Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Internet posting boards cannot be used as sources

Since the edit completed while I was tying the edit summary I will repeat it here .I reverted this set of edits [1] because the postings were on an internet posting board . And whether such postings support or reject an agreement we can't use them because of coming from that location .Garda40 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess that rules Wikipedia out as an acceptable reference even for Wikipedia itself...Dubhtail (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

An Post's Support Or Otherwise

I have undone Bastun's last edit which stated that An Post is now in favour of Postcodes. The reference used to support Bastun's argument is a single unattributed line in the Irish Times - there is no evidence from the article that the statement is from An Post and the reporter does not even attempt to suggest that it is a direct quote.

The last attributed statement from An Post highlighting that they already have a solution was in the Irish Times an 21st September 2009 last when the Minsiter announced that he would being going to tender for a postcode shortly. It is here and it very clearly gives in inverted commas a direct quote from a prepresentative of An Post: She said An Post was not against postcodes but noted the company already had a "very complex code" in its GeoDirectory national sorting directory, and this database was also used by commercial interests and local authorities. "Our system suits our processing and delivery. . . this [the new system] is an alternative, a different kind of postal system." The last official document published containing the opinion of An Post stated clearly: "As An Post have already implemented their own internal postcode system, they saw no real benefit in the introduction of this postcode system, in fact they were concerned that during the implementation period of the new system, the quality of their service offering would be adversely affected" This and other comments relating to An Post are contained here

If Bastun can produce an official document or attributed statement which clearly shows An Post's support, then the edit can then be justified.Dubhtail (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're using an An Post spokeswoman saying "An Post was not against postcodes" to justify a section heading of "An Post disputes need for postcodes"? I don't think so. I will add your reference in addition to my own, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

read fully Bastun - she is saying that she is in favour of their own postcode system - please do not deliberately take out of context to suit your argument

On the other hand what you are referring to as a reference for your argument is a throw away un-supported statement by a reporter - this is not a justification for an entry into wikipedia... I suggest you think and investigate further before you reinstate Dubhtail (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bastun your reinstatement has been undone by me because above you were asked to not take the quote out of context and to read and invesigate fully before reinstatement - quite happy to discuss fully here if you wish - can see where you are coming from but only if you take the first few words out of context. Best thing would be to find a reference where An Post clearly states that they support the new public postcode system as proposed by the Minister for communications as opposed to supporting their own existing internal solution. Thanks for your time on this... Dubhtail (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove references, please. Also, assume good faith and do not guess that I haven't read what you wrote. I have read both references and both can certainly be included, per WP:RS. What is contained in those references certainly shows that we can no longer use a heading of "An Post disputes need for postcodes". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bastun - Request that you undo your edit and refer it to an indepnedent arbitrator - I think you are mistaken on this for the following reasons (remembereing that this article is about a proposed Public Postcode not what An Post already use internally):

1. You used as a reference for your original edit an unattributed comment in an article with no named reporter

2. You interpret as supporting a Public Postcode (The subject of this article) a statement of a member of An Post which clearly states that they support their own internal system instead.

3. You are ignoring a published official document from the DCENR website which clearly states that An Post have difficulty with a Public Postcode system.

4. You have not provided any direct statement from An Post which shows that they support the public Postcode as planned by the Minister for Communications rather than their own existing internal system.

Bastun you seem to be experienced on here unlike me so I will leave it to you to correct this thanks Dubhtail (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup

Following a posting at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Irish PostCodes - Whether An Post Supports Or Not, I have taken a quick look at this. It appears that the reference in dispute is [2]. As an uninvolved 3rd party, it would seem to me that simply attributing this to the Irish Times, e.g. "... however according to the Irish Times the company now supports the introduction of a national postcode", would suffice. The Irish Times seems to be a reliable source. It may be the only availabele source now and if An Post issues a contradictory statement then that can be added in as the article evolves. I urge editors here to asume good faith and work to achieve consensus. If you get really stuck then you could request a third opinion or even a request for comment. But I am sure that you can work it out here. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You seem only to have looked at one particular reference in isolation. My comments above above have drawn attention to two other references which are more significant. Do you not think that an official Government Document recently published on the website of the Irish Department Of Communications Energy and Natural Resources here is a more significant reference than an an article with an unamed reporter and conaining a one line unattributed statement. You also refer to good faith - cannot that be also assumed with respect to my valid input?? Dubhtail (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a large body of evidence and refernces in this article up to now (for a few years)stating that An Post is against a National Postcode in Ireland - surely given this history and the other Government contra references stated, does it not take a little more that an apparant orphaned statement in the Web edition of the Irish Times to over throw that?? Dubhtail (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bastun - look forward to discussion to arrive at concensus and amend your entry as per Jezhotwells suggestions. Note Quiensabe's edits last night and this goes some way towards returning your edits relating to An Post's Opposition back to what they should be. Dubhtail (talk)07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited per Jezhotwells' suggestion, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Certainly references from the Irish Times are reliable, and probably carry more weight than the 'anti-postcode' references from An Post, which are 5 years old. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubhtail (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Bastun Your edit does not appear to be as suggested by Jezhotwells and I would have liked to have discussed this further to arrive at that concensus also suggested by Jezhotwells. My opinion is very simple...A Government Document which may be 3 years old (not 5) but was only recently put into the public domain via the DCENR website - defining its currency - has greater precedent than any Press article. Furthermore, the reference that I provided does not give support to a National Postcode as you suggest - instead it states that it is not against a postcode (generic) and goes on to say that An Post has their own internal system which does as they require. All of this suggests that An Post does not support a National Postcode in Ireland.

I cannot help getting the impression that you are very eager to force your edit and opinion through - you have now undone two contributions from two seperate individuals without meaningful discussion. May I again ask that you to revert your contribuitions until concensus has been achieved Dubhtail (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the edits made by Bastun and I disagree with Dubhtail's impression that Bastun is not acting in good faith.

Dubhtail, you removed the Irish Times reference and rewrote the section as though there had been no report of a change in An Post's view. Deleting relevant information is imposing a point of view on the article, which Bastun made more neutral, in accordance with the feedback from Jezhotwells. A statement reported in a reputable newspaper, even one including an unattributed quotation, would normally carry significant weight. A recently reported view supersedes one expressed some years ago (prior to the Government's official adoption of the present policy).

Not only does the 21 September 2009 article state that An Post is not against postcodes; the 5 January 2010 article states categorically: "An Post says it is in favour of the proposed system."

Bastun subsequently amended the edits of Quiensabe to give "===Opposition from An Post===" the neutral heading of "===An Post's position===". That makes the article more neutral, not less. Reverting either of these edits would only undermine the neutrality of the article's point of view.

The desire for consensus does not mean that any one of us has a veto on applying the Wikipedia rules, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

On a more general point: Under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, An Post is wholly owned by the Government (specifically, by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister for Finance). As well as the power to appoint and dismiss the board, section 110 of the act gives the commnications minister powers to direct the company "to comply with policy decisions of a general kind made by the Government concerning the development of the postal or telecommunications services of which he may advise the company from time to time". Some years ago, the postcode policy was in development. Now it has been adopted. It is to be expected, then, that An Post has not adopted a contrary policy to that of the government which owns and controls it. In a sense, An Post is the Government. Whatever the opinions of opposition politicians or An Post employees, a state company is highly unlikely to dissent formally from its own master. It is wishful thinking to imagine otherwise.

That is why the article should primarily describe the Government's policy and implementation plans, with supplementary but secondary information about criticisms and alternative proposals. Like it or not, the current Government is in charge of An Post and postcode policy, not the Labour Party or editors of Wikipedia. The article should reflect that.

