Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Wikify tag?

There is a recent Wikify tag on this article, but the article has very extensive wikilinks. Did somebody maybe put the wrong tag here? Lou Sander (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New Kissinger photos at Commons

Columbia University Students undue weight

The section entitled Columbia University Students strikes me as undue weight. The fact that he did not recieve an appointment at Columbia is important, as well as the fact that it was likely student protests which blocked it, but do we need so much fluff, especially with so many [citation needed] tags? I am going to trim this section down to the encyclopedic facts. Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed it somewhat further, so that it is shorter than the section on the Yom Kippur war, and placed it in the same section with the rest of his post-high office career. RayTalk 04:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Reagan Administration foreign policy and Kissinger's role

The statements we have here concerning neocon domination of Reagan Administration policy and Kissinger being shut out seem highly dubious to me. I admit I'm not as up on the politics of foreign policy factions in the formulation of Reagan's foreign policy as I would like to be, but I am quite sure that, among others, Reagan's Secretary of State, and his vice president, held Kissinger in high esteem. Can anybody else shed any light on this matter, or is it back to the memoirs, news archives, and volumes of diplomatic history? RayTalk 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've pulled Shultz's memoir (Turmoil and Triumph) off the shelf, and I can definitely state that these statements are complete fabrications. Shultz consulted Kissinger extensively on the Middle East and dealing with the Soviets; Kissinger was among the select people asked to prepare President Reagan for a summit meeting, and he was chair of a commission to review foreign policy in Latin America. And that's just the first half of his index mentions in the book. So much for any claim of Kissinger being frozen out or ignored in the Reagan Administration. Any such claim that he was frozen out in first Bush Administration seems even less plausible, given that his protege Brent Scowcroft was GHWB's national security adviser. I don't have the elder Bush's memoir at hand, but I think I've got enough to excise that sentence. I'll try to review the references to Kissinger in the literature and come up with a better section to describe his elder statesman role during those two decades, but in the meantime I'm just going to cut that section. No information is better than clearly false information. RayTalk 11:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

The former section about Kissinger's policy towards Portugal following the Carnation Revolution was not helpful, and indeed inaccurate. The sources cited, however, appear to be of high quality, and a good section on that policy may be written here. Whether Portugal is consequential enough in the context of Kissinger's concerns and actions to merit a standalone section is something I'm ambivalent about. Anyhow, here are the sources: [1] [2] The Foreign Affairs article in particular is excellent, and I can provide a copy to any interested editor. So too is the lecture at the Library of Congress, but that's publically accessible at the link. RayTalk 22:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving several paragraphs here

These were isolated incidents in the public image section, which I feel disrupt the narrative flow of the article and are not placed in the context of Kissinger's significance, tending instead towards a WP:COATRACK style. RayTalk 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes section

I think the quotes section that was just removed here] needs to stay gone. Here is the reasoning that I expressed at the time:

Take a look at Wikipedia:Quotations, here are a couple of excerpts:

"editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. " "while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them" "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation."

and from the When not to use quotations section:

"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."

Thats where the NPOV comes in, all of the quotes make Kissinger look callous, autocratic and wholly amoral. Bonewah (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why lie Bonewah ?? IOn your edit summary you said "Quotes sections are expressly forbidden by wp:quote." - They are NOT expressly forbidden. BY all means put forward your case here but it's sad when people lie. Vexorg (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did make my case here, but in case you havent actually read wp:quote here you go: "Second, editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.

Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation."

As I said before, everything about the quotes section in this article is a violation of the rules. Further, rather than refute my logic and understanding of the rules, you call me a liar and ignore everything I said. assume good faith in your fellow editors, I am not lying, Im following the rules of wikipedia. I suggest you contribute these quotes to Wikiquote, a project dedicated to exactly what you are trying to do here. Bonewah (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Depopulation/eugenics

It seems Kissinger has become something of a whipping boy on this subject. There are lots of sites out there on it which seem of questionable provenience. An expert should address this issue with citations in the article. Regards -Craig Pemberton 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If there aren't reliable sources discussing it in detail, it shouldn't go in the article at all. Personally, I find any such suggestion dubious in the extreme. Kissinger lost family to the Holocaust, and his family really only got out a year or two ahead of the storm. The idea that he would subscribe to any racist theories about improving the species by culling the herd is cognitively dissonant. RayTalk 20:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lehrer Urban Legend

I'm sure we all know the apocraphal story about Tom Lehrer (that he gave up satire because Kissinger's Nobel prize made satire obsolete). It's occasionally (but regularly) cited in contemporary culture, and I can quite understand that people may come to this page looking for information on it. I would argue it should be mentioned briefly. 94.72.202.212 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

Kissinger was a main contributor to the Cyprus problem. Maybe something written on that would be good? When the Greek ships were sent to help the Cypriots under invasion, it was the US who turned the Greek ships back. It was also Kissinger who gave the go ahead for Turkish invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.83.60 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that, absent quality sources, we're not going to put anything that inflammatory in the article. RayTalk 05:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing since mid-December 2009, rumours of his liquidation

I'd like to address the fact that there is increasing chatter on the Internet to the effect that Kissinger has been missing since mid-December and that intelligence sources have asserted that it is likely that he has been killed during the alleged ongoing international law enforcement operation to take down Operation Stillpoint. The most reliable source on this is senior intelligence analyst Christopher Story's website globalreports.org where the unravelling of this apparently unprecendent fraud (Operation Stillpoint) has been chronicled for several months. __meco (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. I hope you dont plan on editing Kissinger's biography based on that website. Bonewah (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I am waiting for the story to either die out itself or be confirmed in reliable mainstream news media. __meco (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Good plan. Bonewah (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All I have so far is an article he authored for the Wallstreet Journal on the 19th. Not a live siting though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.163.114 (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No honourific titles

Dr Kissenger? No honorifics per WP:MOS. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 14:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This falls under WP:SOFIXIT. Best, RayTalk 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Operation Condor section

