# Talk:Otto Reich

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 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 

...is 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:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/ --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)

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]24.127.115.13 07:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My Iran Contra contribution was deleted without comment by a user at IP address 66.7.10.77. 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)

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)

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.  --71.75.113.215 (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 71.75.113.215 (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)

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 71.175.235.18 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030423012407/http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf to http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/13682.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714185458/http://counterpunch.org/kozloff07092009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07092009.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

There are several full-length profiles of Reich that have appeared in respectable media since 2002, including in the New Yorker, the NYT, and Salon, and a couple of reliable books, including Bardach's Cuba Confidential. Each and every one of them mentions Orlando Bosch in connection with Reich's nomination and absence of confirmation hearing. Leaving this information out would be a violation of due weight, and also of basic common sense. We have reliable sources discussing why there was no confirmation hearing, for a post that would have been the apex of Reich's career; leaving it out would be an extremely odd editorial decision. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion that a non-notable award from a non-notable organization should not be included in a biography in the absence of any coverage from independent reliable sources. I have yet to find any such for this award for Reich. As such, it is undue weight, especially in the lead. If independent sources are not found for this content, I will remove it again. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources stating that Reich received State Department and Venezuelan awards is surprisingly difficult. I don't doubt that he did receive them, but sourcing is necessary to keep this information in a BLP, and any assistance with finding sources would be greatly appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Otto Reich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Intend to review shortly. Eddie891  Talk Work  01:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments
"described by the Comptroller General" I think this would benefit from a year
Added
"Cuban Catholic mother and an Austrian-Jewish" you hyphenate one but not the other?
No reason...fixed
"most of William's family" who is william?
A copy-paste error, is who he is; it was supposed to read "Walter"; however, the article doesn't verify his father's name (which predates my involvement with the article), and I've removed it.
"immediately suspicious of Castro, prompting him to flee with his family to North Carolina in 1960, when Otto was 15. unclosed quotation marks in the article, would it hurt to have [Fidel] Castro?
Added
"He was awarded the US Army's Commendation Medal" can you verify this?
I cannot. I've tried pretty hard, and asked for assistance at the military history noticeboard, too. I've left it in (hidden) in the hope that someone will be able to at some point, but I'm happy to remove it if you'd rather.
Shouldn't M.A. link to, well, M.A.?
Done.
"Washington Director of the Council of the Americas" what does this mean?
I couldn't tell you; it's a detail reproduced identically in government biographies. I've trimmed to "a director", if that helps.
"when he first worked" does this refer to 1983? It's somewhat unclear, imo
No, the position; tweaked; let me know if it's still unclear
"authored by fictitious" maybe "attributed to fictitious"? Fictitious authors obviously couldn't write the articles themselves
True, fixed.
"Reich's position drew him into the Iran-Contra affair." I think it worthwile to give a brief summary of the affair and how Reich was drawn into it
I'm a little hesitant to add detail here, because it's easy to introduce COATRACK issues. As it is, Reich's primarily known for his OPD work, and his advocacy for Bosch, and these things are discussed at length. However, Reich was in the periphery of the scandal; the sources don't go into detail as to why he was drawn in; it's somewhat obvious, in that all things Contra were investigated, but not stated explicitly; so I'm worried that more detail will be undue.
I think op-ed is traditionally lowercased
changed
"described in a declassified memorandum " the denial or the operation itself?
The operation. reordered.
"that it could use a familiar Cuban brand name" can you be more specific here?
This took a little while, but Bardach mentions it; it's the Havana Club brand.
"Reich was also involved with an effort by" year?
1990s, but the sources aren't more specific, I'm afraid...
"subsequently described by the" At first, I thought his advocacy was described as terrorist, which makes no sense. Could you clarify that this refers to Bosch? Maybe split into two sentences?
