Jump to content

Talk:Henry Kissinger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RayAYang (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 11 June 2015 (→‎Recent revert: remark). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeHenry Kissinger was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

TheTimeAreAChanging Exercising Unilateral and Arbitrary Control over this Page

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

Edit #1

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

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

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

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

The reference above appears to be to User:TheTimesAreAChanging. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kissinger Encomium

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

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

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

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

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

"Slaughter of Bengalis" would undoubtably be a WP:NPOV violation, even if it the reliable sorces. Try again, if you wish to do so within Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. In the article on Irving Berlin, it states Nicholas II, the new Tsar of Russia, notes Whitcomb, had revived with utmost brutality the anti-Jewish pogroms, which created the spontaneous mass exodus to America. Such words are very strong, but they are generally accepted by reasonable people as the only correct way to describe pogroms. Is there something different about Bengalis, or Kissinger, that makes it biased to call it "slaughter of Bengalis", even with reliable sources?
178.38.168.13 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War

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

Anybody can edit. Just put in your info, with reliable sources, and see if any other editor objects. If you don't know how to do the citations, put them right into the body of the article and somebody will come along and fix them. Thanks for the suggestion, but it is up to each reader to make the article better. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" or "Controversy" sections?

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

This is certainly a priority. It's exactly what I came here to read. 92.40.250.76 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. He is a controversial figure. 178.38.168.13 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fluency in German

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

You would have to go to the source cited (Isaacson, pages 39-48) to find the answer to that one. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle edit may be required...

I'm no fan of the man, but the numerous instances of the word "agenda" in the article add no encyclopedic value. There is much more to be written and referenced about HK's involvement in coups and war crimes, but terminology like this violates NPOV. Everything before the "Later Roles" section seems germaine, but after that it kind of dove-tails. Perhaps there is more about Kissenger to add, post-Carter, that can be described professionally. I liked the mention about how he can't travel to certain countries for legal reasons, but it could be inserted into the article more tactfully. Maybe we'll just have to wait until he meets his maker in order to craft a more perfect article. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if he did have an agenda, the question would be, what is the agenda? Real Politik? No Real Politik is a means to an end . . . . what is the end, I am not sure, no reliable source that I know of. I think we can say he supported Real Politikm and what resulted from that support. Popish Plot (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

There is a dispute as to if the following content should be placed in the opening section of the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is also infamous for his Realpolitik involving support for genocidal actions (as in the Bangladesh Liberation War) and military coups against democratically elected governments (such as Chile).

I am quite happy to discuss wording here, the original is not mine. What is fairly clear is that his policy vis-a-vis Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (all of which are mentioned in the body, and all of which have received more criticism than his Israeli or Vietnamese policy). Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks. Are there any WP:RS that agree with the requested edit? I can't see genocidal actions in the article, that is also a linking to genocide, so in reality, if you support the content you can just remove the word actions and Realpolitik and leave the actual detail which is that you support inclusion of, He is infamous for supporting genocide ? I think that is the basic question to consider this requested edit, is Kissinger really WP:RS infamous for supporting genocide ? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I should've read this bit before wading in. I forget that talk pages have newest at the bottom. Hopefully my newer version solves some of the issues. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't "is Kissinger famous for supporting genocide. The question is "is Kissinger famous for supporting Real Politik" What is Real Politik? There is a wikipedia article that says so, someone reading this wiki article might click on that to learn more. One part of Real Politic is ignoring ethics. Ignoring ethics leads to genocide. Is this original research? What do reliable sources say. The article on the bangladesh liberation war says genocide happened there. And that the USA, including Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan, who are the ones who engaged in the genocide. Assuming there are reliable sources for the info on real politik and the bangladesh liberation war, and maybe more of Kissingers other atrocities, those reliable sources could be used in this article to support a statement such as "Kissinger is famous for his Real Politik which led to genocides in Bangladesh etc. . . . " I will look for the reliable sources, if they don't exist tho, then that means take it out of the article. Popish Plot (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going from Kissinger supported Pakistan to claiming that his politics led to a Bangladesh genocide is quite a leap, dont you think? You make it sound as if mass murder was done at his request, rather than simply ignoring what was going on for politics sake. There is quite a difference between the two. Bonewah (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • :) I don't believe anybody is suggesting that he ordered a mass killing; but he ignored it, and US support allowed it to happen. Similarly in Latin America, although there US support was even more active. The source for Chile is this one,[1] others forthcoming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Real politik leads to genocide, reliable sources say so. If (big if) reliable sources say Kissinger's support of Real Politik led to genocide, the article should say that. Does he support genocide? I doubt a reliable source has him saying yes to that! It's more likely he doesn't care either way since ethics aren't important to him due to his support of Real Politik. Popish Plot (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q: I'm mysified by the mention of HK's reaction to (1989) Tianamen Square Massacre as contributing to détente in the 1970's. Perhaps should be a reference to some other incident? 178.167.254.165 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Winn, Peter (2010). "Furies of the Andes". In Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert (ed.). A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 239–275. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Controversy over not totally hagiographical intro

