Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nominated for the main page

This article has been nominated to be linked on the main page under the In the News section. However concerns have been raised about gaps in referencing. The discussion may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Henry Cabot Lodge

The section "Vietnam War" claims Kissenger was friends with ambassador to Saigon Henry Cabot Lodge, but this link should probably should link to Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Henry Cabot Lodge died when Kissenger was a child and he was not ambassador to Saigon. Because of the edit protection I am unable to submit the edit myself. Itstimeforcoffee (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. The ambassador to South Vietnam was the grandson of the United States Senator. Cullen328 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Why is the Zimbabwean War of Independence referred to as the 'Rhodesian Bush War'. That is what the illegal regime in 'Salisbury' called it. Why are we rehabilitating Rhodesia? 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect the title terminology used by the preponderance of reliable sources. Please see the references used in Rhodesian Bush War. If those references have been superceded by references using different terminolgy, then please make that case at Talk: Rhodesian Bush War, bringing forth sources that contest that terminology. I fail to see how using terms widely used in reliable sources in the time of Kissinger's involvement constitutes "rehabilitating Rhodesia". That term no longer exists in contemporary use, after all, and neither does the racist regime it once describes. It is history, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Accent

this Forward article argues that Kissinger intentionally kept his accent, compared to his brother Walter who spoke standard american english later in life. The wiki article only cites Walter Isaacsons explanation that he kept the accent due to "shyness", so I feel like it should be included in some way. -- jonas (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2023 (3)

I suggest an addition in the chapter about awards: "In 1998, he received the honorary citizenship (Ehrenbürgerschaft) of Fürth, his hometown. At that time he was the only living honoree."--Altaripensis2 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Altaripensis2 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.fuerth.de/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1/5_read-36518/

That's in German, line 3 reads "Fürther Ehrenbürger" = honorary citizen of Fürth, also here: "...in Fürth wurde er [...] 1998 mit der Ehrenbürgerwürde bedacht." in the 3rd paragraph = he was given the honorary citizenship in Fürth in 1998. By the way, he visited his hometown one last time in June 2023 - the photograph in the article of the Fürth website shows him and the mayor.--Altaripensis2 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Enhance: Allende died by suicide instead of the coup

In order to prevent misleading by the reader, where it says:

> On September 11, 1973, Allende died during a military coup launched by Army Commander-in-Chief Augusto Pinochet, who became president

It should be mentioned that Allende didn't died by the military coup, instead he died by suicide.

Otherwise, the reader may conclude that Allende was killed by the military coup, which is not true. Waltercool (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Allende did not voluntarily choose to commit suicide due to poor health, depression or financial problems. He killed himself as the direct result of a brutal and murderous fascist coup led by Pinochet, because he freely chose not to be subjected to a show trial by the Pinochet dictatorship. Nuance is called for here. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, @Cullen328:. KlayCax (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to do Godwin's Law, but Joseph Stalin#1945: Victory is explicit in saying that Hitler committed suicide in the Battle of Berlin while Stalin wanted him captured alive. Exactly the same situation. It doesn't just say Hitler "died" and it in no way suggests that Hitler was suffering from depression and financial problems. I don't think a difference should be made in moralising "Allende = good, Hitler = bad" because both men's pursuers, Stalin and Pinochet, quite clearly were bad people, if that is what is being argued. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo with Pinochet

In the text under the photo with Pinochet, in the section "Intervention in Chile," it says "Chilean President Augusto Pinochet shaking hands with Kissinger in 1976." Naming Pinochet as a "president" leads to a historical misunderstanding, omitting his figure as a dictator. Likewise, this contradicts the resolution the Chilean congress made in 2023 to stop naming Pinochet as president in official governmental literature, considering that this was a self-proclaimed and undemocratically approved position made by himself during his regime. The text should replace "President" for "Dictator." Amdiazp (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Chilean government literature. The Chilean dictator held the title of president. 2601:642:4600:3F80:73:AC4A:1B76:EAC5 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinochet's office was called president. Bashar al-Assad's office is called president. The Chilean government has no power over what Wikipedia, a non-profit organisation based in the United States, can and cannot write. If the congress has stricken Pinochet from the record long after he died, that holds as much power as the damnatio memoriae of bad Roman emperors. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Argument of authority in the war crime sections?

In the "Realpolitik and toleration of war crimes" sections, there are the two differing point of views that are being offered, which, of course, is a good thing (WP:NPOV). However, I feel like saying "The historians Robert D. Kaplan and Niall Ferguson have disputed these notions (...)" creates an argument from authority about something which isn't necessarily accepted by the wider historian community. Something like "well these people are historians and they said that, therefore it must be true". However, Ferguson in particular is a very controversial historian, considering his adoration for the British Empire (and thus an imperialist ideology in the strictest definition of the word) and a lot of his work has been widely criticized (the Pity of War in particular), and his subscription to counterfactual history. Not to mention that he wrote a biography of Kissinger, where the latter himself provided access to letters and archives from the White House. I feel like presenting his point of view as fairly neutral/"scientific" may mislead the reader, and I feel like there should at least be either person being chosen to defend this point of view (a defense of Kissinger's actions), or at least a mention of Ferguson inherent bias. To be clear: I do not necessarily mind his opinion in particular being present in the article, but it feels a bit uncomfortable to me that it is being painted as a neutral historian take on the matter.

