Talk:Philip K. Dick bibliography/Archive 1

Not a Biography
Emmanuel Carrère's book is a novel whose protagonist is Philip K. Dick, but it is not a biography. Many episodes in it are totally and deliberately fictional. I don't think it should be kept in the Biography section, though it should be mentioned in the entry (maybe in the main PKD entry).--213.140.21.227 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting
I would like to discuss the appropriate bibliographic format for this page, if one exists. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person responsible for re-ordering the novels by the date of their composition, which I think is crucial to understanding his career. In fact, the research for this chronology was done by Paul Williams, and although I'm sure Paul would have done it without my urging, I'd like to think that my encouraging him (back when I was database manager for the Philip K. Dick Society) helped in some small way.

The most useful format for the short stories is more problematical. They, too, might be re-arranged by date of composition (since they were eventually grouped that way by paul when he edited The Collected Stories.Emvan 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've merged the further reading section with this article and changed the title to Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. We should use a standard bibliographic format. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add some more bibliographic detail, along the lines of the Bibliography of John W. Campbell. Any comments or objections? It will be at least a couple of weeks till I can get to it, so I thought I'd post a note here first since the format has already been discussed.

Separately, I'd suggest that if I do that, the main bibliography should be in publication order of first edition, which is a fairly standard bibliographic convention. The composition order is clearly valuable, though, so how about appending it to the bibliography in a more compressed form, perhaps tabular? Mike Christie 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Composition order isn't arbitrary enough, I think we should order them by the date that he thought of the idea for the story. 141.150.241.123 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we also categorise them by which substances he was under the influence of, or some other indication of his state of mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.154.66 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

New book
"Voices From the Street (forthcoming 2006)" - Can someone tell me who will be publishing this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.226.246 (talk • contribs)


 * A quick check of the official page gives no release date or publisher. Oh, and sign your messages. ---Charles 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Crack in Space.jpg
Image:The Crack in Space.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lede
I have no objection to an appropriate lede, a short one of about a paragraph or so, focused on Dick's written output. That would certainly be an asset to this article. But a long general essay on Dick, unreferenced and duplicative of the main article is not what's called for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, Ed, but the lead is directly proportional to the material, and you appear to be outnumbered.  User:Roogroog added the material to the article in good faith and his work deserves improvement, not deletion.  As usual, you have tried to force your opinion into the article, and there are two editor who favor its inclusion at this time.  You have reverted three times today, so please do not violate the 3RR. Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on what I think is an appropriate lede for this bibliography (which should be remembered was spun off form the main article because of length problems). It's basically the lede from the main article ported over and edited to focus on the writing. I think it serve sufficiently as a short introduction to the subject, which is really all the lede for this article needs to be -- anyone looking for more can go to the main article, that's what it's there for.
 * We don't edit Wikipedia based on what Ed Fitzgerald thinks is appropriate. We edit based on consensus, and right now, you are outnumbered.  The lead from the main article has nothing to do with this article, and the previous material was entirely appropriate and accurate.  I will be restoring the material you removed in full once you are asleep.  Good night. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little at a loss at in what way I am "outnumbered". So far, only you and I have been concerned about the essay that was posted as the lede.  I had left a message for the poster, User:Roogroog, suggesting that if he pared down the essay and focused it on the writing that would improve its function as a lede, but haven't heard anything from him or her.  But, as you say, Roogroog is a new user -- so new, in fact, that the two edits to post the essay was her or his only edits to date. The bibliography survived for quite a long time without a lede, but I agree that it's appropriate to have one.  If you've got something better than what I provided, why not post it?  Or re-shape what I've got there into something better.  It doesn't seem like the best action to simply delete it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Outnumbered, as in 2-1 and you're at 3RR. It doesn't seem like the best action is to simply delete it you say, so why did you delete it three times and replace it with material about PKD and not his work?  I'm not following you. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(out)That's not exactly accurate. I deleted it and left the article as it was, without a lede, exactly as it has been for two years. I thought it was perfectly functional that way, since we have a primary article that covers the general subject of Philip K. Dick. The proposed lede was not appropriate because it was a moderately long general essay on Dick and his life (it can be found here, and not a brief introduction to the bibliography focusing on Dick's writing. Since you seemed convinced that the article needed a lede, I posted one, admitedly filched from the lede of the general article, but edited down to focus on the writing, which, after all, is the subject of the bibliography (that lede can be found here).  