Jump to content

Talk:Philip K. Dick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James Arboghast (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 11 September 2019 (→Personal Philosophy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidatePhilip K. Dick is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Comic Books

There is a comic book/graphic novel version of "A Scanner Darkly", where the movie has been freeze-framed and word balloons have been added. Does that count as a comic book? I know this volume exists since I ordered the novel and the seller sent me the comic instead by mistake. Yes, yes, original research, but the dingus exists. Maybe some PhilDickian editor could work to verify this. This is the thing on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Scanner-Darkly-Graphic-Novel/dp/0375424024/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483315738&sr=8-1&keywords=scanner+darkly+graphic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.254.133 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New music allusions

The band Bloc Party just released an album (8/20/12) which outright references VALIS (song title), and "the empire never ended," in "Coliseum" I am not smart enough to edit the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.94.133.212 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Do they remove the bibliography?

I hope someone may explain this: I have noticed that, unlike other articles about other authors (check J.G. Ballard) there is no Bibliography here. By this I mean a section with a list of the most important critical contributions on Dick; something you do have in printed encyclopedias, btw. I have added one to the article, listing the main book-length essays on Dick, and it was quickly deleted. Why is that? Those who did it do not seem to know much about how an encyclopedia article about a writer (any writer) should be. --93.40.75.96 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't removed it! It's under the reference section. Talk about alternate realities!--James.kerans (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and under "Selected works" section there is a link to the full bibliography which is in a separate article Bibliography of Philip K. Dick Kathodonnell (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean: there's a secondary bibliography at the end of the Bibliography of Philip K. Dick; yet I didn't see it until you told me! I reckon someone who's reading the PKD article - say, a college student who has to write an essay or something like that - might not realize that there is a secondary bibliography at the end of the primary bibliography. On the other hand, creating a page for the secondary bibliography seems to be a bit too much. I wonder whether a second link in the main article on Dick would do, I mean a "Secondary Bibliography on PKD" which directly brings you to that section of the Bibliography article.--James.kerans (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Insurance nurse"

What would an insurance nurse be, and why would one be sent out in the circumstances described in the article? nonky 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg has four of Philip K. Dick's short stories now. http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a33399

Gweeks (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 5 of the works from Gutenberg are available as audio books from librivox too.

http://librivox.org/newcatalog/search.php?title=&author=dick%2C+philip+k.&status=all&action=Search

Gweeks (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete

The 2009 release date for the biopic may already be inoperative, but it surely will be if not replaced before 2009 ends. A tag on that sent will then indicate "[dated info]", and start pointing here. If it's changed, whether before or after, a note added to this section would be an efficient bit of collegiality.
--Jerzy•t 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this hidden comment from the article:
A 3-y.o. self-serving press release about a future film is no longer credible when the release date is less than a year away and there is no independent confirmation. (IMDb may not be presumed indpt, but they've updated to pleading ignorance.) If something better can be found, add a ref & update the enclosing template
The talk page (here) is the appropriate place for such discussions to take place, not in hidden comments in the article itself. I've left a pointer to this page in its place. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that biopic press release. The film hasn't happened and a look at a few sites suggests it isn't going to happen. I'm sure it will be readded and updated if it isn't obsolete. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody think the hidden links to "xxxx in literature" ({{lty|1982}}) add anything? I propose removing them per WP:EGG and WP:OVERLINK. --John (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, are on about this again? First, these are not Easter eggs, they hide nothing. You click on a linked year in a literature-related article, and you are sent to an article about that year in literature. just as if you clicked on a linked year in a general subject article, it sends you to an article about that year. That's precisely the same functionality, so there's nothing whatsoever that is hidden. Second, yes, they do add something, they give the reader the ability to get some context about a book's publication year (if they want to), the kind of broad context that would not be appropriate for direct inclusion in the article. Third, as far as I know there is still an RfArb open concerning date linking, and I believe we've been asked to hold off on linking and delinking dates until they finish considering the case and post their results.

Given all that I see no reason to make changes here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OVERLINK under Year Linking "they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter" and few of these links meet that criteria. So yes they should be removed. Blithely adding "year" or "year in literature" links purely on the basis the year applies and the subject is literary is NOT enough. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OVERLINK, YIL is way overlinked. Remove all wikilinks, keep the year-links preceded by a book. feydey (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been deleting a ref to this site, saying that it's spam, but when I go to it, I get an essay on Dick. Are we seeing different things, or interpreting the same thing differently? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question left this comment on my talk page, which I'm transferring here, since I think the discussion should take place here.

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ is not a valid source according to how I interpret Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

*Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

*Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

This webpage doesn't say what the author's qualifications are or even where the material came from. The main purpose of the webpage seems to be links to Amazon.com.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Transferred by Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the bone of contention is the two prominent affiliate marketing links to Amazon on the page in question. The editor's comment on your talkpage is irrelevant because this link is not being used as a source for the article; per WP:ELMAYBE, appropriate links include "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  Skomorokh  20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken, it is being used to reference the fact that Dick spent most of his career in poverty. I'd say the editor question has a point; it doesn't look like a reliable source to me, interesting little essay though it is. --John (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with John's assessment of the situation, although CrunchyNumbers deleted it with the edit summary that it was spam, it turns out that his argument is actually that it is not a reliable source, which is, of course, paramount since it's being used as a citation. (I think there's no really good argument that it's spam, so it could be used as an EL. CrunchyNumbers should be more careful about making his edit summaries accurate.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the link in question is not the one highlighted above, which is the site's home page, but http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pkdick.htm. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the essay is Petri Liukkonen:

Who is Petri Liukkonen?

abstract:

You may not have realized that the website you visit frequently for concise biographical information on world authors is coming from an obscure Finnish library near the Russian border! Meet Petri Liukkonen, Director of The Kuusankoski Library, Finland.

article:

April 29, 2008 — When doing research for an article on a particular author I discovered a website that you all probably know about and refer to frequently—books and writers at www.kirjasto.sci.fi/

The troubling thing that day was the piece on the author I was researching had several typos and I wanted to notify the webmaster to notify the editor of the site.

To my surprise a lovely, apologetic e-mail came back from Mr. Liukkonen thanking me for the corrections and describing—actually showing me—the Eastern Bloc-styled library where he has spent the past seven years working on an alphabetical calendar of author biographies, as he says, "to escape the boring duties and responsibilities." But anyone can see this is a labor of love.

The site gets 69.44 million hits per year and 9.74 million unique visitors per year. Authors Calendar was awarded the Finnish Writers Association Prize in April on "Book and Rose Day."

Since English is not Petri's native tongue he has managed to get some texts corrected by a native speaker who looks at the spelling and grammar. When I communicated with him today he said he was in the office on his day off, writing about the Korean poet Ko Un [you heard it here first]. Stay tuned for my barrage of questions on this life work of Petri's. ...

So, not a world-class authority, but also not a pajama-clad blogger either. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not a "self-published" site - it's copyrighted by "Kuusankosken kaupunginkirjasto, Finland" which translates as "Kuusankosken City Library, Finland". It's sounding more and more like a reliable source. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like spam to me since there were Amazon.com banners and there are so many pages with no explanation of the author's qualifications, experience, etc. A google search of "www.kirjasto.sci.fi" site:wikipedia.org turned up 348 articles. It could very well be many people independently linking to the pages on this site for different wikipedia articles but it seemed like spam to me since the links were consistently hidden as refs. My guess is they wouldn't last long as external links. Can't we just use what ever source is listed at the webpage? If no source is listed then why trust it? I still don't understand how this site would not be considered as self published just because it mentions a library. Is this a personal library? If it is a public library why is the website not at the main site of the library? Why has a library allowed him to place commercial banners on the site?-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many sites are Amazon associates, and the vast majority of reliable sources we accept (eg. every single commercially published newspaper or magazine) have advertisements on them. The essays on the page are original essays not copied from elsewhere, so we cannot hopscotch back a source, and they were used as refs because they were used as references. Sure, we should determine whether we want to accept this librarian's work as reliable or not, but that has nothing whatsoever to so with it having Amazon bugs on it, and your insistence on attacking it as spam is not only irrelevant, it's unhelpful to that determination. Please stop, there is no evidence at all that this is spam. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes websites like this are useful, for example, librarian David Dodd's unique and professional Annotated Grateful Dead Lyric archive currently hosted at UC Santa Cruz.[1] I would tend to see Petri Liukkonen's site like Dodd's, however Dodd did publish his work in 2005 (ISBN 0743277473) and I'm curious if Liukkonen has taken it to the next step. I wouldn't be against using a link to Liukkonen's site in either a note or a further reading section, but the "poverty" statement needs to be sourced in the body, not just the lead (lead is a summary) and when we do that, we need to be using standard reliable sources per Crunchy Numbers. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KSMO

KSMO is now a radio station in Missouri. Was it when PKD supposedly DJ'd there? Or were the call letters reassigned? brain (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? KSMO was out of San Mateo, California from 1947-1952.[2] In typical Dick fashion, it is historically unclear if he was ever on the air. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think PKD makes a reference to this in a letter to Herb Hollis (his boss) written on his (PKD's) 21st birthday. Presumably in the appropriate volume of Selected Letters. I'll try to look up just what he wrote. Considering the date of the letter and that it was addressed to someone who should have had direct personal knowledge about the letter I'd consider it reliable though I don't recall offhand how specific it was about KSMO. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 current PKD-related cfds here and here. Occuli (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films, order of

I am changing the Films section to be in chronological order, using the dates given.

76.68.73.110 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PKD"

"Although he never used it himself, Dick's fans and critics often refer to him familiarly as "PKD" (cf. Jorge Luis Borges' "JLB"), and use the comparative literary adjectives "Dickian" and "Phildickian" in describing his style and themes (cf. Kafkaesque, Orwellian)."

Actually this is not true. He referred to himself as PKD in a 1978 Exegesis entry:

"My God, my life- which is to say my 2-74/3-74 experience-is exactly like the plot of any one of ten of my novels or stories. Even down to the fake memories & identity. I'm a protagonist from one of PKD's books." -- Philip K. Dick, 1978 Exegesis entry, quoted p.234 "Divine Invasions: A life of Philip K. Dick" by Lawrence Sutin.

I would edit the main page myself but I don't have the confidence to do it.


Graspee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Just FYI, it was discussed before here. Alastairward (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He used it in occasionally in letters also though I don't know if he ever used it in speech. Perhaps "rarely" would be more appropriate than "never". Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "paranoid" statement & general comment on Mental Health section

"In time Dick became paranoid" is an unreferenced, unverified, dubious and rather vague statement. Such a claim should indicate reference(s), whether diagnosed or other basis for claim, time period covered and other relevant information.

The whole section on Mental Health should have better and more comprehensive references IMO. His mental health is a controversial subject and references of varying degrees of credibility for various times in his life, unclear periods of his life or all of his life can be found. It's certainly a notable subject and the many conflicting claims plus the nontechnical and inconsistent use of terms increase the difficulty of addressing the subject well but if it's going to be addressed I believe we should aim for accuracy and quality with acknowledgement that a wide range of opinions exist based on a large amount of information, misinformation, incomplete knowledge and esentially baseless speculation. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I can remember a reference to his possible theft of papers from himself in a TV documentary. But the preceeding comment regarding paranoia and the rest of the section should be more thoroughly cited. It's not a biography of a living person, but I don't see why we shouldn't hold it to the same standards. Alastairward (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With possible exception of first paragraph, no paragraph is completely baseless but all have factual and other problems plus some might fit as well under a heading like Religious/Mystical Experiences or Events (or something) as under Mental Health. A big problem is that there are dozens of varying accounts about every subject. The living person biography standards seem too strict to me to apply elsewhere but best efforts for accuracy and quality seem particularly important to strive for in biographies among many other subjects. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the first paragraph in this section as relevant to "Mental Health". Also it's unreferenced and offhand I don't know a source that verifies either that it's true or that someone has said it is (which could require modification). Anyone care to offer opinions about whether this should be deleted, perhaps moved somewhere else (I've no idea where) or just left as is? Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean the 13 year old dream section? As it is uncited I think you can easily delete it altogether. Even with sources you are correct in that it does not belong in the "mental health" section at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One would think, given that he wrote a letter to the FBI claiming that Stanislaw Lem was a Soviet Committee rather than an actual person, as well as identifying a number of 'Marxists', that he did have mental health issues. Especially since this seems to be inconsistent with his political views. Having said that, he could well simply have been a little stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.190.97 (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy and stupid are two different things. Looking through his Exegesis and interviews, he was far from stupid, but certainly crazy (though a fairly manageable kind despite it involving a lot of drugs). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pen Names

PKD had only one story published under a psuedonym. "Some Kinds Of Life" in Fantastic Universe, October, 1953 was published as by Richard Phillipps apparently because "Planet For Transients" was published in the same issue under his own name.

