Talk:United States Postal Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Postal Service article.

Contents

[edit] Conflicting Statements

In this article it states that USPS is the 3rd largest employer (after DoD and Wally World), and later the second (after Wally World). I'd imagine that it used to be 2nd, but then after Bushy McNeedlessWarStarter it's now 3rd. I dunno, somebody check and conform it to one standard? (Hopefully that standard is the one that is the most fact-like, but being Wikipedia, as long as they're the same, should be fine).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triikan (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 August 2006.

First says "The USPS is the third-largest employer", and the second says "The USPS employs more people than any company except Wal-Mart." One sentence refers to employers, the other refers to companies - and the DoD isn't a company. --Matt 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, USPS isn't really a company, it's an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,". If you're going to compare a government org to a company, you should include other government orgs in the comparison Triikan 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Government-owned corporation seems to me to put the USPS in the realm of government owned company, not government org. --Matt 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
USPS is not a government organization. It is a private company whose board is selected by the Government much like the Federal Reserve Bank. It has specific laws in place for its fiduciary responsibility to the US government, but it still is autonomous. --Plack 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Plack. It is semi-autonomous in that the President cannot order the USPS around like he used to be able to when it was a Cabinet department. But as with other autonomous government entities like Legal Services Corporation, he can indirectly influence the organization's overall direction by appointing people loyal to him to the board.

[edit] Simplified postmark

Could anyone explain what the "simplified postmark" was; i.e. how was the postmark "simplified", and is it illegal to put unpostmarked mail into a mailbox not belonging to you? --Daniel C. Boyer

[edit] Government owned corporation

How is being a government owned corporation different from being a private corporation?

A government owned corporation doesn't have stockholders such as a private corporation, instead they are owned by the government. This basically gives the postal service the ability to operate independently, but still allows a higher level of govt regulation than a private company. Since the postal service is a govt owned corp, instead of a govt department or agency, they do not directly receive their funding from the federal budget, and must rely on revenue (such as sale of postage, etc.) for funding. --WhiteDragon 13:32, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Largest civilian fleet

I have added:

< The USPS also has the largest civilian fleet in the world, with an estimated 170,000 vehicles. >

An interesting tidbit...(unsigned comment)

[edit] Term for post offices

< Although its consumer customer service centers are called post offices in regular speech, the USPS always calls them "stations." >

Hmm... not sure about "always" (see, e.g., the USPS website, but I'd buy "officially". I can't vouch that that's even the case, so I'll leave it to someone else to make the change... --Guido del Confuso 08:37, Sept. 28 2004 (Zulu)

Internally, the USPS will use the term stations, and that would probably be a more appropriate way of stating that while it is the official terminology as sanctioned by the USPS. --Xanadu 07:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Post offices can be main post offices, stations, or branches, depending on their function and location. The terms are defined in the following: U.S. Postal Service Glossary of Postal Terms (Publication 32). I'll update the article later, unless someone else would like a go at it. Doctor Whom 22:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How is mail routed?

How is mail routed? If I mail a letter, I know it first goes to my local post office. After that, Does it go to a regional distribution center? Is mail sent along "the most efficient route" or most direct line? Or is does it travel up a chain of hierarchy and then back down again to it recipient?

It is basically local point to point routing. There are about 200 Processing and Distribution Centers (P&DCs) and your mail will be sorted by the destination ZIP code, and outgoing mail will be bundled up and sent to the P&DC nearest to it. Mail is bundled up in sacks, with each sack having the same SCF (the first three digits of the ZIP code, used to identify the city/area.) and all the sacks for a given P&DC are put on a plane or truck that is headed in that direction. Most of the P&DCs are near airports. A typical volume for a given plant may be 1-2 million letters a night. I don't know the numbers for flats (large letters and magazines) or packages). Depending on the size of the plant, volume may be up to 4 million a night. Also, during the Christmas season, that could be significantly higher. That means there is probably a lot of mail going to any given destination P&DC (although I think the majority of mail is local (in other words, the sender and the recipient are in the same area). In addition to planes, I'm pretty sure that trucks and Amtrak cars are used in some cases. It is definitely not hub based such as FedEx. However, there are regional centers. --WhiteDragon 05:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other methods of transportation

These might or might not be appropriate to mention in the article, such as failed "rocket mail" experiments, mail carried aboard space shuttle and stamp canceled on moon, mules that still transport mail into Grand Canyon, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think they are definitely appropriate, since they are interesting and important events in the history of the Postal Service. -- WhiteDragon 06:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional mandate

Some problems with the sentence, "It was created to fulfill the mandate in the United States Constitution empowering Congress 'To establish Post Offices and post Roads'."

  • the postal service was created before the US constitution.
  • the language gives the false impression that things which congress was empowered to do under the constitution were required then to be done.
  • it's cart before the horse. the constitution has the "post offices and post roads" clause because government wanted (and already had) a postal system. the article makes it sound as though the constitution came from heaven, and then congress made sure it enacted what the constitution said because... well, because the constitution said so. however, the postal clause of the constitution was essentially drafted because there already was a post office.

i propose replacing the sentence with the following: "It was created in 1775 by decree of the Second Continental Congress, and exists today under the clause in the United States Constitution empowering Congress 'To establish Post Offices and post Roads'." SaltyPig 05:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --WhiteDragon 01:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Governance

Is it really appropriate for the second paragraph on governance to be about which TLD they use, and where the links lead? This seems like relatively minor information, beloning later in the section. -- Tetraminoe 06:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, this whole sections seems a bit iffy. It feels like there's a lot too much focus on whether or not the governance system is the most effective one possible, with very little information about the governance itself. The repeated questioning of its efficacy lead to questions about neutrality, especially given the citations such as "some say." I didn't use a template message because I'm not sure what would be appropriate, but can this be improved? -- Tetraminoe 06:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gun possession by USPS employees

I removed: "Due to the rash of shootings, Congress made firearms possession by USPS employees a criminal offense, especially while on duty or in a facility."

neither that version or the original version is acceptable. if something on this is to be put back in, a source should be provided so that an accurate statement may be made/verified. it's not accurate as it stands, because a USPS employee is a USPS employee even away from the job. the "especially" doesn't work for "criminal offense", though it was a step in the right direction. further, if somebody corrects/refines, please don't use "firearms" when "firearm" is more accurate both for law and grammar. SaltyPig 14:58, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

You weren't doing bad, until the last clause. "Firearms possession" is quite proper. Gene Nygaard 15:10, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
is that like how when you're caught with a stolen vehicle, it's "automobiles possession"? if the law prohibits "firearms" possession, then a person must have more than one to violate it. it may sound very federal agent to say "firearms" when it's not correct, but that doesn't make it correct. you're actually going to argue that having one of a thing calls for a plural noun? i'd like to hear the justification for that which goes beyond, "well everybody does it." it's an inaccurate, trendy affectation. if you're seriously proposing that "firearms" is preferred in this case to "firearm", i very much want to hear the logic underlying that conclusion. thanks. SaltyPig 20:04, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
That's a British vs. American English difference, just like "drug dealer" (Am.) and "drugs dealer" (Br.) Mkweise 08:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this speculation appropriate for an entry?

