below)
  • historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews
  • tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires
  • written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations
  • written or recorded records of field observations
  • artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs (whether recorded in digital or analogue formats).
  • Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

Research that creates primary sources is not allowed. All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are relatively rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article's neutral point of view.

  • If you do not have access to sufficient secondary sources, and if google is your primary research tool, you are not qualified to write historical entries on wikipedia. One of wikipedia's main weaknesses is amateur historians with a point to make and who think the answer to everything can be found via google. Cripipper 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
To those reading this, Cripipper is creating straw dogs and red herrings. If you want the official guidelines of Wikipedia, then go to the guideline pages. They are linked from this overall page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
Cripipper has only been a member of Wikipedia since May 2006. And his user talk page has several three-revert rule warnings and discussions from others complaining about his unnecessary reversions. Sounds like combativeness for the sake of combativeness. Please stop cluttering up the talk page with many pages of text from other wikipedia guideline pages. --Timeshifter 11:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The guideline above speaks for itself. And don't you come 'Cripipper has only been a member of Wikipedia since May 2006' with me. Who do you think you are? It's because of people like you that people with real specialist knowledge get driven away from wikipedia. I may be new to this site, but I have years of experience in the practice of history, and since wikipedia is fast becoming the first stop on any google search I am determined to sharpen up the quality of the writing and references on here and enforce not only wikipedia's own guidelines, which I have quoted above for everyone to see, but also accepted academic standards. Personally, I would like to see the only acceptable internet-based references being academic journals, but that's another story and it's not wikipedia policy. I will, however, try and ensure that wikipedia's standards and quality are upheld, and that includes keeping out original research. If you can't find a reference to something you want to put in the article in a book or article on the subject, there's probably a very good reason for that.
  • Your own words show that you are trying to do original research

    I have been trying to find out what Kissinger, knew and when he knew it, about killings done by Chile or other Operation Condor nations outside those nations. What is the source for this part of Maxwell's above quote: "In the 27 days between the sending of Kissinger's cable and the assassination of Letelier, Kissinger's instructions (to warn Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina not to follow through with planned international assassination) were not carried out in the most critical case — Chile. It is a cruel coincidence that on the day before a car bomb killed Letelier, the ambassadors were told "to take no further action."