I intend to correct the misinformation in this section but don't want to just delete the other information which seems appropriate and interesting but misplaced and a bit inaccurate. What should be done to preserve it properly? Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all sounds dubious and none of it is cited. We might tag or scrub it all without cites. Alastairward (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Orpheus With Clay Feet" as by Jack Dowland does seem to be correct. I've found an apparently reliable cite for it and have read the "revised" 1988 edition of PKD: A Philip K. Dick Bibliography's revision consists of 4 "small but important" corrections to the 1981 edition I have. This would seem to be one of them; the 1981 edition doesn't even cite the story and I now seem to have a vague recollection of reading something about the story being published under a psuedonym because it appeared in a "men's magazine" which seems a strange market for a story with this plot. I can look into it more. I can also hunt around to see if I have a copy of Fantastic Universe, October, 1953 or some third source to verify the spelling "Phillipps" is correct. The two sources I've looked at have a potential for repetition of a mistake in the earlier source. So I should be able to provide cites for those two pen names with one use each when I get a little more free time.
But there's no statement even in the article that Dick ever published anything under the names "Horselover Fat" or "PKD" so I see no problem with deleting those references and don't need to dig out references or search the net for them to do so. If someone has verifiable evidence for use of either as a pen name they can add the info with citations. Technically, he did publish something under a pen name or names in a school newspaper or something of the sort as a child but I don't see that as notable. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISFDB lists variants "Philip Dick" without the middle initial and
  • Richard Phillipps for "Some Kinds of Life" (1953)[3]
  • Chipdip K. Kill for "Dick's own self-penned review of The Divine Invasion", whose editor believed it may be his last written work for publication (1992).[4]
I revised 'p' to pp where the article previously used both. "Chipdip K. Kill" does not appear. If/when there is some change please edit both templates {{infobox writer}} and {{persondata}}.
--P64 (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

they killed him

Why did they pull the plug after just 5 days? Don't they usually give patients a few years before doing so?--Kevin1gamer 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this will help you, but check out the documentary National Geographic: Moment of Death (2008). It explores the question you asked in several ways. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fansite

His "official" fansite is reported as an attack site by Firefox. See: [5]--Kevin1gamer 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There should be a mention of this.--Kevin1gamer 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that too. It wasn't always like that, I'm not sure how to proceed, scrub the external link? Alastairward (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done checks with multiple search engines using this browser (new upgrade of Firefox). It's unclear to me if the site is currently infected. The Google warning is based on a most recent site visit of 01/01/10. The McAffee info for the site makes me wonder why there is no warning/rating on the Yahoo search page unless it just doesn't give warnings until you click a link. The AV software add-on in my browser shows it as safe though I think I have to click on the link to trigger the "realtime" protection which I'm hesitant to do so soon after a browser upgrade. Perhaps some warning on the article page by the link that it has been infected, may still be and a suggestion about using security software before going there? Maybe with an internal link to a relevant article about such software and search engine security warnings. If the link is going to be deleted I don't think that should be permanent. The site has a lot of content and isn't "official" or "one voice" in the sense the nearly barren site with it's former domain name is unless there's been a major change. Oddly, I've not looked at the Wickipedia article about it so don't know what that says but my impression is the old content is still there but new content's not being actively added to the site anymore except in discussion forums. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section. citation question

I just made some dates more specific, corrected an error (typo?) and added a child's middle name. My source was Williams, Paul, (1986), Only Apparently Real: The World of Philip K. Dick New York: Arbor House Publishing Company, pp. 5-11, ISBN 0-87795-800-9. None of the existing data is cited and includes a couple more specific dates than my source. All looks correct but I'm not sure sure how/where to cite. I could probably use this ref at beginning or end of marriage and children section but don't know if that's appropriate since there are a couple bits my source is consistent with but doesn't state. I'm also reluctant to do that type of citation in case another editor doesn't leave the section intact and inserts other information... Oh, I can make it a subsection of "Marriages and children" so other info doesn't get inserted chronologically in it. But the citation question remains. Advice? Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

