Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Adopted orphan redirect for Google: Henry Alfred Kissinger

THIS PAGE NEEDS SUBSTANIAL MODIFICATION MUCH OF THE DETAILS OF KISSINGERS'S DIPLOMATIC HISTORY AS BEEN REMOVED SUCH AS HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH YOM KIPUR AND THE DETAILS OF HIS VIETNAM AND SOUTH AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

Contents

On Hitchens' denunciation:

I think it's entirely appropriate and proper for Kissinger's crimes to be mentioned prominently, but I don't like the way they're isolated from the article and presented as Hitchens' idea alone. The charges he makes are not particularily controversial and have mostly been made before. Whether his writings are "politically biased" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the charges against Kissinger are accurate (they are).

At the least, the bombing of Cambodia and the Timor "green light" should be included. They are completely uncontroversial. Kissinger actually had the Indonesian invasion postponed so it wouldn't happen during his visit. Whether they constitute war crimes (they do) is a matter of controversy (even if it shouldn't be) and should be portrayed as such. IMO, anyway.

I think (I do) that's great (yeah). Trey Stone 07:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree - setting apart Hitchens' denunciation from the rest of the fawning, decidedly-not-neutral article (gifted??? accomplished? These are not neutral terms) and only discussing Kissinger's crimes in the context of Hitchens' allegations severely distorts how many people feel about Kissinger. For example, one could start with reaction to his Nobel Peace Prize, which I think nearly everyone (except possibly Kissinger and the Nobel committee) agrees was a farce (quote Tom Lehrer here). Okay, I exaggerate, but this is hardly a rare sentiment. Such things as Laos and Cambodia, Cyprus, Chile, and East Timor should DEFINITELY be worked into the body of the article. I'm less interested in reading about how kissinger and nixon got along than I am about the effect of Kissinger's policy choices.
In that light, does anyone who knows a bit about Cyprus/Turkey want to give it a bit of treatment in this article, since it gets none so far? Graft

Yeah, I'll admit that the rebuttal is pretty simplistic, and there are signs that the U.S. in general was a lot cozier with the Greek regime (I guess as a radical extension of our previous anti-Communist funding to them as an ally against the Eastern bloc) than it was with Makarios. If someone wants to add stuff there...that's fine. Trey Stone 07:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, too. I have added in a prominent location the important information that Kissinger stands accused of war crimes. That is the least that can be said. I'm tempted to say that he is guilty of war crimes, but I'm sure that someone would quickly cry POV, indifferent to the abundant documentation that exists.
Says the guy who keeps reverting anything that makes Der Great Leader look bad. Trey Stone 03:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also agree that the emphasis on Hitchens suggests that there's just one crackpot in the world who's beating up on poor, cuddly, avuncular Kissinger. This tone should be avoided. Perhaps that section could be rewritten to suggest that Hitchens has compiled the most famous account of Kissinger's war crimes, which would seem to be accurate. But the fact that Kissinger is despised around the world should be made quite clear. Shorne 01:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Besides the Cambodian debacle, Kissinger's decisions (and although he held great influence, he wasn't some foreign policy autocrat -- Nixon and Ford agreed with him a lot, if not all, of the time) regarding things such as Indonesia and South America are more "side issues" compared to détente and the normalization of Sino-American relations. These recently declassified documents have not alluva sudden reversed history's opinion of the man; changed, maybe, but not made him into some world-class "war criminal." Trey Stone 03:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is Christopher Hitchens' attack on Henry Kissinger very important? The article at present seems to indicate this, but I'm not sure it is. After all, the book just appeared, with no indication as to how it has been critically received; is it, perhaps, merely politically biased screed? Maybe, maybe not. No reply of any sort on Kissinger's behalf is even indicated, in any case, and that doesn't square with the NeutralPointOfView. --LMS

Hitchen's attack is important in the scheme of things, but I think the big problem is that there isn't enough other stuff in the article. I posted Kissinger's response to Hitchens.

I am very much opposed to crime, including war crimes. I have no feelings one way or another for Kissinger, but I see a risk here of singling out American officials for war crimes accusations.

Recently, an international court has come into being, claiming supreme jurisdiction over the entire world, although the US and Israel do not recognize this claim. It would be ironic if this court pursued mainly Americans and Israelis while ignoring, say, Palestinian terrorists or Sudanese slave-traders.

I do not mean to excuse anyone, if they have really done wrong (not even myself). But all should be judged by the same standard. 208.246.35.243, Friday, May 3, 2002

He is supposed to have been aware of the condor operation. An article in the french newspaper Liberation of the 24/04/2002 (http://liberation.fr) tells that while Augusto Pinochet was being trialed, the french judges tried to hear Mr. Kissinger. They were interested in his link with the condor operation that was made to get rid of dictatures' opponent (so to say communists).

He is supposed to have blessed and re-enforced the gladio operation that took place in Italy (at the end of WWII) to get rid of the communists (with the help of far right masonic loge P2 and the mafia). It says the "red" army (communist terrorists) were in fact heavily infiltrated by US intelligence. http://eagle.westnet.gr/~cgian/gladio.htm http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/gladio.html

It is really strange he is quite upset when speaking of an international juridiction against war crime. Isn't it?

jul, Sept 7th 2002

I didn't actually remove the passage on the 9/11 commission - I just moved it up into the flow of discussion about his life, since it's just another event in a long history, and doesn't belong in the 'criticism' section. Consequently I removed the last edit that put it back. I did alter the criticism of his appointment to be a bit more neutral (I think), but that criticism was REALLY widespread - many many editorials from all over the political perspective were written against it. Graft

  • Kissinger's brother, once asked why he spoke unaccented English when Henry did not, replied "I listen more than Henry does."

Kissinger's accent isn't important enough for a quote about it. Worse, the statement insinuates that Kissinger is arrogant, in the sense of "never listens to anyone". It's best ommitted.

However, if there is a section on Kissinger and criticisms of his judgment, in which the issue of "never listens to others" comes up, we could stick in this quote there. --Ed Poor

  • Nixon and Kissinger made a strange pair in some ways -- an anti-semite and a Jew, for one thing.

So who's calling them a "strange pair"? A crack like that should be attributed. Also, who says Nixon was an anti-Semite? --Ed Poor

Nixon was most definitely an anti-Semite. Check out his tape transcripts sometime - they're peppered with loony theories about Jewish financiers in New York and make liberal use of the word "kike" to describe Jews. He also seemed to think there was a Jewish conspiracy against him. If the mere act of questioning Israeli policy can earn you the label "anti-Semite", surely such behavior on the part of Nixon deserves that label? Graft

I'm not saying Nixon is, or is not, anti-Semitic. I'm asking who says he is. A Wikipedia cannot simply say X is anti-Semitic, any more than it can say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Accusations do not simply arise, growing out the ground like weeds. Somebody in particular makes the accusation.

Try something like these:

  • Historian Joe Shmoe says that Nixon peppered his conversation with loony theories, etc.
  • Author Shlomo Shunn called Nixon and Kissinger "a strange pair" in his book Fruitcakos in the White House: a Mixed Bag of Nuts

--Ed Poor

I don't think such attributions are necessary when something is not controversial, or when there are simply too many attributions to enumerate (like, for example, in the case of editorials criticizing the appointment of Kissinger). In this case, I wouldn't want to attribute Nixon=anti-Semite to any one particular person, since many many people said this following the release of his papers (when it became fairly obvious and uncontroversial). Graft
Ed, you use that formula quite a bit, but it's not always useful. Do we say "Historian Joe Schmoe says that Kissinger was born in Fuerth" or "Many authors, including scholar Shlomo Shunn, contend that Kissinger was an American diplomat"? Of course not. I don't think Graft needs to attribute Nixon's anti-semitism; it's simply well-known and undisputed (Can you find a cite that disputes it?). BTW, for some wondeful listening, check out http://www.c-span.org/executive/presidential/nixon.asp DanKeshet

"

I think that part of the work of an encyclopedia is to provide information that may not be known. It is important to show that Nixon is anti-seitic, rather than just state it. This is doubly true in a place like wikipedia. It is not necessary to document non-controvercial, or non-critical things like where someone was born. Karl

Someone removed the note about his lowest grade being a B; fair enough, but that there originally to dispell and urban myth. Now every note about it is gone.

the comment is just too esoteric and peculiar as is the myth it dispells, which I know nothing about -the deleter user_talk:hfastedge
--Sam

To Dan and Graft: I'll meet you halfway. Let's not cite matters of fact such as where Kissinger was born or whether he was an American diplomat. But on anything touching Wikipedia's #1 hot button (anti-Semitism), let's name names. Shlomo Goldberg called Kissinger "a gold-plated anti-Semitic putz", citing his many comments as transcribed from tape by Meyer Dense. Fair enough?

Birth Name?

I read somewhere that Kissingers' birth name was Heinz Kissinger. Any truth behind that?


This page is in serious need of NPOVing. First, "illegal bombing campaign (overseen by Kissinger)" is disputed. NVA were operating in the area, and Prince Sihanouk had made it clear that he could not govern the area, most of his population had left, and would welcome US involvement. The overthrow of Prince Sihanouk occurred without US involvement. Kissinger has denied all knowledge of this possibly happening.

Second, there is not one reference to Kissinger's involvement and negotiating a truce of the Yom Kippur War. This is a major event in his life and the history of the Cold War and should be included.

Third, the reference "Both Nixon and Kissinger were loners, shy and introverted, who liked to think of themselves as cool and masterful strategic thinkers. Both men idealized strength and despised weakness" is just ridicious. Kissinger could hardly be shy, a longer or introverted and accomplish the things he did. Trying to match Kissinger's personality to Nixon's is simply a device to make Kissinger sound like a criminal.

Finally, "Kissinger's acceptance prompted Tom Lehrer and possibly Terry Southern[1] to declare satire to be dead." does not belong on this page. The comments of two political comedians doesn't belong here. Stargoat 23:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Tom Lehrer remark is quite famous in connection to Kissinger's reception of the Peace Prize, and is an interesting anecdote that reflects widespread sentiment about the inappropriateness of the prize. I think it certainly belongs here. Also, Tom Lehrer is hardly a "political comedian" - he's an oddball songwriter. Graft 02:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer's songs are a good document about the feelings of some people in the 1960's, as well as biased-but-poignant attacks on certain of America's less than agreeable traits and actions ("they've got to be protected/all their rights respected/until someone that we like can be elected")... and he plays the piano acceptably.

Doen NOBODY see the connection?

We have an administration in office that is dominated by Nixon era politics and politicians. This guy was officially brought up on charges on SEPTEMBER 10, 2001. He and anybody in the government would have known exactly when these charges were going to be brought up. Do you guys think that it is just COINCIDENCE that the towers toppled the next day (effectively burying ANY news release on this trial), and that this guy gets appointed to the 9/11 investigation commision?

Please people, see the truth. I'm no conspiracy nut, but all this is just too coincidental.

You mean - the Israelis didn't do it?

THIS PAGE NEEDS SUBSTANIAL MODIFICATION MUCH OF THE DETAILS OF KISSINGERS'S DIPLOMATIC HISTORY AS BEEN REMOVED SUCH AS HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH YOM KIPUR AND THE DETAILS OF HIS VIETNAM AND SOUTH AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

Allende was assasinated

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." - Said about Chile prior to the overthrow and assassination of Salvador Allende.

Allende was assassinated. At the time of his death he had previously survived at least 2 assassination attempts. Allende's command was violently captured during a violent coup against a government of which Allende was the primary power, during this violence Allende died of wounds inflicted by a machine gun. While I'm willing to fight it out with reverts, I would rather discuss the issue here.

LegCircus 19:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you try to solve that problem on the Salvador Allende page first which states atm. that his personal doctor said he committed suicide  ; once a solution is found there we can adopt it here. - pir 19:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is reasonable. Additionally, "violent death" is an acceptable compromise. Thank you pir for a tidy resolution.

LegCircus 19:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Allende put a gun between his legs and blew his own head off. Only a few Allende fanatics insist he was "assassinated", with absolutely no evidence. I'm fine with mentioning this "theory" in the Allende article, but rehashing this whole debate in the wide note for one stupid Kissinger quote is wholly out of place. VV 19:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't claim to be an expert. Can you?

Will you accept "violent death" as a compromise?

LegCircus 21:20, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

No. It's misleading. And mention at all is wholly unnecessary. This part is just to explain what Kissinger was referring to in his quote, we don't need Allende's life story. VV 21:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you deny that the context of the quote is necessary? The violence that was a result of the sentiment expressed by the quote is directly relevant on the life and character of Kissinger. This is a man of action, one who did not wring his hands over the possible use of violence.

LegCircus 21:31, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The context is necessary inasmuch it should be made clear that HK is talking about pre-1973 Chile and not the US. The fact that Allende died during the coup is not in the least bit relevant; the quote is before the coup even happened! VV 21:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is why it important. Do you deny that HK's quote is inspired by the situation in Chile? What do you think the quote is about? You should notice that at least three users are reverting your deletion.

LegCircus 21:40, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never wanted to remove context about Chile, just about the manner in which Allende died long after HK said that quote. VV 23:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will you agree to the compromise ("violent death") rather than assassination? I know Allende's children believe their father was assassinated.