These lines under "Governance and Organization" appear to be pure speculation and don't add to the knowledgebase for this entry, it appears to me:

As a result, some say that those who mail letters to easy to reach destinations are effectively subsidizing those who are mailing letters to more difficult to reach destinations, and that exposure to market forces in a competitive environment might resolve this inefficiency. Also, competitive forces that would arise by allowing private carriers to utilize mailboxes might further reduce prices.

I think they should be removed.

Seems logical for me, what's speculative about it, except the "might reduce prices"? Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. --Golbez 18:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political ideology

This paragraph:

"The USPS is currently the only mail carrier that is allowed to deliver letters to private mailboxes in the United States; the same price is charged no matter the location. As a result, some say that those who mail letters to easy to reach destinations are effectively subsidizing those who are mailing letters to more difficult to reach destinations, and that exposure to market forces in a competitive environment might resolve this inefficiency. Also, competitive forces that would arise by allowing private carriers to utilize mailboxes might further reduce prices."

...Is conservative ideology wrapped up in sheep's clothes and has no place in this entry. The notion that it "might reduce prices" is entirely specualtive, when in fact, prices could very well go through the roof, as when the California energy market was deregulated and subsequently got raped by Enron, among others. Plus, the nation's power grid is in a shambles, which is eventually going to cost taxpayers billions. (On the other hand, following the breakup of Ma Bell, telephone-call prices have steadily declined. Another example is Thatcher's spinoff of British airways to excellent results. In short, it's speculative.) However, what is clear is that the phrase: "exposure to market forces in a competitive environment" is conservative shorthand for "privatization" and straight out of the Thatcherite handbook and I, for one, whole-heartedly disagree with it's impartiality. -Super90

i disagree with some of what you say — especially the absurd but oft repeated claim that the california energy market was deregulated (it was merely reregulated) — but article talk pages aren't for arguments like that. i suggest rather than deleting the paragraph, you remove the parts that are POV. i'll take a first crack, and you see if you disagree with what's left. BTW: edit summaries! SaltyPig 6 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
I say it's spinach and the hell with it. It's hopelessly POV propaganda as it stands (complete with weasel words), and it doesn't add anything to the article, so I'm taking it out, unless and until an acceptable substitute is forthcoming. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
I think the new entry is good. the "subsidy" point is rather inarguable Super90 7 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
Privatizing a monopoly is not 'speculative'. Not all monopolies are created equal. Phone prices dropped because the phone companies abandoned mechanical switches and started using fiber optics. Monopoly or not the prices would have dropped. The CA energy crisis happened because the free market doesn't like price ceilings. Privatizing an airline is trivial in comparison. Just fire people and cut their retirement benefits. :( Given the success of UPS and FedEx, privatizing the mail system should work. If that happened, maybe there wouldn't be so much junk mail.

"Monopoly" is not only loaded language, it's completely inaccurate when regarding the Postal Service: The US Postal Service does not possess anything even vaguely resembling a monopoly on either letter or parcel delivery in the United States; if it did, private couriers both large (like UPS and Fed Ex) and small would not exist. The fact that the USPS has receptacles that it possesses the exclusive right to use does not make it a monopoly either; companies like UPS and FedEx have their own exclusive delivery/pickup boxes and it is illegal under laws which prohibit trespassing for other couriers to use their delivery/pickup boxes as well. Iceberg3k 00:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

you are wrong. see Private Express Statutes (PES). the article doesn't do a good job conveying the extent to which USPS is a monopoly, nor does it refer to the PES as it should. however, it is illegal, for example, to compete with the USPS in first-class letter delivery. that is a monopoly. it is illegal for you to set up a business delivering letters in your town, regardless of which mailbox you use, except under rigid parameters which prevent direct competition with USPS. yes, the article is absurd for making it sound like it's a mailbox limitation alone, but that doesn't change the truth. USPS is not only a coercive monopoly, but under the US constitution it is an illegal one (please don't tell me otherwise if you haven't read and understood the constitution). there is no authority in the constitution (supreme law of the land) for preventing or limiting private mail delivery. therefore, under the 10th amendment, the PES are illegal. this article could rightfully and factually portray the USPS as far worse than it does. the word monopoly could hardly find a better use than to describe USPS. please don't bring up FedEx, etc., until you have read and understood at least the PES. FedEx and UPS do not compete directly against USPS, because they are prohibited by law from doing so.
i am busy these days, but if you want to make an issue out of this, i'll expand the article significantly with facts obtained directly from USPS web sites, and hammer the point even harder than the current version. even USPS acknowledges that they have a monopoly. to pretend otherwise is ill-informed fantasy. SaltyPig 01:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USPS monopoly

Recent attempts to remove "monopoly" from the article border on vandalism. both USPS and its critics openly agree that USPS is a monopoly. congress agrees. no private entity may legally compete with USPS for first-class mail delivery. that is an indisputable fact.

article edits and edit summaries are not to take the place of reasoned argument on talk pages. fallacious rhetoric such as "if it's a monopoly, how can it have competition" crumbles when one examines the competition referred to in the article. the first competition listed is email, a product which USPS does not offer or control (ironically for this subject, USPS years ago [early 80s] attempted and failed to grab a monopoly on email, realizing that it would eventually weaken its first-class cash flow). when USPS attempts to enter or broaden markets in which competition isn't illegal, it is beaten. however, in the primary market which is the life blood of USPS, it maintains total, monopolistic control by force and the threat of force.

USPS has a real, codified monopoly for first-class mail. it also uses government fiat (e.g., tax-free property) to infringe businesses in markets other than mail (e.g., phone cards, cell phone antenna site leasing); USPS is not only a monopoly, it is worse than a monopoly.

any attempt to remove the fact of the USPS monopoly from the article will be met with escalating wikipedia procedures, up to and including article lockout. if you want to argue that USPS is not a monopoly, please do it here on the talk page, provide actual evidence (not baseless claims), and argue with specificity and coherence against the rebuttals. thank you. SaltyPig 06:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The bit I've stricken out in your comment above was a widespread hoax, ca. 1997. Mkweise 08:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
FTR, i removed the inappropriate (against wikipedia guidelines) and incorrect striking out by Mkweise of my signed comment above. the attempt at email control to which i referred was not the late-90s, ridiculous hoax assumed by Mkweise. SaltyPig 19:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

re the recent monopoly section addition to article: apparently it has been assumed that the descriptions i've been giving of the postal monopoly are worst case. they are not. it was also apparently assumed (because i only mentioned the most glaring example for brevity) in article edit summaries that the postal monopoly is isolated to "one service". it is not, and those making that assumption would not discuss facts on the article talk page. even the colloquial list of USPS/fed restrictions on private enterprise reads like a wet dream of the lowest soviet apparatchik, and cannot be accurately summarized as attempted. a real addition on the USPS monopoly will require thorough, original research, not simply assumption that the few things i've raised opposing inaccurate article edits compose the full matter. further, the new addition has egregious POV segments (e.g., that USPS has an "obligation to serve every US address at the same rates" (under the US constitution it cannot). that "it is doubtful whether any meaningful competition for ordinary letter delivery would develop in the absense (sic) of a monopoly").