Of course this also applies to the other point of view (criticizing Kissinger's actions), but maybe it's just my opinion but when I read "A number of activists and human rights lawyers have sought to prosecute him for war crimes committed by American allies during his tenure", journalists, etc... it doesn't really create the same argument of authority as "The historians (...) have disputed these notions (...)", since activists are, somewhat by definition, biased. And we may see that this part of the section doesn't mention historians, which by the wider public may be considered as neutral scientists. Evo1726 (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This whole section is suspect:

Historians Robert D. Kaplan and Niall Ferguson have disputed these notions and argued that there is a double standard in how Kissinger is judged in comparison to other political figures. They have defended Kissinger by arguing that American power to advocate for human rights in other nations is often counterproductive and limited, that taking into consideration geopolitical realities is an inevitable part of any effective foreign policy, and that there are utilitarian reasons to defend most of the decisions of his tenure. Ferguson states that accusing Kissinger alone of war crimes "requires a double standard" because "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" have taken similar actions. Ferguson adds "this is not to say that it's all OK."

And it does read like these two historians negate everything written above it. Worse that than their argument seems to be "everyone else does it, therefore Kissinger must be innocent" And saying these two "disputed" it suggests they have proven the other wrong. All they did is disagree and went on to say "so what, others did it too" 2603:8081:8700:687D:C4A0:6892:C022:519C (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason for German accent

You know, there’s a way to impart information about citing sources without being unnecessarily rude. Of course, I cannot prove that this is what happened in his case, but it would be exceedingly rare for him not to have an accent in his second language given the facts as we know them about how old he was when he can to the States. Would you like me to cite some scholarly articles about bilingualism to back up my claim? 24.194.252.97 (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Any changes or edits need to be made using reliable sources. Since this article is under extended confirmed protection, only experienced users are allowed to make edits directly. If you would like to suggest an edit, please mention the specific changes and provide a citation and another editor will review your request. Ppt91^talk 16:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to correct something here: His accent wasn't really "German", it was "Franconian-German", listen to how he pronounced 'p' and 't' - that's close to 'b' and 'd'. He had this franconian accent also when speaking German.--Altaripensis2 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

For the latter, Kissinger himself states that in a self-ironical way in his speech delivered in German during the ceremony honoring him at Fürth in June 2023:"Henry Kissinger feiert 100. Geburtstag in Fürth". BR24 (in German). br.de. 2023-06-20. Retrieved 2023-06-22. 57:10.--Altaripensis2 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Heart surgeries

• triple coronary artery bypass surgery in 1982. [1]
• angioplasty in 2005 [2]
• aortic valve replacement in 2014 [3] --Puttkgbru (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Why has his role in supporting genocides been scrubbed from the lead?

Instead we have positive fluff on his educational background and consulting firm. It's a clear attempt at whitewashing his legacy, and downright insulting to all the victims of the Bengali genocide and many other atrocities he supported. 71.47.59.27 (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Specifically this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1187611095

Should be immediately reverted. 71.47.59.27 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

People have been whitewashing Kissinger's war crimes for decades. 2603:8081:8700:687D:C4A0:6892:C022:519C (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's been readded in this edit. There is also a discussion about it here under the header "Controversial" removed from lead. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Henry_Kissinger#"Controversial"_removed_from_lead. KlayCax (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Notable works

Bill Burr is linked as the editor for Kissinger's 1998 book "Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks With Beijing and Moscow". I believe this is an error. I believe this book was edited by a different William Burr. --38.145.144.111 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. That link was to the wrong person and has been removed. Thanks for the catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly would be a plot twist, though! KlayCax (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "self-serving bastards" statement

In the "Israeli policy and Soviet Jewry" subsection it is stated that "[Kissinger] had a negative view of Soviet Jewry, calling them "self-serving bastards." However, if you read the source that is provided for this statement (footnote 117), it is clear that Kissinger was referring to the American Jews who lobby on behalf of the Soviet Jewry as self-serving bastards. This is reaffirmed by the source contained in footnote 118. 71.142.127.206 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct; and he didn't call them "self-serving bastards"; YnetNews was summarizing two separate quotes, with only the last word in quotation marks (self-serving "bastards."). They provide full quotes later on; these come from distinct statements. DFlhb (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing Change Request and Explanation

On "Realpolitik and war crimes Kissinger has generally received a polarizing reception; some have portrayed him as a strategic genius who was willing to act in a utilitarian manner, while others have portrayed his foreign policy decisions as immoral and profoundly damaging in the long run. (This is fine)

"Due to his adherence to an approach to politics called Realpolitik, which prioritizes pragmatic geopolitical considerations over moral or ideological values".

