text:
Fugees

Fugees (sometimes The Fugees) are an American hip hop trio formed in 1990 in South Orange, New Jersey. Deriving its name from a shortening of the word "refugees", the group consists of Wyclef Jean, Pras Michel, and Lauryn Hill. The group rose to prominence in the mid-1990s for their pioneering blend of reggae, R&B, funk and hip hop, which eschewed gangsta rap and made them one of the most significant alternative hip hop acts. They occasionally rapped in Haitian Creole, and were one of the first hip hop bands to incorporate live instrumentation during their performances, along with the Roots.

In 1993, the trio signed with Ruffhouse Records, an imprint of Columbia Records. Their debut album Blunted on Reality (1994), fused elements of political hip hop, jazz and neo soul. It was met with favorable reviews, and included the Salaam Remi-remixed underground hits "Nappy Heads" and "Vocab". According to The New York Times, the group's second studio album The Score (1996) placed them "at the forefront of pop music". The album peaked at number one on the US Billboard 200, and was certified 7× Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It spawned the singles "Ready or Not", "Fu-Gee-La", and "Killing Me Softly". The latter single reached number one in over twenty countries worldwide. The Score was nominated at the Grammy Awards for Album of the Year. This marked the second time a rap album received a nomination for the award.

Afterwards, The Fugees made an uncredited guest appearance on Simply Red's version of "Angel"; and released the single "Rumble in the Jungle" (featuring Busta Rhymes, A Tribe Called Quest & John Forté), both of which peaked within the top five on the UK Singles Chart. Their 1997 performance in Haiti, marked the largest staged concert ever held in the country. They also collaborated with Bounty Killer on the single "Hip-Hopera", which spent several weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The Fugees later disbanded due to internal conflict, leading each of the members to pursue solo careers. Since then, they have briefly reunited for live performances and reunion tours; most recently in 2023.

Together they have won two Grammy Awards, a Brit Award for International Group, and the Medal of Honor from Haitian President René Préval. They are one of the best-selling hip hop groups of all time, and were the second biggest R&B act worldwide after Michael Jackson in the 1990s. The Fugees were ranked as one of the greatest rap groups by MTV (2007) and Billboard (2023), and landed at number 17 on the '50 Greatest Hip-Hop Artists' list (2003) by VH1. The Score was listed among the 500 Greatest Albums by Rolling Stone. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame named "Ready or Not" one of the Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll.

Formation and beginnings
Lauryn Hill and Pras first met at Columbia High School, in Maplewood, New Jersey. Pras, Lauryn, and a mutual friend Marcy Harriell formed a musical trio called Tyme; Pras' cousin, Wyclef Jean, joined the line-up and Marcy left soon afterward, in 1990. The moniker Tranzlator Crew refers to the name of their band at the time, which included Johnny Wise on drums, Ti Bass (Jerry Duplessis) on bass guitar, and original DJ Hard Hittin Harry (Harry D’Janite). DJ Leon (Leon Higgins) joined the group in 1994 after Harry left to pursue a career as a publicist. In 1993, after some gigs and recorded demos, the trio signed to Ruffhouse, distributed through Columbia Records. The members then changed the group's name to Fugees, which was purposely taken from a word often used derogatorily to refer to Haitian-Americans (refugee). Refugee Camp, while a name sometimes credited to the trio, also refers to a number of artists affiliated with the members, and particularly Jean.

Blunted on Reality
The trio soon changed musical direction, and released its first hip-hop LP, Blunted on Reality, under the guidance of Kool and the Gang's producer Ronald Bell. The group wrote and recorded the album in 1992 at the House of Music Studios in West Orange, New Jersey. However, due to a dispute with its record label, the album was not released until February 1, 1994. The Fugees members have subsequently said that they allowed the producers to have too much control over the album's content and form. Although the album did not contain as many lyrics with overtly political messages as songs from their next and better-known album The Score, there were still political intentions. Though Blunted on Reality spawned the three singles "Boof Baf", "Vocab", and "Nappy Heads", they struggled to gain mainstream attention despite earning plaudits for its artistic quality and innovative use of samples. The album's most successful single was a remixed version of the song "Nappy Heads" produced by Salaam Remi. The remix peaked at number 49 on the Billboard Hot 100.

The Score
The musical qualities of the first Fugees record were revisited with their sophomore effort The Score, which was released in February 1996. The Score was Fugees' final record before their disbandment the following year.

The Score became one of the biggest hits of 1996 and one of the best-selling hip-hop albums of all time. The Fugees first gained attention for its cover versions of old favorites, with the group's reinterpretations of "No Woman No Cry" by Bob Marley & the Wailers and "Killing Me Softly with His Song" (first recorded by Lori Lieberman in 1971, remade by Roberta Flack in 1973), the latter being their biggest hit.

The album also included a re-interpretation of The Delfonics' "Ready or Not Here I Come (Can't Hide From Love)" in their hit single, "Ready or Not", which featured a prominent sample of Enya's "Boadicea" without the singer's permission. This prompted a lawsuit resulting in a settlement where Enya was given credit and royalties for her sample. The group members have continuously thanked and praised Enya for her deep understanding of the situation, for example in the liner notes of The Score.

The Fugees won two 1997 Grammy Awards with The Score (Best Rap Album) and "Killing Me Softly" (Best R&B Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group).

They produced remixes of Michael Jackson's "Blood on the Dance Floor" and "2 Bad".

Later career
In 1997, the Fugees were featured on the song "Hip-Hopera" by Bounty Killer, which spent five weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, while peaking at number 81. The group also recorded the song "Rumble in the Jungle" featuring Busta Rhymes, A Tribe Called Quest & John Forté, for the 1996 documentary When We Were Kings.

Later that year, the Fugees all began solo projects: Hill began writing and producing for a number of artists (including Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin and Mary J. Blige) and started work on her critically acclaimed The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill; Jean also began producing for a number of artists (including Canibus, Destiny's Child and Carlos Santana) and released his debut album Wyclef Jean Presents The Carnival; Pras, with Mýa and Ol' Dirty Bastard, recorded the single "Ghetto Supastar (That Is What You Are)" for the soundtrack to the film Bulworth. In 1998, they reunited to shoot a music video for the song "Just Happy to Be Me" which appeared in the Sesame Street special Elmopalooza, and also on the Grammy Award-winning soundtrack album.

The three Fugees reunited and performed on September 18, 2004, at the concert in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn featured in the film Dave Chappelle's Block Party (2004), headlining a star-studded bill that included Kanye West, Mos Def, Jill Scott, Erykah Badu, The Roots, Talib Kweli, Common, Big Daddy Kane, Dead Prez, Cody ChesnuTT and John Legend. Their performance received several positive reviews, many of which praised Hill's near a cappella rendition of "Killing Me Softly".

The Fugees made their first televised appearance in almost ten years at BET's 2005 Music Awards on June 28, opening the show with a twelve-minute set. With a new album announced to be in the works, their final track, "Take It Easy", was leaked online and eventually released as an Internet single on September 27, 2005. It peaked at number 40 on the Billboard R&B Chart.

In November 2005, Fugees embarked on a European tour – the members' first together since 1997 – from 30 November to 20 December, playing in Finland, Austria, Norway, Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Slovakia. The group had been scheduled to play at the Hammersmith Apollo on November 25, 2005; however, it was forced to move the gig to December due to production issues. The tour received mixed reviews. On February 6, 2006, the group reunited for a free show in Hollywood, with tickets given away to about 8,000 fans by local radio stations. Later that month, a new track called "Foxy" was leaked, a song dubbed the "real return of the Fugees" by several online music blogs.

However, following the reunion tour, the album that was said to be in the works did not materialize and was postponed indefinitely, as relationships between band members apparently deteriorated. During the recording of the album, the group was plagued with creative differences. They recorded a song titled "Lips Don't Lie", but Hill did not like the song and, after some disagreements over it, the group disbanded again. The song was ultimately given to singer Shakira with featured vocals by Jean and after the title was changed to "Hips Don't Lie", the song was released a single and became a global hit. In August 2007, a year after the group's second disbandment, Pras stated, "Before I work with Lauryn Hill again, you will have a better chance of seeing Osama bin Laden and [George W.] Bush in Starbucks having a latte, discussing foreign policies, before there will be a Fugees reunion". Meanwhile, in September 2007, an equally outspoken Wyclef told Blues & Soul: "I feel the first issue that needs to be addressed is that Lauryn needs help... In my personal opinion, those Fugees reunion shows shouldn't have been done, because we wasn't ready. I really felt we shoulda first all gone into a room with Lauryn and a psychiatrist... But, you know, I do believe Lauryn can get help. And, once she does work things out, hopefully a proper and enduring Fugees reunion will happen." On July 15, 2017, an old song by the Fugees was leaked on Hot 97 radio; this led to reports that the group was reforming, which were later denied by group members on Twitter.

After the group split, Wyclef Jean co-founded and headed the Yele Haiti Foundation, a non-profit organization "focusing on emergency relief, employment, youth development and education, and tree planting and agriculture" in Haiti. Pras Michel starred in a documentary about homelessness in Los Angeles and remained outspoken about Haitian politics. Lauryn Hill continued recording and performing socially conscious music and went on to advocate for female empowerment especially within the music industry. Fugees also turned their recording studio, The Booga Basement, into a transitional house for young Haitian refugees immigrating to the United States.