on this subject of monopoly, i truly wonder what motivates some to characterize an entity which overtly prohibits (by force and the threat of force — using real guns) peaceful competition as anything other than a monopoly. if a private business used tactics even approaching those of USPS, it not only would be decried as a blatant, full monopoly (despite offering, for example, pencil erasers and other non-coercive side products/services), but most of the people opposed to calling USPS a monopoly would be ranting in the streets about how unfair, wrong, and deeply monopolistic such action is. (doubt it? simply examine the microsoft "antitrust" history.) why the difference? why is it okay for government to take up arms to thwart the free choice of the public (in direct violation of the US constitution), to the extent that the very policy is pretended away, and the obvious corollary description to describe its tactics ("monopoly") thwarted like a cross to a vampire? this phenomenon relates directly to the accuracy of this article. reminder: popular opinion does not necessarily equal NPOV. there is a double standard used to describe the brutish "business" tactics of USPS, and that double standard is thwarting this article's objective truth. simply because people have put up with it, usually out of ignorance (most people have no clue that it's illegal to compete directly against USPS), does not justify having two sets of definitions for wikipedia articles, depending on who does what, or what the stated intentions of a party are.

a direct request of those who claim that USPS is not a monopoly: if it is not, please give some examples of things which you do believe to be a monopoly. how are those examples different from USPS? or is the word "monopoly" actually inapplicable to anything? ("Don't ignore questions.") i believe that if such responses can withstand scrutiny, they should be added to the article. thank you. SaltyPig 14:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not about to spend my time arguing with someone who's clearly on a POV crusade. You probably wouldn't believe me anyway if I told you that I've personally witnessed packages being delivered within the US by entities other than the USPS, on numerous occasions and without anyone taking up arms to stop them. Mkweise 17:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Was it delivered to a private mailbox at a home? If so, then they were in violation of the law. The US government has given itself monopoly privileges to be the only carrier who delivers to private mailboxes. If you compete, you go to jail. RJII 17:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
for Mkweise: Fallacy SaltyPig 17:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subsidies were $36 million last FY, $3 billion is the taxpayer's total capical investment

Referring to page 49 of the 2004 annual report, I see that subsidies were $36 million last FY. $3 billion, or $3034 million to be exact, is the taxpayer's total capical investment in the USPS - i.e., the book value of all real estate, equipment and other assets at the time it was transferred from the old Post Office Department to the new USPS corporation. Mkweise 23:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] True cost of mailing a letter

The page formerly said that although the cost of first class postage was $.37, the true cost must be higher, because of the taxpayer subsidies. The USPS says that their services are not taxpayer subsidized, but are paid for by sale of postage---mostly bulk mail postage and permits, I believe. The subsidies mentioned in the Wikipedia article are insignificant: $36 million in a budget of $69 billion. So the "point" that's being argued here is absurd, and the insinuation that the cost of postage is significantly reduced by taxpayer subsidies is false. I took it out. -- Dominus 02:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Postal Service received security-based subsidies after the Anthrax attacks in 2001. These funds were used to install Bio-Detection Systems at the mail's point-of-entry at most of the P&DC's across the country.

[edit] Required to break even?

Any source for the claim "Since the USPS is also directed by law to break even..."? They often have huge losses and occasional profits. I don't think that's illegal. RJII 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the Postal Rate Commission to set rates so as to break even over time. §39 U.S.C. section 3622(b)(3) further requires that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to that class or type plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type. (This is important so as to ensure that monopoly services don't provide any unfair competitive advantage to the USPS' other services.) Mkweise 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USPS is not a corporation

I removed references to the Postal Service as a corporation, because it isn't a corporation. For a legal summary of why, see the Supreme Court's opinion in USPS v. Flamingo Industries (syllabus, full PDF). Basically, it was kept within the government, but placed at arm's length from the President and Congress; it's still accountable to them, however, and it's fully controlled by the feds. - Sekicho 03:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letter volume dwindling

"letter volume continues to dwindle due to replacement by more efficient electronic means of communication and payment." Is this true? Any source for this? RJII 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First class mail home pickup?

It seems unclear (from both the USPS site and here) wether it is appropriate to hand a delivering postman first class mail to be mailed. It is mentioned on the official site seemingly only in relation to a paid special request for a pickup.

I used to work for the post office, for one year as a letter carrier. You can give a postman mail to be mailed. I used to get it all the time and have done it myself.Rt66lt 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classified Delivery

I thought you could send up to Secret via Registered Mail.

It is: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/522022m_0195/cp5sec4.pdf

Confidential can also be sent via Certified Mail.

In the current article, there isn't any mention made of Registered Mail. I think it's significant enough to deserve a bit written about it, but I'm not sure where it goes. It's not really an 'add-on' service to regular mail, in the same way that Delivery Confirmation is, it's more like a totally separate service. It's my understanding also that Registered Mail is handled differently than regular FCM: it's only handled by Postal Service employees and not contractors, etc. (I can't find a source on this, though.) Anyway, maybe I'll try to go through the USPS site and add in some information on registered mail...if anyone wants to do it, please do and don't let me stop you though. --Kadin2048 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community Post Offices

I don't know exactly how to work this in. It states under "CPOs" that these are delivered by contractors working out of other offices. This may have been at one time, but not anymore. Most all of these offices have been closed because automation at the SCF's can sort the mail for these offices. The Post Office anymore uses the phrase to indicate a town which is an officially recognized name by the Postal Service, but does not have its own ZIP code or post office. This is usually because of size or an incorporated town without its own post office request it. For example, Battlefield, Missouri (ZIP 65619) does not have, nor has ever had, its own ZIP code. Its mail is delivered by Brookline, MO (ZIP 65619), which is not contracted out (it is an actual office run by the USPS). Battlefield, however, is considered a "CPO". They also issued new CPOs and even new ZIPs (St. Roberts, MO (65584) is delivered by Waynesville (65583)). There is no physical office in St. Roberts.Rt66lt 02:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First class and extremely urgent

Would an "extremely urgent" letter be considered first-class mail? RJII 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the USPS equivalent is considered Express (2-3 day) or overnight. --Wolf530 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The words "extremely urgent" appear on the Express Mail envelopes. Express Mail is guaranteed to be delivered overnight within the Continental U.S. if mailed by a certain cutoff time the day before at major post offices; the cutoff is most often 3 PM local time. "Priorty" is the term used for what the Post Office describes as "2-3 day"; it is essentially handled as First Class Mail is but can be electronically tracked for a small additional charge. The "guarantee" on Express Mail is if it is not delivered overnight, or the time promised if later, the charges are refunded. This is not the case with Priority Mail; if it does not arrive in 2-3 days, tough. (I believe that this in contrast to UPS Second Day Air and some FedEx services where time frames longer than overnight are also guaranteed.) Rlquall 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insurance a scam?