LegCircus 21:40, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

This is not an article about Allende! That is just annotation to explain what country and time period Kissinger was referring to when he said that quote. No, for the nth time, I will not accept "violent death". VV 23:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I really don't see the need to emphasize the manner of Allende's death at all in this quote. What do we hope to achieve by specifying it, and what do we lose by leaving it out? To me the only clear purpose can be demonstrating how bloodthirsty Kissinger is. Which is decidedly POV. Graft 23:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Funny enough, VV is right. So is Graft. It doesn't belong. Stargoat 01:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We lose the significance of the quote by leaving it out. Nobody is denying that Kissinger has something to do with Chile, right? So if Kissinger wrote a strongly worded letter to the people of Chile, his quote would have a different meaning than if he aided a violent coup.

Additionally, the assassination of political leaders is much different than leaders being overthrown. For example (this is only an example), if the citizens of Cuba were to overthrow Castro, consevatives would applaud. If Castro was assassinated, then responsible conservatives would have denounce the assassin and mitigate their enthusiasm. The difference is democracy. Democracy is central to the quote.

The quote states "due to the irresponsibility of its people." If you believe that the people of a country can govern in an irresponsible fashion then your view of democracy is going to be different than the libertarian view or progressive view of democracy.

Just so I can understand other peoples' perspectives, do folks think that Kissinger did not have a role in the violence in Chile? If so, I can better understand your objections and will provide evidence for that point. If not, your objections seem to me primarily apologist in nature. Please inform and correct me, no doubt I misunderstand.

Gabriel García Márquez: "Allende died in an exchange of shots with that patrol. Then all the officers in a cast rite, shot at Allende's body. Finally an officer destroyed Allende's face with the butt of his rifle. The photo does exist: it was taken by the photographer Juan Enrique Lira, from the newspaper El Mercurio, the only one granted permission to do this portrait of the corpse. Allende was so disfigured that Hortencia Allende, his wife, was allowed only to see the body in the coffin."

LegCircus 01:56, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify my views both on the subject and the content of this article:
  1. The matter of whether the quote should be there at all is not one I have provided an opinion on. Stargoat thought it should be removed, and I did not want to mediate between the two of you. I reverted to the last version because you (LegCircus) reinserted the claim that Allende was assassinated, which is widely disbelieved, and thus is in violation of NPOV.
  2. I do not believe Kissinger had any meaningful role in the 1973 violence in Chile. At any rate, that too is a POV. I was involved in a three-month long edit war on this subject, so let's try not to bring that up again.
  3. My understanding is that claims that Allende was killed are believed only by his devotees, and this includes devoted family, but that they are not supported by the evidence. Again, this is not really relevant, as this is merely providing annotation for one quote. The Salvador Allende article is the right place for this debate.
  4. If this page were unprotected, in fact I would support changing the wording even more, to merely say Kissinger is referring to Allende-era Chile, because what happened later is not part of the context of the quote.
  5. For what it's worth, I prefer keeping the quote. It certainly does say a lot about Kissinger's attitude and his views on democracy, as you point out. (But FWIW, many democrats do believe people can govern irresponsibly, but think they should be allowed to.)
VV 06:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I thought that LegCircus's version as well as VV's version ("Allende put a gun between his legs and blew his own head off") could both be described fairly as "violent death". But I agree with VV, Stargoat and Graft that the manner of Allende's death is not relevant for the quote in this article (if his comment had come after Allende's death, it would be relevant though). I agree with LegCircus that Kissinger has a certain amount of responsibility in Allende's demise, but (agreeing with VV) that doesn't belong in this article. I would oppose the very vague "Allende-era Chile" formulation, as the quote quite clearly refers to the election of the Sandinista Unidad Popular candidate. Just my €0.02, for what it's worth. - pir 08:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The problem with "violent death" is that it implies interpersonal violence. I don't know that "self-inflicted violence" counts even technically, and it's at any rate misleading. And what do the Sandinistas have to do with anything? VV 08:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's an implication which you read into it and not one which exists in the formulation - he "blew his own head off" sounds rather violent, unlike "he took cyanide and fell gently asleep", especially since the alleged suicide only took place in the context of a very violent military coup. You're of course right about the Sandinista, I meant the Unidad Popular (presidential candidate). - pir 10:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I've said all I can

I'm disturbed that people think that Kissinger was not involved in Chile. That Kissinger has defended (not denied) his involvement in the Chilean coup seemed ample evidence for this fact.

This being said, I seem to be alone here. As suggested, I will seek to clean up the Allende article before revisting this issue here.

I ask that the page be protected for a week in hope that someone will join my concerns. Otherwise, I won't be so divisive as to attempt to defend the point by myself.

Thank you for your patience.

LegCircus 15:55, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I believe Kissinger was involved in Chile. He was practically president at the time, and I find it highly unlikely, given the level of known U.S. involvement, that he was not a motivating force behind the coup. However, I do not think it appropriate to put Allende's blood directly on his hands, which your proposed change would do, without knowing what Kissinger's real involvement was. Thanks for stepping back; this conflict is far too frivolous to be worth continuing anyway. Graft 16:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Nixon tapes are clear enough, where Kissinger complains that the press is "bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown" and says "In the Eisenhower period we would be heroes." Gzornenplatz 16:27, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks the issue is frivolous should not be involved in it, and allow those who take it seriously to continue. I have not yielded because I consider the matter to be unimportant, but yield until my view is supported by others' views.

I surmise that those currently watching the page are generally in favor of not mentioning and/or recognising Allende's violent death. If this stands true over the next week, then I am content that the issue is at least temporarily resolved.

LegCircus 19:07, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

"Violent death" is probably the best compromise. In any case the quote should be included. Gzornenplatz 19:18, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hollinger International

Please add a link to Hollinger International as he's a Director and therefore included in the Breeden Report.

Should we vote?

Would people like to vote, say vote ends 9-8-2004?

LegCircus 20:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

On what? VV 06:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It would probably also be germane to indicate when HK came out with this outrageous statement: wasn't it closer to the 1970 election than to the '73 coup? (Auld Henry might be a lot of things, but careless with his tongue he isn't.) –Hajor 20:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On if to include "and violent death" in the context to the quote.

LegCircus 17:28, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think voting is at all useful. The quote was before the coup and so the latter does not provide context. We should simply say the quote is in reference to the (razor close) election of Allende in Chile. VV 01:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember a more recent razor close election, but that's neither here nor there.

The page has been unprotected; violent death is the compromise decision.

Sincere thanks to all for their thought in this matter.

LegCircus 18:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I repeat: (a) "violent death" implies (even if it doesn't say) he was killed, and (b) events that occured after Kissinger said what he did are prima facie not part of its context. VV 20:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added the date of the quote (immediately after the election, three years before the coup), along with mentioning that Allende was socialist. Allende's political leanings are definitely relevant as an explanation for the context of the quote, and I am puzzled as to why this was left out while people have been arguing over the manner of Allende's death, which is far more of a tangent and not strictly necessary to explain the significance of the quote. --Michael Snow 20:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lack of Basic Facts

I find it interesting that so many people have been more intestered in writing POV attacks against Kissinger in this article than putting in basic facts like the Yom Kippur War, and Kissinger's positions in the Nixon administration. Stargoat 13:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why? I don't think there's been any conspiracy to avoid including those facts, just that no-one got round to it until you did. Cadr 19:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reading your edits I think the two paragraphs on Israel need to be worded a bit more carefully. They're a little too opinionated (that's not to say incorrect, necessarily) and that almost guarantees that someone will remove them given that the issues are so controversial. Can't do it myself because I don't have the knowledge. Cadr 20:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Something is wrong

This has to be wrong. I dont know anything about kissinger, he's probably some politician but saying in the first paragraph "with some going so far as to label his activities - such as the killing of 600000 civilians in Cambodia - as war crimes" Im sure he didn't go to Cambodia and personally kill that many people, perhaps he gave an order or his actions indirectly led to it. Someone explain this

He gave the orders. Look at this URL. http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

VV reverted my "idiotic edit" because he is a disgusting Nazi wo under the cover of NPOV tries - and is quite successfull at - turning Wikipedia into a centre of right-wing propaganda for the american empire.

I've had the same problem with VV. He and a couple of his kindred spirits keep going around and reverting batches of changes, however factual and well written, that conflict with his right-wing opinions.
There's no question but that Kissinger is a war criminal and a liar to boot. His rôle in mass slaughter in Cambodia, Timor Lorosa`e and numerous other parts of the world is amply documented. Shorne 00:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing here, but it seems to me that a "war criminal" is somebody who has been found guilty of war crime by a court. I don't think that's the case for Kissinger, and, although I always live in hope that people like him will be tried one day, I don't think it's very likely to happen anytime soon. I think a better formulation needs to be found. Maybe something along the lines of there being ample documentation for his role in events that would be classified as war crimes. I think that's NPOV, and also less inflammatory. - pir 01:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The document says that he has been accused of war crimes. That is true and important. Whether he is guilty is in principle debatable, which is why I did not say in the article that he is guilty (even though he most certainly is).
People like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega are the only ones who get hauled before a court—a kangaroo court, often as not—to account for their crimes. The only reason that it hasn't happened to Kissinger is that the US does not care about genuine justice. The US has no intention of extraditing its jackbooted favourite son so that he can be tried.
By the way, the one sentence that I added is very NPOV, but some impossible people here keep silently reverting it. They want the Nobel "Peace" Prize to be associated with Kissinger, but they can't stand to have the truth about him come out. Shorne 01:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page due to edit waring. Please talk about the problems here. Gentgeen 05:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's little chance of achieving any resolution with VV around. He merely goes around deleting and reverting changes and inserting right-wing POV crapola. He doesn't even have the decency, or should I say the guts, to discuss anything on the talk pages, even when asked.
I've noticed that the leftists at Wikipedia are generally quite coöperative about negotiating reasonable compromises. A significant number of rightists, however, merely behave like VV and try to turn every political article into right-wing propaganda. Shorne 06:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne, let's talk about this reasonably (with or without VV). Both the peace prize, and his controversialness (is that a word) belong in the introduction. It's only a matter of how strongly worded it is. Has any foreign government charged Kissinger with a war crime? My understanding is that it has exclusively been individuals. Stargoat 12:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You and I agree. (Isn't it much easier to discuss things rationally when VV & Cie are out of the way?) Argentina, Chile, and France, I know, have summoned Kissinger for questioning. In Paris several years ago, Kissinger was given a warrant requiring his testimony before a French court on the matter of some French citizens in Chile who disappeared under Pinochet's US-backed régime. Kissinger responded by leaving France before he could be forced to testify.
Whether he has been charged by a government with a war crime is a non-issue for the purposes of this article. That people have charged him is enough. In any event, I have already substituted "accused" for "charged", just to avoid a fight over this minor point. But even that compromise is not enough for the right-wing propagandists who wish to put a halo over Kissinger's lying head.
Even the committee that awards the Nobel "Peace" Prize admits to a great deal of controversy:
http://nobelprize.org/peace/articles/controversies/index.html
I don't see why we should try to cover it up. Shorne 21:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about this for an edit: "Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a very controversial figure and has been accused of war crimes by individuals in several countries." I like having the individuals in there, otherwise is sounds like it is the countries doing the accusing. One of the most important features of Kissinger, and the reason that many readers will come to this site, is precisely because of the accusations against Kissinger, so it should be dealt with in the first paragraph. Something should also be put in about his continuing contact with the Chinese, his opposition to the War in Iraq, and some current administration members dislike of the guy, though not necessarily in the opening paragraph. Stargoat 21:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That suits me. The important point is to include this information—in summary form—near the mention of his "Peace" prize. Burying the information in the middle of a long article gives a misleading impression to the casual, or even the serious, reader. I'd probably move "in several countries"; my point in mentioning it was that the crimes were committed in more than one place, which makes it much harder to dismiss them with purported mitigating circumstances. For example, I would prefer "Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a very controversial figure and has been accused by individuals of war crimes committed in several countries." If something close to this is acceptable to all or most, let's go with it.
The other matters that you mentioned should go in the body of the article. Again, I feel that the material on Kissinger's, er, activities in various parts of the world should be slightly modified so that it doesn't look as if Hitchens were a lone voice casting aspersions on Kissinger. As it stands, the article has a mildly pro-Kissinger POV: it seems to say "here are this one guy's charges; here are the refutations". Shorne 00:26, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It states a fact that Kissinger received a prestigious award. "Accusations" of war crimes are meaningless; everyone from Harry Truman to Tony Blair has been "accused" of war crimes (indeed, how about Lincoln? George III? Ghengis Khan?). This frivolous charge does not belong in the intro. VeryVerily 00:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV, Kissinger, more than most men, is plagued by such accusations. He is very controversial. Most people coming to the article are coming because of those controversies.

