Talk:Skyfall

Template:Find sources notice

Craig's creative involvement a new precedent?

From influencing the choice of director to - according to this article - possibly influencing the decision to feature the "deserted island city" set piece, I don't recall hearing of any Bond actor being so involved in the pre-production of Bond. In fact I'm surprised they didn't give Craig a producer credit. Is there any source that discusses this? It's an under-reported aspect of the film that I think is notable enough to warrant inclusion; I'm sure some reputable source mentions this. The closest occasion I've seen to this is when Sean Connery and Kevin McClory collaborated on a script for a Bond film that was abandoned before they made Never Say Never Again. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that new: Craig was involved in much of the ongoing script writing for QoS because of a writers' strike. SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But that I understand was more out of dissatisfaction regarding the state of the script as filming commenced. In the case of Skyfall we have Craig actively involved in choosing the director and also researching potential filming locations (the abandoned island city). That has no precedent in the series as far as I'm aware. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall's critical acclaim

Skyfall has, according to Metacritic, garnered "universal acclaim" as opposed to "generally positive reviews", which is what the current Skyfall article states. Changing the reception section of Skyfall's article to say that the film has garnered critical acclaim would be a fact, given its support from an aggregate website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BMKastah (talk • contribs) Revision as of 00:25, 14 February 2013

It's only a fact that it's Metacritic's opinion, and 81 out of 100 by definition isn't universal. In any event, two editors have now reverted this edit. Please do not continued reverting, since that is considering edit-warring and you risk running afoul of WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

When you scroll through a vast majority of the reviews, many of them are perfect or near-perfect scores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKMastah (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic is trypical of the sub-normal and over simplified approach taken by a lot of sites. The "near perfect scores" you refer to are an attempt by a website to turn the finely balanced prose of a critic, which describes a number of things about a film, into a raw number. It's a pointless and misleading practice only good enough for those people who are too stupid or lazy to read through a few reviews themselves. We've taken a selection of the reviews—expressing the range of reviews—and given selected and balanced highedlights here, which should be more than enough for people to understand how critics feel about the film. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat and Tenebrae per above. - Fantr (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Influences

I have inserted a brief paragraph suggesting that the name "Skyfall" may be derived from "Sea Fell" in "The Island of Sheep." Can anyone find a common to this effect by the Purvis, Wade, or Logan? That would strengthen the association. Mrdavenport (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph has been deleted by a vandal, so here it is: Many reviewers have noted how the Skyfall name and setting may have been influenced by John Buchan's novel Island of Sheep (1936) . In Island of Sheep former secret-agent Richard Hannay (like Bond, a senior military officer with Scottish roots and sophisticated tastes) has the task of protecting "Haraldsen" who, like M, is being pursued with deadly intent by a ruthless villain because of a perceived injustice in the deep past. Hannay takes Haraldsen to a secluded mansion named Sea Fell in the Faroe Islands, with a treeless landscape very similar to Scotland. In the final battle, the villain approaches the mansion across open downs, and Hannay sends Haraldsen down an escape tunnel to safety. Mrdavenport (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

References

This is all interesting, and I think there's probably something there, but these aren't professional reviewers — the first two are just non-notable WP:SPS bloggers, and the third cite, Deviant Art, isn't even a blog but a social-media site where anyone can post (and I also don't see where the name Chris Gilman shows up anywhere there — it doesn't seem to be on the linked page). In addition, none of these bloggers / social-media posters go into the Sea Fell plot detail given here, so that interpretation of the book's plot is still this editor's original research.

As I said, this is interesting and a potentially valuable insight into the nature of creativity and/or homage, so if a credible film or literary critic can be found who makes this connection in this kind of detail, I think we should include this. Otherwise, this seems too speculative and weakly sourced. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