Insurance

   * Provides package with insurance from loss or damage while in transit
   * Available for amounts up to $5,000
   * Covers material losses only minus depreciation
   * DO NOT BUY INSURANCE. It is a scam and USPS will not reimburse you.

I think the bit about insurance being a scam should be taken out if there is going to be no proof or discuession provided.

Of course it should have been, as that is about as POV as you can get. That having been said, anecdotally I have heard that it is very hard to make a successful claim, but anecdotal 'evidence' does not belong in Wikipedia or any other reference work. If someone has documented and verifiable sources about the insurance program being poor, this should be included with the appropriate references, but it should never have been in the article stated "DO NOT BUY INSURANCE", anymore than an article about Communism should say "COMMUNISM IS BAD SO DO NOT BECOME A COMMUNIST", even if documenting abuses which have occurred under Communism. This is totally unencyclopedic.

Having said that, can anyone imagine, upon entering Wal-Mart being told by the greeter, "Hello and welcome to Wal-Mart. For only $1.50, you can purchase a policy that will protect you should the merchandise that you purchase today be damaged or destroyed by the actions or neligence of any of our associates between the time you purchase it and the time that you get it into your vehicle." Nowhere but the Post Office sells you insurance against its own bad acts. Sort of like the State Farm guy selling you a policy that covers your car if it is hit by him or any other State Farm agent. Rlquall 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Postage

Should be mentioned under PC postage. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Processing and distribution center

Are processing and distribution centers in operation on Sundays?

P&DC's are generally open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Most P&DC work shifts have employees working on both Saturday and Sunday--generally only senior employees have the traditional Sat/Sun days off.

[edit] What the hell?

Someone put all the pictures at the bottom of the article into a gallery. While I agree that this is the correct treatment for post office pictures, I do not understand why the pictures of USPS trucks should not remain at the top of the page; they helped to fill the whitespace next to the huge table of contents. If no one disagrees, I'm changing this next week. --Coolcaesar 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the pictures of the USPS trucks to the bottom of the page. I agree that these pictures fill the whitespace next to the huge table of contents. One can hide the table of contents. If you hide the table of contents, any picture that is in the whitespace next to the table of contents, get shifted to the bottom of where the table of contents was and the whole page gets an undesirable look. I understand, if you do not agree with me. --pbalson 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a compromise, I'll put the pictures of the trucks in the middle of the article (in the section about the classes of mail) so it's not all just screens and screens of boring text. If anyone has a problem with that, please reply here. I'm doing it right now. --Coolcaesar 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry not to be of more help, but...

There's a contradiction between the first section which says the USPS is the third-largest employer and the employment section which claims it's the second-largest. I don't know which it is, but someone should fix that.

[edit] Put back: Public Perception "As Lazy" & "As Slow"

These sections were removed with the following rationale:

"these don't represent any widespread element of public opinion"

I very much disagree, and I feel that the sections in question are comprised of facts and should not be discounted so easily. Obviously these sections could be improved and expanded upon, but they still represent a valid segment of the USPS's public perception.--Bantosh 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to put them back, you need citations to verifiable sources for that. The stereotype of them as violent is depicted often enough in movies and TV so that it probably doesn't need citations, but I've rarely seen them depicted as lazy or slow. See Wikipedia:How to write a great article for a research tutorial. For an example of what a properly cited article looks like, see Roger J. Traynor or Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird comparison

The 39 cents (USD) required by the USPS to deliver a letter in the U.S. compares favorably with many other industrialized countries, such as those of the European Union, where the postage for an ordinary domestic first-class letter is nearly twice that much.

TPG Post (a subsidiary of TNT, which is a private corporation) is the main provider of postal services in The Netherlands. They charge EUR 0.39 for domestic mail, EUR 0.65 for international mail within Europe, and EUR 0.69 for international priority mail within Europe. Strictly speaking, when "domestic" rates are compared, the prices are nearly the same. I don't think Dutch postage is particularly low. Of course the country is smaller, but in the current system, international mail is still international mail, which means rather troublesome and highly regulated co-operation between postal services is required. Maybe somebody can compare US postage to postage in other large, industrialized countries, such as Canada or Australia. The current statement is wrong, though.

Just checked out Canada Post. They charge 0.51 CAN for a letter under 30g, which translates to $0.45 USD for a letter under 1.05 ounces. So it's more expensive in Canada (though not by much). Plus Canadians are probably used to higher prices since they impose value-added tax on everything. --Coolcaesar 21:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsidized services

In the "Governance and organization" section, there was a sub-section called "Subsidized services." It was empty, and has been empty since at least early June. Thus, I deleted it. --Wolf530 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MIB aliens as violent?

"Another example is the movie Men in Black II, where all of Tommy Lee Jones' co-workers at the post office turn out to be aliens."

If I can recall correctly, the aliens in the post office were peaceful and non-violent. Not to mention, the sentence sort of makes all the aliens sound violent just because they're aliens, yet the movie has many cases where the aliens are the complete opposite. I've removed the sentence for now. If there are any objections, just let me know and I can add it back. Same goes for a new version of the sentence (which would be preferred over what is there now as it is too general). Thanks. --pIrish 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I added that sentence. But now that you point it out, I agree that it's rather confusing. My intent was to emphasize the stereotype of postal workers as mentally ill but you're right that it's very confusing to mention that in the same section with the violent stereotype. --Coolcaesar 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange edits by Paul Hanson

Some of Hanson's recent edits are good, but here are the ones I disagree with:

  1. Only employees of the United States federal government composing documents in their official capacity capitalize the word "government" as in U.S. Government, because it is a legal term (they also do the same thing with "federal" and "soldier"). Lawyers, journalists, and authors writing for a general audience traditionally put it in lower case; that is, they refer to the "U.S. government." Wikipedia is for a general audience, so we should use the more common usage.
  2. In the Types of postal facilities section, Hanson just turned an entire list of properly formatted sentences into a list of comma splices.

--Coolcaesar 07:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 'Monopoly' section

While I removed the 'Monopoly' section prior to reading the discussion pages I firmly stand behind its erasure. The word monopoly is not an appropriate word to describe a quasi-government enterprise. While describing the USPS as a monopoly may be true in the strictest of terms, the context of its usage is clearly biased. Historically, the term has been used to describe private entities whose capital power has eliminated all useful and healthy competition. Furthermore, the word is charged with political and economic implications inappropriate for an objective article. By extension of the posters logic, the police, fire, military, the ‘Fed’, PBS, NPR, and others are violators of anti-trust laws as well. While the USPS does not receive funds from public monies, it’s also not – as far as I know – legislated to make a profit. Making the USPS the first ‘monopoly’ in the history of capitalist economics to ignore profits and losses altogether.

