Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 5

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)
 * 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)
 * Sourced. No consensus for rmv.--Polmandc (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? What is POV about "despite"? Please make a proper argument. So far, you are just trying to push your own POV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No joke, WP:BRD.--Polmandc (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It looks WP:CHEESE to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. Ray  Talk 10:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of our sentence is controversial? The idea that genocide occurred in East Pakistan? Or the implication that Kissinger ignored it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Genocide is by definition a charged and opinionated word. Unless the situation was declared a Genocide by a reputable authority, such as The UN Security council, or a consensus of governments, then the word should not be used to describe an armed conflict.192.91.173.42 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Says who? Our policies say that reliable sources are required for any statement. Reliable sources there are aplenty; the economist article that you keep removing, as well as numerous sources in the linked article. You're argument at this point sounds like "I don't like it", which is not a valid reason for removal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if we are going to talk about Kissinger's support for Pakistan, we should word it in a more neutral way. My suggestion is "Kissinger's Realpolitik resulted in controversial policies such as CIA involvement in Chile and the US's support for Pakistan during the Bangladesh War."  The "despite its genocidal actions" is an obvious POV violation and so should be avoided.  Further, my change makes the claims about Pakistan consistent with the way we reference Chile, i.e. we make note of it and let the reader follow links to learn more.
 * I've said it before; I'm willing to discuss wording changes. The point made by the article, as well as several other sources, is that US support continued despite the genocide. We can't simply ignore that because it makes Kissinger look bad, because RS have given it coverage. If you can think of a nicer way to phrase this, I'd like to hear it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What had Kissinger got to do with the alleged genocide? Nothing is the answer - this POV edit forces links to genocide and Bangladesh War into his article - what is his connection to this? How was he involved in this genocide and war? Why should these links be connected to him? Also, who is commenting this, where is the attribution? Are there multiple sources stating this fact, or just the one? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The connections is fairly obvious; he continued US political, logistical, and military support to the perpetrators of the genocide. More generally, Kissinger is notable for being secretary of state; we cannot discuss his policies/positions isolated from their impact. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Vanamonde93 - Have you got multiple reports of this issues notability or just this one? Despite is so opinionated, where is it from? Who says this ? Your addition imo alleged an involvement to this genocide, that Kissinger had a role in it, please tell me what involvement he had? Did he do anything to do with this genocide? No - so why is these links being forced into his biography? Govindaharihari (talk)
 * If you think I am suggesting Kissinger was directly involved, you need to read my comments more carefully. My statement was very clear; we cannot discuss Kissinger's policy in isolation; its implications, where they are discussed by reliable sources, are not optional. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not your "statements" it is your addition to the article This edit that asserts a connection between Kissinger and genocide - Have you User:Vanamonde93 got other sources commenting on this? if not attribution would be needed - the author is not wikipedia notable - Gary Bass - ? please  - I don't have a care in this so please show me his involvement in this genocide, or that multiple reliable sources have reported this connection? - or lets remove it  - Garry Bass - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are sources aplenty; Beachler, Donald (2007) 'The politics of genocide scholarship: the case of Bangladesh'; a book by Gary Bass (who is a scholar, and therefore as good a source as we can have); Beyond the “Tilt”: US Initiatives to Dissipate Bangladesh Movement in 1971, Ali Riaz, History Compass 3 (2005); another book, this one by christopher hitchens; and several more, if only people had bothered to look. They all say the same thing; that Kissinger overlooked the genocide, and continued to support Pakistan, despite knowing about it. What exactly are you trying to argue here? You first tried to claim this was POV; when this content was demonstrated to be necessary to NPOV, you question its verifiability; now that has been demonstrated, where are you going to go? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Garry Bass Journalist is not wp:notable at all - So attribute it, name the commenter and and drop the POV "despite"Govindaharihari (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is now becoming tendentious. You have ignored the three other sources I provided, and continue to insist that Gary Bass is not a scholar, when he is in fact a professor of international relations at Princeton University; . Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. You exhibit no knowledge of Wikipedia policies. A source must be reliable, not notable. Gary Bass is a scholar from a reputable University and his book has had 10 glowing reviews in academic journals, and pretty much every newspaper and magazine in the world. You should WP:DROPTHESTICK and go find something else to do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Back off with the rubbish tendentious accusations - Gary Bass is not wikipedia notable and neither are his comments - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So go ahead and attribute his opinions and comments - please don't present them as factsGovindaharihari (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Govindaharihari - additional sources were provided. Gary Bass as a Princeton scholar is notable. No need to flog this horse any more.--Polmandc (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

"I would be extremely surprised if he did not speak German "like a native"."

I would too, considering that he IS a native. ---Dagme (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Nobel controversy in lede
I side with the IP here. Talking about the details of the controversy in the lead seems undue. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording is not perfect, but we can hardly present it as an uncontroversial award. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Happy to talk about it here. :-) I'm not really that hard-over about the matter.  The exact wording doesn't matter much to me.  To confess, I first noted a POV tone in that the details given tend to add weight to an "anti" position.  Given that so many controversies and points of view surround the man, paying extra attention to POV tone would be extra important in this article I think.  Anyway, I noted also it was a little digressive. I based my initial rewording on that reason because those kinds of reasons tend to get people's backs up less-so than POV-based reasons.  So anyway, there's both the POV argument and the digression argument for rewording.

I don't understand Vanamonde93's comment because the last wording Vanamonde93 reverted does present it as controversial. And, the wording not being perfect is a reason to improve it, rather than leave it alone. The reverted "..., which was controversial." wording directly satisfies Vanamonde93's desire to mention that it was controversial as well as the need to reduce digression and POV. It may be slightly awkward though. Does anyone else want to take a crack at it? 71.174.213.3 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "controversial" is a WP:WEASEL word because it suggests you are holding back information. But it is ok to use such words in the lead, because the body provides the substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Although, the source says "controversial" directly, it's even in the source's title. So, it's not weasely here for that reason as well.  It's straightforward, descriptive, and sourced.  :-)  71.174.213.3 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Based on the above discussion, I'm inclined to simply revert back to the "...,which was controversial." wording (with the ref). But, since you're the one who didn't like it, I want to offer you first dibs at finding a better way to fix the POV/digression issue. I'll sit on it for a little while to give you time before I go ahead and reinstate my (slightly awkward) wording. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to discuss it. The two constraints in my mind are a) Not presenting the award as non-controversial and b) not using dodgy wording, (like non-controversial :-) If we want to cut down on length, though, that might be unavoidable. How about "Kissinger was awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a ceasefire in Vietnam which was never actualized. Two members of the Nobel committee resigned in protest at the decision." Slightly shorter, and avoids the digression to Le Duc Tho, but keeps the more important controversy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Controversial" by itself isn't weaselly in any way. The word is even used without difficulty in the 2nd paragraph of the lede and in other places in the article. The original words beat around the bush and force the reader to infer that it was controversial. That does two things: 1) reader can too easily infer other things than was intended and 2) one of those other things is POV. It's much more encyclopedic to straightforwardly say "it was controversial", especially given that we have a strong ref for it.

