Talk:International Technological University/Archive 1

Hello,

I object the deletion of this page because International Technological University has been a bona fide university located in the Silicon Valley (sunnyvale) since 1994. There is significant third party noteworthiness for this university.

Thanks. — preceding unsigned comment by Mikel.Duffy (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article as currently written is a meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional and as blantant copyright infringement. I will check ITU for accreditation, and if verified, I will reduce the article to a stub. That's if another editor does not tag it for speedy deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I rewrote the article as a clean stub and removed the proposed deletion tag. I'm asking you again, please let others write and improve the article about your school. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning of "The Chronicle" Article
Could someone please re-word this part so that it sounds neutral rather than someone trying to deter students from the university?

It almost seems as someone that has some sort of benefit by students not going to ITU wrote about this article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ituhubert (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference to the "Chronicle of Higher Education" article looks fine to me. With you obviously being affiliated with ITU, you actually should not edit the article at all, since you have a conflict of interest. Your edits look a lot like trying to promote this institution, which is not what Wikipedia is about. jfeise (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Founder's Background
Every consumer would like to know the origins of the service or product that they buy or subscribe to. A university is no different. Who is the founder of ITU? What is his or her background. Is this person credible or not? What credentials does the founder have to establish a university in the first place? Why does the user Jfeise take away factual background information that informs the credibility or disreputation of the organization in question? Why is Jfeise covering factual referenced background materials? What motivates Jfeise to delete facts? This is not a communist country, why is Jfeise censoring factual data? Orientalsoul (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not exist to provide consumer information. See WP:NOT, particularly the subsections WP:SOAP and WP:NOTGUIDE. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * People can read that information on the ITU website. Wikipedia is not for advertising. And please stop the red herring about "censorship." jfeise (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedias provide all kinds of information - whether they are useful to consumers or not. Facts about a topic, institution or person should be made plain. Indeed, your actions to take out factual referenced materials -- like the Founder's Background, and the backgrounds of the faculty of the institution -- is your form of directed censorship.Orientalsoul (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SOAP jfeise (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to Jfeise's comment, which was posted while I was typing:
 * Orientalsoul, regardless of what kind of information you may have found in other encyclopedias, Wikipedia policies govern the contents of Wikipedia. The promotional descriptions of faculty members that you added to this article do not belong here, according to this encyclopedia's policies. However, it occurs to me that Shu-Park Chan might qualify for an article as a notable person. See WP:BIO and WP:Academic for information on what constitutes WP:Notability for a person like him. --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) This article looks like a good source. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Founder's Vision and the nation's student loan debt crisis
One of the many topics I raised in my postings (all were summarily deleted as “Promotional Material”), was the fact that ITU yearly generates significant numbers of working engineers in the highly-skilled areas of the Silicon Valley hi-tech industry, while not incurring more national debt, in the form of nationally-backed student loans. Incidentally, this specific hi-tech industrial sector, is presently leading the way to the nation’s economic recovery. In the San Jose Business Journal article dated May 18, 2003, profiling Dr. Chan, the article states, "Mr. Chan says he left SCU after 30 years to start ITU because he saw a need for high quality graduate-level education "in the shortest time possible, at the lowest cost" to students." (please reference http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/05/19/smallb1.html?page=all). The fact that the nation now faces defaulted student loans, totaling over one trillion dollars, signifies that Dr. Chan’s vision was correct when he identified the specific need for high quality graduate-level education at an affordable cost to students. No unbiased rational reader of this discussion will believe that the posting of this issue is one of “Promotional Materials”. The upcoming debt crisis facing our nation, which experts say will be much worse than the sub-prime crisis, as the defaulted loans have already been “derivitized” and sold off in the financial markets, is exactly what ITU Founder, built ITU to solve. That is why it is so fascinating that the same M.S. degree in ITU that costs $15K in tuition, costs between $67K-$98K at UC Berkeley, depending on the student’s residency status and whether they finish in three semesters or four. Furthermore, as the UC system and Cal State systems are bankrupt, ITU has posted “clean financial audits” from third party auditors, having no outstanding notations and carrying no debt. All these points are documented and referenced in my posting. They deserve transparency, not censorship. Put them back up or give me a valid reason that will be backed by the wiki policy policing community. Orientalsoul (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We keep citing WP:SOAP, but the point may not be getting across, so I will quote some relevant excerpts:
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
 * Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
 * Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
 * Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
 * Also see Advocacy. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's dissect this a bit:
 * One of the many topics ... was the fact that ITU yearly generates significant numbers of working engineers in the highly-skilled areas of the Silicon Valley hi-tech industry, while not incurring more national debt, in the form of nationally-backed student loans."
 * That is true for pretty much all universities that have foreign students, because foreign students can not get US student loans.
 * Incidentally, this specific hi-tech industrial sector, is presently leading the way to the nation’s economic recovery.
 * Opinion.
 * In the San Jose Business Journal article dated May 18, 2003, profiling Dr. Chan, the article states, "Mr. Chan says he left SCU after 30 years to start ITU because he saw a need for high quality graduate-level education "in the shortest time possible, at the lowest cost" to students." (please reference http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/05/19/smallb1.html?page=all).