Your understanding of capitalist economics is somewhat incomplete. Please review anarcho-capitalism, in which the state is viewed as having a monopoly on social services. --Coolcaesar 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There are no sources that deny that the USPS is a monopoly and numerous sources that say it is. Of course it is. Any good or service that has no competition is by definition a monopoly. The government forbids competition in letter mail by law. Being a monopoly doesn't require that you're violating anti-trust laws. The USPS is what's called a legal monopoly. I'm going to put the section back in. Economizer 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply because they don't deny being a monopoly does not mean that they are. Even if they were to openly state, "we're a monopoly," still doesn't make it so. After all, "sticking feathers in your butt does not make you a chicken." Tyler Derden. It's the context I disagree with, not the term. Regardless if the USPS position is protected by law, the context of that article is clearly biased in its scope. A word is more than just its definition. Its development and use requires context and cultural use which evolves into bias. Our culture regards a ‘monopoly’ as a violator of the law, and harmful to the people and a nation. Anti-trust laws were developed to destroy robber-baron holdings in the Gilded Age of America. A true monopoly leaves zero choice in a provider of goods and services. This clearly does not include the USPS as it has to be the only monopoly in history not to dominate the market in which it operates. Furthermore using examples of why the USPS is a monopoly infers the need to justify a "position." Facts are not justified, they simply are. And for the record, I am fully aware of anarcho-capitalisim and its approach. I was a member of the IWW for a time and moderately versed in the archo-branches of economics and government. Your suggestion to review a political philosophy regarding a non-partisan entity is exactly why I believe the monopolist description does not belong here. Furthermore, since no clear definition of the word ‘monopoly’, or its context, can be agreed upon it’s probably wise not to present such a word and description as objective fact.

I am removing the articles ‘monopoly’ description. Anyone is free to consider this ‘vandalism’ and bring it to the attention of the proper administrators. I assume if this occurs, they will review this discussion and I will have a chance to make my argument for the change.

"A true monopoly leaves zero choice in a provider of goods and services. This clearly does not include the USPS..." You're absolutely wrong that this does not include the USPS. If you try to compete in delivering letter mail, you go to jail. What you're doing is not "vandalism," it's just deletion of material by ignorance. If you want I can throw a whole boatload of sources that point out it is a monopoly. Then if you delete it, you're being disruptive. Economizer 02:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So the USPS is a monopoly because FEDEX can't put a letter in a box marked US Mail? Can they sell their own box to put on a pole? "Ignorance" is a word that you shouldn't be throwing around so loosely. You're also tossing about a lot of assumptions. Define "letter mail." And I made many more points than just that one sentence. What do you have to say about those? This isn't Algebra and I've built a solid case for the section’s removal. Spouting sources and statistics will never be a substitute for logic.

No, you don't understand. Read the section more carefully. The monopoly is not on all letter mail (letters), but on regular delivery. Competition is allowed on "extremely urgent letters" (overnight letters), as long as they don't charge less than the post office. That's where Fedex competes. Fedex is not allowed to compete if it's not an overnight delivery. And it's not just about the mailbox. Fedex can't even bring a non-overnight delivery of a letter to your door or they would be violating the law. And, Standard Mail (advertisements, etc), forget about it. No competition in that of any kind is allowed to Fedex or the others. Economizer 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand clearly what you're saying, which is: Fedex can't compete with the price of a stamp. But that still doesn't make it a true monopoly. You don't understand. A traditional monopoly is complete and unquestionable control over an entire industry, not just sections of it – a fact which made the Microsoft cases so controversial. Fedex adjusts to the regular requirement by offering stepped levels of service. In a true monopoly, FedEx wouldn't even exist. That's why the word isn't entirely accurate and thus, the section should be removed

No, a monopoly doesn't require that a business monopolize an entire industry. I disagree with you that Microsoft was a monopoly, but aside from that, there were lots of Microsoft products that no one would claim that they have a monopoly on. To say a business is a monopoly is to say it HAS a monopoly on some PARTICULAR good. The USPS indisuptable has a monopoly on the delivery of normal delivery letter mail. Need a source? "The US Post Office was granted a monopoly in 1775 and has operated under federal protection ever since...It has a legal monopoly in delivering regular, first-class letters and has exclusive right to use the space inside your mailbox." That is from a textbook called Economics, Thomson South-Western (2005), page 208. Economizer 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Correction on the third class mail (advertisements). The USPS now allows competition in delivering junk mail by newspaper publishers. They insert the flyers in between the pages and throw the newspapers on the driveway. I welcome your arguments, because your "disruptions" allowed me to catch that error, as well as to clarify the section. Economizer 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your appeal to authority with that weak citation will not earn you any rhetorical points with me. Yes, a monopoly does require that a business monopolize its industry - from the top-to-tail of a supply chain. Anything else is market share. Now, with respect to codification of law: something developed for the stability of the common good is not a monopoly. It’s called a public service. Saying the USPS is a monopoly because they won't let anyone else deliver letter-mail to mailboxes is like saying the United States Government is monopolizing democracy because they won't allow insurrectionists to split from the union. This is why I'm using the words 'context' and not its 'definition.' You keep coming at me with these logical fallacies, and I'll keep taking the posting down. I'm willing to work on a compromise however. Regardless if it appears that you're the only one wishing to protest its removal.

And by-the-by: your neo-con/rand rhetoric is trying. I know exactly the stance you’re coming from in your arguments. I’m sure you believe all things should be left to the judgment of the market. Saying ‘the market’ will work itself out is no different than saying ‘god will provide.’ I for one do not wish to leave my democracy in the hands of an invisible anything. Business is the first to preach the market and cry foul when the market works against them.

I haven't given you any "neo-con/rand" rhetoric. I don't know what you're talking about. It is factual that the USPS has two monopoilies. One is on non-urgent letter mail and the other is on mailbox use. If you have a problem with "appeal to authority" then you'll have to get over that. That's how Wikipedia works. We can't put our own ideas and opinions in articles. They have to come from sources. I challenge you to find just one source that says the USPS does not have these monopolies. Economizer 05:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to address a great many of my points throughout our discussion. In fact, you have addressed almost none. And don’t begin to school me on how this site works. I’m fully aware of the use – and misuse – of its pages.

There is a reason they have a monopoly over boxes, hence the: “So the USPS is a monopoly because FEDEX can't put a letter in a box marked US Mail? Can they sell their own box to put on a pole?" comment. Obviously you failed to grasp the connection or failed to read my post. You and I both know that sources of information, statistics etc., are easily skewed and biased. Do you even know what I mean when I say, "Appeal to Authority?" I can find citations and materials stating African-American's can't see well in the dark, and their brains are small. I can find sources to justify a myriad of obviously biased and wrong information. It takes more than a book to justify a point. You must be a college graduate. Take a glance at the statutes and duties section. There you will find a general discussion - in a far more neutral format – on the so-called monopoly of the USPS.

