Talk:Frank Chu

Untitled
Please use -~ to sign your comments. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 18:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

We seem no closer to concensus than we were several days ago. Let's request mediation on this article. (Thanks, Pyrop.) -Sorenr 05:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
When Sorenr created the Frank Chu page it included a paragraph that read "Frank Chu's world view and interests are rumored" [he later changed "rumored" to "speculated"] "to be the result of Schizophrenia." I later inaugurated this talk section by suggesting that we "delete the speculation about schizophrenia from this entry" because:


 * I doubt it was made by anyone capable of making such a diagnosis; and the diagnosis of "schizophrenia" is of such tenuous explanatory value anyway that it mostly amounts to a pejorative in this context. For all we know, Frank is operating less as someone who is mentally ill and compelled by chemical delusions, and more as an extremely dedicated and persistently in-character performance artist. Best to give him the benefit of the doubt either way.

In mid-May, 2005, Sorenr took issue with this, and we engaged in a vigorous debate here about his attempts to keep (and strengthen) the assertion about Frank's rumored/speculated schizophrenia. The debate got a little out-of-hand, as these things sometimes do, and though you're welcome to go back through the history of this Talk page and see the play-by-play, I'll try to summarize my side of the argument here:

Original Research
I added an OR tag to this page in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The statements regarding Chu's behavior (namely the ones detailing the soothing effects cigarettes have on him) include such sources as "private communication, 2 December 2002" and "“SeenyaRita” commenting on Flickr, August 2005". While you do have sources, they are really based on hearsay and are a clear breach of Wikipedia policy (ibid.) While I like these statements, they are unverifiable, and thus have no place here. Find a newspaper article, television spot, magazine articles...etc with similar content, source it, and include it in the article.--Ringmaster j 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (PS. I'm sorry if I made this change in the middle of a heated debate, but I think the reasoning for it is pretty uncontroversial)

Con
The label "schizophrenic" has a scientific-sounding respectability, but its casual use can be misinforming. There are at least two ways in which the word is used:

One is colloquially, in which sense the term roughly means "crazy" but often carries implications of "dangerous" and "afflicted with multiple personality disorder."

The other is technically, in which sense the term means that the person has been diagnosed, perhaps according to the qualifications in the DSM, and for treatment purposes the person can be considered one of a class of people for which various treatment regimens have been scientifically evaluated.

To call Frank "schizophrenic" in the first sense is merely pejorative, and even if it were an appropriate thing to do, a better word for the job would simply be "crazy" since that word doesn't have the same unearned pretentions of rigor.

To call Frank "schizophrenic" in the second sense a) really requires that you know what you're talking about (as the DSM cautionary statement puts it: "The DSM provides diagnostic categories and criteria for their diagnoses. The proper use of these requires clinical training, knowledge and skills to apply them. Their use by people without this background is likely to lead to an inappropriate application of diagnoses."), and b) is really only useful if your expected audience also knows what such a diagnosis means and doesn't mean - in other words, that they can be trusted not to make the common set of assumptions that the word "schizophrenic" carries outside of psychiatric circles.

Even inside the discipline of psychiatry (not just, as Sorenr would have it, among "anti-psychiatry advocates"), schizophrenia is seen as poorly-defined, inconsistently-diagnosed, and dismayingly subjective (See, for instance Schizophrenia).

Pro
Schizophrenia is not a "confusing label": it is a formal, clinical term describing a well-known mental disorder recognized across cultural and geographic boundaries and characterized by well-defined behaviors. Its use is especially nonambiguous within the context of the Wikipedia, in which confused readers unfamiliar with the term are just a click away from well-written articles explaining the term in depth. Only a psychologist can provide a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia, but to deny laymen the use of a word where it is clearly relevant either in comparison or contrast is to enter troublingly Orwellian territory.

Con
I am not trained in psychiatry. Neither is Sorenr. Even if we were, it would be foolish for us to attempt an armchair diagnosis based solely on meeting Frank informally and observing his actions and artifacts over a short period of time. (Sorenr has alluded to having heard the opinion of qualified psychiatrists on the mental health of Frank, but provides no detail - an assertion that "Dr. so-and-so says that he thinks Frank has such-and-such" would be of more help on this page than "the last person to edit this page claims that Frank is schizophrenic.")

Nonetheless, we both have been caught sticking our ignorant fingers in the DSM and have expressed our lay opinions on the subject. For what it's worth: That Frank's descriptions of reality are, if held in earnest, bizarre delusions, is not controversial. Neither is that his behavior is extremely eccentric. That these delusions and this behavior rises to the level of harm necessary for an illness label like "schizophrenia" to apply, however, is controversial.

The DSM seems to have a three-part test for schizophrenia: Part one concerns the type of symptoms, part two concerns their effect on the life of person who exhibits them, part three concerns their duration. The diagnostician must say "yes" to all three parts of the test before saying that the person is exhibiting schizophrenia.

According to the Schizophrenia page, "[t]o be diagnosed as having schizophrenia, a person must display [among other things] Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset."

Sorenr and I differ as to whether Frank is thriving or suffering in his current occupation and lifestyle. I consider him very successful and innovative; Sorenr believes that he suffers under the weight of his delusions. But in any case, we know little to nothing about Frank "prior to the onset" of this occupation and lifestyle, and so have no way to affirm this necessary test.

Pro
For 18 months I was the Significant Other of a doctor of psychology who worked at the Napa State Mental Hospital. Her direct experiences with Frank led her to conclude that Frank's unusual behavior was most likely to be caused by schizophrenia. Other acquaintences with professional provider-side experience in mental health care, one trained as a psychiatric counselor, another with a past career as an orderly at a psychiatric ward for schizophrenics, also share the opinion that Frank is schizophrenic.

Frank's own (heavily embellished and admittedly unreliable) accounts of past experiences hint at formal diagnosis by the appropriate authorities. While it would obviously be preferable for Frank's doctor to write a full formal diagnosis, doctor/patient confidentiality would forbid such a statement. Even this unattainable standard would not be sufficiently convincing to Moorlock because he opposes not Frank's diagnosis, but any application of the term itself:


 * I just am skeptical of psychiatric labels, particularly those given in fly-by and or untrained and completely speculative diagnoses, but even those given in officially-sanctioned settings by officially-designated label-attachers.