This would seem too biased, due to his immense controversy, including, for instance, the split between left-right political views in the United States; on his controversy-filled history, polarization, negotiations and opinions.

Labelling Henry Kissinger might be wrong to some extent, despite being commonly associated with realpolitik

Kissinger's legacy is a mix of both realpolitik-driven successes and controversial decisions. Labelling him exclusively as a realpolitik practitioner might overlook the diversity of his policies and the varied outcomes they produced.

Kissinger's involvement in the 1973 coup in Chile, which led to the overthrow of President Salvador Allende, has been criticized for its disregard of democratic principles. While realpolitik considerations were present, critics argue that the support for the coup may have been influenced by ideological concerns as well.

These examples illustrate that Kissinger's approach was not strictly confined to realpolitik; rather, his decisions often involved a combination of geopolitical strategy, ideological considerations, and attempts to address broader global issues.

Kissinger's involvement in the Chilean coup represents a departure from a strict realpolitik approach, as pursuing ideological goals took precedence over a purely pragmatic calculation of national interests. The support for a military coup and subsequent human rights abuses under Pinochet's regime raised ethical and moral questions about U.S. foreign policy under Kissinger's leadership during that period.

Due to his two ideological motivations of; Anti-Communism: The primary motivation behind U.S. involvement in Chile was the Cold War context and the broader U.S. policy of containment. Allende's socialist government, with its ties to the Soviet Union, was seen as a threat to U.S. interests in the region. Further on the fear of a Marxist government taking root in a strategically important region led to ideological considerations influencing U.S. actions and Kissinger's actions.

Although, these instances do not define Kissinger's overall approach, which is often associated with a balance between realpolitik and idealism. Kissinger's actions are far more complex than a label, and his policies reflected a pragmatic understanding that realpolitik and ethical considerations are integral statecrafts.

The assessment of the idealist dimension in Kissinger's policy will remain a subject of scholarly debate and interpretation. Thus it would be best to not directly state he would be in full adherence to realpolitik.

Changed "Due to his adherence to an approach to politics called Realpolitik, which prioritizes pragmatic geopolitical considerations over moral or ideological values".

to

"Recognized for his approach to politics, Henry Kissinger was widely known as a practitioner of realpolitik, balancing pragmatic considerations in his strategies."

Drops May (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

100+1/2 Years of age 203.174.163.236 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

"With notable exceptions, Kissinger's death received more negative reactions domestically than internationally, where his actions were perceived by many as violating American values"

Where were his actions perceived by many as violating American values? Domestically or internationally? 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:C1EF:AC7F:A80:B5C5 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Both. The New York Times article says: Few diplomats have been both celebrated and reviled with such passion as Mr. Kissinger. Considered the most powerful secretary of state in the post-World War II era, he was by turns hailed as an ultrarealist who reshaped diplomacy to reflect American interests and denounced as having abandoned American values, particularly in the arena of human rights, if he thought it served the nation’s purposes.. KlayCax (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The sentence as written does not support the interpretation "both". Although I am not certain, it seems likely to me that "his actions were perceived by many as violating American values" was supposed to apply to "domestically", but the sentence was poorly written. The importance of "American values", or even a sense of what these are, seems more likely to apply domestically. Moreover, the sentence is in a section titled "Domestic reactions". It is possible that the sentence was supposed to read like this:

"With notable exceptions, Kissinger's death received more negative reactions domestically, where his actions were perceived by many as violating American values, than internationally." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:A418:7284:CF22:97BF (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. The infobox states that he was 22nd Chancellor of the College of William & Mary. This is an entirely ceremonial position with no role in the day to day operations of that university. His predecessor in this ceremonial role was Margaret Thatcher, and her infobox dies not mention this factoid, and I do not think it is mentioned in her biography, though I have not checked carefully. Similarly, Kissinger chaired the 9/11 Commission for 2-1/2 weeks and resigned after concerns about his conflicts of interests. He had no known impact on the influential report that commission produced, and I fail to see why that merits inclusion in the infobox. Are these "key facts"? I do not think so. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and it should be removed from Sandra Day O'Connor as well. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Understated Level of Controversy

