Talk:Paul Finkelman

Untitled

I removed the notability tag because I'm finding quite a few articles on this person with a Google search. However, it would be nice if the article were rewriten (by someone more ambitious than I *grin*) to be less of a laundry-list of books, and more about the importance and notability of this person. Kathy A. 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Need cleanup

This is too much like a professional c.v. rather than an encyclopedia article. Needs more data from other reliable sources rather than long lists of publications and awards.--Parkwells (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Lists of publications and awards were inserted when his notability was challenged, to indicate that he has made substantial contributions to his fields (law and history). (the above comment is unsigned.)

Why does anyone think he writes at http://balkin.blogspot.com/ where he is not listed?

He has only written occasionally for Huffingtonpost and is not a regular blogger there. Skywriter (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The contentious and potential libelous material has been removed and additional sources have been added throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.40.63 (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need some more RS. The National Constitution Center and Penn Program don't seem to list him on their websites, for example. I'm going to add CN tags for now. Sneekypat (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul Finkelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203224343/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/paul-finkelman/ to http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/paul-finkelman/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091010064231/http://www.paulfinkelman.com:80/sub.php?id=2 to http://www.paulfinkelman.com/sub.php?id=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul Finkelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130105080656/http://www.paulfinkelman.com:80/ to http://www.paulfinkelman.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012063112/http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/2001-May/007323.html to http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/2001-May/007323.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd dust-up with Thom Hartmann in 2013; why?

Finkelman attacks Thom Hartmann over an article about the Second Amendment and slavery. Finkelman's tone is odd -- he comes across as a constipated academic trying to prove he's smart. Yet he omits the earlier 1998 scholarly work of Prof. Carl T. Bogus, "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment" [1] -- which he likely was familiar with, as he wrote a chapter in an edited volume by Bogus. The odd thing is that Finkelman's claims are so strong, that he crosses the line in places, and is just wrong (a charge he accuses Hartmann of). What explains this? E.g., Finkelman snidely writes this:

Hartmann claims that "By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South." Does he have any evidence for this claim? Such evidence would revolutionize our understanding of Colonial and early national history. But there is no evidence for such a claim, because these "substantial slave uprisings" never took place. There were some small instances of slave violence in the Colonial period, although escape was the most common form of slave resistance. There was only one true "slave uprising" in the South, the Stono Rebellion in South Carolina, which took place in September of 1739, a half century before the Constitution was ratified. There were not "hundreds" of such rebellions, only very few, and only Stono was "substantial." On this issue Hartmann is simply wrong.

By unilaterally asserting that the only 'slave uprisings' that count are big ones, Finkelman himself tries to rewrite Southern slave history. Myriad small resistance is very much part of that story. (I'd include even instances of a single slave using physical force or violence against his owners or oppressors -- fear of this was very much part of the South.) According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:[2]

In the United States, the myth of the contented slave was essential to the preservation of the South’s “peculiar institution”... Estimates of the total number of slave revolts vary according to the definition of insurrection. For the two centuries preceding the American Civil War (1861–65), one historian found documentary evidence of more than 250 uprisings [!!] or attempted uprisings involving 10 or more slaves [!!] whose aim was personal freedom. Rebellions were also frequent throughout the Caribbean region and Latin America. Few slave rebellions were systematically planned, and most were merely spontaneous and quite short-lived disturbances by small groups of slaves. Such rebellions were usually attempted by male bondsmen and were often betrayed by house servants who identified more closely with their masters. Not all revolts had complete freedom as their aim; some had relatively modest goals, such as better conditions or the time and the freedom to work part-time for themselves and their families.

The History Network summarizes: "Slave rebellions were a continuous source of fear in the American South, especially since black slaves accounted for more than one-third of the region’s population in the 18th century. Laws dictating when, where and how slaves could congregate were enacted to prevent insurrection and quell white paranoia. It’s estimated there were at least 250 slave rebellions in America before slavery was abolished in 1865." They list several dozen of these. [3] This is just one example -- Finkelstein's article is full of unseemly and unfounded attacks, as if he somehow feels threatened by Hartmann, and is trying to prove that he's the real expert. Curious. Dnarnya2 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)