— Richardguk (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubhtail (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Can I direct you to the following link: The Sunday Busness Post of 20th December 2009 where it says: A direction on what commercial state bodies, over which it (The Government) has questionable legal authority, should pay their staff had not been part of the softening-up process before the budget. RichardfromtheUK - things are different and never quite so straight forward here in Ireland!!!

Moving on then, can we at this point agree, based on the the detail relating to An Post here, (the report on which the plan for the introduction of postcodes is based) and specifically in paras 1.3.3 and 5.4, that support of An Post for the Irish National postcodes project is subject to a payment to them of €37 million. I do not think that there is any press article saying that An Post will not require compensation for their support ! Dubhtail (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the relatively restrained response. You'll have noticed that I hesitate to edit the article itself from such a distance. But even in Ireland a degree of logic applies!

• The Sunday Business Post article does not seem to be relevant because postcoding policy, unlike staff pay rates, counts as "policy decisions of a general kind" and so comes within the remit of section 110 (quoted more fully in my previous response).
• The 2006 report refers to An Post's estimate of €37 million in up-front costs in almost identical terms in sections 1.3.3, 5.4 and 7.4.3. But in each case, the project board commented: "While An Post have been very supportive throughout this project, it is clear that if it is to embrace the introduction of the new system a solution to its costs and other exposures will need to be found." The report did not say what that solution should be. In the Seanad debate of 21 October 2009, the minister gave an estimate of €15 million, though without specifying how this would be funded. He stated that ongoing costs would be funded from revenues arising from postcode data. It would certainly be reasonable to include the most recent estimates in the Wikipedia article, but the 2006 estimates seem to be superseded so could only be of secondary interest at most.

Remember, the question we are here to answer is not what is the best addressing policy or even what do we think about Government or opposition policies. We are here solely to determine what the best Wikipedia article on the subject should be, meaning an article that is both informative and neutral. For many readers, that will be all they seek, as they prepare for implementation of the policy. Others can come to their own conclusions or debate the merits elsewhere.

— Richardguk (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Richarduk - Thank you for your willingness to discuss rather than impose edits like Bastun. My reference to the SBP was simply to highlight that such semi-state companies have a commercial mandate which directors are responsible and accountable for and imposed decisions are not always possible or done without consequence. You should be aware that An Post unions (CWU)are very much against postcodes as they see resulting job losses - so in this respect it is not unlike the pay issues mentioned in SBP article.

There are two different things to consider with respect to projected costs as quoted and they should not be confused - an estimated €15 million to implement the proposed system which will not be done by An Post - they have been saying this will go to tender "shortly" since September 2009 and now it seems that this really means not before Easter 2010. The second cost in the report is the €37 million ( Provided An Post's GeoDirectory is used as the basis - with significant additional value to An Post) which seems to be the cost associated with getting An Post to support the plan? (so a min of €52 million in total to implement the plan) The fact is that this is not as simple as "the paper said" so it will happen - there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than non researched reports suggest. This article has previously suffered from people imposing edits on the basis of reports in the media which never happened. It is much better to stand back and see what happens. Lets not forget that this Article is supposed to be about Irish Postal Addresses - the fact is that postcodes are not yet part of Irish postal addresses and having most of the content about proposed postcodes does not really make sense. In fact, whether An Post supports or not is irrelevant - postcodes are not part of Irish addresses and the earliest they will be is 2012 - so should they feature here at all? - except to say that there has been a proposal for postcodes in Ireland since 2005 and as of yet they have not been implemented. Dubhtail (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First: I have noted the opposition from politicians, the CWU and (formerly at least) An Post. But not even they claim that the Government's position is not at the centre of the debate. (As an outsider, I do wonder whether the opposition from An Post and the unions was influenced by protectionism rather an objective assessment of the costs and benefits.)

Second: I don't see how the €15 million can be interpreted as additional to the €37 million. The descriptions seem to be the same, implying that the €37 million has been superseded by the €15 million estimate. But if there is real doubt, it may be reasonable for the article to report both figures if the context is carefully set out for each.