44 published novels as of January 2010

I don't know how variant versions were considered to arrive at that exact number and am relying on Williams' judgement but the novels currently shown below his statement by the website aren't in chronological order of publication. Lies, Inc. was 1980s or early 90s at latest and a very expanded version of The Unteleported Man (which Lies, Inc. is a variant of) was published around the same time and I didn't see it on the website at all. The bibliography section here at Wikipedia has that all sorted out, I hope. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty amazing for a guy whom the academic and literary establishment tried to ignore. Par for the course, I say. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN TenPoundHammer, that wasn't trivia you deleted

I wonder if you know as little about this subject matter as I do about country music. :) The "trivia" you deleted included a novel by a major SF author which featured Dick as the protagonist in an alternate world. A short story by another major SF author which featured Dick as main character (it's also in a collection of such stories which wasn't mentioned in the article), a performance (later published) by another major SF author who is additionally the author of a pioneering non-fiction work about the history of SF and I forget what else.

Please give more thought before you pull the trigger. If you don't recognize what you're aiming at, it's probably better to hold your fire. In the process of restoring most of what you deleted I think I missed restoring some footnotes and probably still have that {{web site ... template messed up as I don't use it and don't know how it ought to be. If I'd forseen the hassle this would be I'd have just reverted your edit but I thought I saw why you got rid of some things and didn't want to restore them if they didn't belong there. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father

Dick's father's job is tagged for needing citation. Here are some resources for those who are interested in addressing the tag:

Hope that helps. -Miskaton (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've used the first, I'll use the second when I find my copy of that book and locate the cite within. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary philosophy citations

The section "Contemporary philosophy" indicates that citations are needed. Some book links that might help (linking to pages with specific quotations of use):

Hope that helps. -Miskaton (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've used the first at least. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Mysticism" nor "Mental health" are acceptable

"Mysticism" promises that the section will discuss his theology, but it stays out of it; "Mental health" promises medical history, but only talks about stuff he thinks might have happened to him. Are those beliefs unusual? Yes. But he was released as sane from a mental institution when they figured he wasn't gonna try to kill himself again, the head doctor knowing full well he had unusual beliefs about the world because he figured if those beliefs allowed Dick to deal with the world and weren't gonna interfere with his life, it's not crazy. I've gone with "Unusual experiances," and also suggested "2-3-74." A friend has suggested "Later life." If I actually owned this article, I'd just put "Weird shit, man." Does anyone have any other ideas? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C G Jung

There is a long section under "Themes" about Carl Jung and how PKD was heavily influenced by him. It's obvious that that section is written by a total Jung-head ... but is it true? I can't recall ever reading about a major Jungian influence. Sprinkling a few more fact checks there. JöG (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Shepherd

A little in-joke: his Estate has a media production arm called "Electric Shepherd Productions". On the credits of The Adjustment Bureau, for instance. JFW | T@lk 10:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Philosophy

Under the Personal section, "Dick studied Philosophy at the University of California, Berkley, where he came to several realizations that became key in his future works..." The UC transcript shows that Dick was enrolled from September, 1949, until November, 1949, and Ann Dick states that Dick only attended for "part of a month" because his claustrophobia prevented him from staying in class (Ann Dick, "The Search for Phillip K. Dick, p. 244). Could Dick have been exaggerating? The apparently real theme in his works, while in itself a literary novelty, is not actually beyond what Dick could've read himself or heard in Berkeley. Despite Dick's short stay at the UC, he still liked to associate with students (Dick's anxieties never prevented him from dating attractive graduate and coed students). Anne Dick also wrote that her ex-husband was capable of creating personal fictional narratives when it suited him (p. 244). So, is there any third party verification from a classmate or instructor that Dick attended philosophy class and achieved his own epiphany?Ericleiston (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)E.L. Nov. 2, 2011[reply]

