Talk:Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal

NPOV
Assawyer removed the line with the precedent set in this case explicitly allowing the UDV to possess and use the tea, it is very likely that that decision will be in favor of the UDV as well as violating wikipedia's npov policy. However, this statement isn't biased one way or another towards what the outcome should be, morally or whatever. It simply states what will be the likely outcome of the lower court proceedings, given the decision and precedent set here. The decision ends with The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for  further proceedings consistent with this opinion; as the opinion clearly states that the UDV is authorized to possess and import ayahuasca, it is highly likely that the lower court will rule in favor of the UDV as well. It isn't 100% assured, of course, but the sentence doesn't suggest this, only that it is very likely that this will be the outcome. This isn't taking a pov stance in the sense of working bias in as fact, and is completely in accord with the decision, warranting a mention in the article. e.g. an article about some movie still in pre-production could state w/o any problems that some particular actor will likely be starring in it based on statements made by the producers/actors/whatever even if this hasn't been officially confirmed yet. So on the basis of the preceding i'm going to put the statement back in the article. --Heah talk 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand the ruling it merely affirms the 10th circuit's affirming of the District Court's preliminary injunction. I believe it was only remanded as the case involves a significant constutional question and also because the case will likely be going back after the District Court has a hearing on the matter.


 * The phrase you cite is an opinion, therefore a citation on the likeliness of the UDV's chances of the District Court ruling in their favor at the full hearing is needed to be included in the article. Whether or not the UDV will or won't prevail is a matter of opinion.  It isn't nessecarily bias, but probably falls under Verifiability] as the phrase in question offers an opinion, not fact.  Like other pages, legal scholars opinions on the legal outcome could be used to show what the legal community thinks will likely happen given the court's ruling.  For example (if there were sources to cite), "Many legal experts believe that the UDV will prevail at trial due to the Supreme Court's ruling."  Before putting the phrase back in, please offer some citation for why the UDV will prevail.   [[User:Assawyer|Assawyer 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll buy that. thanks for the response--Heah talk 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

?
What does the below statement mean? what is the "DMT"? do you mean "does not allow exceptions to the CSA for DMT in order to . . . "? --Heah talk 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) The court disagreed with the government's central argument that the uniform application of the CSA does not allow for exceptions to the DMT in order to accommodate the UDV's religous practices because it would be contrary to .
 * That was a mistake on my part. I save it before I had finished editing. I have fixed it. Assawyer 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Proposed
I think this page (or at the very least links to it) ought to be renamed Gonzales v. UDV. That is the commonly known name of the case and few English speakers actually know how to pronounce the long form name of the church. --Chaser 17:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gonzales v. UDV is a redirect; imo, the article should stay here. If anyone types in "Gonzales v. UDV" they will be forwarded to this page, and links themselves, of course, can say anything- ie, Gonzales v. UDV shows up on the screen as Gonzales v. UDV, but links directly here.  So i think we should stick with the full case name.  --He:ah? 18:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the full name of the case should stay. --Assawyer 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with keeping it here. bd2412  T 02:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

holding
i have to questions/comments about the change in the holding. First, the UDV isn't a Native American church; it is a Brazilian syncretic sect, and the majority (if not all) of the sante fe members are white. Secondly, shouldn't the holding reflect the holding itself? ie, the old wording was straight from the decision and was itself the holding; shouldn't that be the case? I may be wrong. . . -- He  ah?  22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake about stating that the church was Native American. On the other point, court decisions do not always explicitly state what the holding is in a quick soundbyte; the holding is the effect of the case as a whole, the consequence.  Exact language from the decision will not always encapsulate this.  Other than the church identity, in what way was my statement of the holding incorrect?  The statement you have chosen, while accurate, is insufficiently informative.  It omits what was being enjoined and what the applicable laws were.  I think the holding should be changed back to how I worded it, with the correction regarding the church's identity.  Postdlf 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, i figure i'd revert as the identity issue had to be fixed anyways, and i could bring it here so wording could be discussed. Originally it was along the lines of what you put in, (though not worded as accurately), but Assawyer changed it with an edit summary of fix holding to reflect what the court actually held, which is why i bring this up.  If it's standard procedure on these cases to give the holding statement as a fuller, more informative summation of the decision, then we should do that; but if it's standard procedure to actually state the holding itself then that's what we should do.  And i don't know what the standard procedure concerning this is here at wikipedia, but i figured it should be discussed.  If having a fuller, more informative summation of the holding rather than the actual language is ok, then i agree, that is what should be there.  -- He  ah?  18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is less about Wikipedia court case article conventions, than it is about one of the first things you learn in law school&mdash;you can rarely look to the exact language of a single sentence (or even paragraph) from a court's decision to find its holding. The courts don't always express themselves that clearly and precisely, which is why simply quoting the language is not necessarily sufficient.  Postdlf 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement that Assawyer corrected, btw, incorrectly asserted that the church had been the subject of the injunction; the church instead obtained an injunction that prevented the government from prosecuting it. Postdlf 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The holding, that was replaced by Postdlf, was copied from the "syllabus" of the Supreme Court's opinion. The syllabus isn't the official holding, rather an interpretation of the Court's opinon to make it easier for the public to have a less technical explination of the Court's finding and reasoning.  The Syllabus has a holding, then will explain each area of the court's holding.  Postdlf's version is longer and in my opinion combines the holding with a summary of facts.  While facts are needed in the Court's holding there has to be a limit, merely using the holding provided by the Court's staff I believe in most cases will best explain the court's reasoning.  I think interpretations and combining information is best left for the text of the article. By the way, as to the issue of my confusing who got the injunction, I don't believe I did.  If you could provide the link in the history to demonstrate where I did that would be helpful.    --Assawyer 13:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that the statement you corrected was in error as to who got the injunction, not your statement. Postdlf 15:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for setting me straight, I see the error of my ways, I obviously misread your sentence. --Assawyer 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it was certainly me who misstated who got the injunction. -- He  ah?  19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)