Shorne, concerning the articles' neutrality, I would disagree. Most of the article seems to be a sounding board for Hitchen's accusations. I think that some of the acccusations are outrageously silly, and the rest don't belong. But, they are important accusations, though I believe that in twenty years, they will mostly be forgotten. Stargoat 01:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed he is plagued by such accusations, which is why my version includes an appropriate mention of the surrounding controversy. It is already 17 words in a 56-word intro. Going on about "war crimes" and several nations is way over the top. He was a policy advisor, not Idi Amin. Yes, the rest of the article needs work too, although I feel I don't know enough to rebut all the allegations. VeryVerily 07:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Kissinger wasn't just an advisor. He basically ran the whole ball of wax for two years of Nixon's presidency and some of Ford's. I've heard him described as the best foreign policy president America has ever had. One of the most important features, the one that has defined his life since, has been the controversy surrounding his actions. As is fairly obvious, there are lots of people who believe that he did bad things. He wasn't able to work on the 9/11 commission because of it.
Now granted, the information about the war crimes went in before any mention of the Nobel Peace Prize, and when it did, it was fallacious, and a bit over the top. It has since been balanced. It's a good solution. Are you willing to work with it? Stargoat 11:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He has not been arrested, tried, or convicted of war crimes by any recognized tribunal. The intro as it was was short and factual. Now I've added in that he is controversial. Frivolous charges that he's a war criminal or eats babies can be saved for the remainder of the article, where specific names of accusers can be given and their charges balanced. VeryVerily 05:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Readers, please note that the above paragraph was not added until two hours after the article had been unprotected. In other words, it was not part of the negotiation over this article. Shorne 13:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The contrast between getting "a prestigious award" for "peace" and having the blood of millions on one's hands is so jarring that it simply must be stated. Otherwise Kissinger would come across as some kind of goddam saint. The accusations are not idle; they are rock-solid. As for Truman and the rest, I don't mind writing a few words about their crimes if the present articles do not adequately address them.
Stargoat, I don't quite follow you. You feel that none of Hitchens's accusations has any merit? I don't mind cutting out some of the stuff on Hitchens; indeed, I would like to do so, in order to leave space for others' accusations.
By the way, everyone, see VV's lies at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2. Shorne 01:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Point to a lie. VeryVerily 07:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with the article, but I think Kissinger gets a bad rap. I believe that few to none of Hitchens' attacks have merit. The ability and capability of the United States to wage war has been vastly overstated. I also believe that the idea of how war is waged is misunderstood by current western society. But, that doesn't mean that I will let any of that influence how I edit articles.
I can live with "Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a very controversial figure and has been accused by individuals of war crimes committed in several countries.". It seems like a good compromise, and accurate in language.
Also, just as an aside, you might want to lay off of "VV's lies" a bit. He has made extensive edits, and most everyone here has worked with him in the past. Good and bad, we know what to expect. Besides, a little bit of wikilove goes a long way. Stargoat 02:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apology on last edit summary

My last edit summary was "rv vandal". This was a mistake, in that I erroneously thought I was reverting the anon (Turrican) who has been vandalizing my user page. In fact, the user who made the exact same edit was in this case Shorne, who is a POV pusher, not a vandal. VeryVerily 05:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

persistence

Since I started monitoring this article a few months ago, it has consistently become more and more apologetic of Kissinger's record. This is due more to the persistence of those who are Kissinger friendly, than to the relative merits of any argument.

Do any deny that Kissinger is accused of war crimes abroad? You can believe that this has no place in the article while still being aware of the fact, but before we have that conversation I feel the need to confirm the fact.

Is Wikipedia supposed to be NPOV for an English speaking audience only, or NPOV in the higher sense, the global sense? North America is the only continent where you will find any significant number of Kissinger apologists. Do any deny that not only is Kissinger accused of war crimes abroad, but also considered to have more than a questionable reputation?

If we seek NPOV in the higher sense, and also admit that Kissinger's global reputation is highly mixed, then we should not hesitate to allow the article to reflect this through and throughout.

LegCircus 17:15, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well said. I'll go further: Kissinger's global reputation is not highly mixed; it is decidedly negative, for, as LegCircus said, you'll find hardly any members of the Kissinger fan club outside the US and perhaps Canada. Shorne 18:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
LegCircus, I've also been watching this article for several months. It is not growing more friendly so much as including more facts.
As for your rhetorical question, not one is denying that there are individuals who believe Kissinger guilty of warcrimes.
About half the article addresses the Hitchen charges against Kissinger. I fail to see that there is a lack of space concerning the accusations against Kissinger.
You're not offering suggestions so much as offering general criticism. If you have something more to add, please do so in a more constructive manner. Stargoat 17:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate LegCircus's observations. They apply as well to lots of other articles on political subjects that people in the US tend to view differently from most other people.
The issue is not "space". I have already said that the singling out of Hitchens as the entire opposition has the effect of suggesting that the allegations are just a one-man smear campaign that <*yawn*> needs to be disposed of here for the record. Most people who are aware of Kissinger's record agree that he should be hauled before a court. Implying that Hitchens is just one crackpot in a sea of people who adulate "peace"-loving Kissinger is wrong. Shorne 18:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Shorne is correct, the issue is not "space." Rather, what is important is to NOT have the article be split into "Kissinger as Jesus" and "Kissinger as Satan" sections, but instead to have a full recognition of Kissinger as a man who accomplished many things, gained great power, and also certainly used his power in such a manner that many ideals and people suffered. It is also important to include that individuals, organizations, and states would hold Kissinger personally accountable for these losses, as well as how Kissinger has answered or failed to answer charges against him.

It is important to determine if the question is "Shall we do this?" or "How shall we do this?" Those that feel such material is not essential to an account of Kissinger's life have a tough argument to make.

LegCircus 19:51, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

No one (except perhaps VV) is disputing that the material does not belong. In fact, I think we have already come to a consensus. What is the problem here? Why is this pointless bickering continuing? Stargoat 20:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do not dispute that criticisms belong in the article. I am disputing the "war crimes" bit, for reasons I believe I laid out already. VeryVerily 05:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You'll notice I am not removing the vast amount of anti-Kissinger material from the article, though it surely needs work. VeryVerily 05:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Readers, please note that the above two paragraphs were not added until two hours after the article had been unprotected. In other words, they were not part of the negotiation over this article. Shorne 13:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed; the primary conversation was in the section Protected above. VeryVerily 13:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quite right, both of you. No one has argued (though some have asserted without argument) that we should not include this material. VV, the main dissenter, obviously isn't going to speak to the subject. Therefore, let's proceed with the unanimous agreement, which is to use the phrase that Stargoat last quoted. Shorne 20:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

unprotected

based on the above discussion, it seems that a consensus of those willing to discuss the matter has been reached, so I'm unprotecting this page. Gentgeen 03:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just made the change. VeryVerily just now deleted it. Obviously he has no intention of coöperating, negotiating, or contributing constructively. Please protect the page again. Shorne 05:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Posture, smear all you like. You claim the dispute was resolved when one of the principals disagrees. Expect what did you? VeryVerily 05:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You did not contest the wording; you did not even participate in the discussion. Everyone knows your game. Shorne 06:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A consensus is a majority of people agreeing. One person disagreeing doesn't make it any less of a consensus. I think him being accused of war crimes should be mentioned. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:59, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
No, that's not what consensus is. VeryVerily 13:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Consensus is one person who stays mum during the discussion only to emerge when all has been decided unanimously by the participants and impose his own preference dictatorially, without even deigning to discuss it, according to his now famous quotation "There is no consensus if I disagree with it" (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2). Isn't that so? Shorne 13:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You seem awfully focused on the process. I did partake in the discussion, as my comments above show (and not just the late ones, which is not to concede that unprotection ends discussion). The fact that it was unprotected before I'd responded to the latest round of responses is rather beside the point, which is that the sentence you are proposing is not acceptable. VeryVerily 13:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And the appropriate way to address that, in your eyes, is for you to impose your preference upon everyone else without discussing it—before or after the decision was made. Shorne 14:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Without discussion? I suppose someone else must have signed my name on this page repeatedly. VeryVerily 23:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the issues weren't addressed last time, so the page is protected again. Gentgeen 14:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of mediation working. Why don't we just vote? Stargoat 15:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mediation is necessary to move towards arbitration, but there's no reason we can't also vote. GuloGuloGulo 18:00, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with GGG. I'm fine with a vote. Let anyone who wants, suggest a text, then we'll vote on the one we find best. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:04, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Mediation is necessary because of VeryVerily's universal pattern of insisting on his way, without even the formality of discussing anything with anyone. Shorne 00:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Introductory wording vote

This is a vote on the sentence that is to appear at the end of the introductory paragraph on this article. Please sign your name using three tildes under the wording you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. If you think that an alternative wording is more effective, please add it following the format already used. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion". Voting ends October 12th, 00:01 UTC.

Kissinger is a controversial figure due to many of the foreign policy decisions he was involved with.

Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a very controversial figure and has been accused of war crimes by individuals in several countries.

  1. Stargoat 20:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Mragle fragle. Stupid slow servers. <kicks wikipedia>  :) I think that this one, or the entry below it, are the two most accurate in language. I don't see why one or the other is not adopted.

Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a very controversial figure and has been accused by individuals of war crimes committed in several countries.

  1. Shorne 00:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Although I reject the notion that a vote is appropriate at this time (for which see below), I will vote for the text chosen unanimously by all participants until someone proposes something better that can be generally accepted.
  2. Charles Stewart 10:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger is a controversial figure who, due to the many foreign policy decisions he was involved with, has been accused of committing war crimes.

  1. GuloGuloGulo - I think this successfully reconciles the two verisons that caused the conflict.
  2. Mackensen - This strikes me as a fair balance.
  3. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:06, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) - Although I'd still like some more specific info on who was doing the accusing, this is a grammatically correct version, which includes all info. Let the reader decide whether the accusers are correct.(see below)
    • Indeed, "has been accused" is a typical weasel expression, not saying who is doing the accusing - because to do so would draw out that no recognized court has charged or convicted him. VeryVerily 23:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't mind changing it to "has committed war crimes". Shorne 00:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 19:54, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

After some research [1], I've decided to retract my vote. It seems that Kissinger was first accused by Christopher Hitchens who was a political opponent of his. I'll support inclusion only when evidence or arguments are presented along with the accusation. At the moment, it's just a personal opinion of one person who admitted to being a gadfly. --- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Yes! It's just a few commentators' opinions, which is not notable. VeryVerily 09:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Political opponent in what sense? Not in an electoral one. Do you mean merely that Hitchens doesn't like Kissinger's politics? No surprise there. It stands to reason that someone who acknowledges that Kissinger has committed war crimes in numerous parts of the world is unlikely to be a charter member of the Henry Kissinger Fan Club. Shorne 04:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm joining Mgm down in here in the neutral area. My thoughts are expressed below. Mackensen 09:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I tentatively wade into this discussion to offer a suggestion: Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a controversial figure; while some praise his policies as those of a gifted statesman, others have gone so far as to call them war crimes. I'm no expert on IR or law -- all I know is that international law can be pretty slippery, and "war crimes" seems to be one of those "I know 'em when I see 'em" sorts of things. If a court rules that Kissinger committed war crimes, then we ought to change this article. Until then, with the boundaries separating "war crime" from "acceptable foreign policy" being a little amorphous, I think it's better we say Kissinger did some things, and some people call those things war crimes. User:Greyfedora 06:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

In 2001, Christopher Hitchens wrote a series of articles in The Atlantic Monthly, accusing Kissinger of war crimes.

Would this be a neutral solution to introduce the section in the article in the lead section?