Given the fact that he is highly controversial and just passed away, likely (I would guess) leading to numerous bad edits and hasty reversals, I'm posting my proposed edit here so that editors can discuss first before posting. Currently the article reads: "Kissinger's legacy remains controversial and polarizing in U.S. politics. He is both considered an effective Secretary of State[8] and condemned for allegedly turning a blind eye to war crimes committed by American allies." I think that the accusation by critics goes beyond that Kissinger turned a blind eye to war crimes committed by American allies. Critics have accused him of simply turning a blind eye to war crimes by allies in some cases, but they also accuse him in many cases of actively encouraging allies to commit war crimes and playing a direct role in planning and carrying out US government war crimes (particularly in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). It seems to me that the purpose of this paragraph is to illustrate that Kissinger is controversial, and to counterpoise the viewpoint of critics with the viewpoint of supporters. Given that there have been multiple books written accusing Kissinger of actively perpetrating war crimes, I think that downplaying the accusations against Kissinger violates NPOV. I also think that many of his actions are well established, but the controversy lies in whether they are considered war crimes or not rather than if they happened or not. So I would adjust the phrasing to more accurately show that the controversy is less about whether his actions occurred, but whether they constituted war crimes. I also think he is polarizing and controversial outside the US. Given all that I think a better wording would be "Kissinger's legacy remains controversial and polarizing. He is both considered an effective Secretary of State[8] and condemned for helping to plan and coordinate numerous alleged war crimes committed by the US and allied nations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenonomouse (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Kissinger is a war criminal but he's widely beloved in China. We have to preserve WP: NPOV - even for morally repulsive individuals.

(I sympathize with your opinion.) KlayCax (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to preserve the neutral point of view for Adolf Hitler too, KlayCax? 188.146.90.84 (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but even in articles surrounding Hitler, Mussolini, and Goebbels we don't explicitly state that they're evil.

Readers can see "tolerated genocide for geopolitical reasons" and draw their own conclusion. Hopefully, if they have a moral compass, it's a bad one, but we can't call them evil explicitly within the article. KlayCax (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Per what the original poster wrote, the accusation goes beyond 'tolerating' genocide—he encouraged and committed genocide as a senior American government official to advance their geopolitical position.

I don't see why the fact that he's beloved in China means we have to soften the accusation of war criminal somehow: after mentioning what the sources talk about that we can say in the next paragraph that Kissinger is beloved in China for normalising relations with the United States or whatever. That would cover all points of view.        —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll be the first to piss in his grave.

However, Wikipedia can't take moral stances, or make definite conclusions, about something that's not universally agreed upon by reliable sources. Because he was never convicted of war crimes: we can't call him that in Wikivoice. We can say that he's been accused of supporting/allowing war crimes. It's not our role to right great wrongs. (See Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) Regardless of how egregious these egregious his actions are. KlayCax (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Just fyi I agree with your views of Kissinger. @I'llbeyourbeach:. KlayCax (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, I don't think WP:OTHERCONTENT is a very strong argument for removing content critical of Kissinger, or content that aligns him with certain actions he is cited to be aligned with.[4] Your arguments are not stronger because you don't like him either. (it probably just puts you in the majority)

Instead of wholly deleting these blocks, we could instead assess source-text integrity (see WP:PRESERVE). The source you removed says that, among other things, Nixon was "urged by" and operated "at the behest of" Kissinger.[5]

As for the "war criminal" claims, Kissinger is very notably called (by some) a war criminal and it doesn't make sense to remove this by hand-waving at WP:NPOV. (See his New York Times obit: Mr. Kissinger’s pursuit of two goals that were seen as at odds with each other — winding down the war and maintaining American prestige — led him down roads that made him a hypocrite to some and a war criminal to others.[6]) Wracking ^talk! 09:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree we can't label Kissinger as a war criminal. However, we should still highlight some of his controversial decisions.

The lead for instance mentions his involvement in ending American involvement in the Vietnam war, but it doesn't mention his involvement in escalating the Vietnam war. Neither does it mention his involvement in the Cambodia civil war through Operation Menu, where it's estimated "500,000 tons of U.S. bombs were dropped on Cambodia during this period and killed as many as 150,000 civilians".

This information I believe is important enough to be in the lead as it is one of the leading reasons why Henry Kissinger is a controversial figure and accused by some as war criminal. Simply presenting this information follows WP:NPOV and leaving the reader to make decisions for themselves should be fine. Mathchem.21 (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Does this wording work for you? His legacy is a polarizing subject in American politics. Kissinger is considered by many scholars as a ultrarealist who successfully reshaped foreign policy in American interests, prevented nuclear proliferation, as well as a conflict between the United States and Soviet Union; he is therefore often ranked as one of the most effective secretary of states in American history. However, he was also widely denounced as "having abandoned American values" due to his adherence to Realpolitik, which included overlooking human rights violations by allies — including those involved in war crimes — if it was judged to be geopolitically advantageous.