The tizzy that two committee members worked their minds into is a detail best left out of the lede as off-topic for the lede. It also doesn't actually support that it was controversial very well because it was just two guys. Additionally, the fact that the plan ultimately didn't work is also best left out. It's a fact of life that things don't always work out. If the award was for the negotiation of the plan, then that's that. Mentioning "never actualized" in the lede again seems POV because it seems eager to cast the award in a certain light -- with a peripheral detail that only occurred after the fact and that he had much less control over. Lest you think I'm trying to be POV on the other (pro) side, I think both of those side details are indeed important and notable, but they're both quite adequately fleshed out in the text. Putting them so prominently in the lede is POV and also a distraction given that the lede is nice and tight (as it should be).

71.174.213.3 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you there. Kissinger's image in the literature is mixed at best, pretty negative in many sources. Putting the award in the lede with no clarifying detail is a problem, because it's supposed to be a summary of the article, and as such the summary can't have a different POV than the article does. If wordiness is the price to pay for that, well, it's worth it. There's so many articles with ledes that are a little longer than ideal, simply because they need to give due weight to the sources on the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, mentioning only the award would indeed have a pro-POV. That's why we'd also say it was "controversial". The clarifying detail is that it was "controversial". "Controversial" (or some other equivalent word) is factual, it's directly from a strong secondary source, and without bias.

Regarding "the summary can't have a different POV than the article does", are you saying that the article has a POV?! Whoa! Back up there. It shouldn't. Actually, I don't think it does, but if it did, well that problem should be fixed first rather than copied into the lede. Also, I think you're implying that the current wording does have a POV -- the same as purportedly in the main text. If so, you agree with me that the current wording is POV, right? Well then, shouldn't we correct that POV?

And, "controversial" is your own word. You said it nicely when you said "The point is that the award was controversial" (I removed the double negative). That was perfect! It was straightforward, unbiased, and nicely encyclopedic. If that's the point, then we should say it.

Actually come to think of it, it also a matter of primary vs. secondary sources. Listing the two committee member's actions and by that vaguely implying that it was controversial is original research from primary source. The primary source is the source providing the facts of the members quitting. The OR is the conclusion (that it was controversial) implied by those facts. Primary sources and OR from them is forbidden. By saying "it was controversial" in the lede, we have a nice strong secondary source in support of it.

71.174.213.3 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I took another stab at it. I'm fairly pleased with it if I do say so myself. :-) The "never actualized ceasefire" wording seemed to be trying to criticize the quality of the negotiated plan.  I reworded that to be more of a "in the course of events it didn't pan out" kind of tone.  I removed the original-research implied conclusion from a primary source and replaced it with the heart of the matter ("controversy") from a strong secondary source, which I cited.  I think it's nice and tight now, with no POV (none that I can smell at least).  It's also smoother, less awkward than the previous iteration.  71.174.213.3 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" is weaselly because it can mean too many different things; without further detail the statement is meaningless. The article does have a POV, in the sense that it gives a certain weight to certain sources. Ideally, that weight is appropriate; but that is not at issue. My point is that the lead needs to give the same due weight, and the version you created, while concise, goes too far in one direction. We are looking for "neutrality" with respect to reliable source material, not neutrality with respect to Kissinger. The current version sort of has that. Also, please read WP:TLDR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice! I'm happy with your last fix. Regarding long windedness on the talk pages, it just goes to show that it takes a lot more time and effort to make something short, sweet, and readable rather than long and/or digressive -- as we've been struggling with here! :-)

No word in and of itself is automatically weaselly. A word isn't weaselly because it can have different meanings, all words have multiple meanings of course. The gist behind WP:weasel is disguising the evasion of a specific meaning.

Use of "controversy" here isn't weaselly, but it does beg the question of "why?" is it so. That naturally leads to a desire to explain why in situ. And that is the genesis of all digression! :-)

WP:Due doesn't give us license to make a judgement about the subject and then frame our wording in that light. It's centered around not putting undue weight on "fringe ideas". So, it would apply if we focused an overly large portion of the article on a fairly inconsequential circumstance about him. If a source takes a POV, it's not okay at all to adopt it, even if a majority of sources take the same POV. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kissinger's role in Cyprus
I added some information, in a new section, on the role of Kissinger in Cyprus. It is a crucial issue Kissinger encountered as Secretary of State; an international issue still unresolved today, after at least 40 years. Users such as TheTimesAreAChanging from Illinois (edit of 28.06.2015) seem to regard the information or part as “of undue weigh” or dubious. Not at all the case.

The main source used is To Vima, issued since 1922, which is today among the most popular Greek newspapers (even if I am not a regular reader). The articles are contemporary to the events, available in a photo-reprint -if this is the right term, I mean in a photocopy-like form. The “dubious” passage (about Kissinger’s visits to Athens/ Ankara) is equally verifiable and important. I could translate it word by word. Any additional or even opposite reliable information on the issue is of course welcome. Deleting, though, entire parts including important references doesn’t help, Ι think. Any licensed relevant photo is also welcome. Routhramiotis/Ρουθραμιώτης (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added information from the official results of the investigations of the parliament of the Republic of Cyprus, in relation with the two Turkish invasions of Cyprus in 1974 and the coupRon1978 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

The information from the official results of the investigations of the parliament of the Republic of Cyprus, in relation with the two Turkish invasions of Cyprus in 1974 and the coup are keep being deleted with out any explanation or discussion in the talk page. Hm....I am wondering why. Did I just found a sensitive spot here, that even 41 years after, the public shouldn't know? Ron1978 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)
 * at a glance, id say that the text in question is being removed because it is OR or non-neutral or both. There could be other reasons as well, thats just the obvious stuff.  If you really want to expand this section, you should start by specifying what you think needs to be changed and why.  Bonewah (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed the contributions that I have made, and the sources that I have added are official. They were also in harmony with the previous users contributions and discussions as well. They are keep being deleted without any explanations on what so ever. Based on discussions, in harmony with the previous talks and contributions and from official sources. What else some one can ask? If we add the fact that are keep being deleted with out any explanations on what so ever....Ron1978 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)