  1. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:46, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Kissinger's hardly alone in that position. I mean, we don't mention in the introduction to Bill Clinton or William Cohen that they were accused of war crimes because of Kosovo. Moreover, Kissinger was Nixon's national security advisor. That post doesn't have executive authority. Surely Richard Nixon deserves some credit; of course, Nixon's dead while Kissinger's very much alive. Granted, Kissinger is wanted for questioning in France and other countries, but he has not been charged by the International War Crimes tribunal or any similar authority. I think the example over at Madeline Albright might be useful precedent: Celebrated as the first female secretary of state and the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government, Albright has also been accused of war crimes by her detractors due to her staunch support for the Iraqi sanctions regime. How do people feel about writing up a similar statement regarding Kissinger that reflects both points of view?
  • Can you give a concrete example of such a statement? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:26, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • A renowned expert on foreign policy and a respected academic, Kissinger is also extremely controversial for his role in American foreign policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Mackensen 18:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • First, Kissinger is still very much at home with the Washington elite, and it is hardly unsurprising that friendly countries are wary of charging him with war crimes for his role in actions the United States has never betrayed any official apology for. However, I think it's obvious that there's a great deal of international sentiment leaning in that direction, e.g. the multiple subpoenas by the authorities of other nations. There are plenty of accusations of war crimes on the part of many leftist commentators, to the point where it's hard to take the charges seriously any more. However, I think Kissinger's case is different in that there is some real desire to prosecute him, and motion towards that end, on the part of foreign judges and the victims of the Pinochet regime, etc. The same cannot be said for Clinton, Cohen or even Albright. A better example might be Ariel Sharon, although I'm loathe to use any article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as precedent since they're always so tetchy. Graft 18:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed, regarding Sharon. The thing is, from my point of view, this is an encyclopedia. It isn't for us to pass judgement. We aren't Kissinger's defenders or his prosecutors. As it stands, he hasn't been charged. He may go to his grave without ever being prosecuted. I have no problem with the accusations against him being detailed in the article body, but I think the introduction should avoid such a loaded term as "war crimes." Mackensen 18:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • No one is passing judgement. Kissinger has, effectively, been charged by at least four countries and sought in some others (the UK among them). The term war crimes is not loaded; it has a clear definition, and it is for war crimes that Kissinger is being pursued. Shorne 07:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not attached to the phrase 'war crimes', but I would like to convey the sense that many people wish to hold him legally responsible for his actions somewhere in the introduction. It's certainly a prominent part of any discussion on Kissinger these days, and a significant feature in his own life, and thus I think it bears prominent mention. Graft 19:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Mentioning this somewhere in the article is sound, but putting something about Hitchens (a minor pundit) in the short introductory paragraph of an article about Kissinger, is not appropriate. VeryVerily 05:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly not, but once again, the point is that others, like non-American authorities, have moved towards holding Kissinger accountable for his foreign policy maneuvers. Since he (along with Sharon and others) would form important test cases for concepts such as the World Criminal Court (which he has poo-pooed) if he were prosecuted, this is highly relevant and deserves prominent mention. Graft 06:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Would form and moved towards are operative here. None of these actions have been taken, so they are all so much talk. VeryVerily 06:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't take such a strong position, but I maintain that we cannot mention "war crimes" in the introduction without including the proper context. The introduction isn't where one does that. Thus, I suggest we leave the accusations of war crimes to their own section and note in the introduction that Kissinger is extremely controversial. Mackensen 17:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • While I appreciate the concern about using the introduction as a vehicle for sound bites, something that I have opposed in other articles, I think that "peace" and "controversial" make an odd pair. The war crimes are far more important than the Nobel "Peace" Prize, yet you would mention only the latter directly. Shorne 18:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Actually Shorne, you're quite wrong. The Nobel Peace Prize is something that actually happened. The war crimes are just alligations, and quite frankly, weak ones at that. Despite that you might not like it, the Peace Prize, more than the war crimes, belongs. Stargoat 22:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • The war crimes, too, actually happened. It would be vile to sweep millions of corpses under a rug called "controversial". Shorne 10:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
              • Again, you are wrong. The "millions of corpses" were not murdered by Kissinger. He did not order the attacks. He did not order auto-genocide. He did not tell the Communist North Vietnamese to illegally enter Cambodia to illegally attack South Vietnam. He did not tell the Khmer Rouge to deliberately destroy the economy of Cambodia, and murder 1.6 million. In Chile, he created the conditions for a coup. He did not order the mass slaughter of civilians. A similar situation applies to East Timor. Kissinger did not order the massive slaughter of civilians, nor did it happen as described in the article, despite the lies that are said about the "illegal secret bombings" of Cambodia. The charges against Kissinger are alligations, and not well thought out ones at that. Kissinger recieved a Nobel Peace Prize. There is no disputing that. It belongs in the introduction. There is a strong argument to be made that the war crimes does not. Stargoat 15:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Is he accused by "individuals from several countries" or is he "accused of warcrimes (performed) in several countries"? I won't for any of these until I'm 100% certain of what the sentences are trying to say. (Grammar is a pet peeve of mine) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:52, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Well, both I believe. I didn't like the phrasing of "accused by individuals of war crimes." Read wrongly, it suggests that he's being accused by people involved in the war crimes. GuloGuloGulo 19:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Ambiguous wording, to boot. (That is, in addition to the non-notability of accusations by "individuals".) VeryVerily 21:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the wording is bad, and VV is right, individual criticisms are not what's important. What's important is a) allegations and requests for questioning from various countries, b) the evidence and documentation of wrong-doing by Kissinger, and c) the groups of individuals with whom such evidence gains traction. People don't organize against an figure or an idea without some grounds. Those grounds might be ill-formed, misguided, or just false, but all the more so why they are worthy of record. LegCircus 22:30, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

So far we have four comments that like none of these sentences, and no support for any of them. I don't think this can be resolved in the next 24 hours, and therefore an extension of this poll is warrented. Gentgeen 00:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the point is that Kissinger is accused of crimes committed in several countries: Cambodia, Chile, and Timor Lorosa`e, at a minimum. Shorne 00:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having this many options in a vote in which only a handful of people can be expected to participate almost guarantees a lack of consensus. I wish to reiterate that the whole matter has been reopened only because one person who declined to participate in a meaningful way imposed his preference upon everyone in the face of a unanimous decision. It is inappropriate to vote at this time. Shorne 00:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully the poll's being on Wikipedia:Current surveys will help it gain exposure. Regardless, to reconcile your objection to the poll and Genteen's objection to the briefness of it (I figured such a small change merited brevity), I propose that any options failing to have more than one vote on Oct. 12 be deleted, and that the remaining options be voted on until 00:00 (UTC), October 15th. Either that or some variation of it, or immediately kill the poll and convert it into a structured discussion. GuloGuloGulo 01:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I wonder what is so wrong with discussion. The people who were willing to discuss the matter like adults quickly achieved a consensus, even unanimity, despite their widely different opinions. Those who chose not to join the discussion should not be catered to—or should I say pandered to? Shorne 02:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the last suggestion, we need to make sure that we specify that Kissinger has not been formally accused of war crimes by a country. Stargoat 01:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just don't understand how you can recognize this but still support having mention of "war crimes" in the intro. VeryVerily 21:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One of the reasons, probably the most significant, as to why Kissinger remains such an important and controversial figure is precisely because of those charges. Therefore, it should be immediately addressed. Stargoat 21:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's because of the foreign policy decisions he was involved with. Which is what I said. The "charges" are secondary, responses to those decisions. It's not because of the "charges" he is controversial. VeryVerily 23:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, it's because of the war crimes. "Foreign-policy decisions" is an outrageous understatement. Shorne 00:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This so obviously fails to pertain to what I said that comment seems superfluous. VeryVerily 06:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That was the only reason for adding "by individuals". It is hypocritical of people to bitch about that decision at this point, as if their POV protests had not motivated it. Shorne 02:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne, calling people bitches and saying that they are making POV protests is not helping the situation. We can be more productive than this. Stargoat 21:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't call anyone a bitch. Shorne 00:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vote

This silly vote is obviously going absolutely nowhere, and VeryVerily clearly has no intention to enter into anything like a discussion. Shorne 21:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're like a broken record. That lies. VeryVerily 23:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How come no mention that he sits on the board of New Orleans-based Freeport McMoRan Gold and Copper, a company which continues to pay around $5.6mUS per year to the local military commanders to shoot any of the land owners if they attempt to return to their ten thousand square miles of rainforest currently being mined. I mean if you're going to discuss what should be said about Kissinger then at least include the issues, and surely having up to a hundred thousand civilians killed by areial bombing & land troops should be included.

Vote

Since this is going nowhere, I recommend that we adopt the version that was discussed before. Shorne 20:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, Wikipedia works best when you allow the community time to come to a consensus. Attempting to force changes quickly (which is done by many people, please don't think that I'm singling you out) only leads to consternation and dispute. While votes are not binding per se, it's usually a good idea to abide by them, and consensus at present seems to be for the fourth option. I see no reason, however, to rush the matter. Mackensen 07:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please review the discussion. Shorne 14:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He has. Take it easy. He's trying to be helpful. Voting is usually done over a week, to give many people time to weigh in on the issue. Stargoat 17:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have never opposed a delay. I've only said that we shouldn't wait around forever when a certain person obviously has no intention of participating. Shorne 00:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

quick correction....

A minor correction to the article: In the first sentence under "Political History", it mentions Kissinger as Secretary of State and later as National Security Advisor, when in fact the opposite was true (Advisor under Nixon, then Sec of State under Nixon and Ford). Should be changed to avoid confusion since further down in the article this fact is acknowledged.

My mistake. I saw that myself a couple of days ago, but haven't been able to correct it. (For obvious reasons) Stargoat 16:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ready for unprotection?

OK, are we ready for unprotection? I'll unprotect this article in 12 hours, unless someone states an objection here. Anyone involved in the discussion can then change the wording to the agreed upon fourth choice. Gentgeen 15:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll institute the fourth choice if no one else does. Shorne 01:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Has the root problem been solved yet? Stargoat 16:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, it hasn't been: VeryVerily is still around. Shorne 01:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sorry I'm late, I fell asleep. It's unprotected again. Gentgeen 05:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why you think there's been agreement, since there hasn't been. There's just been an attempt to bully away the opposition. VeryVerily 07:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bullshit. You've had two chances to participate, and you've wasted both of them. Tough luck. The decision stands. Shorne 08:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're not even making any sense. VeryVerily 09:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts

On reflection, the wording of the intro bothers me somewhat (yes, the same one that I supported). Henry Kissinger is, undeniably, one of the most important American (well, German-American) foreign policy-makers of the past couple generations. He is responsible for policies that were controversial at the time and are controversial now. Cambodia and Chile stand out as examples of interventionist foreign policy that have attracted their fair share of critics. Some critics have gone so far as to accuse him of war crimes. This is problematic. Kissinger was of the generation that waged the Cold War, as were his Soviet, Chinese, British, French, and German counterparts. His actions have to be understood in that context. State-based foreign policy is not generally considered fodder for a war crimes tribunal; Nuremburg was very much the exception for exceptional circumstances. If we regard the launching of an aggressive war as a war crime then every article on every statesman, dictator, politician, and general who has initiated such a war should have war criminal displayed prominently in the introduction. Two immediate candidates that come to mind are Kim Il-sung and Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke. But we don't do that. We deplore the excesses of foreign policy and decry the slaughter that came of them, but we don't call them war criminals. We don't do this because they were never brought before a court of law and convicted as such. Kissinger has been accused by various individuals of whom Hitchens is the most prominent. Has he been charged with war crimes? By what authority? Has he been convicted? Until such time as some or all of these conditions are fulfilled, I think we must tone down the introduction to be more consistent with the other articles in Wikipedia. I will make no change to the article until this has been discussed with all interested parties. Mackensen 09:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. VeryVerily 09:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The main reason that the war crimes are mentioned in the introduction is that they are a necessary contrast to the reference to his Nobel "Peace" Prize. Without that information, the introduction gives the impression of Kissinger as a cherubic champion of peace, which is far from the truth.
And there is a great deal of bias of the opposite sort throughout Wikipedia. Go and look at Talk:Stalin, where there's a discussion of the vastly different treatment given to Churchill and Stalin in their respective articles. Shorne 04:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think part of the reason Churchill (despite that bit I've read about him blessing the use of chemical weapons against rebel Arabs) is regarded as morally superior to Stalin in an objective encyclopedia is because he didn't preside over a state that terrorized significant sectors of its own population. He also didn't subject half of Europe to totalitarian rule for a half century. Trey Stone 09:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then, please, look up the evidence to support your claim. Only the statements of Cristopher Hutchins aren't enough to call him a war criminal. As I said before, I'll be happy to support a mention of war crimes, if it's backed up with references and mention of the people doing the accusing (besides Hutchins. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 07:53, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
His name is Christopher Hitchens, not Cristopher Hutchins, and the evidence in his series in The Atlantic Monthly is already cited. Unless you have a complaint about the quality of the material itself (it seems that you haven't even read it), I cannot accept your dismissal of Hitchens as a source. Shorne 09:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I see a paragraph has been included that clearly explains the accusations. I'll suggest a new sentence to use in the lead section. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)) If you're from the USA, KIS would have to be a police-action criminal :-)

Further note: David Greenberg's review of The Trials of Henry Kissinger mirrors my thinking somewhat [2] Mackensen 09:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Realpolitik junk aside, this war criminal charge is not fictitious mumbo jumbo. Kissinger is wanted for questioning in several places (Chile and Argentina for example, and I think Spain as well), and it's probable that the only reason he hasn't been charged anywhere is that people are waiting for him to be in an opportune spot first. This is not an unfamiliar concept; we've all seen this movie. Hitchens says that there are some countries where he is unable to travel because they cannot guarantee his immunity from prosecution and takes legal advice before traveling anywhere.[3]. Graft 17:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
France, Spain, Chile, and Argentina have issued subpoenas for Kissinger, all of which he ignored. The French issued one to him concerning the disappearance of five French citizens in Chile under Pinochet; he immediately turned around and left the country and as far as I know has not returned. So, Kissinger is very much afraid of prosecution. Graft 17:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Where I'm from, the notion that K has been accused of war crimes is commonplace. That doesn't by itself make him guilty of course...