    Why don't you give the straw dogs, red herrings, apples and oranges a bypass and instead of using Google to try and find out what Kissinger knew when and where, go out and buy some books by people who have written on the subject. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... So please stop cluttering up the talk pages with your whining and go read a few books. Cripipper 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing with yourself. At no time have I made any claims in reference to Kissinger. You are in an argument without a partner. You are trying to find a sounding board for your new vision of Wikipedia. As a newbie you should be more humble. You know nothing about me, and yet you are making assumptions that I and others do not have specialist knowledge. I have very specialized knowledge in several areas. I have a college degree. I have very high GRE scores. I have several websites. I help organize internationally. I don't need to be lectured by a newbie like you. --Timeshifter 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "As a newbie you should be more humble." Lol. Oh excuse me, let me bow down before you and wash your feet. As I said before, people like you drive away newcomers and people who have specialist knowledge, which means rather more than a mere college degree "very high GRE scores", lol. Well I am glad that we are in agreement then that you aren't going to make any original claims. Cripipper 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of us prefer editing Wikipedia pages in preference to talking about editing Wikipedia pages. Thus the lack of longwinded responses to your rambling tirades on this talk page. I only respond just enough to keep others from being intimidated by newbies like you. Wikipedia has guidelines, and mediators to arbitrate interpretations of those guidelines. No one is driving you away. As I said you are arguing with yourself. It is very rare that others edit my entries in Wikipedia pages. Because I follow the guidelines. But you already have had several revert wars, and discussions about it noted on your user talk page. I rest my case. Point, set, match. As I said I also have specialist knowledge. And it goes way beyond college. I have many years of fact-checking the info on my websites, too. Some of us DO. Some people, like you, TALK. It is pretty obvious you are the one trying to drive people away. If it follows the pattern I have seen on other talk pages, some sockpuppets, and/or some anonymous discussion should show up. --Timeshifter 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Point, set, match"? What age are you? 13? Cripipper 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a common phrase of all ages. Another assumption on your part. Look it up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=point+set+match
Have you ever heard of this: To "Assume" is to make an ass out of you and me. Ass-u-me --Timeshifter 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Cripipper 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Let that specialist knowledge of yours figure it out. It is not rocket science, and I know others are laughing at your lack of understanding of something that so obviously applies to you. Point, set, match AGAIN!--Timeshifter 16:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. 9(-ish). Cripipper 16:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, call me 2 years old if it makes you feel good. That was the point of your condescending lectures throughout this talk page. To browbeat some people into servile 2-year-old submission to your new theories for what Wikipedia should be. --Timeshifter 17:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't at all make me feel good, it makes me feel rather sad that it's come to this. But if it is what it takes to keep original research and the abuse of sources out of this site, then I'll just have to cope with it. Well done on the GREs, btw. Cripipper 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And if I keep newbies like you busy venting their long typed tirades, and all I have to do is just respond with short replies with the wikipedia guidelines, then I have done some good. I keep you from doing damage elsewhere such as more 3-revert wars. I also keep other wikipedians from being intimidated by wannabe "specialists" like you. --Timeshifter 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed. And btw - I made my first edit on Wikipedia about 5 weeks after you did. I guess that makes you a newbie too. Not that these things matter, other than to people like you... Cripipper 00:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So we are both newbies. Which is why we should both refer to the Wikipedia guidelines, and not our own newbie vision of what the Wikipedia guidelines should be. It looks like we both have been with Wikipedia for about a year and have under a thousand edits each. And relative to those who have been with Wikipedia for years, and set up the guidelines after much discussion, we really are newbies. --Timeshifter 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Murderer?

Henry Alfred Kissinger (born Heinz Alfred Kissinger on May 27, 1923) is a German-born American diplomat, Nobel laureatestatesman, and murderer. He served as National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State in the Nixon administration, continuing in the latter position after Gerald Ford became President in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

Shouldn't that be changed/removed?

--Chris.C 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. Of course. Next time, be bold and do it yourself. Obvious pov like that doesn't need to be discussed. Mikker (...) 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rabbinical Excommunication

Should the article make mention of Henry Kissinger's excommunication by a rabbinical court in 1976?

I was personally present at that media event (or a part thereof), which took place at a major hotel in New York City.

Mention of it is made, for example, at http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/info_schedule_battle/ADL_and_KCXL_Open_Letter.html :

Ironically, Dr. Henry Kissinger, supported by the mass media, and respectfully hailed by Jews around the world, was excommunicated from the Jewish religion on June 20, 1976 during a religious ceremony presided over by five member Rabbis of the Supreme Rabbinic Court of America. Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, the Court's Chief Justice, said it was his responsibility to execute the Writ of Excommunication and a Bill of Particulars following an in depth investigation into Dr. Kissinger's behavior.

Unfortunately, I do not know of any report of the event that would be considered sufficiently authoritative by Wikipedia's standards. On the other hand, I would be surprised if no such source exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddcs (talk • contribs)

Ummm... why would this be important? Mikker (...) 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it would not. But it seems to fit with the article's treatment of the public's perception of Kissinger, and with the section, "Accusations of war crimes and legal difficulties". The fact that a judicial (albeit rabbinical) court consisting of Kissinger's own co-religionists had a similar view of him, and took extreme measures to inform the world of that, just might be signficant. Toddcs 01:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He was very responsible and his family would be real proud of him today and every day after that. May be the whole thing could have just been blowin over instead of everyone making a big deal out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.34.112.24 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

1971 Bangladesh (East Pakistan) War

I have just noticed that this section should really be entitled the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War, since that is what the text refers to. There is no convention of referring to the "Bangladesh (East Pakistan) War"; it seems to have been made up by some of our Bangla friends for the purposes of getting the word Bangladesh into the title. Cripipper 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 

 Bangladesh Liberation war should be mentioned as the war WAS mostly about Bangladesh. Just compare how many bengali and how many Indian lives lost.
Please take a close look at the cartoon's image description page and in the article which clearly says that it comes from the times of india. thus it fulfills all the fair use critieria for a newspaper scan. btw, it's not a contemporary one but a 1971 cartoon. Idleguy 14:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Kissinger as the object of conspiracy theorists

I happened open this article because I used Mr. Kissinger's name in another discussion as an example of a person who is often mentioned in conspiracy theories. However no mention of this is made in the article. Whenever I hear his name mentioned, which is not too often, it is almost always in relation to his alleged role as a member of the "New World Order", or whatever, which is said to be planning to take over the world. Do you think this should be mentioned in the article, the theories that is? Steve Dufour 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very important historical aspect of him and his career. Geekrecon 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There are millions of these conspiracy theories flowing around and really none of them qualify as encyclopedic. I would also say that if you have honestly only heard of Kissinger in the context of the "New World Order", I would encourage you to start reading more literature that is not handed out in pamphlets.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a mention about conspiracy theories that involve him. He even hints at his implication with the famous quote: "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government." - Henry Kissinger, Bilderburger meeting, Evian, France, May 21st, 1992. Regarding the quote, I'm not sure where the original source of the quote is (though if I remember correctly it was transcribed from a tape recorded at the meeting). I found the quote on Henry Kissinger's Wikiquotes page, and it's available from many other websites. Kytok 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Operation Condor

The material concerning Operation Condor is effectively duplicated within the article, appearing in both the 1970s and the 2000s. I think it fits better in the latter section, simply because most of the material concerns events within the last five to six years, but I'm open to suggestions. For the moment, I'm being bold and eliminating the former section. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin American policy cleanup.

The first part of the section on Lantin American policy makes no sense. It seems to be taken out of context, and is probably just some rests from earlier moves and reorgs. Can somebody that knows more of the fact than me do a cleanup? :) Otherwise maybe we should just remove that piece, Latin american policy is pretty thoroughly discussed in the subsections. --Regebro 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I made it somewhat better. It still needs editing but I do not think it should be deleted. Generaly speaking, it's place for other topics which don't need its own subsection. May be it would be nice if someone could write short section summary there as well.--Pethr 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I removed trivia section because it's unecyclopedic and IMO not important. Please leave here your comments why anything like this should be included in encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Kissinger's IMDB page which lists tons of appearances like this one. Why is it important? [4]

Kissinger's appearance on a comedy show judging a rock contest is out of traditional character for Kissinger who is normally reserved and stoic. It demonstrates something that is interesting, yet not important. As for his other listings on IMDB, appears on a news program or on a video showing archive footage isn't noteworthy, but something else is. These others could be modified to be more general statement that he has had cameo appearance on certain programs. It fufills the requirements of Trivia Wikipedia:Trivia.
Now, if you still want to get picky, Kissinger's opinion's on the Iraq War is also unencyclopedic. It also falls into the "interesting, yet not important" category. A former Secretary of State's opinions on current matters is ancedotal. You'll never open an encyclopedia and find Bainbridge Colby's opinions (as former Secretary of State) on relations with Nazi Germany. Barney Gumble 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
K's opinion on Iraq is important since Bush and others still listen to him and consult him on regular basis. K's participation in comedy TV is of no importance whatsoever. This is really unencyclopedic and I'm not the only one with this opinion. This article is FAC candidate (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Kissinger) and user SandyGeorgia asked on nomination page the same question recently:

Prose problems (and unencylopedic - why is this included?): In 2006, Kissinger appeared on the Colbert Report as a guest during Stephen Colbert's shred-off with the Decemberists. It showed a lighter side of Kissinger than the American public has been used to.

Please look at other biographies and try to understand this. Thank you.--Pethr 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So several people think his comedic appearance is noteworthy? Other biographies have when the person is mentioned in a song by a semi-popular band. (see Alexander Haig for an example). There is a huge trivia section for Richard Nixon,Btw, Is Kissinger's relationships with starlets like Candice Bergen "encyclopedic?" I doubt I'd find it in the Funk & Wagnells. Barney Gumble 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Several - who? Respected members reviewing WP:FAC said opposite. See below for more on insignificant trivia.--Pethr 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

--Pethr 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally dispute the charge that the Kissinger in Popular Culture section is irrelevent. He is now, and always has been, a well-known figure who is often depicted in culture. There are hundreds of similar sections in the pages of other well-known people; why is Kissinger different? Cprhodesact 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand how you feel about this but please explain to me why is important, which actor played Kissinger in movies? Or Python's song about body parts? What does it mean??? It's unnecessary trivia and it's not interesting and not related to Kissnger. What characteristic feautures of K. does anything of this lampoon?--Pethr 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, I don't agree. It's very relevent. If you're going to remove it from this article, I have to insist it be removed from every other article as well. Cprhodesact 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand you don't agree with me but please answer my questions before puting this section back. Those concerns need to be addressed first. Thank you.--Pethr 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed section:

Kissinger has been referenced numerous times in popular culture, often being lampooned or satirised. Some examples:

Kissinger picture

The picture s not Kissinger's It's the comedian/speech writer Ben Stein.

Salman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salman1997 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, next time you can revert article by choosing history, clicking older version of the article with correct image, clicking edit on that page and saving it.--Pethr 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


2001 I Love New York TV Commercial features Henry Kissinger running the bases and belly-sliding into home plate at Yankee Stadium.

Spengler's Influence

Kissinger's undergraduate thesis at Harvard was on Oswald Spengler. Clearly he was influenced by The Decline of the West. Cant we cite this ? . Kendirangu 10:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have source which goes into detail on Spengler's influence on Kissinger feel free to add it. Otherwise it looks very much like WP:OR.--Pethr 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith Mars???

At the very head of this Kissinger article is a completely irrelevant quip about fictional character Keith Mars. I'm not sure if this is a prank or some sort of viral marketing campaign, but I'm sure everyone will agree it has to go. Unfortunately, while the text is clearly visible in the actual article, it simply does not exist in the edit page - and therefore, seems un-editable! I'm not sure how to change it; can anyone remove it somehow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.191.219 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

When that sort of thing happens, it usually means that soneone has vandalised a template that is transcluded into the article. For example, a template called "Template:Foo" is transcluded by including the text {{Foo}} in the wikitext. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Rhodesian Bush War: Timing of Negotiations

The timing of Kissinger's involvement in the Rhodesian Bush War negotiations is important. By September 1976, Ford had just secured the Republican nomination (in August 1976), against a conservative challenge by Ronald Reagan. So, had Kissinger twisted Ian Smith's arm in, say, July '76 or earlier, this could have back-fired and helped Reagan get the Republican nomination in August (as many American conservatives were sympathetic with Ian Smith, and arm-twisting of Smith could have fired up conservatives to back Reagan's challenge).

On the other hand, had Kissinger waited until November '76 or later, the desired political effect back in the USA would have been too late. That is, Carter had significant backing from black Americans (who generally were antagonistic to the white-minority rule of Smith). By Kissinger arm-twisting Smith prior to the November '76 election, Ford/Kissinger hoped that this would blunt criticism of Ford, and perhaps temper support for Carter.

I had written this in the main article months ago, but somebody took it out. I guess that somebody saw it as not a sufficiently Neutral Point of View. And it's true that I don't have any citations for my thoughts on the timing of these negotiations. However, I'd be hard-pressed to see the timing of these negotiations in any other way. I'm confident both Reagan and Carter understood when these negotiations went public in September/October '76 what the intended political effect was, and why the negotiations happened when they did. And I think this issue is one more example of a major theme running throughout the article -- namely, Kissinger's realpolitic craftiness.