 * Promotional material. Other universities claim similar things.
 * The fact that the nation now faces defaulted student loans, totaling over one trillion dollars, signifies that Dr. Chan’s vision was correct when he identified the specific need for high quality graduate-level education at an affordable cost to students.
 * Opinion.
 * No unbiased rational reader of this discussion will believe that the posting of this issue is one of “Promotional Materials”.
 * It is opinion and promotional material.
 * The upcoming debt crisis facing our nation, which experts say will be much worse than the sub-prime crisis, as the defaulted loans have already been “derivitized” and sold off in the financial markets, is exactly what ITU Founder, built ITU to solve.
 * Opinion.
 * That is why it is so fascinating that the same M.S. degree in ITU that costs $15K in tuition, costs between $67K-$98K at UC Berkeley, depending on the student’s residency status and whether they finish in three semesters or four.
 * Opinion. The marketplace, e.g., salaries of graduates, shows the educational quality. Maybe an education from UCB has higher educational quality?
 * Furthermore, as the UC system and Cal State systems are bankrupt
 * Opinion.
 * ITU has posted “clean financial audits” from third party auditors, having no outstanding notations and carrying no debt.
 * Irrelevant for the topic. Other universities may have the same. And the link? Previously, ITU personnel didn't even like some salary figures being posted in the article. jfeise (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read through Orientalsoul's contributions, and I agree wholeheartedly with Jfeise and Orlady. There's some valid information in the edits, but it is presented from a point of view. And there's lots of off-topic stuff added either to bolster the main argument that student loans & debt are bad or to big-up the university. Examples: the mini-bios of staff & commencement speakers; and sentences such as "Defaulted student loans now represent a growing debt problem which nationally totals over one trillion dollars, exceeding the aggregate amount of US credit card debt"
 * And I'm curious, Orientalsoul. Do you have a connection with ITU? It seems to be your sole interest on wikipedia, which always tends to indicate that you are more interested in or aligned with the subject of the article than in encyclopedia building (which is what we do around here). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Factually, part of the founding mission of ITU is what was stated by Dr. Chan in the SJ Biz Journal article: to have a "high quality graduate-level education” that was at a low cost to students. That is a factual statement notated in a reputable local business journal.  In UC Berkeley's wiki page, it lists the number of nobel prizes won by faculty in the university.  It is factual, whether someone feels such a fact promotes the university or not, it is verifiable and accurate, so it should be included in an encyclopedia. 2) ITU's financial records, being a non-profit, are publicly open.  I posted this fact, but the user, Jfeise censored it.  Those financial records are factual and verifiable from any number of different website services, which I also mentioned in my post.  UC Berkeley's page factually lists it's most recent financial situation, in this case, with funding being cut. Likewise, ITU's recent financial status is also factual and should be listed in parity with Berkeley's listing of financial stats. ITU has garnered a third party “clean financial audit” over the last three years in which the public can find records. This is rare for California non-profit universities, and in ITU’s case, again, it is a verifiable fact. Those listings are no different from the factual listings on Berkeley's wiki page.24.6.166.5 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please stop the ad hominem attacks on me. I have not "censored" anything. I have removed promotional material. And not every fact in the world is noteworthy enough to get listed in an encyclopedia. Financial records are generally not noteworthy. Nobel prizes are noteworthy. It also appears to me that you may have a conflict of interest here, given that you only have shown interest, and an intense interest at that, in this particular article. jfeise (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jfeise, you do a comparative listing of an executive at ITU (that you have not shown to be verified by public records). Namely: The salary Executive Vice President of ITU's Asia operations Gerald A. Cory was $445,832 in 2009,[citation needed] compared to the median $175,100 for executive VPs of master's colleges in the US.[10] and originally, you labeled the comparative listing as "Criticism", that label in itself shows a biased point of view? Right above that, I posted a comparative listing on tuition prices: namely
 * You seem to try a vendetta against me. I didn't add that particular section to the article, I only restored it when somebody from ITU deleted it without giving a reason. jfeise (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education reported the salaries. The link is in this article already.  Mateinsixtynine (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tuition comparison
ITU tuition for a Masters degree in engineering is approximately $15K for the full degree (36 units at $400/unit). It is substantially less, compared to a resident's tuition for an equivalent M.S. degree in engineering for a UC campus such as UC Berkeley, at $22,492/semester. Berkeley website reports that while it is possible to finish the M.S. in Engineering within one academic year, "most students take three to four semesters" to complete their degree at $67K-$89K for the full degree (http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/education/degrees.shtml). Non-Residence tuition for the same UC Berkeley degree runs $73k-$98K (http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Default.aspx?PageID=feesched.html#engin). Why is your comparative listing relevant somehow to note, but mine is not? You obviously have a biased agenda Jfeise, or you would not be censoring factual comparative listing that go against your bias. If not, what explanation can you transparently offer?Orientalsoul (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop your ad hominem. I do not "censor" anything. jfeise (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A case could be made for adding in the tuition amount here, but comparing it to another university makes little sense, especially a very well-known and respected university.Mateinsixtynine (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Another two hypocritically conflicting points your biased point of view just fumbled into Jfeise. You just said, "Financial records are generally not noteworthy. Nobel prizes are noteworthy." Three of ITU former commencement speakers were Nobel prize winners, despite ITU being an infant institution. Yet, you censored that fact as “promotional material”. Is it noteworthy that two US cabinet members (US Sec of Defense Perry and US Sec of Energy Chu) gave commencement addresses to an unknown university?