Stargoat, why are you reinstating the wording I have opposed so strenuously, and then labelling it the "best solution"? It seems to me you are basically siding with Shorne (?), which I didn't expect of you. The survey, especially now, is inconclusive to say the least, even if I thought a survey was a useful way of working through wording disputes. VeryVerily 00:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV, I don't care if you stenuously oppose something. I'm not concerned with personality, rather I'm concerned with NPOV. Kissinger has been accused by individuals of warcrimes. There's nothing there that isn't true. In fact, it is quite important. Most people who do not know anything about Kissinger will visit the article precisely because of these claims. To not say something about this would be dishonest. Stargoat 12:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree. No such charge is in the intros of George W. Bush or Tony Blair. Unless convicted or at least tried by a recognized court, these are empty accusations anyone could make. Putting them in a short, factual intro is out of place. Now, saying that he is controversial is a different matter, as that is verifiable, notable, and true; the war crimes talk, however, is just hot air. VeryVerily 05:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bush and Blair haven't been awarded Nobel "Peace" Prizes. These days, however, nothing would surprise me. Shorne 07:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, at any rate, we say something, indeed plenty, about this, in the article body, which can have a section on criticisms. But this was not my question. You seemed to be looking for a "best solution", presumably to solve the edit war, but you were basically giving the kitchen sink to the opposition, which doesn't strike me as a solution at all. VeryVerily 10:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We're not giving anything away. A solution in Wiki isn't a prize to be had. Kissinger is a very controversial person. He's done things that people think constitute war crimes. I do not believe that Kissinger has done anything that could be construed as a war crime, but many people do. (Personally, I think that the charges are made by a nutbag. Kissinger won the Cold War by convincing the Chinese to move into the American Camp and force a tremendous jackup in Soviet spending, as well as force the Soviets to contend with Chinese supplied Afghans during the Soviet Afghan War.) As such, it's an important part of the article. If something needs to be in the article, it would be a toning down of the Hitchen Charges in the political history section. Some of the verbage in that section does not even attempt to approach a NPOV. Stargoat 17:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then we're agreed that Hitchens' charges are not significant? Then why force them on the intro? What is wrong with merely saying he is a controversial figure, which is notable and verifiable, not frivolous charges by a maverick commentator? VeryVerily 23:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because Hitchens' charges have come to define part of Kissinger in the modern consciousness. Stargoat 02:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Argentine deal needs to have a fuller quote. Here:

"Let me say, as a friend, that I have noticed that military governments are not always the most effective in dealing with these problems. ...So after a while, many people who don't understand the situation begin to oppose the military and the problem is compounded. The Chileans, for example, have not succeeded in getting across their initial problem and are increasingly isolated. You will have to make an international effort to have your problems understood. Otherwise, you, too, will come under increasing attack. If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. But you must get back quickly to normal procedures."

I gotta say too that I don't see how turning a blind eye to some of our allies' abuses is the same thing as _committing_ war crimes. The U.S. did not attack East Timor or torture Latinos. You can obviously argue that it's horrible to not stand up to this kind of brutality, but it does not make someone a war criminal.

I seriously doubt East Timor was high on our list of priorities at the time, anyhow, and don't know if condemning and sanctioning them would have made a difference in their actions.

And I think that it is fine to include Hitchens' critique (while it definitely goes way over the top, IMO) in the article, but it should not be in the intro. Maybe Europeans associate him with war crimes, but if you asked the average American with some political knowledge they'd probably say "brilliant foreign-policy strategist" or that he was a part of the breakthrough with China. You wouldn't get "supported violent anti-Communist governments in the Southern Cone." Trey Stone 16:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And given the fact that Kissinger is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant and influential foreign-policy minds of our time (and the architect of détente,) I think the ridiculously shrill "Serial Kissinger" crowd should not have a monopoly on the links at the bottom. Also the fact that war crimes accusations take up more than 1/2 of the page -- does anyone think that an objective Kissinger biography would devote that much those arguments, all of which are flawed in different ways and to different degrees? Trey Stone 00:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you view him as "brilliant" and "influential" and are very interested in, say, contextualizing the death of hundreds of thousands of Cambodian peasants, and it's not "objective" to dwell on such terrifying crimes. Maybe you feel that Kissinger's role in these and other tragedies is trumped by other aspects of his life and politics. I disagree. I think it's also a bit off for you to call Kissinger's critics "shrill". Shall I call you something? Graft 06:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much of Hitchens' accusations against the K-man are extremely flawed (particularly the stuff regarding Vietnam, which has been rehashed again and again) and he devotes an entire section of his "case" to an extremely sloppy case that Kissinger may have been willing to casually allow the Greek Regime of the Colonels to kidnap and murder dissident journalist Elias Demetracopoulos in D.C. (considering that Kissinger's critics portray him as a kind of sinister intellectual, I really don't know why he'd be that stupid) as well as hypothesizing in the end that Kissinger may have made the foreign-policy decisions he did to enhance his chance of profitting from certain corporations (an equally lame charge.) And Kissinger's expertise in the field went pretty much undisputed (as his academic record as described in the intro shows.) Whether people agree with him or not is a different matter.

I too am sad about all those Cambodian peasants, but somehow I don't think you feel the same indignation about the Khmer Rouge than you do about the mad doctor. Trey Stone 09:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if arguments on this page would cease quoting body counts. It's inflammatory and does little to resolve the salient questions. Henry Kissinger did not go to Cambodia and murder people. Kissinger, as National Security Advisor, had no executive authority. Kissinger has not been charged by the International Criminal Court with war crimes. Kissinger is a highly controversial figure because of his position in several American administrations. Kissinger has been accused by Christopher Hitchens of committing war crimes. Mr. Hitchens is well-known for his deliberate sensationalism and while that does not automatically discount his points it does beg mention. An article in The Atlantic (although an excellent publication) does not a war criminal make. On these grounds, I think we're quite right to keep the introduction as is. Mackensen (talk) 07:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Exactamundo. By that same token we should've hanged Lyndon Johnson for his approval of the '64 military coup in Brazil. It just doesn't work that way folks. Trey Stone 09:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kissinger had no formal executive authority, but any "objective" biography would acknowledge that he had an extraordinary role in controlling the foreign policy agenda of the Nixon Administration. Anyway, my intent here is not to try Kissinger, merely to point out that there are differences of opinion as to the importance of various of Kissinger's actions. I apologize if quoting body counts is gauche - I do think they highlight the degree of the crime.
I also apologize to Trey for being rather snippy - bad mood. As to the Khmer Rouge, not that it really matters, but I don't have selective blinders. Mass murder is no better if committed by Maoists.
A final note on war crimes - it should be obvious that Kissinger does not need to go to Cambodia to be guilty of war crimes. Personally, I'd like a world where the powerful are uniformly held more accountable for their power. We can't do this if we fetishize their decisions as some sort of diplomatic chess game rather than actions with real, moral consequences. Graft 14:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You make good points, Graft. The difficulty is that we cannot make moral judgments when writing the article. I have no problem whatsoever with fully documenting the allegations against Kissinger in the body of the article, but they have no place in the introduction unless he is actually tried and/or convicted by the ICC or similar body. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your point about the "chess game" is well taken but the fact is is that's what both sides essentially did during the Cold War. If you start connecting each side to semi-proxy or proxy governments it supported, you could accuse a whole mess of people of war crimes (although I do realize that in this case Hitchens is accusing Kissinger of doing more than just "supporting" iffy governments) Trey Stone 01:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Trey. Although I consider myself "Pro-Kissinger", you might want to take a look at your edits in the thoughts section and look through them with a thought for NPOV. They're probably going to raise some questions. Otherwise, nice addition. Stargoat 04:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New discussion so I don't have to scroll up

Is there an objective link verifying 600,000 Cambodian war dead specifically from U.S. aerial assault? (I know this may sound like an attack, but I seriously do not know, and when I google it I just get that Rummel guy, don't know about his reliability.) And I had to cut out those excessive bits in the intro to that section. It could certainly be a war crime if U.S. bombs killed that many people, but we have to realize that the purpose was to eradicate NVA and Viet Cong resources in the area, not just say "war crimes that killed millions" as if that's it. The impact of the bombings on innocent peasants is already mentioned in Hitchens' ultra-professional list, anyhow. Trey Stone 05:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Working on it - the source seems to be the CIA via Chomsky, but I think it might actually represent the number of dead from 1969-1979, which needless to say includes a lot more than just the US bombing. I'll hopefully be able to tell you more shortly. Graft 07:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay... Chomsky says the CIA study is not very worthwhile, and is the source of the 600,000 number. He also says that a work by Gary Porter and George Hildebrand ("Starvation and Revolution", 1976) was his source for an article on Cambodia, where he corrects the number of deaths attributed to US bombing from 200,000 dead (as quoted by some french guy Ponchaud) to 200,000 casualties, for which he cites P&H. How many of those are "dead", i'm not sure. Chomsky seems to like the source, calling it "careful", "well-documented", etc. Take from that what you will. Graft 20:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think I can say with some certainty that Kissinger being "complicit" in 600,000 Cambodian peasant deaths is an exaggeration. Rummel's figures have been said to be too high at times, but he puts the war dead at 429,000. Breaking down the war dead, we also have to keep in mind that in addition to the U.S. bombings, (which, it can be argued, furthered instability) there was a Khmer Rouge insurgency against Sihanouk and later Gen. Lon Nol, which I'm sure was responsible for several deaths. Of course people dead from hunger resulting from destruction will drive the casualties up, but if that's included it needs to be specified. Trey Stone 05:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge killing picked up pace after the US bombing stopped, as far as my dim understanding of events goes (I really need to read a good book on this), but I still don't think it's possible to separate everything out cleanly since no one did any studies until much later. Graft 07:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes I try to read political/history books (most recently Mark Falcoff's "Cuba: The Morning After" but I always get bored fast. Trey Stone 02:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dates

The article does not give the dates of his tenure as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Where is the listing about being a board member of Freeport McMoRan and its genocide program in West Papua. There is such a thing as 'Conflict of Interest' -- to advise the US President to act like a whore to please the Indonesian President, only to then accept vast 'consulting' fees & board membership of companies which are guilty of huge human rights abuses in Indonesia... He has made millions by steering the US into support of the Indonesian genocide of the Melanesian people and military occupation of Aceh and Borneo as well as the Moluccas & West Papua.

What're you rambling on about? J. Parker Stone 06:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Urine drinking

Moderators seems to have removed my posting about Kissinger being a urine drinker. My posting was: It is also rumored that Kissinger drinks his own urine. These allegations are corroborated by Rev. Korda who depicts Kissinger as a "urine drinker".[4] This posting not only provides a useful piece of information, but an insight into Kissinger's personality. elcidcampeador

And what insight, pray tell, does this piece of information provide? -- Viajero 18:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed your piece for two reasons:

  1. The source you cite is not a credible resource.
  2. There is no corroborating evidence anywhere.

These are normal standards for information to be included in wikipedia. —thames 20:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Introduction, War Crimes, Hitchens

First of all: the intro paragraph on this page is extremely weak. It doesn't mention anything about why Kissinger is important, or what he managed to accomplish during his service to presidents Nixon and Ford. That someone of absolutely no comparative weight, like Christopher Hitchens, a man who has accomplished zilch, and changed the world in no way whatsoever, is mentioned in the 3rd sentence is absurd. Kissinger's alledged war crimes certainly do deserve mention in the intro, however, he has been accused of war crimes by everyone and their brother—it matters very little at this point whether some clown named Christopher Hitchens wrote a book denouncing Kissinger. If you want to add more weight to the intro text blurb on war crimes, mention some of the crimes he's been accused of, don't throw in Hitchen's name like he's some sort of important figure in world-history.

And while we're at it, the actual text of this article is a black eye for wikipedia. It mentions very little of what Kissinger actually did or accomplished, and gives equal time to people who accuse him of war crimes. It seems to me, that if we are presenting ourselves as an encyclopedia, we ought to at least mention the various things Kissinger did, and his importance to modern history, before rushing headlong into specious (and poorly researched) criticism of the man. —thames 19:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kissinger is not known for WAR CRIMES

Look, people, you can think it's true all you want, Hitchens can think it's true all he wants, I don't care. But the fact is that this does not belong in the intro, because it is not what Kissinger is known for, or what he is primarily criticized for. He is criticized:

a) as a Vietnam hawk who unnecessarily extended the war by the Left, and b) as a Cold War pussy who's policy of détente was bullshit by the Right.