Third, I don't think there are grounds for excluding the material that we have been discussing. We are not censors: it's not up to us to exclude reports with which we might disagree; the onus is on us to find further reports from reliable sources if we believe that some are misleading: a correction, an update or an alternative point of view.

If this were about including uninformed speculation in the article, then that would be wrong (Wikipedia:No original research). But reporting the Government's adopted policy, and significant criticisms or counterproposals, evidenced by reliable sources, is absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia. Put another way, it is not for us to predict the future here; but it is for us to report the progress and direction of those in positions of influence, including their estimates of future timescales and costs where these have been published authoritatively. If relevant notable people make predictions of significance that are reported by reliable sources, then the reports of those predictions may well be appropriate to include in the article.

Excluding such information is not only unnecessary, it would be a disservice to readers of the encyclopedia, who are likely to want and expect to find here up-to-date information about proposals that are, after all, set to have a significant effect on addressing with political, financial and logistical repurcussions for many individuals and organisations in Ireland and beyond.

— Richardguk (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubhtail (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The €37 is an additional cost related to An Post - €15 million is quoted in the press and in other reports on the DCENR website as the cost via the contractor to implement - two very seperate things - i.e. it is very important to understand that An Post will not implement and manage PostCodes - that will be for an independent contractor yet to be selected (End of summer at earliest)The postal market in Ireland is being liberalised and An Post will shortly be no more than one of many competitors.

Is this article or any other artice in wikipedia about stating points that have concensus or single opinions as to what might happen? If you want to advise the public on up to date information - then that is a departure from what wikipedia is about - those who are involved in the development of Irish postcodes do know what is going on - unless you ask them directly you will not have the facts and Wikipedia is not interested in new research - simply reporting what is in already in place and agreed to be so. If readers want up to date information - then Wikipedia never promotes itself as the place to look.

And as this point is still being ignored - I will state it again - this article is about Irish postal addresses - Irish postal codes are not a part of Irish addresses - see Bastun's previous comment here (see above)entered on 22nd October 2009: ''I've removed this section. This article is about the official postal address system in use in Ireland". Therefore, the very man who insists that the article is about what is "in use" - is contributing to filling the article with press reports about what is not in use. Surely there has to be some consistency in the approach or lets just change the name to Irish Postal Codes - what might happen? This could then fill your requirement to keep people up to date - but would cause enormous debate as what might happen is merely a matter of opinion. Dubhtail (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your points are clearly contradicted by WP:FUTURE:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." (bold emphasis added)

In summary, all your points are in breach of Wikipedia's policies. You are welcome to start your own encyclopedia with your own policies. Please do not seek to ignore Wikipedia's policies here.

If you have any further suggestions, have a look at the relevant policies to see whether they are compatible with Wikipedia before wasting time and effort floating them here.

— Richardguk (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubhtail (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)You have not replied on the issue of the title of this article - are we talking about Irish (Not "Republic of Ireland") Postal addresses or should we call this article possible future postcodes for Ireland. We must be very careful to consider exactly what the article is about. Dubhtail (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The article title is "Republic of Ireland postal addresses". It's pretty obvious that the Government's adopted postcode policy is relevant to that. The time when the Government's scheme was mere speculation has long since passed. Postcoding is an officially adopted policy, a project board has reported, implementation plans have been drawn up and endorsed, costings produced, timetables announced. Even if Ireland were to disappear off the face of the map tomorrow, postcoding preparations would have been a reality for several years and so a historical fact.

Now, if the article were entitled "Irish postal addresses prior to the 21st century", you might have a valid point. But it isn't and you don't.

I've already taken the trouble to spell out where your points breach Wikipedia's policy, setting out the most relevant parts in bold print. If you cannot or will not grasp such simple principles, there is very little point in anyone engaging with your comments.

