>Indeed, Kissinger's quote is found on pg. 194 of Woodward/Bernstein book The Final Days, which is considered a notable secondary source. However, the quote in the book is in a section highlighting Kissinger's difficult, and often abusive, relationship with White House staff. The specific context is the contentious relationship with Alexander Haig, Kissinger's military aide - the quote is given as a demonstration of how Kissinger allegedly taunted and belittled Haig. Woodward/Bernstein do NOT use the quote as any kind of authentic evidence that Kissinger hated the military, or that this was an opinion that formed any of Kissinger's foreign policy decisions. By placing the quote in that section, WE'RE (Wikipedia and NOT Woodward/Bernstein) attempting to make the connection and asserting this was Kissinger's attitude in approaching foreign policy. That connection is NOT supported by the source so it's not acceptable in a biography of a living person.EBY (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>I accept your rationale. There is nowhere else to put it unless I start a new section but I won't because it would be vexatious to do so simply to accommodate the quote. Sqgl (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>>It's tough because this kind of inflammatory quote IS indicative of one of the prominent aspects of Kissinger's personality, which is why Woodward/Bernstein included it in their book. But as you say, I don't see a place to integrate it that wouldn't blow the B:LP hatch. EBY (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>He might shoot his mouth off more than others, and he may even be more guilty than others (Hitchens certainly thinks so, as noted), but realpolitik is ugly and examples of it as revealed in CableGate are educational. The reason the leaks were sensational is because so many are in denial of realpolitik and those in power want to keep it that way. Personally Obama reminds me of Gus from Breaking Bad so don't think I am being partisan here.Sqgl (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>>I agree that examples are educational. Which makes me wonder about articles and even venues outside the WikiWorld that could advance that knowledge. EBY (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>I here what you are saying and defer to your experience on this site.Sqgl (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>[From a public interview on June 11, 2004.] On May 27, the New York Times published one of the most incredible sentences I’ve ever seen. They ran an article about the Nixon–Kissinger interchanges. Kissinger fought very hard through the courts to try to prevent it, but the courts permitted it. You read through it, and you see the following statement embedded in it. Nixon at one point informs Kissinger, his right-hand Eichmann, that he wanted bombing of Cambodia.
>And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."
>That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide when other people do it that I’ve ever seen in the historical record. Right at this moment there is a prosecution of Milošević going on in the international tribunal, and the prosecutors are kind of hampered because they can’t find direct orders, or a direct connection even, linking Milošević to any atrocities on the ground. Suppose they found a statement like this. Suppose a document came out from Milošević saying, "Reduce Kosovo to rubble. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They would be overjoyed. The trial would be over. He would be sent away for multiple life sentences—if it was a U.S. trial, immediately the electric chair. ~ Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
> Please realize that if you're famous like Henry Kissinger you pay people to scrub your wikipedia page.
[Citation needed]
More specifically, if you make a claim like this, please link to an edit where it happened. The entire revision history is in the public record.
I am not saying I disagree with you. I'm no Kissinger fan. But your argument will be much stronger if you provide hard facts, not just an unsubstantiated claim.
>The Kissinger page reads like a paid publicity brochure. Any attempt to correct the record with verifiable sources is swiftly deleted unilaterally by TheTimeAreChanging. Here is a paragraph that I inserted (with sources) at the beginning that TheTimesAreAChanging deleted. If this keeps occurring, I plan to escalate this to Wikipedia.
>"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "
>>You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>I don't use Wikipedia as a source. Since when is Time Magazine or the National Security Archives poor sources? I will continue make these edits and not be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>"slaughter of Bengalis" is not POV language. Do you dispute it occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>>"Slaughter of Bengalis" would undoubtably be a WP:NPOV violation, even if it the reliable sorces. Try again, if you wish to do so within Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
>>>I don't get it. In the article on Irving Berlin, it states Nicholas II, the new Tsar of Russia, notes Whitcomb, had revived with utmost brutality the anti-Jewish pogroms, which created the spontaneous mass exodus to America. Such words are very strong, but they are generally accepted by reasonable people as the only correct way to describe pogroms. Is there something different about Bengalis, or Kissinger, that makes it biased to call it "slaughter of Bengalis", even with reliable sources?
178.38.168.13 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
>I can confirm Malpaso's claim that the editor known as TheTimesAreAChanging is making tendentious editorial decisions, deleting criticisms of Kissinger on the basis that they come from bad sources. Among the sources he has rubbished are CNN and Christopher Hitchens. I have tried to add to the article lead a statement that several groups and individuals, from Hitchens to Code Pink, have tried to indict Kissinger for war crimes. TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted these on the basis that they are "just opinion", while having no problem with those opinions that praise Kissinger. I have tried to initiate a discussion with TheTimesAreChanging on his talk page, but he seems uninterested in justifying his actions. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>>Code Pink? Are you serious? I am no great fan of Kissinger, but you seem to lack an elementary understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>Third Opinion
>A third opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is, because the above discussion has not been civil. It also isn't clear whether a third opinion is applicable, because more than two editors are edit-warring the page. Please state a concise and civil question and I will try to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>The article as written is propaganda, not necessarily by the editor's design, but by the favoritism applied to official reports of Kissinger's career and the failure to credit any of the subsequent investigative journalism that has proven persistently over the decades how a legend of diplomatic genius conceals intrigue, bloodletting, and a willingness to dispense with democracy. Macdust (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
>From the beginning there are two Henry Kissingers being presented in alternation: the effective Kissinger presented over the years in official reports, his own writings, and derivative news stories, and the Kissinger held to account for political injustices, covert military and intelligence actions, and the suffering and casualties occurring as a consequence.
>So we have Kissinger the icon, then a passage of what appears to be mud thrown at him, then Kissinger the schoolboy, then the icon suffering more mudslinging, until by the end of the story all the international catastrophes sound like sour grapes.
>Unless the article starts straightaway with a crisp discussion of Realpolitik, there is no context for understanding and evaluating what Kissinger thought he was doing or at least wanted others to think he was doing while acquiring and exercising immense power. Realpolitik holds the context where great international achievements and calamitous results make sense side by side. It is a much clearer lead-in for researchers making a first serious inquiry.
>(The non-career biography should in this instance be pushed toward the end of the article. Placed at the end, it is illuminating and humanizing. Placed where it is, it magnifies the incoherence.)Macdust (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
>>Kissinger is not a philosopher, nor does the concept of "Realpolitik" set Kissinger apart from other men in positions of power. Kissinger did what he felt he had to do to maintain the US as the dominant player in the world and to increase his own influence in the country. I guess you can call it Realpolitk - or you know just politics, Cold War politics if you want to be more specific.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