As for financial records not being noteworthy, again, this slanted opinion of yours, American parents do not share! If one looks on any California State university website, such as San Jose State University, its webpage listing tuition prices states:

The CSU makes every effort to keep student costs to a minimum. Fees listed in published schedules or student accounts may need to be increased when public funding is inadequate. Therefore, CSU must reserve the right, even after initial fee payments are made, to increase or modify any listed fees, without notice, until the date when instruction for a particular semester or quarter has begun. All CSU listed fees should be regarded as estimates that are subject to change upon approval by The Board of Trustees. (ref: http://www.sjsu.edu/faso/Applying/Registration_Fees_10_11/)

Financial records reflect a university's ability to continue to deliver quality training services that local hi-tech industries count on to be competitive and grow. They are extremely noteworthy. Especially when tuition is being raised at a moments notice, by approval of the Board of Trustees in California state schools. Point of fact, I just looked on Berkeley’s tuition page: (ref: http://registrar.berkeley.edu/feesched.html) Kindly read the link entitled: UC President Mark Yudof's letter to students and parents. In that letter, Berkeley’s President Yudof states that the university has a “shortfall” in state funding totaling “$1Billion.” Are you serious when you say that “Financial records are not noteworthy?”  If this does not demonstrate Jfeise’s bias to every reader looking at our present talk, then I don’t know what else could demonstrate that. It is due to Jfeise’s slanted agenda and blatant disregard to the important of tuition prices that Jfeise thinks financial records are not noteworthy, I am sorry to point out. Any normal American parent would find financial solvency in their child’s college, a huge deal, if they are budgeting their yearly expenses for their child's college education. If you read on in President Yudof’s letter, you will see that the Regents “have been forced to turn to students and their family’s for the remaining shortfall. Earlier this month, the Board of Regents approved a tuition increase that will add $1,068 to mandatory system wide charges, raising them to a $12,192 for the 2011-12 academic year.” He goes to state that this increase is over and above an “8 percent hike approved last November”. Do you still think financial records are not noteworthy Jfeise? Do you still think it was valid for you to censor my posting of ITU’s financial records as comparison? With just one letter, that the California state university websites highlight can be sprung at any time, every single Berkeley student’s parents is out another $1,068 this year, above the earlier 8 percent hike that they also paid for!