I think this summarizes the perspectives on him pretty well. KlayCax (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that is better than before as it gives both sides of the story without going to deep into detail and without taking a side. Mathchem.21 (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is clearly insufficient, because the phrasing of the accusations everywhere they are repeated is "war criminal". We don't always have to repeat our source's exact words, but this is definitely one of those cases, since those exact words are such a big part of the underlying facts about Kissinger's reputation. Loki (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is "universally agreed upon", the point is to assess what different credible sources have to say. Many important influential and credible sources/scholars unequivocally condemn his actions specifically in reference to policies mentioned in this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1187673250). For some reason this was removed. This view is being suppressed by pushing the policies he has received the most criticism for, which are by no means less notable than the policies that are included here, to a single sentence at the very end of the lead. The paragraph which summarizes his career (starting with "Kissinger played a prominent role...") should mention the policies and actions he has received criticism for. And the last paragraph which describes his controversial legacy should be changed to only contain broader assessments of his legacy (both views that he was an "effective leader" and that he was a "war criminal") without going through specific more biographical parts of his career. Ekcrisp (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that we should just say he's a war criminal. To me, that passage was attempting to represent a range of opinions on Kissinger, not give a definitive statement about him. I think perhaps more word smithing is in order to make it clear that we are representing part of a range of views, but NPOV in part means "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I think that war criminal is a significant view. I'm not saying we don't fairly represent other views in addition to that. Thenonomouse (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added back the text from the original subject of this discussion; consensus here and in other discussions indicate that removing this probably wasn't too much of a good idea. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This text was removed again (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&diff=prev&oldid=1187673250), but I don't see any mention of why in the talk page. This should be added back per discussions I see around how to present his involvement in the policies mentioned. The lead is not being neutral in its representation of the "controversial/polarizing" views of American scholars. Saying he is "widely considered by scholars to be an effective Secretary of State" is simply not true. There are countless books and statements by scholars that unequivocally condemn his actions as Secretary of State. He is absolutely not "widely" considered to be effective. This should be revised to say something like "Some scholars argue he was an effective Secretary of State, while others say he committed war crimes and had a reckless disregard for human rights." I also feel his actions in the East Timor genocide are notable enough to be mentioned in this portion of the lead (along with the other controversial policies that for some reason were removed after the edit I linked) Ekcrisp (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making this change again. Some of the info in the last paragraph about his legacy is now redundant. Consider revising the part reading - "but has been condemned for his role in U.S. actions in Indochina (including its bombings of Cambodia and Laos) and Latin America (including backing for the Chilean coup d'état and the Dirty War in Argentina), as well as support for dictatorial regimes and turning a blind eye to war crimes committed by allies." To remove references to specific policies. Something like "condemned for turning a blind eye to war crimes, supporting dictatorial regimes and engaging in regime change operations" Ekcrisp (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Effective" doesn't mean "morally ethical". They're two different things. No one is suggesting that these things aren't mentioned in the article or even briefly within the lead. Just that it shouldn't become a historical coatrack of actions. Many historians have placed other criticisms of Kissinger, including his apparent help in sabotaging the Vietnam Peace Accords to hurt Johnson, and so on and so forth. That's why it presents WP: Weight issues if we highlight only one aspect.

The lead is supposed to be broad and sweeping. Individually listing each action isn't its purpose. KlayCax (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There are issues that are specifically mentioned though, "negotiated the Paris Peace Accords", shuttle diplomacy to "end the Yom Kippur War", sino-soviet split and opening relations with China. These all portray him in a positive light, and are not more notable than his actions like the bombings of Cambodia and Laos, involvement in 1973 Chilean coup, Bangladesh liberation war and East timor genocide. You undid this revision saying there was consensus but that is not the case. Many here agree that the lead gives undue weight to policies that paint him in a positive light. Also "effective" in doing what? It's definitely a word with a positive connotation, you wouldn't call someone "effective" if you weren't implicitly endorsing their actions. The actions in this edit you reverted need to at least be mentioned briefly alongside the actions in the third paragraph. Ekcrisp (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The present lead doesn't make him look good, however. It states: However, he was also widely denounced as "having abandoned American values" due to his adherence to Realpolitik, which included overlooking human rights violations by allies—including those involved in war crimes—if it was judged to be geopolitically advantageous. It presents WP: UNDUE issues if we cite it for Kissinger but not Nixon, Ford, or Carter, who approved many of these policies. (e.g. Jimmy Carter has also received significant criticism for funding Indonesia during their time in East Timor.) A large majority of scholars who criticize Kissinger also criticize the three mentioned similarly. This includes more populist lay historians like Chomsky.

There's also not a consensus among historians on which acts should be particularly highlighted. Some focus on sabotaging the Vietnam Peace Accords, others the foreamentioned, and so on and so forth.

Saying he tolerated/supported war crimes is not "painting him in a positive light". KlayCax (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We have many sources that call Kissinger a war criminal in the article voice. It is not, in my view, possible to exclude this term using those words from the lead. Like it or not, there are lots and lots of very strongly critical sources for Kissinger and that's why there's sufficient WP:WEIGHT to put that stuff in his lead when it might not go in the leads of Nixon or Carter. Carter, at least, definitely doesn't have tons of sources calling him a war criminal in the article voice. Loki (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Several historians have labeled Nixon and Carter war criminals. Particularly Nixon. Ultimately, he was the one making the decisions attributed to Kissinger, yet there is a significant tonal inconsistency between the articles.