My suggestion is to either leave it in place to see if it flies, or replace it with something better that's about the same size and serves the same purpose.  I certainly don't have any great attachment to it, per se, nor do I see a profound need for a lede at all, given the nature of the list. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You reverted a perfectly good lead from a new editor, three times. You then added a new lead that has nothing to do with the bibliography.  That's entirely accurate. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your essay, in addition to being highly POV and unsourced and reading like it was lifted from somewhere else, is inappropriate for a spinoff article that alleges to be simply a bibliography. A single paragraph should be sufficient. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my essay, nor does any of the material belong to me. The material, as you must know from reading the very thread you are replying to and from having this previously explained to you on Ed's talk page, was written by User:Roogroog.  You claim that it was POV and "lifted from somewhere else".  Could you point out the POV and tell me where Roogroog "lifted" it from?  This is the second time you've repeated this claim, and I asked you for evidence the first time you said it on Ed's talk page. Now, for the second time, answer the question or stop repeating it.  I would also like to thank Ed for inviting you here to defend him, and I hope you will be so kind as to directly answer my questions that I have asked you twice.  Also, could you explain why Ed replaced material about PKD's bibliography, with material about PKD's bio?  Finally, to address your claim that the material was unsourced, can you point to a single aspect of the material that cannot be sourced?  Since I'm fairly sure you will not address my questions and you will return only to repeat the same allegations again, I will create a small bullet list for you to refer to below to help you compose a reply:
 * User:Roogroog is the author of the material
 * You have repeatedly claimed that this editor plagiarized the material. Could you tell me how you know this?
 * You have claimed that the material is POV. Can you point out the POV, please?
 * You have claimed that the material is unsourced. Can you show me what part cannot be sourced or is not currently sourced from its parent article, Philip K. Dick?
 * Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're defending it as if it were yours, so effectively you've assumed ownership of it. I don't "claim" it's from elsewhere, I merely say it reads like it was lifted from somewhere else. That's just my opinion from observation. And no matter who wrote it, it's full of opinions with no citations in support of those opinions. That's POV-pushing combined with "original research". And FYI, I never heard of this guy Phil Dick before, so I'm judging it strictly on the content. Now, how about answering my question: Why does a lengthy essay about this guy need to be in a spinoff article that is allegedly just a bibliography? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I predicted above, you did not address a single question I asked you, and you repeated the same misinformation, for what I believe is the fourth or fifth time, if I include your comments on Ed's talk pages.  I don't need to repeat myself because I have provided you with a list of four statements and three questions that you seem incapable of addressing.  Since you can't engage in discussion, there is nothing further to say to you.  To recap in case you missed it the first two times above and the the time I explained it to you on Ed's talk page: 1) The author of the material is User:Roogroog; 2) You have claimed that he plagiarized the material.  How do you know this and where did he plagiarize it from?  3)  You claim the material is POV.  Please point out the POV using specific examples. 4)  You claim that the material is unsourced.  Please show what part cannot be sourced or is not presently sourced in the parent article, Philip K. Dick.  One statement and three easy questions.  You will need to answer them to be taken seriously.  Again, I want to thank Ed for sending you here to defend him.  Hopefully, you can start by defending yourself, first. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You continue to refuse to answer the one simple question: Why does that lengthy essay need to be in a bibliography? You also continue to mis-characterize my comments. This is classic trolling behavior, which it looks like you have a long history of being accused of: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you made unsubstantiated claims about this article that you refuse to back up with evidence. The diff you provide above tracks back to one of my first edits to Wikipedia, which to my credit, is still in the article in question after four years.  You can see the edits I made in 2004 are found in the current article.  I'm afraid in your zeal to discredit me, you've actually supported my role as an editor, demonstrating that my edits have staying power and are supported by good citations.  Now please, stop distracting away from the subject.  You've made claims that you can't support.  Now is the time to answer them.  Put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At no point have a claimed it was plagiarized. Those are your words. And you refuse to explain why that lengthy intro is needed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not going to allow you to get away with that. On no less than six separate occassions, you have assumed bad faith about a new user, User:Roogroog, and you have tried to smear this editor by claiming they plagiarized the material added to this article:
 * 07:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC) - "reading like it was lifted from someplace" else"
 * 09:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)- "looks like it was lifted from somewhere"
 * 09:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)- "It could be from a book"
 * 11:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)- "a possible clue to where an essay could have come from, i.e. from a book rather than an online source"
 * 09:22, 19 April 2008 - "reading like it was lifted from somewhere else"
 * 09:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) - "I merely say it reads like it was lifted from somewhere else"


 * When you were asked to provide evidence for this serious claim of plagiarism, you denied ever making the claim. Then, on Ed Fitzgerald's talk page, you went a step further, claiming that the new editor was me, and you took this another step further, pulling out a diff from one one of my very first edits to Wikipedia four years ago.  You've done a wonderful job distracting away from the topic, but I suggest that you take your concerns to an administrator immediately and file a checkuser request...or retract.  It is fairly obvious that you cannot defend Ed Fitzgerald's edit warring, so you have tried to attack and smear me instead.  If you think that I'm going to allow you to do this, then you are seriously mistaken.  I'm looking forward to reading your retraction, right here. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those 6 items is a claim of plagiarism. They are comments on the way it reads to my eyes. See separate section, below. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this article, and said, yes, that lead is a little long. The lead in a bibliography article doesn't really need any biographical information; all that should go to the main article. I think the intro that Bibliography of Nathanael West has is completely sufficient. Then I looked at the history and realized that I wasn't looking at the extended lead that was under contention here, which is seriously unneeded in this article. That lead should die, die, die.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This isn't a biography.  The lead section should look like this FA-Class article: Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe.  It should mention that 36 novels and 121 short stories were published during his lifetime, and it should describe the number of films that have been adapted from work.  Briefly, it should mention when his career began, what his most popular works were during his life, what his relationship was with the publishing industry, and how his bibliography has increased posthumously, to include 44 novels, some published in one of 25 languages, and perhaps describe some of his collected works.  BTW, Bibliography of Nathanael West doesn't have a lead section. Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And neither of the leads offered here look anything like that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. Which is why I have proposed writing it above. Viriditas (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All I see above is you attacking other editors. Ed's lead is superior to the uncited ramble that you keep reverting to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's strange, I proposed rewriting it directly in response to your comment above. I don't see any attack.  You must be reading atacks from other editors.  As for whether or not Ed's lead is "superior" to User:Roogroog's, that's your opinion.  It's neither here nor there as I've said I'm rewriting it to conform to this article rather than a biography.  It's been wonderful chatting with you. Viriditas (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite is a major improvement over that essay that you were previously defending. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know me or anything about me. I have spent the last four years defending anonymous or inexperienced editors who post material only to have it deleted.  In fact, I used to frequent AfD specifically for that purpose. Viriditas (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. And if you had spent your energy trying to write a better lead, as you now have, instead of defending that essay which had no place in this article, you could have avoided all this hassle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lede offered by Viriditas is superior to both the long essay and to the short paste-up I posted. I'm quite happy with it.  I do hope we can now put that issue to bed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would appreciate it if you would expand and fix it up. We need information about when his career began, what his most popular works were during his life, what his relationship was with the publishing industry, and how his bibliography has increased posthumously.  I wanted to add the fact that the posthumous popularity of his films increased his exposure to the general public and resulted in more of his books getting published, but I didn't have time to source it.  It might also be interesting to mention the two manuscripts that were lost/destroyed, and the new (final?) novel that is in the works. Viriditas (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you want it to slowly creep up to that four-paragraph essay again. As long as it's sourced and doesn't substantially restate stuff that's in the bio. It doesn't need to be in two places at great length. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I want to focus on bibliographic information. Viriditas (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it's sourced, NPOV (unlike that red-link's essay), and is not substantially repetitive from the bio article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(out)Sorry. I disagree about expanding the lede. It's not an essay about Philip Dick and everything that relates to his publishing, it's simply a brief introduction to the article, which is a bibliography, a list. The stuff you're talking about should go into the main article, if it's not already there. I think what you have is quite good at the moment, and don't see much need for expansion. Just MHO. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Too much expansion would amount to restating the guy's career, which should already be in the bio article. That's why I'm making the point that the one article shouldn't subtantially restate the other. There's already too much of that in other articles I've seen, unrelated to this topic. The two should complement each other, not be mirrors of each other. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, some of this information does not have to be in the biography, especially the details about the publishing history. That's the purpose of this bibliography article.  Featured lists like Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe make use of substantially longer lead sections and are entirely appropriate.  It's even conceivable that this article could grow to include more content to describe the subsections.  This isn't PKD's biography. Viriditas (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The stuff you're talking about adding, like expanding on his career, is about him. It doesn't need to be in both places. Tell me again why this even needs to be a separate article from the bio? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The bibliography was originally a section of the main article, but the article was getting to be very large, so the bibliography was spun off. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is part of a series on Philip K. Dick. All series articles have overlap and make use of summary style.  This particular article is about PKD's bibliography.  It's a separate article from the biography for a number of reasons, most importantly size.  PKD is currently 47kb and will top out at about 60 without the bibliography.  When the bibliography is expanded, it will probably hover around 30kb so you are already looking at two articles.  Having a separate bibliography allows editors to focus on that topic, which is a long list of published works and film adaptations that still needs expansion.  If you could show me a FA biography that has a long bibliography inline I would love to see it.  I'm really not understanding why anyone would object to epanding this lead section.  There's simply no valid reason.  Expanding articles is what we do, and when they grow too large we split them out.  I plan on continuing to expand all of the articles related to PKD. Viriditas (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at The Beatles discography for a comparison. It is full of technical info about the recordings, which is what a bibliography should be, not a restatement of how wonderful the author is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest, it sounds very much like the article you (Viridtas) envision might be titled "The writing of Philip K. Dick", or something similar, and would deal with all the aspects of his writing: his publishing history, etc. it could include most of the material currently in the main article n those subkects, which would then have a link to it, summary style.  That's fine, and I hope you're successful in that. I think, though, that a bibliography is something somewhat different, it's essentially a list of works, as per definition #2 here.  It's because I see this article as a list that I've been resistant to the need to expand the lede, which I see as basically a little intro to the list. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. There is a separate article about the Beatles' influence and such stuff as that. Thus, there could be three articles on this guy: bio, writing style, and technical bibliography. Sounds good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In support, I offer the following from the Bibliography article: "On the whole, bibliography is not concerned with the literary content of books, but rather the 'bookness' of books." The latter is a slightly cutesy way of putting it, but the point is that a bibliography is technical info about the books. Critical essays should be in a separate article, if not in the author's biography. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Viri cited Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe as a representative example. It has a couple of paragraphs briefly summarizing his career, genre, and publishing history; and the rest is a list of books. That's what the PKD article is right now. It's good as it stands. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Message for Baseball Bugs
While you are busy trying to support your claims with evidence, I'll be rewriting this entire lead section, so you may not see a reply from me for a few hours. I look forward to seeing you support your claims about edits made by User:Roogroog, as you have accused this editor of plagiarizing material and inserting POV without any evidence. I would hope that when you smear editors, you actually would have the decency to support your accusations with evidence. Please do so while I compose the new lead section. I'll look for your reply when I'm done updating this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made no such claim of plagiarism. Those are entirely your words. And I could put a "fact" tag on nearly every line of that essay. Meanwhile, you continue to refuse to answer my one question. Classic trolling behavior. You've been on here longer than I have. Your behavior should be better than it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you have made the claim six times and you have taken it one step further, accusing me of using sock puppets. I await your immediate retraction below.  I think it is pretty clear who is "trolling" here.  Viriditas (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the six items you cite did I claim it was plagiarized. I merely said it looked like it was lifted from somewhere. Maybe my wording was unclear to you. What I meant was that the tone of the writing was unencyclopedic, it read like sales hype or like a typical opinion-laden review by a professional critic. Meanwhile, the changes you've made are a vast improvement. Seems like you could have been doing that from the beginning, instead of expending so much energy defending that essay. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I have spent years defending material from anonymous editors who aren't around to defend it themselves. In fact, I spent yesterday doing just that on Talk:Chocolate. Viriditas (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Aren't around"? The guy takes the trouble to create a user ID, with the sole purpose of dropping that essay in here, and then disappears permanently? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to submit a checkuser request immediately. Even though they frown upon self-requests, tell them I give full permission for them to investigate the account and compare it to my own.  It could very well turn out to be a regular editor, but I guarantee you, it won't be me.  The account appears to have been created to post the essay and nothing more.  You find this unusual, however I run into this on a daily basis, especially in the Hawaii project, where graduate students will create a new account and drop their work into Wikipedia, never to return.  Sugar plantations in Hawaii is a good example of this. User:Charityk was created specifically for a period of two-days, resulting in that article and related links.  So, I see SPA dropping essays into Wikipedia all the time, and I see it as a normal occurrence. Viriditas (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a funny guy. SPA's are usually up to no good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not my experience. Perhaps that's true, in let's say baseball-related articles, however, I see SPA's adding good content to Wikipedia on a daily basis, not just in Hawaii-related articles, but also ecology, environment, nutrition, etc.  This kind of anon SPA bias is exactly what I am fighting.  It's the content, not the editor. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IP addresses and red-links, most of the time, are vandals, spammers, and POV-pushers (the latter, as with the red-link that posted to this article). Some of their content is useful, sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we have to disagree on that point, and obviously, the core ethic of Wikipedia is based on the opposite scenario: it assumes that anyone can edit and that editors are here to improve the site, not damage it. Viriditas (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can edit, but that doesn't make their edits valid or worthwhile. I spend a good portion of my editing time undoing damage caused by IP's and red-links. When I see one that isn't vandalism or otherwise useless, it's a cause for some minor celebration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the world completely differently than you. Everyone started out as an IP or a red link.  Perhaps you forget this. Viriditas (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I started as an IP address, soon created a user ID, and was a sincere editor from the beginning. And not having been born yesterday, I can usually tell fairly quickly what the intent of a user's editing is: vandalism, spamming, POV-pushing, or sincere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, you must either be a new user or have a very low edit count, because the AGF rule exists solely because we cannot tell such things. I can think of dozens of recent incidents that illustrate this point, from Wmperl to user KAVEBEAR.  Both of these editors created accounts that made strange edits and refused to engage in any dialogue.  KAVEBEAR himself has used dozens of IPs, blanked many pages, added unsourced content, and was unresponsive to repeated requests.  In the final analysis, both editors were new, weren't aware of house rules, and to the average editor, some of their edits appeared to be vandalism or an outright disregard for certain policies, like copyright.  But, their contributions have all been good faith, constructive edits.  I'm afraid that no editor can "tell fairly quiclly" what an editor's motivation is, which is why we stress AGF until it has run out.  BITE and other guidleines tie into this.  I think this goes back to what I was originally saying about your allegations about new editors (and old).  Because you did not assume good faith, you labeled a new editor a plagiarist without any evidence, and you accused a long-term editor of using sock puppets.  Neither of your claims bore fruit, and what we are left with is a more negative, unwelcoming atmosphere.  This is precisely why we are not confident as you claim, and relinquish our first impressions and AGF.  We do this because new editors are the soul and lifeblood of this website, and any negative reaction to their presence, has the effect of spreading like wildfire to established editors like a virus.  So we overprotect newcomers, not just to guide and nurture them, but also to defend the collegial nature of collaborative editing in particular, and to preserve its spirit. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a current example on the AN board. You cannot quickly identify what users like this are doing, and place them into a neat category.  You can see examples of this everywhere once you start looking for them.  This is why we AGF. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Never, at any time, did I accuse that red-link of plagiarism. And I assume good faith until the user forfeits that assumption through his behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, but let me try to explain. Plagiarism is commonly defined as "taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own" and/or "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work". (Datamuse)  You said that User:Roogroog's material was "reading like it was lifted from someplace" else", "looks like it was lifted from somewhere", "could be from a book", "a possible clue to where an essay could have come from, i.e. from a book rather than an online source", "reading like it was lifted from somewhere else", and you said "I merely say it reads like it was lifted from somewhere else".  All of these descriptions of User:Roogroog's material  connotes plagiarism. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At no time did I make an accusation of plagiarism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just proved above that you made the accusation six separate times. If you don't understand what I have written, have someone explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never "accused" anyone of plagiarism. I raised the question. Take your own advice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikilawyering. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I said the wording of it looked fishy. I still think that. And it is you that is guilty of wikilawyering, continuing to mischaracterize what I said. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you were asked for evidence. Your bias is based on the fact that the editor is a new user.  I explained to you that new editors add content to Wikipedia every day.  You've been wikilawyering on this issue - "superficially [judging] other editors and their actions by jumping at conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other wikipedian rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution."  That's a description of exactly what you've been doing.  You have failed to address every single question asked of you in regards to your "jumping at conclusions" about a new editor, accusing them of  plagiarism, and accusing them of being a sock puppet, and you've used Wikipedia policies (sourcing, POV) to try and skirt the issue.  I hope this helps you understand your behavior so you don't do it again. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my reaction to that essay, was based on the way it read. I raised questions about the writing style. That essay read like a professional review, full of points-of-view and superlatives. I never once "accused" anyone of plagiarism, I merely raised questions. Your continual accusation, that I accused someone of plagiarism, is false. Meanwhile, you've written a new section in your own words, and it looks good. Be done with this already. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out a single POV not supported by sources in the current biography article that was offered by User:Roogroog. The essay does read like a professional review, and many writers often create accounts on Wikipedia, upload their work, and leave.  I explained that to you several times.  You seem to have trouble with WP:AGF and instead automatically assume that Roogroog plagiarized the material.  So again, I will ask you for evidence.  Where is the POV and where is the material that you claim it was plagiarized from?  If you cannot support your claims, then do not persist in making them. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never once claimed it was "plagiarized". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You claimed it six times without evidence. I believe we have already been over this. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claim in that regard is false, and I believe we have already been over that as well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My claim is true, and I've supported it with evidence above several times. On the other hand, you have made a false claim about your false claim.  Congratulations.  That is quite an achievement.  And, I'm not going to let you get away with it.  You cannot just come waltzing in here making false accusations.  Put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never at any time claimed that that essay was plagiarized. And your tone is becoming increasingly uncivil. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How ironic. I suggest you read WP:CIV, as you've violated just about every aspect of the policy, here. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

number of novels
it says 36 novels, but lists 48. change to 48? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.84.69 (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it has been re-written since you posted this, I apologize, but it now says "36 novels published within his lifetime", which I believe is correct. The other 12 were either published post-humously or lost entirely.  ThatGuamGuy (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)sean

Fair use image
The Titans cover image does not meet Wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines for copyrighted book covers. The article would need to contian specific discussion about Titan. If someone has a cover of any of the titles that are actually discussed in hte article, those can be used under WP:FU. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I see you've left a message on Ed's page, so hopefully he will see it and act upon it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing movie
I remember watching as a kid a movie about a computer-controlled house. A guy lived in the house, and I think he was a computer programmer. When I fell in love with some girl, the house got jealous. The computer graphics were all ancient white-on-black 80's style. I would love to track this movie down, and it should be tracked down as it is missing in the movies section. I remember distinctly that the ending credited androids/sheep because it was the first time I had ever seen the question posed and it struck me as a great question! -Ayeroxor (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Check list of fictional computers. The film you are looking for should be listed there.  Let me know if it isn't. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be referring to the film Dream House? If so, it's not based on a story of Dick's.  Elsewhere, I've read that the basic storyline comes from a c.1950 short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "Epicac". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1998 sounds a bit too late for what Ayeroxor describes. Looking at the list of fictional computers, it sounds more like Homewrecker (1992): Lucy, jealous AI home automation system who falls in love with her owner. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's certainly possible, they have basically the same plot. Homewrecker at IMDB Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they all seem to be derivative of Demon Seed (1977). :) Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the descriptions of the two films on their TCM database pages, Dream House - Homewrecker, I'd say that yours fits the bill better, and is more likely to be the film that Ayeroxor is looking for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be too sure; it could be even earlier than 1992. I bet the computer-run-amok theme was very popular in the wake of 1983's WarGames, so there were probably a lot of copycats. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes, well I didn't say it was likely to be the film, I said that of the two films mentioned, yours is "more likely" to be it, based on its description matching more closely than mine. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  12:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I took another look at the list of fictional computers. I'll bet you Ayeroxor is referring to Electric Dreams (1984).  It's got '80s written all over it and the crazy credits listed on IMDB  could lead one to believe that PKD was involved if you squint your eyes real tight. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be it as well. (Champagne as the elixir of life -- sounds like the Me Decade.)  The more relevant point is that whatever the film is, it's unlikely that there's a PKD connection, so it's most probable that there's no movie "missing" from the bibliography. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  13:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do believe it is Electric Dreams. Thanks to all! -Ayeroxor (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Added table: Overview of various short story collections
Since the correspondences between the various editions of the short story collection are far from obvious (e.g., both the Gollancz and the Citadel Twilight have a volume with the title "Second Variety", but the stories in each are completely different), I added a table that summarizes the correspondences and the more important changes (The order of the stories seems also to have changed in some volumes; these changes were omitted). I hope I added at the correct place; if it should be anywhere else, please tell me, or feel free to move it... David Mihola (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very useful. I also think the novels and the short stories should be put into a sortable table, with dates of composition and publication (and perhaps another column for notes). Jmj713 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the story collections published by Orion Publishing Group? They should be added to the table.
 * Just to confuse matters, the current Gollancz volumes of the short stories have Volume 4 as Minority Report and Volume 5 as We Can Remember It For You Wholesale. Vol. 1 - 3 are named as they were originally. This suggests that they each have their original complement of stories rather than having been moved around like some of the other editions. It does make everything very confusing though. Unfortunately, I don't have them on hand to check, but they're currently being sold on Amazon.co.uk. eyeball226 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Master collection?
Does the 5-volume series contain every short story he wrote? brain (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sorry --- "These five volumes include all of Philip K. Dick’s short fiction, with the exception of short novels later published as or included in novels, childhood writings, and unpublished writings for which manuscripts have not been found." Idontcareanymore (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Correspondence. Publication and ISBN discrepancies.
I have one volume at hand because I was going to use it for a KSMO reference citation. The information doesn't match what is in the list here. I haven't checked the others yet.

The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick, 1938-1971. Grass Valley, California : Underwood Books, 1996 (Trade Edition) ISBN 1-887424-20-2 is the info from my physical copy. It also states ISBN 1-887424-21-0 is Slipcased Edition. 1996 is copyright date not printing date; perhaps that is the source of the date difference. Does anyone know the source for the information in the article here or why there might be discrepanies? My copy does refer to:


 * Library Of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
 * (Revised for volumes 1 and 2)

I can't see any good reason to cite differently than the info in the copy or copies I'm using but don't know whether to make changes in the article listings. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the entire set, some slipcased, some trade editions and have tried to update the ISBNs and pub dates based on the actual books I have in hand. The bibliographic information is often at odds with how many of these were cataloged and I can verify it's a mess. In trying to get various volumes via Interlibrary Loan (before I completed my personal set of all volumes) I constantly ran into discrepancies and often received a volume that was not the one I requested. I think the only way to do an airtight ISBN listing and pub dates here would be to have all versions on hand (wishful thinking). In any case, I could have made errors and will revisit this if warranted. I think only the hard core bibliophile (or about to retire reference librarian) will care. In any case, when one is buying a volume, you'll get the correct letter/year range as specified. It's in the details of specific editions and printings that people can get tripped up. Note that these were not published chronologically, nor were they published by exactly the same publisher (I sense Underwood and Miller and the Dick estate were in some kind of flux over time). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Questionable short stories
On the official Philip K. Dick site, The Name of the Game is Death is listed unter Non-fiction essays, so I removed it from the short story list here.

I could not find any information on the alleged short story 11-17-80. It is not listed in the short story section of the offical website. So I marked it with. --Darkday (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't help with the second one, but the first one appears in David Garnett's anthology New Worlds 2, published by VGSF, an imprint of Victor Gollancz (London), in 1992. ISBN is 0-575-05145-0.  There's an introduction by Paul Williams explaining that the pieces by Dick he presents are outlines for novels; they are not fiction directly, but descriptions of fiction.  I think it would be OK to list them in either fiction or essays; it's a judgement call.  There are three pieces: "Joe Protagoras is Alive and Living on Earth (outline)", "The Name of the Game is Death (outline for a science fiction novel)", and "Additional material for the science fiction outline The Name of the Game is Death".  The latter two were sent to a publisher two weeks apart and so are separate manuscripts and are printed in this anthology with separate titles; the contents page, however, only lists the first two -- evidently Garnett considered the second and third pieces the same work.  The contents page titles are abbreviated to just "Joe Protagoras is Alive and Living on Earth" and "The Name of the Game is Death"; the longer titles above are from the titles on the pieces themselves.  I hope that's helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information! I'll try to get this book, but judging from your description, classifying these novel outlines as short stories does not seem quite right to me. Maybe they could be listed in a separate section; in any case there are more plot outlines than these two, e.g. "Warning: We Are Your Police", "Fawn, Look Back" and "The Acts of Paul".
 * I also found out about "11-17-80": This is an excerpt from PKD's Exegesis that was published in various books like "In Pursuit of Valis: Selections from the Exegesis" and "Divine Invasions: A Life of Philip K. Dick". The title "11-17-80" was apparently only used in the latter book. I believe the Exegesis is not considered fiction, so I rather not see "11-17-80" as a short story. Darkday (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't find the book, I'd be happy to supply any information you need from it -- just post a note on my talk page. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "A Maze Of Death" is the science fiction novel for which The Name of the Game is Death was an outline. PKD's outlines were apparently written primarily as sales pitches to submit to his literary agency and/or prospective publishers. What he actually ended up writing and having published sometimes had virtually nothing in common with outline submissions. I have the impression this outline was pretty descriptive of the novel written though I don't recall why I have that impression. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Speculative fiction author navigational box
I intend to edit the Speculative fiction author navigational box for Philip K. Dick so the novels appear in order of publication with publication dates rather than composition order and dates there. That's how the other sections are ordered and what I believe the casual reader assumes a date refers to. I thought it wise to give a heads up here where interested editors are likely to see the heads up before beginning what may be a temporarily confusing process with potential appearance of vandalism. Please make any comments or objections at Template talk:Philip K. Dick. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's all this information coming from?
Hi all. Where's the information coming from? In particular I'm wondering where the dates of composition came from.

Cheers Mo tl ey Phule 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotleyPhule (talk • contribs)
 * Much of it comes from various introductions and forewords (not all by Dick himself), and the five-volume set of collected short works has notes for most stories on the date when it was received by Dick's literary agent, etc. Idontcareanymore (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Essay: How to build a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later
Hi there. I realized that this essay is not listed on his bibliography and although it is listed as an external link, i felt like it should be posted somewhere in the actual article, maybe even linked to "I hope I Shall Arrive Soon". Hemlock850 07:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemlock850 (talk • contribs)

wikisource
I don't really know how to edit it, but the current wikisource link points to "Philip K. Dick" --- this fails, because wikisource uses his full name, "Philip Kindred Dick". Could someone better skilled than me sort that out, maybe? Idontcareanymore (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)