Orlady, Dougweller, Hasteur, Tagishsimon, time for you guys to all chime in with an honest opinion, I really want the public to see your responses. Jfeise makes a flippant comment that financial records “are not noteworthy” under the trying financial loan crisis facing this nation today, that I pointed out in my posting, and he passes himself off as an unbiased poster, while my very “in-your-parent’s-wallet-facts” are deemed by both him and you guys as “Promotional”. Jfeise makes sure to mention one ITU executive’s salary, which he deems as very noteworthy, but a billion dollar shortfall in just one California university is not noteworthy? Wow…

Come on folks, Wiki said that I should assume you guys are all here in good faith. I am giving you the chance now. I have just pointed out the raw factual encyclopedia-relevant data, I want to hear your feedback, don’t be cowards on this, show that you truly do operate in good faith. But know, whatever you guys put here, I will make sure the public will hold your reputations accountable. And please note, you all shoved down my throat the crap rules and policies, that turned out to be a cover for Jfeise’s invalid censorship of my postings, only to have the facts uncovered, to make super relevant points that the entire nation, and certainly the Silicon Valley hi-tech industries’ competitiveness, is relying upon. Tell me each of you, if you or any of your family members were going to Berkeley, and you read Jfeises off-handed comments that financial records are not noteworthy, would that be a fair and unbiased comment to you?

By the way, I only frame the issue here in terms of each student’s or their family’s hardship because education is a way out to a better life for a lot of people, especially if they are low income families, so for a compassionate culture, it is important for us to empathize with them. At the same time, this student loan issue that I have raised and emphasized, will affect the entire world’s economic growth and health in the ensuing few years, just as the subprime crisis did. The discussion is now before us, please contribute so that the public can take account of everyone’s opinions. Orientalsoul (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Commencement speakers are not faculty, nor former faculty nor usually former students. They have no other connection to an institution other than being commencement speakers at some point. And yet again, please do stop your ad hominem attacks on me. I do not censor anything. And finally, please answer the question if you have a connection to ITU. jfeise (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you to answer the question I raised earlier. Do you have a connection with ITU? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What are all your affiliations? I can't believe that instead of coming clean, you guys are attacking instead of measuring the weight of the factual listings. Given the severity and impact of rising student tuition prices, you guys are stonewalling and turning away from the factual subject at hand? The last commencement speaker I listed, that you obviously didn't read before you summarily censored it Jfeise, is a dude named Dominik Schmidt, who is the Senior Director of Technology at INTEL, and he also currently teaches every week at ITU. So he also has no affiliation with the university? Your arguments have no credibility no matter who you guys are or are not affiliated with. You come out with statements, and when factually refuted, you shift the argument. You guys are not operating in good faith and you are certainly not looking for consensus. You guys have pointed secret agendas, or you just don't like to admit when proven way off base. My methodology of pointing out verifiable facts going against your agenda, unhinges you guys from hiding behind Wiki rules and policies that you clearly have not the sincerity to really want to follow in the first place. Public reader's please take note at this exchange. Points, with verifiable sources, have been brought to light, and these guys show no evidence of correction.

Orlady, Dougweller, Hasteur, I am hoping that you guys truly reflect a sincere culture at Wiki to do what is right. Please share your opinions about the back and forth discussion, vis-a-vis Wiki rules and policies. Please be public with your opinions as you were in earlier posting to and/or about me. My thanks ahead of timeOrientalsoul (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst we wait for your answer to that question, let me respond to the substance of your very long essay. Information on the financing of universities, and on their financial state, is very clearly encyclopaedic content. That, for instance, is why we find UC_Berkeley and, indeed, a complete article at University of California finances. Criticism of the current state of student loans is encyclopaedic content, which is why we find Student_loans_in_the_United_States. What is much less welcome is, for instance, your section ==National and California State Fiscal Impact== which seeks to join dots by disparaging UC and Cal State, pointing to the virtues of ITU's freedom from government funds, and reminding us of the doom of the student loan debt problem. It's enough to say "ITU does not receive any funds from the California State annual budget, does not accept any US Government-backed student loans." More than that is soapboxing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Safeguarding Wikipedia's Integrity
Great! Tagishsimon knows not to continue to dig a bigger hole leading to his own credibility being completely washed away. Though honestly, even your backing off a step Tagishsimon is not nearly enough for equitable treatment. I will explain below, but first my summary statement here:

JFEISE IS DEMONSTRATABLY A BIASED POSTER AND DOES NOT READ POSTINGS THAT GO AGAINST HIS AGENDA BEFORE SUMMARILY CENSORING THEM OFF THE PAGE.

