Jump to content

Talk:FirstEnergy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 8 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Somewhat Biased?

I understand that much of the information in this article comes from mainstream news and that FirstEnergy might not merit an article without its current scandals. However, it does not look well-written when the vast majority of the article focuses on negative aspects without giving any more information about the company and without including its response to the charges made. N Vale 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking NPV too far. I read the article a couple of time and its honestly sound neutral to me. See, when someone says an article is not neutral, it is mainly due to the tone or assertions that are not supported by facts. This articles tone is okay and he point out figure whenever necessary.
You have to accept its not always possble to present all side of the story. We are helping out and who ever wrote it presented what is public which happen to be negative. He/she can't go hunting for the owner to present the other side of the story. And some stories can never be balanced ever, because the entity involved was/were downright evil. Should that really warrant an article being labelled NPV? How do you write a biography of a mass killer in Rwanda and avoid this label? And trust me, I know of people who could say Mobutu was a good leader with a straight face, so such a claim/example is not far fetched.
It didn't seem to be an egregious violation and I attempted to find the most mild template possible. It would still be better to include whatever public statement the company may have made in these areas as any professional report would require. However, the rearranging of the information does much to alleviate my concern by making a definition of the company primary and its scandals secondary. Is there any official procedure or may I simply remove the POV banner? N Vale 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed safe to just go ahead and remove the POV banner seeing as this topic hadn't been touched in over 2 months. I agree with the anonymous editor in that this is about as neutral as it can get without being redundant and pedantic. Oncehour 10:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in FirstEnergy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of FirstEnergy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "10K":

  • From Exelon: "2010 Form 10-K, Exelon Corporation". United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
  • From American Electric Power: "2010 Form 10-K, American Electric Power Company, Inc". United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

It is proposed at WPM that Allegheny Energy be merged into this article. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nay. Keep the articles separate at least for the time being. There is enough history and content available about Allegheny Energy to keep it a separate article. Just my thoughts. Johnston.josh (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FirstEnergy. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FirstEnergy. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio scandal in lead

In the last few minutes I've added the following passage to the lead:

On July 21 2020, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Householder, former Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges, and three others were accused of accepting $60 million in bribes from FirstEnergy in exchange for $1.3 billion worth of benefits in the form of Ohio House Bill 6,[1] as part of what became known as the Ohio nuclear bribery scandal. The stock price of the company plummeted within hours of the arrests bring made. First Energy denies involvement in the charges.[2] As of July 22, 2020, FirstEnergy has not been named as a defendant. According to U.S. Attorney David DeVillers, the investigation is far from over. "There are a lot of federal agents knocking on a lot of doors."[3]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference NPR_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Barrons0721 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Armus, Teo (22 July 2020). "GOP Ohio House speaker arrested in connection to $60 million bribery scheme". washingtonpost.com. Washington Post. Retrieved 22 September 2020.

Weirdly, Ohio nuclear bribery scandal says this was a scandal in the opening sentence. My quick search to determine if the aftermath is already now in the past tense (almost impossible to comprehend for a scandal of this magnitude) turned up the WaPo article from July, which basically said "knock, knock, guess who?"

If someone else can find a citation saying this knocking has now ceased, and all the G-men are resting at ease, feel free to update that material.

In my opinion the lead must summarize scandals of this magnitude, and most especially ongoing scandals where the aftershocks continue to roll along. — MaxEnt 20:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role in 2003 Northeast Blackout

Is there a reason why the article limits FirstEnergy's responsibility for the massive 2003 Northeastern United States blackout solely to poor management of tree growth along transmission lines? The NERC investigation fingered FirstEnergy for significantly more responsibility than just that; and the Wikipedia article on the blackout itself reflects some of that. -- Funkapus (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FirstEnergy&oldid=1204987504"