Talk:IDT Corporation

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)

• Operating Under the Radar
  IDT is basically a fly-by-night operation as regards business ethics and the company's shady practices toward small-scale retail customers. The visibility of IDT Energy (which IS indeed an operating arm of the same IDT that provides telecommunications services) has simply brought out into the daylight the brusque "take it or screw you" attitude IDT exhibits toward small retail customers in its other markets. As a prime example, IDT Europe markets calling "cards" (actually terminal printouts giving a PIN and dialing instructions) through European post offices. If what you've bought works, fine; their cheap call product can be an excellent value versus standard telco offerings. But if you have a problem (such as the sender going unresponsive for days at a time, or, just as typical, hit-or-miss digital transmission that intermittently cuts off speech and sometimes abruptly terminates calls), you're out of luck. IDT maintains a nearly nonexistent customer service organization. They will do absolutely nothing about problems you're experiencing placing calls. If you pay with a credit card and they can't figure out how to run a credit check properly, IDT's apparently all-Indian support staff may charge you but then "deny" your transaction, leaving you with a credit card charge while refusing to deliver the product you've bought and paid for. "Buyer beware" is putting it mildly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.126 (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2011 (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)

"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)

// - i love the company and yet i'd still say its a fact worth noting on the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasgx1 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Idt logo.gif

File: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)

Genie Energy Page

I have created a draft for a page on Genie Energy, IDT's subsidiary (with holdings in energy) which is being spun off at the end of this month. I work at IDT and therefore I cannot create the article myself, but I would be happy to help out with the editing process. A draft can be accessed here. Yonatancantor (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IDT Corporation. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tuyo.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

2020 Coronavirus Pandemic

In the Coronavirus section, the author wrote: On April 26th, 2020, due to criticism of large companies who were wrongly accessing the loan program intended to help small businesses, IDT announced that they would return the loan."

However, that was not the rationale the company provided nor is that the rationale mentioned in the attributed source. Unless there are objections, I would like to remove the clause "due to criticism of large companies who were wrongly accessing the loan program intended to help small businesses," It is inaccurate, contrary to the company's stated motivations in its filings , and pejorative. Thank you. Wbulrey (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (Disclosure -- I work for IDT).

 Not done Hi Wbulrey, and thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am declining your edit request. In the SEC filing, IDT said "in light of the oversubscription of applications for loans under the PPP, and despite its need for the funds to support operations, [IDT] is returning the loan proceeds in order to make those funds available to other borrowers that may be in greater need than the Borrower." If one looks underneath the surface meaning, it is pretty clear the statement responds to criticism that IDT took money that was intended for small businesses, i.e. other borrowers that may be in greater need. But just to be extra safe, I am adding an additional source that will better support the article's assertion. Best, Altamel (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Altamel - I appreciate your taking the time to consider, but IDT received no criticism that I am aware of -- not surprising since we returned the money almost immediately. Be that as it may, the word "wrongly" in the context used here is particularly inappropriate. We qualified for the loan under the rules of the program and fully complied with all the relevant regulations. No one has ever suggested otherwise. Would you please remove the word "wrongly"? 70.15.6.67 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Beagel has made this change for you, and I will defer to their judgment. Marking this edit request as answered. Altamel (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References