Talk:John Brennan (CIA officer)

Recent edits
Recent edits by Alainlambert appear to be undue emphasis on a broad investigation into 2016 by a US attorney, and are worded to imply that Brennan is being specifically investigated. This is not appropriate in a BLP, unless more specific charges are being made, and the net effect is a set of vague aspersions that breach BLP.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. The use of the word "criminal" in the section header is especially telling, and a clear violation of BLP policy. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Acroterion, It is against Wikipedia rules for you to ascribe motives to my edits. It is extremely offensive to me and it is an attack on my honesty, integrity and good faith to distort my edits to attack me personally. I kindly accept your apology ahead of your apology. Wikipedia is a serious undertaking with a serious need for credibility. We all need to focus on that common goal, not personal goals. Agreed? Best regards. Alainlambert (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cullen, so we need to call things differently than reality? For what purpose? Point of View? Point of View is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. So yes, let's discuss and start here: (i) were any of my sources not Reliable Sources?, (ii) did I inaccurately quote the sources, (iii) were my edit fully supported by Reliable Sources, and (iv) are you ready to take the exact same stance and go edit the Rudy Giuliani page for the exact same reason you are taking here, and (v) if not, why not? Best regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

John Brennan was not the 5th CIA directory
the info under his photo states Brennan was the 5th CIA directory that is not correct old man george bush was the 11th cia director brennan was after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.20.196 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bush 41 was the 11th Director of Central Intelligence. Brennan was the 5th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is confusing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Laptop/Email declared Disinformation
Certainly one of the central names on

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

March 2022, this data point is historically relevant.. The Hunter Biden Foreign dealings article is in flux as the investigation, the retired intelligence officials is not one that is subject to change but it not listed in his bio. The fact that this former CIA official signed onto a campaign ask is relevant to post CIA history. Linking that in an elegant way is requested.

Loopbackdude (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think that can be done. Would you like to propose text to be added to see if we can agree on wording? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Loopbackdude, just like at Talk:Steele dossier, your choice of tortured language is confusing. What do you mean? It's as if there are missing words, incorrect grammar and punctuation, and/or assumptions we can read your mind going on. Is English not your first language? That could explain it. That's okay, but we need to understand you before proceeding. -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Brennan signed a now discreated document that was immediately used a press weapon, ascribing a laptop unknown to him as certainly of Russian disinformation despite the history of presidents son leaving a trail of unaccounted for possessions.   This is just a sample of John Brennan being a political figure and not a fountain of intelligence information.
 * In the role of CIA administrator he could have been provided signals intelligence across multiple three letter agencies to back that up and until January 20, 2017.  If information before January 20, 2017 the biden admin would have leaked it to take pressure off ukraine questions.
 * By the biographies of former CIA officials signals intelligence is not shared with former CIA officers unlike the working of national security analyst briefings given to current and former government officials. But the CIA has unable to provide that information in past year and the laptop information is widely accepted as reliable, the Bidens trade on brandons...err joes name.
 * Valjean, We can be sure the Laptop plays no role in the current investigations of Hunter Biden as it was "widely discredited".  What the story lacks is anyone claiming any one item in the "dossier" of emails is that there has been addition, omission, editing changing any of the charitersations of the emails release.   Oh anyone know why this sounds so familiar?
 * We can discuss why the NYTimes and MSNBC repeatedly falls into reporting exactly what political biased figureheads tell them to report in another discussion. Loopbackdude (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment shows some poor POV on your part. ascribing a laptop unknown to him as certainly of Russian disinformation: not true. The direct quotes from the Natasha Bertrand article from the letter is that it has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation, and deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. Suspicions, not certainty. I have no idea what you're trying to get at about at In the role of CIA administrator, which ended over three years before the laptop was produced. And even joking uttering that Let's Go Brandon malarkey is unbecoming and not going to lead to collaboration so I don't know why you did it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023
Please add a comma after "Kyle" in the personal life section. Colemal (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of doing that, I have removed the names of all three children as they are all non-notable. For such a notable and hated man (by the fringes), their privacy is important. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023
Hunter Biden email controversy was in October 2020, not October 2000. Johndoe11232316 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Typo fixed. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  07:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)