Talk:IDT Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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)[reply]

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?
    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)[reply
]
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 (talkcontribs) 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

Fair use rationale for File:Idt logo.gif

fair use
.

Please go to

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.

talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply
]

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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 10:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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 [1], and pejorative. Thank you. Wbulrey (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (Disclosure -- I work for IDT).[reply]

 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References