Talk:United States Postal Service

Satisfaction numbers addition

Hello editors, this is Jonathan from the USPS back with another edit request. For those not fully in the loop on this Talk page, I have a conflict of interest as a USPS employee, and you can read more about that here: User:Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service.

For this request, I've sourced two high-quality satisfaction surveys, one from the Pew Research Center and the other from the Office of Inspector General, neither of which are cited in the current version of the article. Here is specifically what I've included in the draft I'm proposing:

• Cited a Pew Research Center study, which surveyed 1,013 American adults, and found that the USPS was the most favored federal agency of the 10 noted in the study with a 91% favorable rating.
• Cited an Office of the Inspector General survey which was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that of the 3,676 Americans surveyed, 91% of respondents held a favorable view of the USPS.

Please read here:

Satisfaction numbers draft

In April 2020, Pew Research Center published a survey of 1,013 American adults on their view of government agencies. Of the 10 federal agencies listed, the USPS was viewed as the most favorable, with a favorability rate of 91%. In April 2021, the Office of Inspector General published a survey of 3,676 Americans that was administered during the COVID-19 pandemic and found that 91% of respondents held a favorable view of the USPS. References

Ideally, this draft would be implemented into the Coronavirus pandemic and voting by mail section of the article, as the surveys revealed the agency continued to have a high satisfaction compared with other federal agencies during the pandemic. However, I am open to what non-COI editors believe makes the most sense. As always, I'll be ready to respond if editors have feedback. Thank you!Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All sorts of intricate details sourced directly to the USPS

Am I the only one who feels they should be substantially pared per WP:NOTAGUIDE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING? I've got a start on it. Please comment. Graywalls (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one. Far more needs to be removed. Unfortunately there is a COI editor who makes a COI edit request every time the USPS delivers a letter. That has resulted in an overly long article because, treated individually, the requests are not entirely objectionable. Treated as a whole, however, there is a problem.

Realistically, a vast amount of text needs to be removed as this article has basically become the day to day history of the USPS, plus odd material like the 'How delivery services work' section. Axad12 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Graywalls and User:Axad12, jumping in here since Axad12's comment mentions me. I do want to point out that the sections that Graywalls had edited and the areas mentioned here, specifically those about how the delivery services work etc were present before I started to make any requests here. I agree there are some sections of the article that have a lot of primary sourcing, and/or that seem to have a lot of specific and sometimes outdated information. Generally, my understanding is that it’s best for people with a COI like me to not ask to remove content that other editors have added to a Wikipedia article, unless it’s clearly false or vandalism, so I haven’t previously suggested trimming out information. (I did propose an update to one of these sections before and editors had suggested that the content be cut, but ultimately no changes were made.) If it’s helpful for me to suggest information to trim, or provide additional sourcing, that’s something I can look into. And of course I can be more circumspect about proposing new updates. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide suggestion on the removal for review? There's simply way too much clutter for me to want to really deal with at the moment. Graywalls (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan, if you would like to propose any significant chunks of the article which you believe can be removed then I'm sure it would be appreciated. Probably best, however, to avoid any sections that involve any criticism of your employer. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that part of why the "How delivery services work" section of this article became so detailed is that the article on Mail is just so bad. I just raised this issue on that article's talk page.

The ideal approach would be to rewrite Mail to include several paragraphs explaining how postal services actually function in general at a high level of abstraction (with citations to reliable sources), and then rewrite each postal service article to bolt on notable details specific to that service, such as whether they are still manually sorting mail, whether they still support door-to-door delivery or instead require users to pick up their mail at the post office or from a post office box or at a cluster mailbox, etc.

The question is why that didn't happen over the last 20 years. It looks like the larger issue is that traditional postal service is dying, because of how fax, email, and social media have largely killed off the traditional roles of hard copy letters, greeting cards, and most other mailpieces for almost everyone under age 40. Postal services are evolving into package couriers saddled with residual mail and universal service obligations. As a result, no one has the time, energy, or interest to do all that work to accurately document a dying industry.

Anyway, to get to the point: I have no problem with removing that section for the time being because it's never been fully sourced and no one is going to do it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Project Safe Delivery addition

Hi editors, this is Jonathan from the USPS here on this talk page with a new edit request. This one is relatively simple and short, as I put together a tiny draft to add Project Safe Delivery to the Postal Inspection Service subsection. As the article exists now, there isn't any mention of the project, for which I was able to find solid sourcing. Here are the specifics of the draft:

• Cited KTSM 9 and Click2Houston to state that in 2023, USPS and the United States Postal Inspection Service announced Project Safe Delivery, aimed at reducing letter carrier robberies and mail theft.
• Cited KTSM 9 and Associated Press to add two more sentences: One sentence about the specifics of what the program was aiming to deter, including robberies and mail theft, prevent change of address fraud, and battle counterfeit postage, then another sentence about how the program involved the installation of 12,000 high-security blue collection boxes, 49,000 electronic locks, and 1,200 arrested were made.