Occupational dysfunction is not essential for a valid schizophrenic diagnosis. John Nash remains a well-known schizophrenic despite an astonishingly successful career by any standard. Frank's resume illustrates a career thrown into occupational dysfunction by the onset of his disease: a former truck driver and student of Business Administration is, by his own accounting, only able to earn 10% of the funds required to support himself. This is the textbook definition of occupational dysfunction, public recognition and free Budweisers notwithstanding.

Addendum
The one source that you cited for the claim that "Formally accredited psychologists, professional mental health counselors, and former psychiatric orderlies who have met Chu in person share the speculation that his behavior is most likely to be the result of schizophrenia" today removed the cite, saying in part "I've never met Frank" and scoldingly referring to the "Wikipedia:Verifiability" page. -Moorlock 17:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Con
Sorenr tries to get around this. Instead of saying that Frank is schizophrenic, he says that Frank's delusions and disordered thought processes and such are "consistent with" schizophrenia. But this is not true. Delusions and disordered thought processes and such are only delusions and disordered thought processes and such - they are not "consistent with" schizophrenia until they meet the other two parts of the three-part test.

If you instead accept Sorenr's use of "consistent with," Frank's "symptoms" would be just as "consistent with" a number of other disorders besides schizophrenia. (As the schizophrenia page says, "It is worth noting that many of the positive or psychotic symptoms may occur in a variety of disorders and not only in schizophrenia.") As a simple analogy: saying "ouch" is consistent with having been hit in the head with a rock, but is not sufficient evidence that one has been hit in the head with a rock.

Pro
Comparisons can be drawn between similar or dissimilar classes. If Frank sat in the park muttering things like "Engines at half, control 1 can I request take-off on strip 4" it would be concise, accurate and descriptive to say that Frank's behavior was consistent with the actions of an airplane pilot, even if he did not have an FAA pilot's license and even if I was not an FAA license officer.

"Consistent with" phrasing carefully avoids formal diagnosis while still allowing necessary comparisons with the behaviors associated with schizophrenia. No one denies that Frank has "delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, grossly disorganized behavior". There is a common word which encompasses and defines this behavior, and it is appropriate to use that word here. Formal recognition is not necessary for comparison: Moorlock is certainly not bashful about accusing me of "acting like a psychologist".

Con
Disputed accuracy and imprecise language aren't exactly uncommon on the web, but this is not just a debate about accurate and precise language. To call someone "schizophrenic" (or "mentally ill" in general) is and traditionally has been a way of marginalizing him, pathologizing him, and treating his feelings, experiences, and expressions as something that need not be given full human consideration.

Recklessly pathologizing people threatens all of us. Every time we label some minority behavior as pathological this tighten the screws on the rest of us.

Pro
Relativist semantic arguments are fine when discussing misdiagnosis of people who aren't actually schizophrenic. Frank is textbook. If he is not schizophrenic then "schizophrenic" has no meaning.

A cautionary tale
When I was in college, I was amused by the antics of Brother Jed, a travelling campus preacher. He was outrageous in his persona, in his use of archaicisms like "slattern" and "trollop" to describe the immodestly- (but actually ordinarily-) dressed women on campus who would be better off as "baby machines" than as students, and he could go on and on about fore-nigh-cay-shun and such. He had particular verbal and presentational tics - pronouncing certain words in long, drawn-out ways, and accompanying this with peculiar gestures. Most people thought he was a total loon, but he could be fun to watch.

As I watched him, I entertained the idea that maybe he was putting us on, and that he was using this caricature of a deranged and sex-obsessed fire-and-brimstone preacher for effect.

I tried to bait him into revealing his secret during his performance, but he wouldn't bite. But when I approached him afterwards, when there weren't other students around, he dropped his role and invited me to join him for dinner, where we talked theology and small-talk in a completely ordinary manner, without bizarre gestures or weird archaicisms or a fixation on sexuality.

He also gave me a copy of his book, in which he confirms that as I suspected, he uses his bizarre caricature and antics to draw a crowd of students who mock and mimic him, and then he debates issues of morality and theology with members of the assembled crowd as a way of addressing issues that he finds important to an otherwise reluctant audience.

Brother Jed has what I believe to be severe delusions. For instance, he believes that all of the stories in the Christian Bible are literal, historical truth. His life is almost entirely oriented around serving these delusions.

If he hadn't decided to drop his guard or write his book, I might still only have the unconfirmed suspicion that his ranting and raving and tics and such were an act - I might have to also suspect that they were symptoms of an underlying pathology that also generated the delusions. As it turns out, he is merely deluded, and not in a particularly uncommon or (except metaphorically) pathological way.

I can imagine somebody like Brother Jed whose particular variety of performance, or the effects he hopes to gain from it, require that he never entirely break character, or that he do so under only very rare circumstances. I think it is possible that Frank Chu is such a performer, and that just because we have not seen him entirely break character does not mean that we should close the book on the possibility that a performer is what he is - even if he, like Brother Jed, does turn out to be performing in the service of his delusions.

Con
Sorenr says the label of schizophrenia is useful to readers because it "gives people unfamiliar with Frank a familiar context within which they can understand his work" but I suspect it would be more accurate to say that it quickly allows people to stereotype Frank and marginalize his behavior by categorizing it as pathological.

The reader of the Frank Chu page would be better served by factual descriptions of Frank's behavior and his stated beliefs than by speculative lay diagnoses.

Pro
You say potäto, I say potāto. What you call "stereotypes" the DSM calls " Characteristic symptoms". If Frank's behavior follows a "stereotype" then it is accurate to say that Frank is behaving stereotypically. Whether Frank could be formally diagnosed can be the subject of speculation, but his symptomatic behavior (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, derailment or incoherencem, grossly disorganized behavior) is beyond dispute.

To avoid such a clearly applicable term is to invite confusion.

