This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply