Talk:Ion Mihai Pacepa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pacepa traitor[edit]

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

Controversies[edit]

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)[reply]

he was a traitor and did what traitors do Anonimu 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The article reads like puffery. I'm Romanian and I'd never heard that Pacepa's defection was single-handedly responsible for destroying the Romanian economy, isolating the country and bringing down Ceausescu. I've also heard that many of the claims in his book are dubious. This article needs some third party sources and some of the more ambitious claims need to be sourced. 64.231.240.200 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Romanian and I can say that Pacepa could have stayed home occupying the same position he did before the Revolution (under a different label, of course) to this day unbothered and with his reputation untarnished. I believe he risked everthing through his defection and the flight to the USA. He took an unnecessary and huge risk without any obvious gain. It's rather unlikely he was a low-level thug.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.186.196.93 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

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)[reply]

Unsigned comment[edit]

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)[reply]

Iraq and WMD[edit]

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)[reply]


Come on, this guy surely comes from a high level espionage background, but it is from another age. He can't seriously know anything first hand and objectively demonstrable about Iraqi WMD in 1994, 2000 or 2003. He defected decades before the relevant events and has an interest (selling books, being visible) to purport knowledge that he is unlikely to have on the trendiest topics that entice the country where he sells his abilities. Notice that he states suppositions, and they don't have any solid evidence behind.

As for his JFK claims, he says what the typical American reader wants to hear (it was a KGB /GRU plot against Israel, USA etc). Also the opinion that the anti-war protests had "Russia" behind, when they are overwhelming (80%+ of people in many NATO countries) and genuinely grassroots, tastes alot like "I wanna be like Tom Clancy or Frederick Forsythe and sell my super spy-fiction". He stretches common sense reality to please a NeoCon (at the time predominant) audience. Interestingly if KGB could persuade 80% of people in US allied countries against the US, USSR would have won the cold war big time...Why didn't they? Saying that behind everything there is Moscow is like saying that behind everythin there is Washington. Too almighty a foe not to be fictionalized in a super conspiracy theory.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.240 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyet tovarisch 217.100.247.218 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Horizons Quote[edit]

In the book Red Horizons, Mr. Pacepa writes the following and I quote:

"I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the 'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena."

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=zQ7LSucBylAC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=%22I+just+called+the+microphone+monitoring+center+to+ask+about+the%22&source=web&ots=73QcR3BBzc&sig=IyGzOR3GS4NwHNsRj9CGxZJ8pFA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Gwernol keeps vandalizing my Ion Mihai Pacepa edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "vandalizing" is a fair characterization. The arguments at Talk:Yasser_Arafat#Red_Horizons explain why including this material about Arafat is probably unwarranted. Was the claim ever notable, referred to in reliable books, etc.? -Colfer2 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Pacepa and Munteanu accused Arafat of being a homosexual is not up for debate. See page 36 of Red Horizons linked above.

Whether you agree with the quote or not is absolutely irrelevant.

There are numerous references by David Frum, Joseph Farah, and others noting this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkidd (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm asking. What are the refs that this claim is notable? I doubt Farah would be considered reliable, but maybe Frum. That would be necessary but not sufficient to put in an abbreviated version of this patently scurrilous material. Also, could you indent your responses and use single paragraphs? Your discussions with other editors are hard to follow due to this one formatting issue. The character to indent is the colon. Use it before each paragraph, in whatever quantity is the level of indentation, and do not leave blank lines. If you please. Also, to sign your comment use four ~ tildes. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Google Books reliable? http://books.google.com/books?id=zQ7LSucBylAC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=%22I+just+called+the+microphone+monitoring+center+to+ask+about+the%22&source=web&ots=73QcR3BBzc&sig=IyGzOR3GS4NwHNsRj9CGxZJ8pFA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result
The quote is there for you to read. Is Amazon reliable? The quote is there for you to read as well. Page 36. Wikkidd (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a ref for the notability?
Note, I am not part of the WP:3O dispute listed by Wikkidd today. I came here after that listing. In my opinion though, it is malformed. The summary is supposed to be neutral, and the link does not go to this section, and it is not clear Wikkidd has tried to engage the other editor, Gwernol, in a discussion. Please correct me if I have misunderstood the situation. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwernol and I have been in discussions. According to him, another editor, agreed with his vandalism. I therefore posted for 3rd opinion. Geoff Plourde says that I "have met the burden of proof for inclusion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasser_Arafat Wikkidd (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess you are talking about this supporting comment from Geoff Plourde, also known as Thedagomar (talk · contribs), on Talk:Yasser Arafat:
"RS" means reliable sources? I am having a little trouble following this discussion because it seems to be taking place on Talk:Yasser Arafat rather than here on Talk:Ion Mihai Pacepa. But the WP:30 request is for Ion Mihai Pacepa. What edit are you now suggesting for Ion Mihai Pacepa? The one you originally made, or one along the lines of the suggestion by Geoff Plourde/Thedagomar? Also, would you want to ping Gwernol (talk · contribs) on his Talk page and inform him of this 30 discussion? I don't really get it, which article is this about? -Colfer2 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not that hard to understand. I added a direct quote from the book Red Horizons. Gwernol vandalized the entry twice and threatened to ban me.Wikkidd (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your proposed edit for this article Ion Mihai Pacepa? And is Gwernol (talk · contribs) aware of this WP:30 discussion? Is this a valid WP:30 for this article? It is hard for me to know what say so far. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to add the following quote from page 36 of Red Horizons: "I just called the microphone monitoring center to ask about the 'Fedayee,'" Arafat's code name, explained Munteaunu. "After the meeting with the Comrade, he went directly to the guest house and had dinner. At this very moment, the 'Fedayee' is in his bedroom making love to his bodyguard. The one I knew was his latest lover. He's playing tiger again. The officer monitoring his microphones connected me live with the bedroom, and the squawling almost broke my eardrums. Arafat was roaring like a tiger, and his lover yelping like a hyena." Wikkidd (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have multiple reliable sources for this claim - or does it all stem from Ion Mihai Pacepa? This man often makes fantastic claims without a shred of supporting evidence (e.g. Jack Ruby was Kremlin agent dispatched to kill Lee Oswald; the Soviet Union is behind most acts of terrorism in the world; Vladimir Putin is hiding Saddam's WMD, etc). ~ smb 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikkidd, you cited as support the editor of the other article who said:
Your proposed edit is completely different. This does not seem like a valid WP:30 at all to me. Is the other editor even aware of this discussion? -Colfer2 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the discussion with the other editor, Gwernol (talk · contribs), an admin, was happening on User talk:Wikkidd. Is that right? Are you still looking for a 3rd opinion Wikkidd? -Colfer2 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the opinion referenced about insertion of this quote. Wikkidd has shown that Pacepa stated this. As stated below, i therefore feel that this should be inserted. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

nathanwilllong (talk · contribs) 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:

  1. Nothing, if no RS as to notability and controversy.
  2. Critical formulation, but no need for the long quote, if RS's found citing and disputing the passage.
  3. 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)[reply]

Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by nathanwilllong
....

The Washington Times article[edit]

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 -- Mamalujo (talk · contribs) -- 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)[reply]

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. [1], [2]) and has reviewed books for The New York Times (e.g. [3]). 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)[reply]

Red Horizons[edit]

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)[reply]

Disputing this page's bias and partiality in tone[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The death sentence still in effect"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lieutenant General: number of stars[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ion_Mihai_Pacepa&oldid=1209580230"