Past Discussion
If I were king, I'd delete the speculation about schizophrenia from this entry. I doubt it was made by anyone capable of making such a diagnosis; and the diagnosis of "schizophrenia" is of such tenuous explanatory value anyway that it mostly amounts to a pejorative in this context. For all we know, Frank is operating less as someone who is mentally ill and compelled by chemical delusions, and more as an extremely dedicated and persistently in-character performance artist. Best to give him the benefit of the doubt either way. -Moorlock

Have you ever talked with Frank Chu? I've spent several hours with him. I've bought him beers and driven him home to his house. I've informally introduced him to a close friend who is a doctor of psychiatry, who gave him the informal diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. (She can't give him an official diagnosis because he's not officially her patient.) It is beyond the doubt of the dozens of mutual acquaintences of Frank's and mine that, dispite my fondness for him, he is formally, clinically mentally ill. Frank himself has mentioned things which hint at a formal diagnosis in the past. -Sorenr 20:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have talked with him. I just am skeptical of psychiatric labels, particularly those given in fly-by and or untrained and completely speculative diagnoses, but even those given in officially-sanctioned settings by officially-designated label-attachers. At some point, you've got to put your foot down and say, "look, maybe he's not sick, maybe 'normal' is just a lot roomier of a place than you think it is." Every time we label some minority behavior as pathological we tighten the screws on the rest of us. We need to start exercising a lot more caution about doing this. -Moorlock

If Frank was missing his legs and I called him an 'amputee' would you say "maybe he's not an amputee, maybe normal limbs can include limbs which are shorter than you think they are"? If Frank didn't have limbs, the word "amputee" would be useful to explain Frank's appearance to people who had never met Frank.

We both agree that Frank's experience interacting with the world and the experience others have interacting with Frank is significantly different than the common experience, correct? You can question whether the label improperly carries negative connotations, but you cannot question that the label has some definition, and that this definition applies to Frank's perception and behavior. If Frank doesn't deserve this term, who does? Hopefully we can agree that laymen, unofficial experts, and official experts alike consider Frank's behavior to be consistent with the behaviors defined by the term 'schizophrenia'. If not, which schizophrenic behaviors does Frank not exhibit? -Sorenr 20:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If all it takes to earn the label "schizophrenic" is to have persistant and bizarre delusions, then Frank Chu surely qualifies, as do at least 90% of the people I know. If he also must have bizarre speech patterns, then that 90% gets cut down a bit, but still contains, for instance, the current U.S. Commander-in-Chief (are you willing to add your armchair diagnosis to Dubya's wiki page?)

The label "schizophrenic" is not merely descriptive, as "amputee" is, but is also judgemental - your analogy speaks to this, as it seems to imply you think that Frank is missing something, has been deprived of a "normal" mind. The label is a way of saying not only that Frank has delusions that don't match your own, but that they are pathological ones. If he merely believed that the Son of Man came down from the cross 2,000 years ago to redeem everybody and if we kept eating his flesh and blood in the form of wine and a cracker every week he'd eventually return and usher in the end of time, he'd be "devout" instead.

If Frank must also exhibit "Social/occupational dysfunction" to qualify, as the definition you refer to suggests, then I don't know if he even makes the cut, since he seems to fulfill his chosen occupation remarkably well and it is a very social one. Of course if you think his chosen occupation or his social interactions are in some way bad or wrong, you can say that he is performing "below" what he would be if he weren't so sick, but that would be your biases disguised as a medical diagnosis.

I think there's more than a bit of the performer in Frank, and a certain amount of whimsy and the self-referential in his signs (e.g. "skeptical preemptive miscreants", "exacerbated charismatic aberrations", "diligent trivializing opthamologists") that makes me suspect that he's a successful performance artist with a very unique niche more than a demon-posessed madman. -Moorlock

Patients do not have to exhibit every symptom for a valid diagnosis to be made: they only need to exhibit a certain number of the symptoms. Frank fits even the definition of "Social/occupational dysfunction" because Frank himself denies that protesting is his "chosen occupation". Frank says he would much rather have a real job earning good money, but he is unable to get one because Bill Clinton and the 21 galaxies are projecting psychotronic treasons on him. Your friends who believe that they can eat the flesh of the son of God, or speak to God in an empty room are not schizophrenics, they are more accurately Christians, because this label more accurately communicates their perception and beliefs. If these friends deny that the Christian God is the one they are speaking to, or that Jesus is the son of god whose flesh transsubstantiates, then it is more likely - but not certain - that they are schizophrenics. I agree with you that any description of Frank's condition must be free from negative stigma, because it is what makes Frank the person we love. At the same time one cannot simply banish the use of the word "Schizophrenia" in an Orwellian hope that we can banish negative thought. -Sorenr 20:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It adds nothing useful to an encyclopedia entry on Frank Chu to say that many people who observe him think that his behavior is consistent with their understanding of what schizophrenia is. There is no information provided by this factoid that a simple "a lot of people think he's nuts" doesn't convey.

If the reader agrees with the conclusion, the reader can come up with it independently based on the description of Frank's behavior. If the reader does not agree with the conclusion or have enough information to base the conclusion on, there is no additional information or persuasive value in saying that Frank is popularly judged in this manner.

If you can say "on such-and-such a date, Frank Chu was hospitalized at such-and-such a place and Doctor So-and-so wrote such-and-such a diagnosis on his chart" then that is a data point that some people might find useful. But just to say, "in the opinion of me and most everybody I know, that man's plumb crazy," just puts your sense of cognitive superiority on display and doesn't do anybody else any favors. -Moorlock

I'm concerned that Frank is being used as a vehicle for anti-psychiatry advocacy. Eccentrics or troublemakers can be and have been misdiagnosed as mentally ill, but if there is one person who fits the formal, clinical definition of "Schizophrenic" it is Frank Chu. Frank does not have the full range of cognitive capacity that allows most people to make informed decisions about their lives. Frank's life is not a life Frank has chosen: it is a life he laments but is unable to change due to his impaired mental function. This isn't a value judgement: this is an objective measure of function. It's valuable to note Frank's disorder because it gives people unfamiliar with Frank a familiar context within which they can understand his work. Let's leave this section short, with a nod to psychiatry and a nod to anti-psychiatry and not make Frank a political football. -Sorenr 05:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that "anti-psychiatry advocacy" is at the root of this debate. Your recent changes to the "Mental Health" section are incoherent. For one thing, you insist that everybody that disagrees with your diagnosis of Frank Chu must be an "Anti-psychiatry advocate" (which strikes me as more evidence of a possibly pathological labelling obsession on your part) when in fact A) the usefulness of the diagnosis of "schizophrenia" in general is contested even in psychiatric circles and among people like myself who aren't "anti-psychiatry advocates," and B) its application to Frank Chu in particular seems to be just a matter of the opinion of the uncredentialed viewing him informally (or, at least, this is all the evidence that the reader of the wikipedia entry gets to see) and is certainly debatable on the one hand, and not particularly informative on the other.

Also, you say that folks like me want to "clarify" that the label of schizophrenia "ought not to carry negative value judgements or imply that Frank's condition makes him 'sick'" but giving somebody a label based on an informal diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as you have done, cannot have any other implication.

Simply giving your opinion that the label "schizophrenic" ought to be applied to Frank Chu does not add any information to this wikipedia entry. When you say it "gives people unfamiliar with Frank a familiar context within which they can understand his work" I suspect it would be more accurate to say that it quickly allows people to stereotype Frank and marginalize his behavior, since it has been precategorized as pathological. -Moorlock 15:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've included the anti-psychiatry link not to label anyone who dissents to Frank's diagnosis, but because that page provides a more coherent and well-reasoned argument than the arguments you're raising against the same. To respond to your claims:

Describing Frank's behavior as "consistent with the symptoms of schizophrenia" *is* useful - it succinctly summarizes his behaviors in a familiar, objective, externally-defined phrase. Brevity and accuracy of communication is inherently useful. Since you and I are not Frank's caretakers, the term's curative usefulness is moot in this case.

I am confident that Frank has been formally diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and that he would be today if he chose to commit himself to the care of a psychiatrist. This is immaterial, though: no one including yourself can argue that Frank's behavior is anything but consistent with the formal clinical definition of that term. Descriptive similarities are inherently useful to clear, concise communication. If Frank sat in the park muttering things like "Engines at half, control 1 can I request take-off on strip 4" it would also be accurate and descriptive to say Frank's behavior was consistent with the actions of an airplane pilot, even if he did not have an FAA pilot's license and even if I was not an FAA license officer. Minor deviations like operating the rudder with the hands instead of the feet would not change the validity of my statement.

There is nothing in the body of the article which encourages anyone to marginalize Frank. Quite the contrary: your opposition to the term implies that schizophrenics are indeed unworthy of admiration, and the only way to save Frank is to deny that he is one. Frank is the same beloved, valued person regardless of what term defines his illness. Correctly calling him a schizophrenic is not only accurate and descriptive, it demonstrates that schizophrenics should NOT be ignored or marginalized and can be accepted members of a community, since our beloved Frank is an accepted and valuable member of ours. -Sorenr 17:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You miss my point. I do not disagree that Frank's behavior can be seen as "consistent with the [DSM-defined] symptoms of schizophrenia," however I think that in order to demonstrate this, the definition must be interpreted liberally and subjectively and that this makes the term very imprecise. You could label a great many people schizophrenic under such a subjective and liberally-interpreted guideline for whom such a label would be absurd (for instance, my example of Dubya with his delusions and bizarre speech patterns, or your belief that somebody who doesn't like their job and would rather be making good money at a "real job" is demonstrating a schizophrenic symptom rather than a fairly typical case of employment angst).

Because of this imprecision, the label has little or no informational content. However, the label "schizophrenia" has significant pejorative and marginalizing effects and (because of its imprecision) evokes a huge variety of mental stereotypes in people, particularly when it is applied in a non-professional context as a presumed explanation for somebody's eccentric behavior (as opposed to, for example, in a professional context to guide treatment).

It is not the term's "curative usefulness" that is at issue here, but its informational value. The term "schizophrenia" as it is being used here, because of its imprecision, may mislead more than it informs. To the extent that it is precise, I question its accuracy; to the extent that it is accurate, I question its precision. In any case, I think it's a poor choice of methods to use to describe Frank in a wikipedia entry.

I could probably find a dozen other DSM categories that Frank's behavior (or yours or mine) is "consistent with," but I don't think this would be particularly helpful. I believe it would be better to put more effort into accurately and precicely describing Frank's outlook and actions and leave the diagnoses to the diagnosticians in settings where such diagnoses are useful and less-likely to be misunderstood.

If you have actual, concrete evidence "that Frank has been formally diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic," then by all means add this evidence to the entry. For the time being, I've cleared-out the "Mental Health" section (except for the flag urging readers to visit this talk page) because it seems to be doomed to an edit war until we can resolve this impasse. -Moorlock 18:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You allude to the solution in your own comment: you cannot say that George Bush is schizophrenic without being absurd, because everyone including you or I can agree that he isn't. You *can* say that Frank Chu is, because everyone including you and I can agree that he is.

Let's take your George Bush example. He does not have "delusions": his public statements are carefully constructed to avoid addressing known falsehoods while giving the illusion that the falsehoods are being affirmed. This careful word use also belies his "disorganized speech", stuttering and other slip-ups notwitstanding. He's certainly not catatonic, he doesn't hallucinate, and the Republican Party is anything but disorganized. George Bush has the full range of cognitive capacity that allows him to make informed decisions about his life: that's partly why he became President, and that's exactly why Frank Chu cannot hold any job except the one he has. Your argument is patently absurd. Should the word "Car" be removed from usage because certain things which are obviously "not cars" (bicycles, motorcyles) have arguably car-like attributes (wheels, motors)? Can you think of ANY abstract class of objects (Schizophrenics, waiters, hamburgers) so rigidly defined that the set of terms in its definition is exclusive to that single class? You are imposing an impractical standard of precision which does not exist anywhere else in the english language. The word "Schizophrenic" is certainly more precise than "folk diagnosis", which as far as I can tell is a meaningless term you invented.

Simply put: if you claim that George Bush is schizophrenic then and add that information to George Bush's page instead of Frank's. If have any reason to believe that Frank is NOT schizophrenic in the formal, clinical definition of the term I'd like to know what leads you to this conclusion. If you believe that the word "schizophrenic" is worthless, alter the page which defines that term to reflect its supposed uselessness. Otherwise, George Bush is a red herring which has nothing to do with this conversation. The term "Schizophrenic" is in no way misleading when applied to Frank, and is in all ways misleading when applied to George Bush. That's why the term "Schizophrenic" appears in this article and not in George Bush's

To be clear: You and I do not agree that it is appropriate to apply the label "schizophrenic" to Frank Chu, nor that Frank Chu "is" (a) schizophrenic, nor that this term is not misleading when applied to him.

Frank Chu displays behaviors that can be considered to be "consistent with" demonic possession, hypercaffeination, and bipedalism, but unless these factoids are somehow made relevant or provide more information than opinion, they don't belong here.

For reasons I mentioned above (Frank is performing admirably in his occupation, although as is the case for many of us, it may not be his ideally chosen occupation), I believe the DSM label "schizophrenic" may not be accurate when applied to Frank. For other reasons I have mentioned, I believe the label is insufficiently precise to be informative. Though you suggest that I'm applying black & white distinctions of precise and imprecise to language, and that no word would meet my criteria, I think this is hyperbolic - some words are more precise than others, and "schizophrenia" is a particularly imprecise word - even in a psychiatric context, and this is exacerbated by common-usage misunderstandings of the term (conflation with multiple personality disorder, for instance).

I might let this slide, since disputed accuracy and imprecise language aren't exactly uncommon in these parts, but to call someone "schizophrenic" (or "mentally ill" in general) is and traditionally has been a way of marginalizing him, pathologizing him, and treating his feelings, experiences, and expressions as something that need not be given full human consideration. So I think that such assertions should meet a higher standard of accuracy and relevance before they're thrown around in descriptions of people here.

It is inappropriate for you to insist that the article conform to your point-of-view in this NPOV dispute by continually reverting it to your chosen text (even reverting grammatical corrections that have nothing to do with the debate). -Moorlock 21:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Frank's bipedialism is unremarkable. Aimee Mullins bipedialism *is* remarkable, hence it is mentioned on her page and not on Frank's. The other descriptive adjectives you provide are absurd and inapplicable, with the exception of "demonic posession". I don't believe it to be correct since I don't adhere to supernatural beliefs or explanations, but Frank's behaviors are also consistent with demonic posession. If you sincerely believe it to be applicable I would have no problem adding it as an alternative explanation.

The passage as I have written it is neutral: it acknowleges Frank's behavior as consistent with Schizophrenia without claiming to formally diagnose him, and it acknowleges anti-psychiatric misgivings to that term's use. You are betraying NPOV in the following manner:

"For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough."

You haven't given any reason in any passage above to doubt that Frank's behavior precisely fits the definition. The one you continue to refer to, "Social/occupational dysfunction" does not mean "doing pretty well in whatever job he can find", it requires a prolonged decrease in achievement after the onset of his disorder. Frank's old professions included work as a truck driver and training in Business Administration, opportunities which are not availiable to him after the onset of his disease. This is the very definition of "occupational dysfunction". It's true that I have friends who also experience occupational dysfunction after the onset of their disease, but their disease is called "alcoholism". Other friends do not have disorders because they do not exhibit other symptoms: they are "victims of the dot-com bubble", not schizophrenics. Not every person with occupational dysfunction is schizophrenic, and not every schizophrenic (such as John Nash) has occupational dysfunction. For someone who rails against amateurs who misunderstand clinical diagnostic procedure, you exhibit a misunderstanding of clinical diagnostic procedure far greater than anyone else I've ever heard of.

The standards you require (formal documentation from Frank's psychologist) are impossible to meet: they would be illegal to reveal due to doctor/patient confidentiality.

Nonsense. Your insistence that you are an agendaless voice of neutrality while I am an "Anti-psychiatry advocate" or "ideologue" with an agenda is just bullying. You and I have a disagreement on the accuracy and/or neutral point of view of this article section. Given that this is the case, it is inappropriate for you to keep overwriting the section with your particular point of view. It would be better to leave the section entirely blank until this is resolved, I think, or to carefully reconstruct only those parts of the section that are not under debate.

If you have information about Frank's level of achievement in his former occupations that we can use to compare with his remarkable level of achievement in his current occupation, please do share this. -Moorlock 22:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You resent the implication that Frank ought to be associated with the term "schizophrenic" in any way. Deleting the entire section is not a neutral result: it is exactly the result that you wish to achieve by censoring the use of a term which your ideology finds offensive. Deleting disputed information is not consistent with a neutral point of view: otherwise holocaust deniers could simply announce "we disagree whether the holocaust occurred, so let's delete the whole section".

All evidence: Frank's resume, his previous work history, his now-unused business education, and his subsistence on SSI income point to occupational dysfunction. Further dysfunction is also present in "interpersonal relations" (his alienated family) and "self-care" (obvious). As with "occupational dysfunction", some schizophrenics are not dysfunctional in this way and some people who are dysfunctional in this way are not schizophrenics.

The phrase "consistent with the symptoms of schizophrenia" is carefully phrased to be descriptive while avoiding being a formal diagnosis. It does not say "consistent with ALL symptoms of schizophrenia" because there is some debate to be had as to whether he fails to meet one or two sub-requirements. -Sorenr 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I removed the "frank is damned" statement because demonic posession damages the body but does not damn the soul. Of course it's ironic that you insist on adding this term since the "demonic posession" entry says in its introduction:

Many mainstream Christian churches, particularly in western society, either reject (demonic posession) entirely or strongly de-emphasise it, instead supporting the mainstream scientific position that supposed demon possessions are in fact a symptom of mental illness.

Congradulations, now you're calling him mentally ill in two languages, but if you're happy I'm happy. -Sorenr 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

According to Schizophrenia "To be diagnosed as having schizophrenia, a person must display" ... "Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset."

I do not believe you have the evidence to show that this is true (did you know Frank before "the onset"? do you know what his "level" of functioning was?  or are you just extrapolating from his resume?). Furthermore, you seem to believe that Frank is currently performing "below" some vaugely-described mundane work he had in the past, but I can't help but notice that he's got a great deal of fame (which he values) and he's had a bar named in honor of his project (and drinks there for free, to boot). Seems pretty darned successful to me. Tell me about his former, even-more-successful career as a truck driver! Must have been pretty magnificent!

What possible use can it be to mention in this entry that Frank exhibits some of the symptoms of schizophrenia but not enough to actually meet the diagnostic criteria? My god! He probably exhibits some of the symptoms of a hundred different things - choose one that's a little less loaded, maybe!

Also: I didn't realize he was alienated from his family, nor that he has obvious self-care issues. If you have any specifics, these might be appropriate for this or for the main page.-Moorlock 22:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "The DSM provides diagnostic categories and criteria for their diagnoses. The proper use of these requires clinical training, knowledge and skills to apply them.  Their use by people without this background is likely to lead to an inappropriate application of diagnoses." - DSM cautionary statement

I've altered the phrasing to include "most of the symptoms of schizophrenia", which is far more generous than "all but one sub-aspect of one symptom are beyond debate" which is also accurate. The DSM's cautionary note is acknowleged: that's why the first sentence is carefully phrased to avoid formal diagnosis.

The "Social/Occupational dysfunction" heading requires that Frank be dysfunctional in "one or more major areas of functioning such as..." "Such as" indicates an open definition encompassing any serious dysfunction, not exclusively occupational dysfunction. The areas for dysfunction therefore include, but are not limited to, decreases in achievement at work, interpersonal relations, or self-care. Not all schizophrenics are occupationally dysfunctional, not all occupationally dysfunctional people are schizophrenics.

You've added yet another section to remind everyone who might be arriving late to the party that Schizophrenia is a disease with negative connotations. It surprises me that you're so comfortable throwing that label around and emphasizing the negative, given your opposition to those things. It doesn't offend me, although if you added "Some people think badly about black people but I think black people are fine" to Barack Obama's page you might raise some eyebrows. (His page mentions without controversay that "He is the only African-American currently serving in the U.S. Senate" although some people question whether "African-american" is a meaningful term.) -Sorenr 23:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You were trying to pretend that you can call someone schizophrenic without calling them sick. That's just dishonest. Schizophrenia is the name of a mental disorder or mental illness, technically, or a synonym for "crazy", colloquially. Whichever way you intended to use it or readers can be expected to interpret it, it's not neutral, and if I point this out, that doesn't make me the one who added the negative connotation to the entry.

And what's all this comparing me to holocaust deniers and racists? Is that really necessary? -Moorlock 00:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, the DSM definition of Schizophrenia has three-parts, all of which must be met in order for the diagnosis to be valid. One covers the type of symptoms, the second (the one we're debating here) covers the severity of the symptoms or their effect on the life of the subject, and the third covers the duration of the symptoms. Part two of this test isn't merely a "sub-aspect of one symptom" but is an essential element of the diagnosis as a whole.

I'm still waiting for your evidence (as opposed to your assertion) that "For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset."

But regardless, neither of us is qualified to be giving Frank any such diagnosis, whether or not we think he meets the criteria in our lay opinions, even if we use weasel-words like "consistent with" next to the diagnosis. -Moorlock 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC) As I read it, the DSM definition of Schizophrenia has three-parts, all of which must be met in order for the diagnosis to be valid.

I agree. A qualified mental health practitioner must decide that Frank meets the given number of requirements from each lettered section for Frank's formal diagnosis to be valid. In section B, he must be dysfunctional in one or more significant ways which include occupation but also include social or self-care dysfunction, dysfunctions which Frank also exhibits.

If you'd like any 'evidence' of what function Frank has lost to become dysfunctional, talk to Frank himself. Ask him what life was like before the 12 galaxies and US Presidents began guiltying him. If you don't believe that Frank's illness has rendered him socially and occupationally dysfunctional to the very letter of that term's definition, you don't know Frank like I do. -Sorenr 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I don't consider you qualified to give a technical psychiatric diagnosis of this kind; that in the absence of such a diagnosis from someone who is qualified I don't think such speculations have a place on this page; that your definition of "dysfunctional" and pathological behavior narrows the realm of normal, uncertifiable human behavior to an oppressive degree; and that your bullying approach to trying to classify my misgivings as belonging to some fringe category (Holocaust-denier-like, racist-like, "Anti-psychiatric") is both strikingly characteristic of the substance of your argument and indicative of its weakness. What on earth do you or the readers of the Frank Chu entry on wikipedia gain if you successfully apply this label to him there? -Moorlock 00:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

We agree that I am unqualified to diagnose Frank, which is why I refrain from doing so. I do not refrain from passing on judgements made by doctors of psychiatry and other mental health professionals whose opinions are shared by a very large percentage of Frank's academically-unqualified friends including myself.

As to what readers gain from this label, I've answered that before: it answers the common question "what's wrong with Frank" succinctly, in a familiar, objective, externally-defined phrase which is essential to understand anything else about him.

You label me a "bully", but I am only confronting your delusions about Frank and refusing to allow them to be passed off as valid. In this discussion and your various edits you give the impression that Frank is a rational adult who chooses to adopt the character of a "street performance artist" in preference to an ordinary life. This is misleading at the most basic level. Frank's behavior is not a choice, it is a compulsion. He is unable to have any extended two-way human interaction without the 12 Galaxies, US Presidents, and TV news taking center stage. His daily "protesting" activity is not a choice, it is the only activity he is capable of engaging in. Frank's survival is impressive and his public's appreciation even moreso, but a man stranded on a desert island is still stranded, no matter how comfortably he lives in his surroundings.

As for your most recent edit:

Frank Chu's explanations for his behavior resemble the expressed by some people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Fair enough, but in addition to his explanations similarities also include his actions, thoughts, speech patterns, body language, the persistence of these habits, and the impact that these habits have on his daily life. In other words Frank's perception interpretations, and behavior are consistent with the symptoms of schizophrenia.

His neologisms can be interpreted as variety of thought disorder, also a symptom that some people diagnosed with schizophrenia exhibit.

Links to "thought disorder" seem useful, but the disorders he's manifesting don't appear to be limited to neologia. They all certainly don't apply, though: in particular "distractible speech" seems fairly inapplicable since it's almost impossible to distract him from his favorite topics.

Opinions differ as to whether Frank is mentally ill, in the sense that his behaviors and perceptions are harmful to him and out of his control; or whether he is better described as eccentric, with bizarre ideas and behaviors that he has fruitfully harnessed in the service of a unique and interesting variety of performance art.

I disagree with two parts of this sentence: first, the schizophrenic symptoms which Frank manifests are not within his control. They are a compulsion which dominates almost every aspect of his life. This doesn't mean he is unconscious of boundaries or behaves offensively, but one does not have to be offensive or oblivious to be mentally ill.

Second, I deny that Frank has "fruitfully harnessed" his ideas and behaviors. By Frank's own reckoning only 5-10% of his income is from "performance" related income. He's widely recognized in the bay area, but recognition - even when it includes a few free Budweisers - is a very different thing than fruitful success. -Sorenr 05:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Frank Chu's perception and interpretation of the world and his eccentric behavior are consistent with most symptoms of schizophrenia

I still think this is misleading. Although delusions and thought disorder are symptoms of schizophrenia, they are also symptoms of a number of other disorders and without additional evidence there isn't a good reason to say "consistent with" schizophrenia as opposed to any of the other disorders. Saying "ouch" is consistent with having been hit in the head with a rock, but does not itself alone constitute evidence that one has been hit in the head with a rock.