In September 2021, Fugees announced a reunion tour to celebrate 25 years of their album, The Score. On Friday, October 29, 2021, Fugees announced that their reunion tour dates were postponed to early 2022. However, on January 21, 2022, Fugees released a statement saying they would not be going on tour due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Legacy
Fugees has often been referred to as one of the most influential and significant groups of the 1990s, with Billboard stating "their influence on modern hip-hop and R&B music is undeniable". They are often considered to be one of the definitive alternative hip hop acts, being one of the first alternative hip hop acts to break into the mainstream. According to Forbes, their success helped establish Ruffhouse Records as a major record label. Consequence noted Fugees for putting Haiti on the hip hop map. Alternative Press argued that the group paved the way for modern alternative music and stated "If you listen to modern hip-hop today, so many of the new faces went to the Fugees' School of Songwriting."

While Matthew Ismael Ruiz of Pitchfork, noted the group for removing negative connotations of Haitian immigration and the word 'Refugee', stating that "The Fugees managed to diversify the voice of the ghetto, one often depicted in a single dimension. They reclaimed pride for Haitians worldwide, a heritage maligned for its postcolonial poverty and strife but still remembered as the setting for the new world’s first successful revolt of enslaved people against their oppressors. Their sound was multifaceted because they were, too, their music diverse, just like the Black experience." The Ringer noted that Fugees delivered political messages and brought hip hop to the mainstream in their music by blending elements of pop, soul, dancehall and Caribbean music, making it more palpable for a wider audience without making the message dense, stating "Fugees disguised resistance as art, the same way that enslaved Africans once hid martial arts from their colonial masters by pretending that they were a dance."

Writing for The Recording Academy, music journalist Kathy Iandoli wrote about the impact of the group on the hip hop genre stating: "'As hip-hop's East and West Coasts continued their tussle, their lighter-hearted approach to socially conscious rap curtailed any overarching assumptions that hip-hop was going down a 'bad road'. Plus, they had Lauryn Hill, who doubled as a songbird and lyrical spitfire. Together, by juxtaposing live instrumentation, soulful melodies and abstract bars, The Fugees gave hip-hop a renewed spirit and propelled it to a different kind of mainstream'."The group has sold over twenty-two million records worldwide, and are one of the biggest-selling hip hop groups of all time. Multiple recording artists have cited The Fugees as an influence, including Bono, Drake, Kanye West, Akon, Black Eyed Peas, Young Thug, Bridgit Mendler, Sean Kingston, Ava Max, Doja Cat, Bastille, The Kid Laroi, Post Malone, DJ Khaled, and Diplo.

The impact of the Fugees has been compared to that of The Beatles, with U2's Bono calling them hip hop's version of The Beatles. Daryl McIntosh of Albumism compared the public response from the group's sophomore album, The Score to that of Beatlemania, referring to it as "Fugee-mania". Former United States President Barack Obama, named the Fugees single "Ready or Not" his favorite song ever. Their album The Score was placed on the list of 200 Definitive Albums in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (2007) by National association of recording merchandisers (NARM). "Ready or Not" was named among the Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll (2018) by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The following year, they were inducted into the N.J. Pop & Rock Hall.

A photograph of the group taken in 1994, has been stored and collected by the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. In 2020, The Score ranked 134th on the revised version of Rolling Stone 's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. The following year, their version of "Killing Me Softly" was placed on the revised version of Rolling Stone 's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. MTV ranked it the ninth-greatest hip-hop group of all time (2007). BET placed the group on its list of 'Hip Hop's Greatest Trios' (2012).

Discography

 * Blunted on Reality (1994)
 * The Score (1996)

title: Fugees


text:
HomePNA

The HomePNA Alliance (formerly the Home Phoneline Networking Alliance, also known as HPNA) is an incorporated non-profit industry association of companies that develops and standardizes technology for home networking over the existing coaxial cables and telephone wiring within homes, so new wires do not need to be installed.

HomePNA was developed for entertainment applications such as IPTV which require good quality of service (QoS).

History
HomePNA 1.0 technology was developed by Tut Systems in the 1990s. The original protocols used balanced pair telephone wire.

HomePNA 2.0 was developed by Epigram and was approved by the ITU as Recommendations G.9951, G.9952 and G.9953.

HomePNA 3.0 was developed by Broadcom (which had purchased Epigram) and Coppergate Communications and was approved by the ITU as Recommendation G.9954 in February 2005.

HomePNA 3.1 was developed by Coppergate Communications and was approved by the ITU as Recommendation G.9954 in January 2007. HomePNA 3.1 added Ethernet over coax. HomePNA 3.1 uses frequencies above those used for digital subscriber line and analog voice calls over phone wires and below those used for broadcast and direct-broadcast satellite TV over coax, so it can coexist with those services on the same wires.

In March 2009, HomePNA announced a liaison agreement with the HomeGrid Forum to promote the ITU-T G.hn wired home networking standard. In May 2013 the HomePNA alliance merged with the HomeGrid Forum.

Technical characteristics
HomePNA uses frequency-division multiplexing (FDM), which uses different frequencies for voice and data on the same wires without interfering with each other. A standard phone line has enough room to support voice, high-speed DSL and a landline phone.

Two custom chips designed using the HPNA specifications were developed by Broadcom: the 4100 chip can send and receive signals over 1,000 ft (305 m) on a typical phone line. The larger 4210 controller chip strips away noise and passes data on.

A HomePNA setup would include a HomePNA card or external adapter for each computer, an external adapter, cables, and software. A low-pass filter may be needed between any phones and their respective jacks to block noise. HomePNA adapters come in PCI, USB, and PC Card formats.

Process
HomePNA does not manufacture products, although its members do. HomePNA creates industry specifications which it then standardizes under the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) standards body. The HomePNA Alliance, tests implementations, and certifies products if they pass.

Members
HomePNA promoter companies are AT&T Inc., Technicolor SA, Pace plc, Sigma Designs, Motorola, Cisco Systems, Sunrise Telecom and K-Micro.

Applications
Devices that use HPNA technology as part of whole-home multi-media content products include Advanced Digital Broadcast, Inneoquest and NetSys.

Alternatives
Alternatives to HomePNA include power line communication, Wi-Fi, data over cable, and multimedia over coax.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: HomePNA


text:
Wikipedia talk:Mention of wiki in articles

What is cluster fuck ?
 * A cluster fuck is originally a military term. It's when you don't know who's fucking who, but everyone gets fucked in the end -- basically, a really confusing and complex situation which will benefit no one when it is over. Tokerboy
 * and so it is now defined!, at cluster fuck.
 * a classic situation where an idiom dictionary is required, and a good example of why it's hard to explain these things without a defining vocabulary.
 * idioms are confusing all the time to me. It's embarassing to ask all the time. No explanation can be found anywhere. I can't count the number of times where I wrote "What does blablabla means" in google, in hope it picks up some forum discussion where somebody asked. For a non-english, an idiom dictionary is way more important than *any* dictionary. But the idiom dictionary could benefit from being *here*, for most idioms have backgrounds which are both interesting and helpful to remember the actual meaning of the idiom. Plus, them being linked to real uses is helpful to understand them, and later use them ourselves. I understand the need to limit the amount of vocabulary used for understanding, but imho, idioms should not be merely put in the dictionary for the reasons stated above.

I have no idea what this page is about. What does it mean? -- Tarquin 09:47 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)


text:
Sunny 16 rule

In photography, the sunny 16 rule (also known as the sunny rule) is a method of estimating correct daylight exposures without a light meter. Apart from the advantage of independence from a light meter, the sunny 16 rule can also aid in achieving correct exposure of difficult subjects. As the rule is based on incident light, rather than reflected light as with most camera light meters, very bright or very dark subjects are compensated for. The rule serves as a mnemonic for the camera settings obtained on a sunny day using the exposure value (EV) system.

The basic rule is, "On a sunny day set aperture to and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed [or ISO setting] for a subject in direct sunlight."

Using the rule
The basic rule is, "On a sunny day set aperture to and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed [or ISO setting] for a subject in direct sunlight."

For example:

 * On a sunny day and with ISO 100 film / setting in the camera, one sets the aperture to and the shutter speed (i.e. exposure time) to $1⁄100$ or $1⁄125$ seconds (on some cameras $1⁄125$ second is the available setting nearest to $1⁄100$ second).
 * On a sunny day with ISO 200 film / setting and aperture at, set shutter speed to $1⁄200$ or $1⁄250$.
 * On a sunny day with ISO 400 film / setting and aperture at, set shutter speed to $1⁄400$ or $1⁄500$.

As with other light readings, shutter speed can be changed as long as the f-number is altered to compensate, e.g. $1⁄250$ second at gives equivalent exposure to $1⁄125$ second at. More in general, the adjustment is done such that for each stop in aperture increase (i.e., decreasing the f-number), the exposure time has to be halved, and vice versa. This follows the more general rule derived from the mathematical relationship between aperture and exposure time—within reasonable ranges, exposure is inversely proportional to the square of the aperture ratio and proportional to exposure time; thus, to maintain a constant level of exposure, a change in aperture by a factor c requires a change in exposure time by a factor $1⁄c^{2}$ and vice versa. A change in the aperture of 1 stop always corresponds to a factor close to the square root of 2, thus the above rule.