See: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,918399,00.html


GA review

Overall, citations and prose are the main issues. The organization I like however responses to the many charges against him, or even a mention if he's not responding by and a large, are missing, with some exceptions. Stability is a little iffy but acceptable. I'm not sure how many editors are working on this article but I'm placing it on hold for now despite the large number of issues I've listed bellow.

Lead

  • When was he National Security Advisor and Secretary of State? It may seem redundant but that's common practice.
  • A brief explanation of Realpolitik, to minimize the number of pages an uninitiated reader must read.
  • Removed the stand alone year links here and throughout the article, per WP:DATE.
  • I understand "beauties" was replaced with "celebrities" during the FA candidacy but it should emphasize that these were women, "starlets" may work.
  • How recent was the administrative document declassification? As of...
  • "Following the release of these documents," is redundant.
  • Despite the removal of the "in popular culture" section above, for an alleged war criminal he is still portrayed rather warmly in popular culture today (The Simpsons, Colbert Report, etc.) and this is worth mentioning and should be amended to the celebrity paragraph and the public perception section.

Personal background

  • The first 2 paragraphs need citations, some copy editing and elaboration would be useful here. I see this information can be confirmed by any biography but nevertheless.
  • Elaborated Elliott's connection with and influence on Kissinger.
  • A number of links here and throughout the article need to be WP:DABed.
  • The Kissinger Rule needs a citation.
  • "in" the university' Department of...
  • Wives and children paragraph could use a citation or two, maybe some years. The consulting firm sentence should be removed as that's covered in the later roles section.
  • The sports fan paragraph needs to assert notability, how has he been involved with either team? Why does the reader care?
  • Not a pass or fail consideration but an early life picture would be great, he's one of those people that it's hard to picture as a child.

Foreign policy

  • I'd removed the "Also," in the 2nd paragraph and instead of repeat names as little as possible, a balance between conciseness and clarity is ideal.
  • Avoid repeating the lead explicitly, i.e., the Realpolitik open here, but instead clarify and expand in a natural manner (this falls under copy editing).
  • Many of the web cite references have authors who are not listed in front of the links (here and elsewhere).
  • It would be nice to hear either Kissinger's or supporters' reactions to these charges throughout. Any debate, actually.

Foreign policy sub sections

  • These are strong but need references, even if it's all coming from single sources from the section's lead placed at the end of each paragraph, the reader needs to know where this is coming from.
  • "See also:" should go at the top of their respective sections.
  • There's a fact tag here

Accusations of...

  • This section could use a lead.
  • The Trials section should cover the contents of the book, and subsequent documentary film, specifically with 2 "main article:" tags.
  • Proseline tag needs to be remedied, summary style. There's also another citation tag here.
  • The Asia section needs to be renamed, cited, and copy edited... especially "As detailed above in the section 1971 Bangladesh War,"

Public perception

  • Need sources.
  • Weasel wordish with "few doubted his intellect and diplomatic skill"
  • Specify the "height of his popularity.
  • As I've stated, current public perception should be included, popular TV appearances plus when and to what degree the Nobel prize and war crimes register with the public.

Later Roles

  • More proseline is evident in the first section.
  • No cites in the 2nd.
  • In the 3rd there's a citation in the middle of a sentence, that should be moved to after a punctuation. Also, proseline.
  • Perhaps his current family life can made into a section here and the first section can be changed to "Early life and career".

In addition, see also sections have depreciated. All links used in the article should be deleted and unless the remainder are somehow essential, those should be lost as well. The red link in the references should be removed or fixed. Despite all that, it's not a bad article. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary Good Article review Additional comments

I don't want to give a (pass or fail) GA rating, but I have not been involved in the writing of the article and would make the following comments with a view to improving the article. As I see it, the major problems would affect GA status, but I have included some additional comments with a view to eventually attaining FA status.

Major problems

Lack of balance

The amount of detail about alleged war crimes etc. gives a biased picture. Allegations of wrongdoing by somebody, followed by statements like "The extent of Kissinger's involvement is unknown" strengthens the impression that the article is attempting to smear the subject of the article but cannot support the insinuations.

