Jump to content

Talk:John Brennan (CIA officer)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What's his second name?

Just "O."? --84.119.53.206 (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's Chief White Sr??

Chief White Sr can be quoted in saying that John must be doing a good job. We are winning the war on terror.

Who is Chief White Sr? Needs explanation.

Needs rewriting or punctuating. Unclear whether this is a quote or paraphrase, especially "We are winning...." If it's a quote, put it in quotation marks. Omc (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Incumbent?

Brennan is holding a non-elected office. Why does his info box connote him as an Incumbent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckoss (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Doesn't "incumbent" mean he's in, regardless of how he got in? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It's Anglo-Latin, the adjectival form of the Medieval Latin verb "incumbens," to lie in or on. And there's no explicit restriction of the term to elected officials. loupgarous (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes,exactly. We're used to hearing "incumbent" refer to a person holding elective office, but it can be used to refer to a person holding any position in any organization. 166.137.100.37 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Maven

"On May 2, 2011, Brennan represented a team that killed Osama Bin Laden."

What does this mean? Represented them in court? : Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The writer's intent is unclear and this was removed.Lateg (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the quote?

There is a quote section here that does not seem to belong. It gives a biased impression. We could do with a "controversies" section instead. It just seems weird to have just one quote listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.57.115 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Attendance at Hajj

Can you clarify your claim that reports of John Brennan's attendance at the Hajj rituals are 'rife with weasel words'?Cpsoper (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cpsoper, sure, and thanks for writing here. Actually I should have done so originally, and am glad you did first! The best thing to read on this is WP:WEASEL, where we can find Wikipedia's manual of style (MOS) guidelines regarding words or phrases that allow "unsupported attributions" or vague attributions. For instance, that MOS states that the following phrases are not good: "... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ..." What you might better do is re-rewrite your statement with proper attribution, e.g., "According to John Doe writing for the Daily Mail, Brennan's participation in the Hajj evinced his deep empathy for Muslims." That would probably be challenged on other grounds but at least your attribution would be unimpeachable. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, have just read following last edit, feel free to revert again till I digest this. I'm working with a very flakey connection at present, will abandon attempts to address this further now.Cpsoper (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Darouet is correct, but you also need to read WP:BLP carefully: the use of hearsay sources that are re-reporting a rumor (which has been widely ridiculed) is unacceptable in a biography, whether or not it is couched in "so-and-so said." Your comment " thus indicating the depth of his sympathy for Islam" is an opinion and violates NPOV. We deal in facts, not rumors. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both, although I think the claim of a covert conversion to Islam has been ridiculed, not his attendance at the Hajj, which is far more plausible, the former is highly speculative and would be somewhat scandalous, the latter is not. I haven't yet seen reports that Mr Brennan has denied the latter, which would be the obvious response if it wasn't true, given its widespread reportage. His strong respect for Islam as an outsider and acquaintance with Arabic are public record from his own speeches. I'm happy to leave it at that, given the concerns.Cpsoper (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-Muslims are strictly prohibited from entering Mecca. So how did this non-Muslim attend Hajj? 38.115.185.4 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC) HelenChicago

Religion - Muslim Convert

Under his personal details, it mentions that he is a Muslim convert for religion. There is no source or mention of it anywhere else on the page that I saw. If he is, shouldn't it say Islam, not Muslim convert? Alexanderjvarman (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Who's in charge - "We the people...", or "We the CIA" (as if we didn't know)?

I see that there isn't much here about Brennan's time as CIA director (just his nomination). Mike Lofgren's book "The Deep State", says: 

 "Obama, he [Brennan, March 2015 interview] said, did 'not have an appreciation'
  of national security when he came into office, but with tutelage by himself
  and other experts 'he has gone to school and understands the complexities.'"

We've come "a long way baby" since WWII. I think this information should find it's way into this article. -lifeform (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Rand Paul ends filibuster

The article stated: "Paul's filibuster continued for 13 hours, ending only after public surrender from The White House admitting in writing the President has no such authority.[citation needed]" But this contemporary news report states that R Paul ended his filibuster with the words:

"I'm hopeful that we have drawn attention to this issue, that this issue will not fade away, and that the president will come up with a response," Paul said in his closing remarks, as The Hill reports. [1]

So clearly Paul ended his filibuster before any written statement from the president. I have added this to the article. Mick gold (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

NPV: CIA director era

Another highly biased article on a CIA director, this one an Obama apointee. Why does the one highly charged comment by a more or less random person need to be here. See the Leon Panetta article for one that discusses the nomination in a balanced fashion, citing the comments of Diane Feinstein, the ranking Dem on the Senate Intel committee, as well as ranking GOP Senator, and gives the final vote result.