The section is a mess - bunch of accusations and legal threats with no followup whatever. Given the recent renewed sensitivity on Wikipedia to BLPs, as well as the section's less-than-narrative treatment, I propose we remove it, preserving the references on the talk page if anybody should want to write a more coherent section on the topic. Any serious objections? RayTalk 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. RayTalk 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ellsberg

The sentence I removed was, as I stated in my edit summary, breathlessly journalistic, lacking in proper historical context and analysis of its significance, and tacked on uselessly and pointlessly to a paragraph on the conduct of foreign policy in relation to Vietnam, without any indicia of its significance to the subject (indeed, as somebody slightly versed in these matters, I'd argue that the Pentagon papers are of immense significance w.r.t the First Amendment, the domestic nature of the political discourse, and the future conduct of intelligence activities, but had almost no relevance to the diplomatic side of our Vietnamese interactions). While we excuse such poor style in articles about recent events where only news coverage is available, the events in question occurred nearly 40 years ago, and we can surely do better. Please do not revert again without discussing. RayTalk 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • As I stated in my reverted version, I am but surprised by your edit and keep seeing no proper grounds for it. The paragraphs and references are, besides fully valid, relevant and in context, since it's not a section on diplomatic matters but on the whole picture of Kissinger's whereabouts, role and stance at that very time and in the given circumstances. The reader has the right to be informed, which is what the Wikipedia is for and why I've drawn up tens of articles in the Wikipedia for free. Some aspects of the person are definitely lacking in the English Wikipedia, the article is strikingly aseptic, ending up the article with the impression you still don't know almost much about him but his career. Moreover, calling his actions and positions just "controversial" at the most in a person accused of crimes against humanity by so many qualified figures is an understatement. I try to compensate that in a way, so that the reader can receive a fuller and more balanced picture and profile of the person in question, but that doesn't seem to go down with your taste. If the problem is the section where my contribution has been put or the cohesiveness, you might as well indicate me the proper part of the article where you think it should appear. Please don't edit my contribution without talk and come to talk if you feel like. By the way, I don't know who you are referring to by "we". Iñaki LL (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Inaki, you have failed to address my primary concerns with your edit, namely that it is out-of-place and inappropriate in tone, disrupts the narrative flow of the article, of little relevance other than demonstrating Kissinger has a temper. I will elaborate:

  1. You may have noticed that the sections on Kissinger's actions during his tenure in office are organized by topic, not chronologically. Furthermore, you may have noticed that you inserted a discussion of purely domestic matters into a section on foreign policy, specifically diplomacy related to the Vietnam War. The insertion in between a discussion of the bombing of Cambodia and the subsequent peace talks is unhelpful and takes the reader's mind off the subject at hand. This is the first of many issues with your edit.
  2. The second is its breathlessly journalistic style, which is unsuited for a historical narrative (the events of the Vietnam War being very much a part of history, rather than contemporary affairs). The placing of the "classifed as top secret" description, right next to "high rank Washington official" (inaccurate, by the way, as Ellsberg was a midlevel RAND analyst, like hundreds of others, and prior to that a staffer alternately at State and the Pentagon), is clearly a construction designed to increase the sensationalism of the claim without addressing the actual merits of the matter. This does not begin to address the POV language and sweeping claims made of American foreign policy over 4 administrations, which, at the very least, require more specific claims and verification - citing a video, without giving times, given its length, is not helpful. The insertion of a quote by Kissinger on a completely different subject from the lead, utterly without context, only adds to the lack of coherence in your text.
  3. The third problem is that it is of little relevance to Kissinger's biography, certainly not at the cursory level at which we are covering things in the current article. This is not a scrapbook of anecdotes relating to the era around Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War. Can you verifiably describe from reliable sources, how your edits are related to providing a proper, coherent description of Kissinger's behavior? How does an out-of-context quote help? How does knowing that Kissinger considered Ellsberg "dangerous" reflect on Kissinger, rather than Ellsberg?