These reviews look like WP:SPS reviews to me; I don't recognize any of the names, and in any case the publications are not notable. I am not against including influences, but it should be sourced from notable reviewers and should represent a prominent strand of the critical opinion to observe WP:WEIGHT. In any case, even if these reviewers were notable, the WP:SYNTHESIS is still a problem: you elaborate on 'similarities' that the reviews themselves don't touch upon. Looking at your talk page it seems that adding WP:FRINGE theory is a recurring problem with you since you have been warned about it in the past, so I'm asking you to not restore the section unless you gain support for it here first. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Betty and Ten here: the sources cited here and in the article are all to what look like fan blogs. Mrdavenport, I'd also be very careful about throwing around the vandal name when dealing with someone who is acting in complete good faith. You added something with no sources and it was reverted quite rightly for looking like original research, so there is no need for the name calling. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Betty Logan, SchroCat and Tenebrae per above. The passage has no current place in article. "May be derived" speaks volumes. - Fantr (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, Betty Logan is NOT a Vandal. In the time I have been editing I have seen nothing but constructive edits from this user who is a pleasure to work with. Secondly, unless backed by a reliable source that is not a blog, then it has no place on this article. If such a reliable source(s) appear, then they are more than welcome in the article. MisterShiney ✉ 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Marketing

Hello all, I believe it would be useful to include a section addressing the Marketing behind the film's release. Not only there were several special edition products released with the movie, but also criticism concerning the length of the trailers for example. Would anyone like to help me expand this page? Let me know, I will start working on it! Many thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(Zalunardo8, I know it's not something you have drawn up), but I think the new "‎Promotion" section fails WP:FILMMARKETING (apart from being poorly written and in the wrong place). I'm not convinced that a minor stunt in a minor market is really notable enough to be the sole entry in the field of film that did not do much unusual in the way of advertising for the film. Is there nothing better that can be added, or should this just be removed? - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat. The "promotion" section is awful. Remove. I'm inclined to do it myself but will wait for others to comment. - Fantr (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear SchroCat and Fantr, thank you for your response. I agree this new Promotion section is not very good. I don't think it should discuss in specific all the promotional studs done, but how the marketing for the movie was done in a whole. For example, the Marketing section for The Dark Knight Rises seems really complete to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Marketing . There is a lot to be discussed, even critiques of the amount of product placement done in the film and the 30 min trailers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/oct/23/skyfall-marketing-james-bond . The current promotion section talks only about one stud done by Coca-Cola and this is not the central marketing strategy for the film. Thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference between TDKR and Skyfall was the marketing styles. Skyfall used a pretty standard saturation marketing scheme, whilst TDKR used a more immersive viral campaign. As such, there is quite a bit more to write about for TDKR that was out of the ordinary, or of extreme interest to just that film. Skyfall wouldn't have much at all, as it would just document the standard trailer releases, sponsors, etc. There is nothing particularly notable about any part of the campaign in particular, nor it overall; it wasn't a bad campaign, nor a overly unique one; it did the job. Criticism over trailer length isn't particularly noteworthy, as it wasn't a major talking point, and at most it deserves one line in maybe the release section. The last element, product placement, was not criticised anywhere near enough for a major mention, so in my opinion, a marketing section would be pointless. drewmunn talk 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out the section as it stands on the basis of the above comments (it seems more like a Coke promotion than a Skyfall one. Overall I think I have to agree with drewmunn on this one: there has been nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the overall campaign (and I wasn't even aware of any criticism over the trailer until this thread). Product placement is a slightly different thing and there could be a para within the main text about it, although the Bond films have used product placement as a way of off-setting costs since Dr. No in '62. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the product placement could be interesting to cover, albeit not in a checklist manner, but in terms of the commentary: the Heinekin placement was heavily criticised and commented upon so arguably should be covered in that capacity. I seem to recall George Lazenby wading into the debate at one stage, saying Bond wouldn't drink it because it "tastes like p***". Daniel Craig responded that the economics of the film industry didn't give them much choice, so if we could track down some decent sources something covering that aspect might be ok. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With such tact, Lazenby really did miss out on a career in the diplomatic service, didn't he...! - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, thanks for contributing with your opinions on this matter! At least here in the UK, the number of ads and product placements in the movie were a big deal so it might be some interesting information to add. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224574/Skyfall-fans-forced-sit-30-minutes-adverts-movie-starts.html Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Mail's view too seriously - the editors are kept in a little box and fed a diet of bile and bollocks which they will happily spew out onto their pages whenever they feel like it: I went to see Song for Marion a couple of weeks ago and also had 30 mins of ads to sit through. This isn't anything to do with Skyfall per se, but more the increasingly common practice of cinema owners to boost revenue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I didn't have to sit through any (I'm also UK-ese), but there we go. That article seems to mostly talk about the sponsors anyway, rather than the length of adverts being an issue. Saying that, the cinema I run has a 20 minute ad window before the showing, and a 10 minute sponsor slot before the show begins, and we set that structure up on recommendation. As far as placements go, do you think there would be enough information over the length of the franchise for a separate article? If not, what about a section on the relevant Bond in Film page? It might make it a bit more notable if we covered recurring/new sponsors through the ages, rather than noting a couple on each article. I know there has been more major issues with sponsorship levels in the past, and articles on how that changed later productions. Just a thought, though. drewmunn talk 11:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fake depiction of Turkey