As the schizophrenia page says, "It is worth noting that many of the positive or psychotic symptoms may occur in a variety of disorders and not only in schizophrenia." I tried to address this by saying that Frank's expressions resemble those of people who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is true, though a little round-about and squirrely. Still, it is preferable to your construction of "consistent with," which implies too much.-Moorlock 06:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying "ow" is consistent with being hit with a rock, but without a rock and a bump on the head one cannot say that "the victim's circumstances and behavior are consistent with being hit on the head with a rock", because other circumstances do not match. Not all people who say "ow" are hit on the head with rocks, and not all people hit on the head with rocks say "ow".

It's not JUST his delusions which are consistent with schizophrenia: as written his perception, interpretation, and behavior are consistent. Furthermore there is nothing in his perception or behavior inconsistent with the symptoms of schizophrenia. (Some schizophrenics can have jobs and social circles.) If you'd like to add a list of other disorders which also match his symptoms (such as demonic posession: why have you deleted that one?) I would consider that valid.

On the subject of dementia: I purposefully chose exactly this term to provide a sharply contrasting view to the one you provide. You're suggesting that Frank's "crazy ranting guy" behavior is a 'character' which he deliberately adopts, and you support this fanciful belief with a story about how a friendly face causes Frank to drop this "character". Why would Frank immediately drop character when meeting a fan who appreciates this character? Why wouldn't Frank launch into an even more inspired "act" to please his fans?

Because it's not an act. It's an involuntary compulsion which Frank is powerless to resist. Saying that Frank has the ability to engage in any behavior but this one is like saying that Frank has the ability to communicate in fluent Polish. It is not impossible, but it is highly improbable and completely inconsistent with previous observations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided none. -Sorenr 14:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There's still no reason to even mention schizophrenia in Frank's entry. The perceptions, interpretations, behavior and delusions you refer to may be adequate in the presence of additional qualifications as determined by somebody who knows what they are doing for a diagnosis of schizophrenia or for some other diagnosis. There's no good reason to prejudge schizophrenia in the absence of this. Those perceptions, interpretations, and so forth may be necessary but they certainly are not sufficient to be actually "consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia." This isn't the sort of thing where you get to say, "ah well, close enough."

It is reasonable to describe Frank's stated perceptions, interpretations, and delusions, and his behavior in this wikipedia entry. It is unreasonable to use these to publish an armchair diagnosis.

As for why he would drop out of character when meeting a fan - use your imagination. Perhaps his act isn't meant primarily for his fan base, but for the Chu-naive. Once you're already hip to his act, he doesn't have to impress you any more. The performance artist / travelling evangelist known as Brother Jed has this very same behavior - bizarre rants that he uses in order to draw and disarm an audience, but underneath it is a rational person who is deliberately using his performance persona for effect and who he'll let you meet if you show him that you understand what he's doing or talk with him when he's not "on stage." (see ) -Moorlock 19:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dementia
I think dementia doesn't really characterize what you're after. When I read the entry on dementia (and other sources) I see the term used to describe the a steadily worsening cognitive deficit such as is caused by a degenerative brain disease. What I think you want to describe is something more like a chemical imbalance that causes disordered thinking - not necessarily one that is steadily worsening or leading to progressive cognitive decay. (Disclaimer: this shouldn't suggest that I believe the evidence is enough to support either of these conclusions, or that either of us are qualified to diagnose him of such things from a distance.)-Moorlock 19:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree - it applies in conventional use, but it's certainly inaccurate in this context. The other two you cite - delerium and psychosis - seem more applicable though I can't judge Frank's impaired cognition (or lack thereof) well enough to say which one. -Sorenr 20:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

As a disinterested observer, I would say that Frank Chu seems pretty loopy. However, I am merely a layman, not a psychiatrist, and even if I were a psychiatrist, I do not think that I would be able to diagnose someone's mental state on the basis of a description on a Web page.

As for the Wesley Willis comparison, I will note that Wesley Willis, to the best of my knowledge, *was* diagnosed with both paranoid schizophrenia and moderate mental retardation.

Sign texts
Do we really need the Sign texts section to be a list of anything that's ever appeared on one of Frank Chu's signs? It seems like examples of a few should be enough, along with a short analysis of common elements; listing all of them is just overwhelming and doesn't get the point across well. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 18:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think more is better. It's interesting. gohlkus 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To User:Moorlock and User:Sorenr
I'd suggest you two try to resolve your issue through other means than continuing to argue on the talk page and have an edit war. See Dispute resolution.

Also, please do not reedit comments already made to the talk page beyond simple reformatting or corrections. -&#8472;yrop (talk) 03:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Police Subdue Man Menacing His Family
Are we sure that this is the same Frank Chu? I mean, the birthdays match up and it happened in Oakland, but Frank Chu sounds like a rather common name. I think if this was the same person, he wouldn't be free to walk the streets right now. Can we get confirmation of this? Tesformes (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon this page today and had a similar thought. I cant believe that even in america with its swiss cheese legal system nor even San Fransisco's apparently mostly insane populous, someone who shoots at a police officer or holds people hostage can just be wandering around. I've never heard of this guy before, but I'm thinking either he has barrels of money for lawyers AND knows people, or it isn't the same guy. That, or the page is misleading. Did he serve his jail sentence and was released for example?


 * Frankly, I don't even understand why this page exists as it doesn't indicate in any way why it should. It's not like he's the only nutjob roaming the streets on the planet. Recommend deleting the whole damn thing and forgetting about it, as the only thing I got out of it was that he's a massive attention whore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.228.227 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2012‎


 * The age is actually a year off. I've moved the paragraph here until there's a reliable source that indicates they're the same person. – Temporal User (Talk) 13:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

{{quotation|In early 1985, Chu, then 25 years old, took 12 members of his family hostage in Oakland and was reported to have beaten one or more family members with his fists. Chu fired a .38 pistol at a police officer who came to investigate, but missed. Police cordoned off a ten-square-block area for three hours. Chu eventually released his hostages and surrendered to police.

Mental health
One news report from 1985 quoted a police lieutenant as saying that Chu had a history of mental problems and had been prescribed medication. }}

Flickr
Since the most recent bay to Breakers, the flickr tag for Frank is mostly full of impersonators. I would like to suggest a new flickr tag or removal of the link. Of the 285 pictures only a small number are of Frank. There is a tag "realfrankchu" but it has only been used by a single user. --Paul E. Ester 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New additions from Elmarkos
User:Elmarkos made a few changes, including adding these bits:
 * "Chu also adamantly claims that one of the sole reasons for the existence of the CIA is to guard the "top secret sex orgies" carried out by US presidents, according to Chu each president has up to 50 "wives" for this purpose."
 * "He has told those who will listen that he was the empress of China in the 17th century but was exiled to the US by the CIA."

