Talk:Otto Reich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Not sure, but it looks like this article may be a bit conspiracy-theorist. How do we get something reviewed for the NPOV?

PLawrence99cx please specify your objections El Jigue 3-20-06

The material on this page mirrors almost exactly Reich's biography on his consulting firm's web page (see links).

Can anyone explain what "Cuban-North American" is? And then tell me, is that an ethnic description of some sort? When did "North American" become a description? This is the first time I've ever encountered "Cuban-North American"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstedham (talkcontribs) 03:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran-Contra[edit] not mentioned or referred to once in this entire page. Reich's Public Diplomacy program came under scrutiny and criticism during the Iran-Contra Affair, according to the National Security Archives at George Washington University: --davesgonechina 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had to do it, since whoever wrote the page for the Office of Public Diplomacy failed to get around to this page. I've inserted a brief section on Otto Reich's Iran Contra role. It is primarily quotes and citation from the George Washington University National Security Archive, though I think I made that abundantly clear in the edit. I believe the introduction ought to be changed as well, since it's a cut and paste job from Otto Reich's own company bio, to better describe what he's done during those 30 years in the Western Hemisphere, starting with Iran Contra. In fact, I'll do that as well. --davesgonechina 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Office of Public Diplomacy[edit]

What happened to this section below? Nice to know that Reich is kind to animals and stuff, but good, bad, or indifferent it's pretty clear that anti-commie propganda in Latin America is Reich's big contribution to the world. ..from 1983 to 1986, Reich established and managed the inter-agency Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (OPD) in the State Department. The OPD received the State Department's Meritorious Honor Award for promotion of US policy in Latin America and was was declared illegal after a 1987 investigation by the US Comptroller General, who found the OPD engaged in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities, beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities". [1] 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


My Iran Contra contribution was deleted without comment by a user at IP address I will continue to restore this section until the anonymous user (or someone else) explains why this entry should not refer to Otto Reich's Iran Contra role. I fail to see how the findings of a bipartisan congressional investigation into Reich's OPD is irrelevant to this entry. The history shows that a user at the same IP deleted references to OPD before. --davesgonechina 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Here's why that section is repeatedly edited or deleted. Quite simply, it isn't in accordance with the neutrality policy. It feels as though these edits are pushing an agenda. First, naming the section "Iran Contra" is a bias since it is not about the man himself. Secondly, 6 lines to describe the Iran Contra affair belongs only in an entry on Iran Contra. In this case, a link to the Office of Public Diplomacy should allow readers to pursue that topic and decide issues for themselves. The merits of your edits would be better hashed out in those entries. Thanks.

I think you have a valid point about the title, it could be more neutral. How about "1981-2001"? That seems to be the period it covers, and that fits in nicely with "Early Years".
As for 6 lines vs. no lines, I don't see why this has to an either/or proposition. I believe Congressional findings involving the conduct of an office Reich led are worthy of inclusion. Can you suggest a more concise way to say this rather than deleting it anonymously? Besides, I don't think counting the number of sentences is an accurate way of measuring neutrality; Iran-Contra is a complicated affair, and what I wrote does not state anything more than the facts as reported by the US government.
Third, a link to the Office of Public Diplomacy will be confusing to readers if the text makes no mention of the OPD beforehand. Again, wholesale deletion seems an extreme response - couldn't you have edited the section without resorting to a revert? --davesgonechina 02:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd like to give credit to you. I expected the ALL CAPS angry response so often used on the internet when politics comes into play.

The new timeline name seems fine for the title of that section.

There's no question that, as you said, Iran-Contra is a complicated affair. That's why I think it is better hashed out in its own entry. I'm certainly not an expert in the area, but as I understand it, the official Iran-Contra report by Judge Walsh made no mention of the Office of Public Diplomacy. Therefore, to include Iran-Contra here is bias. Frankly, to include it here implies involvement when there may have been none. But rather than fill Reich's article, as well as anyone else associated with the office, with point-counterpoint on this, it would seem the best way to maintain neutrality would be to link them all to the OPD article where the issue can be argued and hopefully all sides presented. Your debate is about the Office of Public Diplomacy. Not Otto Reich.

So, about the link to an entry on OPD, I'm not sure I follow the point. I would imagine that if people are unsure of what the OPD was, it would only increase the likelihood that they'd follow the link for clarification. Similar to the "also see" in physical encyclopedias. Any attempt to define or describe it here will result in politicization and bias.

I have restored the material on OPD and Iran-Contra, as they are central to biography of Mr Reich. Please do not remove them again. Viajero | Talk 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Viajero. You didn't even make an attempt to be neutral. Your changes were fraught with 'in theory's and links to sites that are not reliable news sources. If there was still a question as to your intention to bias this article, you bypassed a civil and reasonable discussion of the issues on this page.

Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. Not a forum for theories and grudges. Why not join the debate here instead?

Care to indicate which news sources you find "unreliable"? Viajero | Talk 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous: ALL CAPS angry wouldn't be very wiki of me. If I wanted a flame war, there are blogs I can comment on. As for the Judge Walsh report, that was submitted to the Congressional committee that I cited above. By that reckoning, Judge Walsh was not the final arbitrator - the bipartisan Congressional committee was. Walsh, I might add, also published a book afterwards claiming his investigation was thwarted constantly by the administration. So there's a Pandora's Box that gets opened up once you even begin to discuss Iran/Contra. But instead of trying to explain what the various parties involved said, and how it applies to Otto Reich, you've opted for full deletion. Besides avoiding ALL CAPS recriminations, another Wikipedia rule as far as I understand is that you add information, not take away. A concise explanation of the Iran/Contra Affair and how it applies to Otto Reich would be pertinent. As far as this being about the OPD and not Otto Reich, that seems pretty silly since Otto Reich ran the OPD. I'd point you to the National Security Archives yet again, where there is a [2]declassified memo written by Schultz detailing how Otto Reich debriefed CBS News on Latin American issues in a private meeting. Since Reich and the OPD's mandate only covered media outside the U.S., this is another example of how Reich personally, as a representative of the OPD, violated the law. I repeat again that a bipartisan Congressional committee, based on Judge Walsh's findings and others, found the OPD under Reich's authority to have violated US law. This is not a grudge; this is pertinent fact. davesgonechina 12:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that someone has made more substantial edits to this page, and towards more information and not less. The anonymous rollbacker, I see, has still not responded to my comment.--davesgonechina 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The "anonymous rollbacker" is not following the submission guidelines and has figured out how to edit pages without any identification, including IP address. In my view, this "anonymous rollbacker" should be banned from Wikipedia. ---Dagme (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC Reagan Era[edit]

IMO this article does not accurate describe his particpating in activities during the Reagan era and Iran Contra. See [3] 05:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not add some material from the source you cite? It does appear that the history of Reich's activity during that period is a bit bland in our article. I think it would be appropriate to flesh it out somewhat, without taking it to the point of WP:UNDUE. --Marvin Diode 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have taken an initial look at the edit history of this article, and it is clear that someone went in there with the intent of deleting material about some of Reich's controversial activities. Some of the material was well sourced, some not so well sourced. But as time permits, I will go through the history and restore the information which is well sourced and ought to be in the article. I will also add some material from this site, mentioned by the person who called the RFC. Am I the only editor that is responding to this RFC? --Marvin Diode 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Honduran Coup Section Bias[edit]

The section on the coup in Honduras read more like a ranting, speculative editorial than an objective encyclopedia article. It needs serious work, if not deletion. -- (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The section appears to have been a copy and pasted editorial from a blog. I have deleted it. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Honduras section does seem like a political pamphlet, someone should improve it or cut it. Agrofelipe (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased Sources[edit]

Some how the fact that some of the authors of this page find the article entitled: "Otto Reich: A Career in Disservice" to be a reliable source, is perhaps an indication as to the political agenda of some of the authors of this page.

Jee, I don’t know, call me picky but an article called “A Career in Disservice” seems to me that perhaps it might be a tad too biased for a supposedly (note the word supposedly here) non-biased encyclopedia.

This is just more evidence about the ever-more present liberal bias in Wikipedia. (Can't wait to here from a bunch of 14 year old communists telling me I'm a crazy radical cuban rightwing Fascist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Otto Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)