And I 'inferred' - if you can grasp that concept - that you're a conservative and a staunch believer in privatization. And how did I figure that out? I’ll tell you: Because of the wording of the Monopoly section, and your firm belief in its truth. If I can easily deduce that the author of the section is of one political leaning or the other, it doesn’t belong on a site striving for objectivity in its information. Don’t you get that? If the section was reworded, then perhaps I’d be open to its inclusion. You're using the technical letter of the law to justify a political and economic ideology. Now I've extended my hand in good faith to reach a compromise on the wording. Am I to assume you’re not going to take

Well, I'm not a conservative, so you got that wrong. My ideology is irrelevant anyway. It is a fact that the government does not allow anyone to compete with the USPS in deliver non-urgent letter mail. It is a legal monopoly, protected from competition and exempt from antitrust laws. You will not find any educated person in the world who disputes that. Economizer 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you can say whatever you like regarding your political beliefs, can't you? A public service with a law enforcement arm is not a monopoly. Period. A service started and sanctioned by a government in a democracy is not a monopoly. And yes, your beliefs are relevant, because they come out in your writing. As they come out in the articles section. A problem that destroys the whole concept of an encyclopedia - a canon of fact. I use this site as a source of objective and unbiased information. I've found countless examples of these pages being used to subtly change public perceptions on information. It’s not the ‘monopoly’ problem I’m having a tough time about as much as the need to justify the position. The section seems to cram the information down one’s throat. It’s poorly written, and the section itself reads like a debate. It clearly doesn’t stand on its own merit as acceptable fact. Facts cannot be disputed. A point made clear by earlier discussions of this topic. I’ve displayed point after point proving my point and you’ve simply brushed them aside – ignored them. Another reason your attempt to prove your points are weak. I’ve addressed each one of your points. You keep talking about “sources” and saying, “everyone” will agree with me. This isn’t a science we’re talking about. It’s a conversation about social context and the word monopoly is not appropriate. It oozes with derision. How do you not see that? How can you be so increadibly blind in your idealogies?

Since you're all about the letter of the law: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed..." Please leave the tag where it is.

[edit] Original research

Do you know what "original research" refers to in Wikipedia? See WP:OR. We're not allowed to put our own arguments or points in an article unless they can be sourced. If you do, then that's called "original research." You're putting this in the article: "Beyond simple revenue protection, the letterbox-law also helps to maintain federal enforcement authority over mail delivery through public accountability and oversight. A scheme of protection unavailable through private means." I'm not even sure what that says. Can you explain that here in other words? Economizer 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"...scheme of protection unavailable through private means...” = private entities aren't cops, therefore, the letter-box system provides a level of protection unavailable through private means.

It's because other carriers can't use boxes marked U.S. mail that gives federal officers the right to investigate crimes even when they don't occur across state lines = "...the letterbox-law also helps to maintain federal enforcement authority over mail delivery through public accountability (appointees) and oversight (law enforcement)” Therefore, it is a " a scheme of protection unavailable through private means." These are self-evident facts.

That makes no sense. If Fedex was allowed to use the mailbox, the police can still investigate crimes. What kind of crimes are you talking about? You need to provide a citation. That's too strange of a statement. Economizer 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't use my name without permission T.C. Craig 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your name used then you should change your username. Your name is signed on every statement and edit you make. Economizer 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm the one using it....or are you going to make me cite that too? T.C. Craig 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your spitefulness is pathetic. It was a simple request....Do not use my name without permission, in any context. If this continues, I will request from multiple administrators your full contact information. In my state, it is illegal to use another's identity without their permission. If you wish to hide behind anonymous aliases, that's your decision. I am willing to use and sign my name when and how I wish. That is my right. You know nothing about me, and it is advisable not to taunt strangers over the internet. I will obtain a court-order if necessary. I will allow the last two illegal acts to stand as evidence of your abuse. T.C. Craig 21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Privacy policy It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:

1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement 2. With permission of the affected user 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues. 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.

I'd be happy to sign my own name - without the assistance of strangers - if someone would simply show me how

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages --Matt 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

As the above said, signage is a guidline, and I've read nothing in these pages that says other users should take it upon themselves to publish the contact name of any other user, administrator or not. Be careful that you don't place the entire project and its goals in jeaporady because you find me annoying. The crediblity of the entire organization is coming into question through these flagerant abuses. Yes, some people can be annoying, but it doesn't change the fact that sometimes annoying people are right. T.C. Craig 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He's done nothing illegal. He addressed you by the username you chose. He could have thought it was your user name, having nothing to do with your real name. How else was he supposed to address you? He's not impersonating you (which is what would be illegal). He's just simply starting a conversation - how would you suggest Economizer say "Hey, person who made these changes, we should talk about these changes". I suggest you read WP:CIVIL as nothing Economizer has done is really warranting legal action. I'm interested in seeing which diffs show "illegal acts" by him or her. Cheers --Matt 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, the entire conversation can be followed by the editing pages, there's no need to publish the information. Are you suggesting some other person out there could mistake the conversation as their own? No, he did not impersonate, but it is my right to use my name when and how I wish. It was spiteful, and there are such things as malicious intent. It's very safe to use aliasis on the internet, but there can never be any true accountability. And it's a strange thing to build a factual encyclopedia by people who won't publish their real name. "Nothing Economizer has done...." really, do you know all tort laws for all fifty states? When I said illegal - I meant commiting an action that can bring legal action. My apologies, I stand corrected. T.C. Craig 22:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer. If a guy user-name Mike edits a page on Wikipedia, and then Jane says "Hey Mike, we should talk about this edit", and Mike says "I'm going to subpoena Wikipedia because you called me Mike!" I'm doubting there's a legal basis in any country, any state, that says calling a person by the name he announces to the world is wrong. --Matt 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As a lawyer, I have to agree with you. The 2004 Hiibel case from the U.S. Supreme Court essentially says that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your name (or not much of one). --Coolcaesar 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No no no, Matt you're absolutely right. It wasn't his first use of my name so much as when he took liberties of tagging my messages after I explicitly asked him not to. To sign my own name is one thing, for someone else to sign my name for me is quite another matter. Statements are considered published the moment I put them up anyway, so why the need for clarification?

After thinking about it however, my reaction to that situation was totally disproportionate to the act. You have to take the entire conversation that's been going on for the last four days to understand where my frustration is coming from.

I love this site, and I feel the concept is incredible. That's why when I read the original 'monopoly' entry; I was flabbergasted at the flagrant bias in the statements. Some of the materials cited come from a textbook used in god-knows-what university [citation #3], and the other two [citations #4, #5] from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (http://aei.org). AEI is a think tank based in Washington whose purpose since 1943 has been to "...defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate [emphasis added] (http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp). Research conducted by this organization can hardly be considered unbiased and I wonder, given its stated purpose, how many research articles its accumulated and published defend policies contradictory to its stated purposes. Any organization whose stated purpose is to "improve" anything reeks of agendas and socio-economic bias.

I encounter loaded words such as “targeted,” (see history comments) on a daily basis in multiple articles. I take this site very, very seriously, and use it as a source of information for my own reports and personal research. Me, and many others I’m sure, demand it be clean from subtle changes in wording and sources of information that skew the intent and the spirit of the article. This is not simply an experiment or a game, we’re dealing with the worlds culmination of knowledge and those who have the authority have an ethical responsibility to make sure such information, sources that are cited, statements, sentences, and words used are not loaded or attempt to skew or state opinion one way or the other.

