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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree, the full name of the case should stay. --Assawyer 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with keeping it here. bd2412 T 02:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Proposed 

message: 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 . . .  --Heah? 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  --Heah? 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is less about Wikipedia court case article conventions, than it is about one of the first things you learn in law school—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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yes it was certainly me who misstated who got the injunction.  --Heah? 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  holding