Unfortunately Jfeise, unlike Tagishsimon’s position, you do not know when to back off a losing position that exposes your biased directed agenda. It is interesting that you two dig for my affiliations, when it is clear by the entries being censored out, that Jfeise and whomever he is working with who controls ITU’s wiki page, definitely has a pointed biased agenda.

I want disclosure on Jfeise’s true affiliations. I want to know his background, for I am sure there will be clear connections to slanted agendas against ITU as an institution, and though I do not know Wiki well, I am sure his motivations (and have already proven his protocols, approach and attitude) go directly against Wiki policies.

A LISTING OF JFEISE’S CONTRADICTIONS The nice thing is that the public now has access to all the contradictions Jfeise has made. I list them out below:

1) JFEISE PRACTICES SUMMARY CENSORSHIP First, Jfeise claims he “does not censor” postings – summarily - without reading them. He says he only removes “Promotional Material”.  Here I have already demonstrated that he factually hides behind the wiki’s policy of “No Promotional Material”, but in fact, his actions show he censors postings out without even reading them.  After all, if one is truly unbiased, one must read the material to know it is Promotional Material, as I do, and show judgment of what goes on and what comes off.  Yet, Jfeise commented to me that Nobel Prizes were relevant to Wiki posting, while financial reports were not.  This shows direct evidence that Jfeise obviously did not even read the Commencement speaker posting I put up, before censoring it out, because it clearly listed two Nobel Laureate commencement speakers in the group.  When I pointed that fact out, and called him to then admit he had not read the posting before censoring them, he quickly shifted focus, contradicting his earlier statement, and intimating that even if they were Nobel Laureates, it would not matter, because in his opinion, commencement speakers “are not faculty, not former faculty…”  and under that reasoning, have no affiliation with the university other than giving the speech. If there were any doubt that Jfeise had never read the posting before censoring them, then that comment removed all doubt, because the last listed commencement speaker, Dr. Dominik Schmidt, was also clearly listed as currently an active teaching faculty member in ITU’s electrical engineering program, as well as the Head of the ITU Bio-electronics Laboratory.

2) JFEISE IS AN IGNORANT POSTER I do not say this to insult Jfeise as a person, I only point out that the content he writes reveals true ignorance of relevant facts during discussions. Here I point to the fact that Jfeise said that “Financial Reports are generally not noteworthy.”  I do not think there is any thoughtful person of substance, having even a little knowledge of the operational priorities in an organization, that would agree with that statement.  However, in the case of the education crisis mounting before us these last few years, it is particularly egregious.  I am sorry to say that judging by the comments several of you guys have been making, I sense you guys are nearly as much in the dark.  So let me tell you, the UC system (which I love), California State universities up and down the state, even Stanford, have had massive cuts consistently over the past decade, while tuitions soar. Please take a look at some of the articles below:

California tuition have TRIPLED over the last decade! California universities continuously cut back on the numbers of students they serve, decreasing our industrial competitive edge globally because of those “Financial Reports” that Jfeise claims are “not noteworthy”. Well, in point of fact, “The budget is really driving that issue,” [of dwindling students being educated] said Eric Forbes,” who is Cal State’s assistant vice chancellor of student academic support. This “shows the self-inflicted damage to California’s economy by our failure to properly fund higher education,” said chancellor Jack Scott. “We have two choices: Reverse this trend by restoring access and affordability to higher education, or suffer the economic consequences of failing to educate the workforce that this state’s economy demands.” I really hope the lot of you will read at least a few of the articles below, so you guys get more informed on the subject. It is sad to see you guys making calls on what is or is not wiki worthy when you have no idea of what economic and educational forces shape the world. Context is very important when facts are laid out, every Wiki poster should be sensitive to that. (http://www.losangelesbankruptcyfiling.com/californians-enrollment-in-uc-csu-declines-study-finds.html)

Even mighty Stanford University, had to make $100million in budget cuts just a few years ago. (http://onnidan1.com/forum/index.php?topic=25078.0;wap2, http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=11478)

California university faculty and staff have been laid off, tenured professors have had furloughs and paycuts, are any of you people in tune with what is going on nationally and in the state of California with regards to university education? A 10 minute Google search on the topic may really awaken your perspectives. I highly recommend it.