Fair, reordered.
"but the incident led to a" unclear what 'the incident' here is?
the entire sequence of events in the previous pargraph; reworded to avoid suggesting it was all Reich.
"was scheduled to end in December 2002" did it?
Yes, adjusted.
"became special envoy to Latin America, " you quote the office title ("special envoy to Latin America") in the lede
Unquoted in lead.
"Reich currently runs " {{as of}}?
done; cited the company's website, which isn't great, but nothing else that's recent seems to be available
"also served as vice-chairman" when?
Unclear; he was vice-president in 2001.
"During this time," during what time?
During the nomination; tweaked.
I've lightly copyedited, please check that my changes are satisfactory. On the whole, a very nice article. That's my suggestions from a first pass, happy to discuss any/all in greater detail. Best, Eddie891  Talk Work  13:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Thanks for the review; a couple of responses for you to consider; I've addressed most of the comments, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Happy with your changes and your responses look good. I'll momentarily check sourcing and images etc. Eddie891  Talk Work  21:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources seem mostly reliable. Per WP:RSP, There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Similarly, Discussions regarding Newsmax are lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints. I'd like your thoughts on why you think they should be considered reliable here, particularly in a BLP. Eddie891  Talk Work  21:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Earwigs gives this a pass... Eddie891  Talk Work  21:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Otto Reich.jpg is definitely public domain, but it could use source/author information. Eddie891  Talk Work  21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
re: sources: Newsmax is only there because it ranked him as influential; if you think it's undue weight I'll dump it, I certainly didn't add it. When I came across the page, it was a rather hagiographic take on Reich, with much of the critique omitted; and while I think I've done a reasonable job including that, I wanted to avoid giving the impression I was here to do a hatchet job...I didn't realize Salon had an RSP entry; I've always found it reliable but partisan, and hence acceptable for statements of fact; but it's easily replaced, the only thing I can see that's entirely specific to that source is its use of "Justice Department" over "Attorney General and Associate Attorney General". Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
re: Image; the author's hard to identify, but the image was up on a government website, so I don't know that it's entirely necessary; I've added a working archive url to the source information, where the image is visible. @Eddie891: I think that's everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Source spotcheck
1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v,  Y for d, source says "would be", you say "were". Similarly, source says "slaughter", you say "massacre". Not sure if there's a discernible change in meaning or they are comparable. for e, I'd recommend specifying when CBS was confronted. Also source doesn't say "favored the country's guerrillas over the US-supported government" just that it favored the guerrillas. For i, it doesn't say "subsequently denied" but "always denied"
n-- I don't see "From 1998 to 2001,"
m-- it's unclear when the 20 year period began, the article implies it was when the article itself was published and describes it as a ban
w-- I'm not sure I see " and from Cuban-Americans in general" explicitly here
2, a, c, e, f, g, h Y for g, he's a "minor celebrity", not just "celebrity"
b-- I don't see "established"
d-- I'm not sure you got the right source here for bardach's quote, though "not accused of illegal activity" is in the source
3 a, c, d, e, f Yfor d, source doesn't explicitly state that the staff was only pentagon/cia
b-- I don't see "paratroop officer" in the source
c-- source says that he moved in 1972, which would have been before getting his masters degree
4, c, d, e, g Y for g, you can specify the date of confirmation further
a-- I don't see "paratroop officer in the source
b-- says "Master's degree" rather than M.A.
f-- I don't see "From 1998 to 2001,"
5 a, b, c Y
6 a, b Y for b, I think it would be stronger if you directly quoted the house investigation: "a domestic political and propaganda operation"
7 Y
8  I'm not seeing '1989' cited as the end of his service, I'm also confused as to whether Reich actually actively lobbied or just argued that he was innocent. However other than that it's good
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y (relying on GTranslate)
13 a, b Y
14 a, b, c, d Y
15 Y
16 a, b Y
17 Not seeing " replaced at the State Department by his former deputy"
18 a says " advisers for Latin America" not foreign policy
18b cannot cite the 2020 date, otherwise good
19 Y
20a, b Y
21 Y
22 Y
23 Y
24 Y
25 Y
I don't think you cite the birth date in the article at all?
I couldn't find From 1989 to 2001, Reich worked as a corporate lobbyist, for clients that included Bell Atlantic, McDonnell Douglas, AT&T, and British American Tobacco. anywhere and would appreciate if you quoted the text behind Bosch was described as a terrorist by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney General. for me because I just cannot find it. I think I'm missing an obvious thing for both of these.