I understand where people are coming from. However, a lot of the suggested changes to the article come across to me as trying to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. KlayCax (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you, like 99% of people who cite it, haven't read WP:RGW because it specifically encourages fixing articles if the sources support it. Which they clearly do here. There are orders of magnitude more articles accusing Kissenger of war crimes than Carter, and probably even than Nixon. At very least the phrase "war criminal" didn't appear in every single obituary of Nixon. Loki (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Few outside the United States cares about "American values" which is primarily propaganda for self-consumption. The casual mention to them in the lead is at best a case of passable geocentrism (given the subject was after all American) but it nonetheless shuns a global dimension. So However, he was also widely denounced as "having abandoned American values" at the very least requires refining attribution of "location". Is the mention to the contruct known as "American values" warranted in the lead anyways (particularly in a way Wikipedia implies that they are important and belong to the realm of objective truth)? I don't think so.-Asqueladd (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax comment:

See Talk:Henry_Kissinger#"Controversial"_removed_from_lead. Pinging @Darling: and @Wracking:. Moving conversation to here. KlayCax (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the President's Men

Given that Watergate was a major scandal - one that changed opinions on about the nature of US Government - should there not be a section about it in relation to Henry Kissinger? And, considering how close he was 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon, is it possible that Kissinger was not aware of any whitewash at the Whitehouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.129 (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Richard Nixon and others closely linked to Watergate would definitely get their own section. However, this is like asking that each of the planets have a section dedicated to its relationship to Earth since they are all in the Solar System. Nixon had a lot of close friends, and some were involved, some didn't as much. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Kurdistan Tribune

Is there a reason that we're using an opinion piece published in The Kurdistan Tribune in the lead of this article? I feel like we might want to seek out better sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon review, I AGREE. I think this is a bad source. Like or not, the recently deceased was a deeply controversial figure. We must seek out sources that are maximally NPOV. I don't think the source you reference meets that criteria. Bill Heller (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bad source.

I think Kissinger is definitely a war criminal. But we need better sources than that. This is an article in which I wish we could break WP: NPOV - if I'm being honest - but we have to keep our feelings aside. KlayCax (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, as well as the Rolling Stone source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Did you mean to restore the Rolling Stone source and the opinion piece from The Kurdistan Tribune in this edit, or was that a collateral of trying to restore the lead? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Restoring the lead, apologies. KlayCax (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Seeing as this was unintentional, I've restored the removals. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

I hold a Masters degree in linguistics and TESOL, and I take issue with the Henry Kissinger article where it states that he was never able to lose his German accent because he was shy and afraid to speak English as a youth. The real reason he was never able to lose his accent is because he didn’t immigrate to the U.S. until he was 15. When a person begins to learn a language post-puberty, it is virtually impossible to speak that second language, in this case English, with out the accent of one’s first language, in this case German. So even if he hadn’t been shy to speak English while learning it, he’d speak English with a German accent. Demelzabunny (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Demelzabunny, nobody cares about your anonymous claims of expertise here. You would need to provide several impeccably reliable sources for the extraordinary claim that it is virtually impossible for a 15 year old German speaking immigrant to learn to speak English without an obvious accent. There are countless people, after all, who have accomplished that feat within a few years. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe Demelzabunny's analysis is entirely correct here. However we need a source for this take that can be cited.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

have some experience with TESOL as well, agree with demelzabunny. also agree sources are needed, however i do think it is important to note that both learner anxiety (shyness) and age could play a role in accent retaining. I would also like to point out that demelzabunny said "an" accent, not an obvious accent; especially because many phonetic things are similar between English and German, it seems quite possible to "erase" one's accent, but there will still be some (albeit subtle) accent markers left behind 35.20.125.61 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger lived for 85 years in the United States. That's more than most humans in history have lived, period. Here is a video of Héctor Bellerín, a Spaniard who moved to London when he was 16 (one year older than Kissinger to America). He's 20 in the video, 80 years younger than Kissinger was when he died. Still think people can't pick up a new accent in 85 years? [7] Anyway, wiki policy, WP:V verify your claims, WP:OR no original research, and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, we have no way of verifying your supposed credentials. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected notice outdated

When I mouse over the small lock icon in the upper right corner indicating the article is semi-protected, it says that it's semi-protected "to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons." Given that Kissinger is no longer a living person, I believe this language should be changed. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kilroy Was Here 1856: Despite its name, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to people who have recently died (§ Recently dead or probably dead), so the semi-protection template is still valid for now. Malerisch (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Malerisch I did not expect that, that came as a surprise to me! Thanks for the information. Kilroy Was Here 1856 (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviation in infobox

Hi! The infobox on this page uses the abbreviations AB and AM for Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts, respectively, although this is not the abbreviation form used in other comparable articles.

Yes, Harvard, where Kissigner went, does use the AB/AM form of the abbreviations, but should the college's stylistic decision come in front of consistency with other articles?