Could someone provide a source for these claims? This is the first I've heard either of these. -Moorlock 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the source is Frank himself. Frank has told me that the CIA guards the US Presidents' top secret sex orgies, but he's never told me that this is the CIA's *only* purpose. -Sorenr 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign texts
(removed from main body 17 Oct. 2005)

ALMA 12 GALAXIES TRIGOGONIC SCANDAL PBS NEWS HOUR: BILLIONAIRE DECTROGONIC SKEPTICAL PREEMPTIVE MISCREANTS

NICKERSON 12 GALAXIES QUADROGONIC HIBERNATION[S] ECONOMIST TECHNIGONIC EXACERBATED CHARISMATIC ABERRATIONS

CRONKITE 12 GALAXIES VIXTREXONICUL STEROIDS PBS: YASKRERUNITOL COVERAGE PSYCHROZENIKUL DILIGENT TRIVIALIZING OPTHAMOLOGISTS

WHOOLEY 12 GALAXIES PSYCHROZENICAL DISSENSIONS ABC: ILTROKETCAL COVERAGE STALTZORXUNIKEL PREINCARNATE AGNOSTICISM GNOSTICISM

HEISLEY 12 GALAXIES AGOZANICAL EXORCISTS NBC: ILTRUXONIKEL COVERAGE COXGARONICIL EVOCATIVE PALATIMILL MESOTHELIOMA

BRIDGEPOINTE 12 GALAXIES MUROTUNIXEL REPERCUSSIONS (sic) KBHK: XASKUTANEKOL PSOKITENUCOL COMMEMORATIVE CONTENTIOUS EXHORTATIONS

TROSKY 12 GALAXIES ALPHOGONIC POLICE BRUTALITY ABC NEWS: UP FRONT ZENOGONIC BOISTEROUS INSINUATED ATTRITIONS

CLEMENS 12 GALAXIES XASKOZETICUL DIPLOMACY PBS: YUXTROTONIKEL COVERAGE WEXKORHYTORIC EXTEMPORANEOUS IMPUGNING CARNIVORES

SHEFFIELD 12 GALAXIES QUINTRONIC GENOCIDES CNN HEADLINE NEWS SEXOTRONIC METICULOUS INCINERATED APPROPRIATIONS

BRIDGEPOINTE 12 GALAXIES MUROTUNIKEL REPERCUSSIONS KBHK: XASKUTANEKOL PSOKITENUCOL CUMBERSOME CONTENTIOUS EMULATIONS

IMPEACH FAIRMOUNT 12 Galaxies Guiltied WITH QUADROLOGICAL Rocket STATIONS

MASSACHUSETTS 12 GALAXIES QUINTRONIC CRIMINALS TIME MAGAZINE: STAR, HEXTROTRONIC OSCILLATING EBULLIENT INOCULATIONS

CARLSTADT 12 GALAXIES BOTRUKONITEL RACISM KDTV: FEXTROTANIKUL COVERAGE GAMMATUNOKEL EXTRATERRESTRIAL PETAFIABLE ABDICATIONS

GEPHARDT 12 GALAXIES QUOKLOCHITICIL DETRIMENTATIONS KICU: DICHUKITECHAL COVERAGE ULKUKATICHOL ESCHATOLOGICAL CONTEMPLATED AGNOSTICS

MEDTOX 12 GALAXIES BETATRONIC CONSTANTANEOUSED GRAND THEFT AGAINST THE UNIVERSE ZEGNATRONIC HYDROGEN COUNTER PARTS

NORDEN 12 GALAXIES JOXKRORADICUL EPIPHANY NBC: GAXKROZETICAL COVERAGE KEXTROCRETICAL SANCTITY PROSPERITY DILIGENCE
 * March 2005

SCHKADE 12 GALAXIES BEXCROLETIKUL UNJUSTICES BBC: KOTROPREDICAMENTED COVERAGE ZEKGROPENTIAL ERUPTED DASTARDLY ELATIONS
 * May 2005

HENDRICKSON 12 GALAXIES KYDROMENICOL IMMINENCE ABC:WETROMETICULUS COVERAGE NUKROHENICAL EGOTISTICAL ATTONEMENTS ETERNITY
 * September 2005

Impressive Work
This is such a complete bio...there is more here than the bios of much more famous people. 68.193.245.18 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. This is a fascinating read. — Reinyday, 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree -- what happened after this referenced 1985 standoff with police? That's a big part of the history and it's tossed out and dropped with no followup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.220.239 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP nightmare
I have just removed a swath of unsourced and poorly sourced information from this article. Sources that I considered particularly poor were: and so on. It is beyond belief that the article has existed in this state for so long. Before any material is added back, it must be rigorously sourced to some reliable publication. Kevin (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Zagnatronic outburst" sourced to a private email - fails WP:RS dismally
 * "Frank believes that..." sourced to another email of unknown origin - same here
 * "that he had just met Jimmy Carter" sourced to a now defunct Twitter site - and here
 * Various interpretations of his signage sourced to flickr photos - essentially original research, also poorly sourced
 * "My husband's secretary..." sourced to a comment on a flick photo - also very poorly sourced

Real story metaphor
This page shows an individual expression of a real social mechanic performed by a successful non central character of a group dynamic. What this man speaks about is a social structure that can be built, described and is perfectly rational and logical though undesirable. To any sane reader it should be obvious the protests use language metaphors and can be construed true in different ways simultaneously for sets of individuals. Because of the use of the word galaxies, the reference to this article comes from spatial SETI research, but the terms makes perfect metaphorical sense applied to industries/corporations/nations and the individuals made famous within each of them. Similar considerations for the term alien. This talk page invites more to discuss the character than to discuss the exposition, but this ambiguation between astrophysical research and social metaphor should be made explicitly evident in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.150.152 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frank Chu. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522070811/http://sfist.com/2007/06/25/whered_those_73.php to http://www.sfist.com/2007/06/25/whered_those_73.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623112417/http://www.bagelfather.com/funstuff/news/clinton.htm to http://www.bagelfather.com/funstuff/news/clinton.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.artistkukunuut.org/2012/en/exhibitions/soida-tasa-ule-silla
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722122840/http://vimeo.com/1727800 to http://www.vimeo.com/1727800

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)