 * Courtier1978, the content you are adding does not seem to be supported by the sources you are adding, and there is also the problem of due weight. Please establish a consensus for this here on the talk page before re-adding it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The content that I have added is from the sources that I have added, and in harmony with the previous users content. Of course I can add more sources if that is the issue and get more consensus from other users. I have being discussing in the talk page as well, as you can see. From the other hand, the ones that are deleting all the material that I have added, haven't discussed anything in order to come to a mutual NPOV agreement. One of them came with heavily insulting comments as well. You can check the comments between edits and what he said and judge by yourselfRon1978 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)
 * The content should not be in the article per WP:UNDUE. Including it would devote way too much text to one issue. Also, the paragraphs have exactly one source, which is problematic both sourcing wise and in terms of undue weight. The single purpose account fighting to include it should really back off. Calidum T&#124;C 00:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that was a novel epithet :) The one in their edit summary, I mean. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Henry Kissinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091005002038/http://www.tvfestival.net:80/content/Opening-Film/openUK.php to http://www.tvfestival.net/content/Opening-Film/openUK.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP and Due weight.
BLP does not require sugar-coating anything supported by reliable sources. It does require giving due weight to all reliable sources. Can we please discuss massive removals of sourced content before implementing them? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

The aphrodisiac quote badly needs sourcing. It's been attributed to him endlessly but did he say it? If he did, was it in the (someone suggested) Napoleonic sense, i.e. an aphrodisiac effect on women lusting after powerful men, or men experiencing power as an aphrodisiac, two entirely different propositions? Context is desperately needed here. sirlanz Sirlanz 04:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt he actually said this. Note the current source probably doesn't meet WP:RS. Also, people have a weird habit of manufacturing the supposed quotes of famous people. Take Albert Einstein for instance. . If someone doesn't produce a better source in five days I'll remove it. 23 editor (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no, wait. If it's poorly sourced, it's long been poorly sourced; it's in the New York Times, 28 October 1973, in a sidebar entitled "The Sayings of Secretary Henry", bylined DuPre Jones. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All the better. Anything but Brainy Quote.com. 23 editor (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Power, he has observed, is the great aphrodisiac." NYT, 1/19/1971. Foreign Policy: Kissinger at Hub, Hedrick Smith. That didn't take much, just looking at Wikiquote and then a quick Google search. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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


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


 * Ditto. He is a controversial figure. 178.38.168.13 (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is effectively useless because of the absence of a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. From the dates of the earlier comments on this topic (see above) I suspect that such a section my have been included in an earlier version of this article and may have been removed. If so, it should be immediately restored.

How can Wikipeida even allow such an article without this essential component? Editors --- please give this your immediate attention. ---Dagme (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I also came here to see an explanation of the accusations against him. Even if they are not considered true by and large, it seems they should be mentioned as being a significant subject relating to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.72.23 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "
 * You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * "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)


 * 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)

I can confirm Malpaso's claim that the editor known as TheTimesAreAChanging is making tendentious editorial decisions, deleting criticisms of Kissinger on the basis that they come from bad sources. Among the sources he has rubbished are CNN and Christopher Hitchens. I have tried to add to the article lead a statement that several groups and individuals, from Hitchens to Code Pink, have tried to indict Kissinger for war crimes. TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted these on the basis that they are "just opinion", while having no problem with those opinions that praise Kissinger. I have tried to initiate a discussion with TheTimesAreChanging on his talk page, but he seems uninterested in justifying his actions. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Code Pink? Are you serious? I am no great fan of Kissinger, but you seem to lack an elementary understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is, because the above discussion has not been civil. It also isn't clear whether a third opinion is applicable, because more than two editors are edit-warring the page. Please state a concise and civil question and I will try to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as written is propaganda, not necessarily by the editor's design, but by the favoritism applied to official reports of Kissinger's career and the failure to credit any of the subsequent investigative journalism that has proven persistently over the decades how a legend of diplomatic genius conceals intrigue, bloodletting, and a willingness to dispense with democracy. Macdust (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

From the beginning there are two Henry Kissingers being presented in alternation: the effective Kissinger presented over the years in official reports, his own writings, and derivative news stories, and the Kissinger held to account for political injustices, covert military and intelligence actions, and the suffering and casualties occurring as a consequence.

So we have Kissinger the icon, then a passage of what appears to be mud thrown at him, then Kissinger the schoolboy, then the icon suffering more mudslinging, until by the end of the story all the international catastrophes sound like sour grapes.

Unless the article starts straightaway with a crisp discussion of Realpolitik, there is no context for understanding and evaluating what Kissinger thought he was doing or at least wanted others to think he was doing while acquiring and exercising immense power. Realpolitik holds the context where great international achievements and calamitous results make sense side by side. It is a much clearer lead-in for researchers making a first serious inquiry.

(The non-career biography should in this instance be pushed toward the end of the article. Placed at the end, it is illuminating and humanizing. Placed where it is, it magnifies the incoherence.)Macdust (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Kissinger is not a philosopher, nor does the concept of "Realpolitik" set Kissinger apart from other men in positions of power. Kissinger did what he felt he had to do to maintain the US as the dominant player in the world and to increase his own influence in the country. I guess you can call it Realpolitk - or you know just politics, Cold War politics if you want to be more specific.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Contentious POV-pushing in violation of WP:BLP
Kissinger and Ford effectively "green-lit" Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. Therefore, user Guccisamsclub has inserted the following claim into this BLP: "The invasion and occupation resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of the Timorese population from 1975 to 1981." Gucci assures us that his preferred estimate of 170,000 deaths during this period is "undeniable" according to all reliable "specialists". However, Guicci's own source—Ben Kiernan—appears to favor an estimate of 145,000. More importantly, this figure is far from undisputed. For example, F. Hiorth estimated that 95,000 Timorese died unnatural deaths from 1975 to 1980, while Robert Cribb notes in "How many deaths? Problems in the statistics of massacre in Indonesia (1965-1966) and East Timor (1975-1980)" that "there is a remarkable shortage of detailed testimony on Indonesian atrocities, except in the initial assault on Dili" and East Timor "does not appear—on the basis of news reports and academic accounts—to be a society traumatized by mass death ... the circumstance leading up to the Dili massacre of 1991 ... indicate a society which retained its vigor and indignation in a way which would probably not have been possible if it had been treated as Cambodia was treated under Pol Pot." The Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR)—which is considered more reliable than the earlier indirect estimates based on flawed census data—casts further doubt on the 170,000 figure for 1975-1981 alone, as the latter greatly exceeds CAVR's documented total of 102,000 deaths throughout the entire period 1975-1999 (including significant atrocities during 1983-1984 and 1999) and is roughly equivalent to CAVR's hypothetical maximum of 183,000. Obviously, I could just add a different estimate, but this exceedingly minor footnote in Kissinger's career should not take on undue significance here—not even Suharto's biography gets into a debate over what percentage of the Timorese population died during the war he initiated, and the topic certainly isn't broached in the biography of any other Western official.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any particular reason to prefer Cribb or CAVR to Kiernan. I think it's important that readers get the full range of estimates and caveats, but the place for that are the more specialized articles. For this article, Kiernan will do just fine. You may disagree with his estimate but A) that's clearly irrelevant B) There are plenty of sources that go higher than Kiernan - perhaps a majority (see Cribb) C) this is not the place to flesh out the various controversies regarding the numbers. In any case the difference between Kiernan and Cribb/CAVR is not night and day and Kiernan's estimate is authoritative, in addition to being useful overview of the other scholarly contributions (including Cribb) on this issue. Kiernan's work here is anything but "contentious", though some may have higher/lower estimates. We may include a range of estimates in the future, but I am reluctant to accept your right to dictate what that range should be.