There must be a paragraph about blatant anti Turkish propaganda in the opening scenes. Our country is depicted as a desert(!!) poor third world country with dust all over. Overall, 'Istanbul' in the movie is unrecognizable in the movie to any person who anyone who actually lives there; the place in the movie looks like Saudi Arabia or some middle east country.The makers of this film deliberately did it by overexposed lighting and by sprinkling sand on the roads for the chase scenes. Ironic that China was depicted so well with shiny skyscrapers when Turkey is more developed than China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a place for conspiratorial allegations. Overexposure is usually used to make somewhere look brighter, which is important as a stylistic technique. The rest of Skyfall is dark and bleak, with the cold open providing a harsh difference, and depicting the change of tone. As far as sand in the roads, this may have been an artistic choice, but is also used widely to provide a better surface for stunt driving. Using bare roads for certain stunts is harder, requires professional drivers (Naomi Harris did her own stunts), and can damage the road surface (or leave debris that requires cleaning). Sand makes filming faster and cheaper, and limits cleanup after takes. Take note also that the scenes in China were filmed in Shanghai, which is very much as depicted. There is a diverse range of development in China, and the skyscraper-based, high rise culture in Shanghai is one of the most opulent in the world. drewmunn talk 08:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning would carry weight if there was not such a long and established history of similar rabidly anti Turkish propaganda in Hollywood and American/Western TV. The false orientalist depiction of our nation as a 'third world, poor middle east country with sands and camels' resembling Irak or some arab country is not something new. The notorious Midnight Express, West Wing - where a woman is supposedly beheaded (!!!), and recently Taken 2 - where all women wear black tents, police use cars from the 1960s complete with garbage strewn alleys, crumbling buildings and dirt and filth everywhere. I could go on and on.

This is not simply my opinion . You can find a lot of outrage about the fake depictions of Turkey in skyfall everywhere. See for youself https://www.google.com.tr/search?client=opera&q=skyfall+ortadogu+OR+tozlu+OR+arap+OR+arabistan+OR+kara+carsaf&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

This needs to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. You are talking about 'Artistry'. Is there reason they didnt get 'artistic' with flying dust, overexposure and exotic music (which wasnt even remotely Turkish btw) in Britain or China? Everything points to the filmmakers indulging in the typical orientalist anti Turkish image and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin (talk • contribs)

Firstly please sign your posts with the four tildes (~~~~) so we know who is talking. Secondly, please indent your posts using a colon. In relation to the substantive point at hand, a search of non-Turkish media shows no "outrage". As such, I hardly think "everywhere" covers it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Schrocat on this one, I can find no non-turkish sources covering this matter. Also, because there was no need for this in other scenes. As I've said, the cold open needed to look different, exotic, and bright compared to the bleakness of the rest of the film. There were no stunts in later scenes that required preparation of the same nature as the ones in the cold open, and because there was no need for exotic music in the UK. Factual errors exist all over the place in movies, generally because the non-sensical version fits the public consciousness or artistic vision better than factual accuracy. This is not to spite a country, but to provide something that is immersive. We, for instance, are not moaning that the UK was depicted as bureaucratic, quaint, and unprepared for attack by one crazy guy. Or that Scotland was shown as desolate and empty. Similarly, there is no scandal over the depiction of a human trafficking through China as being detrimental to the country. Artistic choice, catering for the audience and narrative, and filming necessity do not surmount to conspiracy against a country. drewmunn talk 09:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; there was no deliberate effort to be unkind to Turkey or otherwise depict it negatively here. Purely artistic decisions which occur in every film. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; the anon IP may be well-intentioned, but in terms of encyclopedic objectivity, his comments are POV soapbox essaying. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are non-Turkish sources documenting this phenomenon. See an article by the US based Matador Network cited in Stereotypes_of_West_and_Central_Asians_in_the_United_States#Turkic_peoples. I am leaning towards the view of the majority here - that this alleged bias should not be mentioned in the Skyfall article. However, purely chalking it up to artistic license seems naive. Part of it is that the Skyfall production team indulged in these stereotypes without realizing it because they are so pervasive. Connor Behan (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean by catering for the audience; you sometimes have to show mistruth because it's more believable than truth. See the lizard-like dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, despite the film makers knowing and acknowledging them as birds. We don't want to see massive, feathery raptors, because we know them as pebbly, reptilian beasts. drewmunn talk 07:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Tss you Turkish should be glad, at least you're being depicted with lots of cultural and historical buildings. Everytime the Netherlands appears in a movie we're all stoned, living in windmills and speaking German or were greedy, wooden shoe wearing bastards that have accidently gilded their privates. However my Turkish friend do not despair, there is hope. We have combated this problem by laughing it off and not really caring that much in the first place. After all its just a movie. 213.10.125.17 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn! You mean it's not true?! Well how do you explain this view of Amsterdam taken last week? Half my illusions of the NL are shattered! You'll be telling me next that there is something other than tulip fields tended by dope smokers! ;) - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes usually have an element to truth to it, but when it comes to Turkey and Turks, what they do is take Arabian stereotypes (totally different) and apply them to us with the silly reasoning that Turks -> Muslim -> Arabs. Nevermind that our religion traditions is light years apart from the fanatical, fundamentalist beliefs of Arabs. There is no desert in Turkey - it is actually one of the most fertile countries in the world, yet Hollywood seems to always show deserts and dust. And women here dont wear Arabian clothes like black burkas for women. Its not like they are showing Turks wearing Kalpak which was an authentic part of Turkish culture. No, they depict Arabs and Arabia. Thats why people here are so angry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek (talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Turks are upset in the same way a Dutch would be upset if they were shown as Arabs and Netherlands as Arabia or any other different culture. Showing a Dutch wearing wooden shoes is similar to a Turk wearing a Kalpak. It is outdated and happens only in cultural events nowadays, but at least relevant. Thats is the point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Depiction of "priest hole"

The movie depicts Skyfall, Bond's family's estate and his childhood home, as having a "priest hole." Does this not imply that the Bond family were recusant Catholics? Has this ever come up before in James Bond literature? Is it mentioned in the Fleming novels? I recall no such reference in any previous Bond film. --User:OblSB

A link, in case anyone (like me) had no idea what a priest hole was. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. It's been a while since I read the literature, but I can't remember anything about it before. However, the newer timeline would put Bond's parents outside the timeframe that would have needed such a feature. It's possible that it belonged to earlier ancestors, but it's also possible that there were other residents of Skyfall. Priestholes began use in the late 1550s, so that provides a possible age of over 400 years. Another family could have lived in Skyfall back then (especially noting the mixed lineage of Bond, and the lack of clear references in the graveyard to older Bonds), so we can't say just from Skyfall that there is enough evidence of Catholic heritage. Interesting idea, though. I wonder if Fleming was, as that'd give us the closest clue (I know Skyfall wasn't Fleming work, but still, there's hope). drewmunn talk 07:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fleming wasn't Catholic and the issue of Bond's religion wasn't brought up in the books. To try and assume the religion of the Bond family based on a C16th architectural feature is—if you'll excuse the pun—something of a leap of faith. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, multi-pun, because now I picture you as Ken Watanabe, sitting in your palace. It's interesting to know about Fleming, it was obviously added by the screenwriters as a plot feature and nothing else. drewmunn talk 09:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you guys!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because Bond's family owned a large estate with a church on it, hence the priest hole, doesn't indicate anything regarding their religion. There's nothing in the film to indicate who owned the land before the Bonds (and the estate was created for the film - there is no reference to such a place in Fleming). 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but in John Pearson's James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 (Chapter 2, Boyhood of a Spy), "He [Bond] talked a lot about the early Bonds, tough, warlike people who followed the MacDonalds and had lived in Glencoe for generations. Three Bonds, all brothers, were slaughtered in Glencoe during the massacre of 1692." Opera hat (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite being authorised, the contents may not be canonical with the film's reality. drewmunn talk 07:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not even canonical with the Fleming books, let alone anything else! Pearson raises some interesting points, but more for discussion on the forum boards of fansites than here. Either way, he still didn't raise Bond's religion (that I can remember) or mention anything that could possibly relate to their ownership of Skyfall (although a property was mentioned that Bond's uncle had to sell because he drank away the family money, I vaguely seem to remember). - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

...and then there's the issue of whether the identity and associated heritage of the agent known as James Bond is his own, or what John le Carré would call a "legend", or cover. In Casino Royale (1967) the real James Bond is a veteran who won the VC at Mafeking in 1899 and was instrumental in the capture of Mata Hari in 1917. His name is perpetuated in the Secret Service to maintain prestige, and the original Bond describes his successor (Fleming's/Eon's Bond) as "that idiot, to whom you gave my name and number". Later in the film, when Sir James becomes M, he asks after his namesake and is told the pseudo-Bond has abandoned the Service for a career in television. In Pearson's Biography (1973) the agent's name actually is James Bond, but Fleming's novels ("high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of an exemplary civil servant" - You Only Live Twice) are an elaborate hoax to convince the Soviets Bond does not really exist, and once adapted to film, are allowed to continue as PR propaganda for the Service. In The Moneypenny Diaries (2005-08), Fleming's novels are based on the adventures of a real agent of his acquaintance for whom he chose the fictional name "James Bond"; in 2007 the agent was living in retirement in the Outer Hebrides under the name Randall Macallan, though his real name is never confirmed... Opera hat (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, more that is outside the canon in question. All evidence suggests that Bond is Bond's real name; his parents are called Bond, and they'd died by the time he joined the service, and their names wouldn't have been changed posthumously. None of the references you cite are related to the Eon franchise, simply separate derivatives of the same source.

I know - I think canon is a bit of a silly concept and I was just winding you up. Sorry. Opera hat (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe "priest holes" were only a feature of English domestic architecture under Elizabeth I. Scotland was a different country and the Scottish Reformation followed a different course. Opera hat (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Scottish Reformation took place in a similar time period, so the priest hole would still be a distant feature, rather than a recent addition. drewmunn talk 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, speculation as to whether Bond's family might be or might have been Roman Catholic based on an architectural feature that may or may not be original in a house that may or may not have been in his family for generations is never going to make it into the Skyfall article. Opera hat (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

True, 'dat. drewmunn talk 13:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in the second paragraph

While, of course, Wikipedia policy is to provide a thorough outline of any given topic, I am concerned that the second paragraph of this page gives too much of the film's ending away. To quote;

The film centres on Bond investigating an attack on MI6; the attack is part of a plot by former MI6 operative Raoul Silva to humiliate, discredit and kill M as revenge against her for betraying him. The film sees the return of two recurring characters to the series after an absence of two films: Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and Eve Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. Skyfall is the last film of the series for Judi Dench, who played M, a role that she had played in the previous six films. The position is subsequently filled by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory.

From this paragraph, the reader discovers: the villain's identity and intentions, although the film maintains a sense of mystery about these elements until past the halfway mark; that Eve's real identity is Miss Moneypenny - granted, a fairly trivial point, but one the film still does not reveal until the closing scene; that the film is the last in the series for Judi Dench, and that she is replaced by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory - which collectively implies the entirety of the film's biggest plot twist, its climax, and its conclusion.

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but I'd like to raise several points concerning the matter: the film is very recent, having only been released on DVD within the past two months, and there are probably many people unfamiliar with the plot details mentioned; it is only the second paragraph of the entire page, and said details are repeated towards the end of the section headed 'Plot'; finally, not every casual reader of Wikipedia would be familiar with the policy mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph (to present a theoretical situation, someone might be looking up the main details of the film on Wikipedia to decide whether they would like to watch it, and would subsequently resent being told so much of the ending).

Naturally, a willingness to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines are important. I would, however, urge that on some occasions, we balance this with a sensitivity towards all the possible readers of any given page. The current implication is that information about Skyfall is inaccessible to anyone who has not seen the film, and would not like to be told its ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay on this. You are right in supposing it has been discussed before: it has, a number of times. Rather than re-hashing the same arguments once again, could you have a search of the archives at the top of this page and you'll see the reasoning behind it and the consensus that this was an appropriate lead. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. I forgive you for being snide, it appears to be a pre-requisite on the internet.