This just looks like more CIA bashing from a very strongly opinionated person using the pretext of the confirmation hearings to bash the person, who is a living person and therefore covered by Wikipedia's Living Person Biography policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John O. Brennan. 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: 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) 14:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ukranian collusion

The German article describes extensively Brennan' collusion with the Ukranian regime that had ousted Ianukovich in a CIA orchestrated coup. This is rather significant for his obvious siding against the Russians in the so-called Russian US election interference scam. But here one does not see any reference to his anti-Russian activities in Kiev.

"Im April 2014 enthüllten russische Medien, unter Berufung auf ranghohe Beamte im Kiewer Sicherheitsapparat, dass Brennan am 12. und 13. April in Kiew gewesen sei und sich auch mit Premierminister Arsenij Jazenjuk und seinem Vize Vitali Jarema getroffen und besprochen habe.[18] Die Geheimdienst-Konsultationen wurden von Jay Carney, einem Pressesprecher des Weißen Hauses bestätigt.[19] Russische Medien sahen einen Zusammenhang mit dem Besuch Brennans und einer kurz darauf vom ukrainischen Innenministerium angekündigten Sonderoperation der Sicherheitskräfte mit Militärhubschraubern und Panzern gegen rebellierende Ostukrainer an, mit Schwerpunkt bei der Stadt Slowjansk.[20][21] Die CIA bestritt diese Zusammenhänge. Am 4. Mai berichteten deutsche Medien, dass die amerikanischen Dienste CIA und FBI die ukrainische Übergangsregierung bei ihrem Vorgehen gegen Aufständische im Osten der Ukraine berät.[22]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4224:BA00:D926:5CB4:F9B9:C5F4 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nov 2017: Brennan about Trump & Putin

“By not confronting the issue directly and not acknowledging to Putin that we know you’re responsible for this, I think he’s giving Putin a pass,” former CIA director John Brennan said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think it demonstrates to Mr. Putin that Donald Trump can be played by foreign leaders who are going to appeal to his ego and try to play upon his insecurities, which is very, very worrisome from a national security standpoint.”
Appearing on the same program, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said he agrees with that assessment.

Mention that in the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John O. Brennan. 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: 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) 13:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Political party

What is his political party affiliation?

I did not see any mention of this in the article? ---Dagme (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Brennan mentions he is neither registered as a democrat or a republican. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1IBMr5JJ-U time = 46 minutes 5 seconds 104.231.250.148 (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael Hastings

Apparently a Rolling Stone reporter named Michael Hastings who was investigating CIA director John Brennan died in mysterious car accident hours after sending panicked email to colleagues. It's starting to look a lot like murder. [2] [3] And then his body was cremated against his family's wishes [4] We obviously cannot include anything on this yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on this story to see how it develops. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.182.97 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Michael Hastings was a Buzzfeed reporter, which in my opinion is probably not of sufficient concern to the CIA that they would kill a reporter. His family has also mentioned they think his death was a suicide. Also, he mentioned that he thought his car was hacked by the CIA, but if he truly thought this, why would he continue to use it? It seems like a paranoid man with problems who killed himself. It would be libelous to include a section on this without conclusive evidence. 104.231.250.148 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference category

There's no mention of Russian interference in this article, so the category "Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" should definitely be removed. Even if we did cram his statements about Russian interference into the article, it doesn't meet inclusion criteria per WP:COPDEF. FallingGravity 22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, Brennan is mentioned by name 8 times in Wikipedia's Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It is not required that Russia be mentioned in his BLP in order to justify inclusion of that category in this article. KalHolmann (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:CATV: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." FallingGravity 01:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John O. Brennan. 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: 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) 05:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Trump section

Brennan strongly disagrees with Trump regarding foreign policy strategy and tactics.