Not sure whether you should feel lucy or unlucky, but I checked all the sourcing and it comes up very clean on the whole. Nit-picking things for the most part. I also suffer from chronic not-reading the whole source itis so it's possible I missed something obvious. If so, apologies. Best, Eddie891  Talk Work  00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 not sure you saw this. Eddie891  Talk Work  19:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Apologies, it's on my to-do list but I've not been on-wiki much for some days. I'll get to this soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, No worries and certainly no rush. I just remembered that I never pinged you about this so wasn't sure if you saw it. No problem holding the review until you can get around to it. Best, Eddie891  Talk Work  23:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891; this time, I neglected to ping; I've worked through the source comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
And now it's me who got busy with real life :P I'll take a look shortly. Eddie891  Talk Work  20:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for a detailed check: I've long been of the opinion that verifiability checks aren't taken as seriously as they should be, so I do appreciate your thoroughness. I'll try to address all the points; apologies if the formatting is a bit odd...
1e; Date added; US support isn't exactly controversial, but to avoid synth I've tweaked it a little, the source does say "favorable to the guerrillas and distorting of U.S. and El Salvadoran government goals and tactics."
1i; I think they're functionally equivalent; the word is only there to avoid the implication that he denied it immediately
1m; a fair point, but the sources are also fuzzy about this.
1n; Removed. Quite sure the dates preceded my involvement, but I should have caught it.
1w; apologies, that came from Dao, and could have been more specific; "Cuban-American groups, however, are lobbying hard for Mr. Reich, calling him the most qualified assistant secretary in decades and warning of political consequences if he is not nominated."
2b; that's in his state department biography; added now
2d; indeed I have not; that's from Bardach's book, page 200; added.
2g; so amended.
3b; again, predates me; again, should have caught it.
3c; true, but it's not uncommon for people to move before formally completing graduate school...GU confirms the date of his graduation; [5]
3d; poor word choice; tweaked
4a; tweaked, as above (this is now ref 3, in the latest version).
4b; GU confirms an MA, but I prefer spelling out Master's degree anyway...
4f; adjusted, as above
4g; added
6b; done
8; "The office was shut down, but Reich escaped prosecution. Instead, he was dispatched to Venezuela, where he served as ambassador from 1986 to 1989..." I'm using the kindle edition, so I don't recall which page this is, but it's in the 198-202 range, likely 200. Bardach also suggests lobbying; "A half dozen State Department cables suggest that Reich used his position to lobby for Orlando Bosch..."
17; as with many others, predating me...fixed.
18a; Latin America logically implies foriegn policy, surely? But it's not a critical point, amended.
18b; this was his company's website that should have been sourced, moved up from the end of the sentence
I have not cited the birthdate, and I am unable to. I have removed it from the lead and commented it out of the infobox.
The list of companies he lobbied for I also thought must have been bloody obvious, but after a lengthy search I traced his website as being the likeliest source...meaning it should certainly not be in the article. Again, apologies for not fixing that; it was cited when I came across it, but ought to have double checked.
That last quote from Bardach is a truly odd situation. I own the digital edition, and the quote is as follows: "The Justice Department's decision was based in part on a letter sent by FBI special agent George Davis to Secretary of State George Shultz in 1987 in which Davis warned the Secretary of State not to allow Bosch to return to the US "My colleagues and I conducted exhaustive investigations of Bosch from the time of his arrival", Davis wrote. "He was regarded by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies as Miami's number one terrorist". Bush's own Attorney General, Richard Thornburch, described Bosh as an "unreformed terrorist", and the Justice Department concluded that Bosch should be deported from the US." The FBI also considered CORU, which Bosch founded, a terrorist outfit [6]. For some reason, the Bardach quote not only isn't visible on the google books version, it doesn't come up in a search. This baffled me for a while yesterday, and I eventually wrote it off as a bug. The page is between 329 and 331, based on the index and some educated calculations. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I found it in this search, will AGF on page numbers. Eddie891  Talk Work  20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This meets the GA criteria now, passing. Very nice work Eddie891  Talk Work  20:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for a very thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)