Talk:Cassidy Hutchinson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Change text “Pat Cipollone“ to hyperlink to the relevant Wikipedia page. Itamavig (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done The first usage is already wikilinked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

College vs University

Please change "While in college..." to "While attending university..." There are (perhaps subtle) differences between colleges and universities. Thank you. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is written in American English, per Wikipedia's policy on language variety matching the topic, and "while attending university" is not American English. If you can think of a variety-neural way to say this, we could consider that. Moncrief (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit to make it variety-neutral. Moncrief (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this an BLP violation vs Donald Trump?

Should Wikipedia repeat hearsay accusations made by one person which are derogatory vs a living person? ""The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall to help the valet out." That is what the source goes to, indicating that Cassidy is repeating something told her by a valet, with no indication even that the valet saw it. Could this be hearsay of hearsay? (AltheaCase (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC))

If the valet is unwilling to testify, then all the Committee has to go on is Ms. Hutchinson's testimony. In the event that the valet is unwilling to testify, that is not the fault of Ms. Hutchinson.Vandelay, Varnson & Van Nostren (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate response, with its whataboutism. Your point is correct without all the extra stuff you added. Moncrief (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've therefore edited it.Vandelay, Varnson & Van Nostren (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a misleading representation of the section. Hutchinson provided testimony, answering questions asked by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. We represented that testimony in a manner fair to Hutchinson and to all potentially affected parties. We make clear as she made clear where her testimony is based on hearsay. Maybe you meant to say that the testimony is damning. Damning is not the same as unfair. Unfair would be if we misrepresented the testimony. Damning is the result of what the investigation reveals. We represent that fairly. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained removal by Soibangla

@Soibangla Why did you remove the following content from the article?

However, two Secret Service agents, including the one referred to by Hutchinson in her testimony, are prepared to testify before Congress that Trump did not lunge at a steering wheel or assault them in an attempt to go to the Capitol.

2601:547:500:6940:B505:6405:527B:53AE (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I rephrased and tightened the language, specifically naming two people, and used a better source. soibangla (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I now see that my edit was subsequently removed by someone else. There was a previous Talk discussion in which others insisted that this article should not include any reactions from others to CH's testimony, which would include the SS guys, which I disagree with. Maybe that's why it was removed, I didn't notice. soibangla (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That information should clearly be restored. Not a question really -- it is political bias at work, without a doubt. Many believe her charges are damaging, and thus any proof that the hearsay is contested by the source blows it out of the water. It's clearly relevant. Sychonic (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hutchinson's title

Various news sources describe Hutchinson's title as "special assistant to the president for legislative affairs" (e.g. [1] [2] [3]. A minority give it as "special assistant to the president and coordinator for legislative affairs" [4]. The Trump White House website gives it as "Special Assistant to the President and Coordinator for Legislative Affairs, Office of the Chief of Staff" [5]. Not terribly important, but any thoughts on which to include? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP1E

@Another Believer what's your notability defense against WP:BLP1E? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb Here are two "events:"

• The work she did as part of the White House staff in and before January 2021 with many of the major figures.
• Her testimony in the 28 June 2022 Select Committee hearing

The latter may yet prove to be highly significant to the outcome of this historic process. I'm writing this in real time listening to this session of the hearings. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Was there any RS coverage of her for anything other than today's hearing? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Still in relation to January 6th, but The Washington Post published an article about her testimony in April, when it was mentioned in Mark Meadows's law suit against the House Select Committee inquiry. [6] Rsmit274 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't just textbook BLP1E but also WP:Recentism. If her testimony "may yet prove to be highly significant" then we can wait and see if that's true before we go and make an article about her. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The article should be KEPT by WP:BLP1E because only BLP1E condition #1 is met. We should delete an article by BLP1E, ONLY when each of three conditions is met. It's a common mistake. gidonb (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly argue that all three criteria are met. There's no reason to think a former presidential aide is not "likely to remain[] a low-profile individual." There have been tons of people in that role and it's not exactly a launching pad for notable people. Her role in this event is also not exactly "substantial." The committee has issued hundreds of subpoenas for witnesses and documentary evidence. Her testimony might be noteworthy in the grand scheme of the larger hearing but certainly not enough to warrant an entire article about her, at least not at this stage. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

How anyone would think that this person has failed to achieve notability or notoriety is beyond me. (AltheaCase (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC))

Yes - *entirely* agree - "Cassidy Hutchinson" is clearly notable (historically and otherwise), and worth a Wikipedia article of course - perhaps "WP:IAR" may apply for some? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

She should be kept by WP:BLP1E. The policy is very clear about this. gidonb (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)