Similar articles of American politicians, which are all good articles, such as Sonia Sotomayor, Woodrow Wilson, and Pete Buttigieg, all abbreviate them as BA/MA, even if they went to schools that use the AB/AM form. BhamBoi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am for using the abbreviations used by the institutions from where the education comes from. Since we use sources to verify all the information given, it almost seems like WP:SYNTH to change the details of a cited source. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources from Harvard or any other outlet that use AB/AM are not the only sources we can attribute his qualifications to. In fact, his own website says he received "his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University." BhamBoi (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Controversial" removed from lead

I don't understand why sourced statements in the lead were removed wholesale with the reason that they're already in the body ([8]). To my understanding, the lead is meant to be representative of the body of the article -- removing these entirely gives the lead a very different tone from the body itself.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Several Marxist and conservative historians have argued that Kissinger's actions were substantially no different than other U.S. foreign policies.

For instance: read up on Jimmy Carter and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. KlayCax (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That is my understand of MOS:LEAD. I have restored the text removed from the third paragraph for now. (If more needs to be restored, then feel free to mention what should be and it can be discussed.)

@StardustToStardust: Can you clarify your removal? Is there a reason I am missing for why it should not be mentioned in the lede? It is noted at LEADCITE that information is usually repeated, so I don't understand the problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @StardustToStardust:'s decision to move this stuff to the body, @Super Goku V:. People are letting their emotions surrounding Kissinger — not unfounded — present WP: WEIGHT issues. His support for these things ranged from "tolerance" to "active support/encouragement" - and often involved other individuals than him (as he was also overruled by Nixon and other figures while in his tenure, et al.) - which is why including it in the lead presents WP: DUE issues. Many of these decisions involved other people than him. The third paragraph already states: condemned for turning a blind eye to war crimes committed by American allies. Reader's should be smart enough to realize that Kissinger is a piece of shit without us explicitly saying so.

We can also explain the situation more in the body. Lead's are supposed to be concise and the present one already mentions his link to war crimes. Listing every individual war crime he was involved in isn't the point of the beginning paragraphs.

Instead, the war crimes allegations should be expanded in the body, as he said. KlayCax (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to have misunderstood your earlier response. I would self revert, but it seems you have already taken care of that for me. I will say that LEAD does say that we should note any prominent controversies, but it is correct that we should leave it out if there are WEIGHT and DUE issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been no consensus for the whitewashed version of this lead. Stop edit-warring and make an actual RFC for these changes. 71.47.59.27 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead's not whitewashed. It mentions war crimes. The only thing that was removed was specific instances. This is because lead's are intended to be concise and historians disagree on what is most notable. (See what David Greenberg wrote in the Politico piece mentioned in the article. There's widespread disagreement on what war crimes should be highlighted.) Wikipedia can't right great wrongs. I agree that Kissinger was morally atrocious. KlayCax (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Then why does the lead list out so many of his positive accomplishments? The early life and education is covered in the body, as are his specific "successes" as SoS. If brevity is the goal, the second and third paragraphs of the lead as they exist now should be deleted as well. 71.47.59.27 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I've gone ahead and once again reverted the lead change; you summarised your edit as "consensus wording" when, as far as I can see right now, consensus seems fairly against the change you keep making. I'd probably agree with the IP editor's sentiment here—this is probably worth an actual discussion instead of just outright removal. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 21:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus means status quo in this case. (Before his death was announced.) Of course controversy should be mentioned in the lead.

However, it was turning into a biographical coatrack. KlayCax (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with IP user and Darling, the lead only mentions specific actions and policies that portray him in a positive light ("negotiated the Paris Peace Accords", shuttle diplomacy to "end the Yom Kippur War", sino-soviet split and opening relations with China). There absolutely needs to be mentions of at least some of the actions in the edit that KlayCax keeps reverting (U.S. bombing of Cambodia,Operation Condor, U.S. involvement in the 1973 Chilean coup, East Timor Genocide and Bangladesh liberation war. KlayCax you are the only user in this thread who doesn't want any of these policies to be mentioned, there is a consensus that they are as notable/important and that it's important to include policies he has received the most criticism for, instead of giving undue weight to a more favorable view. Ekcrisp (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

None are those things are necessarily positive or negative. A lot of historians, political scientists, and diplomats have argued that opening relations with China hurt U.S. interests in the long run, for instance.

Beyond this, all of the forementioned are covered in the lead by the sentence: However, he was also widely denounced as "having abandoned American values" due to his adherence to Realpolitik, which included overlooking human rights violations by allies—including those involved in war crimes—if it was judged to be geopolitically advantageous. Different historians place different emphasis on which particular instances of this are notable. For instance, other administrations (including Carter) also supported/funded Indonesia during their actions in East Timor, and other historians have placed more emphasis on his actions apparently sabotaging the Vietnam Peace Accords. (Through double playing LBJ to help Nixon obtain the presidency.) That's why choosing a select group of cases would be difficult to do; including everything turns the lead into a coatrack.

If you read the above, @Super Goku V: and several other editors agree with me. KlayCax (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is your argument here that since there isn't a consensus on which ones are considered the most significant among the criticised polices, no examples should be included at all? Providing specific examples for one side but not the other does not a good article make. 92.63.69.13 (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I need to clarify the claim that I agreed with you. The closest I believe I came to agreeing was the if there are WEIGHT and DUE issues line. But I did not agree or disagree that there were any WEIGHT or DUE isses, just that if there are issues we should remove the content. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, apologies. @Super Goku V:. I assumed you agreed with me. KlayCax (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to ask: why do you think the status quo before his death matters at all? There are so many new sources since his death, of course the status quo has changed.

Like, look, here's the Washington Post seriously entertaining the argument that the only reason he wasn't charged for war crimes is that the International Criminal Court didn't exist when he was Secretary of State. Here's an opinion piece in Al Jazeera which openly accuses him of being a war criminal. Same with Teen Vogue. Here's Reuters, The Intercept, CBS, NBC, Politico, all at least mentioning and in some cases also seriously entertaining the idea that Kissinger was a war criminal.

And all these were published since Kissinger's death. So the idea that we have to go by the consensus of the page as of November 28th is just absurd. Right now we have all sorts of major newsorgs using the phrase "war criminal" to describe Kissinger, so not at least saying that people have made that accusation using those words would be an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The specific instances were, in fact, included in the lead before his death [9], and have been there for years according to the article history (for example, [10] is the article in July 2021). The status quo is clearly to include the material. Malerisch (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, @LokiTheLiar:. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Nixon and other American political figures have also been accused of committing war crimes to a similar or greater amount than Kissinger. Yet their articles uniformly exclude it from mention in the lead. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't call anyone "war criminals" in their respective leads, even if they committed actions generally considered to be as such. The exceptions being individuals like Vladimir Putin (who the ICC charged.). Kissinger never met this criteria. I sympathize with editors who want to add it. I just believe that this is a clear case of WP: RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS.

@Malerisch:. Whether it was in the article or not seems to have gone back and forth. It didn't seem to be a hard consensus - from what I can tell. Several others such as Goku have also objected to the editions.

Hopefully that makes sense. KlayCax (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems, for one, like a clear WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and even then a very bad one.

The reason we mention Kissinger's war crimes is that every newsorg mentioned the allegations of war crimes in their obituaries of the man at least briefly. Like, I list them below. Some of the left-leaning ones, like Huffpost, Rolling Stone, and Teen Vogue, call him a war criminal in the article voice. Others at least take the allegations very seriously.

Needless to say, this is very unusual, even for people who have been credibily accused of war crimes. I'm not saying we should call him a war criminal in Wikivoice, because I agree we'd need extremely high levels of sourcing to do that, but we need to at least mention the allegations in the lead to satisfy WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Goku didn't actually object. Goku said it should be excluded if there were weight issues, after having added it themselves. Loki (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

...after having added it themselves. The only thing I have edited regarding the article was the second paragraph, which was to restore the removed sentences. Should I take that to mean that the restored text in this edit is a weight issue? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I support the restoration of the text and think there would be a WP:WEIGHT issue with not including it. Loki (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, then I misunderstood entirely. Sorry about that. (I should have read the comment prior.)

If that is the case, then we should follow LEAD and mention them in some manner as you suggested earlier. (Personally, I am okay with it either way, so long as a decision or some form of consensus is reached.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you cite evidence for any significant back and forth? From what I see, the status quo is to include it. I arbitrarily scrolled through the article history 250 edits at a time, and the article as of November 2022 [11], July 2021 [12], March 2020 [13], September 2019 [14], and October 2018 [15] all include the specific instances. Malerisch (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

photograph of Henry Kissinger as a boy with his brother Walter with their grandparents' cat Tinyenn123 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, you need to show us this supposed photograph, if it even exists. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a book by Niall Ferguson. It is called Kissinger, The Idealist 1923-1968. Inside the book, the photograph is there Tinyenn123 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

Photograph of Henry Kissinger with Richard Nixon at the Pierre Hotel,New York City, on the day of his nomination as national security adviser Tinyenn123 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Kissinger 1923-1968: The Idealist, Niall Ferguson

 Not done Please make your edit request in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is book by Niall Ferguson. It is called Kissinger, The Idealist: 1923-1968. In the book, you will find the photograph there. Tinyenn123 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023 (2)

K Kissinger 1923-1968: The Idealist, Niall Ferguson In the early life section, add photograph of "Fourteen-year old Heinz Kissinger (bottom left) and other students at the Jewish Realschule in Furth,1938" Tinyenn123 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Liu1126 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a book by Niall Ferguson. It is called Kissinger, The Idealist:1926-1968. In the book, you will find the photograph there. Tinyenn123 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

9/11 commission

The fact that that he chaired the 9/11 commission for less than a month should of course be mentioned in the article itself but I don't think it is notable enough to include in the infobox. Marginataen (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be removed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)