Brennan believes that the high public pressure Trump regularly placed on both China and North Korea could lead to war based on this quote:

"I think the prospects of military conflict in the Korean peninsula are greater than they have been in several decades," he said during a Q-and-A session at Fordham University in New York Wednesday evening. "I don't think it's likely or probable, but if it's a 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 chance, that's too high."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-cia-chief-john-brennan-rates-chance-of-north-korean-conflict-at-20-to-25-percent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Anthony One (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) James Anthony One (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Brennan is opposed to President Trump's approach and style of negotiations to remove weapons from North Korea:

"Kim Jong Un, who I despise because of the brutality that he has put upon the North Korean people, but unfortunately I think he has been masterful in how he has manipulated perceptions and how he has manipulated and quite frankly duped Mr. Trump,"[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Anthony One (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/10/john_brennan_kim_jong-un_has_manipulated_and_duped_trump.html

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Brennan believed that Trump's tweets and political rhetoric against North Korea had a high risk of starting a war:

"I think the prospects of military conflict in the Korean peninsula are greater than they have been in several decades," he said during a Q-and-A session at Fordham University in New York Wednesday evening. "I don't think it's likely or probable, but if it's a 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 chance, that's too high." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-cia-chief-john-brennan-rates-chance-of-north-korean-conflict-at-20-to-25-percent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Anthony One (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Brennan is opposed to President Trump's approach and style of negotiations to remove weapons from North Korea:

"Kim Jong Un, who I despise because of the brutality that he has put upon the North Korean people, but unfortunately I think he has been masterful in how he has manipulated perceptions and how he has manipulated and quite frankly duped Mr. Trump,"[1] James Anthony One (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Question..these are factual and published quotes..there is no interpretation ....why would someone need a consensus to list a quote? Is there a way to appeal this to an arbitrator or ask for a second person to review? Also was a consensus method use for all statements in this section? If so the comments represent only one point of view of a complex issue.

See the standards on edit requests, which state that ... consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. It is impossible for any suggestion to include one person's statements about this President's actions to not be considered "likely to be controversial". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Article may have been vandalized to create a scoop

At 14:46, 17 July 2018, this BLP was vandalized by the first and only tweet from anonymous IP address 106.68.42.3, which inserted into the lead that Brennan "is now best known as an irrelevant, silly old fart who spends his days in his favourite slippers tweeting furiously about the Trump administration." Nine minutes later, that edit was reverted. Less than 90 minutes post-vandalism, The Washington Examiner published a story by reporter Naomi Lim headlined "Former CIA chief John Brennan called a 'silly old fart' on Wikipedia page."

Of course vandalism of Wikipedia is an endless onslaught, 90% of it emanating as in this case from unregistered users. Judging from the IP address, however, this particular vandal operates from Perth, Australia, an origin further supported by the spelling of "favourite" in text and the idiom "home truths" in the edit summary. What's especially curious is that reporter Naomi Lim herself identifies as an "Aussie."

Call me paranoid, but I find the timing suspicious. The interval from defacing to publication was exactly 81 minutes. Is this normal for media scoops about Wikipedia vandalism? KalHolmann (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, assuming you got the timezones etc right, that is quick. Your paranoia may be justified, or the journalist has a habit of checking interesting WP-articles now and then for inspiration, by chance saw this just when it happened, and was inspired. Could happen, I know I have reverted edits in less than a minute just because I happened to check my watchlist just then. But the Aussie-connection do add some spice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is suspicious, first for the timing and secondly for any publication at all to publish a silly vandalism episode. Wikipedia is vandalized all the time, and in my view anyway should not be taken as the source materials -- the encyclopedia itself should refer to source materials.Jazzbox (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, curiouser and curiouser! I remember seeing that when it happened. The Examiner is not a RS, and it might be a good idea to contact the Editor in Chief about this and ask them to investigate the matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The Examiner is used on WP quite a bit [6], but that doesn't mean it's the go-to source for a BLP. It's definitively "press", though.
Similar stuff is not uncommon in media, examples:[7][8]. More can be found on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
WaPo waited a few days before writing about the death of Orrin Hatch [9], but they seem to have, like, investigated stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

You should remove the characterization that he's a leftist activist 61.244.40.18 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. In skimming the article, I couldn't find the characterization. Could you mention the section as well? Dolotta (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

NC's Burr challenges Brennan over collusion comments  :-)

Even Richard Burr, Deep State Mechanic, rejects Brennan’s invalid claims:

Is it any surprise that a Republican senator would defend a Republican president from criticism and accusations? This is just more partisan bantering. FallingGravity 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Brennan_(CIA_officer)/Archive_1&oldid=1174863297"