Talk:United States Postal Service

Presidential Federal Sustainability Award Addition

Hi, I'm back here to propose a small edit request. In June 2024, the USPS was awarded the Presidential Federal Sustainability Award specifically for its sustainability efforts in creating a fleet of electric vehicles. I'd like to suggest the sentence be added at the bottom of the Electrifying the USPS fleet subsection, to update that section and reflect this recognition.

Please read here:

Presidential Federal Sustainability Award draft
In June 2024, the USPS was awarded the Presidential Federal Sustainability Award for building out one of the world’s largest electric delivery vehicle fleets. References

If any editors have questions, please let me know, and I'll be standing by to respond. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as a rule of thumb, I generally add awards or other recognition if they have their own Wikipedia article or substantive discussion in an article, which suggests that they're notable enough that including them is WP:DUEWEIGHT. Rusalkii (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding quickly to this request; I completely understand your concerns. I do believe it is notable that the Biden administration granted the USPS this Presidential award, so I've gone ahead and updated the proposed sentence to reflect that:

In June 2024, the USPS was awarded the Presidential Federal Sustainability Award by the Biden administration for building out one of the world’s largest electric delivery vehicle fleets.

Again, thank you for your time here, and let me know if this alteration makes sense. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi user:Rusalkii, I've gone ahead and posted an updated version of the edit request above, and added the COI template onto the request so it can be reviewed. Again, since the Biden administration granted the USPS this award, I believe it makes it notable enough to stand on its own and be added to the article. If there are any further questions on this please ping me and I'll be around to discuss. Thank you again! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It being the Biden Administration was reasonably clear from it being the Presidential award, that doesn't really change my stance here. If anything I prefer the old version without that emphasis. I can leave this for another editor to take a look, though I think I'm currently the most active person working on COI edit requests so it may be a while again. Rusalkii (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Rusalkii's comments above. Axad12 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per above comments. Encoded  Talk 💬 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Kansas EV Addition

Hello editors, I'm here to post another short edit request. Before I get into the details, I want to note that I have a COI, which you can read more about on my user page here: User:Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service.

Just this month, the USPS deployed two new electric vehicles in Kansas, and the news was covered by the The Topeka Capital-Journal. Below I've drafted a sentence that covers this news and cites the TCJ report. Ideally, this sentence would be added to the bottom of the Fleet subsection.

Read here:

Kansas EV draft
In August 2024, the USPS deployed the first new vehicles from its fleet modernization project at its Topeka Sorting and Delivery Center in Kansas, including: an electric vehicle with higher clearance for routes delivering a high number of packages, and an electric delivery vehicle produced in partnership with Canoo that is a "pod-like" smaller van. References

Please reply if anybody has questions regarding this request, and I'll be ready to respond. Thank you. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Forwarding and holds section update

Hey everyone, I'm back again on this Talk page, this time to post an edit request to update the Forwarding and holds subsection of the article. As the section exists in the article now, it only has one citation, which is a broken link, and it doesn't mention the Premium forwarding service at all. And, since the subsection reads like it was ripped directly from the USPS site, I've drafted an updated section of the article. Below, you can read all of the changes I've made and the new citations I've added:

• Removed the existing USPS citation from the subsection as the link and the archived link are broken.
• Added a CNET citation to detail how forwarding mail works and what specific mail items will be forwarded.
• Added a follow-up sentence to explain further that the forwarding period can be extended if individuals pay an additional fee, cited to CNET.
• Introduced a sentence about Premium forwarding, cited to USA Today The New York Times, explaining how the service works.
• Cited Boston 25 News to add a sentence about the USPS offering holds for customers who don't want their mail delivered.
• Added a final sentence explaining that holds must be for at least three days and cannot exceed 30 days, cited to Boston 25 News and The New York Times.

Read here:

Forwarding and holds draft

Forwarding and holds Individuals who change their address can have their mail forwarded by the USPS to their new address for a small fee, with bills, letters, and invoices forwarded for one year and magazines and newsletters forwarded for 60 days. The length of the forwarding period can be extended for an additional fee. The USPS offers Premium forwarding, which instructs the USPS to forward your mail to a new address via weekly Priority Mail shipments for an initial fee and a weekly charge. The USPS also offers customers the ability to put their mail on hold. Holds must be for at least three days and cannot exceed 30 days. References

As always, I'll be ready to respond if editors have feedback. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Back on this thread to ping editors who've evaluated my requests in the past: User:Rusalkii and user:Likeanechointheforest. This is a short one, so hopefully it doesn't take up too much of your time. Thank you!Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely the Wikipedia article is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, rather than a comprehensive list of all services provided by the USPS. The location for this sort of thing is on the USPS's own website. Also, the independent sourcing here is clearly circular because the information obviously derives ultimately from the USPS's own website.