— Richardguk (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

FROM Dubhtail

Ah I see what you are saying - this article is not about what is "in use" as a postal address in Ireland as Bastun stated on 22nd October 2009 when he removed Secretary-whbtc (talk) 's entry and got him blocked - but instead about what might be sometime in the future? It has been Government Policy to introduce PostCodes in Ireland since 2006 Richardguk (it is always good to know some background before you contribute to a discussion) and has been included in the programme for Government since the Greens started sharing power in 2007 - unfortunately, so far it being Government of Ireland Policy has not made it happen - the deadline is already 2 years passed. (a previous version of this article proclaimed that there would be a postcode in Ireland from 1st Jan 2008 - and this remained in the article until Mid 2009 - all because it was Government Policy and it was reported in the Press. So perhaps it is time to consider putting in the article only what has happened or is "in use" as Bastun has aggressively insisted previously.

Now going back to my point about the €37 million to An Post - seems no one editing here is prepared to read recently published Irish Government Documents on this subject. You would imagine that anyone commenting on this subject would do some background reading other than relying on lazy half quotes from the press. The Reoprt of PA Consulting in 2008 in para 3 clearly states that a seperate fee of €37 million would be needed by An Post - admittedly this was revised to €27 million in the same para and equally clearly in the same para is the cost of over €16 million to the PostCode Holder (i.e. the company that gets the contract to implement the postcode (NOT AN POST) - so I will ask again - can we include in the article an insert that says that "An Post's apparent support for PostCodes is likely to be associated with a payment of in excess of €27 million to help its support"

As for whether it is Republic of Ireland or Ireland (Irish) in the title - I do not think it is for anyone in the UK to decide the name of anything in this country. Also the Island on which I live is Ireland and a part of it (the exception) is called Nothern Ireland. You will note a website about Ireland produced by the Government of Ireland refers to our country as"Ireland" and not the "Republic Of Ireland". We live under the Constitution of Ireland not that of the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore as this article is about Postal Matters of one sort or another - then the opinion of the UPU is also relevant. You will note that they refer to the country that this article is about as Ireland . Following on from this conclusive eveidence therefore, all matters relating to ownership by Ireland or in grammatic terms - the Possessive Case - for Ireland this is Irish and for Northern Ireland is Northern Irish - and you will note that these possessive terms are also what are in popular use. Therefore to be correct, this article is most correctly titled "Irish Postal Addresses" - that is of course is if that is what we are writing about rather than Irish Postcodes that might be!!

Please try to see the full picture and, I know Wikipedia doesn't like it, but a little bit of background research is always usefeul before editing or discussing points on here.

I am now proposing the title of this article be reconsidered on two grounds:

1. The correct Title should refer to Ireland or Irish not Republic of Ireland

2. It seems that this article does not contain content which as Bastun stated previously related to what is "in Use"

I am also proposing that if the article continues to be about things that might be in the future - then the element stating that An Post support the proposal should include a refernce to the €27 million that they will be paid to assist this support.

I look forward researched comment for the future Dubhtail (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Inside Dept Of Comms today - original proposal being reconsidered in favour of high precision code. Tender to select contractor to run tender for alternative precise code now being written. It will April before inviting tenders for new precise code. Route80 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Location Code included as proposed Postcode For Ireland

[Removed edit by sockpuppet of banned user User:Garydubh ]. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that in light of the above that Secretary-whbtc and Route80 appear to be operating with inside knowledge and therefore have a conflict of interest that they have not not declared .

And if the Minister was talking of the Island of Ireland in regards to having no Postcode he is course talking bollocks or an idiot since 6 counties do have a Postcode .I'm going to make the radical assumption he wasn't talking bollocks or isn't an idiot so that would mean he meant the ROI and therefore said Ireland for convenience . Garda40 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[Removed edit by sockpuppet of banned user User:Garydubh ]. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC/GeoHash Codes

NAC codes can be used in Eire for Post Codes: http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/

Would this get support GarDubh (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No.

From WP:FUTURE: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. In particular: (1) Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented...." (bold emphasis added)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

— Richardguk (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Geohash for Eire so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash GarDubh (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that they should use Locodes Philatthelee (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.