Seeing as mentions of important parts of Kissinger's reputation that are sourced and long existing parts of the article are being excised from the header for inflammatory language I've tried to find a middle path which doesn't make any unsound accusations or implications against a living person. I hope the current version of it works better for everyone. Let me know what you think. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says "the never actualized cease fire" this makes it seem like the vietnam war is still going on. Just a bit confusing. Also, what is paladinesque? Popish Plot (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the war ended with the north taking Saigon I think that "never actualised" works. Especially as the fighting waged long past deadlines and the awarding of the prize. Can you think of alternate ways that include those important parts of information?
Paladinesque in a morally white sort of way. He's a controversial figure for a variety of reasons. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Do you have a reliable source then tho saying it never actualized? Over here Ceasefire#Vietnam_War it says "On January 15, 1973, President Richard Nixon ordered a ceasefire of the aerial bombings in North Vietnam. The decision came after Dr. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Affairs advisor to the president, returned to Washington from Paris, France with a draft peace proposal. Combat missions continued in South Vietnam. By January 27, 1973, all warring parties in the Vietnam War signed a ceasefire as a prelude to the Paris Peace Accord."" It may seem counterintuitive but I think the mainstream history view is that the ceasefire happened and then Vietnam reformed. Popish Plot (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how long a period of no fighting a cease fire lasts for to become real, maybe short lived would be less controversial?

Though I also have a CBC report that fighting was going on 10 days after the cease fire was meant to start. http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/vietnam-war/canadas-secret-war-vietnam/1973-vietnam-ceasefire-goes-unenforced.html And everyone's favourite reliable source http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cease-fire-goes-into-effect has 70,000 casualties after the ceasefire was signed. Plus it was the reason given by Le Duc Tho on not accepting the prize, but obviously we can only take his word as gospel to the same extent we take Kissinger's. Though the weasel words used by the Nobel Prize awarding committee in Dec 1973 do hint at Le Duc Tho's assessment of the situation being true http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/press.html. 2.223.35.45 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I think it's good to mention Le Duc didn't accept it because he said:
"However, since the signing of the Paris agreement, the United States and the Saigon administration continue in grave violation of a number of key clauses of this agreement. The Saigon administration, aided and encouraged by the United States, continues its acts of war. Peace has not yet really been established in South Vietnam. In these circumstances it is impossible for me to accept the 1973 Nobel Prize for Peace which the committee has bestowed on me. Once the Paris accord on Vietnam is respected, the arms are silenced and a real peace is established in South Vietnam, I will be able to consider accepting this prize. With my thanks to the Nobel Prize Committee please accept, madame, my sincere respects.[5]"
So his reasoning is that US and saigon puppets violated ceasefire not North Vietnam. Popish Plot (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy

At the height of Kissinger's prominence, many[who?] commented on his wit. In one instance, at the Washington Press Club annual congressional dinner, "Kissinger mocked his reputation as a secret swinger."[89] He was quoted as saying "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."[90]

The illustration of his wit falls kind of flat. We merge from hearing nothing witty about a self-deprecating joke he may have told, to a biting remark that changes the direction of the innuendo to a very cynical one. Is this juxtaposition supposed to illustrate his skill with words? Or bury it? The overall impression is kind of creepy.

89.217.18.237 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

This edit removed content sourced to an excellent source, and therefore it has been reverted. Please discuss it here if you take issue with the source. The genocidal actions by the Pakistani army are very well documented; we have an entire article on the subject. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DESPITE - is so opinionated and WP:POV it should be avoided at all costs - I support that removal completely - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced. No consensus for rmv.--Polmandc (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? What is POV about "despite"? @Govindaharihari: Please make a proper argument. So far, you are just trying to push your own POV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed quite opinionated. The source article uses words like "shameful" and admits multiple points of view, by noting that Bass's book "argues for" a characterization of genocide. A point of view sufficiently controversial it requires an entire book to argue for it should not be presented as objective fact, and certainly not in such an offhand fashion. RayTalk 10:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Kissinger&oldid=666464289"