Talk:Cassidy Hutchinson

I copied the following lengthy text from the article. This is not part of the testimony and therefor not part of Hutchnison's biography. There is an article about the discussions that day, where it belongs in a shortened form. BTW that article already has reactions. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reactions Ornato reportedly denied telling Hutchinson the lunging incident occurred, as did Engel and the president's driver, who were prepared to testify to that effect.^[1] Ornato previously headed Trump's Secret Service detail. Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig, the author of a 2021 book on the Secret Service, characterized Engel and Ornato as "very, very close to President Trump" and "some people accused them of at times being enablers and 'yes men' of the president — particularly Tony Ornato — and very much people who wanted to do what he wanted and see him pleased." She said there was a large contingent of Trump's Secret Service detail that wanted Biden to fail and some "took to their personal media accounts to cheer on the insurrection and the individuals riding up to the Capitol as patriots."^[2] Hutchinson's testimony was widely characterized by legal analysts and the press as highly significant, particularly in the context of possible indictments of Trump and his associates. The Justice Department had been pursuing a criminal investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and former Trump attorney general Bill Barr remarked, "the department is clearly looking into all this, and this hearing definitely gave investigators a lot to chew on."^[3][4]

Gidonb: This is her BLP. It includes her testimony and should also include reactions to her testimony. The content should be restored. I note that you previously said this belongs in a Reaction section, so I created that section for it, and now you're removing it altogether. soibangla (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, then quoting myself: this is not part of the testimony. Reactions belong in the article on the hearings that day. You even thanked for the removal under that explicit summary. You are now totally turning around your own opinion and gratitude! That's sad. In general, talk is cheap and testimonies for the house select committee are done under oath. The immediate and detailed reactions to her testimony are not part of Hutchinson's biography. It's material that relates to her very indirectly. It balloons the article asking: "do I know anything else?", rather than "is anything missing?" It's a common mistake that negatively effects the quality of many articles. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to get personal with You are now totally turning around your own opinion and gratitude! That's sad. I thanked you for noting it wasn't testimony, but rather reactions to testimony, so I created a Reactions section. And those reactions belong as a subsection to her testimony. soibangla (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's the mistake. This article is NOT about Hutchinson's testimony. It is a biography of Cassidy Huntchinson. The section about her testimony before the January 6 committee start with an explicit mention that there is another article that discusses the entirety of the hearings that day: background, proceedings, testimony, coverage, and reactions. The idea of wikilinks and referrals is that we keep focus on what is needed under each subject, not that each article will become a random and eclectic collection of information! gidonb (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why do you suppose this article was created only hours before her testimony? soibangla (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's a question that relates to another topic, that of WP:BLP1E or not. I answered that above this discussion Let's focus our discussions also on this talk page, as you did (and now comes my compliment) by initiating a hopefully wider discussion below. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

well of course there should! right? soibangla (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

•   Disagree This article is NOT about Hutchinson's testimony. It is a biography of Cassidy Huntchinson. The section about her testimony before the January 6 committee starts with an explicit mention that there is another article that discusses the entirety of the hearings that day: background, proceedings, testimony, coverage, and reactions. The idea of wiki links and referrals is that we keep focus on what is needed under each subject, not that each article will become a random and eclectic collection of information! In general, talk is cheap and testimonies for the house select committee are done under oath. The immediate and detailed reactions to her testimony are not part of Hutchinson's biography. It's material that relates to her very indirectly. It balloons the article asking: "do I know anything else?", rather than "is anything missing?" It's a common mistake that negatively affects the quality of many articles. We should not let it affect the quality of this article as well! gidonb (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
• I agree with Gidonb, this is not the place for reactions to her testimony. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

But MelanieN, you just added a reaction to her testimony, under her testimony, rather than under a Reactions section where it should be, and where I had previously put it, but it was removed. soibangla (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did - not because it was a reaction, but because it was a necessary caveat regarding her (hearsay) testimony about the incidents. In other words we should not let those particular incidents stand here as unchallenged fact. That's a different matter from the usual "I don't know her" and "she's a liar" and "she's a hero" reactions. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

But this is why we say she testified and she said. The reactions by Engel, Ornato et al. is a bit more complicated than just "they denied it."[1] And shouldn't we include some mention of how her testimony, the biggest single event of her life thus far, and for which she will long be remembered (John Dean springs to mind) was received?[2]]. soibangla (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, I see that you removed it, so I guess that settles that. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

If the upshot of this discussion is that the article should not include reactions to her testimony, in the inevitable event someone adds reactions from Secret Service agents, I will remove it accordingly and reference this discussion. The better alternative is to have a Reactions section to include the many reactions to this momentous testimony, but no reactions will mean NO reactions AFAIC. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article should clearly include references to the news articles reporting on the sources that discredit her testimony. I’ve now read attempts by leftist political websites attempting to rehabilitate her credibility. Perhaps those should be mentioned, but less important since they are more opinion pieces. The Secret Service agents reported to deny her hearsay statement should be mentioned, in particular since it was originally sourced by Peter Alexander of NBC.

It is clearly relevant, well sourced, and there seems to be sufficient interest on this talk page for its inclusion.

Unless someone else adds the reference, I will. Sychonic (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article was created just hours before her testimony. To this point, her testimony is the only notable aspect of her life, it alone has made her a public figure of intense interest. If she later becomes an international pop rock superstar, we can include that, too. soibangla (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Strongly Agree. If this article has a raison d'etre then it is her testimony before this panel. It's not really a question -- of course reactions questioning her accuracy and veracity must be included. It would be consistent with just about any other article where politically important claims are made -- omitting the criticism or information contradicting the claim would show a clear bias -- and Wikipedia is already thought to be biased toward the left in general and against Trump in particular. That Wiki is biased should not be given support in a clear cut case like this.

So far there are two items that call into question both of those, and must be mentioned if this article is to be worth anything: First, her testimony is hearsay, she is speaking of things, in part, where she simply "recounts" somebody else's story. If that person is reported to deny her claims, that is relevant to this article. Anyone denying that is really showing partisanship and must dislike the facts involved rather than interested in relevant completeness. Peter Alexander from NBC reported, and this has been repeated on a wide variety of media sources, stated that his sources told him both Oranato and Engel, the Secret Service individuals mentioned in Hutchinson's testimony, deny the event took place. That is clearly relevant to this article.

The second relates to a note that Hutchinson claims she wrote, one on White House "Chief of Staff" paper, taking dictation from Mark Meadows. This is contested by former White House Attorney Eric Herschmann who claims he wrote that note. It's relevant as to whether any of her testimony is believable, which takes up the bulk of the article and is the only reason it exists. See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house-lawyer-hutchinson-note-jan-6

This is crystal clear, and those opposing it know that this story only has a short shelf life, so they want to keep this information off the page in the time it is popular for people to read it. Try a basic hypothetical -- were someone to testify to witnessing ballots being stolen or manufactured for Biden during the 2020 election, would that testimony be reported without any reference to counter claims disputing its factuality? Of course not. If Wikipedia has an article which omits this kind of information, then it will simply be proving that it is the left wing garbage heap that some people claim it is.

Sychonic (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

All these rumors about denials have no bearing whatsoever because they were not done under oath. To the best of my knowledge, under oath, the testimony of Hutchinson has not been contradicted. And even if it was, it would be drifting away from the topic of Cassidy Hutchinson. Finally, I will call out the elephant in the room that must have caused everyone not to react. After all the deaths, injuries, threats, lawlessness, and other misery, the hypothetical in the opinion above exhibits a tone-deafness of uncommon proportions! gidonb (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Lexington column in the Economist ('The courage of Cassidy Hutchinson') this week claims the Hutchinson is 26 years old. Comparing that with the other source, that means she was born in 1996. I can't update the page because I have't made enough edits yet. Howtisland1990 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