Under this climate, Jfeise says financial reports are not noteworthy. In terms of ITU having a clean third party audit in this educational environment, Jfeise said that it is “Irrelevant for the topic.” The supreme ignorant arrogance that Jfeise’s attitude displays here, I think would appall any reader seeing our exchange here. People are unable to afford education, kids are not developing as they would have a decade ago, schools are losing their wherewithal to properly train students, and a university model that is churning out strong numbers of engineers, at a low cost, while the institution is fiscally without debt and without financially audited notations – as conceived, called out in an interview, and planned by the Founder – is TOTALLY relevant to the topic! It represents something that can show a pathway to build quality education at affordable prices to raise the quality of life all round.

Quite frankly, someone with not only Jfeise’s displayed deep ignorance, but added with that, his wantonly and insensitively cavalier attitude about this subject matter, is a true disservice and travesty to the knowledge getting posted on the Wiki website, and all who are exposed to his management of that content. I do not mean to pick of Jfeise alone. I mean that to any of you who do not take a responsible attitude towards the information on Wikipedia that services the entire world. Get yourselves knowledgeable about the subject matter before jumping in.

My good faith opinion, offered here with all the evidence I have delineated in this thread is: JFEISE SHOULD HAVE NO ACCESS TO THE ITU SITE, NOR ANY SITE INVOLVING EDUCATION ISSUES.

Ignorant posting of information and ignorant biased taking down of information without reading it, and showing a complete ignorance to critical elements in the field, will destroy Wikipedia’s credibility over time.

Perhaps if Jfeise ever shows evidence of overcoming his basic ignorance about the field of education, and he also confesses to and consequently fixes the obvious fact that he summarily censors and deletes other people’s posting without reading them, which he senses does not go with his hidden agenda, then perhaps re-considerations can be made. That is my opinion based on the exchange we have shared here today.

Orlady, Dougweller, Hasteur, we have yet to hear from you with all this evidence being presented in writing. This is no longer about hiding behind Wiki policies that you have no intention on following. I did not even know Wiki policies this morning, now, I have called Jfeise out on the basis of them, and unless I truly see a culture of collaboration based on good faith with regards to the information being posted about ITU, I will call anyone of you all out on biased opinions that are not in parity with the representation of other universities on Wiki. In other words, not only is it unacceptable to hide behind policies that one has no intention of following, but the treatment of ITU must be given fair, parallel treatment of other universities. For example, if even one other university has a listing of board members and faculty members, for instance, that can be referenced as evidence, then the ITU site must be allowed to list in the same fashion, their members, as long as the information is accurate and one wishes to do so. OR the other university’s posting must be removed immediately. Similar equal treatment must be given in every other area of consideration. It is only FAIR. Principles of equity must be followed, in Wikipedia and in life. Principles of equity are actually a basic premise upon which upon which American laws are founded, and those principles resonate with people who read these discussions.

So now that I have laid evidential groundwork for the postings I think should go on the site, I want to know who is presently blocking editorial access to the ITU page, and to relinquish it to the open public. Jfeise-like biased management of ITU’s information can no longer be tolerated, based on the evidence I have provided here on the bias nature of his postings and removals.