Alternative rule
An elaborated form of the sunny 16 rule is to set shutter speed nearest to the reciprocal of the ISO film speed / setting and f-number according to this table:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Aperture ! Lighting conditions ! Shadow detail
 * 22
 * Snow/sand
 * Dark with sharp edges
 * 16
 * Sunny
 * Distinct
 * 11
 * Slight overcast
 * Soft around edges
 * 8
 * Overcast
 * Barely visible
 * 5.6
 * Heavy overcast
 * No shadows
 * 4
 * Open shade/sunset
 * No shadows
 * Add one stop
 * Backlighting
 * n/a
 * }
 * Open shade/sunset
 * No shadows
 * Add one stop
 * Backlighting
 * n/a
 * }
 * }

title: Sunny 16 rule


text:
Geto Boys

Geto Boys (originally spelled Ghetto Boys) was an American hip hop group originally formed in Houston, Texas. They saw commercial success in the 1990s with the lineup consisting of Bushwick Bill, Scarface and Willie D. The group became best known for their 1991 single "Mind Playing Tricks on Me", which peaked at number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100. Formed in 1986, the group was active until the 2019 death of Bushwick Bill.

The Geto Boys became notorious for lyrics which discussed controversial subject matter, including misogyny, violence, psychotic experiences, and drug addiction. About.com ranked the Geto Boys No. 10 on its list of the 25 Best Rap Groups of All-Time, describing them as "southern rap pioneers who paved the way for future southern hip-hop acts."

History
The original Ghetto Boys consisted first of Raheem, The Sire Jukebox and Sir Rap-A-Lot. When Raheem and Sir Rap-A-Lot left, the group added DJ Ready Red, Prince Johnny C, and Little Billy, the dancer who later came to be known as Bushwick Bill. The first single the group released was "Car Freak" in 1986, which then followed with two singles: "You Ain't Nothin'/I Run This" in 1987, and "Be Down" in 1988. In 1988, the group released its debut album, Making Trouble. With the release receiving very little attention, the group broke up shortly thereafter and a new line-up was put together in which Bushwick Bill was joined by Scarface and Willie D, both aspiring solo artists. This new line-up recorded the 1989 album, Grip It! On That Other Level. The group's 1990 self-titled album, The Geto Boys, caused Def American Recordings, the label to which the group was signed at the time, to switch distributors from Geffen Records to Warner Bros. Records (with marketing for the album done by Warner Bros. sister label Giant Records) because of controversy over the lyrics.

In the early 1990s, several American politicians attacked rap artists associated with the subgenre gangsta rap, including the Geto Boys. A high-profile incident in which Bushwick Bill lost an eye in a shooting helped boost sales of the group's 1991 album We Can't Be Stopped. The album cover features a graphic picture of the injured Bushwick being carted through a hospital by Scarface and Willie D. On the album's title track, the group responded to Geffen Records ending its distribution deal with Def American. The album featured the single "Mind Playing Tricks on Me," which became a hit and charted at No. 23 on the Billboard Hot 100.

After Willie D left the group, Scarface and Bushwick Bill continued with the Geto Boys with the addition of Big Mike, who made his debut appearance with the group on 1993's album Till Death Do Us Part. Till Death Do Us Part was certified gold. The album spawned one top 40 hit in "Six Feet Deep" which peaked at #40 on the Billboard Hot 100. Subsequently, Big Mike was dropped and Willie D returned for 1996's critically acclaimed The Resurrection, and the 1998 followup Da Good Da Bad & Da Ugly, of which Bushwick Bill was not a part. After three years on hiatus, the group reunited in 2002 to record its seventh album, The Foundation, which was released on January 25, 2005. The Geto Boys were featured on Scarface's My Homies Part 2 album.

The song "Street Life" from Till Death Do Us Part was featured on the motion picture South Central. A video clip for the song with footage from the film was released. Although the band rarely releases albums or perform together, the group came together for a reunion at Cypress Hill's SmokeOut festival in San Bernardino, California on October 23, 2009. In 2010, Bushwick Bill was threatened with deportation to Jamaica. In a 2015 DJ Vlad interview, Scarface stated that he will not be involved in another Geto Boys album.

On August 24, 2018, founding member DJ Ready Red died at the age of 53, from an apparent heart attack.

Following the stage 4 pancreatic cancer diagnosis of Bushwick Bill in early 2019, a farewell tour, titled The Beginning of a Long Goodbye, The Final Farewell was announced, with a portion of the proceeds being donated to pancreatic cancer awareness. However, this tour was cancelled just before its anticipated start. On June 9, 2019, Bushwick Bill died as a result of pancreatic cancer, at the age of 52.

Lyrics and influence
The group's name, Geto Boys, comes from an alternate spelling of the word "ghetto". For its first two albums, Making Trouble (1988) and ''Grip It! On That Other Level'' (1989), the spelling was the English standard "Ghetto Boys". For their third album, The Geto Boys, they changed it to the "Geto" spelling, which the group has used since. The Geto Boys' lyrics push gangsta rap themes to extremes, and sometimes focus on murder, explicit sex, and violence. The group is credited for putting Southern hip hop on the hip hop music map and inspired a legion of acts, including 2Pac, Eminem, UGK, T.I., Goodie Mob, Outkast, 50 Cent, Chamillionaire, Jay-Z, Lil Wayne, Rick Ross, Young Jeezy, Juvenile, Mystikal, Mac Lethal, Esham and Insane Clown Posse. Insane Clown Posse's Violent J (Joseph Bruce) described the Geto Boys as the first rappers to perform horrorcore, with their song "Assassins", released on their debut album, Making Trouble. Bruce says that the Geto Boys continued to pioneer the style with their second release ''Grip It! On That Other Level'', with songs such as "Mind of a Lunatic" and "Trigga-Happy Nigga". Conversely, "The Unseen", a song which appears on the group's compilation Uncut Dope, expresses anti-abortion views.

The Geto Boys' popularity was boosted somewhat in 1999 by the prominent use of two songs—"Damn It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta" (released as a promotional single for the 1992 compilation album Uncut Dope) and "Still" (from The Resurrection)—in Mike Judge's comedy satire film Office Space. The song "Mind of a Lunatic" has been covered by many recording acts including Marilyn Manson in 2003, as a B-side off the album The Golden Age of Grotesque. The single "Damn It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta" has also been covered by the band Aqueduct and country singer Carter Falco. Their song "Mind Playing Tricks on Me" was featured in the video game Grand Theft Auto V and also in the Netflix series Maniac.

The Geto Boys were also heavily influenced by the social politics of the day. Their lyrics consistently include themes ranging from police brutality (such as in "Crooked Officer") to concerns over the negative impact of violence on the urban community (such as "The World Is a Ghetto", "Geto Fantasy", and "Six Feet Deep").

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * Making Trouble (1988)
 * Grip It! On That Other Level (1989)
 * We Can't Be Stopped (1991)
 * Till Death Do Us Part (1993)
 * The Resurrection (1996)
 * Da Good da Bad & da Ugly (1998)
 * The Foundation (2005)

Band members

 * Willie D – vocals (1989–1992, 1996–present)
 * Scarface – vocals (1989–present)

Former members

 * Bushwick Bill – hype man (1986–1989), vocals (1989–1997, 2002–2016; died 2019)
 * Prince Johnny C. – vocals (1986–1989), production (1988–1991)
 * Raheem – vocals (1986–1987)
 * Sir Rap-A-Lot – vocals (1986–1987)
 * Sire Jukebox – vocals (1986–1989)
 * DJ Ready Red – vocals, turntables, production (1986–1991; died 2018)
 * Big Mike – vocals (1992–1994)

title: Geto Boys


text:
Talk:Concordat

EB
Seems rought cut and paste from the 1911. There's a concordat in Italy and maybe other countries. User:Ericd

Concordat is a term used for an agreement between the pope and a government or sovergein on religious matters. This page should be turned into a general page about the word or a disambiguation page, with links to various concordats. Maximus Rex 05:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Seconded. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Others
What about the Concordat with Poland from 1993?

 * I would strongly encourage someone who knows how to do so to create an article on the Conordat of Fontainebleu of 1813, which Napoleon negotiated with the pope to resolve their dispute (Napoleon had earlier annexed the papal states, been excommunicated, and then brought the pope to France!) and after the short-lived Council of 1811 that included French, Italian, and German churchmen. Moreover, I would strongly encourage the creation of either one article or separate articles on France's revolutionary and Napoleonic church councils that occurred in 1797, 1801, and 1811, respectively.  Because there were three of them and the final one included Italians and at least one German and was (according to Napoleon) intended as a precursor to a General Council a la Constantine, such an artilce would be significant enough to merit inclusion in any reputable encyclopedia.  I'd be happy to contribute and help edit, but I'll leave it to someone with better Wiki knowledge to get something started.  Best, --164.107.92.120 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs
References to concordatwatch and other non-concordat means of Church influence were stripped from the article. These should not have been removed being relevant to the subject and a prime source of reference material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.194.217 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The main referenced source on this page and the internally linked pages is Concordatwatch, a group of anti-Catholic secularists. This hardly qualifies as a disinterested qualified authority.  But then again, this is Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.241.80 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Using Concordatwatch is totally inappropriate.  Any normal person reading that website would easily come to the conclusion that it is biased- therefore under Wikipedia's own standards we cannot take facts from it.  Furthermore, the entire website is filled with historical and legal inaccuracies.  Clearly, somebody, or more likely a group of somebodies have put some serious time and effort into Concordatwatch, but it's still not legitimate source to be using.  The website is clearly anti-catholic, secularist, and left leaning.  That's fine, but we can't use them as source.

 * Another issue with this page is the overall treatment concordats as some sort of special secret agreement that only the Holy See makes. This is incorrect, a concordat is simply a treaty (just like a nuncio is the Holy See's term for ambassador).  Therefore, any criticism of the signing, legal process of signing, and supposed lack of democratic process is really a criticism of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as it spells out very clearly the process of signing a treaty (which is what a concordat is).