Those are the primary criticisms, so if you want to mention a criticism of him in the intro it should be those two, not "Hitchens says he tried to get the Greek junta to assassinate a Greek-American dissident" or somesuch loaded nonsense. De-Chomskidize 21:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect most people in the world, particularly in Latin America and Asia, think of Kissinger as an unindicted war criminal first and foremost. Again, you are generalising from your own views.AndyL

I suspect most Latinos don't give a shit and a shingle about Mr. Kissinger. You are generalizing from your own left-wing perspective. The Negotiator 05:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Negotiator/De-Chomskidize. Please read the wikipedia policy on sock puppets. It's not acceptable to create phantom userids in order to buttress your views on talk pages or in editing. AndyL 05:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kissinger is widely known as an alleged war criminal; Google and Lexis-Nexis provide plenty of evidence of this. Whether you agree with the charges or not is irrelevant. I've named Hitchens because wherever possible we want to improve upon weasel words by naming specific critics (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words), and Hitchens is probably the critic who has been most persistent in making these charges. RadicalSubversiv E 00:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Look, the intro text can skip mentioning Hitchens. His accusations are covered in (unnecessary) depth below. The point is: when people want to know something about Henry Kissinger, we shouldn't introduce Hitchens as if he were some major figure in Kissinger's life/work/history/public-perception or anything. Like I said above, Hitchens is a relative nothing compared to Kissinger, or even compared to Kissinger's major detractors. Hitchens is mentioned below in the article, and that's enough. Keep the war crimes and other criticisms in the intro text, but remove Hitchens. One "peacock" statement will not be the end of the world (peacock-aversion is not official policy either). —thames 02:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"I suspect most Latinos don't give a shit and a shingle about Mr. Kissinger" Tell that to the families of the disappeared in Chile, to the families of those killed in the invasion of East Timor or to the victims of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (which Kissinger helped bring to power). AndyL 06:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I doubt you feel the same empathy for false victims of Che and Castro's prisons/firing squads, or those enslaved by Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe.
BTW, Chile's doing just fine now without any Allende-engineered "social justice" (or economic disaster,) if you didn't notice.
And stop the BS about "helped bring the KR to power." If anything, you should blame the Vietcong for violating Sihanouk's fake "neutrality."
Hitchens is one of the few self-proclaimed and avowed Socialist's who after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union has openly expressed penenence for ever giving serious credence to a flawed doctrine that brought so much misery to human beings. Hitchens, however, has one problem remaining, he invested to much credibilty, hyperbole and viciousness over decades, not to mention lawsuits, that he cannot backdown now over this one single matter and say "I was wrong", because it would be an admission of libel. Much of his vociferous denunciation of Kissinger is what made Chritopher Hitchens Christopher Hitchens.nobs

User:Trey Stone

FYI everyone: User:De-Chomskidize is a "sockpuppet" of User:Trey Stone, who created that account to evade a 24 hr block, which should still be in effect. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trey Stone. WebLuis 05:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Delita Hyral seems to be a sock as well; I've just reverted her/him. RadicalSubversiv E 07:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The evidence for "war crimes" has severe flaws and is a view contested by several. As such, it does not merit mention in the intro.
Furthermore, other than Chile, the most you can say about Kissinger in Latin America is that he turned a blind eye to military abuses in favor of stability and anti-Communism, and that is not intervention. Delita Hyral 10:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fidel Castro needs NPOVing as well; he reverted all of my recent edits explained on talk, again by using sockpuppets. WebLuis 08:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Anyone who can prove the POV in my recent edits regarding "war crimes," Latin America, and Indonesia, go right ahead. I have fully justified each change, either here or in History. J. Parker Stone 06:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are making three major changes:
  1. Changing the lead paragraph to say that Kissinger's involvement in Latin American covert ops was limited to Chile and the CIA. I'm no expert in this topic, but until you give some form of supporting evidence or documentation, I'm going to trust Thames, who does not appear to be a POV warrior.
Where else did we intervene? The most extensive covert project (and also the only) we had in Latin America was directed against Allende. Maintaining good diplomatic relations with Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay is not intervention. While reasonable people can disagree on the "war crimes" charge I think the evidence is conclusively on my side in this one. J. Parker Stone 05:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Describe Indonesian action in East Timor as "massacres" rather than "genocide". Again, you've provided no justification of any sort, and journalists and scholars routinely use the g-word when speaking of East Timor. We're talking about the deaths of as much as 250,000 people in a nation whose total population today is just over 1 million; that's roughly the same scale as the Khmer Rouge.
There was constant conflict and deaths from starvation. I'm not defending Suharto, it's more like a technicality. I concede this point somewhat, but I'm still iffy. Genocide means they wanted to exterminate the entire nationality, and a more likely explanation was that they engaged in brutally indiscriminate tactics to combat pro-independence East Timorese. J. Parker Stone 06:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I mean, a lot of people died from Stalinism, but his actions are not universally agreed to be "genocide" because they targeted suspected political opponents. While I'm sure there were plenty of East Timorese killed who did not represent a serious threat to the Indonesian Army, that does not change the fact that there was constant conflict between the nationalists and Suharto's forces.
  1. Removing any mention of war crimes accusations in the introductions. Your justification for this is that you consider such accusations to be untrue. That's irrelevant, because our NPOV policy demands the inclusion of all different significant perspectives -- regardless of what individual editors think of them.

RadicalSubversiv E 06:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If a perspective is loaded with inaccurate information (as Hitchens's is) we cannot include it in the intro like it is plain fact. That's like saying "Opponents have frequently drawn comparisons between Dubya and Hitler" in the W. article is necessary because we have to represent the far Left.
Furthermore, just because some people believe something, does not mean we should include it if it is factually inaccurate. The war crimes charges are better suited for below, where they are analyzed, not just shoved down your throat at the intro. J. Parker Stone 06:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The phrasing does not state that Kissinger is a war criminal; it states that he has frequently been accused of of war crimes. This is not the least bit analogous to wingnut comparisons of Bush to Hitler. A Lexis-Nexis search of major daily papers finds hundreds of articles mentioning such accusations in the last decade. RadicalSubversiv E 07:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's because he's been out of the spotlight for so long, and Hitchens's exaggerated charges focused it back on him in a new way. As it is not what he is known for, it does not warrant mention in the intro, and the fact that Hitchens's ramblings have such severe flaws further disqualifies it. And you can't weasel out of it by saying "he has been accused of war crimes" -- this just gives off the impression that it's widely accepted in the intro. It's like me putting "Bush has been accused of promoting torture" in the intro -- while it may not be entirely false, it's intended to influence the reader's opinion in its favor. Furthermore, it is only a vocal minority that accuse him of war crimes. J. Parker Stone 07:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think that unless we're going to substantially condense the section so that it doesn't take up 50+% of the article, a separate article may be necessary. As I have said, Kissinger is not primarily known for "war crimes." J. Parker Stone 05:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, many of the people attacking Kissinger (such as the guy who wrote the LA Times op-ed) have ALWAYS been staunchly against the Vietnam War and anti-Nixon -- just because they can make noise, does not mean they speak the objective truth. J. Parker Stone 17:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition to continuing to remove war crimes accusations, despite a clear consensus for their inclusions, Trey's latest changes to the lead are problematic in several fronts. Helping to engineer a bloody military coup is not "approving of CIA intervention in Chilean politics". Violent military dictatorships are not merely "anti-Communist governments". I don't really have the time or knowledge to rewrite the lead, but the present phrasing is totally unacceptable. RadicalSubversiv E 21:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This just shows your obvious bias (and we did not help "engineer" anything, unless less-than-friendly economic relations and diplomatic recognition equates to coup-plotting in your mind). Josef Stalin may have been friends with some particularly psychotic Eastern European and East Asian Communist states, but we don't put that in the intro. The fact that Argentina was ruled by a violent military regime is mentioned in the section about Kissinger and Argentina. J. Parker Stone 03:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Mr. Subversive's standards for "serious case" mean "a case that agrees with my own." J. Parker Stone 19:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it means a "case that is consistent with Wikipedia policy and the consensus of other editors". It has been clearly demonstrated that Kissinger has been repeatedly accused of war crimes -- enough so for Google (and Lexis Nexis) to turn up thousands of mentions. This is notable information about Kissinger which readers should be able to learn from the lead paragraph. Your only stated reasons for removing it is that you strongly disagree with the accusations -- that's not compatible with the neutral point of view. RadicalSubversiv E 19:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I excluded it from the INTRO because it a) it is not what he is known for, b) putting the allegations in the intro makes them seem uncontroversial when in fact they are hotly disputed, and c) 100% of the people who make this accusation against Kissinger have some ideological beef with him. J. Parker Stone 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just Tell the Truth Has we Know It

Far too much of this article is concerned with accusations that can't be proved or disproved we should put the accussations on a separate page, The Henry Kissinger page should just contain a detailed timeline of Historicle and diplomatic events that occurred during kissingers period in office.

By historians' standards of proof? Not really, no, there's significant documentation. And such a timeline could still be argued up and down the track and would be. (use four tildes to sign, please, M. anonymous.) Schissel : bowl listen 18:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and Why

Love him or hate him, Kissinger is a serious historical figure and deserves a more serious treatment than an assertion he's a war criminal. Who says he is? There must be some folks with substantial knowledge of Kissinger without liberal or conservative ideological baggage who can re-write all of this. Lagavulin 23:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh and the "Accusations against Kissinger" section is longer than the outrageous allegations made against me by one of my ex-wives and her carnivore lawyer. This article due to its length and miserable tone borders on being as bad as the Oliver North trash article. I admire Chris Hitchens very much, I think he has a real integrity but I doubt even with his perspective he would write such a blatantly partial encyclopedia article if invited to do so. Lagavulin 23:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update

In the interests of good faith, I've just posted an RFC about including war crimes intro. However, I think this situation is getting a little ridiculous, for two reasons:

  1. Trey is the only non-sockpuppet editor who wants to remove the mention. He has been reverted by a half-dozen editors, and backed up by none (except Lagavulin, whose disappearance fairly well confirms his role as a sock of either JoeM or Libertas, both banned).
  2. He has yet to cite any Wikipedia policy which justifies his position.

Also, I'd still like to deal with the concerns about inaccuracy in the other intro language (see above).

RadicalSubversiv E 22:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You cannot use NPOV policy as a catch-all for "include everything said about him." Much of the "war crimes" charges are extremely sketchy. Putting them in the intro makes them seem uncontroversial, when in fact they have only promulgated by a vocal minority.

They do not belong in the intro, just like human rights abuses of Fidel Castro don't belong in his intro (I'm sure there're a lot more charges of "crimes against humanity" for Castro but we don't put it there do we?), possible Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam War deception not included in LBJ intro, and that sexual harassment deal against Bill O'Reilly not in his intro. What this is is that apparently a sizable amount of interested wikipedians including yourself don't particularly like Kissinger and want to edit the article to your liking and make it focus on war crimes charges (which I regret expanding upon in that section, but at least some of the BS has a rebuttal) instead of what he is known for, which is ending the Vietnam War, helping pave the way for Chinese Communist liberalization, détente, and mediating the end to the Yom Kippur War. No history book would list "war crimes" as along with those as what Kissinger is known for, so why should we? J. Parker Stone 23:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually "include everything said about him" is as far as I've understood it the essence of NPOV, though it doesn't merit inclusion of extremely obscure claims. The accusations of war crimes are not obscure claims, though. A lot of people hold them to be valid and this should be mentioned.
The intro should at least mention that he has been accused of war crimes, but only in a sentence or two. Trey, remember that Wikipedia is not your average history book. We're allowed to mention any claims about a person that might not be true as long as we do it neutrally. The only violation of NPOV would be if we supressed the accusations or actually tried to say that they were in fact true.
I could also reccommend that we change the section title "Accusations against Henry Kissinger" to "Accusations of war crimes" or something a bit more specific. Peter Isotalo 11:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Note that Trey is now greatly "condensing" the details of the war crimes charges themselves, without any particular justification beyond the fact that he wrote some of them. RadicalSubversiv E 13:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The justification is that they take up two-thirds of the fucking page. J. Parker Stone 21:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trey, please don't keep reverting the intro to your POV. The controversy around Kissinger precisely concerns the suggestions that he is responsible for war crimes. You are seeking to remove mention of the controversy, but mentioning it, in accurate terms, is precisely what NPOV dictates. Grace Note 03:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. A lot of libs hate him over 'nam, but they probably wouldn't agree with the war crimes charge. J. Parker Stone 03:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the page. Discuss your changes here. I am not suggesting that there are not "libs" who think he has other things to answer for. What I am saying is that it is not in dispute that his record has led to calls for him to be tried for war crimes. Do you, in fact, dispute that? By saying that the charges have been called for, we are in no way endorsing them. Just reporting the facts, ma'am.Grace Note 03:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My problem is that they are not what Kissinger is primarily known for, and are mostly promulgated by vocal left-wing sites. If you asked the avg. American (hell, the average anyone) they probably would be unaware of this material. Now before you say "OMG PROMOTING IGNORANCE" I'm just saying this because I think it says something about the validity of the charges. The most serious charges, I would say, are that he conspired to murder Schneider (which documents have cast serious doubt upon) and that he arranged for the butchering of the East Timorese by Suharto (true to an extent, but you'd have to blame the whole admin. for this, and even then, equally morally controversial stuff like Rios Montt, The Argentine Generals, RENAMO, et. al are not mentioned in Reagan's intro despite the fact that the same Hitchens has accused him of supporting anti-Communist gangsters.) The fact is is that Kissinger is much more well known for detente and the Sino-American alliance than war crimes, and the serious questions about their validity says to me that they should be excluded from a spot in the intro. J. Parker Stone 03:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, a Lexis-Nexis search of major daily newspapers turns up literally hundreds of references to Kissinger and war crimes. The charges are notable -- you simply disagree with them, and seem to think that allows you to impose your POV on the article. RadicalSubversiv E 04:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As opposed to the users who want to put them in the intro because they've swallowed all the charges hook line and sinker. J. Parker Stone 05:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The intro says he has been accused of war crimes, not that he is a war criminal. We take no position on the charges. You want us not even to mention the accusation.Grace Note 05:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not interested in what the average American knows so much as I am in what we can teach him or her. It seems to me that you are not disputing that his record has made him a controversial figure. So it's just the war crimes thing.
Well, it's not just leftwing sites is it? It's Belgium and Spain. It's, I believe, France too. Holland. Kissinger is considered by many Europeans to be a fugitive, a wanted man. It's Hitchens -- no leftwinger by anyone's measure. The war crimes thing is fairly widely recognised, more than 58,000 hits for "Kissinger 'war crimes'" on Google. There's an article in Salon, several in the Guardian, that I know of. There may be no substance to the accusations, but that they are made, and made widely, cannot be disputed.
If you wanted to add other things, fine, but the war crimes thing is really not disputable. I understand why politically you don't want him to be associated with accusations of war crimes but the truth is that he is. Remove lies, yes, add more truth, yes. But remove the truth? Sorry, I for one am going to revert that kind of editing. Grace Note 04:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about Belgium and Holland (though I can guess,) but Spain had a socialist government voted in and France is the anti-American Eurocapital of the world. Furthermore, Salon and the Guardian are much more to the left of more respectable liberal magazines, such as the New Republic. J. Parker Stone 05:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're just being silly. Whether Spain has a socialist government (it actually has what you'd more accurately describe as a centre-left government) does not affect whether it thinks Kissinger is a war criminal. As I've said, we're not endorsing the charges, just saying they've been made. France's being "anti-American" does not make it a leftwing website, Trey. Indeed, last time I looked, it had a rightist elected leader. Suggesting the Guardian is not a respected liberal newspaper doesn't help your cause. It simply makes you sound rabid.Grace Note 05:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well excuse me if not placing that much credibility in the Guardian makes me rabid, but they've been known (particularly editorially) to have some problems. As for the Spanish govt., perhaps I should clarify by saying that certain sectors of the Spanish populace have a very anti-American perspective. And of course this matters -- because the more you distrust America, the more likely you'll accept trumped-up charges like Hitchens's at face value. And I would not call a Prime Minister who labelled neoliberalism "the new communism" a rightist. I don't know the French standards of left and right, but I do know that, at least in terms of foreign policy, Chirac is considered left-wing in America. J. Parker Stone 06:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What "problems" does the Guardian have? It doesn't share your POV on some issues but that hardly makes it not reputable. Who is or is not "anti-American" does not have any bearing on whether charges have been laid at Kissinger's door!
at least in terms of foreign policy, Chirac is considered left-wing in America. That's absolute nonsense. Can you provide a reputable source for that? What does it even mean? Chirac is famously right wing. He didn't suddenly become a communist simply because he opposed the invasion of Iraq. Grace Note 06:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who was talking about being rabid again?
I already explained why "anti-American" is indeed an issue. Personally, I don't care about Chirac. I do care about the general French attitude, which is one extremely cynical and critical of the United States. This can cloud your judgment, if you always assume that a country has ulterior motives.
The Guardian is known as a left-wing newspaper, substantially moreso than the most biased mainstream American ones.
My point is that both objective and conservative sources have provided a counterbalance to these wildly exaggerated "war crimes" charges -- they just have been comparatively silent relative to those on the other side. What we have here is people who want people reading this encyclopedia to get the impression that Kissinger is as well-known for war crimes as he is for his diplomatic shrewdness, which is simply not true. J. Parker Stone 06:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why have Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Stuart Eizenstat, Harold Brown, and Lawrence H. Summers agreed to serve on a Task Force Commission under a War Criminal? [5] Maybe we need to add that to their bio's, "served on Task Forces Chaired by Henry Kissinger, the accused War Criminal..." Nobs 04:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You'll need to ask those people why they associate with Kissinger. Whatever their answer, it will remain entirely true that Kissinger has been accused of war crimes.Grace Note 05:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I guess anyone can corroborate it then, that Laura D'Andrea Tyson voluntarily is serving right now on a Task Force chaired by accused war criminal Henry Kissinger, that is important biographical information for the Laura Tyson page. Nobs 05:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit dim. Not only do I not have the faintest idea who Laura Tyson is but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Would you mind spelling it out for me?Grace Note 06:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point is obvious -- if the war crimes charges were supposedly so clear as day (as Hitchens wants people to believe,) why would intellectual people (presumably aware of the controversy -- you guys said it yourselves) want to work with him?
What makes this so ridiculous is that if you keep this in here, it would necessitate adding that Reagan is considered a war criminal (albeit by a smaller group) to his own article, given that his administration supported the mujahadeen and the Contras, and (to a lesser extent) RENAMO, Videla, and Efrain Rios Montt. In fact you could probably make the case that because the anti-Communist groups supported by Reagan tended to engage in wanton violence, he's MORE of a war criminal than Kissinger. But we obviously WON'T put that in there because it's blatant POV. Just because Kissinger has received the most attention for this, doesn't mean clearly flawed info deserves a spot in the intro. J. Parker Stone 06:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does being an "intellectual" make one unlikely to work with people accused of war crimes? Hardly. Some "intellectuals" have even committed them! I'm perfectly happy for you to add to the Reagan article that he is considered by some to be a war criminal. If you can source the POV that he is one, all the better. Shouldn't be too hard. You'll note, Trey, that the only case I am making is that Kissinger has been accused of war crimes, not that he is a war criminal. So far as I'm aware, no one has actually tried him yet.Grace Note 06:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well I could put that Fidel Castro imprisoned 20,000 Cubans lightning-quick after the covert U.S. bombing incident and later rounded up thousands more, but I won't. Just because something is true, does not mean it belongs in the intro. J. Parker Stone 06:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You could put it and it would be reverted. You'd be involved in another edit war to no great purpose.Grace Note 07:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, get back to me once you find out where those people stand on Kissinger's war criminal status...<lol> J. Parker Stone 06:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why? If Laura whatsit agrees that Kissinger has been accused of being a war criminal will you stop reverting the intro? Grace Note 07:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you've run out of what (little) substance you had. J. Parker Stone 07:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, man, but your point seems to be that he hasn't been accused of being a war criminal (except by communist France) because some "intellectuals" are on a panel with him. Albert Speer was an intellectual, Trey, Joseph Mengele held two doctorates, Pol Pot was an intellectual. And you, Trey, are making a halfhearted appeal to authority, which is well and good but the fact remains that our article says he is accused of war crimes, which is true no matter who disagrees that he was one, not that he is one. Grace Note 13:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Clinton Economic Adviser has more to lose than Kissinger. Perhaps Secretary of Treasury under the next President, Hillary Clinton, or an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board. She's a rising star. Kissinger is a has been. Wait till he's dead and can't respond, then the gloves will come off and we'll here what his critics really think. Laura Tyson has much more to lose, her career is ahead of her. Doesn't look good an a resume: "Currently serves on a Task Force Commission for the CFR chaired by accussed Vietnam era war criminal, Henry Kissinger". And she knew he was an accused war criminal when she voluntarily accepted the job, cause anyone can check out the source information. Must be an opportunist just trying to further her career.

Won't look good on Stuart Eizenstat's (Clinton White House adviser) bio page either. Or Harold Brown (Carter Defence Secretary). Or Golda Meir, I guess we have to rewrite her page too, seeing she willing trusted a known war criminal and had all kinds of nice things to say about him. How about Diane Sawyer of ABC and Helen Thomas of the White House Press Coprs, all trusted confidants of a war criminal. In fact we'll have to rewrite the biographical pages of several Senators of the Majority party at that time that confirmed Kissinger as Secretary of State, seeing they had to have known of his war crimes but confirmed him anyway. I may need some assistance in this project. Thx. nobs 16:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could understand your point. You're suggesting that we shouldn't include any mention that Kissinger has been accused of war crimes because some people don't think he was one? How does that make him not accused? He's a very controversial figure. Lots of people associate with controversial figures. Don Rumsfeld has no problem finding people to golf with, but he's extremely controversial. What would you rather these figures' articles read: "He's a great guy. Diane Sawyer says so."?Grace Note 22:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point goes to the partisan nonsense of this debate. Obviously advocates who wish to use innuendo do not understand the fire they are playing with. Anyone ever connected with Henry Kissinger can likewise be smeared with the same garbage they are smearing him with. And those advocating the use of innuendo as some sort of NPOV will not be very happy when the same garbage they wrote shows up on the pages of thier icons. Nobs 01:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, last try: we are not smearing him; we are reporting someone else's smear. That's what we do. You are right though. Trying to suppress our reporting of what people say about a person is very much partisan nonsense. Grace Note 01:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If he has been accused of anything, whether true or not, it MUST be here for completeness' sake. It might be nice to word it so people know what the majority of critics think (like saying "some say" instead of "many say", etc.) but it MUST BE HERE. You cannot just leave something out because you disagree with it. JFK was innocent of murder, but his page here details the charges even though they were later proven false. A charge is still a charge. Similarly, Kissinger may very well be innocent, but the charges MUST still be detailed here. Clear enough, I think. Especially since I have no part in this disagreement. I'm not exactly an official arbiter, but that makes sense to me. Here at Wikipedia we aim for completeness, rather than just "the truth". Master Thief Garrett 00:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But see, you wouldn't mention JFK's bogus murder in the INTRO. I'm A-OK with detailing Hitchens' charges below (though not overly in-depth), but sticking them in the intro makes it seem like he's known as well for war crimes as he is for Chinese diplomacy and Vietnam. J. Parker Stone 05:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, particularly so in Europe. He is a very controversial figure, reviled on the left and considered by many to be a criminal. I think an intro that made out he wasn't would be misleading. It's fine for you to dismiss his accusers as "communists" here on this talkpage, and you can compare him with God himself on your blog, if you have one, but WP reports the facts dispassionately. 06:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

the "facts," as the supporters of the charges want them to be known.

what about Henry Kissinger as the Antichrist?

Yes I know what you're thinking when you see the header, but no I'm not some religious nut. I just noticed that this article doesn't mention him supposedly being the Antichrist. Shouldn't this have at least some mention? There's a whole list of accusations, and I doubt an accusation list for Kissinger would be complete without the 666 issue. If it can be written in an NPOV way of course... Master Thief Garrett 12:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We'll put it with his beatification. How about that?Grace Note 13:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I cannot honestly say I know any *details* about the accusations, but I'm sure that would be fine! Master Thief Garrett 02:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't be Secretary of State or President of the beknighted states without some bozo adding up the letters in your name and getting 666. It would probably be encyclopedic if he *hadn't* been identified as the antichrist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! Just goes to show that *any* fame is good fame... and look at Monica Lewinsky, she recently presented a dating show (The Bachelorette?). Which is fairly ironic. Master Thief Garrett 23:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kissinger the flaming homosexual

I have heard from a very prestigious and reliable source (America (The Book)) that Henry Kissinger was a homosexual. I will not sit idly by while Wikipedia and its revisionist history covers up this vital fact. --BDD 22:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calling him a "flaming homosexual" makes this sound like it is intended as a very derogatory remark (? I may be wrong). However, it could be that it was merely overlooked, much like how no-one had yet thought of mentioning the Antichrist accusations. Sometimes you can overlook what you later on see as the most glaring and stupidly obvious things! Master Thief Garrett 23:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I quote from that page you just linked to. "America (The Book) ... is a 2004 humor book". I rest my case. Master Thief Garrett 23:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was being facetious. Sometimes after a long day of editing, (I don't know why I worked so hard on J. Hamilton Lewis) you just feel like saying something that's just made for the BJODM pages. Peace,BDD 11:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
hehe... I just assumed you were one of those nuts... since you aren't, it's not really a "legal" BJODM entry... hehe... Master Thief Garrett 11:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We could just attribute it to an anon. It's not like they'll be able to stick up for themselves anyway. Then we will rule Wikipedia! --BDD 03:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


THIS REFERENCE SOURCE IS FAST TURNING INTO A LOW CLASS TABLOID AND PROVIDES NO REAL INFORMATION OF ANY WORTH.

So fix it. Grace Note 09:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My GD case

has been made several times. i feel no need to discuss this any further. J. Parker Stone 20:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what "GD" stands for, but you have yet to cite a single Wikipedia policy in support of your position. Wikipedia is not a playground for edit-warring, it's an encyclopedia governed by editorial policies, which you need to respect if you want to edit here. RadicalSubversiv E 21:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