Why don't you ask at the University of California? That's the most logical and obvious place to get such information. What do you mean "third party"? Sources outside UC? It is exceptionally hard to see the point of your question. Also, his first name is spelt with one L, not two, and your open quotation marks need to be closed. Arbo (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is rather strange. All it takes is a few days of reading new material and in an environment conducive to thought on such matters, and epiphanies can flow like teardrops in the rain. Not quite sure what the above commenter is trying to force upon us? 178.255.168.77 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This user is asking a question so tangential and beside the point and misleading it beggars belief why it is being asked. Very simply --- YES! PKD attended the University of California briefly. Okay? That's all you need to know. It actually happened. Arbo (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not strange at all - he asked a concise question.50.111.22.49 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If that's what you call a concise question, Special Contributions troll. Piss off, stupid troll.Arbo (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@James Arboghast:, Please be aware of when you are responding to 8 year old comments, they are usually questions that have long been answered and other editors don't need these topics dredged back up on their watchlists. It's one thing if a fly-by IP necromances an old thread, but a long-time editor shouldn't need to. Also, if you think they are trolls, do you really think saying "Piss off, stupid troll." is the way to get them to stop? Maybe ignoring pointless conversations wherein one IP says a comment from two years ago is wrong about the strangeness of a comment from six years prior to that? Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of when the posts were made. I don't care how old they are. I have eyes, and I can read and ratiocinate. Until now these comments have not been properly answered. And don't tell me what to do or how to edit this thing. Telling the troll to piss off is effectively feeding the troll. You know, (or perhaps you're not aware), there are professional troll hunters who thrive on flushing trolls out by making them post, in order to get a fix on them.
"Maybe ignoring pointless conversations wherein one IP says a comment from two years ago is wrong about the strangeness of a comment from six years prior to that? Thanks!"
You don't tell me what to do.
"other editors don't need these topics dredged back up on their watchlists" oh dear, how terrible. If you take it so badly like that, wow, get a life. Arbo (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His sister died 53 years earlier?

"After his death, Dick's father Joseph took his son's ashes to Fort Morgan, Colorado where they were buried next to his twin sister Jane, whose tombstone had been inscribed with both their names when she died 53 years earlier."

Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.136.12 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His twin sister Jane died 53 years earlier at the age of six weeks. She was buried in Fort Morgan. The tombstone over her grave was inscribed with her name and a pair of dates, as well as PKD's name with only one date. PKD's father took PKD's ashes to Jane's gravesite, and added the second date to that half of the tombstone.
Is one of the antecedents unclear, or what? FiveColourMap (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. How sad! ♥ --76.19.136.12 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

*************************************

This article states that Philip K. Dick's twin sister died six weeks after they were born. The article on twinless twins states that she died five weeks after they were born. Both articles use the same reference (although this article also refers to another reference). Could someone who has access to those references figure out which is correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinless_twin

"Philip K. Dick, American science fiction author whose twin sister, Jane, died when the twins were five weeks old. The loss of his twin is said to have profoundly affected his writing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.15.215 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't leave the house for years

According to the BBC's "Great Lives" episode about Dick, he didn't leave his house for years at one point in his life. This is probably worth including. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017wyyc 75.70.204.208 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, it should be discussed. His car had 600 miles on it when he died. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some links to content that appears on the official fan site for Philip K. Dick (that has be recognized by the Philip K. Dick Estate and is linked to from philipkdick.com). There is a complicated history for this site and I realize at one point it has been taken over by malware. The site has changed hands two times and the malware no longer exists on the site. The site was rebuilt from scratch, is stable and will be around for a long time.

The site now contains all the articles that the original site had with some exceptions and can be safely linked to. In addition the site has a vast section that is a reference for all the works that Philip K. Dick wrote called PKDweb or The Encyclopedia Dickiana and contains VALBS which is a reference for secondary materials published about Philip K. Dick. VALBS exist elsewhere on the Internet but this is the official copy of the information.

I would like to add links to each of Philip K. Dick's works with appropriate links from philipkdickfans.com including novel and short story pages. When I have recently made these changes, they were removed. This issue may have been that it appeared I was spamming the site because I was making several edits to several pages in one evening. I believe that the edits I would like to make fall within the External Linking Guidelines that I have read.

Horselover Fat (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to add these links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick to the site as External links:

http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/

http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/ An encyclopedia of all of Philip K. Dick's writing

http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdicktionary/ A listing of all of the words that Philip K. Dick created in his writing


The discussion has been going on here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site

but it seems like from the comments there that the discussion should be moved to this page. Horselover Fat (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three links to a single site (any site) is excessive. Also, just as a point of information for anyone new to the discussion, the user who is suggesting this addition seems to be the developer of the site, so it would be a conflict of interest for him to (personally) add links to this site to the Wikipedia. (His suggestion that they be added is appropriate, of course.) Rray (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening now with this? Do I just wait until someone adds the links and then the discussion will continue? I understand that I can't add the links myself. Horselover Fat (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening now is that if someone is interested and wants to add the link, they will. Or if they're interested in discussing it, they'll chime in here on the talk page. Rray (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again. It was inserted by a an editor whose only edits appear to be spamming that link. Very troubling. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is number of links being added by the user, then I don't believe an appropriate response is to delete the link to the site's homepage on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick along with deleting the Festival link. Remove the links that are causing the issue on the other pages? from what I understand here. Horselover Fat (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is spamming. we do NOT have to include "the official" link particularly if the owner of that site and meatpuppet accounts are spamming that link across wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Bibliography was moved to another page but the External links section called Bibliography and works didn't move with it. Should that have moved also? I think it should but I can't imagine if it would cause an uproar or not. Horselover Fat (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea and I just moved them over. I believe those links should have moved with the Bibliography and it helps cut down on the number of External links on this page. Lucy8297 (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip K Dick android head2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Philip K Dick android head2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Philip K Dick android head2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

religion?

This site: http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Philip_K_Dick.html cites PKD as saying "I am an Episcopalian". Does anyone have more information? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health Issues

The section titled mental health issues doesn't really delve into his actual mental health issues. Nothing about his extreme anxiety and paranoia, his attempted suicide, etc. It also treats his delusional episodes with a tinge of credulity. Capeo (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't entirely resolve your concerns, but I've added a new section detailing the events of 1971-2. 86.28.151.70 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/influenced

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose." In this biography the two lists were unusually long and several items were supported by references (none used elsewhere on the page).

Here are the current parameter values (cut and paste except bullet points):

  1. ^ "Replies to 'A Questionnaire for Professional SF Writers and Editors", 1969, The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick, 1995
  2. ^ "Terry Gilliam's Unresolved Projects". Smart.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-11-12.
  3. ^ Myriam Díaz-Diocaretz, Stefan Herbrechter (2006). The Matrix in theory. Rodopi. p. 136. ISBN 978-90-420-1639-2. ISBN 90-420-1639-6.
  4. ^ "Ian Watson- Le Guin's Lathe of Heaven and the Role of Dick: The False Reality as Mediator". Depauw.edu. Retrieved 2013-11-12.
  5. ^ "Salon.com Interview by Michael Sragow". Retrieved November 3, 2009.

See Talk: Ray Bradbury#Influences/influenced for some more explanation with cross-references.

--P64 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speculative "influences" that are based on article without any evidence or proof. Using the same reasoning, one could connect anything to have been influenced. Suggest to stick to the facts - just what theauthor said himself, or the other authors explicetly stated that they were influenced by him. Andru nl (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Vulcan's Hammer printing.

In the dropdown panel for "Works of Philip K. Dick" Wasn't sure if there is an actual name for these sections of the part.

Vulcan's Hammer is listed as 1953. This surely is a mistake.

see: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?9606 for the novel

and for the earlier novella, which was 1956. http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?80306

not sure where the 1953 is coming from.

Thanks. DeepFreezing (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Philip K. Dick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philip K. Dick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip K. Dick. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philip K. Dick. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Philip K. Dick. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable"

How is it "non-notable" that entire fiction novels about PKD exist and can be sourced to be in direct reference to Dick and his works? Even though I don't know whether any English translation exists, I'd call the German novel just as notable as Bishop's that's already on the list. The protagonist may have a different name to avoid lawsuits by Dick's estate, but the case is very similar to the film Velvet Goldmine (1998) that's really about David Bowie and what part he played within the glam rock movement, even if David Bowie's name is never mentioned in the film. --2003:71:4E07:BB44:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What in any of the above is relevant to the notability of the work or the author? JesseRafe (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That these novels are explicitly-related to PKD exist, that is what is notable. Is your brain switched on? Are you paying attention to what you read? These works are notable to PKD. Arbo (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip K. Dick. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_K._Dick&oldid=915152182"