Talk:Ion Mihai Pacepa

message: He is still considered as the most wanted traitor by SRI. --213.254.183.228 20:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacepa traitor 

message: There is a certain belief in Romania that his "Red Horizons" are not entirely believable. This is complicated by the fact that he was a member of a secret agency and thus his reasons to write (or not) about certain events  are hard to determine. My personal belief is that "Red Horizons" has a truthful general presentation of Ceausescu and the Securitate, but more specific details should be treated with a minimal skepticism. I would say that this article should include a part dedicated to controversies (not easy to write, though). Ferred 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: he was a traitor and did what traitors do Anonimu 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. I would also add that he was not even an "ideologic traitor", but a simple crook that escaped punishment by fleeing to the West. One good example of how the Communist recruiting mechanisms filled high positions in the state with low-level thugs. Dpotop 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: What specifically is being challenged by the NPOV tag? If there are sections that are npov and others that are ok, there should be npov section tags instead of a great big one for the article. TMLutas 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The official U.S. Government assessment of General Pacepa was expressed in the following letter:
Dear Lt. Gen. Ion Pacepa,Italic text
You have made an important and unique contribution to the United States of which you can be justly proud. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure, on this momentous and solemn occassion, to wish you happiness and fulfilment in this country as a U.S. citizen.
Best regards,
Richard F. Stolz
Deputy Director for Operations''
Major American newspapers and magazines fully share the U.S. Government's view of General Pacepa. Here are a few examples: 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010438
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDlhZjRkMTMzNWM2ZGMxNDk5Mjc3Y2ZkYmZiNmZiZTM=
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=69fe5954-49c7-4e60-b8a9-df2fd143c6b1
Wikipedia should not consider derogatory allegations from former officers of Romania's communist political police, who, of course, regard the general as "traitor".     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.12.31 (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned comment 

message: Pacepa's public article regarding the 'Sarindar' plan came *before* the ISG came to its conclusions on WMD. The article at time of writing makes it sound as if it came after. This needs fixing. The Duelfer report came out September 30, 2004 and the Washington Times Sarindar article came out October 2, 2003, 11 months prior. TMLutas (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyet tovarisch 217.100.247.218 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq and WMD 

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (Geoff Plourde): ....
I am an uninvolved editor who became aware of this dispute through RfC. As I understand it this dispute primarily stems from whether or not a quote from a book by the subject alleging that Yasser Arafat was homosexual is admissable under the reliable sourcing policy. 
I would hold that this serious allegation should be weighed in terms of logic. The subject has been established as a high level official in the Romanian intelligence apparatus. That is not disputed. Yasser Arafat is known to have made visits to Romania. That is also not disputed. Considering the inquisitiveness of Soviet bloc intelligence services, it is therefore highly probable that Yasser Arafat would have been monitored on his visits to Romania, as a person of extreme interest. The subject of this article, as Deputy Chief, would have been sufficiently high enough to have access to intelligence reports on Arafat. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I would say that this makes the subject a reliable source. 
Consequently, this quote should be admitted into articles, although proper attribution and context should be used, including any sources that disagree with the subject's portrayal of Arafat.   
; Viewpoint by (Colfer2):
I am uninvolved, came here from the WP:3O page.  The criteria should be Reliable Sources for the notability of the quote.  Wikkidd has indicated two authors who have mentioned it, at least one of whom may be reliable (David Frum). I would like to see all those refs here, there were four.
Geoff Plourde's formulation for an edit, "According to the book Red Horizons, Arafat was homosexual. This claim is widely discredited by (insert source)," was helpful, assuming such a source can be found. But in Geoff Plourde's latest comment he uses the criteria of "weighed in terms of logic".  That way madness lies, or, in other words, it's WP:OR.  Reliable Sources should be the criteria.
The endless statements by Wikkidd that it is a real quote are not helpful.  No one has disputed that, yet.
I prefer something along the lines of Geoff Plourde's critical formulation, because Wikipedia should not be a dumping ground for a greatest hits of inflammatory passages from an author's book list.  Quoted passages need some justification for inclusion.  If no Reliable Source has criticized a passage like that about such a well-known figure as Yassar Arafat then how notable can it be?  Perhaps that little bit of logic is reasonable to use!
So to summarize, I think a reasonable edit would be:
# Nothing, if no RS as to notability and controversy.
# Critical formulation, but no need for the long quote, if RS's found citing and disputing the passage.
# The long quote if there is RS commenting on, and other RS disputing, the particular details in it.
-Colfer2 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I think it's pretty anti-intellectual to delete citations just because they have been taken off the web.  In this case the article in question was printed (yes, printed, the thing they do with ink and wood pulp!) in the Washington Times (a newspaper) on November 11, 2007.  It is true that the Washington Times website deleted the article from the web database.  However, it's a bit Orwellian to go ahead and delete all references to the article as if it never existed in the first place.  The user who deleted it --  -- said "broken link, failed verification."  I'm sorry, but that is completely bogus.  WP:V does not require that an article be published online.  It only requires that an article be published.  There happen to be these buildings called libraries that keep track of publications that are published on that wood pulp stuff I was talking about; if you want to verify that an article doesn't exist, go to one of those buildings and use the card catalog.  I have looked up the article myself in two online databases (Factiva and Lexis/Nexis) and both confirm that the article was indeed published.  I think Mamalujo is just pushing POV by deleting this information and using phony concerns about verifiability as a flimsy excuse to do so. csloat (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That review in The Washington Times was recently removed, presumably as an unreliable source. I know some people have issues with a conservative bias in The Washington Times; however, the review (as a form of opinion piece) was cited with attribution to Joseph Goulden, who is an accomplished author himself (e.g. , ) and has reviewed books for The New York Times (e.g. ). If we allow the review of a conspiracy believer like Weeber to stay in the article, surely the review of someone like Goulden challenging that premise can stay, too. -Location (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Washington Times'' article 

