Talk:IDT Corp.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Consumerist post

Is this the same IDT that people on the Consumerist are talking about? I just started reading about this. If it's true, it's interesting. I can't find any news articles on it, though, and I don't know if The Consumerist is notable. --Raijinili 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good question Raijinili, and needs to be answered in two parts. I'll answer your questions in two parts:
  • Is The Consumerist notable?
    Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources outlines the guidelines on WP for this issue. In WP:WEB, It states that to meet the Notability criteria for online content, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." WP:RS states that in relation to aspects of reliability for Non-scholarly sources, source material should be attributable, be subjected to editorial oversight, declare sources, and be recognised by other mainstream sources such as news media organisations or . From my knowledge of The Consumerist, I could reasonably say that they meet the criteria for notability within the context of the cited policies and guidelines. Therefore it would be acceptable to cite The Consumerist as a source for an article. However, one must be cautious when composing any changes particularly as they relate to a corporate. One should take care to work within the guidelines of WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV when adding such information.
  • Are they talking about the same company?
    As to the issue of if the company IDT Energy that is the main focus of this WP article being the same company as mentioned on The Consumerist, I would have to say that after a basic fact check, search of the company website, and the usual obligatory google search, I am of the opinion that your assumption is correct. Knowing the standard of research put into articles by The Consumerist, I doubt very much they would place the logo of a company next to an article which is not theirs[1].
If you've got the time, I would take a look at all the information on IDT Energy that is available regarding possible scams involving their practices [2][3][4][5][6] then be bold.
thewinchester 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely notable. See articles in the New York Times, for example: [7][8][9][10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.138.46 (talk • contribs) 18:18, January 8, 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I can't find anything on Wikipedia about that kind of business or the way the regulations have these energy suppliers deal with Con Ed. Searching for "energy resellers" or ESCO, as those articles refer to them as turns up information on unrelated things.69.148.183.20 (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Newark Headquarters"

Is this section encyclopedic?

  • "15 percent to 25 percent of the 5,000 employees at IDT are Orthodox Jews."
Unsourced, and the numbers have been changed on the page at least two times.
  • "Yarmulkes and black hats are a common sight."
Original research and uses a word ("common") which is very not objective.
  • "The company cafeteria is kosher; according to Jonas, it is one of, if not the largest kosher facility outside of Israel. Multiple Jewish prayer services take place in the building throughout the day."

Is this trivia? I don't think IDT is notable for accommodating their Jewish employees, though I may be wrong. --Raijinili 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Considering that the only things in this section have to do with a high profile of Jewish employees there, I suspect that section was probably added to either discredit the company in the eyes of people who don't like Jews, or to discredit Jews in the eyes of people who don't like this company. This should probably be removed.69.148.183.20 (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Idt logo.gif

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)