 * The main thrust of Cribb's essay to dismiss the 200K - which he concedes is the most common academic estimate - and to explain that the death toll was not all due to cold-blooded murder. This is something with which Kiernan agrees. He is much more impressionistic when it comes to putting forth his own estimate, as your quote demonstrates. A few additional tastes : Closer to 100K total, probably 50K killed, maybe 20K, possibly 80K, without going too much into the match of how these numbers are generated. As for CAVR, it proposes an additional method of estimation through sampling as opposed to relying on census data, concluding that "This estimate is the lowest possible number of conflict-related deaths [both violence and hunger/illness] during CAVR's reference period, 1974-99, is 102,800 (+/-12,000) ... CAVR/HRDAG did not estimate an upper bound limit thought it did speculate that the death toll due to conflict-related hunger and illness could have been as high as 183,000". Furthermore, sampling approaches have their own serious problems - as CAVR acknowledges, while standing by their own work - and do not invalidate the census-based estimates traditionally used by historians.


 * What happened in East Timor is not a footnote. Curious how you think Kissinger's foreign policy and the death about a quarter (sorry one sixths - does that make you feel better?) of the Timorese population is a "footnote" - unlike Kissinger's views, scholarly achievements and his friendship or lack thereof with the the DP candidates. Not everyone shares your priorities, OK?


 * As far as POV-pushing, you clearly live in a glass house and should not be throwing stones. Your edits here are getting increasingly hysterical and are aimed at "correcting" the established academic view of the topics in question, via the insertion of fringe, cherry-picked or misrepresented sources. You are wasting everyone's time at this point. So no consensus either on the removal of Kiernan or on ludicrous [| attack on Kiernan. Did you know that Cribb cited Vickery on the Cambodian genocide some years ago? How about the fact that Kiernan is one of the pioneers of the current consensus that the KR death toll was closer to 2 million than to 1 million? And what does Cambodia have to with the topic of the article? "the evidence strongly indicates" that you are engaged in Pov-pushing and original research of the worst sort here. And wikipedia rules strongly indicate that TTAAC is not in the canon of reliable sources.[[User:Guccisamsclub|Guccisamsclub]] (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW Suharto's bio states the "minimal" death toll in the lede, though not as a proportion. Are we supposed to draw some sort of lesson from that? Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gucci, to claim that I am guilty of "OR" as well as "ridiculous" and "aggressive POV-pushing" for "bringing Pol Pot into this" requires a striking degree of willful blindness on your part. Kiernan explicitly argues that East Timor was "proportionately comparable" to Cambodia, whereas Cribb explicitly refutes this assertion. Perhaps we should quote Kiernan on this point so the disagreement is easier for readers to follow, but you are abusing the concept of original research: You cannot accuse me of "bringing Pol Pot into this" when both of our sources make the comparison.


 * As you know, Kiernan remains committed to his estimate of 1.671 million unnatural deaths under the Khmer Rouge, in spite of the fact that both the forensic and demographic evidence suggest it is too low, and the house-to-house survey conducted after the fall of the KR strongly suggests the death toll exceeded two million. Kiernan accepts 1.871 million as a possible maximum, but Sharp persuasively argues that that figure should really be considered the absolute minimum estimate, with a maximum of roughly 2.5 million. When Kiernan's colleague Craig Etcheson challenged the 1.671 million figure, Kiernan gratuitously attacked him for "sloppiness", "exaggerating a horrific death toll" and "ethnic auctioneering". Similar scruples are not evident in Kiernan's scholarship on East Timor, where his preferred range is on the high side, particularly for the 1975-1981 period alone.


 * 102,000 is indeed an inherently conservative estimate for the entire occupation, but the hypothetical 183,000 maximum—based on census data—includes about 53,000 from 1981 to 2000. Therefore, it is unlikely that the maximum number of deaths during 1975 to 1981 could exceed 130,000. It is possible, however, that the death toll was much less than 130,000 and that some portion of the population deficit is the product of Timorese evading the 1980 census, a depressed birth rate, and the beginning of an El Niño cycle around the same time as the invasion, which Cribb notes would have caused "a significant increase in the death rate, and a decrease in the reproduction rate, whether or not Indonesia had invaded". (It is also worth noting that FRETELIN committed 49% of the violent killings in 1975 and controlled much of East Timor until 1977.) Cribb's contribution is straightforward: While the demographic data for both Cambodia and East Timor is limited, anecdotal evidence tends to support figures on the higher end of the spectrum for the former, and on the lower end of the spectrum for the latter.


 * (With regard to the numbers mentioned by Cribb, it is important to note that it was once assumed that many or perhaps even most of the deaths in East Timor were violent killings, whereas we now know that such killings were only a small fraction of the total—just as it was once widely believed that the vast majority of deaths under the KR were caused by famine rather than torture and execution, although the opposite is true.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Kiernan does indeed argue that the cases are comparable. He's one of the foremost scholars on genocide, best known for his pioneering work on the Khmer Rouge, and he has every right to do so. But as you are well aware, YOU are the only editor here who is trying to inject an explicit comparison between these two cases into the article. That's why youre getting reverted. Moreover, here on talk you're trying to weight them on a fine scale. Presumably, if one sixths of the Timorese population had died rather than one quarter, then the two atrocities are no longer remotely comparable. So for East Timor, pick the sources that can be used to imply a ratio of less than 1:6, while for Cambodia you pick those that imply ratios of 1:4 or higher. Since in both cases, the uncertainty is high enough to allow this sort of cherry-picking, you can easily tip the scales - or keep them in perfect balance - according to preference. "Ethnic auctioneering" sounds about right here, though a more appropriate term for what you are doing is "ethnic hucksterism". The rest is just a POV-driven effort to undermine Kiernan's credibility on Cambodia, which is both supremely arrogant and completely off-topic. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't even mention the death toll in Cambodia (or the "proportionately comparable" massacre of the Hmong in Laos), let alone provide it in the form of a percentage of the total Cambodian population, probably because such material has no place in a biography such as this. How can you defend treating East Timor as though it is more important to our understanding of Kissinger's career and legacy than Indochina? Why is East Timor more relevant to Henry Kissinger than it is to Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and even Suharto? You and C.J. Griffin started this game of playing with dubious percentages, and cannot now accuse me of violating WP:UNDUE for citing a source that suggests your preferred estimates cannot possibly be correct. If my attempts to sway you with reason were mistaken, then I will have to consider the tedious process of appealing to the powers that be regarding your tendentious refusal to adhere to WP:BLP. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, no. The closest thing to a "compromise" (between you and Griffin) was my edit here. You might have been able to bring the estimate down some more, by calmly proposing to add another estimate, but your POV got the better of you. You first fought to erase the RS I added outright, then began to play little professor by attacking Kiernan as "dubious": both on talk and in the body of the article. Although nobody here has tried to downplay the mass killings in Kampuchea or to compare them to East Timor, you've struggled relentlessly to introduce this irrelevant comparison right into the section. Now you admit it's irrelevant but then again you don't - I can't even tell anymore. In other words, you're doing preventive propaganda: first, try to delete authoritative information that could be perceived as damaging to US Cold War policy; failing that, discredit the source, whitewash the crime, and redirect attention to the the crimes of the other side, making sure that those crimes are portrayed exactly as you wish. And I do not make this accusation lightly: this POV-pushing is not a one-off case, and frequently involves cherry-picking or misreading the source material, as well as smearing the established scholars in the field. This case is no exception - I'd be happy to pick a few holes in your story here too, as I've done in the past. But I don't think your story has any bearing on the article or wikipedia policy. On the latter point, it's amusing how you've have managed to get this far without making one specific policy argument. This suggests that you do not have much of a case, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ("your tendentious refusal to adhere to WP:BLP" is not an argument - it's simply an assertion.)Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Henry Kissinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150918225252/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19781005&id=A0IOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T38DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5631,1106083 to https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19781005&id=A0IOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T38DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5631,1106083

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
NapoleonX, you really need to obtain consensus for your changes before you remove random bits of sourced information. Please discuss any issues you have here, and let other folks weigh in on this. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
Although the importance of his role was not known about until The Nation published in October 1987 an exposé written by Martin Edwin Andersen, Kissinger took a similar line as he had toward Chile after the Argentinian military, led by Jorge Videla, toppled the elected government of Isabel Perón in March 1976 in a supposed civic revolution the generals called the National Reorganization Process. It was during this period, from 1976 to 1983, that while attempting to consolidate and maintain power, they launched brutal reprisals that included the secret "disappearances" against political opponents and others.

In Buenos Aires, Robert C. Hill, a five-time conservative Republican ambassadorial appointee, strenuously engaged in behind-the-scenes efforts to keep the Argentina military junta that took power from engaging in massive human rights violations. Upon finding out that Kissinger had given the Argentine generals a "green light" for their own so-called "dirty war" in June 1976 while at an Organization of American States meeting in Santiago (at the Hotel Carrera, (a place later made famous as the Hotel Cabrera in the chilling movie Missing), Hill immediately scrambled behind the scenes to rollback the Kissinger decision. Hill did this despite the fact Kissinger aides told him that, if he continued, the Secretary of State would likely have him fired, and even as left-wing Argentine guerrillas attempted to assassinate both the U.S. envoy and members of his family living in Buenos Aires. During that meeting with Argentinian foreign minister César Augusto Guzzetti, Kissinger assured him that the United States was an ally, but urged him to "get back to normal procedures" quickly before the U.S. Congress reconvened and had a chance to consider sanctions. The article published in The Nation in October 1987 noted: "'Hill was shaken, he became very disturbed, by the case of the son of a thirty-year embassy employee, a student who was arrested, never to be seen again,' recalled former New York Times reporter Juan de Onis. 'Hill took a personal interest.' He went to the Interior Minister, an army general with whom he had worked on drug cases, saying, 'Hey, what about this? We're interested in this case.' He buttonholed (Foreign Minister Cesar) Guzzetti and, finally, President Jorge R. Videla himself. 'All he got was stonewalling; he got nowhere.' de Onis said. 'His last year was marked by increasing disillusionment and dismay, and he backed his staff on human rights right to the hilt."

In 1978, former Secretary Kissinger was feted by the "dirty war" generals as a much-touted guest of honor at the World Cup soccer matches held that year in Argentina. In a letter to The Nation editor Victor Navasky, protesting publication of the 1987 article, Kissinger claimed that: "At any rate, the notion of Hill as a passionate human rights advocate is news to all his former associates." Ironically, Kissinger's posthumous lampooning of Hill as human rights advocate was later shown to be false by none other than once and future Kissinger aide Henry Shlaudeman, later ambassador to Buenos Aires, who told William E. Knight, an oral historian working for the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project: "It really came to a head when I was Assistant Secretary, or it began to come to a head, in the case of Argentina where the dirty war was in full flower. Bob Hill, who was Ambassador then in Buenos Aires, a very conservative Republican politician -- by no means liberal or anything of the kind, began to report quite effectively about what was going on, this slaughter of innocent civilians, supposedly innocent civilians -- this vicious war that they were conducting, underground war.

"He, at one time in fact, sent me a back-channel telegram saying that the Foreign Minister, who had just come for a visit to Washington and had returned to Buenos Aires, had gloated to him that Kissinger had said nothing to him about human rights. I don't know -- I wasn't present at the interview."

Navasky later wrote (on p. 298) in his book, A Matter of Opinion about being confronted by Kissinger, "'Tell me, Mr. Navasky,' [Kissinger] said in his famous guttural tones, 'how is it that a short article in a obscure journal such as yours about a conversation that was supposed to have taken place years ago about something that did or didn't happen in Argentina resulted in sixty people holding placards denouncing me a few months ago at the airport when I got off the plane in Copenhagen?'"

HumanRightsMatter (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue
There is a mistake at the square of the right. He was born in 1923 not in 1973. I can't edit the article to fix it. :(
 * Looks ok to me. are you sure your not looking at his time in office? Bonewah (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The numbers game
. I have deleted the 4,000-5,000 because the other—and better—sources don't refer to civilians. The 4-150K civilians range misrepresents all the other sources involved! And the other sources are CLEARLY better: Marek Sliwinki and Kiernan's totals are based on serious research, are in print and are notable. Yet even those sources can't separate civilians and non-civilians, so it's ridiculous to imagine that the matter can be solved by referring to the tidbits about 4,000-5,000 civilians. The intel source is very obscure and non-notable, but there may some research behind the 4,000 figure. You'll have to read the book and and look into its reception before using it. Oral testimony offers no good basis for hard numbers, especially when it comes to war dead where the numbers are an extremely important and sensitive matter.

As for Etcheson—this is just FYI—he claims to have found 1,300,000 victims of execution (99% of which are not only unidentified, but still buried). Before he claimed that the the PRK figure 3.3 million was close to the truth, also based on "evidence" from mass graves I imagine. He has since retracted that claim about the 3 million because it's obviously absurd and there is not a shred of evidence for it—certainly nothing in publishable form. Maybe you know otherwise. But anyhow, Etcheson is an RS but he needs to be approached with caution: his claims should at least be in print.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you've separated civilians from the range, so that's better. But the sources are still lightweight. It would be nice to have something in print here, at the very least.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't feel the need to get stuck rehashing arguments already better presented by Bruce Sharp. However, there is every reason to believe that the estimated 1.38 million corpses in mass graves were, in fact, violently killed, as most of the mass grave sites are located at or near Khmer Rouge execution centers (or "prisons"), and anecdotal evidence suggests victims of disease and starvation would not have been buried in mass graves. Etcheson maintains that 1.38 million is actually an excessively conservative estimate, and neither you nor I really have the expertise to challenge his methodology on that point. You will recall that the PRK house-to-house survey recorded over 2,700,000 deaths under the Khmer Rouge, to which the 600,000 corpses that had then been found in mass graves were added to generate the dubious statistic of 3.3 million. While the PRK survey may have been susceptible to double-counting—but not much double-counting if we assume the researchers had common sense—its estimate for deaths under the Khmer Rouge is probably valid, indeed even on the low side when one considers factors that could have resulted in an undercount (such as the purging of entire extended families). In other words, it is quite possible that as many as 3 million Cambodians died under the Khmer Rouge regime.
 * So there you have it! I've committed the same sin as Etcheson: Daring to reach a conclusion that you consider "obviously absurd'" on its face. You may as well dismiss anything else I have to say on this topic, because I have exposed myself as a frothing-at-the-mouth, hysterical reactionary! Yet, notice that I was referring to all deaths that happened under the Khmer Rouge, and in no way implying the survey accurately quantified only excess deaths. The question remains: How many of those deaths were caused by the Khmer Rouge?
 * Sharp believes that roughly 500,000 deaths would have been expected during 1975-1979 due to normal mortality. If that is accepted, then the PRK survey strongly suggests that the answer to the question above is more than 2 million. Etcheson's preferred range is 2.0-2.5 million. It is true that in one article Etcheson presented a devil's advocate account of how the 3 million figure widely believed in Cambodia could appear to be accurate after all, but it is somewhat uncharitable to quote that brief digression out of context and use it to attribute views to Etcheson that he has always disavowed. Finally, one needs only to look at the extraordinary imbalance between men and women produced by a few short years of Khmer Rouge rule to find it plausible that execution (often after torture) was the leading cause of death.
 * I don't think Kiernan's figure is based on serious research at all. I haven't read Sliwinski (not in English, after all), but it's hard to imagine how useful his demographic analysis could be in distinguishing any one civil war-related cause of death from another. Of course, Etcheson's claim is also little more than an educated guess.
 * My current version is flawed in at least one significant way. "The American bombing of Cambodia resulted in 40,000-150,000 deaths from 1969 to 1973, including at least 5,000 civilians" violates WP:SYNTH by suggesting that civilian casualties were only a very small fraction of the total, even though none of the sources explicitly support that claim. It should be revised to make clear that the sources are measuring different things, as in: "The number of deaths caused by American bombing in Cambodia from 1969 to 1973 has proven difficult to quantify, with estimates ranging from at least 5,000 civilians to 150,000 total."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to disagree on this. When someone writes | this or asserts that 1.4 million were executed outright, basing their conlusions on "evidence" from mass graves without even doing the digging, nevermind examining the contents—some cauthion is called for. Multiple scholars have called him out on this too. Of course eveything on Cambodia has to be approached with caution, even the best sources like | Kiernan (try not to kill the messenger) and | Hueveline. But Etcheson seems to be in a category of his own, and his estimates reflect this. I've read Sliwinski though google translate: his methodology is not terribly robust, but it's at least it's there.Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on the PRK survey though.Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just made a partial revert of this fragment, because the new text is even more misleading, probably unintentionally. The current text suggests that some historians estimate that only 5000 civilians died, while others estimate 150,000 total; whereas in fact they are apples and oranges. Some folks are estimating civilians, and came up with 5000. Others are estimating total. We need to separate the two numbers, and present them as such. The phrase "range from" is especially misleading. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis, because I believe my proposed version adequately distinguished the "5,000 civilians" from the "150,000 total," even separating the reference for the former from the references for the latter, a frowned-upon but not uncommon way of calling attention to specific sources/contentious claims likely to be challenged. However, I welcome the input of other editors in trying to craft the clearest and most neutral phrasing possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Say exactly what the sources do. "The number of deaths caused by American bombing in Cambodia from 1969 to 1973 has proven difficult to quantify. John Greenberg estimates that 5000 civilians were killed. Marek Sliwinski states that total casualties numbered150,000. " Vanamonde (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the current wording. Vanamonde (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SameGuccisamsclub (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Henry Kissinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americas-society.org/coa/membersnetwork/Kissinger.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516070143/https://www.efworld.org:80/about/eisenhower_medal.php to http://www.efworld.org/about/eisenhower_medal.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/printable2047607.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016
Under "Education" it says 'George Washington hIGH sCHOOL'. While I don't know much about the American educational system, or how they name their schools, I feel the proper way to write this is 'George Washington High School'

2001:1970:5695:8400:F8E7:BB7A:EDA5:8392 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't... Vanamonde (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

https://gyazo.com/6627eb2b79b975aa60c98af0d3f236f6 Yes, it does...
 * ✅ Fixed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Kissinger's guess
. Times, please put Kissinger's "guess" back in: it is the estimate of a congressional historian looked into the matter on Kissinger's request. I am not so sure that this refers to civilians only, but that's what the RS says—though I'd strongly encourage you to look into the matter (you'll need to get a full copy of Kissingers memoirs). Kiernan considers this figure notable enough, and he regards it as the minimum, rightly. This is standard: if an official other than Genghis Khan says he killed X number of people in no uncertain terms, he has probably killed at least X number of people, absent evidence to the contrary. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the Kissinger Cables
There's an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_cables Which begins "The Kissinger Cables[1] are 1.7 million United States diplomatic and intelligence records dating from 1973 to 1976 that WikiLeaks republished in April 2013." But there is no link from this page to it.

