Talk:Henry Kissinger/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Birth Name? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Should we vote? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Lack of Basic Facts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apology on last edit summary 

message: #Stargoat 20:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kissinger, in both public and private life, is a very controversial figure and has been accused of war crimes by individuals in several countries.

message: #Shorne 00:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 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.

message: Would this be a neutral solution to introduce the section in the article in the lead section?
# 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? 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)
thread_title: In [[2001]], [[Christopher Hitchens]] wrote a series of articles in ''The Atlantic Monthly'', accusing Kissinger of war crimes.

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

message: Since this is going nowhere, I recommend that we adopt the version that was discussed before. Shorne 20:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please review the discussion. Shorne 14:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  quick correction.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll institute the fourth choice if no one else does. Shorne 01:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Has the root problem been solved yet? Stargoat 16:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it hasn't been: VeryVerily is still around. Shorne 01:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're not even making any sense. VeryVerily 09:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ready for unprotection?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: New discussion so I don't have to scroll up

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: 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".
''
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)
thread_title:  Urine drinking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction, War Crimes, Hitchens 

message: 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)
thread_title: Totally Disputed and Why

message: 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)
replies: text: We'll put it with his beatification. How about that?Grace Note 13:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: what about Henry Kissinger as the Antichrist?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kissinger the flaming homosexual

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  new section: legal problems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving