Talk:Rudy Pantoja

General improvements in bias and sourcing

The summary of Pantoja's speech at the public event does not cite its source correctly. It recounts a supposed video of him speaking and being derided by protestors, but the source cited does not contain this video, it is simply a local news article giving a simple explanation of the widely known story. Additionally, the wording in "mistakenly assuming his race to be white. Pantoja is Chicano." strikes me as biased, as it is phrased like a correction of a belief. It ignores various pieces of context. Chicano is not a skin colour, and white is. It is perfectly possible to be both white and Chicano, and Pantoja is both. Therefore saying that he cannot be white if he is Chicano is not true. It also ignores what is in my opinion the brunt of this critique, which is that racial bias in policing is much more likely to be based on outward skin colour than ones ethnic background. Given that Pantoja is white-passing enough to be mistaken for a white man by these protestors, it stands to reason that he would also be considered white in most interactions with law enforcement, and so the criticism of him being unfit to talk on issues of police violence against POC is still salient. I am aware this is not the place for political debates, but I wear my bias on my sleeve when speaking as myself and not as the voice of a wikipedia article. These are all issues raised by the article being phrased as the final word on a theoretical debate, and not a simple and unbiased recounting of events.

Having watched the original video myself, there are also factual inaccuracies in the article's explanation of it. "She asked "What is your name?" Pantoja answered, "Do you want my name?" and proceeded to offer the gag name "Hugh Mungus." " is not correct. In fact, Pantoja approaches Joshi while she is recording, and says "Are you taking my picture? Do you want my name?" and she responds "Yeah, sure." When he says "Hugh Mungus" she is initially not angry, and simply asks "Humungous what?" as though interpreting Humongous as his first name and requesting a last name. The recounting of this segment is particularly biased, implying that her response was immediately angry and accusatory when it was initially calm. It also leaves out her asking if what he said was intended as sexual harassment, and only coming to the conclusion that it was when he fails to respond. BrunnhildePS (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. They, as well as your comment, strike me as even more biased in the other direction. For one, you have beliefs about skin colour and ethnicity that are unsourced and highly subjective. We can describe an ethnicity when it's relevant and sourced, but we're not going to include what certain editors think the colour of someone's skin is. Secondly, she approaches him. She walks up to him while he's speaking to a camera, and he is then forced to walk by her as she continues to film him. That's not him approaching her. What is true is that he does offer to give his name himself. I'll remove that error. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this isn't satisfactory to me at all. I'm perfectly okay with the criticism that my telling of the events is biased, I acknowledged that in the comment. The line of the article "Black Lives Matter activists attended the meeting in opposition to the precinct and were recorded off-camera jeering and deriding Pantoja as he spoke and mistakenly assuming his race to be white" is not sourced. The source cited (2: Harms, Shane) does not contain the video that this line claims exists, and I have not seen the video anywhere after cursory research. Just because you found my telling of the events to be biased doesn't excuse you recreating obvious factual errors that I removed. BrunnhildePS (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)