it's blatant POV pushing by people who want "allegations" (weasel word) of war crimes put up there with Kissinger's well-respected Cold War diplomacy. J. Parker Stone 21:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Allegations" isn't a weasel word. There's no grey area: either allegations of this kind have been made, or they haven't — and they have. I think it's appropriate to mention them briefly in the intro since Kissinger is very strongly associated with them. In the case of the articles on dictators which you mention, the fact that they are war criminals is less worthy of mention in the intro, simply because there is no controversy over the issue. However, I expect that if someone did mention that (say) Saddam Hussein is a war criminal in the intro to the article on him, no-one would object. Cadr 22:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Now Mackensen has degraded the intro to make it sound as though there have been a few loose insinuations about Kissinger, which are not worth attention because no court has indicted him. I'd like to see that reverted to the consensus version. There are serious allegations about Kissinger, which probably would result in his indictment in at least two places in this world, and anywhere in a sane one. Grace Note 00:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm offended that you construe my change as such (and please see my remarks above from last fall). Your comments suggest that you believe Kissinger should be indicted. Whether or not this is the case is beside the point. We need to report the facts of the matter, such as they are. Kissinger is controversial, Kissinger has been accused of war crimes by various critics, most notably Christopher Hitchens, and certain courts wish to question Kissinger. I feel that the version I've written is more nuanced. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What you've written is, to put it plainly, nonsense. The plain fact is that some have alleged he is guilty of war crimes. It's of no account that he hasn't been indicted -- that statement is addressed to editors of this article who want to include that plain fact in the intro, not to the reader. I construe your change as exactly what it is: an attempt to neuter and mute a POV you don't share instead of reporting it fairly. I am buggered if I'm going to waste any more time on this. Grace Note 03:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather amazed that you think I'm a rightist. I suppose by some metric I am, although I maintain that any man who voted for both Bill Clinton and John Kerry cannot be a rightist by every metric. You may also care to note that I heartily backed the RfC against Trey Stone, which would be odd if I was trying to push a right-wing POV. When you say "neuter and mute a POV you don't share" I have to wonder just exactly what you mean by that. We aren't supposed to be pushing any points of view here. The suggestion that my addition "neutered" a point-of-view would, in my mind, recommend its retention.
Moving along to the facts of the matter, although they've been stated before. As an aside, I recommend that you read my initial comments above; they predate your involvement with this project. Kissinger has been accused of war crimes. This is a very serious matter. War criminals include men like Adolf Hitler, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, and Saddam Hussein. War crimes involve atrocities of a very great magnitude. I think we can agree on that. Now, to repeat myself, Kissinger has been accused of war crimes. By whom? The most notable of his accusers is Christopher Hitchens, a fairly prominent journalist. There have also been attempts to extradite Kissinger for questioning (not for trial), none of these attempts has succeeded, insofar as I am aware. The reason for the second clause, which I believe is the source of your anger, concerns this lack of a trial. "War criminal" is a loaded term, and generally used to refer to those who have been tried and convicted by an internationally recognized body (i.e. the International Military Tribunal, the International Criminal Court). Kissinger has not been indicted by any such body, and I think this is an important point.
If you really do regard me as a right-wing crank, then you can do your cause no greater service then by answering each and every one of my points in detail. I'd also appreciate evidence to substantiate the strange idea that I'm a rightist. Perhaps a qualification, so that we're on the same page and know what that term means. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I can see Grace's point though in so far that the war crimes charges (which I, myself, believe Kissinger is guilty of) are not, and have not been, merely limited to "a few loose insinuations." And the respective revision does seem to suggest (imply) that, while not outright, in how it is worded; which is what, I think, GN is taking exception to. While I share his/her concerns, I do have a lot of confidence in the ability of both Mackensen and GN to arrive at an npov compromise on this (well, WP "npov" standards, which I neither claim as my own nor as truly 'npov'), and I appeal for calm, mutual respect, and open dialogue. Can I get anymore pompous and bombastic? (rhetorical: the answer is yase!). El_C 04:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for your (as always) reasonable words, El C. I think Trey Stone would regard said accusations as a "few loose insinuations"–I certainly wouldn't, and I never claimed that I did. My point has always been, however, that these accusations come from people who are critics of Kissinger anyway, and that he has not been charged in a court of law. When speaking of the term "war criminal," the latter takes on great significance. I will try and further re-word the introduction. As I made the change, I feel that the onus is on me to arrive at a compromise. I only ask that you, Grace Note, consider what has been said above and deal with me in good faith. Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with Mackensen's version. J. Parker Stone 05:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
About the current revision. It should be noted that not all Kissinger critics endorse this view, which is implied in the original wording. J. Parker Stone 05:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The fact is that allegations, accusations, whatever, have been made. They are serious accusations of serious crimes. Not on a Pol Pot scale, but crimes that led to many deaths, including the illegal bombing of Cambodia. They have not only been made by Hitchens but are widely made, including by parts of the legal establishment of some European countries. It is not a countering point that he has not been convicted by a court because the reasons for that are complicated and it does not in any case affect that allegations have been made. It is a salient fact about Kissinger that he is accused of war crimes. It is not actually particularly interesting that he hasn't been convicted because one would expect him not to have been. As I said to GMaxwell, one would not add to the statement "President Bush claims to be a peace president" that he has not won the Nobel Peace prize. It is the claim that is the thing, and one would give counterclaims, not the truth of the claim. Mackensen, your addition, and anything about whether he has nor has not been convicted, speaks to the truth of the claim. We do not, or should not, do that in WP. It's sadly common in articles where there is a right-left divide for both sides -- but in particular the rightist side -- to do that. I'm sorry if you felt slighted by the suggestion that you were motivated wrongly, but I do believe it to be the case. I think you are speaking to the truth of the allegations, which is not admissible, however strongly you believe the views to be false, and not the truth of the allegations' being made, which is salient here. Had you added a counterclaim, we would have a basis for discussion, but you did not. You added what you took to be a countering fact. Grace Note 04:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I fear that you've missed the point entirely. First of all, I'm going to restore the court claim, because I'd say that at least three editors (myself, Trey Stone, and Davenbelle) support its inclusion. Now, the point here is that these are accusations of crimes. Few would dispute that these actions took place--in Cambodia, in Chile, in Argentina, and so on. What is disputed is whether these are crimes–war crimes, in fact. A man cannot be declared a war criminal on the basis of a magazine article. Whether someone has committed war crimes is decided in court--much as any other criminal. Kissinger has not been tried, or even indicted, by any court. In some respects, this is indeed a counterclaim, to use your terminology. Hitchens has made what is essentially a legal accusation–and the efforts of several judges to question Kissinger support this idea. It is because Hitchens raised the debate to this level that we mention it in the intro--if it were sheer rhetoric, it could be included under the umbrella term "controversial." The fact that no court has--yet--indicted Kissinger is central to the matter.
On another note, I'm saddened that you continue to suggest that I'm a POV-pusher. What's even more insulting is that you're now implying that I'm doing it unintentionally, as though I'm some misguided schoolboy who doesn't know his own mind. Your example of President Bush is insulting to any intelligent person. A more comparable example would be "President Bush claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner." This is falsifiable--he hasn't won the Peace Prize and, the example of Kissinger notwithstanding, probably never will. Mackensen (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I would be fine with omitting the aside about Kissinger not having been convicted in a court — of course he won't be — many war criminals never face a court. Grace Note has a point that this is irrelevant to the factuality of the accusation having been made by many. — Davenbelle 05:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I for one agree with Grace Note and strongly oppose the court "spoiler" in the intro. It is essentially a technicality that he hasn't faced a judge yet. He himself acknowledges "errors" may have been made but questions whether the courts are the right way to address these issues. [6] Judges in Spain, France, Chile have tried to question him, and it appears that travel in Europe is unsafe for him for these days for these reasons. [7] It is highly unlikely that, for example, Alberto Fujimori or Augusto Pinochet will ever been convicted in court of any crimes, but this in no way diminishes the seriousness of the charges against them. -- Viajero 11:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I feel as though I'm not getting through here, and perhaps it's a lost cause. I should also like to note that if Grace Note had been friendlier about this I might not have felt so strongly about the matter. I still maintain, that when an article says in an intro that a man is accused of committing crimes (of any kind), it is useful and relevant to note that no legal authorities have actually done so (please note that a desire to question someone does not equate to that). I am also puzzled by the reference to this being a "spoiler." Am I to understand that the inclusion of factual information, which apparently "lessens" the charges, is unwanted? Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
While I disagree with Mackensen about the content, I agree with him that GN could have been friendlier. I think the point that Viajero brought wrt to HK's 'travel restrictions' might be the key to offset Mackensen's qualification, and satisfy all respective parties. Maybe not though. Just an idea. El_C 14:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

New proposal

Allow me to propose new wording here: Some of Kissinger's critics accuse him of committing war crimes while in government; although these allegations have not yet been proven in a court of law, it is considered legally dangerous for Kissinger to enter many countries.

How do people feel about that wording? I think it successfully conveys the point that Kissinger does face legal jeopardy (which I never disputed), while noting that he hasn't been brought to justice. Mackensen (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I like that, with one exception: I would like to see it mentioned (perhaps in parentheses) that these include also Western countries. El_C 21:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of Kissinger's critics accuse him of committing war crimes while in government; although these allegations have not yet been proven in a court of law, it is considered legally dangerous for Kissinger to enter many countries in Europe and South America. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I like that even better! But it just occured to me: do we really need to state that these allegations are waged by HK's critics? Can it not be seen as implied (inherently, as per the position of those directing the charges) ? Please let me know if you feel I'm engaging in sophistry. :) El_C 22:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer to avoid the passive voice when possible. I agree that it is implied (and somewhat obvious) that Kissinger's critics accuse him of these things, but I can see someone complaining down the line if we don't make it clear. Any other thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Nope. Overall, it's a good comrpomise. Well done! El_C 00:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This is rubbish. It's not a compromise at all. Given that I oppose Mackensen's insertion of his POV, which this still represents, albeit slightly dressed up, I don't see how there has been a compromise. I wasn't asking for a discussion of Kissinger's legal status -- quite the opposite. Put this into the war crimes section, yes, but not in the intro. This just serves to neuter the plain fact of the allegations. It's absolutely besides the point that he faces legal jeopardy. This simply answers the discussion we have had here. It is not information that needs to be in the introduction. The allegations are particularly noteworthy, not whether they are or are not actionable anywhere on the planet.

He has been accused of war crimes even if there is not a court on the planet that will try him for them. The allegations are taken seriously in many quarters -- seriously enough for that to be included in the intro -- but the legal ramifications of them are simply not noteworthy enough to bother mentioning. Yes, he would possibly be indicted if he went to a couple of countries, but this is not as salient a fact about him as that he won the Nobel Peace Prize!Grace Note 03:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see you prepared to discuss this with a bit less innuendo (i.e. rubbish, etc.), GN. Anyway, what I think it suggests is that there is a disunity there, among these ruling elements in different countries. On the one hand, he's advised not to travell to many countries where these allegation (read: truths) are taken seriously, and on the other, he's still walking as a free man in those ones that don't. So the two tend to compliment each other in depicting that reality, no? El_C 03:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Your stance at this juncture bewilders me. First of all, I think it is clear that most participants here favor the new wording. Kissinger's legal status is extremely important--a point which I believe you made several times. The very fact that judges are after him, and that he is well-advised to avoid certain countries, is quite central to the accusations against him, as it demonstrates that certain legal authorities take these accusations seriously. As to your allegations regarding my "POV," I'm saddened that you continue to push this idea. My "POV," insofar as any exists, is to include factual information in as unbiased a manner as possible. I've refrained throughout this debate from giving my actual views as a person--I view them as separate from my views as a historian. Personally, I think Kissinger ought to be hauled in front of the ICC. He needs to answer for what he's done. However, as a historian, Kissinger has been accused of war crimes by various individuals, has not been tried yet, and cannot enter certain countries because of this controversy. I think this is a very important point to be made. Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. I am still not happy with this: "Some of Kissinger's critics accuse him...". This trivializes the accusations; it has gone further than that. The French judge Roger Le Loire who had a summons served on Kissinger at the Ritz Hotel in Paris is not a "critic" of Kissinger, such as Hitchens; he is a member of the judicary who has examined the evidence and thinks there may a basis for legal proceedings. Ditto judges in other countries. Hence, in this case, I prefer the passive voice: "he is accused..." or possibly another construction.
  2. "although these allegations have not yet been proven in a court of law". This is redundant. They are accusations and as such, by definition, they have not yet been proven in a court of law. This is like saying he is that "he is asleep, but as of now he is not awake yet." It is safe to assume readers will understand that he hasn't been tried yet.
Hence, I would prefer the text to read more like this: Kissinger is accused of having committed war crimes while in government and judges in a number of countries want to question him; as a result, he cannot travel in many countries in Europe and South America for legal reasons.
-- Viajero 14:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
My main concern is that I don't believe the judges themselves have gone so far as to accuse Kissinger of committing war crimes. The present wording notes the discrepancy between his critics and the judiciary. I think I might rework the grammar some but the ideas are good. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Kissinger is accused of having committed war crimes while in government and judges in a number of countries want to question him; as a result, he cannot travel in many countries in Europe and South America for legal reasons. — oh, he certainly can, but he won't because he is guilty. That said, they wish to question him, they are not prepared to indict and/or try in absentia. But, yes, as mentioned above, that critics bothered me, too. At the same time, I thought that saying it is "legally dangarous [which I still find more accurate than cannot] for him to travell to many countries in Europe and South America" offsetted that problematic (in conveying how serious and well-substantiated these allegations are). I do, though, agree that these are not (ordinary) critics limited to academia, journalism, etc., but to the official legal channels in those countries. I'm confident we'll be able to further improve that passage now that Viajero is here. :) El_C 14:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
or he just doesn't want to be harangued by obnoxious judicial activists. J. Parker Stone 04:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Judicial activists, that's good, I like that! :D El_C 05:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

new section: legal problems

Apropos of our discussion above, I have added a new section: Legal problems. Based on the information I've found, the question whether at this point Kissinger has not actually been formally accused of war crimes/human rights violations is hard to answer; his legalproblems are in any case more serious than a few unpaid parking tickets. In any case, I think this section should be integrated in some way with the following, "Accusations against Henry Kissinger" -- the latter as a subsection of the former perhaps? -- but I welcome first feedback from the many creative minds here. I am still not happy with the intro, but I leave it for now. -- Viajero 16:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The intro is probably always going to be a problem--I mean, it's been the subject of revert wars for at least a year. I think the version we have now is good in the sense that it's vaguely unacceptable to people on all sides of the question. What was it Thiers said, that republicanism was the form of government which divided the French people least? Mackensen (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, we're petting the horse ahead of the cart though. Is there a decent account of his legal status/problems with that we can all agree with? (in addition to the list of accusations: legal status in respective countries which are not listed individually and in detail). That, once outlined, needs to serve as a basis to better ground that section (or as a subsection therefrom). After that, we'll be in the position to ensure that the lead better conforms to that (the more substantive dicsussion). El_C 02:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

New page

I really think that we should put the 'accusations against Kissinger' on a separate page.

Archiving

This page has gotten pretty big, and spans about two years now. If no one has any objections I'd like to archive the discussion tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)