The Operation Condor section is much too long. The details should be given in the separate article on the subject, which is already referred to. The section also requires proper citations.

The sub-section title The Trial of Henry Kissinger should be changed to make it immediately obvious that it is merely a book title. Amid all the insinuations of war crimes (apparently many more than in the article on Hitler) it could easily be understood, at first glance, to refer to a trial that has actually happened.

Although there are quite a lot of citations, it is my impression that they are not all appropriate and sometimes refer to primary sources concerning details, without supporting sweeping judgments. In view of the controversial nature of the discussion, including allegations of criminal activity on the part of a living person, citations need to be much better. After the article has been condensed, someone should check whether all remaining statements comply with WP:BLP.

Statements using words like "murdered" should be backed up by very reliable citations, preferably with quotations. Such alleged statements could be prejudicial to the object of the accusations and to the person alleged to have made the allegations.

Sections with insufficient references (not exhaustive)

  • Détente and the opening to China (none)
  • Vietnam and Cambodia (no supporting citations except for cease-fire and Nobel Prize)
  • 1973 Yom Kippur War (none)
  • Latin American policy (head section)
  • Africa (none)
  • East Timor and support of Suharto
  • Asia (none)

Examples of individual statements requiring citations

"hindering his travel abroad" seems a reasonable conclusion but is not yet supported by a reliable source (articles containing polemic commentary by Christopher Hitchens are suitable citations as evidence of criticism in the press but not on such factual issues).

The "Kissinger Rule" (150-page limit) needs verification. It seems credible but is not supported.

All citations should be checked to see if they support the statements

Specific statements requiring checking of citations: "though the ceasefire was quickly violated by the North who sought to conquer South Vietnam by force." is not supported by the citation (and was probably a subsequent insertion into the sentence and not covered by the existing footnote).

Minor problems/suggestions

Inconsistencies

Example: Reference to "the section 1971 Bangladesh War" (the name of which has apparently changed).

Style

The style is generally good but could be improved in places. Journalistic style seems to be overused occasionally. Unfortunate juxtaposition: "Kissinger threatened to resign" awkwardly follows "first-class secretary"

The Operation Condor section is justifiably flagged as "proseline". The best solution for this article would be to summarize in one or two short paragraphs and have the details in the other article. Otherwise it should be made into a tabular timeline, but that would make it even more obvious that such detail does not belong here.

Things that could possibly be expanded slightly

There is little mention of his academic career and his writing. There is no mention of his being a Karlspreis laureate (1987). I didn't see any mention of his honorary doctorates There may be many more awards, medals, and other honors that deserve mentioning.



--Boson 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg

Image:PinochetKissinger.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Name pronounciation

Is the g pronounced as in gay or as in George? --84.63.113.170 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As in George. English rather than German pronunciation, in other words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Introduction

As of today, this paragraph is very badly worded, especially toward the end. Should it not say what a paragraph later on says, something about detente's being a policy of opening up to the Soviet Union for discussions to reduce Cold War tensions? As it is, the paragraph is both illiterate and, I think, biased (no offence meant to the writer).Grantsky (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New York Dodgers?

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarcheeseboro (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Where do these quotes come from?Is there any source to back it up?They sound so fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.192.112 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mainly the quote [50].


Sourced and restored. Just because they sound 'fake'to you doesn't mean they should be removed. Vexorg (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jill St. John

Couldn't see it on a brief scan of the article, seems it warrants inlcusion. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Older edit

Kissinger's head appeared in the animation series Futurama as a peace negotiator; Richard Nixon's head, explaining his choice of Kissinger uttered the following: "Looking like that, he talked his way into Jill St. John's bed. 'Nuff said!". Jill St John inclusion warranted if it can be sourced and written properly. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Medallion Missing

The pages of most Nobel Laureates on Wikipedia include an image of a gold medalion next to the subject's name in the infobox to indicate that the subject of the article is a laureate. There is no indication on this page or in the Archives that the medallion has been left off by the community of editors intentionally. To be consistent, and to preserve NPOV, we should place the medallion in the info box next to the name, just like other Nobel Laureates. 208.118.163.46 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of quotations belongs in Wikiquote

Shouldn't the quotes be removed per WP:NOTCATALOG, which states " If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."?--Boson (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

the only extended quote in this article is from Noam Chomsky

NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.186.251 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I have now twice reverted an anonymous addition that would have discussed his international legal troubles in the lead. I don't think they belong there (and I'm no fan of Kissinger). They are extensively covered below.

