Talk:Stephen Baskerville

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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 supported by the science and academia work group.

Men's Issues

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

"Parents Have a Right to the Care, Custody, and Companionship of Their Children"

I am adding a link to a YouTube video of Professor Baskerville giving testimony to the National Press Club in August 2007, which has the benefit of giving a summary of his viewpoints in less than three minutes. The Family Court System is "an abuse of government power … virtually 100%".

"The cures for this", the author of Taken Into Custody adds, are "a presumption of shared parenting" as well as "an act that will preserve, that will codify the ancient, very ancient recognition in the common law — in this country and in the English common law — that parents have a right to the care, custody, and companionship of their children and to supervise their upbringing; this is decades, if not centuries of case law … it's simply common sense…" Asteriks (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View Issues

I have tried to tone down the rhetoric in the piece. It might be good for someone who has not read a book by Baskerville to go through and look over the piece, and try to removed loaded words. Those who have read Taken Into Custody, as I have, have a hard time not being overly wroght about the whole issue.John Pack Lambert 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"a leading authority on divorce, child custody and the family court system."

Could somebody tell me why Paul Craig Roberts is considered an expert opinion (or even a reliable source) for the claim that Baskerville is "a leading authority on divorce, child custody and the family court system." Roberts comes across as more than a little of a WP:FRINGE figure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related issue, do we have any indication that Baskerville has attracted any notice outside of the American far right? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith & Reason lecture

Baskerville's Faith & Reason lecture has generated some press, although it seems to mostly be in partisan and/or self-published sources.[1][2][3][http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/sex-activists-weapon-perversion-and-politics/][4] This may need to be included when better sources are found. St Anselm (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Baskerville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222232315/http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php to http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]