message: Red Horizons: the 2nd Book. The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu's Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption a sequel to Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief, or merely a revised, updated version of the latter? The article notes that it's a second edition, but the title makes it sound like a sequel. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I was thinking of buying both books, but if the "2nd Book" is only an updated version, I'll only buy that, rather than both. Thanks. Josh (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Horizons 

message: This page presents controversial and unproven claims as if they were true. It presents conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, WMD's in IRaq, etc. as if they were unquestioned fact. In many places, it reads like a commercial for Pacepa's work. Much of this entry should be rewritten in a neutral tone. 2602:306:CF6F:8A0:CD26:A33E:4568:9F98 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing this page's bias and partiality in tone 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ion Mihai Pacepa. 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/20070808171854/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808171854/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ion Mihai Pacepa. 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/20071120233949/http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071111/BOOKS/111110017/1010/books to http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071111/BOOKS/111110017/1010/books
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226163021/http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7DB8BD23-924F-42AD-B41B-7FA2E71A158D to http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7DB8BD23-924F-42AD-B41B-7FA2E71A158D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213222243/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106211340/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ion Mihai Pacepa. 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/20090606154254/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTA0ZjhiYzRlYmYwZWIwMDEzYjY3NjYyZGY3YmI1ZWM= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTA0ZjhiYzRlYmYwZWIwMDEzYjY3NjYyZGY3YmI1ZWM=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606154259/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmU3NjM4ZTg3NjViMTUyNWJmYWYzMDE4ZmRhOTQxZmI= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmU3NjM4ZTg3NjViMTUyNWJmYWYzMDE4ZmRhOTQxZmI=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ion Mihai Pacepa. 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/20070214111612/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlYjIzMzczNzNjZmQ4ZTc3YWZjMmM1MTdiZDM3MjQ= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJlYjIzMzczNzNjZmQ4ZTc3YWZjMmM1MTdiZDM3MjQ=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018002230/http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjY4Mw== to http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjY4Mw==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, apologies if I am not doing this right, is the first time I write a message on wiki, but please remove that absurd comment that Pacepa's death sentences are still in effect. The death penalty was abolished in Romania by the law-decree no 6/7 January 1990. It cannot possibly be mentioned in same article that (1) the Supreme Court cancelled its sentences (the penalty itself was comuted de jure by above mentioned decree), (2) he had his military grade restored, but (3) that the penalties are still in effect. It's absurd.
Best regards and thank you all who make wiki work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.179.33 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The wording of the article should be changed. Would be great if you can help with this. --Greece666 (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The death sentence still in effect" 

message: Pacepa's rank is listed as Lieutenant General, yet the lead describes him as a "two-star general". Shouldn't that read "three-star general"?
For comparison, the page of Romanian general Dumitru Prunariu reads "[...] Prunariu received the 3rd star, becoming a lieutenant-general (ret.)."
Dotyoyo (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a secondary source (to the existing primary source) affirming his lieutenant general rank, and changed the reference to his rank in the lead from "two-star general" to "lieutenant general".  Dotyoyo (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieutenant General: number of stars