I also retract my legal statements. T.C. Craig 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I created a "Trivia" section and moved the material formerly in "Key facts" and "Did you know?" into the new section. I hate the section and would love to see it removed but I am new to this article and don't want to be too bold just yet. In general, I am not a fan of Trivia sections as they are inherently unencyclopedic. In this particular instance, I also suspect that much of this section is directly copied from somewhere else and may be a copyright violation. I also hate this section in this article as it's completely unreferenced. Any suggestions on how to better incorporate this information elsewhere? I intend to delete most of it soon unless we can find some supporting references. --ElKevbo 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read it carefully, it's written from the first person point of view. ("And 1,450 of our Post Offices now stay open later.") So I'm pretty certain it comes from USPS marketing material (probably their website). Which means it's probably a non-protected US government publication, and therefore in the public domain, and therefore not a copyvio. On the other hand, being written in the first person also makes it even more inappropriate for the article. --69.107.66.139 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As lazy

I deleted the "As lazy" subsection. The first sentence was unsupported by any references. The remainder of the section contained references to Seinfeld. I enjoy the show, too, but you need much stronger and numerous references to support the assertion that "[the USPS' monopoly] is a source of resentment by some who would rather see competition, believing that it would cause lower prices." --ElKevbo 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demopolization vs. Privitization

Potato\potahto T.C. Craig 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Demonopolization and privatization are not the same. Milton Friedman is not arguing there for privatization but for allowing competition with the Post Office. Privatization would be the government auctioning off the post office to the private sector. Allowing competition is not privatization, becuase the USPS would still exist and still be owned by the government. It's just that it would have more competition. Economizer 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What you’re saying makes sense. However, I looked at three online dictionaries, and the word "demonopolization" was not found in any one. I think we should stick with words used and accepted in the mainstream.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)

Demonopolization - no definition found

Privatize 1.to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise: a campaign promise to privatize some of the public lands. -- this sounds exactly like what Freidman was saying 2.to make exclusive; delimit or appropriate: special-interest groups attempting to privatize social issues[emphasis added]--that's an interesting if not relevant definition.

Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com)

Demonopolization - no definition found

Privatize Main Entry: pri•vat•ize Pronunciation: 'prI-v&-"tIz Function: transitive verb

to make private; especially : to change (as a business or industry) from public to private control or ownership

- pri•vat•i•za•tion /"prI-v&-t&-'zA-sh&n/ noun [emphasis added] - this too, sounds like the argument Freidman was making, as well as the citations used in the article.

YourDictionary.com (http://yourDictionary.com)

Demonopolization - word not found

Privatize pri•va•tize Listen: [ prv-tz ] tr.v. pri•va•tized, pri•va•tiz•ing, pri•va•tiz•es

To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise: "The strike ... was called to protest the ... government's plans to break up and privatize the deficit-ridden national railway system" (Christian Science Monitor).

I think we should stick with privitization. I'm also very anxious to read what your research has found regarding arguments for keeping the USPS public. You are making an objective article, I assume? T.C. Craig 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to put a hyphen. It's "de-monopolization" [1] Allowing competition is NOT privatization. Friedman is not advocating transferring government ownership to private ownership. He's advocating allowing private competition with the government entity. Economizer 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a read of your "for" article, and I have to tell you, it still is making the point for privatization. Do you have more than one source to cite? You seem to have done a lot of research in this area. I'm sure you've come across other sources besides the one who has the most to lose? And from what I know, when a public entity has control over a particular service of an industry, and then that protected status is removed, it is the same as privatization. You're playing semantics with public perception. Oh, and when you're making a for/against argument, it generally helps to include arguments that don't support the opposition. T.C. Craig 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could look for some sources in support of socialism. Economizer 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, saucy. Relax son, I'm just asking for your sources in order to maintain objectivity. Hey, look what I found online.

Merriam-Webster Online economize One entry found for economize. Main Entry: econ·o·mize Pronunciation: -"mIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -mized; -miz·ing intransitive verb : to practice economy : be frugal[emphasis added] transitive verb : to use frugally : SAVE - econ·o·miz·er noun [emphasis added]

American Heritage Dictionary via Dictionary.com e·con·o·mize (-kn-mz) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "Economizer" [P] v. e·con·o·mized, e·con·o·miz·ing, e·con·o·miz·es v. intr. 1. To practice economy, as by avoiding waste or reducing expenditures[emphisis added]. 2. To make economical use of something: “The best that can be said for this method is that it economizes on thought” (Christopher Hitchens).

Your user name wouldn't have anything to do with your political\economic viewpoints, would they? Sounds awfully conservative. Remeber this: "And by-the-by: your neo-con/rand rhetoric is trying. I know exactly the stance you’re coming from in your arguments. I’m sure you believe all things should be left to the judgment of the market. Saying ‘the market’ will work itself out is no different than saying ‘god will provide.’ I for one do not wish to leave my democracy in the hands of an invisible anything. Business is the first to preach the market and cry foul when the market works against them..."

       I haven't given you any "neo-con/rand" rhetoric. I don't know what you're talking about

T.C. Craig 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Reminder

I thought I'd post the following information from Wikipedia's Policy pages regarding articles:

"Undue weight Shortcut: WP:NPOV#Undue weight

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view..." [emphasis added]T.C. Craig 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything POV. There's only a few sentences from people arguing that compeition should be allowed ...a comment from a major economist and the CEO of USP. The rest is just straightforward facts. Economizer 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence "...should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," speaks for itself. Let's get some input from the community. It also appears that you're rewriting the article that sparked this whole debate, but with different words and a few other sources. T.C. Craig 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You started this whole debate by claiming that the Post Office didn't have a monopoly. Your arguments didn't have any basis. Obviously, you now realize that you were wrong and have been mature enough to admit it. Yes, I rewrote the section and it's much improved. Everything is sourced and there is no original research. Do you have a problem with the whole section or just the arguments against monopoly section? Economizer 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I still contend that the USPS is not a monopoly. Frankly, you wore me out by a death of a thousand cuts (rhetoric) and I decided to let you have that particular phraseology. Reaching compromises requires mutual cooperation which is something you've obviously decided not to pursue. Indeed, I have a problem with the entire section, and thus far, you've still not complied with the NPOV and particularly the directive to cite information, "...in proportion to the prominence of each," among other things. "Everything is sourced and there's no original research,” I’d like to direct you back to the NPOV directive to maintain, "Reliable sources," and the article should, "fairly represent all viewpoints." T.C. Craig 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Your Arguments didn't have any basis," indeed that is untrue. You simply ignored those questions too inconvenient to answer; that does not mean my arguments failed to have basis. And since there is no tag to dispute a sections NPOV policy, I included the article tag T.C. Craig 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nope, I still contend that the USPS is not a monopoly." You would be wrong. A definition of monopoly is: "an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government." [citation needed] Thus, the USPS unambiguously holds a monopoly on certain actions, just as the FDA does, police departments do, and the FAA does. So now that that's cleared up, it's time to move on. --Golbez 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would advise you, Golbez, to re-read the above conversations. Particularly the one where I mention, "Nope, I still contend that the USPS is not a monopoly. Frankly, you wore me out by a death of a thousand cuts (rhetoric) and I decided to let you have that particular phraseology. I've already let it go. I'd like to make it clear, however, that while I'm willing to concede the USPS is a monopoly for the sake of moving forward, the neutrality of this section is still in dispute. Surely there are benefits to having the USPS in such a situation? I'm only asking that the section be written per the requirements of the NPOV. T.C. Craig 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we should point out the benefits nor the detriments - simply point out that it's a monopoly. (However, a discussion of the USPS's monopoly status requires a mention of Lysander Spooner, and therefore it might be prudent to have a citation from each viewpoint. But I don't know.) --Golbez 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Rates, he said, should reflect the efficiencies developed by the major mailers. Concerning the monopoly status of the Postal Service, the Postmaster General stated that, although he did not feel it would last forever---he pointed to the increasing breakdown of postal monopolies in the international milieu. He emphasized the importance of developing a healthy respect for the requirements of maintaining such a monopoly -- quality service to customers and a sensitivity to the unique considerations inherent in maintaining a monopoly. The public and Postal Service employees should understand the importance of obligatory universal delivery of mail, regardless of local profitability, and the importance of protecting the monopoly. [2] This quote summarizes statements made by the postmaster general in 1998, saying that the usps is a monopoly as defined by the usps. Other quotes by the USPS about their own monopoly status: [3] [4] (of interest, By statute, the Postal Service has a monopoly over the carriage of letters) (to see more, check out [5]). Even the USPS claims they have a monopoly... --Matt 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so that's discussed other places in this Talk page. I just found it interesting. Please ignore me. --Matt 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that's a good point, Matt. That's more the type of citation I'm looking for, except with less emphasis on the monopoly aspect; this information has already been mentioned, why repeat it? To point out that it is a monopoly without relevant context I think would be detrimental. Neutrality is the goal, and the current text and citations pull the discussion further right than I'm comfortable with. T.C. Craig 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of the text do you have a problem with? The body of that section or just the arguments against monopoly part? Economizer 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, both are aggressive in their wording. We should cite some information that tells of the benefits of such a monopoly as well. So far, the examples cited discuss the economics only and the benefits for "competitors" in dissolution of the monopoly. However, there's no discussion on how the monopoly benefits the public. Mail is not just any other widget. There are certain ethics and responsibilities that go along with mail delivery. And there must be a benefit for only one institution to handle that mail delivery, no? Where is the citation for that information? Furthermore, consider the fact that one simple paragraph discussing the status of the USPS is sufficient to show its status as a monopoly. Why feel the need to “prove a point” by citing redundant examples and information? T.C. Craig 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the "Statutory Monopoly" section itself that's the slightest bit POV. And it's very well cited. I don't know what T.C. Craig is complaining about.
Even the "Arguments against" subsection seems remarkably NPOV. I can suggest a few changes to make it even better, however:
  • Mentioning Friedman's Nobel Prize seems irrelevant and is potentially biasing, so I'd leave those three words out.
  • The USPS quote has no citation. It's probably better to change it into a paraphrase, because you shouldn't have to cite this--I can't imagine anyone believing the USPS would take any other position. Just remove the quote marks and it works as-is.
I suspect T.C. Craig is going to accuse me of pushing my political viewpoint, so let me lay it out: In general, I'm a social democrat, and I believe that monopolies, when necessary, must be either heavily regulated or government-run. In particular, I'm a big fan of the current monopoly status: it works, and it's probably the best case for my general viewpoints. I like having choices for urgent or other special deliveries, and having the cheapest rates in the world for general deliveries. I also think the way Friedman and others argue against it without mentioning the cream-skimming issue is specious and willfully misleading. (Would Friedman be happy with de-monopolization if we required all delivery services to provide universal coverage at flat rates, as many European countries do?) Oh, and I think Ayn Rand is one of the most deluded philosophers in history, and a terrible writer. So, there's my viewpoint.
And yet, other than the minor nits above, I have no problem with the way Economizer has written this section.
P.S., Why do we need both the NPOV template and the Neutrality template? --69.107.66.139 07:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Neo-con"

"Neo-con" has become a loaded word, much like "propaganda" and "monopoly" to cite two other examples. Basically it has come to mean something like "Right wing thought that we and all good people really, really hate," and I would defy most people in the U.S currently using it, and most people on Wikipedia who are using it, to define it. A "neo-con" or a neo-conservative is in fact someone who is a liberal on domestic policies and "conservative" only on foreign policy. It is almost equivalent, if not totally equivalent, to "neo-liberal". The movement, if it can be catagorized as such, has come out of Commentary magazine as much as anywhere, and began during the Cold War when some liberals broke ranks with the mainstream and began to state how they saw the Soviet Union, not the U.S., as the major threat to liberalism in the world. Many of these people were and are Jewish (hence the joke, "Funny, you don't look like a neo-con"). Very few neo-cons are concerned deeply with who runs the Post Office; I doubt that there is any consensus "neo-con" postiton on the USPS. Firstly, I don't think that libertarian/minarchist positions on the Post Office should be characterized as neo-con, since that is probably wrong. Please cite neo-conservative sources if you wish to refute this. Secondly, the addition of well-documented positions on how partial or total privatization of the Post Office will purportedly benefit the mailing public will help the article greatly and need to be included in it IMO, but "everyone knows that the Post Office monopoly is bad and makes mailing letters cost too much" as a gratuitous assertion, with no references for this belief cited, adds nothing to the article and violates both NPOV and OR restrictions. Rlquall 17:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation needed"

This is not appropriate at the first place it is in the article. Where the USPS is defined by law is in the opening sentence, 39 U.S.C. 201, and should not have to be cited again just one paragraph later. This is not a mere gratuitious assertion, but rather as much of a "fact" as statutory law can provide. I'm all for discernable factuality, but asking someone to cite the same thing repeatedly in one article is ridiculous and a standard that no reference work is held to. Rlquall 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. Whomever put that "citation needed" needs to have their brain checked. The cite to 39 U.S.C. 201 is about as clear as one can get. --Coolcaesar 04:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Mail (B)

Standard Mail (B) consists of the following mail subclasses: Parcel Post, Bound Printed Matter, Special Standard Mail, Library Mail, and Nonprofit. The latter two subclasses are not authorized for Government use.

Libraries are primarily government institutions, and as such, Library Mail would be a form of government mail. - MSTCrow 22:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "citation needed"--not!

Why is a citation needed for the commonly held knowledge, in the United States, that the USPS is colloquially known as "the post office"? So what if the Aussies and Germans and Japanese don't know this. This is a United States institution and Americans fully know what the traditional reference to their postal service is. Come on, guys, let's get real, huh!Jlujan69 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_Postal_Service_6a22.html"