A long time ago there was another interesting case of a leak of a document, by Henry Kissinger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FL_300mm_lens "The f/2.8 model was used to take photographs of Henry Kissinger reading a confidential document at the Helsinki Accords. The images were so sharp that the text could be read clearly."

Also: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917775,00.html

SevenTowers (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Henry Kissinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517217372&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121117021312/http://www.rai.ox.ac.uk/about/history/foundingcouncil to http://www.rai.ox.ac.uk/about/history/foundingcouncil
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828210925/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html to http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

German-American
Kissinger was born in Germany, grew up in Germany, and had a dinstinct German accent. He was German-American.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as that, True he was born in Germany but has established most of his career in the US and an American former US secretary of state thus should be considered American and solely holds US nationality. Your poor argument regarding his place of birth and accent doesn't have nothing to do with this and don't seem to get what being American truly means. (N0n3up (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Agree. His identity has nothing to do with his role in the US government. Plus, no matter how thick his accent, he was still only a teen when he emigrated. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. How is it not that simple? Going by the relevant article on German Americans he is clearly that: an "American who [has] full or partial German ancestry". Pipping (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The List of German Americans even contains him. Curiously, some on that list have the predicate "German-born" attached, but not him. Pipping (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because in case you haven't noticed, most articles of American people don't say their birthplace immediately in the lead, they simply say "American". Besides, some biographic articles might say "German-born American" but that's if they still have their citizenship from their original country of origin and still have connections to them, Kissinger "escaped" from Germany and came here as a child. And Kissinger's contribution to American politics were vital and integral during the Cold War and even now thus considered and "American". Same goes for Boris Johnson, Madeleine Albright and Mila Kunis. (N0n3up (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Henry Kissinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427145915/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505212543/http://www.harlemglobetrotters.com/history/1976-globetrotters-name-honorary-member-team-bestowing-honor-dr-henry-kissinger to http://www.harlemglobetrotters.com/history/1976-globetrotters-name-honorary-member-team-bestowing-honor-dr-henry-kissinger
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913101643/http://israelcfr.com/documents/5-1/5-1-7-AlexanderJGroth.pdf to http://israelcfr.com/documents/5-1/5-1-7-AlexanderJGroth.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

henry kissinger shouldn't be described as a genocidaire and warmongerer before the positions he officially held
That description is way too subjective. It should be removed or put somewhere else in the wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liubeeli (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chair of the 9/11 Commission
his infobox should say that he chaired 9/11 Commission his succesor wikipedia page has it on the infobox  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.96.85 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a notable event in Kissinger's career. He resigned just a few weeks after his appointment and before the Commission started its work "because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business."  Consequently he contributed next to nothing to the work of the Commission.  Has appointment and resignation are already discussed in the body of this article.  General Ization  Talk  20:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Kissinger "best known as a war criminal"
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

"[...] Kissinger is an American diplomat and political scientist who is best known as a war criminal [...]" (Current version of the Wikipedia article on Henry Kissinger) . No matter what the majority opinion is on this matter, this claim is, first of all, lacking any kind of reference. Moreover, I think that it could only be made in an objective way if there was a court verdict. "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" for example would not be substantive. Additionally, the last paragraph of the intro already refers to the controversy.

Therefore, I would suggest deleting the part "who is best known as a war criminal" in the first sentence.

