![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Upon reading this article and the attached link, I feel as if its author(s) and myself have read from two entirely different sets of books. Having read: The Best of Cordwainer Smith and Norstrila, I made the following observations:
In short, I saw the Instrumentality as farce, as comic relief, and as a parody of the organizations it is compared to in this article.
I know I'm not insane, so I hope to see some responses here. -- L. 22:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the comparison to the "Plan of Man", since I don't find much resemblance, but I don't see them as merely humorously farcical parodies either. I've addded a lot of material to the page; see what you think of it now. AnonMoos 20:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing templates, since no comments here on talk page for almost two weeks. AnonMoos 02:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a small trivia: The name Femtiosex is actually Swedish for fifty-six, literally. I propose that this be added to the article, or replaced for the Danish Fem-Seks. Added by Jalumar (Dynamic IP, not a registered user) 02:50, 29 October 2006 (GMT+1) (not Summer-time)
Whole page seems to be original research. No sources, lots of assertions and speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.50.46 ( talk) 02:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. OK that still leaves the source problem. You say it's all good because there is a source listed for a story the page does not link to and anyway it doesn't matter because the "info" in two of the subsections "is fairly obvious if you've read the Cordwainer Smith stories." In other words, the parts of the page you wrote are geared toward Smith fans who are already familiar with the material and not toward the general reader and therefore nothing on it requires a source. Am I stating your position clearly? 68.178.50.46 ( talk) 15:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) And who exactly provided the name-meanings in the "Individual Members" subsection? Surely not some random editor who came up with them through (gasp!) Original Sin, oops,I mean Original Research! 68.178.50.46 ( talk) 17:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Still no sources for anything, entire article seems to be original research at best, and opinion, at most (e.g. no references in the "influences" bits, and the whole first/old bit of this duscission-page in itself certainly seems to throw the entire article into question...). Total rewrite or deletion, I find. 82.196.109.58 ( talk) 04:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the WP:OR issues above, this article seems to have issues meeting WP:GNG. What reliable sources discuss this topic in detail? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Upon reading this article and the attached link, I feel as if its author(s) and myself have read from two entirely different sets of books. Having read: The Best of Cordwainer Smith and Norstrila, I made the following observations:
In short, I saw the Instrumentality as farce, as comic relief, and as a parody of the organizations it is compared to in this article.
I know I'm not insane, so I hope to see some responses here. -- L. 22:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the comparison to the "Plan of Man", since I don't find much resemblance, but I don't see them as merely humorously farcical parodies either. I've addded a lot of material to the page; see what you think of it now. AnonMoos 20:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing templates, since no comments here on talk page for almost two weeks. AnonMoos 02:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a small trivia: The name Femtiosex is actually Swedish for fifty-six, literally. I propose that this be added to the article, or replaced for the Danish Fem-Seks. Added by Jalumar (Dynamic IP, not a registered user) 02:50, 29 October 2006 (GMT+1) (not Summer-time)
Whole page seems to be original research. No sources, lots of assertions and speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.50.46 ( talk) 02:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. OK that still leaves the source problem. You say it's all good because there is a source listed for a story the page does not link to and anyway it doesn't matter because the "info" in two of the subsections "is fairly obvious if you've read the Cordwainer Smith stories." In other words, the parts of the page you wrote are geared toward Smith fans who are already familiar with the material and not toward the general reader and therefore nothing on it requires a source. Am I stating your position clearly? 68.178.50.46 ( talk) 15:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) And who exactly provided the name-meanings in the "Individual Members" subsection? Surely not some random editor who came up with them through (gasp!) Original Sin, oops,I mean Original Research! 68.178.50.46 ( talk) 17:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Still no sources for anything, entire article seems to be original research at best, and opinion, at most (e.g. no references in the "influences" bits, and the whole first/old bit of this duscission-page in itself certainly seems to throw the entire article into question...). Total rewrite or deletion, I find. 82.196.109.58 ( talk) 04:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the WP:OR issues above, this article seems to have issues meeting WP:GNG. What reliable sources discuss this topic in detail? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)