I must admit I do not see any reason for this sort of thing to be included on Wikipedia at all, so it would be a far better solution to remove the relevant text altogether rather than to spuriously source it with circular references. No one in their right mind is going to claim it is a shortcoming of this article if it doesn't cover this information. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this draft shouldn't be added to the page, as it feels promotional. That said, the USPS page is a high-importance article, and I think as such merits the level of info it has on it. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the helpful feedback. For now, I'll let this one be Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Axad12's comment. Encoded  Talk 💬 10:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Employment section edit request

Hi, this is Jonathan from the USPS. I am here to post a new edit request, which will hopefully be quick and painless. This request has two parts. The first is that the employee statistics in the opening paragraph of the Employment section are outdated. Below is a new sentence I've drafted that ideally would replace the paragraph's second sentence reflecting the updated figures. The source I've used is USPS's Size and scope report, the same as the one that was cited previously, just updated to this year's figures:

As of 2023, it employed 525,469 career employees and 115,000 non-career personnel, divided among offices, processing centers, and actual post offices.

References

The second part of this request is that I noticed the final paragraph of the Employment section, which starts with "As more Americans send information via email," has no citations (outside of the final sentence, which I address below) and doesn't contain encyclopedic information. It reads like it was copied and pasted directly from a different website long ago.

I'm proposing that a non-COI editor remove this paragraph, minus the last sentence regarding job cuts back in 2009. That sentence seems important to keep since it's attached to a solid CNN citation. Still, it likely belongs in a separate part of the article, but I'll leave it up to editors who know best where specifically that is.

If any editors have thoughts about this proposed removal, please let me know, and I'll be around to respond. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back on this request to ping a few of the helpful editors who've been active on this page in the past: User:Likeanechointheforest, User:Axad12, and User:Rusalkii. If there's any feedback on this one, please let me know. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this suggestion, so I will add it.
Sheriff U3 talk 22:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA) Addition

Hello editors, I'm here again with an edit request to add a short overview about the legislation that passed in 2022, implementing major changes to the Postal Service's finances and operations. The 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA) is mentioned a couple of times within two different subsections on the page, in the context of the impact it has had but there's no overall explanation of the Act, which feels like an oversight given that it was the largest reform passed in decades.

Below I've drafted a few sentences that cover both the previous Acts and the PRSA and explains how this was a significant event for the Postal Service. I've written this as an addition to the History section, following on from the existing explanation of the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act, though the first sentence could be edited if editors think this would be better as its own subsection.

Read here:

Postal Service Reform Act

Among the changes from the Postal Reorganization Act, a key aspect was the requirement for the USPS to be self-financing, which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service. The next major legislation affecting the service, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, was passed in 2006. This act limited the services that the Postal Service could offer to only those it already provided and also established a requirement for the USPS to save money for the medical benefits of future retirees. The Act set a goal to save $5 billion per year for the first 10 years of a 50-year schedule, however within 6 years the Postal Service began to default on its payments. The Postal Service experienced lower revenues as mail use declined in the 2010s, and it sought financial reforms from Congress, however no new legislation was passed until the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA). The PSRA was signed into law in April 2022. It forgave $57 billion in Postal Service debt and released it from the obligation to set aside funds for future retirees' healthcare, as well as adding requirements for delivery timing and reporting on performance metrics, and allowing the Postal Service to offer some non-mail services. References