Again, I would like to hear from any of you, or any other Wiki administrators willing to voice their positions. Because in any case, anything less than equitable treatment of ITU will not be acceptable. Conversely, any type of fair treatment, as long as it is consistently applied across all university postings, should be fine. I welcome any and all comments.24.6.166.5 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by OrientalSoul/24.6.266.5
This has gone way beyond an editing dispute. Personal attacks are not acceptable. The user OrientalSoul obviously is not acting in good faith. jfeise (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as Denis Healey once remarked of Lord Howe, it's rather like being savaged by a dead sheep. I suggest we're not going to make any headway here, and should sit back and watch the page against the probability of more POV and COI postings. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the changes made to the article by OrientalSoul, e.g., about the accreditation progress, show insider knowledge. So I think it is safe to assume that OrientalSoul is affiliated with ITU, probably on a high administrative level, and therefore has a conflict of interest. That still doesn't explain why he/she attacked me. I am not the only one removing promotional material from this article... My edits are really not earth-shattering ;) jfeise (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagishsimon's suggestion is acceptable. My main goal: whatever goes on the ITU page must be FAIR. Meaning the deletion of valid information - e.g. University financial information, Founder's Background, History, Notable Faculty, Research Areas, Labs, Publication Listings, etc. - should not be taken down by ANYONE without good reason. The watchdogs of the ITU page have not been fair - only putting out negative information (which is fine), but deleting factual information that is valid. I wanted to know the people engaged with directed defamation. What I found and have proven with documented evidence, is that at least one watchdog (Jfeise) deleted postings without reading them (how unbiased is that?). That he/she had poor discrimination on the type of information being posted - like being mindful that the nation now has $1 Trillion in outstanding student loan debt, which is relevant to all US-based universities - just made me wonder about the credibility of other Wikipedia listing. I actually do not care what his/her motivations are. I care that the page get fair and balanced information posted. Let us "sit back" and see what kind of postings go up when the page is open again.216.38.137.43 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP address is interesting. The only previous use of that IP address was in a post on my talk page, with the signature later changed to ituhubert. This raises the question, are ituhubert and OrientalSoul the same person? Sockpuppetry alert... jfeise (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well yes, there's probably a little sockpuppetry going on on the side. I don't think OrientalSoul has really got his or her head around wikipedia yet. But there's time. Anyone can learn.
 * OrientalSoul, might I suggest a couple of things for you to do. First, do please read WP:COI and WP:POV. Next, please start making some constructuve suggestions for additions to the article here, preferably in digestable chunks. By that I mean, if you think there's a sentence or a paragraph or a section missing, add it here and let us discuss each, one by one, to see if we can come to a consensus. I assure you that, on the face of it, we are here for the same thing: to provie pertinent factual information to the reader. I appreciate that you do not comprehend the reason that some of your input has been reverted. We might be able to get you to that point of understanding by breaking it down and discussing it calmly. (Should you be thinking that it'd be better to wait until the page is unprotected, I should gently point out that edits will be as heavily scrutinised then as they are being now. There really isn't a good substitute for discussion now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Supporting Fair/Unbiased Editing
Thanks for the constructive direction Tagishsimon, indeed, unlike ituhubert or the rest here, you are right, I am unfamiliar with policies and will read policies as you suggest, and learn. For now, I am content to have exposed editors (such as Jfeise) for biased editing of postings, using contradicting rationale for justifying taking down materials, showing he clearly did not read the post before taking it down. Though I am new to Wiki, no site could have credibility with such blind butchery. Jfeise, you still attack the origins of who I am instead of pointing to accuracy of postings. You give no evidence that you indeed read the materials I posted before removing them. I reference the posting of the "Commencement Speakers" section specifically, where you first mention that "Nobel Laureates are noteworthy", then when I point out that the ITU "Commencement Speaker" section - which you took down - specifically references TWO Nobel Laureates (Prof Yuan T. Lee & Prof Steven Chu) that have spoken at ITU, you then infer that commencement speakers are not valid to post because they "are not faculty", "were never faculty". Yet, the last posted commencement speaker on the list, Dr. Dominik Schmidt (Senior Director of Technology at INTEL), is in fact, presently an ITU Faculty member, and also heading ITU's Bio-Electronics Research Laboratory. These notations were written on the post. This is clear evidence that in taking down the ITU "Commencement Speakers" section, Jfeise, you contradict your own rationale for doing so, not once, but TWICE. Obviously, you never read the posting before taking it down, demonstrating to all, publicly, that you have biased motivations for your edits of the ITU Wiki page. Care to comment further? Welcome to do so... you have shown yourself to be a non-credible editor already, and now, people will be watching this page for accuracy and fairness, which means you will no longer be able to bully your biased hidden agenda without direct challenge. This example alone - Jfeise - shows you are both biased and sloppy, a bad combination for any Wiki participant, practiced in an unethical way. All Wiki administrators, please take note of this and follow this Jfeise person. He chips away at Wiki's credibility to the public. Orientalsoul (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop the personal attacks. And let me quote from Tagishsimon's post: "OrientalSoul, might I suggest a couple of things for you to do. First, do please read WP:COI and WP:POV. Next, please start making some constructuve suggestions for additions to the article here, preferably in digestable chunks. By that I mean, if you think there's a sentence or a paragraph or a section missing, add it here and let us discuss each, one by one, to see if we can come to a consensus." Please restrict yourself to that, and only to that. Personal attacks won't get you anywhere. jfeise (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No progress is made by such attacks. See also WP:AGF. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)