Talk:Sunny Hostin

Education, and Early History

Mrs. Hostin evidently graduated from the N.Y. State University of Binghamton, one of the colleges in the New York Public system, and one of the best. It is, however, not referred to as "Binghamton University" but "The State of New York, University at Binghamton", or more informally, SUNY Binghamton. (John G. Lewis (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC))

Apparently, her heroine is Sotomayor, who said being a "wise Latina" would enable her to make better decisions that white males. In other words, genetic accidents such as gender and ethnicity convey wisdom, as long as the gender is non-male and the ethnicity is non-white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life

Editor continually reverting Hostin's personal life section to selectively omit context from her 2018 racial harassment episode that the harassers were children. The information is exceptionally vague for and is salacious to ambiguously stoke racial animosity. The current edit does not omit that Hostin alleged herself to have been the target of racial epithets, but notes that the alleged perpetrators were children. Prior revisions gave even more context, including Hostin's response on The View to these allegations, but the other editor has repeatedly deleted all attempts at providing context to the racial harassment issue.

@96.241.151.80: What does it matter that the alleged perpetrators were children? There were no charges brought to any children. There were no independent reports of the incident aside from her account. Anything more than a brief mention would give the incident undue weight. KyleJoan^talk 04:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If the event is only deserving of a "brief mention," we want to avoid giving it "undue weight," if no charges were brought, and if the identity of the perpetrator is immaterial, there is no relevance in including the information at all. It is vague. Removed the factoid for these agreed upon reasons.

As a follow up, to properly contextualize this episode, I would agree to include that she "spoke of being the target of racial epithets from children on The View in 2018" or something similar to that. It is disingenuous to include the fact at all without any context.

After user reverted article to their own standard without using any input from other editors, I reverted the changes to include the suggested language regarding the racial harassment episode, meeting the other editor halfway. It provides information from the cited source necessary to contextualize the factoid without unnecessarily stoking racial resentment.

User KYLEJOAN repeatedly reverts edits without adding necessary context to claim that Hostin was the target of racial epithets FROM CHILDREN in New York, and that she discussed these allegations on the view.

@96.241.151.80: You added that 1. she recalled the incident on The View and 2. the alleged perpetrators were children. Why are these two details so imperative? What does it matter whether she recalled the story on The View or Maury or Judge Judy? What does it matter whether the alleged perpetrators were teenagers or millennials or baby boomers? KyleJoan^talk 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is imperative because I came to Wikipedia to read about Hostin, being largely unfamiliar with her. I saw that she was the target of racial epithets in her personal life section, clicked the cited source, and saw that she talked about it on The View - her job and the place I came to learn of her - and that it involved children - not adults more capable of judging the rightness of their actions - who when confronted about the allegations denied them. This is more elucidating on the scenario than vaguely saying, "target of racial epithets," which provides zero context for outcome, resolution, location, situation, or ANY other pertinent information. Instead, the ambling reader would see the personal life section, and likely assume the worst without clicking the source cited. To me, this all seems like an attempt to evoke sympathy for Hostin through her Wikipedia page, which should aim at being as factually accurate instead of pushing a narrative.

If this incident is not worth the attention or the details, my question to you is why include it at all?

@96.241.151.80: Ah, I understand. You believe that we need to qualify the incident with the description that children were the alleged perpetrators because children are not capable of judging the rightness of their actions. Why didn't you say that before? In addition, saying that she said the incident took place is factually accurate. If the details are sparse and you would like to learn more, fun fact: you can click on the source the way you did. Regarding the incident being worth the attention or the details, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, so it should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. It's interesting you only brought up the incident and nothing else in the article, as in you never asked where readers can listen to her podcast or what time The View airs or how many episodes said podcast has aired. By your standard, this entire article should not exist, no? KyleJoan^talk 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You are intentionally misrepresenting this fact and attempting to limit information to elicit racial sympathy for Sunny Hostin. I am for including the fact, but with context. You're arguments in response to my concerns are straw men and examples of reductio ad absurdum, so I do not feel they warrant a response further than that.

@96.241.151.80: I am for including facts with context as well. With that in mind, the article only lists her birthdate and city of birth, therefore, we should remove both information because we're not stating what time, in which hospital, and in what color blanket she was born. KyleJoan^talk 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No, what you would like it to read, by analogy, is "She was born."

@96.241.151.80: I've never feel more understood in my life. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 16:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Journalist?

Where did she attend journalism school? Dec212012 (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Adding User:KyleJoan here. Hostin is many things, a television talk show host, social commentator, author, and legal analyst, but she has never been a journalist. To my knowledge, she's never been hired as one for a newspaper or magazine or has ever been a news anchor. She's appeared on various programs to offer her social commentary or legal opinions but she herself is not a journalist.

On her own website she name drops she's a journalist but I couldn't find any specific examples of it. It references her Emmy wins and I found out that, "She won two Emmys for her work as a correspondent for ABC’s Good Morning America and one for her work as a correspondent for the ABC News Special, The President and the People." Correspondent seems pretty vague and with the "The President and the People: Race in America" it seems as if she served in a commentator role. Regardless that was a while ago and now who she currently is now. So I would be fine with saying "Television personality", "Legal analyst", "Political commentator", etc.

On the website it does say however, "She is widely known as a social commentator and has covered many of the major legal, political, and cultural community stories of today". Its more appropriate to describe her as a social commentator than a journalist. The One I Left (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)