We're in mid-year. You can't determine someone's birth year from their age without knowing the month when they were born. Also, extrapolating birth year from age is original research. We need a reputable source actually mentioning her birth year/date in order to include. Moncrief (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I guess it's still original research, but being 26 now implies a birth date of 1995/1996 while the other source says gave the age as 25 earlier this year, which implies 1996/1997. So that means 1996 (with a birthday between the publication of the two articles). Howtisland1990 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done - seems the following added edit may be ok => { {birth date and age|1996|03|04}} => (1996-03-04) March 4, 1996 (age 28)^[1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:RS. Also please read WP:DOB. We don't even need a birthdate for this living person who only became famous this week, and if we do have one, we need to be 100% sure it's accurate. I've seen several varying DOBs, and ultimately it doesn't matter what her birthdate is. The source used above ("Federal Regulations Advisor") is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is used as a trusted, go-to, reliable source itself by many people, so it's irresponsible of us to add a DOB that we aren't completely sure about. I'm hoping other experienced editors will monitor this, because I don't have the constitution anymore for these types of basic arguments. Moncrief (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't "circa 1996" (as in {{circa|1996}} be an acceptable solution based on multiple news sources reporting her age as 26 this year [3] [4] [5] and a New York Times article that opens: "She was 22 years old, a rising college senior who went to work as a summer intern in the Trump White House in 2018." Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

What you're describing is a bit of original research, but probably allowable as a 199X/199X date range (rather than "circa"), but I've seen reliable sources describe her as 25 in recent days, such as [6] and [7]. It's not terribly complicated. If she is confirmed to be 26, then she was, as of today, born between 3 July 1995 and 2 July 1996, for a "1995/1996" range. (I'm puzzled by those, not you, who think she was definitely born in 1996.) If we are 100% sure she is 26, a range like that would probably be OK. Although, I think it's already clear enough from the context of the article what her age roughly is, based on when she went to high school and college, so I don't think there's a need to rush to add a year range until we're sure. Moncrief (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to double-confirm that the source described above ("Federal Regulations Advisor") is absolutely not 'reliable': not only is the link referenced above invalid/broken, the site purports to provide a "Contact Us" physical address – which is not a valid address.EricTN (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could Template:Birth based on age as of date be used in this article? Per its description, this template estimates the person's birth year and current age based on a given age at a certain date. From the comments above, apparently her age on particular dates was published in reliable sources. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the last four sentences to reflect the Select Committee's own transcript of the January 6th hearing. Hutchinson never used the word, "fucking," as CNN had her saying. I saw and heard the hearing live and she said "f'ing." The Committe's transcript also had alternate punctuation than the CNN report, which better fit her actual verbal punctuation. Activist (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Activist: Thank you! Please consider spelling "f-ing" per Oxford or even effing, which is clearest. gidonb (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is Hutchinson married to Kujtim Gacaferi? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

No. The wedding webpage references a different person that just happens to have the same name. EricTN (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

These edits mainly have to do with incorrect use of the past perfect tense, when the simple past tense should be used. It is important because it makes it hard to follow when something happened, or when something happened before something else. The article is very important, and the timing of events discussed is vital for understanding. Here you go:

"Under subpoena, Hutchinson had given four depositions totaling more than two dozen hours..." Change to: "Hutchinson gave four depositions..."

"During the June 28 sworn testimony,[23] Hutchinson testified that she had overheard mention of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys during planning of the Save America March..." Change to: "...testified that she overheard mention.."

"Hutchinson testified she had been told by then-White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato that after Trump got into the presidential..." Change to: "...testified she was told..."

"lunged at Engel's clavicles" Change to: "clavicle" [a human has only one clavicle] 2601:280:5D00:3E10:4C8A:D02F:4B8F:A48E (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done —Sirdog (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add her parents' background, as is typical in Wikipedia bios. 64.38.171.27 (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply