Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →


Contents

Country of origin: United Kingdom?

Why is the UK listed as a country of origin? Thats is nonsense! The original mini-series was a US production with UK involvement that was filmed in Canada but the series is clearly an American production that also airs in the UK. The US should be listed as the country of origin and UK should be removed. --84.153.40.191 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom co-produce(d?) the Battlestar Galactica TV series (operative words: TV series) - they also aired it first, generally the UK should be the only country listed, it is logical however to list the USA as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How did the "UK" co-produce the series, I think you are talking about the mini-series and first season anyway, which was partially FINANCED (not produced) by a UK TV network and not the "UK". The series as far as I know is produced by Sci-Fi network (USA) and it now airs in the US first, months earlier than in the UK. It was also created by an American, is written by Americans, and is a new version of an American show and it certainly isn't made for a British audience - if it gets cancelled or renewed it is because of ratings in the States - regardless of how many people in the UK watch. This is just more wikipedian nationalist nonsense. The series is clearly American but some people in Canada and the UK apparently are determined to clutch at straws to claim a show that is clearly more American than anything else, regardless of where its filmed and what networks payed a "portion" of the financing for the mini-series. A British show it is not but you know that yourself. --84.153.40.191 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This show is written, directed, and produced by Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, and probably others; can't determine everyone's nationality. It's produced in Canada at the Vancouver Film Studios; a few of the big name actors are American, a couple are British (Apollo's accent always amuses me), most of the other actors in the show are Canadian. It is distributed, and thus owned, by NBC Universal. I don't know how it's organized; I know a heck of a lot of Canadians work there, but it seems diffuse, with various functions being performed by companies in different places. It's not as centralized as Stargate, where the executive producers want everybody in arms' reach and they all seem to hang out together. I strongly suspect that the British financial participation involves a level of control that allowed them to put British actors on the show, but it doesn't matter to me.
Every international project I've been involved in, we celebrate everybody's contribution, and in particular, the people who are in charge give the greatest share of credit the people who do the actual work, all the bigshots get to do is take their spreadsheets into their boardrooms to give their presentations and quietly get their zillion-dollar bonuses. Other people seem to be more about control. I just think we should stick to the verifiable facts to determine what's true, and consensus to determine what's relevant. I don't have the BSG DVDs. I suspect that the credits refer to both Britain and Canada in various contexts; it wouldn't be hard to BitTorrent an episode if one was interested. Avt tor 07:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is BS. I'd like to see someone point out exactly what the UK contribution is to this show beyond a couple of actors, which can be said about almost anything. This is an American show filmed in Canada with mostly US/Can cast. BSG episodes emphatically do not air first in the UK. Badgerpatrol 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aired first in the UK, co-production, and as the credits clearly state: In association with Sky. Reverted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There are several points here; a) does the fact that a small proportion of the funding for one season out of 3 (or 4) came from Sky mean that the country of origin is the UK? (not in my view- many, many British shows would originate in the US or Canada under this definition (I rarely (e.g. never) see Canada stated to be the country of origin for Doctor Who, for example); b) is Sky actually a British company (no; it's mostly owned by NewsCorp and US investors); c) with regard to the "first showing" argument, is the mini-series (wholly US funded and produced and first shown in the US) the first showing of the revamped BSG (=yes). The British connection is very, very tenuous indeed; I think most readers are going to find it faintly ridiculous that the UK is shown first (or indeed, at all) in the infobox (the very least that should be done is to alphabetise the order so that Canada comes first). Anyway, it's clear that Matthew is a bit over-possessive and life is too short to devote more than a moment to this kind of issue. There are specific rules for the classification of film and televison productions by country, e.g. what is and isn't a "British" production- I'd certainly be interested to see these if anyone can lay hands on them. PS- What is this gibberish?= So si this Americaland and Canada connection (someone call the roflcopter!) - I've explained, you haven't. Badgerpatrol 13:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear: (1) "country of origin" is about distribution, not production, (2) country of origin is indicated by reliable sources, of which generally the most reliable is the copyright statement incorporated into the work, (3) as for production, the mechanics of television production make it economically impractical for "production" and "filming" to occur in separate places; the producers need to talk to people who have to be on set; production happens where the producers work, and in essentially all places for episodic television that has to be within walking distance of the soundstages where principal photography occurs, (4) the copyright statement on episodes of Battlestar Galactica say clearly that the work is copyright under the laws of the United States, (5) the frame which includes the copyright statement also has three large icons referring to production in Canada, and (6) on the episode I looked at, given the limitations of screen resolution, I did not see anything referring to British participation on the screen that included the copyright statement. According to industry-standard definitions and the authoritative source (the work itself), the country of origin of Battlestar Galactica is the United States, and this show is produced in Canada.
Having said that, I have never been in favor of narrow exclusive definitions in this area. Television projects involve complex forms of partnership at various legal levels, and companies may have considerable control without being on the copyright statement or being directly involved in production. It is my opinion that major partners and participants should be shown in some way. I would not be the one to remove the reference to UK participation, even if it doesn't meet the narrow definition of "country of origin". Sky One may well have put up some money to get the right to broadcast some episodes first, and to put some British actors on the show. Avt tor 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To be further clear, aside from seeing two British actors as regulars, I have no information about British financing or air dates. I am merely asking the minimal courtesy that when a fact is challenged, people should have a little time to support their side of the argument before information is deleted. If I had serious doubts I might put a fact tag on a point for a while before removing it entirely. Avt tor 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, I'm curious - why do you say "will need to be from a reliable source (i.e. not TV.com, IMDb, Geos)" to question Canadian involvement, yet you use cult.tv ("Cult TV is an organisation comprised of TV appreciators who run this web site on a voluntary basis." "Are we missing something? Can you write the content for us? Here's how..." as your source for Sky? --Ckatzchatspy 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I googled it. Right clicked, opened tab, Ctrl+F, made sure text was in the source, copied the URL, nothing else, feel free to remove that source if you would like. I imagine it will be easy to replace with something else. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"thanks/", but I really wasn't looking for a sarcastic response. An actual explanation as to the apparent double standard for "reliable sources" would be more helpful. --Ckatzchatspy 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm? Sadly you are mistaken if you believe I'm being sarcastic, that was your explanation, the only one you're getting, because: That's all I did. Also, I don't have double standards, I'm just lazy :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I think there is no absolute rule and that editors have to use judgement on the reliability of sources for various kinds of information. Many sources are not perfectly reliable for information about the future, but rumors still have utilty to users (at other sites and publications, at least; it's pretty much Variety's raison d'être). Many sites, even good fan sites, are reasonably reliable in regards to past information. In the area of reliability, I would ask: does the site have resources to verify what it says? Has it been reliable in the past (one must consider the volume of information provided, i.e. a site that has 100 useful facts, of which one is wrong, is much less accurate than a site that has a thousand mistakes out of a billion data entries)? Does it have access to authoritative information? Does it have a conflict of interest that would cause it to prefer certain facts or interpretations over others? Is there an editorial/quality check on information provided, or is it just unfiltered input from random users? I happen to think IMDB meets the standard of reliability, particularly for information entered straight from film credits. Other editors disagree, hence the need for judgement and consensus. I'm certainly not going to take someone else's opinion that such-and-such site isn't reliable if that opinion seems to conflict with observable facts. Avt tor 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The current situation is tolerable (a better ref can and should be found). It does smack of embarassingly feeble and parochial jingoism (LOOK LOOK LOOK! BSG may have been made in America- but it was FIRST BROADCAST IN BLIGHTY! Get the flags and bunting out of the loft, Mum!) but if a small amount of UK-humiliation is the price of an acceptable resolution then so be it. Badgerpatrol 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This is petty and hopelessly pendantic, and that makes Wikipedia look bad. I don't care about that because this is the Internet and silly nonesense is par usual for it. What I do care about is somebody (MatthewFenton) reversed the primacy for the episode order so UK airdates are shown first even though new episodes air in the UK months after the US airdate, and I use Wikipedia to find out the next showing for new episodes and that gives me a headache. MatthewFenton please take your nationalist crusade to other parts of Wikipedia and leave the BG articles alone. 68.236.14.91 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) MT

Organization (table of contents)

This article is strangely organized, with low-importance points at the same level as major sections. I would take the existing text and organize it something like this:

   * 1 Plot (incorporate plot elements currently listed under "Synopsis"
   * 2 Cast
   ** 2.1 Main characters
   ** 2.2 Supporting characters
   ** 2.3 Recurring guest stars
   * 3 BSG Universe
   ** 3.1 Military rank structure
   * 4 Production
   ** 4.1 Season one
   ** 4.2 Season two
   ** 4.3 Webisodes
   ** 4.4 Season three
   ** 4.5 Main title
   * 5 Future developments
   ** 5.1 Spin-offs
   ** 5.2 Tie-in novels
   * 6 Awards and honors
   * 7 References
   * 8 See also
   * 9 External links


This organization would invite contributors to include subsections about other aspects of the background (for example, the Cylons). Some of the existing material could also be summarized into subordinate articles.

I won't unilaterally reorganize the article without some discussion (or at least tacit approval) and I don't plan to rewrite a lot of actual text in the short term; I just want to make it easier for other people to fill in relevant details. Avt tor 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if "Future developments" is the right heading, as some of the items (e.g. the novels) have been released or started already, and the heading makes it sound like they're still in the planning stages. Something like "Derivative works" or even just "Spin-offs and tie-ins" would be preferable to me. "BSG universe" I'm not entirely comfortable with, but I can't think of anything better. "Main title" seems out of place under "Production", since the other sub-sections contain details concerning only production/filming/airing schedules, locations, etc. Again, a better place for it hasn't occurred to me yet. Other than those, the rest of your proposed organization looks fine to me. --Fru1tbat 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion

HI! I'm a big BG fan! I don't know about the following from Schisms - Sagitarons, for instance, take a literal interpretation of the Sacred Scroll, avoid modern medicine ("The Woman King"), and oppose abortion. I thought it was Geminons that opposed abortion, as when the girl stowed away on board Galactica. HillaryMawdesley 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I remember too. The Geminons are stated to strongly oppose seperation of religion and state, and abortion being allegedly in violation of their religous beliefs, seek to make it illegal. The Sagitarons seem to be a completely different brand of fanatic, and I don't remember a single reference to their opposing abortion. If I find the time, I'll rewatch the episodes and make the edit if it's needed, unless someone else beats me to it. Someguy1221 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In our reality, there are Christians who are against abortion, and there are Atheists who are against abortion. So too, in BSG there are different factions who share beliefs. The refreshing thing about this is that the colonial religion at least has different denominations like nearly every religion.75.111.57.38 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode List

Shouldn't an episode list article be created and then linked to this article? 88wolfmaster 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It already is? List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes. Matthew 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see it now.--88wolfmaster 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

In some way should we list the ratings the show has generated? It definetly got attention with the numbers it pulled for a sci fi show, then in season three had a dramatic slump for what it had been (almost 30% loss of viewers on average) yet now is climbing again. Especially for a niche like science fiction where dominant ratings are rare, that seems somewhat encyclopedia appropriate and their must be neilson or whatever ratings they use for it somewhere that can be linked if not already. In fact for a show, what more important stat is there then who's watching it? Just an idea.

If a good source can be found, I think that would be a good addition to the article - please go ahead. it would be nice if we had ratings for all the countries where it was aired. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Death of Starbuck

My very minor edit adding start and end dates to Katee Sackhoff's character Starbuck was reverted, and somewhat surprisingly I might add. Her character was seen to have died, and it has been reported that, at the very least, the episode Maelstrom was her last for the season. Shall we re-add a (2004-2007) mark to her entry on the main page until (and if) further information surfaces? Redreth 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that AdamDeanHall has made the edit. Thanks. Redreth 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It is too premature to presume that she is gone forever - death is not always terminal in science fiction. More to the point, unless we get some official confirmation, we can't add the dates. Think about it - if the character of Starbuck was really gone, as in permanently, the producers would probably have said so. We'd be hearing about how it was a bold move, or how it was the natural progression for the character for the character, or that Sackhoff wanted to move on. That doesn't mean we can guarantee that she will be back - only that we can't presume one way or the other. --Ckatzchatspy 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Chatz. What kind of Science fiction fans are you guys. As Chatz stated death is not a permanent thing for science fiction. (if you paid close enough attention to the episode you would have heard it suggested in that dream of hers that she was going to see what lies between this world and the next). Plus the season is almost over so Maelstrom being her last episode is no shock here. --88wolfmaster 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly clear that the episode with all those flashbacks didn't set her up as having a destiny simply to die. She's bound to be back. If not, that episode was the most pointless and badly written one to date. Enzedbrit 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The actress that plays her signed on for 5 seasons so she'll most likely come back. There were a couple clues - her Viper was hit by something for real, which caused the decompression - her hand was on the eject lever - and when Apollo rounds the cloud to see the explosion there were two sets of vapor trails (one could have possibly been from the Raider she was chasing, and the other Starbuck's Viper). Was the Raider really there? The shattered cockpit and second vapor trail suggest there was another ship. And which ship exploded? We'll have to wait and see. Cyberia23 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
well we can guess all day as to how they will bring her back as long as we agree that she will be coming back and therefore the adding of dates is incorrect.--88wolfmaster 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

then a note stating that katee's name was removed from the opening credits after starbuck's "death" should be included at least... -Xornok 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

that would be fair enough--88wolfmaster 08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How's this? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that become a bit too much of a spoiler for those outside of the U.S. that come to Wikipedia for info? The cast shouldn't be encapsuled by a general spoiler alert, should it? --Strangnet 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps moving it to the 'season three' area..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Strangnet i dont see how the note: *Was removed from the opening titles starting with episode 3.18, "The Son Also Rises" is a spoiler (yes it implies something but it doesnt give anything away).--88wolfmaster 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article is to be of any interest for people outside of the U.S. updates like these should be entered into a spoiler enclosed area of the article. The cast should be as clear of these things as possible, imho. --Strangnet 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, how's this? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Being removed from screen credits doesn't mean jack... it's an old ploy to make you think a missing character is really off the show for good, and has been done many times before.

Reminder: in the original series (or rather, in the dismal spinoff), Starbuck hits a Cylon ship, crashes and is left for dead, rebuilds a Cylon from parts of the crashed centurions, and (apparently) somehow retroactively fathers or at least becomes godfather to a child who helps the colonists eventually find Earth, and "ascends" to the Ship of Light (that part was unaired). Despite its intelligence and some obvious gender-bender changes, the new series has overall remained faithfull to the major arcs of the original series (the dead son, the Pegasus, etc), so when Katee went down in a blaze of glory, I just sort of assumed "oh, they're doing THAT one this week..." and figured they'd be getting back to her later on. Let's face it, if she was REALLY off the show, Katee wouldn't be under a gag order although there are indications we might not see her for a while. Then again, the boneheads may have her wake up on the resurrection ship... who knows? Let's hope they at least retain the "No Boxey" sensibility and forgo Dr. Zee as well... (children in space are always the result of second-string writers being whipped by clueless marketing execs long after the original writers have left, and usually appear soon after the series' obligatory "Western" or "Cultural Revolution" episode, in a pathetic attempt by second-string writers to "get in touch" with a younger audience, further alienating any connection with their real audience (with all due respect to Firefly, which was awesome as a western from day one)) -- Bif the Mildly Timid

Like I was saying...not dead yet....and they just had a credit for Katee at the end.--88wolfmaster 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They have confirmed that Sackhoff has signed up for the Fourth (and possibly last) season of the show. However, that really doesn't mean anything as far as the death of Starbuck is concerned. She could become a "Head Starbuck" to Apollo - you just never know with a show like this. I think that calling her dead right now is highly premature. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


        • YO STARBUCK IS IN THE CLOSING MINUTES OF SEASON 3's SERIES CLOSER, SHE'S NOT DEAD YET ****

Now what

Ok now that the season is over their are a couple things we need to discuss:

1. Should we keep the Katee was removed from the credits bit.
2. Should we address the song All Along the Watchtower and if so how.
3. Should we address the new cylons and if so how.--88wolfmaster 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My view: 1. She was removed from the credits, but they didn't run the normal two start title sequences in the version I saw - that might be worth noting (unless my recorder missed them) 2. Yes, as long as we don't speculate and 3. yes, by couching it in terms of the fact that the characters had various events occur that led them to believe they are cylons. That's about as far as we can go, base don the information we have, in my opinion. Anything else would be speculation. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
About #2: I think this bit from a recent interview is useful. Of course, this is a direct quote, so it would need to be put in our own words:
INTERVIEWER: "this episode used the Bob Dylan song “All Along the Watchtower.” How difficult was it to thread that song in?"
"VERHEIDEN: Right. Well, Ron has said that you shouldn’t take [the use of that song] as meaning anything specific to, say, Bob Dylan in the ’60s when he wrote the song, except in the sense that for all we know this song and these lyrics have existed on many planes. Maybe Bob Dylan is the one who picked it up here, in our place. It gets kind of mystic here, but I don’t think that you should draw too much from that, except that there are connections and there are very many interesting eddies and byways in the universe of “Battlestar” that remain to be explored."
"On a more pragmatic level, “All Along the Watchtower” was there because Ron Moore has always wanted to use that song and use it in some way where we were, again, thrilled with how it worked into this final episode, and also with the version that [“Battlestar” composer Bear McCreary] did. I thought it was suitably evocative and eerie and really worked well. In fact, I thought that the music in that episode was just fantastic all the way through."
" [...] I especially loved the music when Tigh, Tory, Anders and Tyrol got together, which just seemed to raise to this crescendo of, “What in the world is going on?” which is exactly what they were thinking and what we hoped the audience was thinking when we got to that point. Again, as they said, a light switch clicked, and the music was really helping to push that moment."
— Collins, Sean T. (2007-03-30). TV Q&A: ‘BATTLESTAR GALACTICA’—MARK VERHEIDEN (page 2). Wizard Entertainment.
Hope that helps. -Harmil 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I know that there's a trend to try to reduce the number of fair use images in any given article, but this show is "Battlestar Galactica," so doesn't it make sense to show just one image of the battlestar, Galactica? Other things that are iconic to this and the previous series, any one or two of which might help to establish some visual context:

  • A metallic cylon with the red eye
  • A viper
  • A cylon raider
  • The fleet (perhaps just one photo of Galactica with the fleet behind... I'm sure there's a promotional image with that out there somewhere).
  • A Pyramid game (ideal for a section on the culture of BSG, which I think the article is lacking, but that's another point)

I don't think any of the characters are iconic enough on their own to be shown outside of the cast picture. This really is an ensemble show, after all. -Harmil 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"He/she"

"He" is a term used too broadly, "she" has not been used.. "It" is neuter. As the doctor states "he" is used, but there's never been any evidence to suggest true sex of the Cylon's god. Matthew 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gender of the Cylon God

So there have been a few edits and reverts around the text in the Cylon Monotheism section about which personal pronoun to use for the Cylon god. Some advocate the use of "He/She", some "He" and others "it". I have recollection of several references in the show talking about "he" and "him". I do not recall any references to "she". I would like to propose that we agree on something, rather than continually making changes.

Some quotes to support this:

  • ""Maybe the Cylons are God's retribution for our many sins. What if God decided he made a mistake and he decided to give souls to another creature, like the Cylons?" Leoben, miniseries.
  • "God has a plan for you, Gaius. He has a plan for everything and everyone. Gaius - are you even listening to me?" -- Head Six, "33"
  • "Be careful. That which God gives he can also take away." -- Head Six, "33"
  • "It's God's choice. He wants you to repent." -- Head Six, "33"
  • "It's funny, isn't it? We're all God, Starbuck, all of us. I see the love that binds all living things together. ... I know that God loved you more than all other living creatures and you repaid his divine love with sin, with hate, corruption, evil. So then he decided to create the Cylons." -- Leoben, "Flesh and Bone"
  • "I think if we ever found an answer to why the Cylons have a god or who the god is--you know, the guy steps out from behind the curtain--I think you’d be disappointed. They’re in an interesting place in that their faith is as legitimate as the human faith. Human beings have souls given by the gods, and Cylons have a soul given by their one true god and that has to be just as valid. That means there is a plan for their soul and something for them after they die too. It’s a fundamental element of their faith. " - Ron Moore Interview [1]

So we have actual Cyclons and the main creative force behind the show using the term "he". Therefore, barring any evidence to the contrary I would suggest that we use the masculine pronoun when referring to the Cylon god (i.e,. use "he" and "him"), and not capitalize it. I welcome other opinions with quoted sources. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the show supports it, then "he" is correct. Either way, "it" doesn't work as the term isn't generally used for deities. --Ckatzchatspy 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At the bequest of Alucard, here. The Cylon god is clearly referred to as He (both verbally and in the captioning/subtitles on the DVD). It's fairly straightforward. Chiss Boy 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Always referred to in the show quite clearly as a he. Can't see why there's a dispute or discussion over this simply referenced point. Ben W Bell talk 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
ditto. Chiss Boy 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When there were so many reverts going on, I thought it best to discuss rather than keep on reverting. I will change it as I proposed. Hopefully if anyone objects they will do so here. Thanks for your time. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Western monotheism

a) Not only Western monotheisms have those traits.
b) Can you list some of these "Western" monotheisms? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all often considered to be MIDDLE EASTERN or SOUTHWESTERN ASIAN religions--they are definitely not Western in origin. Zorostrianism and Chinese monotheism also have many of those traits, and they even more definitely are not Western religions. Why do you insist on putting in Western when that is inaccurate? Chiss Boy 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have no objection to rewriting the statement. But taking out the "Western" word made the article read something like the fact that Cylon monotheism shares a lot of traits with monotheism, which is a tautology. It just needs to be explained better, and I lacked the words to do so. Would "non-fictional earth monotheism" be acceptable? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Semitic monotheisms" or "Abrahamic monotheisms" might be another way to go.Debivort 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For Alucard's question/proposal about "non-fictional earth monotheism," that would work. Or (opinion) how about "monotheisms in the real world?"
  • For Debivort's suggestion, no. As mentioned, there are other monotheisms, not only Abrahamic ones, with the traits. Chiss Boy 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who added the bit about the part about being fruitful? That wasn't Boomer, it was the blonde connected to Gaius (Gina?), and where does Athena come into this? Guessing that the Wikipedian who put that in was using the reference to the tomb of Athena and Boomer's statement that the tomb does exist even though the human polytheism is a bunch of bunk (so is the Cylon monotheism). Chiss Boy 10:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)