 * I will be removing all content from this page that are sourced to this website. I have no problem with criticism to concordats, in fact, criticism is need to have a balanced article, but that criticism can't come from a clearly biased source, particularly one that is full of historic and legal inaccuracies.

 * --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Split
The UK use should be split into another article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed and done. jnestorius(talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category
I think we have enough articles on individual concordats that we should create a Category:Concordats. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
This seems to be relevant to Foreign relations of the Holy See in general, rather than any specific concordat:
 * The Vatican has been particularly vocal on issues of abortion in Ireland and Portugal, and in attempting to ensure references to Christianity in the prospective EU constitution. Less high profile are agreements concerning taxation and partial state funding of Catholic owned institutions such as orphanages, homes for the elderly and hospices for those suffering from AIDS.

jnestorius(talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Concordats by country
There's a whole host of data at Concordat Watch that isn't touched and could be utilized. Working on it.

Surely users do not search for "Concordat of year xxxx", but, "Concordats of country xxxx". A better format might look like:

[Country]
(Signed) [Year][Month][Day], [Document title], [Link to English translation]

For example,

Concordats with Germany
(20 July 1933), Reichskonkordat

...

Would it be OK to rearrange? Help appreciated. --PeterBrietbart (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've begun rearranging - I'd appreciate any discussion. The plan is now to add to the content and begin sourcing. --PeterBrietbart (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bavaria Deletion
I'm proposing we delete Bavaria as a category: Bavaria is no longer an independent country (now a German state). The 1817 Concordat link has no content. I'm writing up a better article that will come under the "Germany" title. Once that's done (and nothing is lost), I'll go ahead. Thoughts? --PeterBrietbart (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I've written an article that is a work in progress for dealing with the Concordats with individual states of Germany I'll get rid of the "Bavaria" title, since it is now defunct. --PeterBrietbart (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Neutrality Issues
The Criticism of Concordats section was edited on the 23rd of December to read

 * is an anti-Catholic website supporting secularism, abortion and feminism which documents from their own point of view historical and contemporary concordats across the world.[ref]For example, Concordat Watch is cited as a source in Plichtová and Petrjánošová (2008, p.46, 50), DiMarco (2009, p.5), Baker (2010, p.38), and Hosack (2010). [/ref]

Previously:

 * is a website supporting separation of church and state which documents historical and contemporary concordats across the world.[ref]For example, Concordat Watch is cited as a source in Plichtová and Petrjánošová (2008, p.46, 50), DiMarco (2009, p.5), Baker (2010, p.38), and Hosack (2010). [/ref]

< > to [ ] for clarity.

I have since reverted the changes, since I consider the use of inflammatory language unhelpful, and because the reference did not substantiate anything like those claims. I would appreciate the assistance of neutral Wikipedia editors to referee any potential edit-wars that ensue.

I understand that these are delicate issues for Catholics, and as such I would appreciate a flourishing discussion here.

PeterBrietbart (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone trying to bring back the problematic formulation, so I removed the tag. --Jules.LT (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
This section contains only criticism of the concordats without noticing noting the possible positive aspects nor the arguments in their favour, thus compromising the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Bonifacius 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've removed the neutrality flag for now, please see the main article's talk page for detailed discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBrietbart (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
I will be adding the standard warning for a non neutral page. This website relies heavily upon an anti catholic website to define a catholic topic. That really says it all. Furthermore, even linking to this website to show the text of a concordat is a bad practice because often the website adds in their own comments at the top before you get to read the actual text. That would be like sending somebody to a website to read a copy of the constitution that has been prefaced by a biased anti American statement. Also, see my comment below under the Ref heading. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Fictio, the neutrality tag is not a "Warning". It is intended to bring editors into an existing discussion on the talk page. Tagging the article when there is no active discussion is not what the tag is intended for. As I mentioned elsewhere, we don't typically deem sources unreliable simply because they are "anti-religious", or "anti-catholic". Indeed, when dealing with the criticism of a religious practice, many of the sources we find will contain such material, for obvious reasons. In your edit, you have added "anti-catholic" before a statement, which I'll note is unsourced, and can probably be seen as a bit pov on the other end. I'm going to remove that "anti-catholic" bit, per WP:BRD. We can still talk about it here, of course. I'd urge you to reconsider the POV tag, since there's no consensus regarding neutrality concerns, or an active discussion to draw in editors. All the best,  — Jess · Δ♥ 04:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Jess, this page clearly has pov issues. As to concordant leaks being anti-catholic, it's obviously anti-catholic.  Asking for a source on that is unreasonable, almost like asking for a source on calling Neo-Nazi website anti-Semitic.  Furthermore, this has been discussed on this page before.  I will revert back to fico's edit. --150.108.238.38 (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd ask that you please don't edit war. I see no other discussion of adding the "anti-catholic" prefix to the description, and consensus should be established for such an addition before it is reintroduced. Frankly, I think the "separation of church and state" descriptor is probably a bit much too, so it might be better to just remove the whole concordantwatch thing altogether. I see it picked up nowhere in secondary sources (correct me if I'm wrong). That said, whether it's left in or not, we can't describe it like that without sourcing. Perhaps you have a better source for some of this content? I'd certainly welcome it!  — Jess · Δ♥ 20:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC

 * Nobody is edit-warring- there's just a consensus here that the site is anti-catholic. Also, the website says that it is 'for the separation of church and state' (http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=843&kb_header_id=29281) so there is nothing wrong with noting that here.  No source is really needed to call it anti-catholic, as that is self evident by reading it.  Here is a source though from a catholic source deeming the cite anti-catholic (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=557779).  If a Jewish source was to term something anti-Semitic we'd note that, so we'll note that here too.  Also, the site relies heavily on news articles from atheistic and militant sensualist websites (with self-proclaimed agendas against religion).  Please cease removing the anti-catholic comment.  There is a consensus among editors and there is now evidence that the site has been termed anti-catholic by catholic sources. --150.108.232.75 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * We can't add content to the article based on the opinions (even the majority opinions) of editors here. We need a reliable source for such a descriptor, and even if we had one, we'd have to attribute it. We can't simply state such a thing in wikipedia's voice. Please see WP:V - the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You are, indeed, edit warring (see WP:EW), which is disruptive, and I'd kindly ask that you stop. The "source" you provided to forums.catholic.com is to a forum, which is not a reliable source. Do you have a reliable, secondary source which deems the site anti-catholic. That all said, I'd like to remove the entire thing, and I'm going to boldly do that now, hoping that it will be a reasonable compromise. If you find that compromise unacceptable, please discuss the matter further here, per guideline at WP:BRD, and don't simply reintroduce the "anti-catholic" descriptor without discussion. Thank you.  — Jess · Δ♥ 06:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Jess, thanks for removing that material. While what stands right now is a lot better than what was there, it is currently not sourced and and when it was it came from concordatwatch.  What I'll do now is change the wording slightly so as to make the reader aware the concordats are literally just treaties under different names, and that any criticism of them being undiplomatic should be directed at the treaty signing process in general, not at specifically concordats.  I'll work to have this reflected on the criticism page as well.  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Fictio. I partially undid one sentence of your proposal, which I explained in my edit summary. If my reasoning there isn't clear, let me know here and we can discuss it further. Thanks!  — Jess · Δ♥ 20:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Jess- the fact that concordats are what the Holy See calls treaties is what I would consider common knowledge; wikipedia mentions as much on other pages concerning concordats as well. Any law textbook in International Law will explain the international personality of the Holy See and thus their power to create and enter into treaties.  The way in which the concordats are signed was sourced, the source being the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  You can read the convention if you want- it lays out how treaties are signed (and yes, some might call that undemocratic).  Given this, do you still take issue with my sentence?

 * You may find the following useful. It will actually pose as an excellent source (the best I've seen so far) for the continued reworking of these pages.

 * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04196a.htm --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Maybe there was a misunderstanding here. I only reverted the portion which began "Most criticisms against concordats, however, apply to all treaties". We don't have a source for that, as far as I can tell. We'd need a strong source, and then we'd likely have to attribute it to someone. Does that make sense?  — Jess · Δ♥ 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, can you indent your posts? I just went through and indented this section. It gets hard to read when posts are all jumbled together. Thanks.  — Jess · Δ♥ 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Jess, maybe there has been a misunderstanding, but this conversation is about neutrality. Until the matter of concordat watch is finished we'll leave it up.  If we decide not to trust it then we have to get rid of the criticism sentence because while it isn't sourced right now it's drawn entirely from concordatwatch.  As to my sentence that you deleted- I don't understand what you think needs a strong source.  The fact that concordats are the same as treaties? --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I just checked the criticism page, and right in the header it acknowledges that concordats are treaties with the Holy See. I've also noticed this in other articles on here.  So right now wikipeida 'agrees' with me if you will.  I think you should accept this norm, or else you'd have to go to all of those articles and change them.  And again, this is really considered to be common knowledge- go to the UN's website and run a search on concordats, you'll soon get the picture.  I'll work on finding a formal statement, but I think for now it is really in our best interest to continue with the precedence set in various other wikipeida articles and other places on the web. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Fictio. 1) I guess we're back to edit warring over the neutrality tag. That's not really all that productive. As I explained above, the tag is not intended to "mark the article", as you're using it. It's intended to draw editors into an existing discussion. There isn't an existing discussion on the topic you believe is contentious, so the tag is inappropriate. It should not sit there forever because one editor believes the article needs improvement. 2) Thank you for indenting your posts. I appreciate it. I've fixed your signature, which was sitting on the next line. 3) I never said concordats are not treaties. I said we cannot write "criticisms of concordats apply to other things too" without sourcing. If other articles say the same thing without sourcing, then they need to be fixed. It's not my job to fix them in order to keep this article from repeating the same mistake. 4) Common sense is not a metric for including content. Sources are. We need sourcing to include that content, both for verifiability, and so we can attribute the claim to someone.  — Jess · Δ♥ 05:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jess. Rather unfortunately, I've been away from this for quite sometime.  Thanks for leaving everything intact.  1) I understand what you're saying about the neutrality tag, and you certainly have a better understanding of the workings of wikipedia than I do.  The reason I put the tag up is because I believe that biased sources have been used in the writing of the articles and that, as a result of this, readers ought to be forewarned until we can come to some form of understanding.  There is perhaps a better tag to communicate this, do you know of one?  2) Thank you.  3) I understand what you are saying here, though I have provided sources more carefully explaining the nature of concordats.  I will again include those in any future edits.  4) I think you misunderstood the sense in which I used 'common sense'.  I'm certainly not suggesting that we write factual statements and then not source them because they are 'common sense'.  I pointed you in the direction of where information supporting my position can be found, and will again work to include such links in future posts. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Currently, this section does not cite any sources. Given this, I would like to remove it, leaving only the link to the actual criticism page, unless others can provide some links to credible websites to support some of the assertions made. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

From a Church-State scholar's perspective, the contentions regarding Concordats seems reasonable to resolve. From a Catholic perspective, the Church has the moral and theological right to enter into diplomatic relations with states in order to reach agreements regarding the care of its members residing there. This is the concept of libertas ecclesiastica (freedom of the Church). However, from a non-Catholic perspective (NOT an anti-Catholic perspective), this poses certain concerns regarding religious freedom, such as: 1) Concordats give to the Church a privileged position that other religious groups are denied (European history in numerous books reveals this fact), 2) Concordats are not "the same as treaties" because they are entered into by an entity that is BOTH religious and political in nature, viz., the Catholic Church, whereas any other treaty is between two sovereign entities on a horizontal level, i.e., purely political in nature (see Robert A. Graham, “Introduction: Reflections on Vatican Diplomacy,” in Kent and Pollard, eds., Papal Diplomacy, 1, 2), and 3) depending on the negotiations agreed upon in the Concordat, some religious groups face the threat of being marginalized (example: in Spain, although the Constitution guarantees religious freedom (theoretically), yet in practice, Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish groups are restricted from certain forms of proselytism).Nobody'sman (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I hold a Ph.D. in Church-State Relations and had added the previous paragraph (above) to the main page under the section "Criticism of Concordats," providing a balanced view of them. However, someone else added footnotes 5-13 that are NOT balanced nor substantiated. For example, the statement preceding footnote 7 implies that the shops, hotel resorts, etc. are owned by the Catholic Church and that the Church, in order to avoid payment of taxes for a commercial enterprise, had built small shrines to make it appear like a religious facility. As the paragraph currently reads, this is the surmising of its author and cannot be substantiated. The only other logical conclusions is that those businesses are not owned by the Church, but the proprietors have built small shrines in order to claim tax exemption status, in which case this is NOT the fault of the Church, but instead the proprietors who have hypocritically used the shrine to mask a commercial enterprise. In America, many Pentecostal and mega-church organizations do the same thing -- they have small stores built onto the main sanctuary where they sell items purportedly under the name of their church and thus avoid taxes. If the Catholic Church does something similar, they are not the only religious organization to do this. From this perspective, mentioning only the Catholic Church in the Criticism section is NOT balanced and is full of BIAS. This paragraph should be removed, or re-written to reflect a substantiated and balanced view of concordats in the country(ies) mentioned. Tax-exempt status is not particular to the Catholic Church, at least not in America, where all religious organizations enjoy such a status because one of America's enlightened statesman, James Madison, realized that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If churches had to pay taxes, and one year they could not gather the funds to pay property taxes, the government would have the power to close their doors. Since religious organizations are beneficial to society, they are properly accorded a tax-exempt status.Nobody'sman (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Criticism of concordats be merged here as: I am therefore initially proposing that only the 'Financial privileges, tax exemption and secrecy' section (which includes citations to the like of The Guardian, The Telegraph and Time) be merged here. If other material is agreed to be based upon material found to be reliable, it can be included as well (assuming WP:WEIGHT issues do not intrude). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It would seem to be undue WP:WEIGHT to have an article on criticism of a topic that is far, far larger than the discussion of the topic (i.e. excluding the simple listing of the concordats).
 * 2) That article appears to be largely based upon WP:Synthesis (mainly of the concordats themselves) and to sources of generally questionable quality.
 * As I just wrote on the other talk page, I think this is a good idea. We can merge whatever seems fairly credible now, and then work further on refining the content once it has been merged.  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw this on the reliable sources notice board. If there's reliably sourced non-synthesized material it could be merged here; If criticism of condordats isn't an appropriate article title and if the material could be rewritten from sources, it might be better to take criticism of... to AfD. Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If somebody's willing to rewrite material from the few reliable sources at CofC, I'd happily support deletion of that article. As long as we preserve what few reliable third party sources we have on the topic of concordats, I'm happy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The List
Given that the Holy See must have entered into hundreds (thousands) of treaties with states over the last millenium or so, this list is at considerable risk of becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of particular concern are: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concordats lacking their own article -- likelihood of being non-notable, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion.
 * Concordats lacking either their own article or a citation -- not WP:Verifiable, and therefore clearly unsuitable for inclusion.
 * I wasn't aware of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but having read it, it does seem like it is a valid concern for 'The List'. I clicked on a fair number of the concordats that have pages, and the majority of those pages are stubs written from one source (usually a bad one).  So what do you propose?  Cut down the list, and/or the pages as well?  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (i) Cut them down. Then (ii) either rename the article to List of concordats (this is what the article currently is really) or add significant WP:SECONDARY discussion of the history, current usage, etc of concordats. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could be amenable to a plan like that. I don't know how much sense it would make to not have a general page about concordats and yet have a list page with criticism on it, so we'd definitely want to add some discussion of the history, current usage, etc., as you suggested.  For right now, would you agree that we should remove condordatwatch as the source referenced for several concordats?  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with the removal of any apparently-WP:SPS that nobody has made a specific defence of (unless claim to reliability is self-evident -- e.g. some published religious historian's blog). But this means that any concordats cited only to such sources will also have to go. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Holy See concluded only 74 concordats from 1098 (first concordat) to World War I (cf. Metz, pg. 137) and from 1919-1959 concluded only 39 conventions and concordats (cf. Metz, pg. 138). I object to the conjectured and unfounded "given" at the top of this section "that the Holy See must have entered into hundreds (thousands) of treaties with states over the last millenium or so" and I therefore disagree that the list of concordats is in danger of becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 04:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is stupid!
GUYS, JUST SHUT UPSO THEY CAN FINISH THIS ARTICLE! --Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.208.49 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concordat. 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/20110206213909/http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france to http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527144906/http://www.tourolaw.edu/ilr/articles/v13/Michael_Baker.pdf to http://www.tourolaw.edu/ilr/articles/v13/Michael_Baker.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720041046/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/A10S-1DiMarco.pdf to http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/A10S-1DiMarco.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Concordat


text:
Talk:Demetrius I of Bactria

Untitled
Is this the only Demetrius in history? -- Zoe

Please don't link king Menander to Menander the author. JJ

Coinage
Another coin of Demetrius at the British Museum. Feel free to insert it into the article. PHG (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Demetrius I of Bactria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151008023525/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0239 to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Table at bottom
In the table, "Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kings", the last two rows are missing the first column (dates). A guess might be "10 – 225 CE" and "15 – 90 CE" based on the reign dates on the pages of the rulers cited. Bcjohnston (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

King of Kings
Despite limited sources I believe it’s almost guaranteed Demetrius used a title above the mere rank of King considering he ruled an empire that from Hyrcania in eastern Iran to the Indian Ocean. Thoughts ? ShahofHyrcania (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Three thoughts: (1) It's not almost guaranteed - the Ptolemies and Seleucids both ruled kingdoms of larger scale and nevertheless used the "mere" title of basileus. (2) Wikipedia requires that all statements on the page be supported by reliable sources - even if you believe something, you can't add it to the encyclopedia unless there is a source for it. (3) This is particularly important in cases like the Graeco-Bactrians, where the sources are limited - if we don't restrict ourselves to what is actually known, we're writing fiction, not history. Furius (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Tarn
@User:ZenoTheIonian; it is really good that you have taken up this article and the other Greco-Bactrian kings - they are in desperate need of improvement. However, we really have to talk about Tarn. You may credit him, but he is out-dated (because much more has been discovered - he wrote before the discovery of Ai Khanoum!) and had a tendency to just make stuff up. This isn't just my opinion - it is noted by every single author to write on Greco-Bactria since him. For example:
 * Lerner, Jeffrey D. (1999). The impact of Seleucid decline on the eastern Iranian plateau : the foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. pp. 56-59
 * F. Holt, Lost World of the Golden King (2012) pp 69-88 (nearly twenty pages on this point).
 * articles in R. Mairs, The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World (2021)
 * Coloru p. 137 "his approach was too Hellenocentric and his historical reconstruction was often highly speculative, to say the least"
 * Stanco p. 281 "now considerably outdate"
 * Glenn p. 467: "dubious, with the narratives often making wonderful, gripping stories, but being highly conjectural" & p. 477-8: "Tarn is very often to be found overworking the evidence provided by the coins and it is possible to cite many examples of this feature of Tarn's work" (which he goes on to do at length and further in his book Money and Power in Hellenistic Bactria (2020) )

These are just the books on Graeco-Bactria that are in my room right now. Similar comments already in A. K. Narain. It is surely worth using him as a source, but I don't think it is acceptable to retain points that have been overturned by subsequent scholarship without serious health warnings. Furius (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I can’t deny this. I’ve read and enjoyed much of Tarns Hellenistic work, so perhaps I’m biased. And you are right that Basileus is not mere - apologies for saying so, but didn’t Seleucid monarchs use the old Achaemenid title - King of the universe or the world ? ZenoTheIonian (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As for Demetrius’ mother, Tarn may have made up a Diodotid connection, but it’s not far fetched. As the founding Greco-Bactrian dynasty, Diodotus I and his scions would have held considerable influence and Euthydemus probably would (if not already married to a sister of Diodotus II) would have do so upon his ascension to the throne... Are there any other modern authors who have found a possible consort for Euthydemus? ZenoTheIonian (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my worry is that it is easy to construct an argument that fits the data when the data is so patchy, but we run the risk of original research. I agree that your point about Diodotus II is totally plausible, but the opposite also seems totally plausible to me: if Euthydemus violently overthrew Diodotus, he might not have wanted to legitimise the previous dynasty by marrying into it (e.g. Trajan didn't marry his niece or nephew to any of the Flavians). Polybius has Euthydemus tell Antiochus III that he shouldn't be punished as a rebel from Seleucid power because he overthrew the rebel Diodotids, an argument that would be weakened if he was married to the rebel's daughter... but perhaps Antiochus was willing to accept a weak argument just to get the whole thing over and done with. And so on. So, for myself, I'm totally uncertain and this is why I'm being pedantic about citing opinions clearly. The modern sources that I've read all say 'but this is speculative' and decline to speculate further... but they're mostly numismatists, who are particularly nervous about speculation. Frank Walbank A Historical Commentary on Polybius might be a little more forthcoming?
 * Yes, the early Seleucids are referred to by the 'King of the universe' title in Babylonian documents written in Akkadian, but not in Greek and (I think) not in Aramaic. There are four or so Greek and Aramaic documents from Bactria, but they only use 'king' to my knowledge. I have no idea what the Indian sources for Menander title him. There's every chance that I've missed a discussion; if a scholarly source can be found I'm happy to include the title here and on Graeco-Bactria. Furius (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Replying to a request for a third-party opinion on this issue: I think it's fine to mention previous scholarship, and indeed it would be surprising not to find any of it in articles about classical antiquity, which of course has been studied for a very long time. Even if the position of earlier writing on the topic has been completely and utterly refuted, it's still important to note what was previously thought or considered likely—and then explain why it isn't any longer.  And as I read it, this isn't so much about Tarn being proven wrong about the things he's being cited for, as it is about later scholarship re-evaluating the facts in light of new discoveries and the passage of time (which of course inevitably produces new viewpoints and interpretations).

 * I assume the three quotations above were selected because they were particularly strong examples; but they don't actually say that Tarn "made stuff up". Two of them call his reconstructions "speculative" or "conjectural", while the third vaguely calls it "outdated".  But speculation and conjecture are part of the historian's job, when necessary and important facts are thin on the ground, disputed, confused, or ambiguous in the source material.  And it's truly rare for any historical writing to be altogether free of speculation or conjecture—even the driest of history reflects the opinions and interpretations of its author.  That someone's conjectures may be wrong can be taken for granted; and if they are proven wrong then it is correct to say so; but that is not the same as someone else offering a different opinion and speculating that it is more likely—even if other scholars agree—since any opinion remains conjecture until solid and unimpeachable facts are known.  And in any case, offering speculation or conjecture is not the same thing as "making stuff up", which implies a deliberate falsehood, or the intent to deceive, rather than an educated guess about the truth.

 * The question here is really the way that the material is presented and discussed. And the issue dividing you may be simply resolved by reframing changing and evolving opinions and newly-discovered material as a non-adversarial process.  Instead of presenting it as "Tarn believed this, but he was wrong because 'modern' scholars believe something else" (and I note that scholarship from 1951 isn't really that old in the field of classical scholarship; there remains much good scholarship from the 19th century, and some earlier than that, provided that it's placed in proper context), present it in terms of "Tarn speculated that [...], but to date no evidence to support or refute this hypothesis has been discovered.  Historian [...] offers a different explanation, and suggests that [...] is unlikely because [...]."  And of course if it's multiple writers you can say so, without necessarily implying "mad old bat, ignore", or simply excising Tarn from the article without mentioning anything that he wrote.  Remember, it's generally the job of the scholars to decide about truth, and our job as Wikipedians to report what they say—not to decide whether they're right.

 * TL:DR: of course older scholarship can and should be included as part of historical articles. But it should be presented in context, and in light of the changing state of our knowledge and evolving opinions.  Where opinions have changed significantly over time, that can be fairly indicated in a way that doesn't appear to take sides or seem overly critical of scholarship that is no longer current.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Demetrius I of Bactria


text:
Goldfinger (novel)

Goldfinger is the seventh novel in Ian Fleming's James Bond series. Written in January and February 1958, it was first published in the UK by Jonathan Cape on 23 March 1959. The story centres on the investigation by the British Secret Service operative James Bond into the gold-smuggling activities of Auric Goldfinger, who is also suspected by MI6 of being connected to SMERSH, the Soviet counter-intelligence organisation. As well as establishing the background to the smuggling operation, Bond uncovers a much larger plot: Goldfinger plans to steal the gold reserves of the United States from Fort Knox.

Fleming developed the James Bond character in Goldfinger, presenting him as a more complex individual than in the previous novels, and bringing out a theme of Bond as a St George figure. This theme is echoed by the fact that it is a British agent sorting out an American problem. In common with his other Bond stories, Fleming used the names of people he knew, or knew of, throughout his story, including the book's eponymous villain, who was named after the architect Ernő Goldfinger. On learning of the use of his name, Goldfinger threatened to sue, before the matter was settled out of court. Auric Goldfinger is obsessed by gold and is—to Bond's eye—a gauche individual with unusual appetites; Fleming probably based the character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr. Fleming also used his own experiences within the book; the round of golf played with Goldfinger was based on a 1957 tournament at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship.

On its release, Goldfinger went to the top of the best-seller lists; the novel was broadly well received by the critics and was favourably compared to the works of the thriller writers H. C. McNeile and John Buchan. Goldfinger was serialised as a daily story and as a comic strip in the Daily Express, before it became the third James Bond feature film of the Eon Productions series, released in 1964 and starring Sean Connery as Bond. In 2010 Goldfinger was adapted for BBC Radio with Toby Stephens as Bond and Sir Ian McKellen as Goldfinger.

Plot
Happenstance While changing planes in Miami after closing down a Mexican heroin-smuggling operation, the British Secret Service operative James Bond meets Junius Du Pont, a rich American businessman whom Bond had briefly met and gambled with in Casino Royale. Du Pont asks Bond to watch Auric Goldfinger, with whom Du Pont is playing canasta, to discover if he is cheating. Bond soon realises that Goldfinger is using his assistant, Jill Masterton, to spy on Du Pont's cards. Bond blackmails Goldfinger into admitting his guilt and paying back Du Pont's lost money; Bond also has a brief affair with Masterton. Back in London, Bond's superior, M, tasks him with determining how Goldfinger is smuggling gold out of Britain; M also suspects Goldfinger of being connected to SMERSH and financing their western networks with his gold. Bond visits the Bank of England for a briefing on the methods of gold smuggling.

Coincidence Bond contrives to meet and play a round of golf with Goldfinger; Goldfinger attempts to win the golf match by cheating, but Bond turns the tables on him, beating him in the process. He is subsequently invited to Goldfinger's mansion near Reculver where he narrowly escapes being caught on camera looking through the house. Goldfinger introduces Bond to his factotum, a Korean named Oddjob.

Issued by MI6 with an Aston Martin DB Mark III, Bond trails Goldfinger in his vintage Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (adapted with armour plating and bulletproof glass), driven by Oddjob. Both travel by air ferries to Switzerland. Bond manages to trace Goldfinger to a warehouse in Geneva, where he finds that the armour of the Rolls-Royce is actually white-gold, cast into panels at his Kent refinery. When the car reaches the factory in Switzerland (Enterprises Auric AG), Goldfinger recasts the gold from the armour panels into aircraft seats and fits the seats to the aeroplanes of Mecca Charter Airline, in which he holds a large stake. The gold is finally sold in India at a large profit. Bond foils an assassination attempt on Goldfinger by Jill Masterton's sister, Tilly, to avenge Jill's death at Goldfinger's hands: he had painted her body with gold paint, which killed her. Bond and Tilly attempt to escape when the alarm is raised, but are captured.

Enemy action Bond is tortured by Oddjob when he refuses to confess his role in trailing Goldfinger. In a desperate attempt to escape being cut in two by a circular saw, Bond offers to work for Goldfinger, a ruse that Goldfinger initially refuses but then accepts. Bond and Tilly are subsequently taken to Goldfinger's operational headquarters in a warehouse in New York City. They are put to work as secretaries for a meeting between Goldfinger and several gangsters (including the Spangled Mob and the Mafia), who have been recruited to assist in "Operation Grand Slam"—stealing gold from the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox. One of the gang leaders, Helmut Springer, refuses to join the operation and is killed by Oddjob. Bond learns that the operation includes killing the inhabitants of Fort Knox by introducing poison into the water supply. He manages to conceal a message in the toilet of Goldfinger's private plane, where he hopes it will be found and sent to Pinkertons, where his friend and ex-counterpart Felix Leiter now works.

Operation Grand Slam commences, and it transpires that Leiter has found and acted on Bond's message. A battle commences, but Goldfinger escapes. Tilly, a lesbian, hopes that one of the gang leaders, Pussy Galore (the leader of a gang of lesbian burglars), will protect her, but she (Tilly) is killed by Oddjob. Goldfinger, Oddjob and the Mafia bosses all escape in the melee. Bond is drugged before his flight back to England and wakes to find he has been captured by Goldfinger, who has murdered the crime bosses (except Galore), drugged a BOAC flightcrew and hijacked their jetliner. Bond manages to break a window, causing a depressurisation that blows Oddjob out of the plane; he then fights and strangles Goldfinger. At gunpoint, he forces the crew to ditch in the sea near the Canadian coast, where they are rescued by a nearby weathership.

Background and writing history
By January 1958 the author Ian Fleming had published five novels in the preceding five years: Casino Royale in 1953, Live and Let Die (1954), Moonraker (1955), Diamonds Are Forever (1956) and From Russia, with Love in 1957. A sixth, Dr. No, was being edited and prepared for production. That month Fleming travelled to his Goldeneye estate in Jamaica to write Goldfinger. He followed his usual practice, which he later outlined in Books and Bookmen magazine: "I write for about three hours in the morning ... and I do another hour's work between six and seven in the evening. I never correct anything and I never go back to see what I have written ... By following my formula, you write 2,000 words a day." He returned to London in March that year with a 270-page typescript, the longest he had produced to that time. He initially gave the manuscript the title The Richest Man in the World; few alterations were made to the story before publication.

Although Fleming did not date the events within his novels, John Griswold and Henry Chancellor—both of whom wrote books for Ian Fleming Publications—identified different timelines based on events and situations within the novel series as a whole. Chancellor put the events of Goldfinger in 1957; Griswold is more precise, and considers the story to have taken place from late April to early June that year.

Fleming had long been fascinated with gold. He was a collector of Spanish doubloons, and he commissioned a gold-plated typewriter from the Royal Typewriter Company, although he never actually used it; he wrote with a gold-tipped ballpoint pen and included the theft or obtaining of gold in several of his stories. When researching for Goldfinger, Fleming reinforced his knowledge of gold by sending a questionnaire to an expert at the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths—one of the livery companies of the City of London who assay precious metals for purity—with a list of queries about gold, its properties and the background of the industry, including smuggling.

Fleming had originally conceived the card game scene as a separate short story but instead used the device for Bond and Goldfinger's first encounter. The architect Ernő Goldfinger threatened to sue Fleming over the use of the name. With the book already printed but not released, Fleming threatened to add an erratum slip to the book changing the name from Goldfinger to Goldprick and explaining why; the matter was settled out of court after the publishers, Jonathan Cape, paid Ernő's legal costs, agreed to ensure the name Auric was always used in conjunction with Goldfinger and sent him six copies of the novel.

Once Fleming completed the novel—which he found the easiest of all the Bond books to write—he thought he had exhausted his inspiration for plots. He told the writer William Plomer—his friend who proof-read all the Bond books—that Goldfinger was to be "the last full length folio on Bond ... Though I may be able to think up some episodes for him in the future, I shall never be able to give him 70,000 words again".

Plot inspirations
Fleming based some points in the book on events he had read about. The pre-First World War death of a showgirl in Europe after she had covered herself in paint was one such idea, and the depressurisation of Goldfinger's plane was a plot device Fleming had intended to use elsewhere, but which he included in Goldfinger. Some years previously a plane had depressurised over the Lebanon and an American passenger had been sucked out of the window; Fleming, who was not a comfortable airline passenger, had made note of the incident to use it. As he had done in previous Bond novels, Fleming used the names of several friends or associates in the novel. The surname of Sir John Masterman, the MI5 agent and Oxford academic who ran the double-cross system during the Second World War, was used as the basis for the Masterton sisters; Alfred Whiting, the golf professional at Royal St George's Golf Club, Sandwich, became Alfred Blacking; while the Royal St George's Golf Club itself became the Royal St Mark's, for the game between Bond and Goldfinger.

In June 1957 Fleming played in the Bowmaker Pro-Am golf tournament at the Berkshire Golf Club, where he partnered Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship; much of the background went into the match between Bond and Goldfinger. One of Fleming's neighbours in Jamaica, and later his lover, was Blanche Blackwell; Fleming used Blanche as the model for Pussy Galore, although the name "Pussy" came from Mrs "Pussy" Deakin, formerly Livia Stela, an SOE agent and friend of Fleming's wife.

Fleming's golf partner, John Blackwell (a cousin to Blanche Blackwell), was also a cousin by marriage to Ernő Goldfinger and disliked him: it was Blackwell who reminded Fleming of the name. Fleming also disliked Goldfinger, who, Fleming thought, destroyed Victorian buildings and replaced them with his own modernist designs, particularly a terrace at Goldfinger's own residence at 2 Willow Road, Hampstead. Blackwell had his name used as the heroin smuggler at the beginning of the book, with a sister who was a heroin addict.

There were some similarities between Ernő and Auric Goldfinger: both were Jewish immigrants who came to Britain from Eastern Europe in the 1930s and both were Marxists. The fictional and real Goldfingers were physically very different. According to the historian Henry Chancellor the likely model for Auric Goldfinger was the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr., whom Fleming had met in 1949. Engelhard had established a business, the Precious Metals Development Company, which circumvented numerous export restrictions, selling gold ingots directly into Hong Kong.

Characters
The character of Bond was developed more in Goldfinger than in the previous novels; the historian Jeremy Black considers that Bond "was presented as a complex character". The novelist Raymond Benson—who later wrote a series of Bond novels—sees Goldfinger as a transitional novel, making Bond more human than in previous books and more concerned with what Benson calls "the mortal trappings of life". This manifests itself in the opening chapter of the book as Bond sits in Miami airport and thinks through his fight with and killing of a Mexican thug. Benson also finds Bond developing something of a sense of humour in Goldfinger, verbally abusing Oddjob for his own amusement.

The anthropologist Anthony Synnott examined several examples of racism in the Bond novels, and finds in Goldfinger examples of "the most blatant racism" of the series, all of which concern the Koreans; as an example, Synnott highlights the sentence "putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierarchy". Benson agrees that Bond is shown as a bigot in the passage quoted, and observes that this is the only point in all the works in which Bond disparages a whole race.

The writer Anthony Burgess, in his 1984 work Ninety-nine Novels, describes Fleming's malefactors as "impossible villains, enemies of democracy, megalomaniacs"; Burgess goes on to write that Goldfinger "is the most extravagant of these". The character was described by Benson as "Fleming's most successful villain" to that point in the series, and Fleming gives him several character flaws that are brought out across the novel. Black writes that psychologically Goldfinger is warped, possibly because of an inferiority complex brought on by his shortness, in contrast to several of Fleming's other over-sized villains. Physically he is odd, with a lack of proportion to his body. According to the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek, in his examination of 20th-century British spy novels, in several of Fleming's novels he uses "characters as psychological counters in a game of simplified psychology". Fleming writes that "Bond always mistrusted short men. They grew up from childhood with an inferiority complex. ... Napoleon had been short, and Hitler. It was the short men that caused all the trouble in the world", an opinion Black considers a reflection of the "racialism and crude psychology" of early-twentieth century literature.

Like many other of Fleming's villains, Goldfinger is not of British extraction (although he is a British citizen); other villains have been, for example, Russian, German, Jewish, Chinese-German or Slav. Synnott observes that in many of the Bond novels, including Goldfinger, "Ugliness, evil and foreignness go together, complementing and reinforcing each other. Ugliness symbolizes evil and evil is symbolized by ugliness and foreignness."

Fleming employs devices he uses elsewhere in the series to show Goldfinger is corrupt or outside what Fleming considered normal. Goldfinger cheats at cards and golf; Panek considers this is a traditional sign of a gauche individual. Black considers that Goldfinger is portrayed as a killjoy as he does not consume cigarettes or alcohol—unlike many people of the time—but he does pay prostitutes; these aspects of Goldfinger's are condemned by Fleming for being outside normal appetites.

Elisabeth Ladenson, the general editor of Romanic Review, believes the character of Pussy Galore to be "perhaps the most memorable figure in the Bond periphery". Galore was introduced by Fleming for Bond to seduce her, proving Bond's masculinity by his being able to seduce a lesbian. To some extent the situation also reflected Fleming's own opinions, expressed in the novel as part of Bond's thoughts, where "her sexual confusion is attributable to women's suffrage"; in addition, as Fleming himself put it in the book: "Bond felt the sexual challenge all beautiful Lesbians have for men." Ladenson points out that, unlike some Bond girls, Galore's role in the plot is crucial and she is not just there as an accessory: it is her change of heart that allows good to triumph over evil. The cultural historians Janet Woollacott and Tony Bennett consider that many of the female characters in the Bond series depart from Fleming's accepted cultural norms; both Pussy Galore and Tilly Masterton conform to this rule because they are lesbian. For those that Bond sleeps with, there is a back story explaining why they are outside Fleming's norm: in Pussy Galore's case, it is because she was raped by her uncle. According to Stephen Heath, the literature and cultural historian, Galore's lesbianism is explained by being anti-man, following the rape, and she is converted because, as she says in the book, "I never met a man before". Bond's 'conversion' of Galore from lesbian to his bed partner "reflected Fleming's sexual politics". It was, Black sees, a "crude end to the book, a form of happy ending".

Style
The sixth Bond novel, Dr. No began what the media historian James Chapman describes as the move of the Bond books to "fantastic and highly improbable plots"; Chapman considers that Goldfinger maintains that trend. He also finds it "the most implausible of Fleming's plots". Benson states that the plot is impractical and that "sometimes there's no logic in the sequence of events"; the author Kingsley Amis—who also later wrote a Bond novel—says that the novel was "more implausible than most". According to Panek there is an episodic approach in Fleming's works; in Goldfinger this manifests itself in the use of the card game—something also seen in Casino Royale and Moonraker; Benson considers the novel to be more episodic than Fleming's previous books.

Fleming structured the novel in three sections—"Happenstance", "Coincidence" and "Enemy action"—which was how Goldfinger described Bond's three seemingly coincidental meetings with him. Like Dr. No, what seems to be a trivial event—in this case the card game—leads to what Chapman calls "a grandiose criminal conspiracy". The denouement of the novel is described by Black as "hurried and unsatisfactory", and the "one-man heroism" of the work is too stretched across the novel.

Benson, and Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker, consider Goldfinger to be the "densest" of the Bond novels, with a fast pace and high levels of action, in which Bond moves from Miami, via New York to London, then through Kent and northern France to Switzerland, then back to New York, to Kentucky, to New York, Washington, and finally ditching the aeroplane in the North Atlantic.

Themes
As with other Bond novels, such as Casino Royale, gambling is a theme—not only the money staked on the golf match as part of the novel, but opening with the canasta game. Raymond Benson identified times in the novel when Bond's investigation of Goldfinger was a gamble too, and cites Bond tossing a coin to decide on his tactics in relation to his quarry. Once more (as with Live and Let Die and Dr. No) it is Bond the British agent who has to sort out what turns out to be an American problem and this, along with Bond's warning to Goldfinger not to underestimate the English, may be seen as Fleming's reaction to the lack of US support over the Suez Crisis in 1956.

Benson identifies a theme of Bond acting as St George in Goldfinger which, he says, has run in all the novels, but is finally stated explicitly in the book as part of Bond's thoughts. This is after Goldfinger reveals he will use an atomic device to open the vault: "Bond sighed wearily. Once more into the breach, dear friend! This time it really was St George and the dragon. And St George had better get a move on and do something". Jeremy Black notes that the image of the "latter-day St George [is] again an English, rather than British image". According to Ladenson, by making Bond St George, "Goldfinger himself ... is a mere obstacle, the dragon to be got rid of before the worthy knight can make off with the duly conquered lady".

Goldfinger has an obsession with gold to the extent that Ladenson says that he is "a walking tautology". Ladenson lists both his family name and his first name as being related to gold ("Auric" is an adjective pertaining to gold); his clothes, hair, car and cat are all gold coloured, or a variant thereof; his Korean servants are referred to by Bond as being "yellow", or yellow-faced"; and he paints his women (usually prostitutes) gold before sex.

As with a number of other villains in the Bond novels, there is a reference to the Second World War, to show the post-war readers how evil Bond's villains were. Thus, Goldfinger employs members of the German Luftwaffe, Japanese and Koreans. For Operation Grand Slam, Goldfinger used the poison GB—now known as Sarin—which had been discovered by the Nazis. Pussy Galore's all-woman criminal gang has some members that look "like some young SS guardsman", to underline the connection to evil.

Publication history
Goldfinger was published on 23 March 1959 in the UK as a hardcover edition by Jonathan Cape; it was 318 pages long and cost fifteen shillings. As with his previous four novels, Fleming came up with the design of the front cover, which featured a rose between a skull's teeth. He commissioned Richard Chopping to provide the artwork. According to Jonathan Hopson of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the cover's "macabre symbolism memorably expresses the novel's themes of greed, sex and death". The book was dedicated to "gentle reader, William Plomer". The novel went straight to the top of the best-seller lists. Fleming took part in a select number of promotional activities, including appearing on the television programme The Bookman and attending a book signing at Harrods. In May 1961 Pan Books published a paperback version of the novel in the UK, which sold 161,000 copies before the end of the year. Since its initial publication the book has been issued in numerous hardback and paperback editions, translated into several languages and, as at 2024, has never been out of print.

In 2023 Ian Fleming Publications—the company that administers all Fleming's literary works—had the Bond series edited as part of a sensitivity review to remove or reword some racial or ethnic descriptors. The rerelease of the series was for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel.

Critical reception
Goldfinger received more positive reviews than Fleming's previous novel, Dr. No, which had faced widespread criticism in the British media. Writing in The Observer, Maurice Richardson thought that "Mr. Fleming seems to be leaving realism further and further behind and developing only in the direction of an atomic, sophisticated Sapper". Though Fleming may have left reality behind, Richardson considered that the writer, "even with his forked tongue sticking right through his cheek, ... remains maniacally readable". Richardson said that Goldfinger "is the most preposterous specimen yet displayed in Mr. Fleming's museum of super fiends", and, referring to the novel's central character, observed that "the real trouble with Bond, from a literary point of view, is that he is becoming more and more synthetic and zombie-ish. Perhaps it is just as well." In The Manchester Guardian, Roy Perrott observed that "Goldfinger ... will not let [Bond's] close admirers down". Perrott thought that overall "Fleming is again at his best when most sportingly Buchan-ish as in the motoring pursuit across Europe"; he summarised the book by saying that it was "hard to put down; but some of us wish we had the good taste just to try".

The Times thought that Bond was "backed up by sound writing" by Fleming; the critic thought that although the plot was grandiose "it sounds—and is—fantastic; the skill of Mr. Fleming is to be measured by the fact that it is made not to seem so". For The Times Literary Supplement, Michael Robson considered that "a new Bond has emerged from these pages: an agent more relaxed, less promiscuous, less stagily muscular than of yore". Robson added that "the story, too, is more relaxed". Robson saw this as a positive development, but it did mean that although "there are incidental displays of the virtuosity to which Mr. Fleming has accustomed us, ... the narrative does not slip into top gear until Goldfinger unfolds his plan". The Evening Standard looked at why Bond was a success and listed "the things that make Bond attractive: the sex, the sadism, the vulgarity of money for its own sake, the cult of power, the lack of standards". The Sunday Times called Goldfinger "Guilt-edged Bond"; the critic for The Manchester Evening News thought that "Only Fleming could have got away with it ... outrageously improbable, wickedly funny, wildly exciting".

Even the "avid anti-Bond and an anti-Fleming man", Anthony Boucher, writing for The New York Times appeared to enjoy Goldfinger, saying "the whole preposterous fantasy strikes me as highly entertaining". The critic for The New York Herald Tribune, James Sandoe considered the book to be "a superlative thriller from our foremost literary magician".

Burgess cites Goldfinger as one of the 99 best novels in English since 1939. "Fleming raised the standard of the popular story of espionage through good writing—a heightened journalistic style—and the creation of a government agent—James Bond, 007—who is sufficiently complicated to compel our interest over a whole series of adventures."

Adaptations
Goldfinger was serialised on a daily basis in the Daily Express newspaper from 18 March 1959 onwards. Fleming's original novel was adapted as a daily comic strip which was published in the same paper and syndicated around the world—the first of the novels to be adapted as such. The adaptation ran from 3 October 1960 to 1 April 1961, and Fleming received £1,500 for the British publication and a percentage for syndicated copies. The adaptation was written by Henry Gammidge and illustrated by John McLusky. Goldfinger was reprinted in 2005 by Titan Books as part of the Dr. No anthology, which in addition to Dr. No, also included Diamonds Are Forever and From Russia, with Love.

In 1964 Goldfinger became the third entry in the James Bond film series. Sean Connery returned as Bond, and the German actor Gert Fröbe played Auric Goldfinger. The film was mostly similar to the novel, but Jill and Tilly Masterton (renamed Masterson for the film) have shortened roles and earlier deaths in the story. The plot of the film was also changed from stealing the gold at Fort Knox to irradiating the gold vault with a dirty bomb. Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn, in their examination of the Bond films, consider that the film improves on what they see as some of Fleming's "ludicrous notions". The pair highlight the irradiation of the gold in Fort Knox, and the change of Pussy Galore's organisation to stunt pilots, rather than masquerading as nurses, as examples of improvements.

The 1973 BBC documentary Omnibus: The British Hero featured Christopher Cazenove playing a number of such title characters (e.g. Richard Hannay and Bulldog Drummond), including James Bond in dramatised scenes from Goldfinger—notably featuring the hero being threatened with the novel's circular saw, rather than the film's laser beam—and Diamonds Are Forever.

Following its radio version of Dr. No, produced in 2008 as a special one-off to mark the centenary of Ian Fleming's birth, Eon Productions allowed a second Bond story to be adapted. On 3 April 2010 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a radio adaptation of Goldfinger with Toby Stephens (who played the villain Gustav Graves in Die Another Day) as Bond, Sir Ian McKellen as Goldfinger and Stephens's Die Another Day co-star Rosamund Pike as Pussy Galore. The play was adapted from Fleming's novel by Archie Scottney and was directed by Martin Jarvis.

title: Goldfinger (novel)