Talk:Just Energy

Not NPOV

This article is in no way neutral. While promoting the few positive aspects of the company, it subtly slams the BBB (not that I'm making a stand on this issue). It's blatantly obvious to me that someone with CE is editing this page to downplay the severity of claims against it. It's important to include information about these claims so that anyone researching this company and relying on Wikipedia for sources sees that there are major questions being asked about the sales tactics and possible scams run by this company.

I plan to flag this for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.157.41 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your only grounds for NPOV tag appear to be suspicion of COI editing and a claim of subtle wording about the BBB (appears accurate, but perhaps it can be improved?)

You then make unsourced comments criticizing the company. If you have third-party reliable sources, those should be provided. But non-specific suspicions and unsourced accusations aren't grounds for a NPOV tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the anonymous editor above. Jppcap made an edit on 2014-01-14 to change the wording in the Controversies section so that it reads, "The Better Business Bureau, an unofficial charitable organization funded primarily by charging companies for accreditation, has given Just Energy a "D-" rating". It's cited, but it seems out of place to me to call the BBB an "unofficial charitable organization". It's a non-profit, but the citation does not claim it is a charitable organisation, which would be a very different thing. And calling it unofficial is a bit strange. I suggest we just remove that bit. If appropriate, that criticism would be best suited for placement on the BBB article rather than here. I think we should go with "The Better Business Bureau has given Just Energy a "F" rating, and provides the following information". Note: I don't work for Just Energy, I don't work for any energy company, I don't use Just Energy nor have I ever, I don't work for the BBB, and my interactions with the BBB have been somewhat less than wonderful. I don't believe I possess even the slightest COI here. --Yamla (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that change. Incidentally, I also have no connection to Just Energy of which I'm aware, and I'm not living in a location listed in the "Markets" section; I also have no connection to BBB, and have never even reported an issue to them. Until today, I hadn't even edited this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change. If people disagree, we can certainly keep on discussing it and consider reverting my change. By the way, the only reason I declared no conflict of interest here is that I think it's generally good to be clear when specifically dealing with NPOV issues. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing Freeze

Can an admin lock this page? I've restored some of the reports on this company's fraudulent activities--and there are way, way more on the Internet--but the combination of the company's frequent name changes and the obvious corporate schills editing this page make it very hard to maintain NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Thought-Fox (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Fraudulence issues

Alright, so I'm going to proceed with editing this. The company has already been widely discredited by the media in Ontario and public consensus in this region as being a fraud, and the edits I made don't constitute a violation of NPOV so much as an attempt to cultivate neutrality in an article that's wording is so generous it was probably created by OESC or some other subsidiary internally. Here are a couple of links to articles from the Toronto Star documenting their activities (and there are many more where these came from):

http://www.ontariotenants.ca/electricity/articles/2003/ts-03f21.phtml

http://www.thestar.com/article/176481

P.S. When I wrote "leading me to believe..." in the article, that was a typo of "many".

---

Thought-Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Thought-Fox (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Upgraded the last BBB review base on info on BBB

hey hey, was reading up on this and seemed like the info that was refering to the link (the 9th citation) was not updated according to the actual BBB page. so I did it. minor edit --siavash 01:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiavashj (talk • contribs)

Upgrade of the Controversy Section

Since it’s been established that the majority consensus of this company’s reputation is based on fraudulent and inappropriate business practises, I suggest that the Controversy section be revamped and reorganized to have the different issues listed out in separate subtopics. Right now its just a couple of paragraphs and I feel it could be sorted better.

14:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.128.34 (talk)

August 3, 2011 Edits to controversy section: removed promotional content refering to CUB.

I see this section is gone now. What remains appears to have been written by somebody who sounds a lot like a corporate PR person. What gives? Kraigus (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Dogru144 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edited three section for promo

I edited the Products, Name, Acquisitions section on this article. Mainly removed overt advertising. I also formatted/added some refs to Acquis. Jppcap (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I expanded the Controversies with BBB from the Operations. Controversies sourced also. Jppcap (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

JustGreen

While buying tickets from Live Nation, they suggested that I donate money to JustGreen. I don't do anything just because Live Nation tells me to (and I suspected probable greenwashing), so I looked the company up. It appears to be an offshoot of this company, per this link. Are there some reliable sources we could use to add this information to the article? Thanks, GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Savings claim

The article says, "Just Energy's CEO Ken Hartwick said in an interview with Report on Business magazine in 2013 that Just Energy dropped the savings claim years ago." This is well-cited, and I believe it is indeed what Hartwick said. Unfortunately, it's also not true. See for example, Just Energy's claim here (and, of course, almost every single salesperson employed by Just Energy). The twitter post is a primary source, and primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Can anyone find a better source for Just Energy still making the savings claim? --Yamla (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. There's already a citation in the article refuting this. I'll just edit the article. --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Just Energy. 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/20140111213723/http://www.uswitchforbusiness.com/blog/2012/05/09/interview-with-steve-fitzsimons-of-new-business-energy-supplier-hudson-energy to http://www.uswitchforbusiness.com/blog/2012/05/09/interview-with-steve-fitzsimons-of-new-business-energy-supplier-hudson-energy

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated BBB Rating

Hello Wikipedia - I know there are some more general debates around BBB as a source but noticed that the rating on the site has been updated to a B+ . Would it be accurate to add this to the end of the paragraph where the previous BBB rating is discussed?

50.242.141.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's for a different branch of Just Energy. You are linking to the Texas branch, not the Canadian one. In this case, I'm ambivalent. It might be better just to remove the discussion of the F rating, altogether. What do you think? --Yamla (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm aligned to that recommendation. 50.242.141.178 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Homes

Run away! 107.242.125.43 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)