I'll be standing by for any questions about this request. Thank you. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is ok to add, but please take the advice of other editors.
Sheriff U3 talk 22:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service" should not be included without a citation. McYeee (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this request, User:McYeee. That sentence is supported by the USA Today source, which discusses that issue as follows: "When the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 became law, it required the postal service to serve all Americans while also breaking even. "It basically introduced an identity crisis that had very real consequences for USPS's operations ever since: is it a business or is it a service?" said Porter McConnell, co-founder of the Save the Post Office Coalition." Does this help verifying that phrase? Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable summary of a portion of that article. USA Today seems to agree with Porter McConnell. Please cite it inline. McYeee (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, but I would like that a more experienced editor will do the edit Synonimany (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this is WP:DUE. In particular, the USPS comes off as blameless; but this might be because they mostly are. Someone else should take a look. McYeee (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback User:McYeee, I went back into the draft and added the citation where it was requested. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the content currently in the "Retirement funding and payment defaults" section seems to say why the law was put in place, could this be included with the proposed text? Encoded  Talk 💬 08:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful feedback User:Encoded, I’ll look into incorporating details from that section. Is there a specific aspect from that section you feel should be added? Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing specific to be honest, just anything that may be relevant for the specific law such as funding issues, etc. I'm not too familiar with USPS myself so unfortunately am not sure what exactly to suggest. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on the feedback from User:Encoded, I have refreshed the drafted details about the PSRA to add in a summarized version of details from the Retirement funding and payment defaults section. Here is that updated draft:

Postal Service Reform Act v2

Among the changes from the Postal Reorganization Act, a key aspect was the requirement for the USPS to be self-financing, which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service. The next major legislation affecting the service, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, was passed in 2006. This act limited the services that the Postal Service could offer to only those it already provided and also established a requirement for the USPS to save money for the medical benefits of future retirees. The Act set a goal to save $5 billion per year for the first 10 years of a 50-year schedule, however within 6 years the Postal Service began to default on its payments. The Postal Service experienced lower revenues as mail use declined in the 2010s. In 2012, in order to be able to meet obligations for payroll and continuing its operations, the Postal Service defaulted on payments due for retirements benefits in August and again in September that year. In September 2014, it defaulted on the payments for the fourth time, and continued to default into 2017. The Postal Service sought financial reforms from Congress for relief from the funding obligation and debt from the defaults. Legislation was introduced in Congress in 2016 as well as in 2019, aiming to remove the benefits funding obligations, however no new legislation was passed until the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA). The PSRA was signed into law in April 2022. It forgave $57 billion in Postal Service debt and released it from the obligation to set aside funds for future retirees' healthcare, as well as adding requirements for delivery timing and reporting on performance metrics, and allowing the Postal Service to offer some non-mail services. References

Is this what you had in mind, Encoded? If so, is it ready to be added to the History? If there's any further feedback, please let me know. Thanks! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Each of the first three sentences of your proposed addition needs a citation. McYeee (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service I do think this is improved, but as McYeee commented do you have any sources for the first three sentences? Thanks! Encoded  Talk 💬 09:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback User:McYeee and User:Encoded. I went back into the draft and added the citations to the first few sentences where they were requested, utilizing the very helpful USA Today source.

Please read below:

Postal Service Reform Act v3

Among the changes from the Postal Reorganization Act, a key aspect was the requirement for the USPS to be self-financing, which introduced a conflict with its other requirement to provide a nationwide service. The next major legislation affecting the service, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, was passed in 2006. This act limited the services that the Postal Service could offer to only those it already provided and also established a requirement for the USPS to save money for the medical benefits of future retirees. The Act set a goal to save $5 billion per year for the first 10 years of a 50-year schedule, however within 6 years the Postal Service began to default on its payments. The Postal Service experienced lower revenues as mail use declined in the 2010s. In 2012, in order to be able to meet obligations for payroll and continuing its operations, the Postal Service defaulted on payments due for retirements benefits in August and again in September that year. In September 2014, it defaulted on the payments for the fourth time, and continued to default into 2017. The Postal Service sought financial reforms from Congress for relief from the funding obligation and debt from the defaults. Legislation was introduced in Congress in 2016 as well as in 2019, aiming to remove the benefits funding obligations, however no new legislation was passed until the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act (PSRA). The PSRA was signed into law in April 2022. It forgave $57 billion in Postal Service debt and released it from the obligation to set aside funds for future retirees' healthcare, as well as adding requirements for delivery timing and reporting on performance metrics, and allowing the Postal Service to offer some non-mail services. References

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for this draft. Thank you! Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I'm going to hold off adding it so that other editors who've previously been in this conversation can have a look first. (Pinging @McYeee) Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 23:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. McYeee (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything is cited and there are multiple sources. Looks good. Synonimany (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the approvals User:Sheriff U3 and User:McYeee. Is it possible for you one of you to implement this edit request? If not, I could do it myself, I just wanted to obtain approval before doing so as to not overstep. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Go ahead. Axad12 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the approval! I went ahead and added the draft to the bottom of the History section. Jonathan with U.S. Postal Service (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)