Talk:Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note

Note: Article started, using some material and source, from article, Ford Greene. -- Cirt (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag on incorrect grammar is itself incorrect

I am not sure if the tag about the bad grammar is a joke or not. It should either be fixed or removed. Jus da fax 04:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it off. The cleanup tag is enough. Borock (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people are certainly welcome to make improvements too. :-) -Borock (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

APA amicus curiae brief

While it was submitted by the APA (and academics Jeffrey Hadden, Eileen Barker, David Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, Joseph Bettis, Durwood Foster, William R. Garret, Richard D. Kahone, Timothy Miller, John Young, James T. Richardson, Ray L. Hart, Benton Johnson, Franklin Littell, Newton Malony, Donald E. Miller, Mel Prosen, Thomas Robbins, and Huston Smith) on 1987-02-10, the APA withdrew their support from the brief on 1987-03-24. The reasons why they withdrew are subject to partisan camp interpretations, and certainly aren't part of this article. There should be a very neutral mention of the withdrawal, to avoid being a partisan magnet. As CESNUR is a member of one of those camps, I'd avoid their interpretations. AndroidCat (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Other than the brief, I'm not as familiar with the case as I should be. From the article, it appears that the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving the judgement as is. How then was the outcome a settlement? AndroidCat (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]