These are my specific concerns with your edit. With respect for such other additions as you may have made, we are trying for a higher standard of writing on this article than is the norm on a typical Wikipedia article. Kissinger is a prominent figure and our readers deserve better. I will add two further comments, which you may take as you wish. The first is that your mention of various accusations against Kissinger, which have not arisen at all in our discussion here, suggests that you have a very strong point of view on the matter, and you should remember that whatever your point of view, it should not leak into your text, directly or by suggestion, as Wikipedia is a neutral source. The second is that your request that I do not edit your text at all without prior discussion is contrary to all Wikipedia practice, particularly the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and the rule that "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited." (Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP:OWN). You are of course free to take issue with specific edits on the merits, but "I wasn't consulted" has no validity whatever here. RayTalk 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I see your concern, a better article is what I am concerned about too. I've dealt with numerous kinds of text, I know well about text structuring and an aspect drawing my attention (striking) is the linear style of the narrative and the aseptic (surgical?) tone, with one-sided arguments piled up one after the other as a CV (resumée) can be, failing to present the real extent of his actions, not presenting critical approaches to his work or positions, despite his being severely critized by many reputed authors and groups (quite a lenghty criminal record is alleged). Formal rigidity covers up the real content (wasn't that actually what the Pentagon Papers were about? Just wondering...)
  • I share your concern with the cohesiveness, the paragraph I embedded refers to the Vietnam War context when he was in charge and is intended to clear up what his profile is both at the specific moment and in general as a person, and don't intend to delete his "medals"/merits from the article, but offer a critical and balanced approach in the argument ("completely different subject?", well it is directly related to the matter), so the reader can get the whole picture. A domestic issue? Yes (and no), the course of events at home were eventually to prompt the USA pull-out, so both are interacting. I accept suggestions anyway for another collocation or section for the paragraph in question. Thank you for mending, Ellsberg may not be a high-ranking official and needs a fix, there may be a proper word I am not familiar to (mid-ranking official?, I'll look into it). Top-secret, of course they were. The quotes are telling, I cited what the Papers revealed so that the reader gets the picture. My claim of not editing is just a mirror of your claim. Like you, I have a clear position as to the kind of figure and person Kissinger is, but I do not intend to make an article based on my point of view, just to balance it and offer a more realistic picture of the person in question, reality is dirtier, so to say. As I told before, this is not a CV. Iñaki LL (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Inaki, part of my problem is that your edit doesn't address Kissinger's actions at all. Your edit does not directly state such a link, but insinuates one, which is inappropriate. Indeed, upon further research, any information released from the Pentagon Papers cannot have any bearing on Kissinger's conduct of foreign policy, since the information they covered only goes up to 1967, a year before Nixon took office. Please remove this from the Vietnam War section, and probably the article altogether unless you can find a more concrete connection than "Kissinger was unhappy that his country's government was embarassed." RayTalk 16:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • RayAYang, I think I made clear by now why I put it there. The Pentagon Papers (Vietnam issue) were leaked while he was in the Administration (still with war raging) and his statements are referring to someone involved in the Vietnam War intelligence, I don't know what more you want. The second quote belongs to the same period, when all the uproar triggered by the Cambodian bombardments was on. The quotes are intended to clear up his role and attitude at this moment. It's perfectly justified, any edit not aimed at complementing the information given, I'll take as censorship on your part and undermining the principle of free contribution in the Wikipedia, it's not your private article, which you can draw up anyway in your website. It worries me your condescending tone. But still open for another possible location. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Do you have any information that Kissinger actually acted to silence a domestic critic? You do not - because, as National Security Adviser and then Secretary of State, Kissinger had no domestic capacity. So what you have instead is a marginally relevant quotation, an expression of pure opinion, inserted, once again, into a section where it is not relevant. The domestic debate over the Vietnam War is interesting background to the diplomacy that Kissinger conducted on it, but that background exists properly in our article on the Vietnam War, and any opinion Kissinger might have had on the Pentagon Papers belongs in our article on the Pentagon Papers. To insert it where it does not belong, in a segment covering the diplomacy surrounding the Vietnam War, is inappropriate. Frankly, I find the connection you draw tangential, and if I have been less kind than I ought to be, it is because based on your earlier statements I suspect you of deliberately trying to push a politicized point of view on this article. RayTalk 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Im also confused as to what the whole pentagon papers sentence adds to the Kissinger article. We know nothing more about Kissinger from it and the only way it really related to Kissinger is via the quote about Ellsberg, which I would describe as of marginal importance. I support the removal of the sentence in question. Bonewah (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, isn't it a coincidence a new person is joining the conversation to support you, RayAYang? I don't still know who "we" are, I'd be glad if you could enlighten me. The section is not about diplomacy but foreign policy, and the paragraph is related to his involvement in an event affecting a foreign policy issue. The quotes are about his attitude, this is clear, but I introduced the quotes now for a better understanding. The Pentagon Papers is not an article on H.Kissinger. My goal is to highlight his position, be it moral or political, in the matters affecting that war. We could create two different sections to encompass all Vietnam War related matters affecting to Kissinger, like say, er, "Moral implications of Kissinger's Foreign Policy in the Vietnam War" and "Political implication of Kissinger's 's Foreign Policy in the Vietnam War", but you will agree with me that it doesn't make sense, the issue is dealt with as a whole, and his role in the Foreign Policy has a moral side, it's not only about office paper-work, military briefings or political dealings. I have my ideas on Kissinger, it's not a secret, as you have yours, not a secret, as you demonstrate with the obstinacy in removing the paragraph. Looks like you are trying to wipe out the content with form related arguments, am I wrong? Iñaki LL (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I happen to agree with Bonewah. The addition is just a quote, it adds nothing to the article. Seems more a candidate for Wikiquote--Work permit (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kissinger is a nonobservant Jew

Kissinger is Jewish. That has been added to the infobox. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He was sworn in as Secretary of State over a bible, at his own request. I think that crosses the line from non-observant to choosing not to believe. It's a topic which is open to controversy, rather than being open and shut. RayTalk 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is any question at all (and Ray has already posed it), this addition should not be made without discussion. Discussion should start with providing wp:rs on this talk that indicates that he considers himself Jewish. wp:blp applies. A recent quote of him saying "I am Jewish" would be a start :)--Work permit (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It gets trickier than that, but yes, that would be a starting point for discussion (the issue is that Jewish identity is both culturo-ethnic and religious, and it's perfectly possible to do one but not the other, as, say, lots of my friends do). If it was placed as an ethnic identity, I'd have probably left it alone, but as a religious one, that raises questions of accuracy. RayTalk 03:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the onus is on anyone else to show that Henry Kissinger is not Jewish, because everything available on the topic will serve as a source that he is Jewish. He is, like the majority of American Jews, a nonobservant Jew. He doesn't have to pass any further test. Reliable sources attest to the fact that he is Jewish. Here is a source, one of an endless supply of such sources, attesting to Henry Kissinger's Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop, if you're going to argue that Kissinger has a Jewish cultural heritage or ethnic identity, I'm not going to argue with you. But that is not your position: you're arguing that he has such a religious identity, and the onus is on you to prove that he still considers himself a follower of Judaism the religion. The record is clear that Kissinger abandoned the practice of Judaism (that's almost a literal quote from Isaacson, pp30), and was sworn in on the King James version of the bible (Isaacson, pp 505). I think you're on shaky ground here, honestly. RayTalk 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not arguing anything about cultural heritage or ethnic identity. The infobox has a field for "religion." A nonobservant Jew is still a Jew. In case you don't know this, Judaism posits that a Jew remains a Jew regardless of whether he/she is piously observant or utterly irreligious. Not all religions are the same. I am not trying to say for instance that Christianity understands a non-practicing Christian to be a Christian. Judaism is a religion that recommends that its adherents do certain things and not do certain things. That is another way of saying that Judaism certainly does have its guidelines. But failure to adhere to recommended guidelines does not result in the sort of disqualification that I think you are suggesting. Judaism has a view of Jewish identity, and I think that view is relevant here. Certainly reliable sources are relevant here. Do you have a source which says that Kissinger is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
More relevant, you should provide sources that he is Jewish. Absent debate of sources, the field should remain blank.--Work permit (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't debate religion here, but the debate should be about his religious beliefs. HIS religious beliefs.--Work permit (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't need a source on what his religious "beliefs" are; we need a source on what his religion is. Such sources are available in abundance. One is provided above. We are not probing Henry Kissinger's thoughts. I don't think our primary task is to find out Henry Kissinger's conception of God, morality, texts, practices, the afterlife, etc. Our job is to scour reliable sources for some indication as to what Henry Kissinger's religion is. I think there are more than enough sources saying that he is Jewish. I think the onus is on other editors to bring to our attention sources which indicate that Kissinger is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop, I think we have more than enough evidence to question whether Kissinger believes in Judaism at all. I'm with Work permit on this one - our statement of a subject's religion should be based on the subject's religious beliefs, not on the doctrine of any particular religion. Do you have any data to suggest that he still identifies with the religion, as opposed to the culture or ethnicity? If not, I think we're about ready to close this one out. We can go to an RFC to get further opinions if you insist, but ... RayTalk 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Ray — as an experienced editor you know better than to engage in original research. Additionally you are setting yourself up as an expert on Judaism yet I am unaware that you have presented any credentials to that effect. If I am not mistaken we should be relying on reliable sources. Please present reliable sources or desist from what seems to me like a baseless argument.