Annatheresiamaria (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's inappropriate, and it's already been removed. Vanamonde (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Iran deal soundbyte
Yes, I know he said it, but he is a well-known political figure who has expressed opinions on hundreds of issues; how is this particularly worthy of inclusion? And how is that an adequate edit-summary? Vanamonde (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my limited English. I consider the rethorical question as formulated by you as misleading and non-constructive. You can question of course how notable that opinion is in regards of his views on Iran (sub-section). Can you source with independent sources hundreds of Kissinger opinions on Iran?--Asqueladd (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC) PS: I have put the bit self-referenced to Kissinger as note.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not a rhetorical question. Kissinger frequently expresses opinions on many issues. We cannot, obviously, include every one of these. Why is this opinion worthy of inclusion? Vanamonde (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think the appropiate (semi)rethorical question is Why is this opinion worthy of inclusion in the Iran sub-section?. The (semi)rethorical answer would be "because 1) it has an appropiate context, 2) it's covered by independent sources and 3) it deepens the understanding of the sub-section" I wonder —I aproach this with no prejudices in one sense or the other—: #1 and #3 apparently may apply without problems. #2 is arguable (the last bit apparently not, hence the note).--Asqueladd (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The soundbyte is obviously relevant, whatever would be the motive of removing it? "people express opinions on hundreds of issues" is textbook obfuscation and excuse-making. It is hard to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH when there is clearly an agenda to remove uncomfortable information about Kissinger and his allegiances. Fadendra1 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Illegaility of cambodia bombing
Can we please discuss sources on the illegality of the cambodia bombing? Also, to clarify, are we talking about legaility under US law? Or international law. Thanks.-- Work permit (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Revert first, ask questions later? Operation_Menu US Law, the covert bombing of Cambodia which was hidden from Congress which is clearly illegal, was as damaging to Nixon as Watergate and lead to the rise of Pol Pot. What are you confused about? 2600:1700:1111:5940:6C6D:AE63:F29B:D358 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hiding from congress can be illegal, and certainly tapping phones without a warrant is. That is not what is being discussed. What source do you have that states the bombing itself was illegal? What US law was broken?  What statute?  Thank you.  -- Work permit (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please provide wp:rs that the action was illegal. A wikipedia article is NOT wp:rs.  The Cambodia bombing has been extensively covered.  You should be able to cite a journal article or book that addresses this with a wp:npov. -- Work permit (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, in answer to your question “Revert first, ask questions later?”, please see WP:BRD. I reverted you so we could dicuss the sources for this statement. -- Work permit (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted to a version from a disruptive editor placed under a topic ban, but I assume you didn't know. Anyway,[]. If you want to go with international law, Operation Menu resulted in the "killing anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 civilians." per the PBS source. Want something more recent here is Salon calling it an illegal bombing [] Don't like Salon, maybe The Atlantic []"The revelation of its existence, beginning in 1969, was entangled with enough illegal activity in this country -- wiretaps, perjury, falsification of records and a general determination to deceive -- to throw significant doubt on its use as a precedent in court." Still not enough, how about the BBC? [] "His critics refer to Kissinger's complicity in the illegal carpet-bombing of neutral Cambodia, designed to deprive North Vietnam of troops and supplies, but which sowed the seeds for the murderous Pol Pot regime.""  2600:1700:1111:5940:6C6D:AE63:F29B:D358 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My topic ban applies to WP:ARBPIA, "genius", it has nothing to do with Kissinger or the Vietnam War.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not know the editor was under a topic ban.  The PBS source certainly paints the action as reprehensible, but is not on point as to it’s legality. Before I reverted, I did come across the articles in Salon and the Atlantic.  I also came across several others that argued (on both sides) the legality under international law.  I can certainly see how it was “disputably” illegal, but not “indisputably”, and so I was hoping to see some better sources and of course hear from other editors.  Would you happen to have access to JSTOR?  I’m sure this has been hashed out in a peer reviewed article.  And again, to clarify, is it your understanding the action was illegal under international law, or domestic law? -- Work permit (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to get the discussion going, here is a source. Its states the action was “inappropriate if not illegal”, which implies the “legality” of the action is disputable.-- Work permit (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand and appreciate your desire to work in good faith, but given the evidence already here, it probably makes sense to self revert until someone finds a resource that makes the claim that it is "indisputably legal". There are a bunch of sources supporting illegal right here and we have to work with the sources available. Someone else can search for an source that claims the actions were "indisputably legal" and when they find one, editors can give each side proper attribution and consider weight. Until then.... 2600:1700:1111:5940:6C6D:AE63:F29B:D358 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided a source above which would support “disputably illegal”. We could go with that or wait a bit for another editor’s opinion?  I’m sure there others will chime in and am happy to go with consensus.  Having a consensus will also be useful in the future if someone else questions the addition, one way or another.-- Work permit (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll also point out the lede of the article you’ve linked to, Operation Menu says nothing about it’s legality. If it is so clear and important, why doesn’t the lede say anything about it?-- Work permit (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided very reliable WP:RS that say it was illegal. Frankly, as you stated before, other Wikipedia articles stand on their own, we are talking about this article. Do you have any reliable sources that support the "indisputably legal" position? If not, we are going in circles and again, I provided sources, you have provided no sources saying it was legal. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6C6D:AE63:F29B:D358 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I found three articles on the legality of the United States actions in Cambodia in The American Journal of International Law Vol. 65, No. 1 . Richard Falk argued it's actions was legal, William Rogers and William Moore argue it was not. George Aldrich and Robert Bork provided commentary letters arguing the actions were legal. Wolfgang Freeman argues it is illegal. Hargove argues the action was taken on a "legal technicality” but more broadly was not justifiable. The articles address the general issue of covert and explicit incursions into Cambodia, some directly discuss the air operations. Some discuss domestic law, others discuss international law. Like I said, I'm sure some other editors will opine. -- Work permit (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss the sources used to justify that the Operation Menu was illegal. My quick take is below:
 * Argues why the operation was bad. I don't see the word "legal" mentioned -- Work permit (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is titled "Henry Kissinger’s “mad and illegal” bombing: What you need to know about his real history — and why the Sanders/Clinton exchange matters". Nowhere in the article does it mention or state what was illegal, though again like the previous article it was reprehensible. -- Work permit (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll add that articles in salon are generally opinion pieces, and this article seems like one as well-- Work permit (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comes close the operation in Cambodia stood on questionable legal ground.. Questionable sounds like disputable to me.
 * There is a caption on a photo that says "Kissinger sanctioned the illegal bombing of Cambodia". A statement in the article about what “his critics” say. Nothing else elaborating on what that means.  Nothing saying who these nameless critics are. -- Work permit (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

From my read, the sources above either don’t mention the action was illegal or mention it in passing. Unlike the journal articles I have posted in the discussion above, none of the articles even mentions what is illegal. wp:contextmatters, a passing one line statement is not a strong enough source for this statement.-- Work permit (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

From the journal articles I have posted, the domestic issue under discussion may be that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by waging war without the consent of congress. This is a valid issue, one that is still debated today. The war powers act, which was passed in large part because of the secret bombing of cambodia, has not been accepted as constitutional by any president and it’s constitutionality has never been tested by the courts. If this is the issue under discussion, then we should be clear that the bombing may have been unconsitutional, not illegal. There is a difference. When the bombing occured, there was no statute that was violated. If this is not the issue, then I ask again. What domestic law was violated, and what source states it? -- Work permit (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note - that stating "illegal" in our voice, for an alleged international law violation, beyond being a rather serious NPOV violation - is a rather serious WP:BLP violation. According to Is Henry Kissinger dead? (Twitte), and numerous other sources, the subject here is alive. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note I offered to add sources, which would remove WP voice concerns, and NPOV violation concerns have been covered ad nauseam during the discussion of sources defining him as a "War Criminal". So no, as long as it is well-sourced and possibly attributed, it is not a BLP violation. 2600:1700:1111:5940:6C6D:AE63:F29B:D358 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"Nuclear Security Project" vs. "Nuclear Threat Initiative"?
As of 2019-04-02 this article mentions the "Nuclear Security Project". What's that?

I assume it's the Nuclear Threat Initiative; I'm changing "Nuclear Security Project" to "Nuclear Threat Initiative". If that's not right, please provide a citation. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Argentine "Dirty War" vs. genocide
On 2019-04-14 user:2800:21c1:c400:6f:117c:9a92:a2c6:deb7 replaced a reference to the Argentine "Dirty War" with "genocide", but without providing a citation.

I've reverted this change. The term "Dirty War" is sufficiently well known to merit it's own article devoted specifically to this period of Argentine history and the US support for same. This article needs the less inflammatory language and increased documentation provided by the previous verbiage. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

reverting removal of reference
User:96.232.107.86 removed a seemingly sensible reference without giving a reason. I'm reverting that removal. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)