Talk:Kavanaugh stop: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 81: Line 81:

I added a “better source” tag as a reminder that we need to resolve the above issues. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I added a “better source” tag as a reminder that we need to resolve the above issues. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

:Somebody removed the ” Better source needed” tag inappropriately. The article cannot say – in the encyclopedias voice – that something contradicted something else. That’s A violation of the original research or synthesis Policies. A source has To be provided that says so. The editors of the article draw a conclusion that something contradicts something else. If there is no source that says that they are contradictory, then the editor is the article can merely state the differences between his two statements. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

:Somebody removed the ” Better source needed” tag inappropriately. The article cannot say – in the encyclopedias voice – that something contradicted something else. That’s violation of the original research or synthesis . A source has be provided that says . The editors of the article draw a conclusion that something contradicts something else. If there is no source that says that they are contradictory, then the the article can merely state the differences between his two statements. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

but it may not be a neutral source and I would add it but I don’t know how
https://slate.com/transcripts/VWZGUFBDcnRjVEp6MTNybXp0RVpTbkNvK2FwS0lCV0RWbTdtalBLemt2TT0= — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-46170-2 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources I’ll be looking at soon:

Noleander (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which title is better. Looking at analogous articles:

A complicating factor is that Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo is not an official SCOTUS decision, but rather is simply from the shadow docket. The guideline in WP is that every SCOTUS case is inherently notable, and The article name should follow the pattern. smith v. Jones … but shadow docket items? Using the official case name is probably not required.

The scope of this article is probably beyond the specific Supreme Court case, the intention is that this article would cover all aspects of the stops, including how they’re applied and where they’re happening and so on

Also: the legal case has two titles used ‘Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem” and “Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo”. I think they are both valid … but each specifies a different portion of the legal proceedings (moving party is named first). More research is required.

Noleander (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the current title, Kavanaugh stop, for now. “Kavanaugh stops” are a notable topic and a lot of ongoing coverage has focused on these and has used this terminology to describe the actual law enforcement practice and subsequent writing by Justice Kavanaugh. It’s possible that split will be necessary, à la Miranda and the others, but for now I think the original case and related developments can be handled here.
Information Note: A related question is where the redirects from the case names should point. I raised this as part of the already open discussion at Talk:June 2025 Los Angeles protests against mass deportation#Summary style: create Kavanaugh stop sub-article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion there. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also favor the current title, Kavanaugh stop. First, as stated above ‘Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo’ was not an official SCOTUS decision, instead on the shadow docket. If the Supreme Court can’t be bothered to do an official decision on something, then Wikipedia shouldn’t be bothered to use that as the article title. Second, Kavanaugh stop has quickly become the default name of these stops, with plenty of reliable sources to back up this usage.–SouthernNights (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that “Kavanauh stop” is better title, for all the reasons listed above. Most importantly:

  1. The Kav Stop title enables this article to contain important cultural/political material that might be excluded if the article were limited to only the actions of the SCOTUS; and
  2. The N v VP case is not a full SCOTUS decision … it is a federal case that was merely considered on the SCOTUS shadow docket.
Noleander (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like “Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo” ought to have its own article, if it played the central part in a new doctrine as consequential as Miranda or Terry. That would make this article consistent with established norms ~2026-25468-4 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing wrong with creating an article – focused specifically on the Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo case (as opposed to Kavanaugh stop which can be broader and include cultural aspects, specific incidents, etc.) However, there is a distinction between this case the other cases (Miranda v. Arizona and Terry v. Ohio) – the latter cases went through the entire SCOTUS appeal process: briefs, amicus, oral arguments, written decision, publication in the SCOTUS casebooks, and set a precedent. Contrast with Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo which was merely on the shadow docket and did not have arguments or a formal decision. Noleander (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct questions: Whether the case is independently notable enough that it could have its own article and whether there is enough distinct content to warrant two separate articles. Everything that needs to be said about the decision and the stops is adequately covered in a single article, with room for expansion or reorganization or both. If there article gets too long, we may need to reconsider. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to both responses: the appeal for this case at the Ninth Circuit(docket 25a169) is still pending. Wikipedia is not the news, but this should be taken into consideration if/when a separate article made- it will require timely updates until the final resolution ~2026-25468-4 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that the current definition is correct. My understanding is that “Kavanaugh stop” refers to the following sections of Kavanaugh’s concurrence: “If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that
individual will be free to go after the brief encounter” and “as for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.” That is, I think the use of the term is restricted to detention of those legally in the US where they’re not promptly freed, contrary to Kavanaugh’s claims that these are “brief” and people are then “free to go” / “may promptly go free.” This definition is consistent, for example, with the Boston Globe’s (the first reference) statement that “many of those arrested are US citizens or hold other legal status and are simply being racially profiled by ICE agents …. ICE critics coined a term to refer to such interactions: Kavanaugh stops.” Same with TechDirt’s (the second reference) statement that “Drexel law professor Anil Kalhan quickly dubbed these bullshit pretextual stops of US citizens as “Kavanaugh stops” and the name has stuck” (emphasis added).

Before I change this, I wanted to touch base with others. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis appears valid. The important thing is to follow the sources … so if they are emphasizing stops of those legally in the US (citizen or not) then the article’s 1st paragraph should reflect that. If any RS sources also include stops of non-legally-in-US persons, that alternative (broader) definition can be mentioned in a separate sentence, after the primary definition is stated. Noleander (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead section says the term “kavanaugh stop” was originally coined by Anil Kalhan. Ideally, the source should be a publication by Kalhan. Instead the current source is a podcast in which Kalhan is being interviewed, so it is not very objective. Also, in that podcast, they do not even talk about who/when the term was coined. Does anyone have solid, reliable source with the date and publication that the term was first used? If the first use was a social media post by Kalhan, what was the social media, what was the date, and what reliable source (not a podcast) is stating it was the first use? Noleander (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the post from bluesky – [1]. It is linked from here [2]. Remember (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Can you give us the date of the original blue sky post? …. I don’t have a bluesky account so I cannot see the post. Since this is a neologism it would be nice if the article mentioned the date of the erliest use of the term, Maybe not in the body text but at least in a footnote. Noleander (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluesky post say it was posted September 27,2025 at 9:08 am. Remember (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links & info. I’ve updated the article accordingly. Noleander (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article has “In a later, unrelated ruling, Justice Kavanaugh asserted that stops should not be made based on racial appearance alone, directly contradicting his prior opinion.” [boldface emphasis added]. The source is a Slate article that I cannot access. Can someone

  1. Please post a snippet from that source that shows that the source asserts that he directly contradicting his prior opinion.
  2. Even if the source _does_ say he “… directly contradicted …” the statement still should be attributed to the source’s author per WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. At least until the “contradiction” conclulsion is supported by a majority of Reliable Sources.

I added a “better source” tag as a reminder that we need to resolve the above issues. Noleander (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody removed the ” Better source needed” tag inappropriately. The article cannot say – in the encyclopedias voice – that something contradicted something else. That’s a violation of the original research or synthesis policies. A source has to be provided that says there is a contradiction. The editors of the article cannot draw a conclusion that something contradicts something else. If there is no source that says that they are contradictory, then the editors of the article can merely state the differences between his two statements. Noleander (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top