Here we find:

"Kissinger's Jewish identity deeply influences his perspective on the world."

Here we find:

"Which prompts the question: has the ferocity of the criticism which Kissinger has attracted perhaps got something to do with the fact that he, like the Rothschilds, is Jewish?"

This is the title of the TimesOnline article from which the above is quoted:

"The Jewish key to Henry Kissinger — Is the ferocity of criticism for Kissinger related to the fact that he is Jewish?"

Wonkette titles this blog:

"Kissinger, Pope Ratzi Form ‘Papal-Jewish Conspiracy’"

At Foreign Affairs in a book review titled "Henry Kissinger and the American Century; Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power," we find the following sentence:

"Suri [book authur] also attempts to illuminate the impact of Kissinger's German Jewish identity on his foreign policy vision. At one level, it was simply instrumental: Kissinger's early career was built on his ability to translate German society for Americans. But Suri also sees a more profound impact in Kissinger's abiding suspicion of unbridled democracy and idealistic liberal projects."

In "Kissinger: A Biography," by "Walter Isaacson," I find the following:

"He had not practiced his religion since he returned from the army and entered Harvard. Yet he never rejected Judaism, unlike his former wife, who embraced the Ethical Culture Society, or James Schlesinger, whose family converted to Protestantism."

At this book review of the "Jeremi Suri" book "Henry Kissinger and the American Century," we find the following sentence:

"Of particular note is Suri’s placement of Kissinger’s Jewish identity at the center of the book. "

The Jewish Chronicle, in a review of a book by "Alistair Horne" titled "Kissinger's year: 1973," book reviewer "Robert Low" says the following:

"His deft and courageous diplomacy during those desperate days for Israel is expertly charted by Alistair Horne. The veteran historian brilliantly captures the drama of the war and Kissinger’s key role in ensuring that Israel received the military supplies it needed to survive. Despite his own ambivalence towards the country, he made it clear that it was inconceivable that the first Jewish Secretary of State would allow the disappearance of the Jewish state, and harangued the foot-dragging Defence Secretary, James Schlesinger, threatening to end high-ranking careers if his department didn’t allow supplies to start flowing pronto."

The above reliable sources support the notion that Kissinger is Jewish. There are indeed many more such sources. I've presented them in virtually the order presented by Google. The hard part is not in finding sources supportive of that Kissinger is Jewish, but in just typing up the material. If you have credentials as to your expertise concerning Judaism I wish you would bring them to my attention. In the absence of any of us being experts I think the standard operating procedure is to look to verifiable sources for our cue on whether Kissinger is Jewish or not. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Those references are fine with me. Specifically the two bolded ones. Unless there is a reference that specifically contradicts these (ie that he did reject Judaisim), I'm fine--Work permit (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The Isaacson reference works for me - the page in question notes that while Kissinger professed indifference, referring to religion as an accident of birth, he insisted on a bar mitzvah for his son. I would consider that an allowable argument that Kissinger was not as indifferent to Judaism as he might have wanted some to believe. This sort of research is precisely what's needed to clear up points - and it's not in the least bit original, as it relies entirely on sources. Now, if any of us had called up Mr. Kissinger, that would have been OR .... RayTalk 01:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop's use of evidence on Kissinger's Jewish identity is questionable, because I sense that Bus stop doesn't really care about Kissinger per se. While sufficient evidence may or may not have been provided to engender consensus regarding Kissinger's exhibition or lack thereof of embrace for his Jewish identity, Kissinger is but one of a tremendous number of people in the world who are considered Jewish by Jewish law yet who either partially or entirely deny their religious affiliation. From the Jewish perspective, Judaism is necessarily a religion first and a culture second -- evidence to this would be permission for gentile conversion regardless of ethnicity or nationality. A child born in Australia to a Japanese mother and an Irish Catholic father who properly converts to Judaism is considered no less Jewish than Moses himself. The issue at hand is really a sweeping concern for such prominent figures as not only Kissinger, but alos Karl Marx, Steven Spielberg, Madelaine Albright, Mary McCarthy, Jean-Marie Lustiger, Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld and many, many others. Rather than focusing on each individual and trying to demonstrate whether or not each example of assimilated Jewry can or cannot be considered Jewish by Wikipedia standards, it seems much more consistent to define a uniform protocol. Does such a debate really have to occur at each party's article/talk page?

DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach — Don't forget Albert Einstein. I believe that all sources say that Einstein was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Work permit — The "bolded" references are no more important than the unbolded references. The unbolded references are also reliable sources saying that, for Wikipedia purposes, he is "Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I simply thought the bolded statements were definitive and would put this issue to rest with no more debate. Given wp:blp issues, if there were evidence that Kissinger himself did not feel he was Jewish, that he would be offended by the statement and consider it libelous, then the other sources you provided would need to be scrutinized in more detail.--Work permit (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ray — His having "a bar mitzvah for his son" is not what makes him Jewish. It is reliable sources that, for Wikipedia purposes, makes him "Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We go by reliable sources. In this instance all sources that address the topic at all say that Kissinger is Jewish. No source that I have thus far encountered says that Kissinger is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Bus stop - I did not forget Einstein as much as I decided to stop giving examples, but yet, Einstein fits into such a category as well. As wholehearted, sincere contributors to Wikipedia, I think we should expose our true motivations and not hide behind shrouds of clandestinely placed multiple posts on multiple talk pages of multiple famous personalities when, in reality, only one issue is at stake. Wikipedia is about verifiability, and while Orthodox Judaism asserts it to be objectively verifiable that Judaism considers certain Xs to be Ys, one has to a) assume Orthodox Judaism represents Judaism (presenting a likely deficiency in objectivity) and b) assume that verifiability within Orthodox Judaism translates into such according to Wikipedia standards (presenting a likely deficiency in verifiability).
I don't know what to say to you Bus stop, or to anyone else -- in essence, Wikipedia can never represent truth because it is so exceedingly pluralistic that it equates to intolerance. In the same way that an orthodoxy affirms that there is only one way, and is thus intolerant of multiple views, pluralism affirms that there is no way, and thus rejects orthodoxy in complete contrast to its stated objective. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed that there is a much larger, sweeping problem, that needs to be addressed, not that I thought I was hiding behind any kind of a clandestine shroud. I disagree about the possibility of Wikipedia representing truth. With the good will of editors it is possible to represent truth. The framework of Wikipedia is sound. Neutral Point Of View is a principle that, in principle, provides for the representation of more than one viewpoint. It is more petty factors that often overwhelm WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You may disagree, but you would be ignoring reality. Pluralism is exclusive of orthodoxy and orthodoxy is exclusive of pluralism -- so, by the power of even one example of evidence to the contrary, one cannot defend NPOV and at the same time reach absolute truth. Such is certainly the case, being that many people do not believe in absolute truth. And another fault of Wikipedia (not in and of itself, but as a purported goal of obtaining truth) is the utilization of consensus as a foundation for policy and article content. And I wasn't suggesting you were doing anything devious -- merely that a more global perspective should sought rather than a minor debate regarding all to whom it is relevant. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed that consensus is a potential problem big time for Wikipedia. But did you know that WP:NPOV trumps consensus? I have yet to see this respected, but at WP:NPOV we find:
"The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
The above, quoted from WP:NPOV, seems to clearly relegate consensus to a position of importance secondary to that of WP:NPOV itself.
I didn't really understand you to be saying I was doing anything devious. I just thought I should respond to that point. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A collection of information can hardly be sought for crucial information when all of the data much be couched.
A is B according to X, but C according to Y. It is D according to Z, but C even according to Y in the circumstance of G.
This is fine in the preliminary debate, but a defined consensus is necessary to put forth to the public. If one cannot be made because of the NPOV (such as in this case of religious debate), it becomes so cumbersome and complex that it would likely result in either a big mess or it being completely left out. You happen to have found some good sources for Kissinger, but doesn't that seem to you to be ingenuine to the case of Marx, where for the simple reason that you couldn't find some reporter or some autobiographer to make a similar comment, the article does not state that he is Jewish? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversials

This article is disgustingly biased and a total praise of this background politician. He lied about his role in the East Timor affair and his role in Chile, among other facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.121.239 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


I agree with you somewhat, I have only recently taken an interest in polotical history in recent months and came upon Kissinger when studying the Bilderberg Group. I struggle to understand the unilateral hatred expressed for this man on what seems to be every site on the web with the exception of Wiki. 12.129.136.5 01:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Jill Orly? (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kissinger is attending Bilderberg 2010: http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=5093 (Not surprized).

this new Condor memo thing

The information that the US government had advance knowledge of the Letelier assasination really needs a high quality source. Specifically, that source should show that Kissinger personally had information that specific; otherwise this constitutes a disallowed synthesis of information with the effect of accusing him of murder. I'm actually fairly uncomfortable with including this factoid - historical interpretation from primary sources, of complex matters of statecraft with multiple balanced interests, of which we only know a few, is very difficult, and not supposed to be the role of Wikipedia, period. Thoughts? RayTalk 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the source in question doesnt really impicate Kissinger in anything, but kinda, sorta makes it look like he approved of operation condor, which is not really clear from the facts at hand. Additionally, the wording of the edit does not make clear what the article claims, so I think it should not be included in its current form. I would reconsider if a re-write is offered, however. Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

-_-a

Henry Kissinger is a mass murder. He has been involved directly and indirectly in the slaughter and murder of over a million people. How about a section on that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm for it -unsigned (01:50, 1 May 2010 63.175.233.162)

@Ditc and Unsigned: So far as you wish to expand this article with factual statements cited to credible sources about the actions that you believe to be unethical, Wikipedia should be grateful to you. However, Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to express judgment of a man's character and edits regarding "mass murder", "slaughter", and attempts to lay direct blame on Kissinger for the crimes of those he had dealings with, no matter how closely he was linked to them, are going to be reverted. Keep in mind that that the Wikipedia community must be cautious about biographies of living persons in order to protect the foundation from legal charges of libel. This is not to say that you can't address less than flattering facts about Henry Kissinger's career, but don't be surprised if other editors hold you to a higher standard of verifiability than often passes for other topics. -- Bdentremont (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some verifiable non-pov sources on the matter you describe. J. ORLY? (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

Hello Englishmen, how are you carried away to pronounce the German name Kissinger this way: [ˈkɪsɪndʒər]? Thinking of kissin' German? You know that g is pronounced dʒ just in words derived from Roman languages ... see, "Kissinger" is derived from the German town "Bad Kissingen" [ˈkɪsɪŋən]. ... And furthermore: Kissinger should be named Bad Kissinger ;-)

Stephan from Germany (212.144.82.20 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

I believe, that since Kissinger is an American citizen and statesman, and was presumably stripped of his citizenship by the German government of the time, we will use the American pronounciation. RayTalk 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
dʒ is not the American pronunciation of the letter g. Or do you jet a burjer at McDonald's?? Well, I was born in Hamburg - but don't tell me a Hamb Urger... I don't want to reiterate, but g in Germanic rooted words is pronounced [g] (as in "give") even in American English. (212.144.40.30 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
American English is the language best known for boldly ignoring most rules of transcription in favor of common practice. It is a rich, varied tongue with far more exceptions than rules :) In this case, we have accurately reproduced the common pronounciation of Kissinger. RayTalk 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitewash/Controversies/Legal Actions

I belive France and Spain have issued international arrest warrants for Kissinger for his role in the deaths of French and Spannish citizens in Chile during the US intervention their. Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.85.37 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see it under 'public perception'. I think this deserves some attention perhaps a sub-section under Chile? Brylaw (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're going to need sourcing. There have, from time to time, been efforts to get somebody to issue a warrant for the arrest of Kissinger. I've not heard of any such warrant being currently active. RayTalk 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


This entire article is a disgusting whitewash and this is why wikipedia is becoming irrelevant.

Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.45.126 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How come all you guys complaining about Kissinger don't have the guts to sign in? --JHP (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think that this article should mention the accusation that he is a war criminal, even if it is to refute the charges, I have heard it said and I want to know more. Jamie Kitson (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think so. It's a spurious accusation about a major political figure. Devoting space to something like that would be a violation of our policies against giving undue weight to highly opinionated and marginal positions. I don't think there's been an American president since Truman who hasn't been accused of war crimes, and that goes for Secretaries of State and Defense who lasted more than a year in office, as well. RayTalk 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ray, the US Constitution has pretty clear limits on the prosecution of undeclared wars, and that makes HK and most of our modern "statesmen" war criminals by even the most basic constitutional definitions. The lack of a criminal conviction does not make the mention of their de facto crimes "spurious". Your commentary here on the talk page is consistently fawning, which is not surprising considering the subject matter. This article's basic problem is the use of scare terms to define HK's opponents, namely "political left" and "leftist". Peace activists cannot, either now nor then, be defined as rightist or leftist a priori, and to assume all of Kissinger's opponents (and the targets of his violence) were leftist or Marxist is ridiculous and easily disprovable. This article is crap and it reads like whitewash propaganda. The first commenter is right. Nimmolo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Far-left nonsense. I don't particularly admire any of Kissinger's "achievements," but war criminal? Tone it down, and you might want to re-read the Constitution, the rules handed down from the courts, and the actions of the U.S. Congress in such areas.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

This obsession with Kissinger is irrational. Kissinger had nothing to do with the 1973 coup in Chile, after which 2,000 people were killed; John Dulles was directly involved in the 1954 coup in Guatemala, after which 200,000 people were killed. Go after his article! (In his defense, the official Guatemalan truth commission found that Arbenz killed several hundred opponents and the genocide happened decades after the coup).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is more than enough material to justify a "Controversies involving Henry Kissinger" page or something to that extent- as I think it would be more practical than the current situation. Also, the current article indeed misses, many controversies- I am sure there are a lot of you out there who know more about this than me, though. If it was three years ago I would make it by myself, but I would like to encourage somebody else. :) Cheers! 123.195.12.139 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add to this debate - I agree that parts of the article are whitewash, and there needs to be more info about controversial aspects of Kissinger's policy decisions during his tenure, more specifically regarding the legal actions taken against him. The following sentence is particularly odious, and I would argue non-NPOV: "Since he left office, numerous efforts have been made to charge Kissinger personally for the perceived injustices of American foreign policy during his tenure in office. These charges have at times inconvenienced his travels." Firstly, the attempts to charge are not for 'perceived injustices'. He is/was facing lawsuits, criminal complaints, and questioning for specific acts he may or may not have committed, which is quite a different matter. Furthermore, why is this sentence giving more weight to Kissinger's travel 'inconveniences' than accusations of war crimes? It's completely absurd. There needs to be more neutral language here. Finally, the two sentences are contradictory. There can't be 'efforts to charge' and at the same time actual charges that have inconvenienced his travels. What has actually happened is he has left countries of his own free will rather than face court summons. Below I present a (partial) list of legal actions concerning Kissinger and Operation Condor, for everyone's consideration. If there are no objections over the next few weeks, I plan to make these part of the article, and get rid of the offending sentences. Here's the list:

-On May 28 2001, police visited Kissinger at the Ritz Hotel, Paris and handed him a warrant, issued by Judge Roger LeLoire, requesting his testimony in the matter of 5 French citizens who had disappeared in Pinochet's Chile. Kissinger refused, referred the matter to the State Department, and left for Italy the next day, however the summons still stands.

-In July 2001 the Chilean high court granted investigating judge Juan Guzmán the right to question Kissinger about the 1973 killing of American journalist Charles Horman, who was executed by the Chilean military following the coup. The judge's questions were relayed to Kissinger via diplomatic routes but were not answered.

-In August 2001, Argentine Judge Rodolfo Canicoba sent a letter to the U.S. State Department under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requesting a statement from Kissinger to facilitate the investigation of the judge on Operation Condor. Apparently there was no response.

-On September 10, 2001, the family of General René Schneider, former commander of the Chilean military, initiated a civil action in federal court in Washington, DC, by claiming that Kissinger gave the agreement to murder Schneider because the General had refused to endorse plans for a military coup against Allende. 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 before the killing, fearing that Viaux had no chance. As part of the suit Schneider's two sons are attempting to sue Kissinger and then-CIA director Richard Helms for $3 million. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the case based on sovereign and diplomatic immunity, as well as the political question doctrine.

-On September 11, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the Pinochet coup, Chilean human rights lawyers filed a criminal case against Kissinger along with Augusto Pinochet, former Bolivian general and president Hugo Banzer, former Argentine general and dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, and former Paraguayan president Alfredo Stroessner for alleged involvement in Operation Condor. The case was brought on behalf of some fifteen victims of Operation Condor, ten of whom were Chilean. (I can't find what happened to this case)

-In 2001 the Brazilian government canceled an invitation for Kissinger to speak in São Paulo because it could not guarantee his immunity from judicial action.

-On November 13, 2002, 11 individuals who suffered grave human rights violations following the bloody coup that placed Pinochet in power brought suit against Henry Kissinger, the United States government, and Michael Vernon Townley for crimes against humanity, forced disappearance, torture, arbitrary detention, and wrongful death. The suit alleges that Henry Kissinger knowingly provided practical assistance and encouragement to the Chilean repressive regime before, during, and after the coup, with reckless disregard for the lives and well-being of the victims and their families. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the case based on the same grounds as Schneider vs. Kissinger.

-On February 16, 2007 a request for the extradition of Kissinger was filed at the Supreme Court of Uruguay on behalf of Bernardo Arnone, a political activist who was kidnapped, tortured and disappeared by the dictatorial regime in 1976. (I can't find what happened to this request)

Coolazice (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicaragua

How can this article mention NOTHING of Nicaragua?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.197.6 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Nicaragua, his support for Somoza has been documented. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Charles Horman

I am reading this book "The Pinochet File" which contains documents declassified since the 90s, as well as commentary on them: it has been alleged that Kissinger was complicit or at least negligent in the killing of Charles Horman. Kissinger was named in the wrongful death lawsuit brought by his father here in America (separate from the lawsuit brought against the Pinochet dictatorship by the Hormans), which could conceivably have convicted Kissinger if it weren't for the very controversial use of State Secrets to protect him. And yet there is no mention of Horman in the section on the coup? I might have to get registered in order to put it in myself -- I have several citations ready. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Infamous quotes:

along with ""Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" can we add more information about the this widely spread Kissinger quote:

“Military Men Are Dumb, Stupid Animals to Be Used as Pawns for Foreign Policy.” Henry A. Kissinger, Kiss the Boys Goodbye, The Final Days, Woodward and Bernstein (Simon & Schuster, 1976) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxdroid (talkcontribs) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus Matter

I have just finished reading the article and have noticed a terrible oversight. While there are mentions of Kissinger’s work against specific countries, the author(s) of the article failed to point out Kissinger’s involvement in the overthrowing and murder of the elected president of Cyprus, Makarios, in 1974, while Kissinger was a National Security Advisor. There are evidences to support it, such as the declassified files of the US government that were recently made available to the public, in which Kissinger announces the decision of the National Security Council to proceed with Makarios’ ‘final cure’. These incidents led to the invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish troops and are, among others, responsible for the present state of Cyprus. Katiana2 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you have a reliable source, go ahead and edit the article yourself and provide a link to the source. If your source doesn't meet the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline, then expect your claim to be removed. Also, all edits must adhere to the Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy. If you can't meet those fairly straightforward standards, then the problem isn't with the article, it's with you. --JHP (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Makarios was not killed in the coup. He escaped then returned to power some time after the Turkish intervention. None of this needs to be in the Kissinger article.76.2.42.123 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What are Kissinger's degees in?

The article mentions that he received a B.A., an M.A., and a Ph.D. from Harvard, but it doesn't mention what he studied.

Henry Kissinger received his B.A. degree summa cum laude at Harvard College in 1950, where he studied under William Yandell Elliott.[16] He received his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard University in 1952 and 1954, respectively.

Are his degrees in political science? International relations? Public policy? Basket-weaving? Are they all in the same subject or different subjects? Also, I'm pretty sure Harvard doesn't even offer B.A.'s and M.A.'s. They offer A.B.'s and A.M.'s. --JHP (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Government, according to this source http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Kissinger-Henry.html. I dunno offhand if it's a WP:RS. Barnabypage (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Genocide in the Soviet Union

is this relevant?

Not sure how to put it in the article. Probably deserves some mention.

Ugh. Walter Isaacson has written a very good book about (among other things) the very complicated relationship between Kissinger and Nixon. To get into the types of speculation necessary to provide plausible explanations for the types of things Kissinger was prepared to say to butter up Nixon, or protect Nixon's self-image, would require complicated psychological speculations that we ought not get into so long as this article remains a BLP. There are very good reasons one does not write encyclopedia articles from primary sources, and the Nixon/Kissinger tapes provide examples for most of them. RayTalk 22:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” The New York Times on Saturday quoted Kissinger, then secretary of state, as saying on the tapes. “And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

Haaretz, LAtimes, atlantic. Seems like a fairly recent revelation. Anything posted in mainstream newspapers should be considered for inclusion here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section on Pakistan

I have redacted it, as it doesn't come close to following summary style. While examining the material, I didn't really see a place to insert it where it would give proper weight, and it appears to be synthesis based on primary source materials designed to advance a particular point of view, so on reflection I suppose it's better that it stays out. RayTalk 18:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

political style

Here is an interesting guardian article that includes information about Kissinger's political style during his time as secretary of state. While discussing with Nixon, how they could best damage U.S. whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg, Kissinger suggests to wait until the end of Vietnam war, "then we can say this son of a bitch nearly blew it ... Then no one will give a damn about war crimes." This tells volumes, doesn't it? --spitzl (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible presidential candidacy

In Kissinger's early time in the Nixon administration he had very high approval ratings and there was much talk of a constitutional amendment being made to allow him to run for president. Polls showed he was the preferred successor to the then very popular Nixon. Should this be included in the article? - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead

Is Henry Kissinger dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.195.231 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing Nazis

The article says "During the American advance into Germany, Kissinger was assigned to de-Nazify the city of Krefeld, owing to a lack of German speakers on the division's intelligence staff. Kissinger relied on his knowledge of German society to remove the obvious Nazis and restore a working civilian administration, a task he accomplished in 8 days." How do you identify "obvious Nazis"? Is there a birthmark you can look for or hair color? Blonde hair? But Hitler was a "NAZI" and he had dark hair.

Perhaps more detail could be given on how "obvious Nazis" were identified by Kissinger. It sounds like it could be a fascinating discussion, except that I suspect its a lot of hot air. Is there a reliable source than can be referenced on how Kissinger was able to identify "obvious Nazis"? I have a special interest in this. I recall watching television documentaries in the 1970's in which they said "they were all Nazis". This makes me think the allies were loose with their definition of the word "NAZI". Were the two million German women that the allies gang raped at the end of the war "obvious Nazis" too?Pgg804 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The cited source says that they were easy to spot because they were the only ones who were well fed, but does not actually state that that was the (sole) criterion. I have changed the sentence to better reflect what tha cited source states eplicitly.--Boson (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

when words are scarce they are seldom spent in vein

No criticism section? Gentlemen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a section "Public perception", which has a sub-section "Controversy"; this may be less of a vandal magnet. --Boson (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It's an extremely small section of criticism for such a hotly debated public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.255.66 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. This gives an overtly positive image of mr. Kissinger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.190.87 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2012‎ (UTC)
I could not agree more. The articles of other languages have whole sections of Kissinger criticism and all that is here is one small paragraph full of vague subjunctives. 141.35.40.137 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirection page for Kissinger

If one use the search field and enter "kissinger" one ends up on a page with an url ending in #Jewtard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger#Jewtard

Do not know how to tidy that up. Someone else? Warumwarum (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported comment

[Redact unsupported blp violation] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.84.37 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? --Boson (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


Shah of Iran

This article claimed that Kissinger and David Rockefeller convinced Jimmy Carter to allow the Shah to receive medical treatment in the United States. The Wikipedia article "Criticisms of US foreign policy," however, states that "foreign policy expert Henry Kissinger criticized Jimmy Carter for numerous foreign policy mistakes including a decision to admit the ailing Shah of Iran into the United States for medical treatment, as well as a bungled military mission to try to rescue the hostages in Teheran." Obviously, both cannot be true. So which has the more reliable, reputable source? The latter cites a Time magazine article based on an interview with Kissinger. What does this biography cite? A self-published rant by the libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard, which is only tangentially related to the Shah (it's about the Persian Gulf War being motivated by a conspiracy of elite interests including Rockefeller and Kissinger), and which offers no evidence to justify its sweeping assertions. Clearly, it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. One can admire, revile, or respect Rothbard; but I don't believe that anyone can seriously maintain that his opinion on this matter is a particularly notable or widely-accepted historical perspective. Thus, I have removed it. Discuss here if you find my edit objectionable in any way. I would think that, if it were actually true, there would be more mainstream documentation supporting this notion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, Rothbard is also cited for the fact that Kissinger was a supporter of Nelson Rockefeller in the sixties. This is, of course, true; but is Rothbard an acceptable source in this context (for a non-controversial statement), or should he be replaced with a less ideologically driven citation?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dual Israeli-US citizenship

With Michelle Bachmann becoming dual Swiss-US citizen, Henry Kissinger is being listed on some websites as a dual Israeli-US citizen. If this can be confirmed as factual, it certainly should be added to the article. Seki1949 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Researched this issue; No evidence of Kissinger being a dual Israeli-US citizen. When I returned to the source websites, it was quickly obvious that they had confused the "right of return" with dual citizenship. Seki1949 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious David

The following section appears in the Personal Life portion of the article without explaining who "David" is.

Kissinger first married Ann Fleischer, with whom he had two children, Elizabeth and David. They divorced in 1964. Ten years later, he married Nancy Maginnes.[89] They now live in Kent, Connecticut and New York City. David was an executive with NBC Universal before becoming head of Conaco, Conan O'Brien's production company.[90] Kissinger described Diplomacy as his favorite game in an interview published in a games magazine.[91]

Maybe someone should either delete the reference to the mysterious show biz David or explain what his connection to Kissinger is. If this "David" is the child from the first sentence, it might be better if the mysterious sentence referring to a mysterious "they" without antecedent following citation 89 was moved so that is was immediately after the sentence about his first marriage and children. Then the paragraph could finish with the sentence about Nancy Maginnes. I can't be sure from the way its written that "they" and "David" are his children.198.229.244.247 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Scoop: Scoop Images: Henry Kissinger Digs Deep". www.scoop.co.nz. Retrieved 2009-10-16. 
  2. ^ "The Memory Hole: The Photos Kissinger Doesn't Want You to See". 
  3. ^ "Tom Lehrer interviewed by Stephen Thompson". Retrieved 2007-08-24.  Text "The Onion AV club " ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Kissinger walks out of Paxman programme". June 29, 1999. Retrieved 2007-08-24.  Text "Guardian Unlimited" ignored (help)
  5. ^ a b c d e f Why the law wants a word with Kissinger, Fairfax Digital, April 30, 2002 (in English)
  6. ^ "Argentina". Human Rights Watch World Report 2002. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2006-12-30. 
  7. ^ a b Hitchens, Christopher (November 27, 2002). "The latest Kissinger outrage". Slate. Retrieved 2006-12-30. 
  8. ^ a b c Miller, Christopher (September 11, 2001). "Family of Slain Chilean Sues Kissinger, Helms; Military Leader Was Killed in Kidnap Attempt Linked to Nixon Administration". The Washington Post. p. A.22. Retrieved 2006-12-30.  Republished on the site "Freedom of Information Center, University of Missouri". Retrieved 2006-12-30. 
  9. ^ "World; In Brief". The Washington Post. September 12, 2001. p. A.27. Retrieved 2006-12-14. 
  10. ^ "Operation Condor: Cable Suggests U.S. Role". National Security Archive. March 6, 2001. Retrieved 2007-01-05. 
  11. ^ Burr, William (December 6, 2001). "East Timor Revisited". National Security Archive. Retrieved 2007-01-05.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)