Talk:Instrumentality of Mankind

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

old talk (2005-2006[edit]

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:

The Instrumentality is neither intelligent nor wise. Its members are highly stupid and make terrible decision.
Members are chosen, at best, at random, and in any case, without much pre-planning.
The Instrumentality's mistakes serve the goals of mankind far better than its conscious policies. This is evident in the gradual humanization of the underpeople.

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)[reply]

Hmm. I'd say that over the course of their history, they've shown signs of significant foolishness and extraordinary cleverness. Also, even at any particular time, it would appear that some of the Lords are useless or counterproductive but others are almost alarmingly competant. As examples of the latter, we have Jestecost, Sto Odin, and argubly Redlady. 21:22, 16 November 2005 24.241.121.216

I have to agree. The Instrumentallity showned in various moments their celverness. Take "The Golden Ship was Oh! Oh! Oh!". When Earth was threatened, the Lords actually decided to protect Earth using a very effective way. 22:16, 23 November 2005 143.200.225.101

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)[reply]

Removing templates, since no comments here on talk page for almost two weeks. AnonMoos 02:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

OR[edit]

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)[reply]

There's a big quote sourced to the short story "Drunkboat". Most of the info in the "Origin and history" and "Individual members subsections is fairly obvious if you've read the Cordwainer Smith stories... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment applies particularly to the section on possible sources of inspiration, which is totally unsourced, completely speculative, an an excellent example of original research. Glad you read all of Mr. Linebarger's stories so carefully and thought about them so much. You should publish a book. Then you can use yourself as a source, more-or-less legitimately. Don't forget your daily devotional reading of Smith Wigglesworth, but seriously, Moos, the fact that they both use the term "instrumentality" proves absolutely nothing and in any case you'd have to find a published source asserting the connection if there were one. Sorry to disappoint you. Clearly you want to bring your theological beliefs into the picture but it just won't fit and it wouldn't matter if it did if it all comes out of your own head. Ciao, and don't forget to put the cat out. If you're strong enough to deal with the separation, that is.68.178.50.46 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the "Possible sources of inspiration" section, and it doesn't reflect my "theological beliefs" (which you mostly have no way of knowing), and I don't care too much whether that subsection is deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

2019[edit]

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)[reply]

There's a big quote sourced to the short story "Drunkboat". Most of the info in the "Origin and history" and "Individual members subsections is fairly obvious if you've read the Cordwainer Smith stories... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability?[edit]

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)[reply]

Answering myself: a review of sources in GScholar suggests the topic (book series/fictional universe) is likely notable. The problem is this article originated in the early days of Wikipedia, was WP:ORish and still is. Someone needs to rewrite it with reliable sources that go beyond plot summary and ORish speculations. PS. While I think the topic is likely notable, the current mess of an article does little to show this to the reader, and the tag should remain until this is addressed. OR tag is probably not warranted since most of the content is a plot summary, outside of the cultural references section which indeed needs citations or removal as OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]