I don't usually monitor this article, and don't intend to take this on on any continuing basis. I strongly recommend, though, that if a change like this is going to be made in the lead, some sort of consensus should be built here on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd punctuation

"He negotiated a settlement ending the war in Vietnam, but due to a combination of causes, the cease-fire proved unstable; and no lasting peace, beyond the retreat of American troops, resulted." The above looks odd to me. Should it be changed, say, to 'no lasting peace resulted beyond the retreat of American troops'? --Guugolpl0x (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Guugolpl10x: Yes, that sounds good. --Dsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Slobodan Milosevic and Kissinger compared

[From a public interview on June 11, 2004.] On May 27, the New York Times published one of the most incredible sentences I’ve ever seen. They ran an article about the Nixon–Kissinger interchanges. Kissinger fought very hard through the courts to try to prevent it, but the courts permitted it. You read through it, and you see the following statement embedded in it. Nixon at one point informs Kissinger, his right-hand Eichmann, that he wanted bombing of Cambodia. And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves." That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide when other people do it that I’ve ever seen in the historical record. Right at this moment there is a prosecution of Milošević going on in the international tribunal, and the prosecutors are kind of hampered because they can’t find direct orders, or a direct connection even, linking Milošević to any atrocities on the ground. Suppose they found a statement like this. Suppose a document came out from Milošević saying, "Reduce Kosovo to rubble. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They would be overjoyed. The trial would be over. He would be sent away for multiple life sentences—if it was a U.S. trial, immediately the electric chair. ~ Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kissinger and the Serbian People - Optined for a Greater Serbia

I found it strange that no one had before written about his views on the Balkans, and therefore I see a need to discuss it here.

Did you for instance know that he opted for a Greater Serbia. No? Well it's true. He also spoke about Muslims provocations and the demonization the the Serbian people. Don't belive me? Well check this link out and you'll see for youself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV1qdmIRXJA&feature=PlayList&p=1C201883986911B8&index=0&playnext=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugobay (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks some basic information and needs some restructuring

This article needs a section presenting a straighforward history of his career in government. When was he selected by Nixon? Under what circumstances? When and why was he appointed Secretary of State? When and why did he leave government - did he resign? Was he forced out? Etc., etc., etc.

Some of these facts are sprinkled here and there in the article, but not in any organized way. For example, why is his appointment as National Security mentioned in the "Personal Background" section ... along with, for example, the fact that he has a brother one year younger, or that he's a Yankees fan?

An article in today's NY Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/books/review/Heilbrunn-t.html?ref=books) mentions "his career of government service came to an abrupt end". That sounds interesting, and it seems like a pretty fundamental fact about his professional biography. The article mentions that he left office when Carter became president - but this fact is buried under "Later Roles" / "Role in U.S. foreign policy".

Omc (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

First name

"Wolfgang" ist not mentioned in the MW online edition. PLease check and correct if needed. --Polentario (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with the Holy See

According to the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Pope Benedict XVI invited the 83-year-old former adviser to Richard Nixon to be a political consultant, and Kissinger accepted. [5]. Father Federico Lombardi told Catholic News Service that Pope Benedict XVI has neither a foreign affairs advisory board, and he has not asked former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become one of his advisers. The truth is that Kissinger met privately with the pope on Sept. 28 and that Mary Ann Glendon, a U.S. law professor and president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, has extended an invitation to Kissinger to speak to the academy in late April. [6] ADM (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2&oldid=1136792457"