Read here:

Project Safe Delivery draft

In 2023, the U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Postal Inspection Service launched the joint Project Safe Delivery initiative. The nationwide campaign to combat postal crime and protect postal employees focused on reducing letter carrier robberies and mail theft, preventing change of address fraud, and defeating counterfeit postage. As a result of the initiative, 12,000 high-security blue collection boxes were installed, 49,000 electronic locks replaced antiquated arrow locks, and more than 1,200 arrests were made. References

If editors have any questions about this one, please let me know. Thank you!Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not Done. Apologies Jonanthan, you seem to be under the impression that everything that the USPS ever does somehow belongs in this article. Axad12 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

In fiction and Workplace violence trim

Hi editors, I'm back with my next edit request. This edit request concerns the conversation I've previously had above on this talk page with editors User:Graywalls and User:Axad12 in regards to trimming down unsourced or poorly sourced sections of this article (here is the conversation for those unaware: Talk:United_States_Postal_Service#All_sorts_of_intricate_details_sourced_directly_to_the_USPS).

Over the break, I began evaluating the article from the bottom up, leading me to two sections I immediately spotted as potential locations to remove unsourced content. The first section is the In fiction section, which has been flagged for nearly five years now and is still missing citations. I suggest to editors to cut this section entirely as its contents seem to be trivia rather than encyclopedic details.

I also spotted a sentence above In fiction within the Workplace violence subsection, which reads, "In the documentary Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal, it was argued that this number failed to factor out workers killed by external subjects rather than by fellow employees." This sentence does not have a citation, and I propose that editors cut it as well. Additionally, the sentence that reads, "Due to media coverage, postal employees gained a reputation among the general public as more likely to be mentally ill." could be cut as well since it also has no citation.

I understand proposing removals of specific passages can be tricky, given that I'm operating with a COI. Of course, I will do as I have always done on this Talk page and defer to non-COI editors' decisions here. I will stand by for editor feedback and thank any editor who provides input for their time. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm no longer dealing with COI edit requests, but since I've been mentioned above I'll comment. The COI editor suggests above that the earlier discussion was in regards to trimming down unsourced or poorly sourced sections of this article. As far as I can see that is a serious misrepresentation of what was actually discussed. The issues that were actually raised (by myself and Graywalls) were:

[The article] should be substantially pared per WP:NOTAGUIDE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING

and

[This is] an overly long article because, treated individually, the [frequent COI edit] requests are not entirely objectionable. Treated as a whole, however, there is a problem.

As I say, I have no particular appetite to get further involved here, I simply observe that this request does not meaningfully begin to approach the original problem (and, I would suggest, does not attempt to resolve that problem). Axad12 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will keep my response brief since you are no longer responding to COI edit requests. This edit request is my first attempt to begin to clean up and pare down the article based on the previous discussions on this Talk page, and it felt best to start with something noncontroversial. That's why I have proposed the removal of a section of the article that does not have any sourcing attached to it and also proposed the removal of a sentence above that also does not have any sourcing to back up the claim. As I say, this is a first attempt at sharing details that can be trimmed down.

I hope editors interested in engaging with this edit request can review it on its merits. I welcome feedback and pointers on other areas of the article to look at after this. Likewise, I hope that other editors will share their own suggestions on sections or content to remove. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

2024 revenue update request

Hi editors, this is Jonathan from the USPS back on this Talk page with a new edit request. To continue to be as transparent as possible, I have a conflict of interest as an employee of the USPS, and editors can feel free to read more about that over on my user page here: User:Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service.

The edit request I'm proposing is a straightforward one, as I'm seeking to update the 2023 revenue statistics to 2024 numbers which have recently become available. Specifically, I'd like to update the numbers within the third sentence of the first paragraph of the Operations and budget section.

Below is the updated sentence I've drafted. You'll find that I've updated the 2023 revenue number to 2024's number, as well as the net loss number. I've removed the citation backing up last year's numbers and added a new citation to the U.S. Postal Service Reports Fiscal Year 2024 Results.

2024 revenue update request
In the 2024 fiscal year, revenue increased to $79.53 billion but reported a net loss of $9.5 billion. References

Also, I have a question for editors regarding the first two sentences of the Operations and budget section: Would it make sense to keep those sentences regarding the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 and the finances from that year, or would it make sense to remove them? As with everything, I'll leave that final decision up to editors, I just figured I'd mention it given that I'm proposing an edit to that area of the article.

If editors have any questions about this request, please ping me, and I'll be ready to respond. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)